WANDERING: MetroLofts

[Frankie811]

This is an awful amount of debate and discussion over a project that is dead. How 'bout we lock this thread. Everyone has expressed their opinion.

[oak]

I sense that the ZBR is changing but old habits sometimes die hard. The process desperately needs to be reformed; I've read variance applications that looked like the person filled out the form while watching TV and drinking a six pack - not much thought or effort put into it. I find it even more amazing that the staff sends those applications onto the Board instead of sending the incomplete form back to the applicant.

I'll stop there. We can have the most awesome Zoning Ordinance in the world, but if it's not being properly applied or enforced . . .

[Garris]

1. Impact

[quente]

I've had multiple urban planning/traffic types tell me over the years that you don't regulate or alter traffic through individual developments. It just doesn't work that way apparently. . .

I heard one city official put it once, "If we want to decrease our city's traffic, especially at rush hour, we need to stop building in the suburbs, not here!"

[Cotuit]

I love beautiful architecture as well; a well-designed building should be shown off. But I think many good projects get "value-engineered" to the point where it's clear that aesthetic issues are usually a secondary - or even tertiary concern. Until there's a better way to mitigate the visual impact of potential Domenica Manors, I think limiting height is a feasible solution.

[quente]

For those of you interested in changes in the ZBR, you may want to attend tonight's meeting - 5:30 at City Hall, 5th floor Probate Court. The ZBR drafted procedural changes at its workshop on September 26 and I think there will be a vote to formally adopt those changes tonight. These are NOT changes to the ordinance itself nor the enabling legislation. The proposed changes are about how the ZBR conducts its business and the structure of the meetings.

[runawayjim]

Great quote!

I was basing that on my experience with the Public Safety Building. It seems that the volume along Dean Street has noticeably increased between police vehicles, people getting off their shift, the public going to court, etc. In retrospect, this is probably one of the few times that an individual project would impact traffic to such an extent.

While individual developments may not have an effect on traffic, what would happen if you had several developments within a few blocks of each other? I'd suspect that we might see greater volume along the Service Road, Dean, etc. Anyone have some thoughts on this?

[Gusterfell]

We have no lack of horribly designed short buildings. I don't think asthetics are a very good argument for limiting height.

[Garris]

Until there's a better way to mitigate the visual impact of potential Domenica Manors, I think limiting height is a feasible solution.

[DaveRPI]

Because it is a prime site that is ripe for development. It just needs the right proposal...

in the development game, five years is really not all that long when you consider the buildings you are constructing SHOULD last for 150 years or more...

I don't think it would have been tragic if this project was built, and it won't really be tragic if something doesn't show up there for a couple more years - there is plenty of construction to go around.

[Gusterfell]

BTW: From this view, the Westin II and Waterplace towers look great so far, perfectly filling in the gaps in the skyline on the left. When they're done, I'll take a photo...

[jencoleslaw]

For those of you interested in changes in the ZBR, you may want to attend tonight's meeting - 5:30 at City Hall, 5th floor Probate Court. The ZBR drafted procedural changes at its workshop on September 26 and I think there will be a vote to formally adopt those changes tonight. These are NOT changes to the ordinance itself nor the enabling legislation. The proposed changes are about how the ZBR conducts its business and the structure of the meetings.

[runawayjim]

Not to go too far OT, but where exactly do the Waterplace towers sit from that angle? I picture them immediately to the left of the Superman building.

[quente]

We have no lack of horribly designed short buildings. I don't think asthetics are a very good argument for limiting height.

[quente]

oh wow. I didn't know that was happening. Do the proposed changes include voting after every item rather than waiting til the end?

[oak]

oh wow. I didn't know that was happening. Do the proposed changes include voting after every item rather than waiting til the end?

[oak]

AMEN! That was on my list.

How about this one: if new info is presented during the ZBR meeting by the applicant and DPD has not seen that info, the project should go back to DPD for comment. Too many times, Sandy Carlson would simply dismiss the DPD recommendation because they hadn't seen the new information that was being presented before the ZBR. If the DPD is in fact the city's in-house expert on zoning matters, then I think they should be given a chance to review and comment on any changes in the original variance application.

[eltron]

To me, the Brown Tower poking up is beautiful and I'd take offense at any person, neighborhood group, etc trying to censor and deprive me and the community of that beauty (or that of the Westin II towering above Union St, as photographed by Brick).

Similarly, MetroLofts could have represented its own kind of beauty there, and make no mistake, the opposition is a form of censorship.

[quente]

This is a very pretty and well structured sentence, but I don't know at all what it means... "Mitigate" the visual impact of potential height? If you mean stepbacks and the like, I'm all for it. But besides that, for an arguable opponent of height to state this, how else in your view could tall buildings be mitigated except not to build them tall?

[quente]

According to the state enabling legislation, DPD is not the in-house expert on zoning matters. . .

If you're curious to learn more about zoning in RI and don't want to take a planning and land use law class, there are a number of useful documents on the Statewide Planning website.

[Gusterfell]

The original argument was about buildings that are out of scale with their surroundings. One of the problems with this is the aesthetics - like it or not, everyone will be able to see that tall building. One way to solve that problem is by limiting height.

In answer to your last question: Exactly.

You build tall buildings were zoning allows you to build tall; an ugly tall building mixed in with a bunch of other tall buildings would not have the same impact as a building that is taller than anything else around it.

[eltron]

I believe MetroLofts could have been a similar case for a neighborhood that, like it or not, is going to see increasing pressure to densify as the city beceomes more desirable.

[Garris]

Come on Garris...you don't actually believe this, do you? talk about flowery sentance structure...

[quente]

But some of us want to see the buildings!

Also, I believe the point that people like Cotuit is making (if I'm reading everything correctly) is that, yes, we agree that the MetroLofts is out of the current scale for the Access Road Neighborhood, but some of feel the current scale of that neighborhood is wrong, not MetroLofts. So in that sense, part of the mission is to fix the scale, not contextualize it to what's there.

[Gusterfell]

Again:

height does not equal density.

you can get the critical mass of people and street oriented business that people here seem to want without buildings over 3-5 floors - think the South End, East Village, Brooklyn, lots of Philly, most of San Francisco.

again, density is good, but you have to carefully consider how you get that density, and height is not the only way to get there...