PROPOSED: Vista Della Torre

[Mothra]

Sneaky behavior causes suspicion and opposition. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that Providence gets the best possible development, with the least amount of lying and sneaky behavior. Do you really think that is too much to ask for? Does Providence have such a self-esteem problem that we can only hope to get whatever crap developers hand out to us without every questioning it? Is that really the Providence you want? The one that continues to break rules and make back room deals and sells out the neighborhoods for some quick cash and an ugly monument to someone's ego?

[quente]

As I've read through people's comments, I've come to the conclusion that this project is about cutting as many corners as possible to get this building up on the cheap.

If you look at it from that perspective, you start to understand why:

• A supposedly high-end condo is being sited not on Broadway or Atwells or downtown but Federal Street.

  Empty lots on Federal Street + street abandonment to assemble a contiguous lot = Low acquisition costs

• The conceptual design revealed in September is the final design being shown now - nothing has changed. My guess is these drawings were left over from a condo project that never got off the ground - in 1984.

  Old condo plans + minimal design development = Low A+E fees

• There is: one (1) cafe, one (1) reflecting pool, one (1) park overlooking a scenic service road.

  Nominal amenities = lower construction costs and Nominal amenities = higher condo sales

I'm thinking that some of the issues raised in this thread like connecting downtown to the west side, creating vibrant streetscapes that encourage further development, etc. aren't high on the list of priorities for this project.

[Lone Ranger]

As I've read through people's comments, I've come to the conclusion that this project is about cutting as many corners as possible to get this building up on the cheap.

If you look at it from that perspective, you start to understand why:

• A supposedly high-end condo is being sited not on Broadway or Atwells or downtown but Federal Street.

  Empty lots on Federal Street + street abandonment to assemble a contiguous lot = Low acquisition costs

• The conceptual design revealed in September is the final design being shown now - nothing has changed. My guess is these drawings were left over from a condo project that never got off the ground - in 1984.

  Old condo plans + minimal design development = Low A+E fees

• There is: one (1) cafe, one (1) reflecting pool, one (1) park overlooking a scenic service road.

  Nominal amenities = lower construction costs and Nominal amenities = higher condo sales

I'm thinking that some of the issues raised in this thread like connecting downtown to the west side, creating vibrant streetscapes that encourage further development, etc. aren't high on the list of priorities for this project.

[matt]

As I've read through people's comments, I've come to the conclusion that this project is about cutting as many corners as possible to get this building up on the cheap.

If you look at it from that perspective, you start to understand why:

• A supposedly high-end condo is being sited not on Broadway or Atwells or downtown but Federal Street.

  Empty lots on Federal Street + street abandonment to assemble a contiguous lot = Low acquisition costs

• The conceptual design revealed in September is the final design being shown now - nothing has changed. My guess is these drawings were left over from a condo project that never got off the ground - in 1984.

  Old condo plans + minimal design development = Low A+E fees

• There is: one (1) cafe, one (1) reflecting pool, one (1) park overlooking a scenic service road.

  Nominal amenities = lower construction costs and Nominal amenities = higher condo sales

I'm thinking that some of the issues raised in this thread like connecting downtown to the west side, creating vibrant streetscapes that encourage further development, etc. aren't high on the list of priorities for this project.

[JimmyGreaves]

I'm thinking that some of the issues raised in this thread like connecting downtown to the west side, creating vibrant streetscapes that encourage further development, etc. aren't high on the list of priorities for this project.

[Cotuit]

A solution would be to proactively seek developers who do prioritize urban character at the top of their list and engage them for proposals on how to properly develop parcels in the city rather than sitting back and being reactive as developers take the intiative and propose projects which do no fit with the urban character of the city.

[mental757]

I can't say what I really want to, but if my hunch is right, I don't think there is much anyone here can do to change this project. It just sounds 'fishy' to me for a few reasons - not saying illegal, but it all depends on who is behind this project. The city and State are facing too many financial issues for them to do anything to kill this project - I fear this is all but a done deal.

I'd be overjoyed if we even see the street abandonment fail, otherwise I think the design is what we're going to see there in a couple years. I like making the garage taller instead of taking up 2 parcels, but I think the 'cheap' way out for the developers and the promise of more city investment, taxes, and tall buildings will sway the decision makers to stick thier collective heads in the sand on this one...

[runawayjim]

I can't say what I really want to, but if my hunch is right, I don't think there is much anyone here can do to change this project. It just sounds 'fishy' to me for a few reasons - not saying illegal, but it all depends on who is behind this project. The city and State are facing too many financial issues for them to do anything to kill this project - I fear this is all but a done deal.

I'd be overjoyed if we even see the street abandonment fail, otherwise I think the design is what we're going to see there in a couple years. I like making the garage taller instead of taking up 2 parcels, but I think the 'cheap' way out for the developers and the promise of more city investment, taxes, and tall buildings will sway the decision makers to stick thier collective heads in the sand on this one...

[mental757]

that was my thought - have Bradford do a tunnel under the garage. I don't want anyone to think that there is any excuse for the many things this project lacks, I just have a feeling that "well connected or backed" people are behind this one and the current financial situation in the city (moreso the State) will cause this to just get pushed through. Again, just my thoughts, not a sign-off of the project on my part in any way...

[Baines]

1 -stay as proposed, the building should be moved closer to the service road (right on it perhaps), moving the garage over the park space, and they can use the area behind camille's as the park.

2 - my visions for it would bring foot traffic from people other than residents to the area and put a park where a park should be rather than next to speedway #7.

[Lone Ranger]

I just have a feeling that "well connected or backed" people are behind this one

[Liamlunchtray]

Again, I believe the city must allow to this to move forward even if the less than ideal takes place...the developer's proposal. One example of a previous far less than ideal project that the city settled for---the G-Tech building site was ideal for a 15-25 floor building but a glass box of 10 was approved.

[runawayjim]

Again, I believe the city must allow to this to move forward even if the less than ideal takes place...the developer's proposal. One example of a previous far less than ideal project that the city settled for---the G-Tech building site was ideal for a 15-25 floor building but a glass box of 10 was approved.

[xine]

why must the city allow this to move forward? i don't see any reason that this must move forward even if it doesn't change.

[spanishboy]

I would guess the combined potential tax revenue and the indirect economic impact are very powerful incentives - in the same way that hurricane force winds are a powerful incentive for your roof to blow off.

[runawayjim]

i agree with you, and im no genius but not every building proposed has to fit the qualities that you all want. A believe each building serves its of purpose and while this isn't the greatest building proposed, it does not mean that this can serve a purpose for providence.

[JimmyGreaves]

the planning department and the mayor have created a vision of providence, as is being laid out in providence tomorrow. that plan suggests that providence move itself into the 21st century by making itself a more urban, more walkable, more transit-oriented city.

[Lone Ranger]

this building, as proposed, will serve a purpose unto itself and only itself. it will not meet the needs of the city of providence, and most importantly, it will not meet the vision that the mayor and planning department have created for the city of providence.

[Cotuit]

Again, I believe the city must allow to this to move forward even if the less than ideal takes place...the developer's proposal. One example of a previous far less than ideal project that the city settled for---the G-Tech building site was ideal for a 15-25 floor building but a glass box of 10 was approved.

[webbage]

GTECH never threatened to obliterate the street grid in its neighborhood. In no way can your personal disappointment in GTECH being 15 floors too short be compared to what damage this project has the potential to inflict on its neighborhood. If we have to bite our collective tongues and hope for the best just to get some height (which is an entirely other discussion all together, we haven't remotely gotten that far with this proposal), then we might as well give up and move to Houston. The issue at hand is Bradford Street, Bradford Street does not need to be closed. I don't care if they're building a home for stray puppies and giving everyone in the neighborhood free candy, the proposal to abandon Bradford Street is a non-starter. If they would give that up, then we can begin to discuss the merits of the building they have proposed.

[Garris]

And I will ask one more time. Why does anyone have any faith that the developer will build anything remotely like what is proposed (or anything at all) once they get Bradford abandoned?

[quente]

for example... a revised vision for this project, keeping off property they don't own.

[mental757]

so, at a bare minimum, this project needs to be less destructive to the street grid, interact with the street better, and needs more of a layout/placement change on it's parcels.

the design itself is another (major) issue in and of itself...

[quente]

so, at a bare minimum, this project needs to be less destructive to the street grid, interact with the street better, and needs more of a layout/placement change on it's parcels.

the design itself is another (major) issue in and of itself...

[mental757]

well, it's at least tall....

hey, 1 good aspect out of how-ever many is a good starting point...

the fact that this will not be another hotel is good too - other than those points, it's back to the computer!