Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Appropriate_Garden26 OP t1_j3560gg wrote

Personally I'm pretty disappointed with the new design. What could've been a pretty cool looking building is now gonna be a generic soulless skyscraper towering over the whole city. It's like the developers catfished the city to get it approved.

56

Cycle-path1 t1_j35qn0q wrote

Coming from a design field you give the, "to the moon" design that gets everyone super excited to get approval and over all positive sentiment. Then through DD it gets watered down due to cost and over all feasibility. This will probably not be the last iteration/concept.

20

TheSausageFattener t1_j35id63 wrote

Wasn’t the issue here that the city wouldn’t approve it, so the state intervened and gave the approval?

5

Kelruss t1_j35rg4y wrote

The Senate wanted it, the Zoning Board didn't approve it, the Council overrode the Zoning Board, and the Senate was so annoyed the General Assembly stripped the City of zoning jurisdiction over the I-195 land.

11

acfun976 t1_j35qbhs wrote

IIRC the city did give approval but bypassed it's guidelines in doing so and then a citizens group challenged the city's approval but lost in court.

2

jakejanobs t1_j378gg9 wrote

Increasing the housing supply is a necessity at this point. Hell, I’d prefer commie blocks to the current hellscape of homelessness and unaffordable rents

1

MahBoy t1_j43pxyx wrote

Adding luxury apartments to a city where the median income is $24,891 does not increase the housing supply. Sorry, but no.

2

kbd77 t1_j35d5n3 wrote

They should’ve made it not look like shit instead

36

whatsaphoto t1_j36wwz7 wrote

Someone get this guy in every commercial architecture board room in America

16

kbd77 t1_j36z7hd wrote

My consulting fee is $69,420/hour, it's a real bargain

14

werewolfmanjack t1_j35frxg wrote

Impressive that they somehow made it worse. Also just heartwarming to know that it looks like this because of cost saving design measures, just what we deserve. So every time you look at it you’re seeing a budget version. Gotta eat humble pie here because now the old version ain’t looking so bad.

21

TheSausageFattener t1_j35ib2k wrote

They don’t have financing secured yet I don’t think, and with rates going up and the scale of this project I think the window is closing for this thing to pencil out.

11

Negative_Current_124 t1_j36sr6p wrote

Just lovely. Looks like a generic Miami Beach condo now. Just what any downtown in the Northeast needs for a signature structure. Ugh.

19

huron9000 t1_j36xinz wrote

Yeah, I think PVD needs more tall buildings, but this design sucks. The horizontal window banding is totally against the Providence norm. And vertically-banded windows are a norm here for a reason.

11

alekoz47 t1_j371io0 wrote

We could use some generic condos to bring rents down

2

jakejanobs t1_j377f52 wrote

“There’s a housing shortage and we need more” -builds more housing- “No not like that, it’s UGLY!!!1!”

−2

PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_j38q8nm wrote

This is luxury housing. In what world will this free up market rate housing to alleviate the pressure? Hint, it won’t.

5

jakejanobs t1_j3959sc wrote

That’s awesome! If rich people wanna build new houses & pay property taxes, why not? This will stop them buying up everything in poor neighborhoods and gentrifying them. Let’s take property taxes from the rich and pay teachers/firefighters/bus drivers what they deserve.

If Lamborghini produced more cars then they could sell, would that raise the price of a new Civic?

Price = Demand / Supply. In what world is that not true?

0

PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_j396eoz wrote

Far too simplistic. We’re talking about the supply of affordable housing, which remains unchanged with the introduction of luxury units. Go back to Econ 101.

You’re advocating for a weird sort of trickle down housing which is almost offensive in how much it assumes the poor and working class stand to benefit from policies and practices that solely benefit the wealthy.

Downtown has added thousands of luxury units in the last decade. You’re telling me the guy looking to move in there is freeing up a unit of housing in silver lake? Give me a break.

1

jakejanobs t1_j39j295 wrote

‘“For each 100 new, centrally located market-rate units, roughly 60 units are created in the bottom half of neighborhood income distribution through vacancies,” the researchers write. Even more remarkable, 29 vacancies are created in neighborhoods in the bottom quintile of the income distribution’

From a published research paper, Source

You got a source on how new construction raises rents? Everything I can find says the opposite

5

PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_j39nc1k wrote

These are not market rate apartments. They are luxury condo units.

Creating so-called “luxury” rental units is fine, and does relieve pressure across the board (not immediately, though). This isn’t that. Actual luxury condominiums aren’t going to do shit for the thousands of crappy multi family units controlled by slum lords.

2

ProvBroker t1_j3drqaw wrote

The condos are often bought individually and then rented out just the same. Please cite your source for the “thousands” of luxury units added downtown? Define luxury please? Any supply is good supply. The top end of owners purchases newer/nicer construction and will often circulate their old housing back into the market. Not everyone who owns property is hoarding real estate to the extent of their ability. In fact many people want nothing to do with landlording, it’s a huge pain in the ass.

3

PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_j3dwjjr wrote

Awfully defensive, ProvBroker.

2

ProvBroker t1_j3dzbk3 wrote

I am deeply engaged with the subject of housing accessibility and have an understanding of how poor our performance is in terms of new construction, our municipalities general zoning tendencies etc. I also manage several units of different types and affordability around town professionally. I am a renter and own no real estate despite being in the business. You’re allowed to have an opinion, and I’m allowed to have mine. I feel particularly entitled to mine because I’m a subject matter expert, but hey, what the hell does that mean anyways?

2

PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_j3dzu1b wrote

I respect that you’ve got an interest in solving the housing crisis, but catering and capitulating to multimillionaire developers in the private sector who milk public funding via tax breaks to build million dollar condo units inaccessible to 99% of Rhode Islanders is absolutely a bridge too far. Ridiculous that we even have to consider this. Bending over backwards to do their fucking PR for them. It’s absurd, insulting and everyone here advocating for it should be ashamed, even if it ultimately is a marginal plus for the market. Which I really don’t believe it is.

2

ProvBroker t1_j3e0u46 wrote

To be fair I am also personally highly critical of our governments giving these tax breaks and incentives. If I had a line item veto, or personal discretion over the matter, I absolutely wouldn’t tolerate it. I am with you on vehemently opposing these projects that are painted as “public private” partnerships, and the sweetheart developer deals that are regularly cut.

Now that that’s clear, and understanding the gravity of the crisis at hand, I would rather see something actually come out of the government spending and partnerships which will inevitably occur, and I see this as one of the better returns on investment in when forced to reckon with the inevitable.

It is completely possible to have a nuanced view, and to like/dislike some parts of a project more than others. Nothing is perfect. Nobody is doing PR for anyone, this is just how it goes with our particular political reality. Everyone is forced to jockey for flawed outcomes. I’m on your side dude.

2

CocaineSlippers t1_j3dujpf wrote

You are delusional.

https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/stateannual.html

^our state is dead last in terms of absolute permits for new construction issued, never mind Providence specifically. We build essentially nothing, and our housing stock is basically ancient on the average.

More housing supply is more housing supply. We need it. If "luxury" units are what are built, so be it.

3

PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_j3dwaib wrote

Use your brain and think of what non rental condo units mean. And then keep thinking about it for like 1hr if you’re going to respond to me. And then don’t.

0

silverhammer96 t1_j35bo7e wrote

Wow I really understand what they mean by eye sore now. It’ll be so out of place in that section of Prov and will only be the beginning to ruining our skyline.

13

fishythepete t1_j35drsv wrote

As a mostly life long Rhode Islander, I hate to be the one to inform you but Providence doesn’t have a skyline.

−18

Critical-Paramedic89 t1_j36du2y wrote

Depends on what angle you see it from. Coming up over the hill on Allens, by the small Dunkin...driving across the steel bridge near the new Trader Joes? Are you ignorant, or just trolling?

10

[deleted] t1_j35swao wrote

>despite the complaints that it would be too high.

Why do NIMBY complain so much providence needs more units to bring costs down and maybe people to make the city interesting

7

tomrannosaurus t1_j3ojg3p wrote

lazy take. logged in just to say its not NIMBY to oppose this building, and it will do nothing to help rent. All units are luxury apartments (not even condos), and there are ZERO planned affordable units.

1

jakejanobs t1_j3zg3ax wrote

Study published in a peer reviewed journal: “The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.” Luxury housing (called market rate in this study) increases the availability of middle and low-income housing. All supply reduces prices, even if it isn’t affordable in itself

1

MahBoy t1_j43qbw7 wrote

Yeah, totally not buying that argument.

There would be a direct benefit to Providence residents to build straight-up affordable units near the city center/transit hub.

1

jakejanobs t1_j43wgin wrote

Source? You got any peer-reviewed, published evidence that increased supply somehow increases rents?

And yes! We need cheap housing too and we should absolutely be building that, if private developers are unwilling then the city should work with them or build it themselves.

Per the US census, Rhode Island built 1300 housing units in 2021. That’s the worst in the country by a long shot, both in absolute terms and per capita. Our population is growing, and our housing stock is not. Rents have no where to go but to the moon until we get our shit together and actually build something

3

Hot_Introduction_270 t1_j38uqbi wrote

Great more overpriced condos that will saturate a market that doesn’t need them.

This happened back before the financial crisis where they built the water place condos, Westin tower and that original condo building near the train station. The condos by the train station ended becoming jwu dorms because no one wanted them.

6

frenetix t1_j3905gr wrote

Those JWU students are no longer clogging up other city apartments; sounds like a win all around. Unless they're getting government handouts, if some developer builds a tower and can't sell the apartments, that's their problem, not ours. I suspect anyone willing to plow millions of dollars into something like this will have thought of that ahead of time.

3

CheapTry7998 t1_j35phlp wrote

I for one am glad we are building up. 10 more next to it plz

4

springwaterh20 t1_j35y6yl wrote

where’s it supposed to go?

3

eric_weisenheimer t1_j36iwpa wrote

In the park next to the Province River ped bridge. Yes, in a park. ☹️

−5

huron9000 t1_j36x5it wrote

No, in a grassy parcel next to the park, that was never part of the park.

If you’re against this, misinformation doesn’t help.

18

huron9000 t1_j3c9mm9 wrote

I should have said: whether you’re for or against this, misinformation doesn’t help.

2

D-camchow t1_j371gv7 wrote

i like the new one more for sure. it's generic tall skyscrapper but more housing is good. The rich folk that move into this less likely to price out the working class elsewhere.

3

lateroundpick t1_j3741oa wrote

Your crazy to think a shiny new building will help regular people afford housing.

0

jakejanobs t1_j377lx4 wrote

Price = demand / supply,

It ain’t rocket science

5

lateroundpick t1_j3786x0 wrote

Nice to look at things in such simplistic terms. U need to sell a lot of rice to Impact cost. One rice kernel doesn't change shit.

1

jakejanobs t1_j37c7uf wrote

Exactly, which is why much more than this is needed. Density needs to be legalized everywhere, we can’t just build one apartment block and expect it to fix anything

7

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j37g1q4 wrote

This isn't one rice kernel. It's 500 apartments. It's also not the only higher density project of its kind.

You can't accuse other people of being overly simplistic and then say some bullshit like that.

2

lateroundpick t1_j37golw wrote

500 units? Less than a rice kernel.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j37x39e wrote

I love discussing these issues with people who care so little about them they can't spend even 10 minutes trying to educate themselves on the issue. It's like when you get to meet a six-year old child.

1

ProvBroker t1_j38078u wrote

I know there is subjectivity to the statement, but lateroundpick is correct about the impact of the tower on overall supply… 500 units is sort of a drop in the bucket when you consider the scale of supply shortage.

Jakejanobs is also correct that any increase to supply is a useful contribution towards solving the accessibility crisis.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j389oda wrote

>I know there is subjectivity to the statement, but lateroundpick is correct about the impact of the tower on overall supply… 500 units is sort of a drop in the bucket when you consider the scale of supply shortage.

​

True, but the bucket never starts to fill unless you start putting drops of water. This, Superman, that other Water St area development, etc. We need a metric fuckton of stuff like that to make a difference. Dismissing the solution because it doesn't solve the problem is asinine and counter-productive.

1

lateroundpick t1_j384ic0 wrote

Also - affordable housing is a false statement designed to fool poor people into thinking they have a chance to afford a nice place in a nice neighborhood. 'Affordable' is still very expensive - in most cities.

0

kickstand t1_j37gqbu wrote

Please no. As much of the rest of the country is waking up to the benefits of "strong towns" and "new urbanism" and "liveable cities", we're going to build a huge standalone structure completely out of human scale? I sure hope not.

3

CocaineSlippers t1_j381u3m wrote

*Affordable or low-income housing proposed*

"NO! The poors will move in and spoil the charm of my coastal elite bubble!"

*Luxury condominiums proposed*

"Eat the rich! We should all continue to live in early 20th century housing that is built out of hazardous material, because that is somehow more egalitarian and feeds my fucked up addiction to being virtuously superior!"

3

helloclowntime t1_j35l0vv wrote

oh wow ! that’s ,,, that’s interesting

2

Thac0 t1_j36u7c5 wrote

The new design looks significantly worse than the old one. Yuck.

2

Alarmed_Nebula3917 t1_j38frcb wrote

Exactly what are they going to put in this monstrosity?

2

Ristray t1_j379z02 wrote

With either design I just want some color added.

1

shansbeats t1_j37frl6 wrote

Where was this supposed to be?

1

dzoni-kanak t1_j37o6bk wrote

I remember all the protests of, "Fane, Fane Go Away." I like the irony of him coming back another day.

1

keenuwest t1_j3abkaw wrote

Who exactly are they expecting to live here? We already know it’s going to be too expensive for the average person to afford, and just like all the other factory-turned-lofts they’ve built over the years, It’s going to remain mostly unvacated. I’m all for building new housing but make it affordable

1

SanguinousSammy t1_j3k4bwf wrote

It's never gonna happen. It's just a masturbatory fantasy. It doesn't fit this city and we don't have the populace for it.

1

bdpsych t1_j37oi0b wrote

This design is flawless. It fits in with the soulless incubator garbage across the river. The time it takes to construct the building will improve traffic and city ambience. 5 stars.

−2