Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WhatNameDidIUseAgain t1_jbq7cp6 wrote

Thank god

34

Silentjosh37 t1_jbqlhuf wrote

Love all the people that don't live in the city coming here to call those of us that do live here NIMBYs because we don't want another Ill conceived piece of real estate built in the city that will sit half empty for years til they come begging for a bail out then it becomes dorms like the buildings they put in downtown near waterplace park.

Address some of the existing buildings that are sitting empty before adding yet another that will be neglected.

45

dramaticlobsters t1_jbqojun wrote

It's almost like we need good civic planning and not just dumping money on something hoping it'll have a ripple effect.

17

Silentjosh37 t1_jbqp3ao wrote

Yes that would be a good start. I am glad that the Fox Point Neighborhood Association and other groups have been paying attention to this and helping to hold the city and developers to account on this.

Having a cohesive plan for the city and housing would be great.

11

WhatNameDidIUseAgain t1_jbqnayw wrote

Listen I love that people are trying to fix the housing market but we need low-cost housing, not high-cost apartments.

Plus I think the building looks ugly as shit

16

Silentjosh37 t1_jbqo64z wrote

Exactly. There needs to be better options than just building more luxury/high priced housing and hoping it lowers the cost of other housing eventually. There needs to be housing built that addresses the need for lower cost rentals, not saying that luxury and higher priced properties can't exist as well, I don't think anyone is saying that it shouldn't exist, just that it can't be the only thing people build in the city.

And yes the design of this building was awful it would have stuck out like a sore thumb and ruined the appeal of our skyline.

9

khais t1_jbqvpvh wrote

I agree with the points about housing, but the providence skyline is a crumbling and empty Superman building and a hotel connected to a shopping mall.

5

fishythepete t1_jbrez5j wrote

Tell me, where is the new construction low cost housing that folks should look to for an example of how things should be done?

6

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jbskq1n wrote

Not in the Fane plans! that’s the point is getting crowed at as being NIMBY reflexively.

−2

The_Dream_of_Shadows OP t1_jbtnzqb wrote

My sole objection to the building was aesthetic.

Want to build luxury housing in Providence? Think it will have a good effect on the economy? Whatever, go ahead--I'm not an economist, so I don't know what effects luxury/non-luxury/other types of housing would have.

But as a human with eyes, who appreciates aesthetic continuity, the building's proposed design was horrific. It did not fit in at all with the city's old-style skyline. It looked like some random film designer from Star Trek dropped a building from one file into another file for a 1900s historical documentary.

3

Tortankum t1_jbubdig wrote

What the fuck does it mean to build cheap apartments? Anything brand new in providence is by default luxury because everything else is old as shit.

We need more housing period. Please just fucking build something.

1

Soloeye t1_jbs39x7 wrote

>Love all the people that don't live in the city coming here to call those of us that do live here NIMBYs because we don't want another Ill conceived piece of real estate built in the city that will sit half empty for years til they come begging for a bail out then it becomes dorms like the buildings they put in downtown near waterplace park.

I'm still upset the plan to put the PawSox there fell thru. Beyond the finances it would have been a great place to have concerts and I think it would have helped the PawSox attendance.

5

frenetix t1_jbtogol wrote

On of the conditions demanded by PawSox ownership what that the taxpayers subsidize a billionaire's already successful business. Now Worcester's homeowners get to pay that.

5

Soloeye t1_jbtoo92 wrote

Yeah. That’s why I said financial/budget reasons aside, it would have been awesome to have a ballpark by the river.

3

Silentjosh37 t1_jbu0jww wrote

That was one big part I did not like. I was sad to see them leave but the cost just wasn't worth it. McCoy needed some updates but was still a fun and decent stadium.

2

The_Dream_of_Shadows OP t1_jbv0j8y wrote

I'm amazed that they're even considering tearing McCoy down. I get that it's functionally useless at the moment, but I wonder what baseball fans would think of the government trying to tear down the site of the longest baseball game ever played. That seems like enough historical reason to keep it, even if you only let local schools use it. Turn it into a museum or something. Especially since the new school they want to build there will probably be shit, given their track record this year of opening new elementary schools...

2

Bobclobb t1_jbtsb96 wrote

I agree there’s so many empty buildings in the jewelry district and downtown areas with decent infrastructure to handle increased traffic.The Superman building being a glaring example of an empty building which could be used for housing. Hopefully the parcel 9 plan dies too!

2

Silentjosh37 t1_jbu1c9n wrote

The huge problem with Supes has been that the cost of plumbing upgrades needed to make it all apartments. The new development plan and subsides seems to address that without a ton of variances and code exemptions. As far as I know they have started some of the internal work or will be starting shortly.

I agree with the parcel 9 plan needs to change, there needs to be some changes made there but that just ain't it.

1

Bobclobb t1_jbu2fh2 wrote

That’s good news! For parcel 9, I think a more modest design that would fit in the neighborhood would be great. However, the current design has way too many units which will create a ton of traffic and is ugly.

2

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jbq8e8v wrote

came here to say that! yes to housing but not this kind of bullshit.

11

realbadaccountant t1_jbqeffq wrote

More housing is affordable housing. You’ve been brainwashed by NIMBYs.

11

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jbqfxqk wrote

Luxury housing tower = affordable? For whom?

4

realbadaccountant t1_jbqi91j wrote

More housing means there’s less of a shortage which means landlords and home sellers can’t just charge whatever they want. Supply and demand.

11

brick1972 t1_jbqmfuf wrote

But luxury dumb shit like this is very inefficient at accomplishing this goal. This is a vanity project that accomplishes nothing but it's always the same. Fucking luxury housing is the trickle down economics of real estate development.

2

realbadaccountant t1_jbqnn4n wrote

A) you’re wrong. More housing is the only true affordable housing, period. And B) In case you weren’t aware, developers need profit incentive. NIMBYs doing a great job at scaring big ones away. Good luck finding a charitable development organization. And wait until you see the NIMBY backlash if there ever was a development with all “affordable” housing, which is an arbitrary term that means whatever the idiot uttering the phrase wants it to mean.

12

brick1972 t1_jbqquz8 wrote

Here's the thing.

Building luxury apartments can have a pull through effect. In theory. Unfortunately the reality of recent development (since 2005 boom) has not been this. Increase of supply of luxury units has not, in fact, reduced prices for anyone else. The collapse of the national economy did help for a while at least for people that didn't lose their jobs so I guess there is that argument, get enough banks to fund enough stupid overpriced shit and the whole thing will implode again,

There is a reason this argument comes from developers and trade unions and not from housing advocates, and it's not that everyone except some enlightened few are just anti development nimbys.

Regardless one point you fucking people ignore is that this tower required zoning variance and other variations from the CPC. If this tower is so amazing build it where you don't need the variances and you will get a lot more cooperation.

6

Silentjosh37 t1_jbqrp0m wrote

Well said! Anyone that has actually followed this at all would have seen all the shit the city had to deal with with all the revisions the developer was making and telling them they had to make changes, and even then the city was still giving them the variances they needed. This would have been another half full building that has a ton of turn over.

1

Null_Error7 t1_jbuiit1 wrote

Just means rich folks can outbid you on your next house. Good luck.

1

Standupaddict t1_jbs5ebf wrote

Everyone, because it means people with lower incomes don't have to compete with as many rich people for modest apartments.

1

Then-Attention3 t1_jc4prz6 wrote

Rich people aren’t competent with poor people for apartments. Corporations are buying up real estate to sell it at a high price point. Rich people don’t need more houses, they buy it for more money. And it’s bullshit. We need to stop playing life to serve the 1%. Tax them at 70% put a cap on the amount of housing units they can own. Allow middle class to buy a home they’ll actuall live in and not have to rent out from some nepo dick head

1

smt674 t1_jbqgaym wrote

What does "affordable" mean

−1

WhackedOnWhackedOff t1_jbqjaph wrote

You need to take a basic economics course that covers principles of supply and demand. This is attitude is straight NIMBY!

−9