The location for anyone interested: https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B050'25.3%22N+71%C2%B022'13.2%22W/@41.8411317,-71.3713023,968m/

> The site has been remediated and reclaimed and will now be developed into 392 single and multi-family units in addition to apartments adding to the housing stock in East Providence. The development includes 39 age-restricted affordable housing units.

I don't see if there are other non-age-restricted designated affordable units, but I would sure hope so. I also don't see that the city is kicking in any money in the form of grants, loans, or tax reductions, which might explain the inability to force more affordable units.

Either way, more supply is still a good thing...especially in a location like this.

Of course it’s a development company that was indicted on bribery and conspiracy charges now spearheading the project. Home sweet home.

39 affordable units out of 392 total units, no proposed transit connections, and no mixed-use zoning... RI urbanism at its finest.

> mixed-use zoning

What mixed uses would you want to see, like coffee shops and restaurants on the same property? It seems to me like the area needs more housing units most urgently, so maximizing the number of those makes sense. But maybe there's something I'm not understanding.

> no proposed transit connections

Doesn't bus 35 go right by already? Surely they'll add a stop once this is finished....right? They better.

Have to grease the wheel to get anything done in this state!

Well wouldn't increased housing cause increased demand for goods and services? Wouldn't it be better for residents of these new properties to be able to access these goods and services hyperlocally so they don't contribute to traffic congestion?

I mean, sure, but in the area it seems like housing is the more urgent need. But maybe I'm wrong.

FWIW, Hope Market is immediately next door to this development (are they like a regular market?), the Aldi is 1 mile away, and there are several walkable deli, bakery, coffee, restaurant, etc. options too. I don't imagine that any of those businesses are so flat out that the distributed business from an extra 400 families in the neighborhood will break them.

But, again, please correct me if I'm wrong...is that what you're hoping for, a micro-community on the property with all the necessities for life on those 27 acres? I realize that might have sounded sarcastic, but I would genuinely like to learn more and hear what you have to say.

What I want, what I think will make this country actually work well, will likely never happen bc you cannot solve individual problems as if they exist in a vacuum. We cannot reform our way out of this piecemeal. What point am i trying to make? I'm not even sure anymore. It's disorienting and depressing to always feel like you're trying to navigate to simply a less bad situation but never to a good one

Yeah I feel you.

Lmfao. Keep RI blue ya'll.

It's a really tough location because the NBC and all the remnants of the industrial waterfront make it hard to link this site to anything else other than up toward Newport Ave.

The best solution to provide housing and density would be something like 800 affordable housing units in the plaza where stop and shop was on Newport Ave then try to bring Newport Ave a little more development that is not "building with setback from street surrounded by asphalt" but I'm not sure you'll get any developers to bite.

Also the Hope Market is a food pantry IIRC.

#RI❤️Crime

Complain if you like but at least your mayor is doing something about the wasted opportunities along the waterfront in his city. Is it for profit, absolutely. You would complain twice as much if it was built with tax payer funds.

Thank you for the extra insight!

Its near a run down commercial area just waiting for for some investment.

Good

• Housing supply is good
• Waterfront housing is better than waterfront industrial and contributes to cleaner water overall

Bad

• Not great walkability, mixed use zoning for that inland lot would be a boon for both this development and the existing neighborhood.
• No transit, that industrial track is a wild one
• Capitalism!

I think the biggest problem you laid out there is the need to get developers interested. The state should be building housing to rent out or sell just above break-even with profit cycled back into the treasury, instead of these neofeudal landleeches sucking our blood and resources.

I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Are you responding to my question about mixed use and saying that the surrounding commercial areas need to expand, so some of this property should be given to commercial expansion? Or adding a point that those commercial spaces should be refurbished in-place?

I’m not surprised this is full of comments complaining, I’m with you.

Of course, everything should be “affordable” but needs coffee shops, dog grooming and grocery stores within the same development so those affordable people don’t need to drive to get their $5 coffee.

East Providence isn’t exactly a walkers paradise.

Lol Newport Ave is a total beast onto itself and the town is letting it sink further and further, it’s a dangerous stroad that’s overstayed it’s welcome. All the atrociously dilapidated/abandoned strip malls and structures along there should have been razed years ago and rezoned for better (and denser) mixed land usage with affordable housing

Of course, but you can't have it all. Housing is more important than lattes.

I'm not sure we're totally on the same page.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be mixed use, or that people in cheap apartments don't deserve amenities...I'm just saying that as far as I see it, we are in more dire need of housing than we are in light commercial spaces. There are tons of vacant storefronts and housing is insanely tight, so we should build what we need. I think we're much better off putting 400 residential units on this plot than putting 200 residential and a handful of commercial spaces.

Beyond that, a nice piece of property like this - right on the water and out of the way - is much better suited for residential, and those hypothetical businesses will be much better off along already-commercial main roads where no one would want to live. The businesses want the traffic, the apartments don't. No need to shoehorn things in places that don't suit them.

But lastly, I want to make it clear that I am still open to learning more. Those are my impressions, but I don't have a particularly educated or firm opinion here.

I think you are looking for someone to install what is waiting to be rehabbed or rezoned. There is already a business area across the street from it with waterfront features. There is industrial right next door. Up the road is various commercial districts. The layout says more housing. Not mixed use.

> mixed use zoning for that inland lot would be a boon for both this development and the existing neighborhood.

Do you mind expanding on this need for mixed-use? I asked elsewhere in this thread, and it's apparently a controversial question but as yet no one has really helped me understand why.

My perception is that there are plenty of (too many) vacancies in light commercial spaces. Meanwhile, we desperately need more housing units. So then it seems like we should maximize the number of housing units we build, rather than sacrificing housing units to build even more light commercial space.

Why is it better to build fewer units in favor of more commercial space?

> The layout says more housing. Not mixed use.

Gotcha, that's how I see it too.

Doesn't mean that it can't be developed to be

why is capitalism bad… weird

ReDevelop…an entire city? EP is never going to be anywhere near that. It’s not like there’s not sidewalks - they just aren’t building a city development…that’s not in a city environment.

And about 28% of them will be going to corporate America so you too will have the opportunity to rent from Amazon or Blackrock.

Everyone wants some perfect community. Not everything can be that. Build housing, it’s what is needed. Luxury, affordable, mid luxury, Coach class. All types of housing is needed.

Mixed use zoning is basically what you see in most dense cities or in most of Europe, it means having commercial and residential in the same building or vicinity. Mixed-use is regarded as smart/efficient land use and is more economically stimulating as opposed to the separate residential-commercial zoning divide you typically see in American suburbs. Most of the US still upholds antiquated zoning ordinances that only allow either purely residential or commercial for a single parcel, even though there’s no laws that prohibit changing zones to mixed-use

Exactly. I'm very happy that the incumbent mayor is actually doing _something_ about the severe lack of housing. Is it perfect? No. But he'll do way better of a job than his opponent who is being supported by the local NIMBY group.

The closer you can bring light commercial to residents, the lower the need for cars and more benefits to residents are nearby. I follow a school of urban development that's closest to the new urbanists who say that the healthiest neighborhood is going to be one that people don't have to get in a car to get necessities. A corner store and a restaurant and a bit of space for some sort of small retail.

Was mostly tongue in cheek. Generally, someone will make a good chunk of change here. Other comments are calling out this for being the result of crooked dealing, so it was referring to that

One the course of many years, a lot of the city will be redeveloped. You can build it the way it is or the way you want it to be

Thank you for explaining

How does that square with our current inflation and housing crisis though? Simulating the economy and reducing housing is kinda the opposite of what we need right now, isn't it?

If you wander around that area there are a lot more opportunities to go. East Providence could end up with major revenue with very little investment. Helping their city, and preventing tax increases.

Your putting housing and commercial in the same area… your effectively increasing housing and reducing car dependency while also promoting commercial business. Putting multiple housing units on top of a base level commercial space greatly increases return on the space… it’s a win-win situation

>greatly increases return on the space

Are investor returns really our top priority though? I just kinda want people to be able to find a place to live. I'm having a hard time seeing fewer homes as a win-win.

This is not fewer homes, it’s mixing homes and commercial… it makes amenities more accessible for the residents too. I’m also referring to a maximized return in terms of land used, not investor returns

>This is not fewer homes, it’s mixing homes and commercial

How is that not reducing the number of housing units? Whatever space is commercial could be residential instead.

> I’m also referring to a maximized return in terms of land used, not investor returns

Okay then swap in "promoting commercial business" to my previous comment and the point remains.

https://youtu.be/bnKIVX968PQ this video summarizes mixed use zoning in pretty well if it helps

I'm pretty sure I understand the idea, I'm just not following how it's not a zero-sum game, nor how it makes sense in this little plot in question.

Here, there's nowhere close to enough space to make anything remotely self-sustaining, and there are tons of businesses nearby already. Like, I'm pretty sure Aldi corporate isn't going to go for building another Aldi 1 mile away from an existing one, on an out-of-the-way peninsula behind a neighborhood. So what's it going to be, like a food desert style convenience store? Overpriced fancy market?

Or can we maybe just let it be residential so more people can have more affordable housing?

Yep. Broadening the tax base by bringing in opportunities like this will spread the cost of city services among more taxpayers, thereby preventing substantial tax increases.

> It’s not like there’s not sidewalks

actually it is like that in many parts of the city. its not safe for anyone that doesn't drive a car

I'm trying to find info on this claim but can't. Can you provide some links?

I’m saying the development has them. The rest of Ep? No haha

I agree 100%! It would be incredible if we had more areas where people could live and walk to almost everything they need!? Groceries, doctors, parks, restaurants etc. Obviously people can still elect to live in the suburbs and drive everywhere all the time but I think a lot of people would choose the alternative if there was a viable alternative available.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ri/pr/developer-richard-baccari-churchill-banks-companies-indicted-federal-conspiracy-and

Thanks!