Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PigpenMcKernan t1_j46dlr5 wrote

We need more housing in the state. This tower isn’t really the answer.

Besides that, Fane doesn’t have experience with a project of this scale and he is getting a sweetheart deal for some seriously prime property.

The City can and should look for better from elsewhere.

40

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46pxif wrote

It's prime property but it's been available for over a decade and it's been almost seven years since the first proposal for 3 towers there. Have there been any serious suitors with funding and a development plan that have expressed interest for this land?

If it's that desirable, surely, there'd be other interest, right?

19

Kiyranti91 t1_j47a0oj wrote

That's a big part of my feelings on this - while I'd prefer the city find other investors and ways of making some big moves, it's been some 30 years since the last BIG move and the city is crawling forward. I love this city enough to want to see it have some progress without kicking this away and waiting (who knows how many more) years for another OFFER to come (years more away from that coming to fruition). They need to do something, and waiting several more years or decades for the perfect thing to fall in our lap just isn't practical.

5

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j47dqlj wrote

Totally. I'd get not wanting to just jump at the first offer but the idea that this is some supremely desired parcel of land we're underselling? It just doesn't line up with what's happened.

I would hope that whatever purchase price for the land has at least adjusted to account for the real estate bubble market correction we've had since 2016 but I'm not going to pretend I know enough to say what is or isn't a good deal on that beyond two things

  1. Right now, it's wasted space. Parks are cool. This is still wasted space. It was never meant to be permanent green space.

  2. It sorta seems like there's only one interested buyer that isn't Brown University. I don't even know if they have interest, I'm just assuming they would and they're the one entity you can not do.

5

Dextrous456 t1_j4b3m08 wrote

Fane locked it and the adjacent parcel down just as things were starting to happen in the area. Since then, many things have been built and this parcel just sits there. Partially because of the fight about it, but also because it's not affordable. I predict we'll see Fane asking for another $25M from the state to help get it started. And costs will be cut in construction. It never was and still isn't feasible. If Fane had never proposed something so ludricrous, those two parcels would already be built out and we'd have some nice amenities for the park.

1

beta_vulgaris t1_j48cl8o wrote

Almost every single plot of 195 land has buildings in the planning stages or already completed. Several buildings were proposed, funded, and built on the 195 land since this building was first proposed. The developer has owned the parcel for years and has had the green light to build for years. He doesn’t have the funding. As building costs & interests rates rise, he just keeps dumbing down the design and pretending he will somehow be able to fund this next version. The developer is unreliable and the 195 commission should put the parcel back on the market so someone with a serious proposal can build there.

0

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j48ew54 wrote

>The developer has owned the parcel for years and has had the green light to build for years.

This sentence is great because it has two lies in it. Neither of those things are remotely true. Just pure unadulterated fiction.

2

beta_vulgaris t1_j48hq9v wrote

He’s had the option to buy the land since 2018, I can’t confirm he ever closed the deal, so fair point, maybe he doesn’t actually own it yet but the land has been set aside for him & only him to buy for years.

The last official hurdle at the RI Supreme Court was cleared last year to start construction

At this point, the ball is in his court. Build the building or let someone who is serious about building buy it.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j48kzke wrote

He's never had the option to buy until the project was fully approved. A legal battle over zoning was started like 5 years ago and took until last Summer to be resolved. It's worth noting that suit was financed by competing property owners.

By that point, yes, a fuckton has changed about the cost of literally everything, so they went for a redesign that still needs formal approval before the sale happens.

At no point has there ever been a point where construction could have started and there's really nothing to suggest funding the project is a hurdle beyond the developer not wanting to go above the 300ish million price tag.

2

Dextrous456 t1_j4b3r7c wrote

Which competing property owners? Do you have proof of that?

1

OrdersFriesEveryTime t1_j46fx9i wrote

Totally agree, have they put out RFPs and this was really the best they got?

8

PigpenMcKernan t1_j46gw2d wrote

I believe he came to them unsolicited. The just giving away for what will likely be an eyesore full of luxury condos is what bothers me.

Study after study shows that this type of project does nothing for the overall housing stock and sustainability. The developer can just pay extra fees or fines and not include the number of planned “affordable” units.

The state needs to focus on building housing for low and middle income families, that’s what is needed.

12

TheSausageFattener t1_j46kyuz wrote

I think the state did its usual of being so desperate for a quick boon they picked whoever schmoozed them enough. It reeks of something like a 38 Studios deal, where at least the studio delivered a good product but their finances were junk.

Has this tower secured financing? Because to me the shallow work list of the developer (they did a tower 10 years ago) combined with increasing interest rates would flag them as a high risk applicant for something of this scale in a city that doesnt yet have this scale.

As a city, Providence appeals a lot to people who work in Boston and want to save a bit on rent without going full suburb. A luxury tower doesn’t really mesh with that dynamic well.

4

Unusual_Mousse_7600 t1_j46tgjp wrote

Sorry to say,they are not interested in more housing for low and mids. They can't line their pockets with money from them. Big business always wins. Sorry to feel that way,but in all my years ,it's always a repeating theme.

2

acfun976 t1_j46nn0s wrote

People forget that when that 195 land became available, it was supposed to be a flood of business building. It's been a trickle and an underwhelming one at that. The main take away has been that even with prime city land up for grabs, few want to do business with providence or RI.

11

fishythepete t1_j48hlm7 wrote

Given the difficult in getting moving forward with the tower, I wonder why that is????

1

fishythepete t1_j46hsgr wrote

>We need more housing in the state. This tower Housing isn’t really the answer.

The absolute mental gymnastics NIMBYs will go through.

7

PigpenMcKernan t1_j46jz2i wrote

Please explain to me how these luxury units will help low and middle income families.

0

fishythepete t1_j46o58q wrote

Unless the increase in the quantity of housing creates an increase in the quantity demanded for housing (which would be exceedingly unusual), increasing the supply of a good reduces the the value, and thus the cost, of all goods on the market.

To break it down, someone moves here from Boston. They decide to live in the fane tower instead of outbidding a local on a nice place in fox point. As a result, the local is no longer outbidding locals in slightly less desirable (and pricy) neighborhoods. Etc…

There is literally zero legitimate controversy on the topic - increasing the quantity of housing available lowers the cost of housing. Period.

10

cheekiewalrus t1_j46pli3 wrote

This statement is pretty easily debunked. Boston has grown their housing downtown at an exponential rate in the past ten years and housing costs have continued to grow regardless of the supply.

Minimal amounts of research would have brought you to this conclusion but you’ve opted to do zero.

−1

fishythepete t1_j474i58 wrote

>Minimal amounts of research would have brought you to this conclusion but you’ve opted to do zero.

Hmm…. Tell me again, how many new housing units built in Boston in the last 10 years, how many new residents, and how many new jobs.

Building the towers didn’t cause more people to move to Boston. It’s emergence as a biotech hub with many high paying jobs did. The new luxury construction has net reduced the impact of this growth in demand beyond what it otherwise would have.

People were moving to Boston for those jobs. The only question is how many locals would no longer be able to compete for housing as a result.

But hey - I’m the one who hasn’t done research. Sure.

ETA: Just to be exceedingly clear - the construction of the fane tower isn’t going to cause people to move the PVD. People making the decision to move to PVD (ie people who live in Boston but now only commute 1x / week post-COVID) do so because it offers something the alternative doesn’t (in the above example, lower CoL). The fane tower will reduce the impact some small number of those people would otherwise have on the housing market when they financially outcompete locals for existing housing.

5

PigpenMcKernan t1_j46r0ib wrote

Yeah having lived in Boston and watched all the towers go up and housing costs continue to rise, it’s simply not factual.

Housing is not the same as guns and butter. You can’t just build an expensive good and expect it to decrease overall demand on a sector if the damand is at a lower price.

There are examples closer to home too. How’s that fancy tower and community In Portsmouth doing? I think the tower might finally be at full occupancy.

3

Beezlegrunk t1_j4abqod wrote

>” having lived in Boston and watched all the towers go up and housing costs continue to rise, it’s simply not factual.”

You’re not allowed to cite empirical evidence — such as actual Boston / San Francisco / Seattle / Austin / etc housing prices amidst the luxury apartment booms in those cities — when discussing housing on this sub, because doing so interferes with an absolute requirement that the high-school level economic analysis be based entirely on orthodox economic theory, rather than real-world outcomes that don’t substantiate that dogma.

None of these clowns ever references the actual outcomes of their theories in major U.S. cities, just a bunch of textbook boilerplate about what should happen, based on a faith-based belief system that is routinely disproven by actual housing prices in actual places. The Catholic Church has nothing on the canon of orthodox economics …

When pressed, their answer to why the things that they say must inevitably happen (but never actually do) due to more expensive condos being built is, “Well, prices would have been even higher otherwise” — but they never explain why prices didn’t actually decrease, as they haughtily claimed must happen as more high-end apartments are constructed.

This myopic insistence on deliberately ignoring actual housing prices while expounding on the theoretical results of building more luxury condos — as if it hadn’t already been disproven in the decade leading up to the global financial crisis, and again more recently prior to the pandemic — is so cartoonish that it would be funny if it weren’t denialism of Trumpian proportions …

2

PigpenMcKernan t1_j4barzi wrote

Lots of ego and name calling around here. Long on feelings, short on facts.

This city is going to end up with a raw deal if they go with Fane. They will have to give him even more tax breaks. Then if he does get the tower open, it will probably end up like the tower in Portsmouth. It’ll open right before or in the middle of an housing slump or recession and sit mostly vacant for a long time.

2

degggendorf t1_j4l4lx7 wrote

> None of these clowns ever references the actual outcomes of their theories in major U.S. cities

Here you go, let me know if you have any questions: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/affordable-housing-debate/

Or if you want to skip the summary with a host of sources linked to illustrate, here's one particular study anchored in actual data to read:

  1. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/

  2. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=up_policybriefs

2

Beezlegrunk t1_j4lf29j wrote

>Here you go, let me know if you have any questions: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/affordable-housing-debate/

That article offers conflicting “yes” and “no” answers …

The ultimate test or verification of whether building expensive housing makes all housing cheaper is whether places that did the former experienced the latter.

Having lived in multiple cities that did the former — and read about rising housing prices in other ones that did so as well — I have yet to see the latter.

Can you point to a city where predominantly expensive housing was built but housing at all price points got cheaper?

Even expensive housing doesn’t get significantly cheaper when more of it gets built — it only really goes down when there’s a complete market collapse, like the 2008 financial crisis, and even then it doesn’t drop enough to make it affordable, but just to correct the last inflationary increments of the speculative bubble that led to the collapse itself.

If high-priced housing itself doesn’t get that much cheaper due to more high-priced housing being built, how would lower-priced housing get significantly cheaper from more high-priced housing (but no more low-priced housing) being built?

The claims about housing “migration chains” don’t make empirical sense, because the housing that people are supposedly migrating up to is still more expensive than the housing they’re in.

Wealthy people moving into even more expensive housing doesn’t suddenly make their old housing more affordable to people who couldn’t afford it before, because prices don’t actually go down significantly, if at all.

They built a lot of expensive housing in San Francisco in the last 20 years, and lower-priced housing didn’t get cheaper, it went up (until the pandemic).

Even now housing is still too expensive for most people to move there, and consumes too much of the incomes of people who already do — it’s still not affordable, and building more expensive housing won’t change that.

0

degggendorf t1_j4lhj59 wrote

> The claims about housing “migration chains” don’t make empirical sense, because the housing that people are supposedly migrating up to is still more expensive than the housing they’re in.

You're misunderstanding the concept. One person upgrades to a more expensive place by choice, which then vacates their current, cheaper place for someone else.

> Can you point to a city where predominantly expensive housing was built but housing at all price points got cheaper?

I just did with the links in my previous comment that you evidently didn't read and/or understand.

>They built a lot of expensive housing in San Francisco in the last 20 years, and lower-priced housing didn’t get cheaper, it went up (until the pandemic).

Yep, classic supply and demand.

2011: 375,000 housing units; 816,000 people

2019: 398,000 housing units; 879,000 people

63,000 more people competing for just 23,000 new housing units. Demand growth outstrips supply growth, prices go up. If it was 63,000 more people and 0 new housing units, prices would be even higher.

>Even now housing is still too expensive for most people to move there, and consumes too much of the incomes of people who already do — it’s still not “affordable” and building more expensive housing won’t change that.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? It seems plainly illogical to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding some part of your thought process. What do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?

1

Beezlegrunk t1_j4lntzv wrote

>”Classic supply and demand”

You mean, classic THEORY — i.e., “Here’s a story we can make up whereby something might happen, under specific abstract conditions that don’t exist, and / or that deliberately ignores the historical record of has actually happened in the real world, rather than a theoretical one”

Your refuge from any challenge is to cite theory. If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven. If building expensive housing lowers all housing prices, you should be able to point to multiple examples of that immutable effect, yet you never do.

The study you cited was self-contradictory, but you shouldn’t need an academic study to prove your claim — it should be empirical and obvious, not hidden or obscure. Housing should be ever-more affordable, belying the thousands of media stories and Reddit posts chronicling soaring housing costs and an absence of affordability …

0

degggendorf t1_j4lpgdl wrote

Ooops, you forgot to answer the question I asked! That would look an awful lot like deflection to someone reading your comment.

So let's try again...what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?

> If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven.

I would like to once again ask you to read my links. I already did what you're requesting. Or are you actively trying to avoid learning, because you value retaining your preconceived notions over anything real?

Let me coax you into learning with this excerpt from here:

> To be clear, this debate is not about whether new housing can reduce housing prices overall. At this point, that idea isn’t really in doubt. There’s good reason to believe that in regions with high housing demand, building more housing can help keep the prices of existing housing down. In their Supply Skepticism paper from 2018, Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan offer an excellent introduction to the broader question of how market-rate development affects affordability. Citing numerous individual studies and reviews of dozens more, they conclude that “the preponderance of the evidence shows that restricting supply increases housing prices and that adding supply would help to make housing more affordable.”

which references this study, that has all the real-world data you're looking for.

1

Beezlegrunk t1_j4muu3m wrote

>Ooops, you forgot to answer the question I asked! That would look an awful lot like deflection to someone reading your comment.
>
>So let's try again...what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?

There'd be an apartment for every man, woman, child, and many pets in San Francisco, given the size of its population. Whether they could afford them is not clear, since adding additional apartments in San Francisco has so far not lowered rents. I've stated that dozens of times, but if you keep asking, maybe the answer will change ...

> I already did what you're requesting.

No, you haven't — you've cited research papers on how zoning regulations affect the number of housing units that get built in certain. What you cannot possibly do is actually state the name of a city where the construction of high-price housing has reduced the cost of lower-price housing.

You can't do it, because there are none. As soon as you cite an actual city, we can discuss what the effects of luxury housing have been there. But since you're certain that your theories on high-price housing are valid, why is it so hard to find even one concrete example ...?

0

degggendorf t1_j4mx436 wrote

> There'd be an apartment for every man, woman, child, and many pets in San Francisco, given the size of its population.

Right, we agree so far.

> Whether they could afford them is not clear

Why isn't it clear? What are the possibilities?

To me, the owner will have a bunch of buildings that are costing them money sitting empty. They list them for $4,000/month. No one rents. $3,000/month. No one rents. They try to sell the building, but no one wants to buy a vacant apartment building. $1,500/month and people become interested.

That is supply reducing pricing.

If you don't think or aren't sure pricing will get lower, what do you think will happen instead? The owners just keep them listed for $4,000/month with 0 tenants, and just lose money into bankruptcy?

> you've cited research papers on how zoning regulations affect the number of housing units that get built in certain

If you think that's the topic you might be literally illiterate. Or, more likely, you're just misrepresenting it because in your imagination you think it makes it seem like your unwillingness to learn is you winning an argument.

> As soon as you cite an actual city, we can discuss what the effects of luxury housing have been there.

Against my better judgment, I will do some reading for you and pull out a few of the cities referenced in the paper: Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis.

1

degggendorf t1_j4lr6br wrote

> If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven

Ooo ooo, remember when you said this? "Instead of attempting to deflect attention from your statements by demanding that other people offer theirs, you should be able to respond to critiques of your views. If you’re uncomfortable doing so, that’s probably an indication that your comments were shallow, poorly reasoned, and / or ill-informed."

I am starting to think that I should create a whole GrunkCriticizesGrunk subreddit...

1

Beezlegrunk t1_j4msf12 wrote

I've offered you examples of cities that actually built a lot of luxury housing, and yet other housing there didn't get cheaper — that's my refutation of your high school textbook theory. What you haven't done is the opposite: Give examples where your theory actually worked as claimed.

The problem isn't in asking specific questions, it's in asking vague deflective questions like, "What's your solution?" or in responding to someone's critique entirely with questions, or with theories of what should happen, while conveniently ignoring what actually has happened and can be substantiated.

If you need further examples of cities that haven't "luxuried" their way out of an affordable housing crisis, I've got plenty of them — including in Providence itself. What you don't have is examples to the contrary.

0

degggendorf t1_j4mvnwb wrote

> I've offered you examples of cities that actually built a lot of luxury housing, and yet other housing there didn't get cheaper

I showed you how population growth outstripped housing growth, and why prices going up still fit my increased demand=higher prices model.

I also provided many academic resources that agree with what I'm saying.

So far, you can't even explain what you think is happening, let alone provide any corroborating evidence. I don't know what else to do to get you to explain your own logic. I asked multiple times, and provided a quote of yourself criticizing the exact behavior you're partaking in now.

> The problem isn't in asking specific questions, it's in asking vague deflective questions like, "What's your solution?"

Is it poor reading comprehension, or a failing memory that is causing you to misquote what I asked? To ask you for the third time, what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow? I am crossing my fingers hoping that you'll actually attempt to explain what you think the housing market will do this time. Third time's the charm...?

>including in Providence itself.

Providence is in the same situation as San Francisco. Supply has dropped in relation to demand, so prices are higher.

2011: 72,600 housing units; 178,000 people

2020: 74,800 housing units; 190,000 people

That's 2,200 new units, and 12,000 new people. More demand, higher prices.

Were you just straight up making stuff up and hoping I wouldn't check, or do you really think that population has nothing to do with housing pricing?

> Give examples where your theory actually worked as claimed.

I gave you studies with data tables, which you immediately demonstrated your unwillingness and/or inability to read and/or understand. You failing to read the thing you asked for is no longer my problem. You are willingly choosing ignorance.

1

General_Johnny_Rico t1_j4717gr wrote

And your assertion is that if they didn’t grow their housing the costs would not have risen more than they did? And the research you have to support that?

I guess that’s a no on the research, eh?

0

Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j4g4f2c wrote

Considering the paltry number of units, and their ~0% effect on average citywide housing prices, if the overriding concern is more affordable housing, the bottom line question should be: does Fane’s proposal prevent affordable housing being built?

And the answer is, no. The real estate itself is too valuable (location and eventually taxed by Providence at their high valuation/rates) to build housing that is less than market rate. It’s not Fane driving that equation (it’s us).

——-

We do all agree we want fewer unhoused people, and more affordable housing so we should be looking for solutions.

And noted here, it’s difficult to prove any particular hypothesis on housing costs with the number of variables (salaries, populations, construction costs, taxes, incomes per unit propensity, square footage expectations, economy, inflation, etc) and the inability to identify a control to measure against. But, there are some glimmers.

https://streets.mn/2020/06/28/new-housing-lowers-rents-in-minneapolis-st-paul-not-so-much/

0

quinntronix OP t1_j46e7wb wrote

This will not be affordable housing. If the city just maintains the park it could open a seasonal outdoor concert venue and generate more income. The trickle down effect for our economy isn’t as beneficial as a tax free construction project for a luxury condo building.

−4

cheekiewalrus t1_j46pwfe wrote

The last thing Providence needs is a seasonal outdoor concert venue.

7

degggendorf t1_j47z3t2 wrote

>a seasonal outdoor concert venue and generate more income

How do you figure that? Concert ticket sales would need to be $3.5m per year to match the tax revenue. How much would a ticket to a small park concert cost, $20 tops? So we would need 175,000 attendees to break even, even if we ignore all the costs of building and maintaining a concert venue. We're not regularly filling our existing venues, and another one won't really induce more demand will it?

So a concert venue will 1.) Make the city less money, and 2.) Complete will existing arts in the city.

Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

1