Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

relbatnrut t1_jbq9dok wrote

Good riddance. Hopefully they can plan something that a) is in scale with the development of the surrounding area and b) provides actually affordable housing

19

FunLife64 t1_jbqbqi9 wrote

Affordable housing is important, but downtown Providence on the river overlooking the most expensive stretch of Providence along Benefit Street….is not where affordable housing is found in any city.

It’s such a bad argument. It’s not this building OR affordable housing.

53

JoeFortune1 t1_jbqg88o wrote

Benefit street used to be a poor neighborhood before it became upscale as it is now. This is our city and we should be able to demand and create affordable housing anywhere we want.

−4

Ok_Culture_3621 t1_jbqlto1 wrote

When was benefit street poor? And which end? That was were Buddy lived and the Brown family etc, etc, etc.

11

FunLife64 t1_jbqrii4 wrote

If Rhode Island had more development and jobs…the housing wouldn’t be so unaffordable….

The median household income in Mass compared to RI is a 22% difference.

We lack good jobs because we don’t have good economic development and chase everything out of town because of things like it’s too tall, it blocks the abandoned Superman building, it’s too modern.

People tried to push against a building next to the interstate and Trader Joe’s that was proposed to be a company’s headquarters….because of TRAFFIC. Are you joking? What 8 story office building next to highway on/off ramps creates widespread traffic problems.

8

FunLife64 t1_jbswhbd wrote

Also kudos to the people that downvote better jobs! Lol what in the world

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqlixe wrote

How? There isn't a huge plethora of underdeveloped land and the amount of tax money it'd cost to even add 1,000 units is going to have the net effect of property taxes (rent) going up for everyone else.

1

JoeFortune1 t1_jbr4l3k wrote

If there is land for luxury condos, that land can be used for other things as well. Supposedly some trickle-down effect from a project like Fane will eventually benefit the people who actually need affordable housing in Providence. I don’t think it benefits the people who need it

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbt0voy wrote

I think building affordable housing at the scale needed to make a dent takes a lot more than one parcel of land. And the city and state definitely can not afford it.

The net result of this tower not happening is we’ll have the same increasing amount of people competing for an amount of housing that isn’t increasing proportionally. Realistically, we need to be adding thousands apartments at every price point. Prices will always be high if demand outpaces supply

4

JoeFortune1 t1_jbtkwvw wrote

I could be incorrect but from what I’ve seen there have been multiple towers and other luxury buildings opened to high end buyers/tenants that had a very difficult time filling up and with a lot of empty spaces. Building these high end towers might theoretically lower prices down the road a few years-maybe.

The state needs to be creative and make some budgetary changes in order to afford to build housing. The state can’t afford it and people can’t afford their rent. So the only solution I ever see proposed is to build luxury condos. It’s a stretch to say this will benefit the working class and poor

1

relbatnrut t1_jbqdrx1 wrote

>is not where affordable housing is found in any city.

That doesn't have to be true and also isn't true in many places

See: a little city you may be familiar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Smith_Houses. If NYC can do it, Providence can do it).

−6

FunLife64 t1_jbqei35 wrote

Yes because nowhere screams affordable like Manhattan. 🫠🫠🫠

17

relbatnrut t1_jbqh3ur wrote

That is affordable (public) housing on the water. The point is that it is on the water and surrounded by some of the most expensive housing in the world and is still affordable

2

FunLife64 t1_jbqq3f4 wrote

They were built 70 years ago in a neighborhood that wasn’t (and still isn’t) prime in Manhattan (relative). NYC is an interesting case in affordable housing but it’s also ridiculously competitive and certainly not the most fair….

Also, the Fane Tower’s location is prime. It’s like the equivalent of Upper West Side - walkable to midtown and Central Park views??not equivalent to the Lower East Side circa 1950s. NYC is a terrible example. Lol

4

lightningbolt1987 t1_jbr2hlq wrote

There’s actually a tremendous amount of affordable housing in Manhattan. It’s middle income housing that’s missing.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqm995 wrote

> If NYC can do it, Providence can do it).

New York City is the economic capital of the western hemisphere. The tax base is incredibly strong and Manhattan, the smallest borough, is still about 10% larger than all of Providence.

It's absurd to assume we're capable of that and that's without getting into the reality that the early 1950s and and early 2020s aren't exactly the same landscape.

Even then, New York City and Manhattan itself still aren't cheap. The rent on that development is great for the 6,000 or so households living in them but it didn't do a damn thing for everyone else.

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqe0rg wrote

Without dramatically increasing the amount of housing as fast as we can, there's no such thing as affordable housing.

16

relbatnrut t1_jbqh6bc wrote

Housing is affordable if the rent is low, hope that helps

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqk0kl wrote

The rent won't be low when there are more people competing for housing than there is available housing. Demand exceeds supply by a wide margin now and it's only getting worse.

There is no solution that isn't built on adding as many units as possible. We're beggars, not choosers.

14

ec_2000 t1_jbqlbkk wrote

This is true. Unfortunately, the whole process was a mixture of proposal and draft. I think there’s space for community input but we need to get rid of all the barriers for development and investment in the area. At the very least they should try to attract new out of state business to the area with incentives. RI’s economic indicators are so bad😭.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqmze1 wrote

It's worth noting that the Fane project went through years of review and changes because of community input. Hell, it was originally going to be 3 buildings. I think the last design change was in the last year.

3

FunLife64 t1_jbswzxc wrote

What people fail to see in this topic is that RI doesn’t have good jobs. You can only make barebones construction so cheap. So maybe if people in this state had better job opportunities they’d also make more money!

3

total_life_forever t1_jbtrzwz wrote

The unavoidable problem is that any large business is going to want tax breaks and other perks that really make their coming here not a big coup for state and local governments. The hypermobility of capital has created a race to the bottom in this regard - the only way to compete with other locales for "job creation" is to give up damn near every benefit in favor of wooing the corporation. At that point you're pinning all your hopes on trickle down economics (good jobs will be created, and they'll have higher wages!) but even that is misleading because corporations routinely depress wages and conduct mass layoffs. RI doesn't have good jobs, and barring a wave of change addressing the inherent flaws in capitalism, it's mostly going to stay that way.

1

FunLife64 t1_jbtwvz5 wrote

Giving tax breaks to companies is a standard practice to attract businesses - every single state does this.

There are certainly better “deals” than others.

But again - stomping feet and doing nothing to maintain perfect ideals is leaving Rhode Island behind.

It goes with this project too. We need housing!!! But actually it’s too tall and I don’t love the design and it will block me from taking pictures of the Superman Building. So I’ll complain anywhere I can to try to sabotage the project.

It’s just not a helpful mentality. Same with the example I mentioned above - people were against bringing a sub-10 story building company HQ to an undeveloped plot of land….cause of traffic concerns.

There’s a loud subset of population here that is literally against any development that’s not exactly what THEY want.

2

relbatnrut t1_jbqoemv wrote

Developers develop when it's profitable. It's profitable right now to develop luxury housing because owners can be sure that they will make a shitload of money in rent. It's not as profitable to develop affordable housing, since the rent recouped is far lower.

Yes, we should build. And one of the arguments for building is that rich people will stop occupying otherwise affordable housing and move into luxury developments. But there are only so many rich people, and at a certain point, building luxury housing will no longer be profitable and the filtering effect will diminish. Without that incentive, developers will have to accept a far lower profit and build housing for normal people, and it's not clear that they will do so.

That's why we need a public developer unmoored from the profit motive. It's also why we should fight to make sure larger allocations of affordable housing are included in luxury developments, because that's a unit you know will be affordable, as opposed to a theoretical unit that might open up because a rich person moves into a luxury development.

3

Synchwave1 t1_jbt186w wrote

Affordable housing is important from a humanitarian perspective and a horrible investment. For a city facing long term budget deficits, it can’t afford to give up prime land targeting individuals who will provide very little to the economic growth and stability of the city.

It’s not the kindest take, but it’s reality.

4

relbatnrut t1_jbuhgqf wrote

If people don't have to spend 60% of their income on rent they can contribute more to the rest of the economy. That helps everyone.

0

ghogan1010 t1_jbui2nt wrote

And unless you’re looking to subsidize the private citizens who own those properties and charge rents based off supply and demand, Peter Pan is waiting for you in Neverland.

There’s a BILLION scenarios that would’ve could’ve should’ve. Let’s deal with what is. What is is a great opportunity for Providence to have a renaissance within the downtown and bordering areas. They can become a higher end community that attracts a lot of great businesses and reflective of a State Capitol that sits beautifully between Boston and New York. The benefits of that will be a city filled with vibrancy able to spend on other projects that can help affordable housing, etc.

3

relbatnrut t1_jbuiyhy wrote

> And unless you’re looking to subsidize the private citizens who own those properties and charge rents based off supply and demand, Peter Pan is waiting for you in Neverland. >

I'd rather have rent control but you do you

−2

ghogan1010 t1_jbujj76 wrote

Rent control won’t lower rents. It’ll slow the pace of rental increases. Something I’m completely on board with and I own rental properties. I think there’s been too much advantageous gouging in the last couple years.

Again reality vs fiction. You’re never going to eliminate the landlord/tenant dynamic. It’s been around forever in various forms. You can restrict, make it more tenant friendly, but at the end of the day tenancy/affordable housing does not accomplish much more than making a select group of people feel better about themselves. Rising tide raises all ships. Raise the tide of Providence economic situation, all classes will benefit. They won’t benefit downtown or in immediate areas, but they’ll benefit.

3

relbatnrut t1_jbukhf5 wrote

Trickle down sounds good but it never actually works

0

ghogan1010 t1_jbula6t wrote

Of course it does. The poorest of the poor in this country and this area live lives that people in other parts of the world or other parts of the country would kill for.

It’s a matter of perspective. Poor are never not going to be poor. There’s always going to be someone who has more than someone else. But success, growth, capitalism allow programs like Obamacare, voucher programs, snap benefits to exist. Progress requires success. It’s a step in the process most “community advocates” can’t seem to grasp. You can’t create something from nothing.

1

total_life_forever t1_jbtsf0s wrote

Your take is missing the corresponding, accompanying fact that, countrywide, corporations and billionaires should be properly taxed to address precisely this kind of situation.

It's really a glaring thing to omit. We know what the solution should be, it's just unpopular amongst political donors.

−1

ghogan1010 t1_jbtsv5p wrote

I don’t live in the world of make believe and utopia. In a perfect world a lot of things happen. In reality affordable housing doesn’t draw anything that historically leads to economic growth and prosperity.

If I want hypotheticals I’ll take a philosophy class. Business deals in what is it. Reality is reality regardless of what something should be. Affordable housing units can be a part of a broader initiative. The city is guilty of lacking forward planning.

4

total_life_forever t1_jbttfgn wrote

So you don't think change is achievable in the political progress? You don't believe in democracy? Because the solution is sitting right there.

Your self-defeating (and kinda smug) attitude is a major obstacle in attaining this.

−1

ghogan1010 t1_jbu2p3u wrote

I don’t think we value the same kind of change. I want progressive development to create solvency that enables the city to focus on humanitarian efforts. You can’t start at the bottom and work upwards, that’s not how the world works.

Unfortunately, those with the least to contribute at least in terms of job creation and revenue are the last to reap the benefits. It’s capitalism at work. I’m of the mindset you promote and develop a sound economic policy and you invest in entitlement with the reward of successful policy. There’s plenty of sections of the city and of Pawtucket and surrounding areas that would be perfect areas for affordable housing. Waterfront property minutes to downtown of the State Capital should literally never even be considered for such a project.

4