Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Proof-Variation7005 t1_is5noat wrote

RIP to that hole in the ground

84

relbatnrut t1_is6alt9 wrote

More housing is good. In the long term, it may drive prices down in Providence as a whole. But in the short term, more projects without affordability requirements (i.e. market rate housing) are going to further gentrify Federal Hill and further displace longtime residents.

When you attract a bunch of people who can pay the high price of new apartments, you also attract businesses that cater to them, and you change the atmosphere of the neighborhood from leaning working class to leaning "young professional" (it's already pretty far in that direction). That attracts more young professionals and further drives up rent.

I'm not saying market rate housing shouldn't be built at all, but so often the urbanist attitude is "this will drive down rent for the city/region in the future" without considering the shorter term effects on the more immediate neighborhood. That's why we need a public developer to build enough affordable housing for all.

34

FunLife64 t1_is6mgg5 wrote

As someone who lived in a city with affordable units required in nearly all developments - it’s not really a solution. The waiting list is thousands of people who qualify. Having 10 units in a 100 unit building is lovely, but it doesn’t actually put a dent in the “demand”. Providence needs more and more developments to help stabilize the increases.

19

relbatnrut t1_is6o3ss wrote

It's definitely not a solution in and of itself. Though mandating more than 10 would be a good start. Ultimately the city/state/the US as a whole needs to start cutting out the middleman and just start building housing.

1

Soxfan1991 t1_is722qp wrote

The higher the number of affordability requirements the less developments get built. The best way to increase housing and bring rents down is to lower the regulations required to build new developments

4

relbatnrut t1_is7ctkm wrote

Actually it's directly building housing without involving profit seeking.

3

Soxfan1991 t1_is7cx7k wrote

So who does the building?

2

relbatnrut t1_is7d44x wrote

The gubbmint

It's called a public developer and it was a big plank in Bernie's platform, as well as Gonzalo Cuervo's (on a much smaller scale obviously)

Or do you mean who swings the actual hammers?

6

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isal6b0 wrote

I'd love the idea but there'$ a lot of $eriou$ logi$tical i$$ue$ why it i$ not really fea$ible to do that.

1

relbatnrut t1_isazwde wrote

There are places in the world where social housing is common, and affordable, and even desirable. There's no reason it cannot be done, and done right, in America.

It's an issue of political will, plain and simple. If the will can be found, the money can be found.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isb8ns5 wrote

>It's an issue of political will, plain and simple.

Agreed. We could probably stop pretending that Americans want to be Europe. It just seems like such a waste of time to get distracted with shit that simply will not happen anytime remotely soon in the United States.

I prefer looking at solutions and options that have at least a snowball's chance in hell at coming to fruition. Everything beyond that is unproductive white noise.

1

relbatnrut t1_isbjtdz wrote

The idea of preemptively rejecting the best solution is unappealing to me. Many of the most beneficial things our government has done were called crazy and unrealistic before they were implemented. Public libraries, the FLSA, Social Security, Medicare...

Expanding public housing wasn't even a subject of conversation 20 years ago. Now it's a common plank in progressive platforms. I wouldn't be so quick to give up.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isbnsdc wrote

The problem with relying on something like gaining steam in progressive platforms is that it misses the part where progressives are a pretty goddamn small percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't call their share insignificant, but I'd definitely use the phrase "extremely outnumbered"

1

relbatnrut t1_isd8vzx wrote

The point is that the idea is slowly becoming more mainstream. Cancelling student debt was a pretty fringe position only 5 years ago. By this year it was mainstream enough that our centrist democrat president picked it up and enacted it.

1

Soxfan1991 t1_is7i23n wrote

Does the government have the capabilities of successfully building housing? Have you seen the roads in this state?

0

beta_vulgaris t1_is7xwr7 wrote

Providence needs to get comfortable with building tall. With the demand for market rate housing in this neighborhood they could have tripled the height, dedicated 1/3 of the building to affordable units, and still turned a profit easily. That said, I’d rather see 41 market rate renters get their housing here rather than gentrifying 41 units of triple decker housing off Knight Street.

11

allhailthehale t1_is6h548 wrote

Agreed on all fronts. Housing is good, and I feel like the ship has already sailed on that portion of the West End, to be honest (I've lived around the corner for over ten years). So I'm not really upset about this project. But it has always seemed pretty disingenuous to me to claim that this type of development doesn't push up housing cost in the immediate neighborhoods. Mixed income neighborhoods are great but they tend not to stay that way, for some strange reason...

8

Thac0 t1_is5m44t wrote

Ok , good

30

cowperthwaite OP t1_is5y88t wrote

TL;DR; read the headline.

Story is NOT behind a paywall.

I linked to one, but I don't think the other, of the planning documents in the story. In case you wanted to look at the plans or read the Providence planning staff memo, here they are:

Staff memo:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23130623-19-051ma-311-knight-street-final-plan-report-october-2022

Physical plans:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23131522-19-051ma-311-knight-street-final-plan-approval

23

cometpants t1_is6tpad wrote

Thanks for sharing this extra info - great article.

3

Man_of_Aluminum t1_is5zazg wrote

This is great! I was worried it was gonna stay vacant or get paved over for another surface lot.

20

[deleted] t1_is6a4sr wrote

We will see. I remember at least two other similar plans for this plot over the last two decades that never came thru.

2

cowperthwaite OP t1_is6gqff wrote

They said they should have shovels in the ground by the end of this year. Grain of salt of course.

3

leavingthecold t1_is61z6g wrote

So I'm guessing these will all be rented out at market rate, is there any allotment for low income units in this building?

12

cowperthwaite OP t1_is626n8 wrote

All market rate as far as I've heard. No discussion of affordable units.

12

dexbasedpaladin t1_is7hh0h wrote

Weird that "market rate" and "affordable units" are two separate things... 🙄

0

sizzle-d-wa t1_is7ni68 wrote

Not really, "affordable housing" is by a definition a euphemism for house/apt that is sold/rented below market rates. I agree there should be more affordable housing tho. Hopefully, 41 units will increase the local supply and lower the price. Can't hurt at least.

5

[deleted] t1_is7ngp0 wrote

[removed]

−6

dexbasedpaladin t1_is7ps80 wrote

Weird that 20 years ago, they could.

4

NoMoLerking t1_is84esy wrote

Nah, definitely not. I had a white collar job 20 years ago and lived with roommates in what could best be described as a shithole.

4

relbatnrut t1_is7qk0r wrote

So you think that everyone who waits tables should live in substandard housing

Or you think no one should wait tables

Which one?

2

commandantskip t1_is69cp7 wrote

The article made no mention of a TSA, so I believe that it's not required to include affordable housing.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_is789kg wrote

TSAs aren't really going to guarantee that requirement. If the developers were asking for one, it would be a leverage point the city could use but most of the high profile ones where they've demanded some level (i.e. that building that has nothing to do with Superman) were because of the upfront money being given to the project.

1

listen_youse t1_is81gl8 wrote

Buildings like that on sites like that are exactly how this city should grow so I do not want to get all negative here but...

I feel bad for people paying those rents and not even getting a bay window, or cross ventilation.

Maybe someday the cheap exterior panels on all those bland buildings can be replaced with cheap cornices and friezes for a neotraditional revival.

2

eightbitbrain t1_is9z3j4 wrote

Congrats. Have fun paying 1800/month rent

2

heathervive t1_is79ah3 wrote

Oh damn right by my old office space.

1

Previous_Floor t1_is7t47u wrote

Across the street from housing projects.

−6

[deleted] t1_is7ly24 wrote

[removed]

−7

StonksGuy3000 t1_isa45ja wrote

It is kinda funny on this sub how everyone’s first reaction to a new housing development is to complain that there isn’t more low-income housing being developed

3