In Part 4 much of the discussion revolved around lot sizes.
Comment by Corey
Call me naive, but personally, I would take some of the parcels not targeted for institutional use, subdivide them, and then sell the subdivided lots individually; much more in line with what would have been done in the 18th or 19th centuries. [...] It also allows a lot of building form regulations to be relaxed without risking so much insensitive development.
- By allowing room for numerous property owners to have building facades on the same block, you’re almost guaranteed not to have a block-long dead space in any part of the district, because a variety of different uses and architecture occupy each street front.
- By encouraging buildings with smaller footprints, building heights and proportions tend to be harder to abuse, decreasing the need to spend the time and money on the exhaustive specific zoning regarding height, mass, and proportion which tends to scare away developers. If anything should be exhaustively regulated, it’s materials and energy efficiency.
- Multiple tenants on each block = greater density, and greater variety of uses, which means:
- A more constant street life at all times of day, as well as greater walkability, and demand for mass transit expansion.
If anything has been proven to work in Providence, it’s the repetition of historical development patterns. There’s plenty of evidence to support that, and plenty of wiggle room for dynamic new buildings within those patterns. The 195 relocation project in and of itself reflects the fact that the city planners realize this. It just needs to be taken one step further in order to really work well here.
Read through the discussion to see more of the conversation.
The massing renderings below show several different configurations of lot sizes on the east side parcels of the 195 redevelopment area:
This is the fifth of a series of posts we will be doing about the 195 Street Grid. To view all the posts and more information, please visit our 195 Relocation Project page.