Photo by Jef Nickerson
Next Monday, November 9th, the Downcity Design Review Committee will be considering a request by 110 Providence Owner, LLC to demolition the remaining facade at 35 Weybosset Street. The facade was to be incorporated into the proposed OneTen Westminster Street residential tower (which when proposed, nearly 5 years ago, would have been the tallest building in Rhode Island). At one point, the proposal morphed into a W Hotel on the site, as recently as last year, W was still saying they were coming to Providence. And while their website still list Providence as a 2010 location, the lack of activity, the continued sourness of the economy, and the fact that the request for the facade removal is now before us, makes that seem less and less likely.
So what do we think about this? Simple, we don’t want to see this facade come down. The agreement that allowed for the demolition of the building stipulated that the facade would be incorporated into a new building. The plans for the new building fell through, but the facade should remain as long as physically possible to allow for it’s incorporation into a future building.
I’ll admit, I’m no structural engineer, so I don’t know what the state of this structure is, but I do know there is precedent for facades standing for more than a few years.
Rome photo (cc) Walter Parenteau
If you oppose the demolition of this building facade, you should attend Monday’s DRC meeting.
DRC Agenda:
DOWNCITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2009 – 4:45 PM
Department of Planning and Development, 4th Floor Auditorium
400 Westminster Street, Providence, RI 02903
OPENING SESSION
- Call to Order
- Roll Call
- Approval of Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2009
PROJECT REVIEW
1. DRC Application No. 09.15, 35 Weybosset Street (Public Hearing)
The subject of the hearing will be an application by 110 Providence Owner, LLC requesting demolition of the partial structure located at 35 Weybosset Street.
ADJOURNMENT
{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
David: I fear that a parking lot would not be available to your customers anyway. It would probably be leased out to one of the downcity companies or restaurants for valet overflow or employee parking. it won’t be a municipal parking lot, made to help the small businesses who made an investment in the area.
An empty lot, a parking lot, and a 50+ year-old façade supported by a steel gage in the street.
Since any proposed temporary parking lot will be subject to a public review and as it has been pointed out is not as-of-right, rather than just assuming that a proposed parking lot on the site would be leased only by neighboring offices, perhaps conditions could be placed on an approval, if it were allowed.
Items could include a required pedestrian pass-through with special paving and curbing to insure the right-of way won’t be parked over. Another could require that 25-50% of the parking spaces shall be open to the public for short-term parking and maybe a few bike parking spots too. If the façade is not demolished then the applicant could be required to pour a more permanent concrete barrier at the base of the steel cage to take up less of the street cart-way and be required to open a covered right-of-way on the sidewalk between the steel cage/barrier assembly and the façade for 24-hour pedestrian access. Perhaps the pedestrian right-of-way could connect through the entrance door of the old façade to the covered sidewalk. As I mentioned earlier, the steel cage and façade could be lit as a sculptural element, but also for safety. The applicant could be required to repave the crumbling portion of Weybosset Street in front of their site from curb to opposite curb. After all they would be hiring an asphalt company to pave the lot anyway.
As a consolation to the applicant for this additional expense they could be offered the option to add multi-level stackers to increase capacity, if there was demand for it.
There’s an opportunity here that could help everyone, the developer, the neighborhood businesses, the Financial District offices and the Downtown community as a whole. If the temporary parking lot proposal is killed, we could all be staring at the lone dumpster through chain-link for a long time to come.
David-Thank you for your comments. Strong local businesses like yours that care about strengthening Downcity are a key part of the solution to changing the flawed development process that created the holes in Downcity’s streetscape.
I appreciate the fact that we are proposing solutions. My position is that DRC can reject the demolition proposal with the provision that the developer and the city can work together on a solution that improves pedestrian access. The two parties would then work together on finding a solution to build on the site. I’m no real estate expert, but with Steuver Brothers now backing out of ALCO, maybe there is financing that the city can provide Blue Chip to assist with their Downcity site.
Maybe the steel supports can be moved to the interior of the façade. That way they are not impacting the street or sidewalk. The developer then needs to secure the site. Erect a wall which creates somewhat of a streetscape. Maybe have artists paint a mural on it. Yes, it will involve additional expense, but so will paying for demolition work and parking lot construction.
The key is to incentivize the developer to either sell to a willing developer or secure financing for a development that they would personally build. There are already tens of thousands of on or off-street parking spaces in Downcity. 90 additional spaces will not have a material impact. Also, based on the history of the Public Safety Building temporary lot, the likelihood of the temporary surface parking provision being enforced is not high. Two years have passed since this lot was constructed, and to my knowledge, no progress on this property being developed has been made.
A mixed-use building that is an asset to the public is the highest and best use of this site, not a surface lot.
Taxation hasn’t been discussed here as a strategy for addressing surface lots, and if changes to zoning regulations have stalled, taxes might be an alternate approach to the problem. Specifically, a per-car tax could be implemented by the city which only applies to surface lots, or the city property tax could be increased just for these lots. Either strategy, if feasible, would provide the city with more $, reduce incentive to demolish, and encourage parking garages over surface lots.
Another approach would be to eminent domain a current temporary lot and build a municipal city-run garage. This might undercut the private market and pressure the lot owners to develop something better, and would also raise $ for the city. Though I generally think eminent domain should be avoided if possible, but several of these lots are the result of manipulation of the current regulations to the detriment of public good; the public safety complex in particular should never have left public ownership.
I am just throwing out ideas and am not sure of the legal challenges to making either of these work.
Taxation becomes a state issue–any time the city sets up any kind of revenue-getting or tax increase, it has to be vetted through the General Assembly, which, as you can imagine, is kind of a black hole a lot of the time.
The city has not often (ever?) taken a position on requiring anything other than the minimum (curbing, striping?) for these temporary parking lots. My feeling has it has always been an all or nothing, except there’s never nothing.
While the creative ideas are encouraging, my experience (now dated, to be sure) has been that if you don’t out and out protest something then all you get is the lowest common denominator. If you go into a negotiation already half way there, you lose everything. Defeatist, I am well aware, but the sad truth of my 20+ years in PVD. I wish it was different.
David:
Thank you for your comment. I certainly see your position and welcome your perspective on this issue.
On the issue of the parking lot, I have to agree with Jen. It seems highly unlikely that any parking at this location would be available to your customers and will more likely function like the other parking lots near your store on Pine Street, leased monthly to office workers in the area, and perhaps open at night at inflated rates for events. There are precious few lots in the city that are open for shoppers/diners and others at an hourly or half-hourly rate. Looking around the city, really Cornish’s Grant’s Lot is pretty much the only exception. And that is only because Cornish owns most of the retail buildings on Westminster and has an interest in ensuring that shoppers have parking.
I guess you wouldn’t know it from my original post, because it was rather knee-jerk in regards to losing another building (or part of a building in this case), but the parking is what I’m really bothered about. Like I said, I don’t see that it will help you or any of the other retailers in the area directly, and I see no sign that it will indeed be temporary. I’ve never seen a “temporary lot” transition to another use.
That said, if we are going to see parking here, which painfully seems almost inevitable, I would encourage you to attend the DRC meeting tomorrow and plead the case that the lot, if approved, should have spaces available for short term parking, and also that the lot should have cross block pedestrian access as Peter suggested above. And that access needs to be more than a little paved path, it should be a nice wide walkway with landscaping, some signage indicating where the path goes (i.e. “Weybosset Shops”) would be nice too.
I like Peter’s thinking of opening back up the sidewalk and uplighting the facade. Redoing the footings to allow for fixing the street. But, I don’t think that is possible with the current steel:
As you can see, the cross-bracing here doesn’t really give enough head room to allow pedestrians through here.
I really feel DRC should send them away to do some research though. I think the Smith-Mathewson Building down the street gives a good model of what can be done. I like where Aaron is going with moving the steel supports to the other side of the facade so we can re-open the sidewalk and fix the street. But if we’re moving steel, let’s go all the way. At Smith-Mathewson they are building a temporary building that is engineered in such a way that it can be incorporated into a larger building on the site later. The engineering allows them to add floors and fill the rest of the lot when demand and the economy allow for it. I’d like to see some thought go into something similar here. Build something, even one floor with the rest of the facade being false, engineered in such a way that it can be expanded up and back at a later date (and maintain the existing facade in the interim).
Yes, this facade is not centuries old, but regardless, it is beautiful and appropriate to the street and without it, we’d have yet another block in the city with a giant hole in it.
This bend in Weybosset Street is among the most beautiful and complete streetscapes in the city. Losing this facade and having surface parking in it’s place will rip out the street’s heart.
If, if, the developer can come up with a plan to save the facade, re-open the sidewalk, and ideally, bring some use back to this structure (in the form of a temporary retail structure tucked in behind it), then I am begrudgingly open to allowing for parking on the Westminster side, but also with conditions. Hire a landscape architect to create a lush landscape buffer on the Westminster side (MAINTAIN that landscaping), provide for a healthy number of short term parking spaces, create a permeable parking surface such as the one at Grant’s Lot, and provide a well built, well maintained, well landscaped pedestrian link through the block.
In the meantime, since it seems the city in the end, still has no teeth to do anything other than approve parking here, the city MUST change that. The more parking lots the city allows, the less unique and attractive this city becomes, and the less incentive people have to live, work, and play here. I encourage everyone to harangue their city councilors on this issue and make the Mayor aware that the built environment of the city will be a campaign issue next year.
Why do we have a DRC if all they do is rubber stamp these proposals? Sorry, but I think they do have teeth. They can continue the proposal and charge that the city and developer vet some financials on alternative developments. Or, if they do approve the “temporary” surface parking, they can negotiate harsh penalties if this property does not revert back to a buildable lot. Developers, by right, cannot build permanent parking lots on “A” streets Downcity. Please hold them accountable.
Oh, and by the way, the new Providence comprehensive plan is clear when it comes to surface parking. See page 63, Objective M6, paragraph G:
“Encourage the elimination of surface parking lots and discourage the creation of new surface parking lots as they are a detriment to the city’s economic future and its built environment.”
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
http://www.providenceplanning.org/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=55&task=finish&cid=6&catid=38&m=0
Whatever is approved in the new Comprehensive Plan is only a guide. The law is in the Zoning Ordinance, which has to be updated to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
If the DRC is rubber stamping, they’re doing it because it’s easier. If they are pressured, they have the power to impose conditions.
Here is what the city’s home rule charter says about the comprehensive plan. With all due respect, seems to me that it is more than just a guide. Paragraph one is clear that no project can be implemented if it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
(d) The effect of the comprehensive plan.
(1) No public or private improvement or project or subdivision or
zoning ordinance shall be initiated or adopted unless it
conforms to and implements the comprehensive plan and
elements thereof.
(2) No capital improvement shall be funded unless that
improvement is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) All development and project plans and proposals and all
privately developed projects and developments which require
approval by the city council or by other city boards,
commissions or committees shall be submitted by the
appropriate aforementioned public agency to the director of
the department of planning and urban development for
determination as to compliance with the comprehensive plan
and its elements. All appeals from the director’s decisions
shall be submitted to the city plan commission for a
determination as to compliance with the comprehensive plan.
http://library4.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=14446&doc_action=whatsnew
My apology, I stand corrected.
No apology necessary. Just trying to point out all the tools at our disposal. It’s also frustrating to invest so much in a document like the revised comp plan that should be strengthening the traditional and unique urban, architectural character of Providence only to bear witness to another example of developments that detract from its character.
I received an email that has been going around town today on this issue, so I hope to see good turnout at DRC this afternoon.
Also, Brown Daily Herald should have an article tomorrow about the issues surrounding this proposal.
Glad to see this is getting some attention that hopefully results in a positive outcome. It shows how important GC:PVD is to the community.
ProJo blog:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/downcity-commission-to-vote-to.html
I will not be able to attend the meeting.
Please consider the following, even given that the DRC has the power to reject an application, if an application is denied, the applicant could plead a hardship in court and have a decision reversed. With the current economic condition that’s a possibility.
If it looks as if a temporary parking might be approved try to get as many conditions added to the approval (i.e. through-site pedestrian walkway, landscaping, façade and sidewalk access on Weybosset). The relocation of the steel cage to the inside of the lot might be an impractical demand.
The temporary parking lot issue might be better fought politically and legislatively, rather than by this individual case, though the issue should clearly be vocalized at the meeting that the city is systematically being demolished for parking lots and losing its historic architectural legacy.
Good luck.
Thanks, Jef. Reading between the lines of the Providence Journal article by Philip Marcelo reveals some additional items in my opinion:
Marcelo quotes Providence Preservation Society: “It’s another reminder that the city desperately needs better controls on development involving renovation or alteration of existing structure”. “Another” being the key word. Why after all the previous demos is this fact not publicly recognized by the city?
Marcelo quotes Jeremiah O’Connor: “But O’Connor, in a letter last month to the design review committee, said that the façade “is and always has been an impediment to development.”" So why did he agree to this in the first place if it was an impediment?
Connor also is quoted: “He argued that the façade must come down because prolonged exposure to the elements has badly deteriorated it.” Where is the building inspector report corroborating this?
Providence Preservation Society: “The preservation society acknowledges that the façade is of “limited” historical or architectural significance and that the opportunity to better preserve the façade is “long gone.”" Again, is there a building inspector’s report that supports this?
Final quote from O’Connor which says a lot in my opinion: “O’Connor, in his letter to the city, says he is committed to increasing landscaping and installing amenities and improvements, such as park benches, that would make the temporary parking lot more palatable.” But not committed to building on the site.
This article says a lot. But there is so much more that needs to be written here. Why is the city in constant reaction mode on Downcity development? The comp plan says surface lots should be discouraged. It would be nice for the city to follow through in accordance with it.
Part of the issue at the city level could well be that Downtown doesn’t have one city councilor, it has 3. Wards 11, 12, and 13 cover parts of Downtown. Councilman Lombardi has been working closely lately with the DNA, but he seems to be more of a West Side councilor. Councilwoman Young seems more tied to South Providence than Downcity/Jewelry District (at least from my limited observation). And Hassett’s Ward 12 covers Capital Center, but he is moreso a Smith Hill representative.
There have been proposals to reconfigure the city council, less Wards, add some at-large… but no movement has been made on those proposals. I don’t know when the Wards were last apportioned, but certainly there are many more Downtown residents than there were at that time.
If Downtown had a Councilor which was not split between other areas, or if we had at-large councilors, there would be more attention paid within the city council perhaps.
Of course that does not excuse the issue that a healthy Downtown is vital to the entire city and should have attention paid to it by all councilors, not just the ones who have part of it in their larger Ward. And it does not excuse a lack of attention to these issues from the Mayor’s office.
I never thought of the split representation being a issue, Jef, but your right that Downcity being split 3 ways could play a part.
Some other points I have on the Providence Journal article. O’Connor says the façade is an impediment to development. As evidenced by the the Downcity streetscape, surface parking is in fact a larger impediment to development. If the city thinks that doing O’Connor will be more apt to build on the site if the “impediment” is removed, I think they are sorely mistaken.
Thom Deller is quoted in the article: “”I’d love to see it used, but I’m concerned about the length of time it would be out there and deteriorating before something can be built”" Isn’t it the responsibility of the developer to ensure that his property does not deteriorate?
There was a story on NPR this morning about the W hotel in boston:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120102477&sc=17&f=1001
DRC wants facade saved, trying to figure out how to proceed.
Tabling for tonight. Planning to review options to save facade.
So I am just back from the DRC meeting. I did not take detailed notes, so whatever I write here is off the top of my head, anyone who attended me please correct me where I am wrong, or add to what I overlook.
The issue at hand was the demolition only, the parking lot was not on the agenda, but it was part of the discussion tonight. The DRC moved to table this application and pick it back up at future meeting (perhaps as early as next month). The DRC instructed the Applicant to meet with Planning staff to come up with alternatives to save the facade. The Applicant agreed to do so but made it clear they have financial constraints and make no promises that they will in the end be able to afford any alternatives reached.
4 or 5ish people spoke from the retailer perspective and their concerns are real and vital. The lack of pedestrian access past the facade is hurting retailers (coupled with the loss of foot traffic generated by the Arcade and the downturn in the economy in general). The condition of the Weybosset roadway is also a serious concern. The current jersey barrier set makes resurfacing of the street difficult at best. Planning staff pointed out that the city wants to fix Weybosset, and a final solution on the facade is needed before they can proceed. Other concerns were that the street is very dark and at least feels dangerous and desolate. It was pointed out that removing the facade is not the only option to remedy the lighting issues on the street (in fact the facade could be lit and be the solution to that issue).
I personally do not want to see the facade saved at the expense of the retailers concerns. I feel confident that the facade can remain and that the retailers concerns can be remedied.
The majority (I won’t give a solid number because of my lack of note taking) of public comment was in support of saving the facade. The testimony of the public (on both sides) was very elegant and intelligent, it was heartening to see such civil and intelligent discussion of the issues at hand. It was also nice that so many members of the public referenced this site in their testimony.
The DRC members were certainly fully in favor of saving the facade and were not willing to let it go lightly. The DRC told the developer that they had failed to make a cogent case that their request for demolition met the requirements outlined in their application (expect a stronger case to be made next time if they are still pushing for demolition). DRC suggested moving the supports to the back or re-engineering the existing supports to allow for headroom for pedestrians to move through it.
The extent of my testimony consisted of not ruling on the demo without also considering future use. According to Planning staff, the parking lot will come back to DRC for review, so it is my belief, that they should be reviewed together. This gives DRC more leeway in instructing the Applicant insofar as what they want to see done with the facade.
So where we stand now is that the Applicant will meet with Planning staff (including an engineer) to determine what can be done to maintain the facade and address the issues on the street (sidewalks, lighting, street condition…) and return to DRC. I think it comes down to how much that costs, can the Applicant afford it, will the Applicant be willing to pay that price or will they insist on pushing through the demo.
There is the ability for the Applicant to go to the building inspector and have the structure deemed a public danger and request permission to demolish, which the building inspector does not have to grant, even if it is deemed a public hazard, the inspector can order the owner to repair the structure to remove the public hazard. Though the history of that outcome is not good.
OK, I’m tired and have to eat!
Aaron said:
Isn’t it the responsibility of the developer to ensure that his property does not deteriorate?
That was the DRC’s understanding as well.
Oh, and you were quoted in testimony Aaron.
I will never understand why the DRC (and other boards) can’t consider the end use when thinking about a demo. The idea that they aren’t related is kind of crazy, although I suppose it is about the law. The law says that you have to do it in stages, but there should be some kind of “what is your plan if you take this building down” in the law somewhere. They are not even remotely unrelated.
Good work, everyone. Maybe someone is finally hearing us?
ProJo article on DRC meeting:
http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content/DOWNTOWN_FACADE_VOTE_11-10-09_JUGD7RN_v26.3a6704a.html
Brown Daily Herald:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/historic-facade-faces-demolition-downtown-1.2059231
Good quote from some Nickerson fella:
“There is this perception that there is this parking crisis in the city, but it’s only a perception.”
If the façade is to be persevered, there needs to be an analysis, preferably an independent one, that would compare the costs for:
1. Demolition of the façade and steel support cage
2. Disposing of the façade debris and steel
3. Stabilization of the façade (if deemed necessary)
4. Cost to engineer and install 5 transfer beams over the sidewalk level along with cutting out the 5 obstructing angle braces
5. Pouring a concrete barrier at the base of the steel structure
6. Installation of temporary light fixtures over the sidewalk within the cage (5 – 23w or 28w compact fluorescents would probably be more than enough)
Anyone know why the city cannot seize the property by eminent domain given the recent supreme court case? Seems that the public interest and the violation of the agreement trumps the developer’s property rights. As I recall the case allows governments to seize properties and turn them over to other private parties as long as the result is for the greater public good.
This is a practice I don’t agree in principle. However, bad actors should be punished and we don’t seem to have many other legal tools at our disposal.
The space could be a nice little pocket park or open marketplace given that the damage has been done.
At the meeting last night, one of the people that spoke runs a business on Weybosset St and said, among other valid points, that there isn’t enough parking. I would have to disagree.
If he is unhappy with the availability of the many parking lots or garages, he should take that matter up with them. However, to insist another surface lot will solve his problems, I suggest the following:
http://www.gcpvd.org/2008/11/28/the-parking-crisis-illustrated/
Rounding out the press reports on yesterday’s DRC meeting, PBN:
http://www.pbn.com/stories/46050.html
I can’t help but wonder what recourse the businesses like Picture This could have. I mean, would they have a case to sue for loss of income because of this developer? There just has to be a way for developers to be held accountable for the bad things that happen to everyone when they back out, or screw up…
Oh and the city seems to have an aversion to eminent domain–I have been trying to get them to take Grove Street School (before they started with the illegal demo)and the city wouldn’t really entertain the possibility. I do not know what it is, although I do know that it can open the city up to some insane legal action as well as it costing money up front. Certainly a few years ago there would have been a lot of private interest in redeveloping some of Providence’s buildings, but the city opted to allow them to be turned down and turned into parking lots instead.
Unfortunately, the developer could go to court a claim a hardship. This happens rather routinely in New York, when developers will actually have zoning on a particular site changed or reinterpreted, because they made a bad choice or expected an outcome based on what was permitted, but that couldn’t happen. The city is probably aware of this as a possibility, which may be why they’re acting timidly or at least trying to give the developer the benefit of the doubt.
The irony, of course, is during the providence “boom” developers were declaring hardships so it is hard to give anyone the benefit of doubt, personally. When did this O’Connor company take over this project? I mean, did they really think they’d build something there? Or did they buy the property with the intent of just sitting on it until the economy turned around? If that’s the case, that is not hardship. That’s just playing chicken with the city and based on past experiences, the city always blinks first.
In David’s Brussat’s column in The Providence Journal on 9/27/07, he wrote that BlueChip Properties, the original developer of 110 Westminster when it was a condo/hotel/retail project, sold the project to O’Connor Capital. Apperantly, his company also owns the Superman Building.
http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CL_brussat27_09-27-07_OM76UES.25448e5.html
Jeremiah W. O’Connor, Jr. is the Managing Partner of O’Connor Capital Partners. It might be a coincidence but Jeremiah O’Connor, III was the Development Director of BlueChip Properties, LLC.
Ooooh, great catch! If that is coincidental, it’s quite unusual. In the much more likely instance that it isn’t coincidental, this adds a new level of corporate sleeze to the whole thing.
Maybe, but assuming that they are related, it also could be that O’Connor Jr. has bailed out O’Connor III for making an unwise or unlucky choice and O’Connor Jr. is left holding an investment that isn’t worth as much as what was previously assumed.
Or it could be a way to move liability around without it actually landing on any one of them…? I wonder if they owe money around town…
← Previous Comments
{ 3 trackbacks }