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 }
Next Comments →
They’re trying to knock it down so that it’ll be easier to sell the lot.
Yeah, but they agreed to the stipulations when they were allowed to knock down the rest of the structure. Once you’ve made your bed, you sleep in it.
Which reminds me:
The Tarros are going before the building inspector this Thursday (11/5) at 3:00 pm. They filed an appeal to the July decision ordering them to stabilize the Grove Street School. I don’t actually know if these meetings are open to the public, but my guess is that they are, and that they’ve scheduled a public meeting during the day so that no one shows up. However, since I certainly plan to show up if I can. Anyone else who can possibly show up definitely should.
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/5109/2009/80754.pdf
Pardon the typographical error. What I meant to say was:
“However, I certainly plan to show up if I can.”
How can you park cars with that silly facade in the way – I mean, hello! (kidding)
It so sad that the economy went down the tubes when it did. 110 and Dynamo House were 2 key projects in the continued re-shaping of the city.
For this property and with that particular façade—let them demolish it. This may be a controversial position, but that façade is a fake. As I understand it, that façade was built in the 1950s; not in the 18th or 19th centuries.
The tragedy was the demolition of the five story late 19th century loft building that was immediately east of the current façade on Weybosset and the bank building structure with granite columns on Westminster, both of which are now gone. Those would have been worth fighting for tooth and nail. This one is not. The Downcity Design Review Committee dropped the ball on that when they approved current site plan.
It should be encouraged or at least not actively opposed, if demolishing the façade will help the current owners sell the property so that so can be developed, instead of leaving languishing for decades as an empty lot. The only prohibition on the site should be to forbid the use of the property as a “temporary” surface parking lot.
Peter – I just spoke with Planning. Unfortunately, a surface parking lot is the exact usage that is being proposed by the developer.
Peter, I feel where you’re coming from a bit. I am concerned, even though I pointed to Rome, that this can’t stand forever. I hate what the supports do to Weybosset, it will never be a functioning street with those there. I worry what happens if a truck hits one of those supports, does the whole facade come crumbling down.
If an engineer says that it is sound for the foreseeable future, and the crossings at the pedestrian detour can be made better, then I’m happy to let it stand as long as it takes.
The developer entered into an agreement with the city that the facade would be incorporated into a new building. If that means they can’t sell it, or can’t sell it at a price they want, then that is their problem, they entered into this agreement, they have to live with it.
If the current developer or someone else came to the city with a plan to develop the lot, but needed the facade to come down to do so, I would be willing to entertain their proposal. A parking lot is not something I would entertain however.
A surface lot is a nonconforming use in the Downcity District. The focus going forward needs to be developing these lots to the highest and best use. Approving the façade demolition in order for the developer to collect parking revenue would not incentivize the developer to either build on the property or sell to another developer who would, thus committing this property to being underutilized for the foreseeable future. How long has the old Outlet been a surface lot? When was the last time a surface lot was built upon? The Downcity Diner is the only one I can recall. The historical record does not breed optimism.
If the developer has money to spend to demolish the façade, pave the lot, plant trees, install street trees and furniture, and paint parking spot lines, then the developer should be able to afford moving the supports to the interior of the façade and maintaining the structural integrity of the façade while financing for a building is secured or a potential buyer for the property is found. DRC should reject this proposal.
^ What he said!
The Outlet isn’t a surface lot. It’s the Johnson and Wales campus on Weybosset Street. The Surface lot is the old Grant’s block.
Jef, The real problem, kept façade or not, is that the developer is requesting a “temporary” surface parking lot. They’re probably submitting the application based on an economic hardship due to the current economy. Since surface parking is a permitted use downtown they would have every right to request it. If the Downcity Design Review Committee or other city body rejected their request it could be the basis of a “takings” claim.
If the developer is going through the expense of submitting an application for a surface lot and paying to demolish the façade and construct a parking lot, the long-term reality will be that we’ll all be looking at that parking lot for many years to come. Providence has a long history of this. Even in Manhattan “temporary” parking lots can linger around for a decade or two. In Providence it’s usually longer.
The question that needs to be posed to the city is “are surface parking lots any longer a legitimate land use anywhere Downtown?”
Oh…You’re right. Sorry. Not to get OT, but, for some reason, I thought the lot at the northeast corner of Weybosset and Empire Streets was where The Outlet Company used to be.
I thought that there were standards in the zoning text for the Downcity district that covered surface parking lots that included buffers and landscaping. If the text has been changed regarding surface parking lots making them non-conforming use in the Downcity district, I stand corrected, although the developer may still be able to claim a hardship.
Jef – In response to your concern regarding the façade, the structural steel cage and the reopening of the Weybosset Street sidewalk, engineers should review the soundness of the assembly. The Jersey barriers now in place, if more formalized might address the truck hitting the structure issue. If the structure is deemed safe, why wouldn’t it be possible to reopen the sidewalk on the north side of Weybosset under and through the cage? This is routine at constructions sites using scaffolding, which is much lighter structure and more temporary. It’s possible that the current developers don’t want any liability with the façade and the steel cage. I can’t imagine that they would really gain that many more parking spots with the façade demolished. If the sidewalk was reopened between the façade and cage, it could be illuminated as a kind of street sculpture.
Mea culpa #2. The zoning ordinance allows for surface lots on B streets Downcity, and lots are allowed on A streets as long as the use is transitional and meets certain criteria. I usually check my facts before I post. Clearly I need to do a better job. It hurts credibility. Sorry.
That building should never have come down in the first place. It was a fine and beautiful building. To take it down, the developer had to agree to use the facades in the new building, but oops! accident!, the main facade fell down. Now he asks to demolish the remaining facade for a parking lot. What is wrong with a city that keeps rewarding intolerable behavior? Just say no!
In the grand scheme of things, Toby is right, as is everyone else who fights for preservation in Providence. This is precisely why. Those who had been around long enough before the boom could see this coming, and were powerless to stop it. Now, everyone wishes they had.
Learn something from this.
PBN has a report on this today (where they used my photo
). They spoke with Thom Deller who says he expects the DRC to approve the demolition for parking, but require landscaping. They can have parking for 2 years, then ask for a 1 year extension, then…
Off the top of my head, I believe there is a requirement for a 4(ish) foot landscape buffer (i.e. a dirt strip with some bark mulch and half dead shrubs).
The Smith-Mathewson Building faced the same issue when they were requesting to park cars where the Downcity Diner used to be. It was suggested they build a temporary liner building instead of the landscape strip (which needed a less than minimum height variance since it was below 3 floors on an ‘A’ Street). They’ve run with the idea, and added a floor to the building. It would be a nice good will measure to have the developer here leave the facade, or even try to build a temporary building behind it or something in exchange for parking approval.
“The developer entered into an agreement with the city that the facade would be incorporated into a new building. If that means they can’t sell it, or can’t sell it at a price they want, then that is their problem, they entered into this agreement, they have to live with it.”
“a surface parking lot is the exact usage that is being proposed by the developer.”
OK guys, lets compromise with or ‘asphalt prairie’ developers… Lay the facade down real gently, then shellac it. It will be the classiest historical surface parking lot in the city.
No Parking. I mean, come on. How many times are we going to let this happen? if they manage to convince someone that the facade is no longer safe, then they should be required to make that lot into a pocket park until they can sell it, or develop it.
I hope people will remember all these buildings lost, all the surface parking “gained” when it comes time to elect a new mayor. I certainly would be asking any candidates what their position on this would be because it is all tied to economic development and I think we all agree that “temporary parking lots” is not any kind of economic engine whatsoever.
Does anyone in city government even acknowledge that a problem exists? Why are Blue Cross, Gtech, and the Westin able to build their developments with no issues, but others fall through at the expense of Downcity’s streetscape. Maybe there is a problem with the analysis done to vet developers. Is the permitting process problematic which is causing developments to delay and fall through? I don’t know. Just asking. Maybe I’m asking too much, but some public pronouncement that the city is doing something to prevent these teardowns that lead to surface parking instead of buildings from happening again would give comfort to those who fear the worst when a developer asks for a demolition permit.
Why does the city reward developers in these cases? Why can’t they just say “too f’n bad” and make the developers sit on it or sell it as is or come forward with a new plan that doesn’t involve the facade? At this point that’s really all that’s needed. Instead the idiots in the city reward the developers by allowing them to make money off the site while it sits there as a “temporary” (I’ll believe it when I see it) parking lot.
Aaron hits the nail on the head and I agree completely. I’ve just notified Picture This and Downcity Diner about the application for demolition and left a message with the Mayor’s office (401-421-7740) stating my opposition. If anyone else would like to call the Mayor or recommend a more effective step to take, I’d appreciate it.
I’m also e-mailing Tom Deller (tdeller@providenceri.com) and hope others will do the same.
Christopher Ise (cise@providenceri.com) is the person at Planning who is the staff member for the DRC. I would send public comment to him and ask that he make the Committee members aware of your comment. Better yet, if you can, come the the DRC meeting on Monday (details in the post) to testify in person.
Also, there’s a Mayor’s race coming up, we could make this a campaign issue. You could let John Lombardi know your feelings on this issue http://www.lombardiforprovidence.com/
This parcel may be in Lombardi’s council district as well, I’m not sure about that though.
Thanks for your comments. This is a difficult issue and we will struggle with as we consider everyones concerns.
It’s time to implement a policy of no demolition permits issued to Downcity developments until financing for these developments have been closed upon and construction permits issued. Jen has been calling for this for years and she’s right. When the same thing happens 3 times (Grant’s Block, Sierra Suites, 110 Westminster) in 4 years, there needs to be recognition that a problem with the process exists and a change needs to be implemented. And to me, tens of thousands of square feet of surface lots where buildings once stood in a Downtown census tract that should be generating a high volume of economic activity is a problem.
The parcel is in Ward 11. Councilwoman Young:
http://www.providenceri.com/CityCouncil/ward11/ward11.php
while the situation for tearing it down was different, the fact is that the public safety memorial parking lot, and the old gulf station parking lot were created due to flaws in the “system,” although it certainly isn’t a flaw if you’re a developer, huh?
Rep. David Segal and others were trying to get a Demolition Bond bill passed earlier this year. Unfortunately, they did not get too far with it. I just emailed David and he said he was hoping to get it back on track in January.
http://www.gcpvd.org/2009/04/07/demolition-bonds/
Maybe they are waiting until there aren’t any buildings left.
That makes sense.
and along with this demolition comes providence’s newest surface parking lot
i take it those preserved murals from this building are long gone too. so much for the agreement for demolition, completely disregarded.
I have to agree with others that losing the facade itself is not the big deal. The big deal is 1) That once again the city doesn’t seem to have the backbone to enforce its own deals, and 2) that the developer is giving up on this spot. Can we please stop with the idea that these are temporary lots? They are temporary I guess until JWU has a 60,000 enrollment and needs the space, but that’s about it. This will be a surface lot until cars are no longer the individual mode of transport of choice, just like the rest of them.
I don’t have a real problem with taking a shot at 110. You have to gamble once in a while. The problem is taking that gamble along with the public safety gamble along with the fruit and produce gamble along with……..In other words if one of these things happen in a vacuum, you chalk it up to some bad luck/timing. When so many happen, you have to chalk it up to something else.
The zoning regulations with their limited understanding of how development and developers work is what needs to be addressed and changed. The construction of any new surface parking lots (temporary or permanent) should be banned from all downtown districts.
Why would any developer build a temporary “minimum” building, when for a small fraction of the cost can pave, stripe and landscape a fresh parking lot. The rate of return on investment for a parking lot is far greater than any other use. Besides, with a parking lot there’s relatively no demolition cost when the market is right to use the site build.
With all the hype around Providence’s renaissance and walk-ability, it’s strange how similar city’s CBD compares to Houston’s. With additional commuter rail service and planned downtown streetcar system the excuse that the only way for the city to succeed is to provide parking is misguided and dated.
Good luck trying to get Councilwoman Young to do anything.
Peter said: The question that needs to be posed to the city is “are surface parking lots any longer a legitimate land use anywhere Downtown?”
We’re planning on doing a Q&A for the mayoral candidates (and maybe the Governor candidates and some others). Sometime after the first of the year we’ll solicit questions from our readers and submit them to the candidates.
Note: We will not be making any endorsements.
Thom, if you really have the city’s interests at heart, you know that allowing them to having a “temporary” surface lot is not the right answer. The city needs to grow a pair and stand up to these developers who think they can just come in here and tear down a building with “plans” to build something “great” that we never see and then just turn to parking.
In my opinion, it’s high time we clean up city hall of everyone, including the council and mayor and start fresh with people who don’t have ties to the “old Providence”.
Jim, I’m sure that Thom really does have the city’s interests at heart. Unfortunately, it isn’t always as simple as growing a pair and saying no. There are legal and political issues that have to be balanced. That’s why it’s essential to identify what’s wrong with the regulations and then make changes.
Most developers around the country are now broke and the banks aren’t lending. It’s an easy shot for everyone to point at developer’s greed. Development is after all about making money. What it’s also about is building the city (all cities). What’s often overlooked is the real risk that the developers take in the attempt to realize their dreams of building the city.
Many developers have invested millions into sites that now can’t be developed. The Blue Chip folks are probably in a similar position with the 110 site and likely other sites. Think about buying the existing buildings (yes the ones that are now gone). What did they pay for them? What did they pay in architecture fees? How many times did the design review committee or other city officials make them revise their design? How much are land-use attorneys, traffic consultants, landscape architects, and mechanical and structural engineers? They paid these fees and are now left holding the bag and yes were unlucky enough to be caught at the end of the market.
Does Thom force a developer to go to court to claim a hardship by refusing to work with them? No, he and many in the city government, I would imagine are trying to help them. No one complained when Blue Chip paid for a Waterfire, a ways back. Now we’re all complaining about their proposed parking lot and façade demolition. The 110 site will likely become a parking lot. What we need to do is prevent this from happening to other sites and set a dialogue and assist all parties to find mechanism to make the city grow in a health way.
I’m sorry Peter, but the city doesn’t exist to help developers who bite off more than they can chew get out of financial jams.
The only interests a “temporary parking lot” serves is a developer’s, and that’s not enough impetus to continue to erode the urban fabric of the city.
The idea that we just need to get through “this one” and then we can put regulations in place is just crap and we all know it.
We have been through this nonsense entirely too many times in the past few years to know that this most certainly will not be the last of these buildings to be lost forever to the sea of asphalt and your suggestion that the city should somehow take pity on these poor souls who gambled money they didn’t even have is offensive at best.
They paid these fees and are now left holding the bag and yes were unlucky enough to be caught at the end of the market.
actually they were lucky. they would have been unlucky if they had spent the $100+ million building the tower during the boom years only to finish the project up now, selling very few units and losing the whole investment to the lender.
I’m sorry Jen, but if a new law is written that prohibits any and all new surface parking lots, temporary or permanent, throughout downtown then something positive will have come from this discussion.
If the developer doesn’t get their parking lot it really doesn’t matter. The urban fabric has already been eroded. The developer could simply ignore the city and all the rest of us and leave the site vacant for decades. How might that improve the eroded urban fabric?
We might succeed at blocking their temporary use and preserving a 1950s neoclassical facade, but if that is all that is achieved it would be a failure. What is needed is new unambiguous land-use laws that would prevent the kind of situation from reoccurring and that could serve to be the basis for re-building the city.
Peter – I agree as far as what type of legislation/ordinance passage is needed. Unfortunately, this is not the first time a discussion of this nature has arisen. Multiple demolition permits have been approved for the past few years now resulting in surface lots. Yet no such legislative revisions have occured.
WHY IS THAT?
Maybe the public pressure on the city is not large enough to make an impact. Until this happens, I am not optimistic that any tougher ordinances can be enacted. The passion of this group to make a positive change is inspiring and encouraging. However, we need our group to grow.
I think the public pressure is the crux of the problem. If you sit someone down and explain to them why it is not good to have parking lots all over town, they start to get it. But most people have this perception that there is a parking crisis in Providence and we are in desperate need of parking, so these ‘temporary’ lots are often seen as good by the general populace.
A public dialogue on the land-use surface parking issue could help the public to understand the severity and damaging effects of the surface lot problem.
Instead of temporary or permanent surface lots, how about garage structures? The city could incentivize garages over surface lots through real estate taxes or abatements, which could also help the city’s revenues. Are surface parking lots taxed at the same rate a vacant land?
The public perception of “not enough parking” could be alleviated, if a garage alternative were proposed. That fear should eventually die down as the downtown transit system improves, but unfortunately won’t for several years until the proposed Transit2020 streetcar system is constructed or a similar bus substitute is provided.
No one is willing to pony up the $ for parking garages, not when surface parking is being given away. Peter, i do understand your positions, and your optimism that a public dialogue could actually change thinking, but we’ve had those. Several times. The city is wrapping up almost three years of public dialogue. It doesn’t mean anything because frankly only the same folks come out to “dialogue” and the city generally ignores what they say as a result.
A temporary parking lot still requires a use change and that is where it can be denied. parking is not an inalienable right in Providence, though who would know that, based on decisions of the last 10 years?
I opened my store “Picture This” three years ago to join in the growth of downtown Providence. I moved right next door to the proposed 110 site. I suffered through some of the demolition. My walls cracked, my customers couldn’t stand the noise. Once they put up the barriers and the steel beams, people would not walk on my side of the street. I would stand in my window and watch everyone on the opposite side of the street. I since moved across the street to a larger storefront opposite the fake wall. I watch people look at the wall, snap photos and wonder! I say take the thing down…it is not doing any good for preservation, for the city, for the merchants, for the reputation of the city or anything else. It’s a hazard for traffic, the street can’t be repaved because the barriers are in the street ( they have patched the street so many times, the patches have patches. To say the very least, it is an eyesore. If you want to see downtown grow make room for it to grow.
Six other businesses have opened in the area since I moved here, Impulse Hair, Downcity Restaurant, Hampton Inn and Cafe LaFrance, The Cookie Connection, and Copacetic Jewelry. We all have a huge investment sitting on this street. The pedestrian traffic has been reduced by hundreds of people daily just because the Arcade closed, limiting the people access to get to Weybosset to shop, eat or get to their cars.
Again I say tear down the fake wall that really means nothing since it was built in the 1950′s, not 1791! Open up the area, parking is fine with me, God forbid should there be a place to park in downtown. There is no reason a tasteful nice park-like parking area couldn’t be put there until money is available for real development. Lets not be silly here, no developer is going to pay millions of dollars for a lot and put up a little parking lot for the long term. They are reponding to the merchants and the city to make the place look like something other than Downtown Beirut. This is not about the preservation of a historic building, this is survival if you are a business. Make room for people to crossover from Westminster to Weybosset without having to walk in the street or fall into one of the craters in the street or have to go all the way up to the CVS to cross over to Weybosset.
I have talked with literally hundreds of people in the past 3 years, very, very few are in favor of keeping that wall the historic preservation once they find out it was a 1950′s creation.
We have lost the Arcade, The Custom House Tap, and a half dozen or so companies, Textron is downsizing, Blue Cross has moved, so how does the downtown merchant survive if not for traffic. That traffic comes from having available parking, from allowing people access to cut across from Westminster to Weybosset. The options are clear have a fake wall and more businesses closing or lets move forward take down the wall and grow.
Of all people I would think your view would be different. You really think having a parking lot across from your store is going to increase your business? Think again. Yet another reason why I won’t be returning to your store. Let me guess, you would also vote Cianci back in office?
Sorry Michael
You are wrong, I do not support Mr. Cianci and never have! This is not about politics.
Perhaps you do not understand the business environment in the financial district of downtown. Ask the merchants, poll the people on the street ask them what they think of the great “non-historic” eye-sore, for the record….. I have!! I have talked to many more people than most people have, that wall is my neighbor, I’m there every weekday! If your home was across from a dilapidated building, I think you might think different.
Sure 110 was a great plan and I would love to see ANYTHING BUT a parking lot on that site, but to hold up one wall of a building in hopes of forcing any future developer to build “only if they will design a building that will connect to that wall that really has no value or meaning” makes little sense to me. Perhaps you have more knowledge of the history than I do, but since you choose to not leave your full name, who knows. I grew up in this city, I own two stores in Providence and one in South County, pay taxes, am active in many organizations, donate to dozens of non-profits, and contribute to the community. I am sorry we do not agree, sorry you will not be returning to my store and I’ll be very sorry if they leave this monstrosity standing for who knows for how long before the economy turns around enough for someone to build on this lot.
Michael, this is one you and I disagree on. That happens, not all people agree on everything. I guess we agree to disagree.
Next Comments →
{ 3 trackbacks }