Categories

More PawSox News

victory-place-pawsox-rendering

Rendering of a theoretical Victory Place stadium for the PawSox in the Jewelry District.

ProJo: PawSox owner Lucchino scouts Victory Place site

PawSox principal owner Larry Lucchino late Wednesday afternoon walked among the weeds of the Victory Place property in the Jewelry District as he looked for options to the team’s search for a new ballpark site.

[…]

Lucchino decided to look at the privately-owned Victory Place site in the Jewelry District, he said, after the people who packed a Tuesday forum on the Pawtucket Red Sox ballpark plan once again brought up the site as an alternative to the team’s preferred Providence River site.


ProJo: Federal agency insists on reimbursement if park land used for PawSox stadium

Months after the Pawtucket Red Sox first raised the prospect of building a baseball stadium in downtown Providence, discussions between state and federal officials continue about whether it’s permissible to commit the team’s preferred site to a private use.

If the site set aside years ago to become a public park is used for a commercial enterprise, the Federal Highway Administration would ask the state to repay the fair market value of that land, FHWA spokesman Doug Hecox told The Providence Journal.

The Feds aren’t liking giving the PawSox free land I guess. Feds might also be looking for money if we don’t end up building the Providence River Pedestrian Bridge, sigh.


RINPR: PawSox Stadium Vs Superman Building: The Battle Over Public Subsidies

A proposed ballpark for the PawSox in Providence and the vacant so-called Superman Building might seem to have little in common. Yet both raise questions involving economic development and the possible use of taxpayer subsidies.

Here’s a look at how the two projects stack up.


RI Future: Providence Riverfront I-195 Land Forum Audio

With over 200 people in attendance, Providence’s Point Street Dueling Pianos ended up being a hot ticket on Tuesday evening. The event, a forum about the proposed construction of a baseball stadium for the PawSox hosted by Harvard Business School Association of Southeastern New England and Leadership Rhode Island. In favor of the stadium were Syd McKenna, Listening Tour regular and Community Outreach Director for the team, as well as Patti Doyle, the team’s spokesperson. In opposition was Ethan Kent, Senior Vice President of Project for Public Spaces in New York, and Sharon Steele, Quality of Life Chair and Past President of the Jewelry District Association. The overwhelming majority of the room was in opposition and remained unconvinced by the end of the evening.

Visit the link to listen to the audio.

, , , , ,

14 Responses to More PawSox News

  1. KCB August 28, 2015 at 2:44 pm #

    Street retail along Eddy and apartments and a hotel between the stadium and the highway… I like this design better, as long as the streetcar is a done deal. Without the streetcar, I like the downtown location better for the stadium since there will be a hotel and apartment residences across the street, and its closer to downtown.

  2. Jef Nickerson August 28, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

    I’ve always argued the hospitals need a hotel in very close proximity. If we could get a hospital/stadium Holiday Inn I think that would be ideal.

  3. Gio August 28, 2015 at 4:05 pm #

    Where does It mention a hotel between the highway and stadium at this location?

  4. Steve August 28, 2015 at 7:04 pm #

    While the Victory Place could certainly work, frankly I am sick and tired of the same old birds singing the same old song – another tree/grass park!!

    Providence does not need another park! This folks think they live in Portsmouth, not PVD. I can walk to FiVE parks from my home in Wayland…five!

    What PVD needs is more density, more height, more people, more activity, not mor parks!

    Get that mediocre Congressional delegation to work and have the Feds withdraw the reimbursement idea…easily done.

    BUILD IT !!!

  5. KCB August 29, 2015 at 3:08 pm #

    There is no hotel proposal (yet), just dreaming.. From a pure revitalization standpoint, the Victory Place location needs it more, but it would take a lot of pedestrian traffic considerations. How are these people going to walk from parking and downtown to the stadium without disrupting normal vehicular traffic? Disrupting vehicular traffic downtown near the waterfront location is less of an issue, because, well its downtown. There is also 4-5 parking garages closeby (Garrahy and Brown proposed, and Central, Arcade, and PPAC already existing), and surface lots.

    Then there is the issue of the fact that there is a strip club across the street… Desires. Do they relocate? Does the City revoke their license and change the zoning?

    The traffic pattern near Eddy/Allen/Davol Sq. would have to be redesigned, as well. I live down by here and people already have enough difficulty with it.

    The presence of the power plant will actually make the site lines look cooler, it will look very industrial and the logo of the new stadium could show Manchester Street Station smokestacks in the design. Not being on the water, eliminates the potential for a water shuttle — which is disappointing. Unless a landing would be used on the other side of the Power Station or the South Street Landing development.

    I noticed that the big proposal to build the lab space/retail/hotel/apartments complex across the street from the stadium actually includes the stadium in the design they submitted. So perhaps they are valuing and expecting the stadium to be a done deal (if they are going to move forward). Together, as a package, they represent a way to make a leap forward in the Jewelry District neighborhood.

    This Victory design/proposal would also cost the City a great deal, but it would be more indirect costs, which are probably more palatable to the electorate.

  6. Andrew I August 31, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    The waterfront site is about the most perfect site I have ever seen for a minor league ballpark. So disheartening to see all this vehement opposition. Proper anger at stuff like 38 studios is inappropriately spilling over. I would love to see a stadium built there if it can be done with no subsidy or tax breaks besides a somewhat cheap, long term lease for the land.

    The proposed park that people are up in arms about will be active only along the waterfront, which any decent stadium layout will not interfere with. The interior of this park, any position where you can not see the surface of the water, will be one of those useless dead zone parks. I will take any bet right now.

    Oh, right, the park look nice through your windshield as you zoom by on Eddy St or the Point St. bridge.

  7. mp775 August 31, 2015 at 12:14 pm #

    Steve, et al – All that density, height, people, and activity – i.e. “development” – means there has to be a place for storm water to go that isn’t directly into the bay. Parcel P4 is designated as a park because it’s the designated stormwater retention area for the rest of the 195 land – build on it and the buildability of the rest of the land is in question. It’s disturbing that such an important variable keeps getting lost in the debate over public funds for private enterprise.

  8. barry August 31, 2015 at 12:46 pm #

    What this stadium has in common with 38 Studios is insider connections for getting public subsidy, taxpayers taking most of the risk, dubious economics, and mindless deference for sports mystiques from some fans. A minor league team playing a realtively few times a year on prime waterfront property is a ridiculous use of land needed not just for parks and runoff controls, but to spur real economic development (If a minor league team could spur development, where is it in Pawtucket?) so this is likely even worse than 38 Studios.

    I think it is outrgeous to oppose a park. Green space on waterfront land. which could also support cafes and art and markets, is the kind of attraction major cities use, we need more of it, not less. See Portland OR’s Wilammette River waterfrot for an example.

    Its time for the rich out of state Pawsox owners to move on to somethigb diffiernt, this time RI as woken up to their schemes.

  9. mothra August 31, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

    It that Cyd McKenna or Syd McKenna who is part of the listening tour? I am pretty sure that RI means Cyd McKenna, who was a Providence resident, small business owner on the west side, and close personal friend, and aide to Buddy Cianci for many years. It is very interesting that she has been tapped to be the Community Outreach person, since Mr Cianci has railed against it, hasn’t he?

  10. Gio September 1, 2015 at 9:01 am #

    I believe Mp775 has a great point about the run-off which is very important. And there hasn’t been growth in Pawtucket because its the bucket and its surrounded by lower income residences and industrial zones. The Providence site is surrounded by the busiest and most important square mile in the State in terms of economic growth and a river along with as many highway connections as you could dream of. Which is more attractive?

  11. Andrew I September 1, 2015 at 10:21 am #

    Runoff? Considering all the streets, buildings and parking lots, existing and yet to be built, and all the ways of dealing properly with runoff, or not, the claim that this particular park is indispensable because runoff smells like BS to me.

  12. mothra September 1, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    So, how was yesterday’s rally? I saw some pictures on facebook and read that 200 people were there… Anyone go?

  13. Forgotten Username September 1, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

    Andrew I,

    Runoff is a simplification. There is infrastructure under that land that handles the sewer overflow from the neighborhood. The Combined Sewage Overflow Project (total cost roughly 1/2 billion dollars) re-routes sewage to the Fields Point Sewage treatment plant.

    http://www.630wpro.com/2015/04/07/sewer-tunnel-could-be-in-the-way-of-new-pawsox-stadium/

    http://www.narrabay.com/ProgramsAndProjects/Combined%20Sewer%20Overflow%20Project.aspx

  14. mp775 September 8, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

    “Runoff? Considering all the streets, buildings and parking lots, existing and yet to be built, and all the ways of dealing properly with runoff, or not, the claim that this particular park is indispensable because runoff smells like BS to me.”

    The buildings, parking lots, etc. yet to be built are subject to regulations that weren’t in place when 195 was built – i.e., it can’t all just flow unimpeded into the river. One of the ways of dealing with it properly, so as not to capture it all in pipes and overwhelm the treatment facility, is to capture it in a retention area, which would be at the low point where it all collects – in this case, Parcel P4.

    And yes, this is an oversimplification. I deal only tangentially with stormwater design and know just enough to be dangerous.

    Anyone familiar with the Pawtucket Downtown Design Plan of a few years ago might remember a proposed riverfront park on the north side of Division Street where Pride Hyundai was. It’s the stormwater retention area for the rebuilt I-95. It wasn’t chosen to be the stormwater retention area because it was the site of a proposed park; it was proposed as a park because it was already a stormwater retention area. Same idea with Parcel P4.

Leave a Reply