Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tru3no t1_j46avst wrote

Let it happen and stop trying to withhold progress and development with all the redlines with the bs of the historical community..

58

Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j47o7vi wrote

To be accurate, one of the main reasons people want to live in Providence is because of the historical BS.

So, we probably should pay attention to it.

9

gusterfell t1_j47t7r2 wrote

Agreed, but this tower does nothing to harm the historical BS. It's being built on a vacant lot that historically was a highway underpass.

11

Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j48ecfx wrote

The Jewelry District Association, and the PPS both disagree with your analysis.

Regardless of what you or I think, Providence is in part nicer now - and desired by developers - because of the efforts of the PPS, so if they are vocal about its deleterious effects than we should listen.

4

crimepais t1_j49ufse wrote

No offense, but I moved from Chicago and nothing about this area is unique or worth preserving. Providence needs to modernize badly and people worried about brown sites next to an oil depot aren't going to be attracting outside investment and people.

−2

Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j49vq7v wrote

I’m just a dude on the internet, you should tell PPS they’re wrong, not me.

Of course the way the timeline has gone, the chances he has the investors to get it done at all are pretty slim.

3

crimepais t1_j49w9bp wrote

Agreed this is not going through either way. Just annoying how anti growth this area is.

0

Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j49yho1 wrote

Not sure how long you’ve been here, but the construction in the 195 lands for the last 4-5 years has been explosive.

We are not anti growth.

We did however sign onto this 195 relocation project with the clear provision this area would remain mid rises to keep in line with the existing mill/office structures - and not only did us citizens sign on to that, so did all the developers that have already built whose values will be negatively impacted.

You really can be both pro-growth, and have an expectation that the state live up to its promises.

5

Dextrous456 t1_j4b35vb wrote

PPS is not anti growth. pay attention. They support tall buildings...in downtown and near 95, where community planning and professional planning efforts over the last few decades have said they should go, for a harmonious cityscape.

2

[deleted] t1_j46nbpo wrote

The same ones who call this an eyesore would cry if they took down that nasty bridge that’s stuck up.

5

crimepais t1_j49uzcl wrote

Exactly, never seen a place where people thought a stuck burned out bridge was a cultural site.

1

Dextrous456 t1_j4b39zf wrote

You probably don't like the way some steel cities have preserved their rusted out factories either, but those cities make a lot of hay with them.

2

waninggib t1_j46j3ct wrote

Can you provide a little insight as to how building a large tower full of luxury housing is considered progress for the city? I think I’m missing something here.

−15

wise_garden_hermit t1_j46p5gg wrote

Luxury buildings like this are a fishtank for rich people. They would live in Providence anyway. With this tower, they will be contained in one spot and not compete for lower tier housing.

19

waninggib t1_j46pvad wrote

Assuming what you’re saying is rooted in actual data and fact and not just an overall wild assumption, how exactly is that progress for this city? What does having another place for rich people to live do to better the lives of everyone else?

−9

wise_garden_hermit t1_j46r9no wrote

> Assuming what you’re saying is rooted in actual data

Yes. As [1] plenty [2] of [3] research [4] shows [5]. In terms of data & research, this is uncontroversial.

> how exactly is that progress?

Small steps. We need more housing. This is housing, however imperfect. I would appreciate more housing, be it constructed by the government or private development, towers or duplexes, apartment buildings or townhomes, I don't really care. There is a housing crisis. Let the housing get built.

13

waninggib t1_j46ttme wrote

None of the links you provided support your assertion that the rich people in the city will live here and no longer compete for housing with everyone else.

−9

wise_garden_hermit t1_j46uf4r wrote

Each of those links support the theory that market rate housing (what is usually termed luxury housing as a marketing ploy) leads to reductions in rent in the nearby neighborhood. The leading theory on why this empirical effect exists is that it increases slack in lower tiers of the housing market. Please, read the discussion section of these papers for further mention of this and other potential explanations. Or, better yet, search the literature yourself.

What is your theory of housing here? Do you think that this tower will attract people to Providence who otherwise would not have moved here? Where would wealthy people live otherwise?

8

waninggib t1_j46uu1c wrote

I think this tower is not the answer to the housing crisis in Providence and I think it’s naive to believe it is. Luxury development is not the solution in any of the links you provided. We don’t need this, we need our tax dollars to be invested in making more affordable housing, not to support the desire for a private developer to gain more wealth and power.

−2

wise_garden_hermit t1_j46vq1x wrote

I also don't think it's the solution. But I do think its new housing. And new housing is a solution, as evidenced by the existing literature.

Do I like this tower? No. Does it provide something that the city, state, and region needs? Yes. Could affordable housing be better? Sure. But the choice is not between this tower and affordable housing. The choice is between this tower and nothing.

We have barely built any housing in decades. It's a crisis. We are losing our privilege to be picky about what does get build. Just build the damn tower. We can build affordable hosing too. Or more market rate housing. Just build something.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j48hn22 wrote

>I think this tower is not the answer to the housing crisis in Providence and I think it’s naive to believe it is

Nobody has ever or will ever claim it is. But there's no solution that can skip past the "build a shit ton of new housing fast" part of the equation.

​

> We don’t need this, we need our tax dollars to be invested in making more affordable housing, not to support the desire for a private developer to gain more wealth and power.

Would your opinion on this be the same if there were zero tax dollars going towards it? Cause, boy, do I have a fucking newsflash for you

0

crimepais t1_j49vbhm wrote

Wealthy people have money, money gets spent on service industries like restaurants and result in a higher income tax base.

0

tru3no t1_j470z0b wrote

if building new is not progressing on Idk what progress is I'm so sorry.. we all should be still Leaving on tree branches like monkeys

−2