Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j48ecfx wrote

Reply to comment by gusterfell in Share your opinion about Fane Tower by quinntronix

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