Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Jfrenchy t1_jbq2tgf wrote

This whole proposal has been baffling on a level I didn’t think was possible

58

TheSausageFattener t1_jbq3s9v wrote

Hopefully the next residential building there has a better possibility of actually happening instead of stringing people along.

12

Dunder72 t1_jbq4nc3 wrote

Fane and everyone else making money off this must be totally heartbroken. Everyone else...not so much

19

D-camchow t1_jbq4vdd wrote

development is slower than a snails pace here

9

jt_tesla t1_jbq7j2w wrote

Good - PVD just saved alot of money

5

HalfManHalfCornball t1_jbq8an9 wrote

From an opportunity perspective. With future growth and future opportunity in mind, would you say this is a loss or win for Providence?

13

relbatnrut t1_jbq9dok wrote

Good riddance. Hopefully they can plan something that a) is in scale with the development of the surrounding area and b) provides actually affordable housing

19

FunLife64 t1_jbqbqi9 wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,204,066)

Affordable housing is important, but downtown Providence on the river overlooking the most expensive stretch of Providence along Benefit Street….is not where affordable housing is found in any city.

It’s such a bad argument. It’s not this building OR affordable housing.

53

realbadaccountant t1_jbqfcbt wrote

The city just lost many millions. Instead of getting tons of property taxes the City gets nothing and the homeowners will have to make up the difference. Oh well. Not like there’s a housing shortage, pension deficit and educational crisis. I’m sure they have plenty of time to wait another 5 years so NIMBYs can prevent housing again.

10

JoeFortune1 t1_jbqg88o wrote

Replying to FunLife64 (#2,204,182)

Benefit street used to be a poor neighborhood before it became upscale as it is now. This is our city and we should be able to demand and create affordable housing anywhere we want.

−4

Vo_Mimbre t1_jbqi9o9 wrote

Only been in RI 13 years and this project confused me. It looked like it’d be the biggest building in an area that couldn’t support the traffic. The premise made sense, and affordable housing is super needed, and not just in areas that also require people have cars to get around.

21

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqk0kl wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,204,429)

The rent won't be low when there are more people competing for housing than there is available housing. Demand exceeds supply by a wide margin now and it's only getting worse.

There is no solution that isn't built on adding as many units as possible. We're beggars, not choosers.

14

TheSausageFattener t1_jbqkuag wrote

Replying to Jfrenchy (#2,203,776)

Investors probably agreed. From the article:

“Fane did not elaborate on specifics about the risk factors, and a spokesperson declined to comment further. But he previously said the old design was no longer feasible because of the increased cost to build the tower, prompting him to propose the new design in December.”

Somebody probably didn’t get financing.

38

ec_2000 t1_jbqlbkk wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#2,204,563)

This is true. Unfortunately, the whole process was a mixture of proposal and draft. I think there’s space for community input but we need to get rid of all the barriers for development and investment in the area. At the very least they should try to attract new out of state business to the area with incentives. RI’s economic indicators are so bad😭.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqlr0j wrote

Replying to jt_tesla (#2,203,988)

The city was spending nothing. The building had a tax break for when it got built, but the Fane building would still be paying a heck of a lot more than the $0 in tax revenue that Providence has collected over the last decade for the land.

8

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqm995 wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,204,296)

> If NYC can do it, Providence can do it).

New York City is the economic capital of the western hemisphere. The tax base is incredibly strong and Manhattan, the smallest borough, is still about 10% larger than all of Providence.

It's absurd to assume we're capable of that and that's without getting into the reality that the early 1950s and and early 2020s aren't exactly the same landscape.

Even then, New York City and Manhattan itself still aren't cheap. The rent on that development is great for the 6,000 or so households living in them but it didn't do a damn thing for everyone else.

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqmze1 wrote

Replying to ec_2000 (#2,204,632)

It's worth noting that the Fane project went through years of review and changes because of community input. Hell, it was originally going to be 3 buildings. I think the last design change was in the last year.

3

relbatnrut t1_jbqoemv wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#2,204,563)

Developers develop when it's profitable. It's profitable right now to develop luxury housing because owners can be sure that they will make a shitload of money in rent. It's not as profitable to develop affordable housing, since the rent recouped is far lower.

Yes, we should build. And one of the arguments for building is that rich people will stop occupying otherwise affordable housing and move into luxury developments. But there are only so many rich people, and at a certain point, building luxury housing will no longer be profitable and the filtering effect will diminish. Without that incentive, developers will have to accept a far lower profit and build housing for normal people, and it's not clear that they will do so.

That's why we need a public developer unmoored from the profit motive. It's also why we should fight to make sure larger allocations of affordable housing are included in luxury developments, because that's a unit you know will be affordable, as opposed to a theoretical unit that might open up because a rich person moves into a luxury development.

3

realbadaccountant t1_jbqp8t9 wrote

Replying to NickRick (#2,204,803)

So do you honestly believe housing stays empty forever if they’re considered “luxury” and nobody can pay that price? Or do they eventually reduce the price to whatever the market will allow, get filled, the new occupants old houses become vacant, and so on. Because that is how economics works my friend.

5

FunLife64 t1_jbqq3f4 wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,204,428)

They were built 70 years ago in a neighborhood that wasn’t (and still isn’t) prime in Manhattan (relative). NYC is an interesting case in affordable housing but it’s also ridiculously competitive and certainly not the most fair….

Also, the Fane Tower’s location is prime. It’s like the equivalent of Upper West Side - walkable to midtown and Central Park views??not equivalent to the Lower East Side circa 1950s. NYC is a terrible example. Lol

4

FunLife64 t1_jbqrii4 wrote

Replying to JoeFortune1 (#2,204,396)

If Rhode Island had more development and jobs…the housing wouldn’t be so unaffordable….

The median household income in Mass compared to RI is a 22% difference.

We lack good jobs because we don’t have good economic development and chase everything out of town because of things like it’s too tall, it blocks the abandoned Superman building, it’s too modern.

People tried to push against a building next to the interstate and Trader Joe’s that was proposed to be a company’s headquarters….because of TRAFFIC. Are you joking? What 8 story office building next to highway on/off ramps creates widespread traffic problems.

8

relbatnrut t1_jbqtf8l wrote

Replying to realbadaccountant (#2,204,834)

In practice what this has done is shift the demographics of Providence, attracting rich people from Boston and New York who can afford higher prices. It's not that no one can pay these prices (see: Providence's population growing even as housing prices rise exponentially). It's that the people who can pay those prices aren't the same people in Providence who need housing.

1

Duff_Lite t1_jbqujj7 wrote

Fane Tower is dead. Long live Fane Tower.

5

Wide_Television_7074 t1_jbqv5ce wrote

hearing people be so anti-development is so sad… you people are anti-progress. I don’t want to hear your excuses and weak attempts at rationale. this is a loss for the city and the state.

9

diskimone t1_jbr1w1f wrote

Replying to realbadaccountant (#2,204,370)

Taxes from what? The building itself was getting an enormous tax break to be built, and the people it was catering to work out of state or are students. Sure, there would have been a couple businesses on the first level, but not enough to account for millions in tax revenue. My whole problem with the entire boondoggle was there was no clear way for the city to make money on it.

14

lightningbolt1987 t1_jbr22nh wrote

Replying to Vo_Mimbre (#2,204,483)

Residential buildings with limited parking actually don’t generate that much traffic. 200 parking spots may only yield 20 cars coming and going at any given hour, especially in a center city environment and with remote work.

14

diskimone t1_jbr2pwp wrote

For those of you saying the city lose millions, where was that money coming from? The tax break on the building meant it would be paying nothing for decades, the units it was going to offer were going to be way more expensive than most of the city can afford(they were clearly targeting rich kids at Brown and people who work in Boston or NY but don't want to live there,) and the businesses it was going to house were going to be pretty small scale, like a bodega and maybe a gym. I don't see anything about this deal that was going to bring in ANY significant money to the city. I was fine with the building, it was the giant tax break that made me pause. The city has made many, many deals like that. None of them have worked out for Providence.

15

JoeFortune1 t1_jbr4l3k wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#2,204,642)

If there is land for luxury condos, that land can be used for other things as well. Supposedly some trickle-down effect from a project like Fane will eventually benefit the people who actually need affordable housing in Providence. I don’t think it benefits the people who need it

1

jconti1233 t1_jbr7d95 wrote

I've had such mixed feelings about this development. What is honestly best case scenario for this piece of land?

2

MahBoy t1_jbrcuvi wrote

Replying to realbadaccountant (#2,204,834)

The median income in Providence is less than 30K/yr.

Yes, they do stay empty.

Things like this are not built because units get filled. They get built so they are hard assets on somebody's books. They get built because they're expensive tax write-offs that can be used as a 30-year asset class. They get built due to real estate speculation. None of those reasons provide any real benefit to anybody except the developers and the construction unions.

Considering that public land is being used here, there should be measurable public benefit for any development that occurs on it.

5

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_jbrkvaa wrote

Replying to kickstand (#2,206,320)

Oh I’m sorry, what’s the bottom limit for the number of people employed for 3-5 years with good salaries where you’d put your taste aside? All construction jobs are temporary, and the only thing that keeps construction workers employed is more construction. So this would have been a massive boost for all those people that Reddit appears to care for.

It would have been such a boost that every union was behind this project.

And your idea of an eye sore is your opinion, I would have liked to have seen this built since it would spur more to be built. This building is a leap and a jump ahead of the art deco of the Superman Building or the International design of One Financial.

And everything is better than the Brown University Brutalist library’s on Waterman.

−6

redd-this t1_jbrm9ge wrote

What an obscene design. Looked like the lamp in a Christmas story to me. Good riddance with this plan.

−1

werewolfmanjack t1_jbropeb wrote

Replying to SaltyNewEnglandCop (#2,206,351)

There are things in this life that I bet you are an expert on, and I respect that. I’d side with you on whatever they are, but with architectural critiques, no - the distasteful mediocrity of the former fane tower was part of its doom. Imagine if the design had inspired? It would be getting built. It failed. This isn’t Dubai, we don’t go for that kind of soulless shit.

8

lightningbolt1987 t1_jbsl5pc wrote

Replying to MahBoy (#2,206,005)

This just isn’t true. Developers do not want empty buildings and risk default if they are empty. You’re talking about luxury condos bought by rich investors. What you’re talking about doesn’t apply to apartment buildings.

4

realbadaccountant t1_jbspiip wrote

Replying to diskimone (#2,205,481)

News flash: we want people from out of state with money moving here. They bring high education levels, improving the labor market and attracting business.

But even ignoring that point, the taxes would be from the businesses and people living in that building along with all the jobs building it would have created for several years, and the additional businesses that would have been able to open as a result of the influx of high earners providence sorely needed for its tax base.

But even ignoring that indisputable point, we need more units of housing EVERYWHERE at all levels. This is basic supply and demand. Now we get nothing for at least 10 more years. Watch as NIMBY heads explode at whatever new project is proposed. They will find some excuse.

8

FunLife64 t1_jbswzxc wrote

Replying to ec_2000 (#2,204,632)

What people fail to see in this topic is that RI doesn’t have good jobs. You can only make barebones construction so cheap. So maybe if people in this state had better job opportunities they’d also make more money!

3

Oblivious-abe-69 t1_jbsy92j wrote

Replying to realbadaccountant (#2,207,826)

Luckily RI/Prov has some decent renters protections, like absent landlords pay more in taxes, collecting last months rent isn’t allowed. however with or without new housing eventually a lot of the less nice areas will get gentrified as more and more people move to the city

5

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbt0voy wrote

Replying to JoeFortune1 (#2,205,611)

I think building affordable housing at the scale needed to make a dent takes a lot more than one parcel of land. And the city and state definitely can not afford it.

The net result of this tower not happening is we’ll have the same increasing amount of people competing for an amount of housing that isn’t increasing proportionally. Realistically, we need to be adding thousands apartments at every price point. Prices will always be high if demand outpaces supply

4

Synchwave1 t1_jbt186w wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,204,066)

Affordable housing is important from a humanitarian perspective and a horrible investment. For a city facing long term budget deficits, it can’t afford to give up prime land targeting individuals who will provide very little to the economic growth and stability of the city.

It’s not the kindest take, but it’s reality.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbt1bca wrote

Replying to diskimone (#2,205,481)

A tax break doesn’t mean $0 in property tax. And residents who work for an out of state job still pay income tax. They still buy things and pay sales tax. They still patronize local businesses.

Right now, the city and state are on like year 12 of making $0 off that land. This project dying guarantees another 5+ years of that.

9

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbt26wz wrote

Replying to diskimone (#2,205,519)

The TSA had them paying nothing in property tax for 3 years, not decades. The building would’ve been paying about 80 million over the first 20 years total, even with $0 in years 1-3.

By the end of year 20, they’d be paying about $9 million per year.

Idk what to tell you beyond I think you were basing your opinion off some wildly incorrect information

source here

7

TheSausageFattener t1_jbt80tl wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#2,208,391)

The issue is this is a “would” have if it would have gotten built. There didn’t seem to be a reality here where this actually got built unless we lived back in 2015 with incredibly low interest rates.

This prostration for some vanity tower from a minor out of state developer whose marketing oozes with insincerity about how much they care about RI (just enough to convince gullible politicians) is laughable. Lets get somebody in that parcel who’ll actually build something, like a 30 story mixed use complex with some offices. Maybe seek a flagship private firm to set up a branch in there. Lets get all those parking lots near it upzoned as well.

This project was a pig with lipstick being called a prize hog. The state needs a comprehensive development strategy around major employment and transit corridors, not big shiny one-offs.

0

meme-scraperr t1_jbthyst wrote

Replying to jconti1233 (#2,205,745)

A building just like that one Lol. It would stretch downtown by several blocks and I promise the rest of the jewelry district would have seen revitalization. If you’ve driven through that area then you know it’s mostly parking lots and 1 story box stores

4

meme-scraperr t1_jbtijg3 wrote

Replying to MahBoy (#2,206,005)

The public benefit is that the rich kids who are buying up all the housing downtown and in fox Point can live there and open up housing for poor people it’s not hard to understand

6

JoeFortune1 t1_jbtkwvw wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#2,208,328)

I could be incorrect but from what I’ve seen there have been multiple towers and other luxury buildings opened to high end buyers/tenants that had a very difficult time filling up and with a lot of empty spaces. Building these high end towers might theoretically lower prices down the road a few years-maybe.

The state needs to be creative and make some budgetary changes in order to afford to build housing. The state can’t afford it and people can’t afford their rent. So the only solution I ever see proposed is to build luxury condos. It’s a stretch to say this will benefit the working class and poor

1

frenetix t1_jbtm25v wrote

Replying to meme-scraperr (#2,208,974)

Look at the Seaport District in Boston. Just 20 years ago, it too was just a wasteland full of parking lots. Then as Boston real estate prices soared, it made sense to develop there. Now it's full of residential units, offices, restaurants, night life. East Cambridge went through a similar transformation. It's not my cup of tea- I find it soulless, but it increased the amount of available housing (relieving pressure elsewhere) and increased the city's tax base. The same can be done here with the Jewelry District and other I-195 parcels.

3

total_life_forever t1_jbtrzwz wrote

Replying to FunLife64 (#2,208,150)

The unavoidable problem is that any large business is going to want tax breaks and other perks that really make their coming here not a big coup for state and local governments. The hypermobility of capital has created a race to the bottom in this regard - the only way to compete with other locales for "job creation" is to give up damn near every benefit in favor of wooing the corporation. At that point you're pinning all your hopes on trickle down economics (good jobs will be created, and they'll have higher wages!) but even that is misleading because corporations routinely depress wages and conduct mass layoffs. RI doesn't have good jobs, and barring a wave of change addressing the inherent flaws in capitalism, it's mostly going to stay that way.

1

total_life_forever t1_jbtsf0s wrote

Replying to Synchwave1 (#2,208,341)

Your take is missing the corresponding, accompanying fact that, countrywide, corporations and billionaires should be properly taxed to address precisely this kind of situation.

It's really a glaring thing to omit. We know what the solution should be, it's just unpopular amongst political donors.

−1

ghogan1010 t1_jbtsv5p wrote

Replying to total_life_forever (#2,209,358)

I don’t live in the world of make believe and utopia. In a perfect world a lot of things happen. In reality affordable housing doesn’t draw anything that historically leads to economic growth and prosperity.

If I want hypotheticals I’ll take a philosophy class. Business deals in what is it. Reality is reality regardless of what something should be. Affordable housing units can be a part of a broader initiative. The city is guilty of lacking forward planning.

4

total_life_forever t1_jbttfgn wrote

Replying to ghogan1010 (#2,209,376)

So you don't think change is achievable in the political progress? You don't believe in democracy? Because the solution is sitting right there.

Your self-defeating (and kinda smug) attitude is a major obstacle in attaining this.

−1

FunLife64 t1_jbtwvz5 wrote

Replying to total_life_forever (#2,209,339)

Giving tax breaks to companies is a standard practice to attract businesses - every single state does this.

There are certainly better “deals” than others.

But again - stomping feet and doing nothing to maintain perfect ideals is leaving Rhode Island behind.

It goes with this project too. We need housing!!! But actually it’s too tall and I don’t love the design and it will block me from taking pictures of the Superman Building. So I’ll complain anywhere I can to try to sabotage the project.

It’s just not a helpful mentality. Same with the example I mentioned above - people were against bringing a sub-10 story building company HQ to an undeveloped plot of land….cause of traffic concerns.

There’s a loud subset of population here that is literally against any development that’s not exactly what THEY want.

2

JuciestDingleBerry t1_jbu0h9s wrote

Replying to frenetix (#2,209,115)

Well I agree the seaport needed some revitalization, all they did was put up luxury housing and a bunch of glass buildings. Let's raise the price of almost everything in the area, it's a neighborhood for the affluent and Rich and a place for us people who don't have a lot of money to go spend what we have. There are other ways to boost the economy, to add affordable housing, to even make an area look nice. And so many ways the Boston seaport has had negative impacts on the city, what if they made a bunch of mid-level housing over there like in Europe? Banned cars on the road over there? It'd be a beautiful walkable place and you'd be able to create community. The seaport sucks and I'd hate to see that happen to Providence

2

ghogan1010 t1_jbu2p3u wrote

Replying to total_life_forever (#2,209,399)

I don’t think we value the same kind of change. I want progressive development to create solvency that enables the city to focus on humanitarian efforts. You can’t start at the bottom and work upwards, that’s not how the world works.

Unfortunately, those with the least to contribute at least in terms of job creation and revenue are the last to reap the benefits. It’s capitalism at work. I’m of the mindset you promote and develop a sound economic policy and you invest in entitlement with the reward of successful policy. There’s plenty of sections of the city and of Pawtucket and surrounding areas that would be perfect areas for affordable housing. Waterfront property minutes to downtown of the State Capital should literally never even be considered for such a project.

4

ghogan1010 t1_jbui2nt wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,210,254)

And unless you’re looking to subsidize the private citizens who own those properties and charge rents based off supply and demand, Peter Pan is waiting for you in Neverland.

There’s a BILLION scenarios that would’ve could’ve should’ve. Let’s deal with what is. What is is a great opportunity for Providence to have a renaissance within the downtown and bordering areas. They can become a higher end community that attracts a lot of great businesses and reflective of a State Capitol that sits beautifully between Boston and New York. The benefits of that will be a city filled with vibrancy able to spend on other projects that can help affordable housing, etc.

3

relbatnrut t1_jbuipei wrote

Replying to meme-scraperr (#2,208,996)

And then more rich people from Boston and New York are attracted to a perfect little gentrified city and more luxury housing is built and rents are still sky high but it's okay because the filtering effect will probably kick in sometime around 2045 and housing will finally be affordable.

1

relbatnrut t1_jbuiyhy wrote

Replying to ghogan1010 (#2,210,278)

> And unless you’re looking to subsidize the private citizens who own those properties and charge rents based off supply and demand, Peter Pan is waiting for you in Neverland. >

I'd rather have rent control but you do you

−2

ghogan1010 t1_jbujj76 wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,210,312)

Rent control won’t lower rents. It’ll slow the pace of rental increases. Something I’m completely on board with and I own rental properties. I think there’s been too much advantageous gouging in the last couple years.

Again reality vs fiction. You’re never going to eliminate the landlord/tenant dynamic. It’s been around forever in various forms. You can restrict, make it more tenant friendly, but at the end of the day tenancy/affordable housing does not accomplish much more than making a select group of people feel better about themselves. Rising tide raises all ships. Raise the tide of Providence economic situation, all classes will benefit. They won’t benefit downtown or in immediate areas, but they’ll benefit.

3

ghogan1010 t1_jbula6t wrote

Replying to relbatnrut (#2,210,360)

Of course it does. The poorest of the poor in this country and this area live lives that people in other parts of the world or other parts of the country would kill for.

It’s a matter of perspective. Poor are never not going to be poor. There’s always going to be someone who has more than someone else. But success, growth, capitalism allow programs like Obamacare, voucher programs, snap benefits to exist. Progress requires success. It’s a step in the process most “community advocates” can’t seem to grasp. You can’t create something from nothing.

1