Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_isy1ur5 wrote

2k/month for the lowest tier, a fucking studio apartment.

That's... Ugh, these mother fuckers, I swear, are either greedy beyond belief or utterly ignorant, or both.

32

m1327 t1_isygiuk wrote

$1384/month .. Not that it's much better, but $600 less per month than what you've said.

15

sandsonik t1_isynlg8 wrote

You're wrong. $1384 is the price for a studio in one of the small number of units that will be set aside for affordable housing. The market rate for that 400-600 sf studio will be over $2000. $1384 for a studio isn't particularly affordable, IMO.

But worse, it re-sets the pricing bar for all other landlords. Expect $2000k+ to be the new norm for a one bedroom in PVD.

13

cowperthwaite OP t1_isyos6f wrote

"Also by comparison, the Regency Plaza apartments on Washington Street range in price from $1,350 to $1,840 for a studio, $1,495 to $2,355 for a one-bedroom, $2,195 to $4,600 for a two-bedroom and $2,390 to $3,245 for a three-bedroom."

From a story on apartments on Atwells:

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/10/14/21-apartment-units-planned-386-atwells-ave-demand-pushes-projects/10476256002/

According to a listing from realtor.com, at least one of the one-bedroom apartments in the building on Hewitt Street, at 432 square feet, is being rented for $1,825 a month.

5

heathervive t1_iszxc6t wrote

I moved to Brooklyn in September from providence after being in providence for 7ish years. I was blown away by the apartments in Brooklyn and how so many were the same price as providence. Def $2k will be the new norm for a 1 bedroom in providence. Its pretty terrible.

5

degggendorf t1_itq529i wrote

> You're wrong. $1384 is the price for a studio in one of the small number of units that will be set aside for affordable housing.

How does that make them wrong? The first person said the lowest tier is 2k/month. That isn't accurate; the lowest tier actually is $1,384.

There being too few units in that lowest tier doesn't change that fact that it's the lowest.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_isymqsq wrote

"Retail space would make up 27,000 square feet of space, the grand banking hall space another 26,000, and the amenity space for the residential units would take up 72,000 square feet.

The proposed market would vary widely, depending on size:

Studio: $2,071 to $2,289

One bedroom: $2,616 to $3,052

Two bedrooms: $3,706 to $4,142

Three bedrooms: $4,796 to $5,287"

2

Afitz93 t1_isymx9z wrote

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but rent everywhere is never going to get cheaper unless a city becomes a dump. There’s other things that need to be fixed instead.

12

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_isyomn4 wrote

> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but rent everywhere is never going to get cheaper unless a city becomes a dump. There’s other things that need to be fixed instead.

It may absolutely get more affordable (cheaper, even) if we stop fighting against progress. Too many news articles showing residents against affordable housing, making RIPTA free, complaining about new vehicle and housing incentives, etc.

The only thing here that needs to be fixed is likely education because RI'ers are fucking naïve. Constantly fighting against their best interests.

7

MassAtMass t1_isybutq wrote

What is the alternative? According to Smiley, the city has been unable to attract a corporate tenant, so the building was just going to sit empty.

23

TheSausageFattener t1_isylmsl wrote

Its been unable to attract a tenant due to a chicken and egg situation where the current owner has no interest in renovating the structure to attract said tenant. The owner has basically been stringing the state and city along using the prominence and cultural significance of the building as a bargaining chip to force them to subsidize the renovations.

24

nygrl811 t1_iszf4c6 wrote

👆 100%!!! So not fair to taxpayers. We're stuck funding the repairs.

9

Proof-Variation7005 t1_it3b2mq wrote

> using the prominence and cultural significance of the building as a bargaining chip to force them to subsidize the renovations.

Pretty much. I'm not even sure I'm mad the city and the state flinched first in the game of chicken. Waiting for the owner to just give up probably wastes another decade and I'm not even sure there's a way it costs less.

Not saying this was the best or even a good deal, but there were never going to be any good options.

2

Toast119 t1_isxyqx6 wrote

The whole promise of this project was to keep 30% of the apartments affordable. Why are we giving tax breaks to millionaire landlords when the project's idea of "affordable" is $2k/month?

Insanity.

16

ScatmanJohnMcEnroe t1_isy5zr2 wrote

I'm no fan of tax giveaways to developers, but the people who will pay the $2k/mo for downtown apartments are currently competing for housing with those who cannot, thus driving up prices. The city (and the country) need more housing of all types.

23

ggill1313 t1_isygic8 wrote

Yeah, $2k a month is doable for my household, but we bought a condo in Pawtucket instead, because we didn’t feel that anything else we were looking at was “worth” what they were asking - either to rent or to buy. But we got a great deal on this condo, which in my same building, some renters are paying ~$1,700/month for a single bedroom. In Pawtucket.

I know I’m quite privileged, I fully concede that, but I’m failing to appreciate how $2k/month in the heart of downtown PVD, in one of the most historic and iconic buildings, is being met with such ire. That was always going to be expensive. Frankly, the fact that, even if it’s just a studio, it will be close in price to some rentals in Pawtucket is impressive.

I’m all for affordable housing, but the lack of housing is what’s pushing up prices for everyone. Folks who make six figures are competing with folks making less than half that. Want that to change? Give people who are making six figures somewhere else to go.

Now, if you’re upset that folks living adjacent to poverty aren’t able to afford this location and historical significance, then I don’t know what to tell you.

17

Dopey-NipNips t1_it1un24 wrote

They're getting tax money in exchange for affordable housing

Where is the affordable housing? If it's not there then why are they getting tax dollars

3

nabokovsnose t1_iszut1i wrote

The problem is that they only ever build housing of one type.

1

dilly-dilly- t1_isz3am1 wrote

In that last slide of their public hearing, are we really moving kenndy plaza to have a parking lot replace that area? I had heard a few rumors it was either going to be like restaurants or they were going to expand the park. A private parking lot would be about the last thing that is needed smack in the middle of the city.

8

cowperthwaite OP t1_isz82z6 wrote

Good catch! I hadn't noticed that in the rendering. Will do some digging.

Thanks!

2

MassAtMass t1_iszawqi wrote

I believe most of the proposals do imagine the plaza as a park.

2

Ciabattabunns t1_it71m24 wrote

What about an underground lot like post office square 👀

1

ScatmanJohnMcEnroe t1_it0eguk wrote

Christ, no kidding. As if that area wasn't already a monument to the failure of car-centric urban planning.

2

Thick-Error-6330 t1_it7jle5 wrote

Originally I thought this was going to turn into affordable housing, seems like that isn’t the case.

2

LouSpudol t1_it0ar5y wrote

So we’re going to be left paying the 29M? Demolish the thing. It’s a building. I’d rather keep my money thanks.

0

the_falconator t1_it4kqju wrote

No. We are giving them $29 million off of taxes owed on the value of the building after renovation, which still results is higher revenue than what is being received now. Think of it as 50% of $1 rather than 100% of 25 cents.

3