Comments
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.
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.
cowperthwaite OP t1_isy86co wrote
Important links (in story as well):
Area median income limits for 2022 in RI:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22060608-fy-22-hud-income-limits#document/p1/a2115177
Costs for the apartments per developer's slideshow:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23166867-attachment-88001#document/p3/a2163082
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.
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.
m1327 t1_isygiuk wrote
$1384/month .. Not that it's much better, but $600 less per month than what you've said.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
[deleted] t1_isyxwt9 wrote
[deleted]
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.
cowperthwaite OP t1_isz82z6 wrote
Good catch! I hadn't noticed that in the rendering. Will do some digging.
Thanks!
MassAtMass t1_iszawqi wrote
I believe most of the proposals do imagine the plaza as a park.
nygrl811 t1_iszf4c6 wrote
👆 100%!!! So not fair to taxpayers. We're stuck funding the repairs.
nabokovsnose t1_iszut1i wrote
The problem is that they only ever build housing of one type.
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.
ScatmanJohnMcEnroe t1_it0eguk wrote
Christ, no kidding. As if that area wasn't already a monument to the failure of car-centric urban planning.
cowperthwaite OP t1_it0r5e8 wrote
Not receiving $29 million in revenue over 30 years.
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
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.
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.
Ciabattabunns t1_it71m24 wrote
What about an underground lot like post office square 👀
Thick-Error-6330 t1_it7jle5 wrote
Originally I thought this was going to turn into affordable housing, seems like that isn’t the case.
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.
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.