Want More Free?
To access 2 more articles, please log in or register for free.
Registered users get access to a limited number of free articles every month.
Already registered? Login to access more free articles.
Want to share this story? Click Here to purchase a link that allows anyone to read it on any device whether or not they are a subscriber.
- Advertisement -
The I-195 district commission continues to make “safe” unimaginative decisions on developments on the available parcel and I disagree with this move for several reasons. 1) The City of Providence is financially strapped and this fact argues for the larger investment proposed by DMV. 2) This 344 unit building not only was bigger, it offered up more diversity its its units with 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. By approving yet another loft, studio, 1 bedroom building catering to millennials and students the commission’s action does not provide diversity to the residential components of the district and the older, empty nester, well heeled demographic is lacking in downtown Providence. How many brewpubs do we need in downtown?? 3) Providence needs to address its population situation because the upcoming census will go far in determine the amount of federal money coming our way. The commission ignores that the strength of Providence is its density and one way to improve density is by “going up” in residential height. The rejected 13 story, 344 unit building meets this criterion more than what was approved. 4) The !-195 district is increasingly dominated by low rise, squat unattractive buildings (for proof, see the ugly cube erected on Hospital Street). More diversity in architectural style and mass would help the look of the area.
I agree with you except the ugly cube comment. The six story cube replaced a squat two story building and added both residential and commercial. It’s not the most pretty building but it is better than what was there. I am not opposed to buildings of this type filling in small parcels as they add density. I think they should build a twin of it next door and get rid of the shack next to it.
I do agree that we need large dense buildings in the district and I also preferred the 344 unit concept. It also had a much larger commercial footprint planned which would add to the area. We don’t need transient housing, we need places for professionals to live and work.