How much housing in the I-195 Redevelopment District is too much? Three of the four district parcels that have received approval for new development, or are under construction, will support new apartments. Many more residential projects have been proposed.
This reflects the current market for downtown construction, but the I-195 Redevelopment District Commission is looking further ahead. It’s considering whether to restrict housing construction on several of its largest available parcels to make sure it has land available for commercial space.
The argument in favor of this is what many see as the core mission of the district – to support new buildings that will provide jobs.
But restricting residential development from parcels in the district also could artificially stop construction of more apartments, which the city also needs.
The commission is going to hash it out in a meeting in January before settling on a final draft, and scheduling a public hearing. The new guidelines will shape what kind of development can happen on the I-195 district land, which was freed for economic development with the relocation of the highway.
The idea of restricting residential development from specific lots sparked a quick reaction from some commission members in a meeting last month. The proposal to do so – reserving parcels 22, 25, 27, 34 and 35 in the Jewelry District for commercial uses only – was made by design consultant Utile Inc., of Boston.
“Why would we do that?” asked commission member Michael McNally, a former executive of the international construction company Skanska. “I think that we’re all frustrated by the fact that we have way more residential than we would want. The fact of the matter is the market is strong for residential. … I don’t know why we would want to send that message.”
Commission Chairman Bob Davis said a long-term plan is needed, as well as a development balance. “We would likely be flooded with all residential proposals. And we would end up undoubtedly in serious overload,” he said. “And the land would be gone. The thinking is we need to send some messages about what we would want to happen.”
Davis, contacted after the meeting, said the commission needs more time to have a discussion about its priorities, and ideally get on the same page. The bottom line, he said, is the district still has a lot of land to develop.
It needs to have an innovation focus for some of the parcels. Two of the five parcels discussed as commercial-only already are intended for Wexford Science & Technology, he noted. Many other parcels could still be developed with housing.
“What motivates my concern is you want to blend a critical mission of innovation and technology and having that be proximate is really important,” he said.
Advocates for housing, meanwhile, say it’s important for the commission to consider development in context with city and regional needs.
Brenda Clement, director of HousingWorks RI at Roger Williams University, said the state needs more housing units. But exactly where and at what rental rates is a planning concern that should include the I-195 land.
“It’s complicated. We need more housing units. The market units are going to be driven by market forces and where developers want to build,” she said. “Putting restrictions on that obviously seems to be problematic. But I also understand … the need for balance. … It should be part of a citywide conversation.”
Mary MacDonald is a PBN staff writer. Contact her at Macdonald@PBN.com.
