195 Providence Innovation & Design District

New England Born & Raised said:

Providence breaks ground for new park pavilion at 195 District Park

turnto10.com turnto10.com
Click to expand...
Much of the 195 Park is now fenced off with prep work on the pavilion taking place.
IMG_20241006_145520946.jpg
 
New England Born & Raised said:
Disagree. It is a park and a low rise small building makes sense there.
Click to expand...
in a housing crisis we don't need all this space concentrated in one area for park space. there are three other parcels on this lot and the whole river front as parks. I would have liked to see them try and get those old brick power buildings on the other side of the park and redevelop them as a place the pavilion is gonna be, a smaller scoped timeout marketplace in DUMBO. add in a small modern park amphitheater right by the river for free small concerts/poetry etc and you have an inviting place with ample park space and people living close by to enjoy it. like the capital park. just empty space that at lease some can be used for development
 
sdarcy274 said:
in a housing crisis we don't need all this space concentrated in one area for park space. there are three other parcels on this lot and the whole river front as parks. I would have liked to see them try and get those old brick power buildings on the other side of the park and redevelop them as a place the pavilion is gonna be, a smaller scoped timeout marketplace in DUMBO. add in a small modern park amphitheater right by the river for free small concerts/poetry etc and you have an inviting place with ample park space and people living close by to enjoy it. like the capital park. just empty space that at lease some can be used for development
Click to expand...

People also need public space to exist. That is also important for community and I believe those brick buildings were already redeveloped. We have a bunch of housing under construction or approved in the area already. Let people have green space
 
ctsketch said:
People also need public space to exist. That is also important for community and I believe those brick buildings were already redeveloped. We have a bunch of housing under construction or approved in the area already. Let people have green space
Click to expand...
Agreed. Plus there are even more open parcels still available that could be used for housing
 
I'll add my voice to the "this is a good thing" camp. For starters, the park is a great public space. It's beautiful, vibrant, and active. This pavilion will be an unobtrusive way to activate the space even more (and for all seasons). And while I'm certainly an advocate for more housing development, there are plenty of undeveloped 195 parcels, surface parking lots, and other un/underutilized land in the area that can be used for that purpose. The addition of the pavilion doesn't limit housing development, nor does it take away from the park. It's a pretty clear win.
 
There are few parcels left on the district sites that would make for good housing, unless you want educated professionals to live out by the highway across from the hospital lol. Surface parking lots, and other underutilized plots sound great, and we should push for development there always but historically how has that worked out in prov? they are privately owned with private interests. The state controls this land, that is important in this context. You can also make an argument that at least one of two of those (smaller) plots or surface lots in the jewelry district would be better served as a park, esp. around the new housing there, because there is very little park space there, and park proximity should be equitable.

The park is a great space and location, I dont believe its beautiful, vibrant, or active, yet. One, its just grass as of now, fine, but that's not vibrant or beautiful, the proximity to the river, entrance to the pedestrian bridge and the parks along the river is what gives it that potential. Current estimates have about 5k people (in peak times) using the park a day. that's..... ok. A bakery and brewery, IMO wont bump those numbers up in winter at all, esp with a new food hall minutes away. With that said, adding housing in with the park pavilion, and the parcel the faine tower was on, would add more park goers and would slightly enclose the rest of the park parcels at the street, which there still is an abondance of space (esp considering the river walk aspects of the area), and make it feel like a more urbanized park, not just a field where development stopped. This to me, runs the risk of the capital district park. just a field of grass that not enough people use.

Green spaces are needed. preservation is needed. but these things can also be used by NIMBYS and people who don't live in the city to keep what works for them when they drive in to visit.... this is SUPPOSED to be an innovative district.. I am still waiting on that part, or will providence fall short, once again. The 195 district hasn't made very many great decisions. This pavilion might just be ok, like the rest of the decisions being made.
 
sdarcy274 said:
There are few parcels left on the district sites that would make for good housing, unless you want educated professionals to live out by the highway across from the hospital lol. Surface parking lots, and other underutilized plots sound great, and we should push for development there always but historically how has that worked out in prov? they are privately owned with private interests. The state controls this land, that is important in this context. You can also make an argument that at least one of two of those (smaller) plots or surface lots in the jewelry district would be better served as a park, esp. around the new housing there, because there is very little park space there, and park proximity should be equitable.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with educated professionals living on the parcels closer to the highway? They're still within walking distance to just about everything downtown (as well as the hospitals where, surely, some of them may work) and they have good highway access. Are you surprised that people have opted to living in new units at 580 S. Water or that developers felt building Tempo was worth it? The entire point of redeveloping these parcels is to create a more cohesive urban neighborhood. Housing is a big part of that. If not housing, what would you propose for those parcels?

The best way to incentivize redevelopment of the private parcels is to continue to develop the publicly owned parcels and continue the development momentum in the area. I'm all for an additional small park in the Jewelry District, but it would have to come from the public land. There's zero incentive for a private owner to convert a profit-generating lot to a park, nor is any developer going to turn one into a park that doesn't make them money.
sdarcy274 said:
The park is a great space and location, I dont believe its beautiful, vibrant, or active, yet. One, its just grass as of now, fine, but that's not vibrant or beautiful, the proximity to the river, entrance to the pedestrian bridge and the parks along the river is what gives it that potential. Current estimates have about 5k people (in peak times) using the park a day. that's..... ok. A bakery and brewery, IMO wont bump those numbers up in winter at all, esp with a new food hall minutes away. With that said, adding housing in with the park pavilion, and the parcel the faine tower was on, would add more park goers and would slightly enclose the rest of the park parcels at the street, which there still is an abondance of space (esp considering the river walk aspects of the area), and make it feel like a more urbanized park, not just a field where development stopped. This to me, runs the risk of the capital district park. just a field of grass that not enough people use.
Click to expand...

I say "beautiful" because it has riverside walkways on both sides, skyline views, bridge views, and a great centerpiece in the pedestrian bridge. That's more than most parks out there (in Providence or beyond). I'm not sure what you're comparing the 5k figure to to come up with an "ok" rating, but I can't imagine anyone passing through the park during the nicer months thinking that it's not a very active space. I've spent a good deal of time there this year, and it's almost always very active. The beer garden already draws a crowd and it's nothing more than a trailer and some crappy folding tables on the grass. There's no way that a more permanent structure doesn't improve upon that. This reminds me quite a bit of Trillium's space in the Fenway. A small pavilion which is self-contained in the colder months and expands greatly into the surrounding green space during the warmer months. It's always busy. And it's right next to a food hall which doesn't seem to hurt business at all (the place is packed year round) because they're very different businesses serving different functions. The food hall won't have an impact on patronage of businesses in the pavilion. At all.

This isn't at risk of becoming the Capital District Park. It's already better. Its edges are better activated, and the interior space is better utilized. The walkways are more inviting and the connection to the river and nearby residential area is better. The trees will continue to mature and make it look more established. The pavilion will help with that too. I like housing as much as the next guy, but adding housing to a pavilion in a public park is really not ever an option. It's a nonstarter as it defeats the purpose of a small, publicly accessible space in the middle of the park. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the lack of it here. Do you know of many other park pavilions with housing?
 
Comparing the Fenway area and a city like Boston to providence as a whole, and specifically to the area of PVD we are talking about doesn't work. the density in that area of Boston far exceeds anywhere remotely close to any area of providence, not to mention a community and tourist attraction like Fenway park so of course the traffic is worlds different. there is also incredibly dense housing built in that area, which is what ironically I am advocating for. There are still small parcels of 195 district land that can be used in the jewelry district for park space, but nothing ideal,. the eastern part of the plot the JWU student center (what a waste of land that one is) comes to mind. The state could also buy a small lot and convert it from private ownership and sell a district parcel for development to cover the cost.

In general you would be hard pressed to find young higher income professionals that want to live next to a highway, at the edge of a city compared to a park and river setting downtown. is PVD trying to attract these types of people, or just fill holes? like you suggested, district park is still close to the hospital too for workers, they are also building good amounts of housing near the hospital. hospital workers also tend to live here already, so you dont see growth. PVD SHOULD be trying to poach residents from an even more expensive city in Boston and even outlining cities like cranston, EP, Pawtucket etc. You will also be hard pressed to find a consensus that anything outside the wexford building and the pedestrian bridge that the 195 commission has done even to an average level. So I am not hung up on anything, I am giving my opinion on development on a development thread, if that is threatening or feels hostile to you, I would say that's a you problem.

Everyone says they arent against housing but then somehow always finds a way to be against housing. The question isn't have I seen park pavilions with housing, the question is, have I seen a city open so much prime real estate to do utterly average things with it. Adding housing with a pavilion extending out on the river side is absolutely doable. the pavilion isn't in the middle of the park, its on the southern edge. I would be less critical of no housing on any of these parcels if there was adequate housing density, or the realistic potential for more in the immediate area but there just isnt. a research center and a half full hotel isnt going to cut it if you want more out of a city than average.

Providence is not a growing city, its a stagnate city. how do you get it to grow? you attract people. I reject the notion that we already have enough housing being built. a few hundred units isnt nearly enough right now, never mind to attract new residents. Again, i am not suggesting we have no district park, i am saying there is/was room for both. I am advocating for what I feel would make a more dynamic park, even adding in that monstrosity Brown is making them build on parcel 14.

We don't even have to be too original and innovative (an innovative district at that lol). look at something like Bryant Park in NYC. What makes that park so unique and beloved is that its directly enclosed by urban growth and buildings. If other peoples respectful opinions is triggering to you, I suggest you dont engage, Have a good one though.
 
Last edited:
You're kind of all over the place here. A couple of points:
  • Fenway's density vs. the area around the park isn't really the point. The park is already active. As is the beer garden that already exists. It'll do just fine with a more permanent home in the pavilion. You can't whine that my comparison to Fenway "doesn't work" because of the density and then use Bryant Park, in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, as comparison in the very same post lol. That's a big contradiction.
  • Taking away public park land and dedicating it to private housing (which will be available mostly to more affluent professionals) is not going to happen. You mentioned supporting "equity" several times in a previous post. Taking public space that's accessible to everyone and converting it to private housing which will not be accessible (or affordable) for most people is not equitable. It's the opposite of equity. That's an even bigger contradiction.
  • The 195 parcels abutting the highway are not even remotely close to "the edge of the city." They're within walking distance of everything downtown as well as the hospitals. There's absolutely no reason housing can't work on those parcels. People live adjacent to the highway (in Providence and beyond) already, and there are several new buildings that abut the highway on 195 land. I'm not sure why you're so convinced it can't/won't happen.
  • Nobody's against housing (most posts I see are very much in favor of it in large quantities). But lots of us believe that the idea of converting park space to housing is a completely asinine idea. Especially when there's so much available, buildable land nearby. There's absolutely zero need to take a chunk of the new park and convert it to private housing. Build dense housing on most/all of the remaining parcels and you'll likely see a growing number of nearby private lots go that route too.
  • If you don't like your opinions challenges, maybe don't share them on a forum?🙂
 
Last edited:
Lrfox said:
You're kind of all over the place here. A couple of points:
  • Fenway's density vs. the area around the park isn't really the point. The park is already active. As is the beer garden that already exists. It'll do just fine with a more permanent home in the pavilion. You can't whine that my comparison to Fenway "doesn't work" because of the density and then use Bryant Park, in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, as comparison in the very same post lol. That's a big contradiction.
  • Taking away public park land and dedicating it to private housing (which will be available mostly to more affluent professionals) is not going to happen. You mentioned supporting "equity" several times in a previous post. Taking public space that's accessible to everyone and converting it to private housing which will not be accessible (or affordable) for most people is not equitable. It's the opposite of equity. That's an even bigger contradiction.
  • The 195 parcels abutting the highway are not even remotely close to "the edge of the city." They're within walking distance of everything downtown as well as the hospitals. There's absolutely no reason housing can't work on those parcels. People live adjacent to the highway (in Providence and beyond) already, and there are several new buildings that abut the highway on 195 land. I'm not sure why you're so convinced it can't/won't happen.
  • Nobody's against housing (most posts I see are very much in favor of it in large quantities). But lots of us believe that the idea of converting park space to housing is a completely asinine idea. Especially when there's so much available, buildable land nearby. There's absolutely zero need to take a chunk of the new park and convert it to private housing. Build dense housing on most/all of the remaining parcels and you'll likely see a growing number of nearby private lots go that route too.
  • If you don't like your opinions challenges, maybe don't share them on a forum?🙂
Click to expand...
Gaslighting about density not mattering relative to the amount of hospitality options in the specific area just doesn't cut it lol. I didn't use Bryant park as a hospitality or money generating example. I used it as a example of why the park is appealing in urbanized way... that was obvious in what I said.... so no contradiction, just you not being able to read.

population and density absolutely matters when projecting how many hospitality centric establishments succeed, I should have realized that wasn't obvious to some.

Talking about an outside beer garden in the summer is irrelevant to the winter, the food hall isnt open yet, that matters when you are saying the beer garden is busy now, more supply of something risks current demand so implying that a brand new, much hyped indoor food fall with entertainment down the street wouldn't affect the park pavilion is naive, esp. relative to the density in the area. esp. with the ice rink, convention center, the AMP and other restaurants/bars right next door as well. There is simply much more to do right around the food hall in the winter. Discounting all this because Boston has both in a much dense area isn't well thought out (again, not to mention the tourist density in Boston as a whole, and specifically near Fenway Park). There is also probably more parking in that area for people coming from other parts of the city and visitors too which will effect traffic, though I think there is adequate parking near the park so that may not matter.

"putting housing in a park is asinine" then why are they planning to do exactly that on two other parcels? pray tell?

No one said housing shouldn't go on the other existing plots near the highway, that's obvious. it is walking distance but will people want to walk to the pavilion in the winter when they have other options in the city? But we need even more housing than that and AGAIN we need to attract MORE people to the city, housing near the hospital will do that but to a point because the hospital is already staffed. Numbers simply don't lie. And by definition, that space is at the edge of downtown, look at a map, but because i am on honest debater........ I misspoke and should have said "downtown".

I never said get rid of the park, stop gaslighting. I specifically said there is enough room for both, and its my opinion having both would make the park even more dynamic. More people next to things kinda means more people will use those things. An enclosed park done right could make if feel more urbanized...

You keep saying there are plenty of empty lots and surface parking, which you are correct, but the state does not own that land, they don't control it, making it much harder to use efficiently and effectively. Historically in PVD that's been a grinding endeavor, if not fruitless for a lot of reasons. the few private lots that have been used take about a decade to come to fruition. A prime example outside the jewelry district would be on the other side of the river near the 903. HOPING the people who own private lots will do the right thing and build housing because the state is using its land made me laugh out loud. Parking will be in even higher demand with more housing, that makes keeping as parking more lucrative, or at the very least makes it less motivating, we don't know but its wrong to imply that development on these plots is guaranteed esp. without making it a terrible deal for the taxpayer. there is already very high demand for housing, if people wanted to develop they don't need to wait, the demand is there now.. adding more housing would bring demand down, bringing their value down (even if its only slightly because of the demand). Not to mention the regulatory hoops you have to jump through to even build in a place like PVD. They are trying to streamline this but it hasn't happened yet.

yes, you do want young upper middle class residents who have the means, and like to do things in the city, this is what propels a city forward. I like workforce housing too, but housing in general is needed, even the mayor stated luxury housing is still good for all housing. Cities need robust upper class tax bases to fund other improvements. you should be trying to attract higher earners (as close to the train station as possible BTW for obvious reasons) so you can use that tax revenue to help people who are in the workforce category. Focusing just on those people doesn't help the city grow at all, it taxes and strains the city. it also leads to bad development and cheap materials so developers can make profits of housing.

Not to sound insensitive because I grew up poor/struggling, but the workforce demo of people might keep a city afloat, but they don't grow it. High earners do. You really don't think we should be attracting those people? Keeping thinking small and we will stay small.

Do you live in the real world? countless people say they are for housing, they even shout it, but then continuously find reasons why we shouldn't build. as they say, a hit dog barks. And again, your point is mute as they already want to put housing in the park, specifically parcel 42, and there is still more than enough space for a park.

I like my opinions challenged, its inducive to learning and growth. I don't like when emotional people cant take mine with the "what are you on about", telling me i am "whining" because I have a different opinion. LOL you also responded to me, not the other way around, so If you didn't like what I was "on about" you could have kept it moving. I get it you have been on this message board for a while, you feel defensive and protective (a message board NIMBY dare I say lol). This is a natural human feeling. But new people bring new ideas, you should be open minded about that. :)

I also like when people actually read what I said before replying. Gaslighting is unproductive at the very least. Enjoy your day.
 
Last edited:
nicanbot said:
On point three, I hope the Pebb Capital approved proposal gets someplace: https://pbn.com/downtown-design-pan...1-unit-apartment-complex-in-jewelry-district/ They've had a number of approved projects over the years but no action.
Click to expand...
Hope this goes through. But like you said, how many potential private developments have we seen go nowhere in the city. I believe this specific one is a couple years in the pipeline already, after Pebb abandoned another project down there street that was in the pipeline for years as well.
 
sdarcy274 said:
Waaaah Gaslighting!
Click to expand...
What rambling mess.
  • My point about Trillium Fenway had nothing to do with density. The pavilion style brewery exists literally right next to a food hall. They're different types of businesses. They're not competitors regardless of whether the population density is 35,000 people per sq. mi or 10 people per sq. mi. Nobody is ditching a brewery to go to a food hall. Again, they're very different things. In fact, they compliment each other (people bring food from the hall into the brewery to eat it with a beer). The Guild garden will continue to thrive in the summer and it'll do well in the winter with a new indoor space, just like good breweries state, region, and nationwide continue to. A food hall on the other side of downtown isn't going to somehow hurt the brewery. That's complete nonsense. There are plenty of existing fast-casual food options and drink options nearby already (inc. Plant City right next door) and somehow the brewery has managed to do just fine.
  • Parcel 42 is exactly that - a separate 195 parcel, and not part of the 195 District Park. Sure, it's currently a grass lawn and connected to the park., but it was never been intended to be part of the park forever. It has always been slated for redevelopment. The pavilion is a park structure in the middle of what is and will always be the 195 District Park. How is it that hard to understand?
  • If you're advocating for building housing where the pavilion is going, you're advocating for getting rid of part of a public park in favor of private housing because the pavilion is in the middle of the official 195 District Park. You can't build housing on that location without eliminating a central chunk of the official park. It's that simple. There's a ton of room for housing in the vicinity of the park. There's absolutely zero reason to building housing in the location of pavilion.
  • People (myself included) want housing. Lots of it. And they want it in great density in the Jewelry District and 195 parcels. They don't want it in place of a public pavilion in the middle of a public park. It's entirely possible and reasonable to both support increasing housing and also support keeping and preserving public parkland. They are not mutually exclusive concepts and building housing where the pavilion is going is not going to be the difference maker in the continued evolution of the Jewelry District and the 195 parcels. The fact that you continue to argue that supporting a pavilion in a public park equals being "anti-housing" is either completely dishonest or a huge shortcoming in the ability to understand nuance. I'm not sure which would be worse.
 
Lrfox said:
What rambling mess.
  • My point about Trillium Fenway had nothing to do with density. The pavilion style brewery exists literally right next to a food hall. They're different types of businesses. They're not competitors regardless of whether the population density is 35,000 people per sq. mi or 10 people per sq. mi. Nobody is ditching a brewery to go to a food hall. Again, they're very different things. In fact, they compliment each other (people bring food from the hall into the brewery to eat it with a beer). The Guild garden will continue to thrive in the summer and it'll do well in the winter with a new indoor space, just like good breweries state, region, and nationwide continue to. A food hall on the other side of downtown isn't going to somehow hurt the brewery. That's complete nonsense. There are plenty of existing fast-casual food options and drink options nearby already (inc. Plant City right next door) and somehow the brewery has managed to do just fine.
  • Parcel 42 is exactly that - a separate 195 parcel, and not part of the 195 District Park. Sure, it's currently a grass lawn and connected to the park., but it was never been intended to be part of the park forever. It has always been slated for redevelopment. The pavilion is a park structure in the middle of what is and will always be the 195 District Park. How is it that hard to understand?
  • If you're advocating for building housing where the pavilion is going, you're advocating for getting rid of part of a public park in favor of private housing because the pavilion is in the middle of the official 195 District Park. You can't build housing on that location without eliminating a central chunk of the official park. It's that simple. There's a ton of room for housing in the vicinity of the park. There's absolutely zero reason to building housing in the location of pavilion.
  • People (myself included) want housing. Lots of it. And they want it in great density in the Jewelry District and 195 parcels. They don't want it in place of a public pavilion in the middle of a public park. It's entirely possible and reasonable to both support increasing housing and also support keeping and preserving public parkland. They are not mutually exclusive concepts and building housing where the pavilion is going is not going to be the difference maker in the continued evolution of the Jewelry District and the 195 parcels. The fact that you continue to argue that supporting a pavilion in a public park equals being "anti-housing" is either completely dishonest or a huge shortcoming in the ability to understand nuance. I'm not sure which would be worse.
Click to expand...

This, all of this
 
An argument for housing in the 195 District Park is silly and misguided given all the other housing built or presently proposed and approved within the 195 Providence Innovation and Design District.

Completed
Parcel 30 Chestnut Commons - 92 units
Parcel 28 Emblem 125 - 249 units
Parcel 6 Trader Joe's Complex - 60 units

Under Construction
Parcel 9 Pennrose Complex Phase 1 - 66 units [RIGHT NEXT TO HIGHWAY]

Prosposed and Approved
Parcel 9 Pennrose Complex Phase 2 - 61 units [RIGHT NEXT TO HIGHWAY]
Parcels 8 & 8A BankRI Complex - 114 units [RIGHT NEXT TO HIGHWAY]
Parcel 2 Urbanica Complex - 171 units (just across the bridge from the park)
Parcels 14 & 15 CV Properties Phase 1 - 183 units (right next to the park)

Total Above - 996 Units of Housing


The intended goal for the redevelopment of the 195 land was for a mix of uses - housing, business/employment, hospitality, parking, education, and public space. Given its progress to date, it would seem the great majority of space is already or soon to be occupied with housing. The area goal which I believe to have been disappointing is the lack of new private business/employment development. The only dedicated project for this use built to date is Point225 (Wexford). Other completed projects such as the Aloft Hotel, Parking Garage, Trader Joe's, and JWU Bowen Center have not been large well paying employment adds.
 
^Great post and breakdown.

I too am frustrated with the lack of private business/employment development. That's not a new challenge for Providence, but I was optimistic about the potential for these parcels. I even hoped (and still cling to a tiny bit of it) that Hasbro would relocate to one of them. Providence has finally started pulling a sizeable number of professionals from the Boston area (my wife and I are two of them). But it still hasn't managed to pull much corporate/tech/biotech from Boston's orbit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top