195 Providence Innovation & Design District

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...
Rambling mess lmao. I clearly addressed every issue you bulleted. keep saying there would be no park space, and keep lying. I don't waste time on dishonest actors.
 
New England Born & Raised said:
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.
Click to expand...
And all that housing...... IS STILL NOT ENOUGH. the numbers don't lie. AGAIN, no one is saying there should be no housing near the highway :cautious:. I'm saying that isn't the most desirable place to live for people you wish to attract.

The units you laid out, built/proposed doesn't come close to what we need. This is just addressing lower income people, never mind the high earners you need to keep the tax base robust to counteract what it takes both in development and revenue to sustain workforce housing. this is just to keep up. never mind grow at any pace PVD needs to compete with Boston to attract professionals. Worcester has a higher population and growth than PVD for Christ sakes.

1729227789137.png

Providence is doing terrible regarding housing.


I hope not, but lets circle back in 2-3 years in February when the pavilion is seeing 30 people a day. it is not like this state and PVD hasn't made a ton of costly errors and miscalculations with business and development
 
Last edited:
Lrfox said:
^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.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh a Boston transplant. you already got your housing needs, likley cheaper than boston, so you good, guess we can all go home now. classic NIMBY cosplaying the good guy.
 
1729229174620.png


Outside wanting unlimited park space, can we stop pretending there isn't a nice amount of park space along the rivers and on both sides of the bridge? Esp. for one immediate area.
 
Last edited:
sdarcy274 said:
Ahhhh a Boston transplant. you already got your housing needs, likley cheaper than boston, so you good, guess we can all go home now. classic NIMBY cosplaying the good guy.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no one is arguing that we don't need now housing. Everyone is simply saying, public green space is important, especially if you care about environmental justice too and with 900+ units in progress in the area and more vacant lots and more proposed, there is is zero concern with adding this bit of public infrastructure. Stop being so absolutist/zero sum and arguing for the sake of arguing
 
sdarcy274 said:
Worcester has a higher population and growth than PVD for Christ sakes.
Click to expand...

Population comparisons to Worcester have absolutely no merit. Worcester has far more land mass and space available for development. It is some two times the area of Providence. Its higher total population and growth rate are entirely tied to that. Providence is actually nearly twice as densely populated as Worcester packing far more in per square mile.


Area
Worcester: Total 38.44 sq mi / Land 37.36 sq mi
Providence: Total 20.58 sq mi / Land 18.41 sq mi

Population per 2020 Census
Worcester: 206,518
Providence: 190,934

Population Density
Worcester: 5,527.78/sq mi
Providence: 10,373.47/sq mi
 
sdarcy274 said:
Ahhhh a Boston transplant. you already got your housing needs, likley cheaper than boston, so you good, guess we can all go home now. classic NIMBY cosplaying the good guy.
Click to expand...
Well, good. You seem to have it all figured out. I've posted on this forum in support of increased housing and density all across the region. I've regularly go meetings to support housing developments in my own neighborhood (to the point where I'm texting regularly with several of the developers). But yeah... I don't think we should have a private apartment building instead of a public pavilion in the middle of a freaking park. So I guess that makes me a NIMBY lol.
 
I think one of the parcels under the capital center commission's purview next to the train station would be good.
 
The proposed Hasbro building looks awful in my opinion. I know they're matching the existing square footage, but Hasbro needs a high-rise like the one proposed at the Superman building.
 
Rhody said:
The proposed Hasbro building looks awful in my opinion. I know they're matching the existing square footage, but Hasbro needs a high-rise like the one proposed at the Superman building.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, would be a really small HQ building. The site was approved for a 600ft tower so would think they would go a little bigger here.
 
Rhody said:
The proposed Hasbro building looks awful in my opinion. I know they're matching the existing square footage, but Hasbro needs a high-rise like the one proposed at the Superman building.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too concerned. I don't think that rendering is anything more than a quick marketing placeholder for the city's pitch to Hasbro - just a slightly more detailed massing model. Nobody knows if Hasbro is even considering the site, so there's no way I-195 commission is spending big bucks for an architectural firm to draft up anything resembling a serious proposal. Basically, they're just saying "hey, if you agree to it, we'll give you the land for nothing and you're essentially immediately greenlit to build 300k square feet." If Hasbro were to actually bite on this pitch, they'd have to submit a real proposal which would almost certainly look quite a bit different.

On a related note, I think the pitch is actually pretty strong. They're paying nothing (well, $1) for the land- and getting a fast pass through some of the lengthy approvals process. But I would be surprised if Hasbro went for that over a similar volume of space in an existing Class A building in Boston (potentially one built in the last few years). Especially since top tier office space is cheaper than it was several years back.
 

First Presentation regarding Hasbro and parcel 42. While I dont think this is the finished design proposal for the building, they seemed to put a little more effort into the initial design for a placeholder. Between the dyer wharf proposal, and if the Hasbro development goes through and the building looks anything like the one in the proposal, I think it would be a giant mistake for this area.

I wonder if making the building 5-6 stories higher you could add some housing, make it a true mixed use. While there are buildings like this in many cities, idk how that would work exactly.
 
I’m rooting for providence. Its for sure the 2nd best city in new england and should be in much better shape than it is. Its insane that worcester has ended up being the release valve for boston over providence, but it looks like thats starting to change. They should have gotten in on the lab boom much earlier, but at least its kinda getting going now. I think a new waterfront hq for hasbro would be a pretty big win for the city. I’m here for it.
 
stick n move said:
I’m rooting for providence. Its for sure the 2nd best city in new england and should be in much better shape than it is. Its insane that worcester has ended up being the release valve for boston over providence, but it looks like thats starting to change. They should have gotten in on the lab boom much earlier, but at least its kinda getting going now. I think a new waterfront hq for hasbro would be a pretty big win for the city. I’m here for it.
Click to expand...

You stay away from my Worcester or well take your Hasbro like we took the Pawsox! Lol, But seriously I love Providence, wish Worcester was more like it, I want both of these cities to do well
 
I'm not holding out any particular expectation that Hasbro will be interested in building a new HQ building - sure it's returned to profitablity in FY24 after selling off E1, but adjusted revenues are still declining and it's still in the middle of a fairly major cost savings exercise. They've stated an intent to cut 750M of expenses through 2025, with 250M of that in FY24 - spending say $300M on a new HQ building isn't exactly consistent with the current messaging coming out of the C-suite.

The Boston area has a load of vacant newer office buildings with 150k+ vacant square feet, to choose from at currently attractive lease rates - either Downtown or suburban. Even within their stated preferences, Something like 1 Post Office Sq, 75 State, the former GE HQ Necco complex or something like Southline or one of the vacant Quincy office park buildings all could fairly easily work for Hasbro with the flick of a pen. The Providence area just doesn't have the vacancies that Hasbro presumably wants - it's a problem for Boston, which it's presumably trying to solve it by pulling Hasbro up. I grew up in RI, and from a macro perspective I want them to stay there as I think they're a valuable anchor. I just have the feeling that spending a lot of money and waiting x years to design and build something isn't in the cards.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top