A proposal to dramatically change the Providence skyline (Cranston, Portsmouth: transfer, go bankrupt)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this is not what you meant to say? Good design is in the eye of the beholder. I think the new one is ugly, you think it's great.
Eh, I disagree. I think good design is good design. There's a reason some paintings and sculptures end up in museums and others end up in motel rooms or rotting on front lawns. There's obviously subjectivity to these things, but there is also a pretty solid baseline for what's good as well.
Quote:
However, sometimes it's just common sense and principles of city planning. Should Greece put up a 75 story hotel next to the Parthenon? Do you want any zoning? Do you want any real design review of any kind?
What happens if this sucker ends up 2/3 vacant? More demolition for the unionized carpenters I imagine?
In this scenario, what's Providence's Parthenon? The vacant, newly available parcels around it?
What would make you assume it'll be 2/3 vacant? The market for downtown urban residential is big and growing. There's a reason prices are rising in Providence. I'm sure the people investing their money into this project have a good idea of what the market might be.
I think this is not what you meant to say? Good design is in the eye of the beholder. I think the new one is ugly, you think it's great.
However, sometimes it's just common sense and principles of city planning. Should Greece put up a 75 story hotel next to the Parthenon? Do you want any zoning? Do you want any real design review of any kind?
What happens if this sucker ends up 2/3 vacant? More demolition for the unionized carpenters I imagine?
No, I said what I meant to say. Good design is not necessarily in the eye of the beholder. Some beholders wouldn't know good design if it knocked them in the head.
No, I said what I meant to say. Good design is not necessarily in the eye of the beholder. Some beholders wouldn't know good design if it knocked them in the head.
In this scenario, what's Providence's Parthenon? The vacant, newly available parcels around it?
What would make you assume it'll be 2/3 vacant? The market for downtown urban residential is big and growing. There's a reason prices are rising in Providence. I'm sure the people investing their money into this project have a good idea of what the market might be.
Providence's Parthenon is the rest of established downtown which is known nationwide for its architectural excellence and has been the draw and the site of architectural conferences. I would hate to see downtown divided by some skyscraper Maginot line which dwarfs the rest of the area.
There is zero precedent to fill a building of this enormous size in downtown Providence unless a company headquarters is doing it as a bespoke project. I seriously doubt that people investing in this project have any clue beyond what "the market might be". I am saying they could very well be wrong and could be building a giant dog. Look at the ones who invested in the Fleet building. They thought they had a clue too. The guy who built the Carnegie tower in Portsmouth thought he had it figured as well. I remain unconvinced.
P.S. And real dogs do get built- look at your new(er) city hall in Boston. I believe it's the city hall- the one that looks like a concrete bunker from the '60s and that no pedestrians walk near. They thought it was cutting edge.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,012,374 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
P.S. And real dogs do get built- look at your new(er) city hall in Boston. I believe it's the city hall- the one that looks like a concrete bunker from the '60s and that no pedestrians walk near. They thought it was cutting edge.
It was cutting edge. In the mid 70s it was voted by architects as one of the ten best pieces in the country's first two hundred years.
That said, most people, including myself, don't find brutalism an attractive style. That's different than saying it isn't good.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,838 posts, read 2,710,988 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
The design is out of scale, not unlike the Eiffel Tower in Paris. But far enough away from downcity to establish its own scale. I wouldn't want it in the downtown. Like the design or not, it does have character. So much of what's going up in the city now is characterless. More suited to Warwick than Providence. While some apparently seem to like these new generic suburban boxes because their mediocrity is seen as inoffensive to our history. It's not.
Ahh, you've picked up on Fane's vain marketing attempt to draw a parallel between this building and the Eiffel Tower. I do actually like this design as far as current skyscrapers go--much better than the hideous Aqua--but reflecting on this many times since Fain first pitched the idea many moons ago, I just don't see the need for it in Providence. And it is certainly not on par with the Eiffel Tower either in design or novelty.
I don't think it will add enough to our sense of place to compensate for all the negatives it brings, though I admit I could be wrong about this. But then, I no longer see any real cachet in skyscrapers.
I think Providence is a wonderful, storied city, sized "not too big". While much of what goes up today is indeed characterless as you say, putting up something with character, where the role is not in the spirit of the script, isn't much better.
Providence's Parthenon is the rest of established downtown which is known nationwide for its architectural excellence and has been the draw and the site of architectural conferences. I would hate to see downtown divided by some skyscraper Maginot line which dwarfs the rest of the area.
There is zero precedent to fill a building of this enormous size in downtown Providence unless a company headquarters is doing it as a bespoke project. I seriously doubt that people investing in this project have any clue beyond what "the market might be". I am saying they could very well be wrong and could be building a giant dog. Look at the ones who invested in the Fleet building. They thought they had a clue too. The guy who built the Carnegie tower in Portsmouth thought he had it figured as well. I remain unconvinced.
P.S. And real dogs do get built- look at your new(er) city hall in Boston. I believe it's the city hall- the one that looks like a concrete bunker from the '60s and that no pedestrians walk near. They thought it was cutting edge.
All good points! You speak to the risk I believe is worth taking. If I didn't like the design of the building and think it would become an iconic landmark for Providence as a forward thinking 21st city, I may also think otherwise. Carnegie Tower, a converted defunct aluminium mill, was a mistake which never hurt Portsmouth in any real way. After a private bankruptcy, it's now slowly coming into its own as a luxury residential destination. Its ever increasing property taxes will no doubt help that town fund schools, roads & other infrastructure.
Your view may well carry the day, but bold risky ideas are what Providence needs now. Remember, this is private money. The developer is only receiving the breaks anyone else would for this parcel. There is a looming insolvency coming. Unfortunately, the city's current political class has limited vision about what to do about it. The coming massive billion $ pension & health care liabilities only have a few more years before they hit the fan.
Were it not for this real financial reality, I might well join the provincial smugness, which unfortunately will probably carry the day.
Ahh, you've picked up on Fane's vain marketing attempt to draw a parallel between this building and the Eiffel Tower. I do actually like this design as far as current skyscrapers go--much better than the hideous Aqua--but reflecting on this many times since Fain first pitched the idea many moons ago, I just don't see the need for it in Providence. And it is certainly not on par with the Eiffel Tower either in design or novelty.
I don't think it will add enough to our sense of place to compensate for all the negatives it brings, though I admit I could be wrong about this. But then, I no longer see any real cachet in skyscrapers.
I think Providence is a wonderful, storied city, sized "not too big". While much of what goes up today is indeed characterless as you say, putting up something with character, where the role is not in the spirit of the script, isn't much better.
Not sure this design would stand the test of time as the Eiffel Tower has. But history apparently shows Eiffel met with much controversy also. It probably wouldn't add to our sense of place, except perhaps as a city which increasingly looks forward, as well as backwards, for its esteem.
Providence's Parthenon is the rest of established downtown which is known nationwide for its architectural excellence and has been the draw and the site of architectural conferences. I would hate to see downtown divided by some skyscraper Maginot line which dwarfs the rest of the area.
But what does this take away from any of that? It’s not destroying any of the existing urban fabric or architecture as it’s being built on vacant land that was once a highway. For all of the talk about how big it is (and it’s not THAT big), I’ve yet to hear exactly what negative impact on the area it has. “It’s big” is an observation on size, not a measure of the impact on the surroundings. If anything, adding foot traffic to downtown, replacing vacant, downtown-adjacent land with an urban structure is a net win for the downtown area.
Quote:
There is zero precedent to fill a building of this enormous size in downtown Providence unless a company headquarters is doing it as a bespoke project. I seriously doubt that people investing in this project have any clue beyond what "the market might be". I am saying they could very well be wrong and could be building a giant dog. Look at the ones who invested in the Fleet building. They thought they had a clue too. The guy who built the Carnegie tower in Portsmouth thought he had it figured as well. I remain unconvinced.
Lofts and new condos and apartments downtown are filling up at a rapid pace in Providence. That’s why they’re building a bunch and rents and prices are still rising. Furthermore, urban downtown residences are popping up all over the country in cities big and small- including cities comparable to Providence like New Haven. Transit accessible, walkable urban residences in vibrant downtown areas are a safe bet in this market. It’s not a big gamble.
Carnegie Tower in Portsmouth is an apples/oranges comparison. It wasn’t a good comparison the first time you brought it up in this thread and it’s still not good. It’s a high rise in the middle of nowhere, in an area where people live in single family homes, drive everywhere, and overall value the peace and tranquility of being secluded on aquidneck island. High-rise, dense, apartment/condo living is not what people look for on aquidneck island. It’s an entirely different target market. Fane’s market is people looking for urban living. People who want to walk to work, shopping, dining, transit, etc. they want lively and active downtown living. Carnegie Tower is the polar opposite. It’s a red herring.
Quote:
P.S. And real dogs do get built- look at your new(er) city hall in Boston. I believe it's the city hall- the one that looks like a concrete bunker from the '60s and that no pedestrians walk near. They thought it was cutting edge.
The failure of city hall in Boston isn’t architectural, it’s scale. City hall was developed at a time when planners were designing around a population that was increasingly shifting towards the automobile. The car was the future and new projects were designed with that in mind. City Hall was a monument to the automobile. It ignored the pedestrian experience at the ground level and that’s why it failed. There is brutalist that works. In Boston, the Christian Science plaza is massive, but it’s pedestrian scaled and pleasant. The Boston Architectural College is contextual and adds a nice bit of variety to Newbury Street. Further afield, the Geisel Library in San Diego is an iconic and successful structure. City Hall fails because of scale and the plaza, not the architecture. Coincidentally, I work in the Lindemann MHC in Boston- another bad example of Brutalism in that it’s hulking and completely ignores the pedestrian experience. If the Fane proposal ignores the pedestrian experience, it’ll fail too. But I haven’t seen anything that indicates that that will be the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
