| Comments on the P&Z Committee’s 11/16 draft of recommendations to the JDA relative to the Krieger I-195 surplus land.
In general, I like and appreciate Jim Brown’s synthesis and editorial skills. Perhaps it was his skill in bringing the Committee’s comments together that drew my attention to the following points
1. Question: Although I participated in the Committee’s discussions, if I were reading the draft from the perspective of someone who had not been involved, I would have difficulty differentiating between what is meant by a champion (item 1) and a neutral professional guide (item 3). Are they one in the same? If not what differentiates a champion from a guide. Both seem to be expected to make things happen.
Comment: A champion or guide, separately or together, will require individuals and institutions with enough stature to move key players beyond their current intransigence on property taxes and other issues requiring compromise. No small challenge. But nothing is going to happen until decisions on property taxes and who gets which properties with what conditions are resolved.
So who are the candidates that might play these roles? RIDOT won’t. It simply wants to get out as soon as possible. The Planning Department does not have the staff or budget to champion or guide a project of this scope. Hopefully, the incoming chief of the EDC will have sufficient stature to take on these tasks. But it will take months for this person to gain the traction necessary to persuade the universities, city, and legislature to modify their demands and expectations in ways that will make development of the I-195 land feasible.
2. Moreover, the entire third chapter of the Krieger report lays out in painful detail the economic fact that there is not going to be much happening, stimulus or no stimulus, for months if not years on the I-195 parcels. Brown has enough property to keep itself busy along Richmond Street. But the backlog of empty commercial and residential properties in the City and State will be a drag on new development for years.
Question: What is going to happen to 20+ acres of vacant land, quite likely polluted, in the middle of the City? More surface parking for a more vibrant nightlife?
3. Item 5. Zoning: The Krieger report develops well the descriptions and technical analyses of each I-195 parcel that, presumably, will be coming available. In response, the Committee’s points raised in item 5 about zoning are very good. I feel, however, the JDA should be much more vociferous about the need for themes to tie the parcels together: specifically, specifying that one or more pedestrian corridors (view corridors/open space) be coordinated among the developers, across their separate parcels. Without a clear expiation of such a significant feature, developers, understandably, will design and want to build whatever they believe will maximize their interests.
4. Item 7. A street car line. I agree totally with Ken Orenstein. Having used Boston’s system for over thirty years it is clear, at least to me, that unless you have a big city’s high density neighborhoods – which Providence doesn’t and won’t have – the costs of a fixed rail system (and through Providence’s narrow streets?) are staggering. Even with Boston’s large ridership, the MBTA is so far in debt that the State does not know what to do.
Moreover, university labs and related biotech firms the City hopes to attract to the Jewelry District are notorious for how few employees they have relative to their footprints and bulk. Busses powered by natural gas or trackless trolleys, offer the capacity and flexibility to adapt to where public transportation is needed. And my sense is that since the East Side is already developed, substantially improved bus and trackless trolley service through south and west Providence makes far more social and economic sense.
Peter McClure
|
|