filed under Daily Dose
Brussat complains again
7:27AM ON
10/02/2008
BY
Dave Segal
I like complaining too, so can’t fault him for it. I think no matter the classical/modernist debate, most people agree that the demos are ridiculous, and have to stop. I’ll be putting in legislation to this effect come January, but might it not be better dealt with at the municipal level?
Here’s Brussat’s litany of the demolitions:
The attractive buildings lost were: the Providence National Bank building (1929), razed in 2006 to make way for an unattractive proposed condo tower; the Police and Fire Department Headquarters (1940), razed in 2007 to make way for an unattractive proposed office tower; and a commercial building (1920) on Washington Street, razed in 2007 to make way for an unat-tractive proposed Sierra Suites hotel. W.T. Grants (1949), originally an unattractive brick modernist variety store, lately home to Travelers Aid, was razed in 2005 to make way for an attractive proposal for apartments flanking a parking garage with ground-floor retail.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:24PM
stylin Says:
glad you brought this up. I thought Dave’s article was to the point.He does like to write about this issue but I ever question his love for our city.
David relating to the “people on the streets” as having important opionions that get overlooked has been an issue for years too many years.
Some folks downtown are tired of the empty promises made by the developers and the lack of trust for the city to put pressure on them to do what they set out to do even if its in the intern period.
So,it’s important that you want to write legislation for this at a state level, dealing with it only at the municiple level has proven to be too one sided.
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:32AM
davidh Says:
i really loved the providence national bank building. i used to walk by it every day on my lunch break and peer into the dark of its windows at the old-timey woodwork. i couldn’t believe it when they tore it down. i thought for sure it must have been protected.
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:33PM
Mrs Cookies Says:
The municipal level? Who do you think tacitly signs off on these things? The mayor’s fake outrage at the demos is laughable. Good thing he never gave up his day job to be an actor after his brief stint on “Brotherhood.”
Yes, it should be handled at the municipal level. But will it? Um, no. And why? Because the Mayor has something to gain by allowing these things to happen, whether he wants a legacy of all new shiny buildings and parking lots dotting the landscape when the Mayor’s conference comes to town, or to point to when he runs for some higher office–I don’t know. But his office is giving the OK to all the demos in Providence.
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:36PM
Drew Says:
I’m a huge proponent of new developments and varied architectural styles including traditional, transitional, and modernistic. After all, Providence, the birth place of tolerance, is a growing and diverse metropolis and deserves the right to preserve as well as to progress.
I often find myself disagreeing with “Dr. Downtown’s” position, which appears to want to make Providence a Disney-fication, museum-like town with no ability to see a future beyond brick and mortar. I’m sure in Roger Williams day not everyone loved the design of the First Baptist Church- heck even in 2008 people can’t decide which color to paint it. [Providence Journal-September 19, 2008 "Congregation overrules historian on new paint for First Baptist"]
However, I must agree with Mr. Brussat wholeheartedly on at least one issue- that regulation of demo permits and post demolition phases ought to begin and begin immediately!
The developers need to be held accountable for not going through with a project– because, if the project were not drafted in the first place the demo would may have never been permitted. They, the developers, continue to tell us that it is the market which dictates these projects to go forward or not- there is no market if the developers continue to tear it down and destroy it.
It is not fair to the people, its storefront business owners, and to the fabric of this city when it is being compromised for an illogical, insufficient use, and eye sore of another potential surface parking lot. STOP THE DEMO OR BUILD.
[Reply]