Guest MINDSETTER™ VanderWeele: The I-195 Land - Subdivide & Conquer

Guest MINDSETTER™ Joel VanderWeele, Architectural Designer at Union Studio

Guest MINDSETTER™ VanderWeele: The I-195 Land - Subdivide & Conquer

About a decade ago, Providence began the relocation of I-195, a stretch of highway that cut through the heart of the city. The highway is gone now, leaving in its wake about 20 acres of prime real estate in the core of the Creative Capital.  The city and state have spent the last few years making the site shovel-ready so that this valuable land can be added back to the tax rolls.

Brand new infrastructure? Built!

Taxes? Stabilized!  

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Approvals process? Streamlined!

Incentives?  $25 million!  And probably more if you know a guy… it is Rhode Island, after all.

You would think that developers would be kicking down the door for the opportunity to knit the city back together, but redevelopment has been s - l - o - w.

The powers-that-be did a competent job of knitting the street grid back together, creating a network of medium-sized, interconnected blocks. The new grid is not as fine-grained as the old city plan, and doesn’t have anything as sexy as the curves of Weybosset, but I would give it a solid B/B+.

But they neglected the crucial next step – lot subdivision. Nearly all of the 18 lots that are available on the I-195 land, plus 15 vacant lots adjacent to it, take up an entire city block, and that is bad news indeed.  

Now, there may be a reason for this. According to the website, the I-195 Commission hopes to attract life science, research & development, and institutional buyers - splashy, big ticket projects that would have an obvious impact, fast. These uses typically occupy large-floor-plate buildings that can be packed with offices, laboratories, and long hallways – also the types of buildings that make for great ribbon-cutting ceremonies. Stacking the deck in favor of these large-scale developments, however, has not paid off in the short-term and will only hurt the city in the long run.

Why?

Large urban lots are expensive to buy and expensive to build on, so the list of potential buyers is pretty short.  It includes mostly multinational real estate development companies looking to construct the one type of building they’ve perfected, make a quick profit for their shareholders, and get out of dodge.  This development model extracts value from the city, rather than cultivating it – not ideal if you’re hoping for sustained economic growth.

Big building projects also bring with them big risk, and the government will be more inclined to throw bailout-level incentives at a large-scale project that is threatening to fail or walk away (38 Studios, anyone?).  The city can maybe handle two or three of these projects, but definitely not 33 of them all at once.  

Even if the commission did manage to attract the big time developers (which they’re struggling to do) and have them all succeed (which is unlikely), the results would be ugly.  Literally ugly.  Ugly and boring.  Architecturally speaking, buildings that take up entire city blocks are difficult to design well, especially when you’re on a tight budget.  I take the highly detailed design scenarios developed by the commission as an implicit acknowledgement of this difficulty.  When every side of the building is essentially a “front,” the budget for the exterior is stretched pretty thin, usually resulting in a boring building with at least one “front” that looks very much like a back.  By contrast, look at nearly every building on Westminster, or any commercial street built before 1950, for that matter.   Thanks to party walls and alleyways, the exterior budget could be focused on one or two sides of the building, resulting in dignified buildings that contribute to the beauty of the city.    

The building-as-block problem is especially difficult to overcome when you have 33 of them in a row.  One or two big boring buildings can be absorbed into the urban fabric without too much trouble. 33 of them?  Not so much.  If the I-195 land is developed as it is currently designed, there will be 20 acres worth of boring and lifeless streets cutting through Providence for years to come.

To recap: Urban lots the size of city blocks will lead to out-of-town developers getting free money from the state to construct big boring buildings that create lifeless streets and extract value from the city instead of cultivating it.

Thankfully the problem is fixable, and it’s a quick fix. If the I-195 commission were to simply subdivide each lot into 20 - 30 foot widths and half the depth of the block – you know, the way American cities have developed since the days of westward expansion – they could lower the barriers to entry, encourage local investment, add more properties to the city’s tax rolls, give away smaller incentives, enable better architecture, and create a more interesting cityscape.  

And because the land is owned by one entity, they could do all of this without jeopardizing the splashy big-time developments in the future. Large-scale developers could still buy several adjacent lots and combine them for a super-project, but instead of being surrounded by other super-projects, they would be surrounded by a wide variety of smaller, locally-owned and operated buildings designed by and for people with a vested interest in the future of Providence.  

 

 

Joel VanderWeele is an architectural designer at Union Studio. This article was originally published on Outside the Deadlines in July of 2016. 


I-195 Redevelopment: Key Players

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.