All of Downtown is in a protected National Historic District. Should buildings like the Police and Fire Building be protected?
My background is real estate development, which is what I have done for the past 25 years, so I am going to make a real big picture to start out. I grew up in Southern Rhode Island on a farm. I love the open space and I love where I grew up. I feel that all of the landscape variety that we have in this state, because we are so small, is very precious. One of the surest ways to preserve places like South County or any of our rural areas, is to make sure our cities are attractive. Putting this in context, part of what ensures the richness and diversity of our state is having healthy urban areas.
The biggest problem we had after World War II is suburban sprawl in this state. Rhode Island’s population has never exceeded one million, in its history, but in the 1940s the city of Providence had a population of 250,000. By 1960, after World War II and the construction of the interstate highway system, the population shrunk to 150,000. Cities just weren’t attractive and you had all this disinvestment. People just left. They followed the highway system. The notion of the ’burbs was very appealing. And in effect, cities became abandoned. One of the aspects of the city that enabled it to be vibrant in the past was that there was a critical mass. Since the focus shifted away from the city, the restaurants, stores, shops, theaters, could not sustain themselves.
Because other cities were ahead of us in the development curve, we have been able to save a lot of our historic heritage. The wrecking ball did enormous damage in many cities in the United States; and it did some in Providence, but not nearly as much in comparison to other places.
The Providence Preservation Society (PPS) was formed in 1956 as a reaction to Brown University demolishing and acquiring more and more buildings on the East Side. A group of very wealthy, blue-blood, old-world individuals got together to form PPS in reaction to Brown’s expansion. And they were very polite. They simply asked the question as to whether the buildings really had to be torn down. Then there was a small grant, through HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development], that funded a study in 1959 called the College Hill Plan. Back then, we thought urban revitalization was done through demolition. However, the College Hill Study was revolutionary in its findings. This study came to have national prominence. When the study was finished, it concluded that preservation can be a tool of urban revitalization. For the first time in this country we recognized that we don’t have to knock everything down and build back up again. Now, Providence has an incredible standing in the preservation world.
Let’s relate this to what is going on: we have had a lot of trouble reusing these buildings. It is a tremendous challenge to figure out how to save them. Any of the larger buildings in Downtown were built for one purpose. Mostly department stores, small shops and offices. Often the floor heights were really high. Some of these buildings were a series of joined buildings, so they even had different floor heights. And nothing met code. If, as a developer, you try to reuse a building, you’ll find that you have a layout that is inefficient to maximize revenue; you wont make money off of large corridors and hallways or tall ceiling heights. When you try to figure out the numbers, it becomes a challenge [to offset the cost]. Basically, the numbers did not work.
Enter the historic tax credits. Since 1976 the [nationwide] Federal historic tax credits have provided the incentive to restore old buildings. In 2002 Rhode Island passed very progressive legislation and we now have a state historic tax credit. So now, when you combine the State tax credit with the Federal tax credit—it becomes cost effective to restore these buildings. That is what is making it possible for Cornish Associates to develop in Downtown, and that is what is making it possible for AS220 to do the Dreyfus. These tax credits can end up funding almost half of your development costs. You still have to borrow money, but when you factor in all the issues, the numbers begin to work.
What do you think about the demolition of the Fogarty and Police and Fire Dept. Building?
We have people coming into AS220 all the time to tell us that they have moved here from somewhere else to live in Providence because of the lively cultural scene, the universities, the good hospitals; access to skiing, to the ocean, to all of the sites in the city, Newport, and rural areas. I would argue that part of what makes our state attractive, especially in Providence, are these old buildings. So I think you have to make a very good case for demolishing them. There are very few people who will disagree that what is replacing the buildings is not as appealing or attractive as [the building that] was already there.
Providence has been doing a reasonably good job of saving buildings, and people now understand that it is an important thing to do. I think we should exhaust the development possibilities and opportunities before issuing a demolition permit.
The Police and Fire Building has a lot of architectural interest. If you look at it, particularly on the Washington Street side, there is lovely decorative masonry that complements the library. The library is a gorgeous building and if you want to note a juxtaposition of new and old construction, just look at the addition to the library—it is painful. I am afraid that if we tear down the Police and Fire Building, we will have something very painful, again, next to the beautiful library. More important is the site: that site is a gateway into Downtown. It is also very large. In my opinion, I am not sure that what is proposed is the highest or best use. The effort ought to be made for this site that has an interesting building on it and is a gateway to an urban center, particularly when we have the Federal and State tax credits as a resource.
What about their proposed replacement buildings?
I don’t think [the developers] have shown us enough. I think they are just in the early stages of design for the building. We may have months or years of surface parking in an empty lot while we wait for this building design to be approved.
Can you please discuss some of the comments you made at the Design Review Committee meeting?
I am concerned, as I said in the hearing, that we’re getting a lot of “holes in the Swiss cheese.” There are empty pockets in Providence, and if there is going to be further demolition then we should have a good sense of what is going to be in its place.
One of the arguments of the developers for demolition is that the buildings are difficult to secure from vandals while they are vacant.
Ownership, however, brings stewardship—and that means taking care of what you own even if it is during an interim period. The Procaccianti Group also owns the Hilton right across the street. Given the fortune of proximity, it would be easy to make sure that it is safe and not a hazard. The Procaccianti Group is very fortunate because of their nearby location to the Police and Fire building, as well as the Westin, which is close to the Fogarty.
AS220 had this same good fortune with the Dreyfus—we could go and check on it, make sure it was safe, not broken into, and that the sprinklers were kept running. It wasn’t hard and it was not that costly.
Return to:
Four Perspectives on Downtown Development
Old Buildings Meet New Conversation
