Early rendering of upgraded 257 Thayer St. design by Union Studio Architects.

Robert V. Gilbane of Gilbane Properties is developer of residential apartments at 257 Thayer St., a new building that replaces nine old houses, which are gone. Construction has begun on the building. Bob objected to my portrayal, in last week’s column “Don’t just shrug off horrid hotel plan” of the project’s sequencing, which he thought implied a bait-and-switch – which it did. (I wasn’t certain enough to assert it directly.) He has written a congenial letter correcting what he believes to be my false imputations.. I’m not sure I’m entirely guilty as charged, but readers deserve to hear Bob’s side of the story.

First, my offending paragraph:

But watch out: Gilbane Properties proposed to raze nine old houses and build an apartment complex on Thayer Street, on College Hill near Brown. After loud objections from the community, the design was significantly upgraded by Union Studio Architects, in downtown Providence. Then, after getting its permits from the city, Gilbane gave the design to a third firm for, as I heard, final touches. The result leans back toward the first design, if a billboard at the site is reliable. And yet the nine houses are history and the building is under construction.

Now here is Bob’s email:

David

In your article you mentioned our 257 Thayer Street project and implied that after upgrading the design with local architects, Union Studio, and getting permits from the City, Gilbane “gave the design to a third firm for … final touches” with the result that the building ended up  looking much like the original (prior Union Studio) design. Your lead sentence implied the specter that this was perhaps a  “bait and switch.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Union Studio was hired by Gilbane Development Company as design architect to help shape the entire exterior of 257 Thayer in regards to building materials, exterior elevations, building footprint,  and roof line composition. Union Studios successfully did this, received accolades from many in the community, and the project received Final Approval from the Providence Planning Board in March 2013. Union Studio’s agreement with Gilbane was that they were engaged to serve in a design capacity producing the design documents but not  produce the final construction and engineering  documents. For the production of the construction documents in March, 2013 Gilbane hired Cube3, an architectural firm with a proven track record of producing outstanding construction documents for multi-family construction. During the production of these documents Union Studio continued to play a very key role in reviewing, commenting on and adding their design input to ensure that the final set of construction documents reflected the spirit and essence that was shown in their approved design.

Once the Planning Board gives Final Approval a developer cannot simply change the design or materials and start construction on a project that is materially different from what was approved. He has to submit the final construction documents (plans, specifications, materials, elevations) to the Planning Department for their detailed review and approval. Only then is a building permit issued. After conducting such review the City issued the building permit for 257 Thayer on December 4, 2013. The final design for 257 Thayer can be seen at www.257thayer.com

Bob Gilbane

Chairman & CEO

Gilbane Development Company

7 Jackson Walkway

Providence, RI 02903

Of course I must take Bob at his word, and I do. My column relayed my impression that the second design improved on the first, but that the third design did not improve on the second. This impression was (I must admit) uncomplicated, first, by the various stages of the permitting process, and second, by my being unaware that Cube3 was hired only to do the construction blueprints. I am assuming that aside from minor changes required by the permitting process and undertaken by Cubed3, but approved and overseen by Union Studio Architects (a great firm, by the way), the third design by Cube3 is essentially the same as the Union Studio’s rendering. Still, I thought the Cube3 rendering of that design stepped back toward the original, highly flawed, design rather than reflecting the great improvement I thought characterized the second design.

(Why can’t there be a Door No. 4!)

The drawing by Union Studio at the top of this post is one of the preliminary drawings shown to me not long after Gilbane hired the firm to tweak its original design. It certainly influenced me, and perhaps caused me to give too much credit to Union Studio’s final computer rendering. (All four of the renderings may be viewed when my column, which briefly addresses all this, runs on Thursday. The three I mentioned in last week’s column and in this post may be seen toward the bottom of last week’s column here.)