The Route 195 District Development Commission has just released a set of nine proposals submitted at its request for Parcel 5, the largest remaining unbuilt, unsold or not yet “under agreement” bit of I-195 land east of the Providence River, created more than a decade ago by the relocation half a mile south of Route 195. The proposals are all bad. My friendly rival Will Morgan has critiqued them for the website GoLocalProv.com.
Will and I are in agreement on most development proposals for new buildings in old neighborhoods in Providence. They, too, are mostly bad and Will agrees, thinking as I do that developers should do a better job fitting such buildings into the local character.
But on new development generally, we are diametrically opposed. He favors snazzy new buildings and I favor buildings that fit into the surrounding historical character. Even if the historical character has already been destroyed by previous development, it always makes sense to rebuild it, and you gotta start somewhere. If that sounds relatively boring – it involves copying the past, a no-no for the mods – it produces neighborhoods and districts that are healthy and humane in a way that snazzy new buildings never do.
Curiously, the preference for the snazzy new over the healthy, humane old styles has been the establishment view of the stodgy architectural profession for seventy or eighty years now – even though the public prefers the graceful old styles by dramatically large margins, according to every study ever done. People are most confortable with what they are familiar with and understand – and why shouldn’t they be?
Will is an unusually articulate proponent of the snazzy “modernist” styles. Today’s modernism is watered down and might well be called “plasticky,” to judge by what has been built in the 195 District and elsewhere in town. Will normally does not favor this “plasticky” style, and keeps hoping architects will come up with something that’s both snazzy and good, but he is doomed to be disappointed.
Of the nine proposals submitted for Parcel 5, Will seems to like the one by local firm ZDS best. He describes it as “wickedly audacious,” a description that by itself would cause me to assume I will dislike it. It is pictured in the lower left frame of the images up above. It is not the least bit audacious, but is instead a typical layering of flat, glassy elements with no apparent atypical features, other than that ZDS is local. It is not just another Boston firm that farms out its least senior architects to handle commissions in Providence. Will says ZDS is “taking a chance, daring to be bold.” Huh? He then admits that ZDS is a “successful but unimaginative firm that has given the city so many architectural duds.” Its hotel on Parcel 12 at the northeast corner of Kennedy Plaza is its best (and its first) work in Providence, It seems as if it is trying to be historic, but fails to avoid the dread “plasticky.”
Will also likes the proposal by Wade/Keating, which works mostly around Boston. Its proposal for an art and design center at Parcel 5’s corner of South Main and Wickenden is the most unusual of the nine designs, and is at the center of the images up above. It actually has gables, which I thought had been banned half a century ago! Alas, it has all the hallmarks of succumbing to “plasticky” once its slick pallet of materials is revealed at some later meeting.
All the other seven proposals are type-cast refugees from the commission’s 195 playbook, where its yen for bad architecture is laid out for all to see. Will writes that the commission has a “track record in attracting quality architectural design.” No, the commission has a track record of shooing away quality architectural design. This is shocking – because there is so much beauty in Providence for the commission to copy – but it is no surprise.
Map of most of the central I-195 District. Parcel 5, far right. (195 Commission)
Architecture Here and There 
New apartment building in Asnières-sur-Seine, France. Note this is modern buliding technique. France has been bombed, burned, molotov cocktailed, looted, bombed, bombed and Bombed and invaded for 400 years. Now they’re building in modern fire/emergency code unlike paris 1000 year old gypsum mines which will doom the city in next Earthquake.
LikeLike
In an Orwellian world in which beauty is ugly and ugly is beauty , architects are
designing mediocre buildings because mediocre buildings are just mediocre.
The public won’t describe these buildings as super ugly and the ruling
architecture elite won’t describe the buildings as super ugly meaning that
they are traditionally beautiful.
LikeLike
Interesting way to look at it, but in my experience even people who are not architecturally aware consider these sorts of building subpar. On the other hand, by your standards and mine, people who are not architecturally aware are better judges of architecture than that architects themselves (who may or may not be especially architecturally aware). But your game is blown up by your last line, in which you say that the super ugly buildings are traditionally beautiful. This remark falls into the category of “too clever by half” – tripped by its obvious falsehood! Nice try! – db
LikeLike
To explain my last line better, I would say that the sociopathic ruling architecture elite see a building
of traditional beauty as super ugly because it does
not reflect back to them their twisted nature.
LikeLike
An interesting range of historic design, meaning most all of it looks badly dated already.
LikeLike
I fully agree with Will that the ZDS proposal is by far the best…and most needed and appropriate – commercial, hotel, condo. Finally.
LikeLike
Dear David
What a set of dreary crap, but that is what the so-called architectural
profession produces. I checked you rival Will Morgan, he with a bucket
full of Ivy League degrees, said, and it was of no interest.
Going through old stuff, I came across the attached PDF called ‘Are
Architects Mentally Ill?’ Well as we both know, they are, and I think
the images speak for themselves. You are free to use any of it.
best wishes
Malcolm
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, the ZDS proposal is fairly close in appearance and riverside location to the House of Sweden that’s the home of the Swedish and Icelandic embassies on the Potomac River at the foot of Georgetown.
LikeLike
I sent the message below to the 1905 commission:
I attended the commission meeting with the nine presentations for parcel five. The commission has a difficult task selecting the plan or plans that will move forward. I wish you both wisdom and luck.
I, like many, felt overwhelmed by the plans and looking back, I have difficulty in sorting through the plans. But the presentations did push me to think about what I, personally, think is important. Therefore, I want to share my views on what I think is important.
Housing – Like most cities, Providence does not have enough housing to meet demand. I see housing connected to our economy. We are heavily invested and continue to invest in two areas, high tech and life sciences. The attracting and retaining this talent are a key part of realizing our return on these investments. We must provide both housing and the social environment needed by these individuals.
Retail – Like most cities, Providence has an excess of retail space. A high percentage of retail space is currently sitting empty and I suspect this will continue. While some parcel 5 retail is required, we must reflect the lack of demand for retail space. But we do need local services, for example, a bodega, bars and restaurants that meet the needs of the talent we have and must bring it in support of our economy. Personally, I see a need for a drug store in that neighborhood, a CVS for example. I suggest working directly with CVS to ensure that an appropriate space if available.
Access – Parcel five is very large. A development that takes up the entire parcel, even with some mid-block access will shield the east side from the water front. I prefer the plans that call for two buildings with green space between.
Parking – Like most cites, parking is in short supply. In addition, parking lots are ugly. All the plans would create a major increase in parking demand. Therefore, I prefer the plans with adequate underground parking.
Green – Trees, bushes, flowers … yes.
Context – Parcel five sits in a neighborhood with a wide range of architectural styles, from historic to modern. The plan must reflect this reality.
Olin Thompson
LikeLike
Olin – I don’t disagree with much of your comment, but I do take issue with your declaration that the plan “must” reflect the fact that a wide range of styles, historic to modern, characterizes the neighborhood. That does not mean we should be equally attentive to the need for the ugly as well as the beautiful. Providence’s chief competitive advantage is its beauty. An unwise moral equivalence between beauty and ugliness is the surest route to failure for Providence. Please reflect on that. – db
LikeLike
With respect, opening enough land like the moving of the 195 monstrosity allows PVD to be brave. I have seen very few innovative ideas in the innovative district. this is a good chance to blend modern/creative with historic. it needs to be done right
LikeLike