How is Providence’s Historic Aesthetic Maintained?

Providence has 8 historic districts covering over 2,600 documented properties. These designations mean owners who want to make a change to a structure located in one of these districts have to first apply to the Providence Historic District Commission (PHDC) for a Certificate of Appropriateness. A building permit for exterior work cannot be issued within a local historic district without this certificate. Staff and volunteers with backgrounds in architecture, construction, or urban design review and weigh in on any and all exterior changes in order to determine if they are consistent with the character of the historic district. Editors Note: Our previous article on Historic Districts and how they work.

The PHDC

Minor alterations — things like basic repairs, the addition of awnings, signs, storm windows, fences and gates, gutter systems, and similar small improvements — are reviewed by the staff and do not require a public hearing. (None of the districts in Providence oversee paint colors, exterior flags, door hardware, garden furniture, and other exterior finishes)

An alteration is considered minor if it is not viewable from the public right-of-way or if the alteration can easily be reversed or removed. About two-thirds of PHDC’s applications fall into this category and the staff either approves or denies them.  Applications that have been denied are given recommendations and considerations and are encouraged to resubmit.

How the PHDC conducts its day to day business

The Commission posts its agenda and meeting notes publicly, as well as its Annual Reports which look broadly at the Commission’s impact. In 2023, they reviewed 149 applications, and 49 of those received a public hearing. Only three of the 149 applications were denied (2.01% denial rate. The 2024 Annual Report has not yet been released, but the numbers appear similar.

Each month, staff receive new applications, most of which are submitted by the home owner, developer, or architect. A few are submitted after an alteration had begun and a neighbor, staff member, or commission member was alerted.

Major Alterations

One-third of applications receive a public hearing because they are considered “major alterations.” As one would guess, these are larger in scope, easily viewable from the public right-of-way, and cannot easily be reversed.

Almost any demolition is considered a major alteration and requires a public hearing, even for structures that are considered “non-contributing” to the historic character. Moving structures into or out of the district is also considered major. New construction is most certainly major, and as some examples will illustrate, care is taken by the commission to consider the surrounding neighborhood when deciding what would be “appropriate” or not.

A change to windows and/or doors is considered major. These two items together are called “fenestration” in architectural terms. Historically appropriate windows typically include multiple panes of glass (“lites”) instead of large single panes, as the construction of large unsupported panes of glass is a modern capability. Windows and doors are some of the more expensive alterations to make and will last the longest on a property. Therefore, they receive the most scrutiny. (Cheap window replacements last 15–30 years, while a quality window can last up to 60. Some 100+ year-old houses in our historic districts still have their original windows.)

Roof replacements are also considered major, but since modern asphalt roofs have a relatively short life span of 20–40 years, the commission considers what the owners can afford, along with what is appropriate and visible.

In 2023 and 2024, the addition of solar panels was considered major and required a public hearing. The city has made green energy a priority and solar panels can easily be removed from historic homes. Therefore, the commission decided to make the process easier, and soon solar panel requests will be handled in-house as minor alterations.

Activity in 2023 and 2024

This breakdown of the PHDC’s public hearings includes all major alteration applications from 2023 and 2024:

  • ​​37% — Solar
  • 34% — Fenestration (replacement windows, replacement doors, new windows, new skylights)
  • 22% — Construction (additions of dormers, decks, additional stories, and five proposals for brand new construction on vacant lots)
  • 4% — Roofs (Requests to change slate roofs to asphalt)
  • 2% — Demolition (One garage and one industrial complex)
  • 1% — Exterior (One request to paint a stone exterior, a stone church that had not been painted previously)

At a public hearing, plans are reviewed, questions are asked, suggestions are made, and an initial determination for approval or denial is made. Most denials come back for further review and are eventually approved.

Notable applications in 2023 and 2024

These examples provide a useful synopsis of the kinds of applications the PHDC reviews, what their concerns were, and how their feedback shaped the projects in a positive way.

535 and 545 Broadway, Broadway Historic District

In 2020, Application 20.037 was approved. It requested the demolition of a 1950s one-car cinder block garage at the rear of 547-549 Broadway (Google street view). Later in 2020, in Application 20.120, a developer proposed the construction of a new three-unit mixed-use house between 551–553 and 547–549 Broadway.

Both homes are located in the Broadway Historic District. 547–549 is the James T. Kennedy House and 551–553 is the Mrs. Margaret Gough House, both constructed in 1886 in the Second Empire style with Queen Anne details.

BEFORE: Photo of the previously empty lot between 547 and 551 Broadway. Photo submitted as part of case 20.120, Broadway Capital Holdings, LLC.

The proposed new house, if it were not built within a historic district, would not have required any oversight. It could have been any design the developer wanted to finance, and therefore, could have been a cheap-looking, vinyl-sided box with no relation to its neighbors. For that to happen between two detailed and well-maintained historic homes would have been regrettable.

AFTER: The new sympathetic construction at 545 Broadway is shown between its neighbors at 547 and 551.Photo by J. Hogue, ArtInRuins.com

The new designs went before the commission three times in three public meetings — October 2020, February 2021, and Application 23.112 in September 2023. The application received conceptual approval in October of 2020. Out in the open, with the input of commission members, the designs improved.

The proposed design decided to mimic the mansard roofs of its neighbors with similar but modernized fenestration and front porch details. Because of this, the commission offered minimal feedback between conceptual approval and final approval. The plans only came back in 2023 because the developer and architect made significant enough changes to warrant an additional round of review.

The building recently completed construction and is a modern addition to this row of stately historic homes.

64 Angell Street, College Hill

The next example concerns one of the few denials in 2024. Developer Dustin Dezube of the Providence Group proposed adding four new structures to the large plot at 64 Angell Street. In the middle of the land is the 1796–97 Captain George Benson House, one of “the best’ Federal-style mansions in the area. In April of 2024, a preliminary application for conceptual approval (PDF) went before the Commission.

Conceptual rendering of four new proposed homes in a subdivided lot at 64 Angell Street. At the center is the Captain George Benson House. Rendering by Providence Architecture Building Co.

The lot is almost 30,000 square feet, and by right, can be subdivided into five lots. The minimum in an R-1 Residential district for new subdivisions is 5,000 sf. By zoning, the subdivision would be allowed, but in a historic district, the Commission needs a sense of what will be constructed there.

While the property grounds are not historic unto themselves, the house has national significance. And it has occupied the center of its current lot for 120+ years with little change. The subdivision would have allowed only six feet from either side of the Benson House and the lot lines, severely constricting the home amongst its new neighbors.

While the Commission concluded that three corners of the lot could developed, the lot corner at Angell and Prospect Street (lower right of the conceptual rendering) should not be developed, as a structure here would hide the Benson House and destroy sightlines into the property. These conceptual designs were not approved by the Commission. The developer could return with a revised conceptual plan, but so far, they have not.

While the City in general needs more housing and this lot can accommodate more structures, it was ruled the design concept would have an adverse effect on the property and the historic district.

Why these examples are notable

In both cases, public review and comment invited oversight and scrutiny. The purpose of the PHDC is to represent the public’s interest in private alterations.  When a homeowner alters their property or a developer proposes new buildings, they are not only doing it for their interests but also their neighbors and the larger Providence community. Alterations to historic homes and new construction will stick around for decades and have long-lasting impact. Buildings within historic districts have higher resale values in part because of this oversight.

The ability to raise public awareness of these proposed changes is impactful. Because the plans for 64 Angell were made public, other groups — like the Providence Preservation Society and the College Hill Neighbors Association — could weigh in. While some see these compromises in a negative light — stifling architectural creativity and promoting a facade of “sameness” within a district — alterations and new developments achieve wider recognition and input, which leads to better outcomes.

Nationally, we have an epidemic of selfishness. There is a prevalent attitude of “don’t tell me what I can or cannot do” which flies in the face of communities with collective assets that benefit everyone. Providence’s historic districts cover only 6.8% of land and properties, leaving a majority of locations for development outside of this oversight. It is not unreasonable to have public oversight for these properties, and many advocate that more city neighborhoods should benefit from it.

We have a Commission that works effectively, as the past two years and 100 applications with public hearings show. The membership of the Commission has changed recently, and that could change the way they work and the oversight they offer. But we will see what they are doing, and we will be able to judge their effectiveness for ourselves in the coming year. In addition to the historic buildings within our districts, public oversight and the “collective good” are also worth preserving.

J. Hogue is a web designer by day and amateur photographer and historian on nights and weekends. He donates his time to maintain and build ArtInRuins.com, which documents the architectural changes of almost 400 properties in and around Providence.