Letters to the Editor 07.03

To the Editor:

I believe that Kari Lang’s excellent article on Gentle Density should be shared with as many Providence residents as possible. She manages to make a potentially hard to grasp topic both simple and straightforward. Preservation and population growth can and should go hand-in-hand. Kari has shared valuable research from other urban communities that we should adopt.

It’s a fact that there are many vacant and under-utilized commercial and residential buildings and lots in Providence and they should be developed and made productive again. We need to provide incentives that will re-use these existing buildings and lots. This would benefit all neighborhoods. The concept of high density growth districts is irresponsible without some sort of design review to prevent demolition of significant buildings and insure new buildings are well designed.  This is especially true where there are designated National Register Districts that are important to the city,  but have no protection.

I agree that the proposed zoning changes are a broad-brush approach that could be destructive to neighborhood character and cause displacement of real people as developers buy existing occupied buildings for demolition and development. Preserving and reusing existing buildings is the sustainable choice, and developing vacant lots and replacing or adding to single-story buildings will benefit existing neighborhoods.

As Kari suggests,  it is crucially important that the Planning Department consider further study to understand how many housing units could be created on under-utilized lots and in existing buildings city-wide. She is correct in pointing out the potential danger of encouraging “enhanced density zones” which with no planning, research, or foresight could be detrimental to the Providence that we all love.

If Providence was able to support 250,000 people 80 years ago, it seems totally possible to do it again and to do it in a way that enhances our existing built environment and neighborhood structure.

Clark Schoettle

Former Director of the Providence Revolving Fund
Former Providence Historic District Commissioner
Former Downtown Design Review Committee member


To the Editor,

I just finished reading Kari Lang’s article on city growth and I found it to be quite thoughtful and informative. I do not live in Providence. I live in the New Haven/West Haven area of Connecticut, but we experience many of the same problems as Providence. We have an acute shortage of rental apartments. Even with initiatives to house the homeless, people find themselves unable to afford or find housing. Lang’s review of the findings in NY and overview of the choices in Providence could be helpful here as well as in Providence.

Judy Tierney

West Haven, CT 06516
former Rhode Island resident


To the Editor,

Boston, Providence, and Portland, ME, are all lucky enough to be attractive cities on the way back up, population-wise. I agree that it’s important to balance preservation with growth. Otherwise, you can destroy the aspects of the cities that make them so charming.

I’ve noticed in plans from Boston to Portland to Santa Cruz, CA, developers wanting to build tall towers to house “workforce” housing. I guess this is what makes the most sense economically for them. I tend to oppose them, however, because they are out of scale with the rest of the city. To me they are part of an age of diminishing expectations where mainly young people would be housed in small– as small as 300 square feet– apartments, although at least no parking would be provided so they would need to walk and use bicycles to get around.

Randy Albright