EQT Exeter dropped out, three other contenders received design and economic notes; Decision to be made next year

Three finalists for the development of Parcel 5 received feedback from the 195 Commission at its Dec. 18 meeting. Transom, Design Center Partners, and Bluedog Capital Partners will all have the opportunity to revise their proposals and present to the Commission again before the final decision is made in early 2025.

Since the last meeting, one of the developers — EQT Exeter — walked away from the proposal. Though EQT Exeter emphasized their financial stability and stressed their vested interest in the area throughout this process, they have dropped out of the running. Commission representatives did not say why the developer pulled out.

Real Estate Solutions Group and Utile Inc., a real estate firm and planning and design firm, respectively, both presented on the projects.

RESGroup conducted analyses and comparisons of the three remaining projects, concluding that the Transom proposal was the least likely to need additional funding compared to the other two. RESGroup identified the fewest weaknesses with the Transom Proposal.

Bluedog Capital Partners

With condos, a hotel/short-term rental space, and retail space, the Bluedog proposal features the widest variety of uses and also has a striking, unique design. While RESGroup was a bit skeptical about the price ceiling for the condo market, two realtors — including Jewelry District Association President Sharon Steele — publicly testified after the presentation, attesting to the demand for luxury, spacious homeownership options in the city.

Utile, Inc. remarked that the design felt out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. But during public comment Lorenzo Apicella, an architect and a director for the Jewelry District Association, urged the developer to stand by their designs and convince the Commission that they should develop a standout, signature building.

Design Center Partners

RESGroup flagged a few market and project readiness considerations for the Design Center Partners proposal, but included that the parcel is an ideal location for their proposed uses. RESGroup also raised considerations about the difficulty of security for commercial tenants in the gallery, design, and arts-forward complex.

Utile Inc. noted that the “massing is generally visually appealing and engaging” for the project, but also mentioned that the design committee worried the facade would quickly feel dated.

Two local designers testified in favor of the projects, praising the proposal’s commitment to carving out artistic spaces in Providence.

Transom

RESGroup identified the fewest fiscal and feasibility weaknesses for the Transom proposal. Unlike Bluedog and Design Center Partners, the Transom project does not have a Rhode Island-based developer or architect, as both hail from Boston.

Utile mostly appreciated the design of the structure, saying that the “massing shaped by five carve-out courtyards is dynamic and visually engaging, and effectively breaks down the scale of the massing.”

By Katy Pickens / Planning & Preservation Writer / kpickens@ppsri.org