01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 5, 2004

MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN and broadcast of late lamenting the demise of the Downcity District as a result of planned building demolitions in downtown Providence. The latest was David Brussat's Commentary column in the Sept. 30 Journal. There he asserted that demolitions result from poor zoning administration, rather than the real and nearly as inescapable culprit: economics.

As in any controversy, there are at least two sides to the story. And as one of only two developers who have applied for a demolition permit during this period, I would like to provide some perspective.

Let me say, first of all, that Granoff Associates is no enemy of historic structures. Historic buildings represent a substantial proportion of our holdings in Providence. Our firm has rehabilitated several of Downcity's most notable buildings, including the Turk's Head Building and Union Trust Building, and prides itself on its pursuit of "sustainable development" through just this sort of historic structure.

Indeed, Providence has a number of historic buildings in the Downcity District that are wonderful structures, and whose design makes them candidates for rehabilitation and continuing use as office, commercial or retail space. They should be preserved, and we will do everything in our power to that end.

But there are also buildings downtown that are neither historically significant nor economically viable in any scenario -- buildings that have literally outlived their usefulness. These structures had value at some point, because someone was willing to build or buy them. In time, however, a structure that does not fit the space requirements of today's tenant, and does not get daily care and maintenance, transforms itself from what was an asset 50 or 100 years ago into a liability today: a building that cannot be economically rehabilitated or successfully tenanted.

A building that is old or decrepit is not historic just because it is in downtown Providence.

It needs to be said that people who own commercial property are not irrational. They do not at whim destroy things of value that they own. And in taking steps to demolish a non-viable building, owners are taking the first step in creating a viable property: one that will create economic value.

There are many forces acting on property owners. One of the major forces is the property tax, something that spurs property owners to increase cash flow from their properties. When the City of Providence increased taxes on commercial property by 250 percent this year, it was not just sending a message. The city was flogging property owners, and creating a rush and a necessity to increase cash flow immediately from properties on the city's tax rolls.

Now, if you are the owner of vacant property, you need to have tenants in the building in order to cover costs -- including property taxes. We know how to tenant buildings in Providence; our company's portfolio of over 400,000 square feet of real estate is 85 percent leased. One of the buildings slated for demolition is the former Fleet Bank Trust Department, better known as the Downing Corp. headquarters building [also known as the Providence National Bank Building]. This building has been vacant for 15 years because its space does not fit with the way modern business is conducted.

I could go into technical detail, but the best argument is that the building, by dint of design and condition, is untenantable. If it were otherwise, it would not have sat vacant for such an extended period.

A second property to be demolished is 110 Westminster St. This is a building of no historic significance that most recently housed Buck-A-Book, and, there is no evidence that tourists are flocking to Providence for a glimpse of this undistinguished structure. If they are, they are probably wondering why a building vacant during their first visit many years ago is still vacant! This building has been under-tenanted, (i.e., low rent and long vacancy, meaning not enough cash flow to cover expenses) for a similar period as the first.

I'm sure that most people would understand that our goal in owning rental property is not to let buildings stand vacant if we can possibly avoid it. But under the Downcity ordinance, regardless of the untenantability of a property, the owner has no right to demolish it, for whatever reason, without specific approval.

Under Downcity review, owners of property are forced into a process in which rules are undefined. And when a rule is applied, it is done arbitrarily.

Under one such rule, owners or developers must present a plan for a new building on a given property and prove that they have the financial ability to achieve it before a demolition permit will be issued.

Creating development plans for a new building costs tens of thousands of dollars, and the Downcity Review Committee can reject the plan if it doesn't, for example, like the color of the brick you choose. It is a totally subjective process, which my company has been through many times, with nothing of substance to show for it. Meanwhile, we must pay tens of thousands of dollars to comply with arbitrary requirements for a demolition permit -- but we can never get one.

We end up in the situation Jerry Garcia, of the Grateful Dead, sang about in "The Wheel": "You can't go back, and you can't stand still."

One city department is flogging you to create cash flow, while the Downcity Design Review Committee has no clear rules that let you do it.

We agree fully that good zoning practices are useful and necessary. But unlike the Downcity Ordinance, city planners give property owners clear, objective rules to define what they can and cannot do with their property. If you do W, X and Y, then you can do Z; if you don't do W, X and Y, you can't do Z. We could live with that. But the Downcity Ordinance doesn't do that. It does not provide property owners with clear, objective standards. On the contrary, the committee's rulings are subjective, and change from case to case.

Instead of focusing on the loss of the buildings, a more appropriate focus is what can be gained. By removing these two obsolete buildings, we are creating a significant development opportunity between the Turks Head Building and the Providence Arcade, an area of the city in need of new development. And a proper development in this area can revitalize these and other buildings in a way that is not possible now.

On an encouraging note, Mayor Cicilline, the city's planning director, Tom Deller, and the city's planning department have begun to listen more closely to building owners. They are making good progress on a new Downcity Ordinance. We look forward to supporting a new law that strikes a fair balance between preservation and economic growth.

Evan Granoff is a managing member of Granoff Associates, a Providence real-estate firm that has rehabilitated and manages several historic buildings in the city.