Urban Planning and the Spatial Transformations of Providence, RI: 1959-2000

This text (originally published in 2015 as an MA thesis paper) is about the material transformations of Downtown Providence, Rhode Island from the late 1940s to the turn of the millennium, and the role that district plans—especially so-called “master plans”—have played in that process. Over the course of these years, the city center suffered first a sharpening decline and then, from the mid-1980s forward, a spatially-impressive but uneven “renaissance” spurred in great measure by urban planning efforts and the large-scale public interventions resulting.

The first Downtown Providence master plan was published in 1961, a second in 1974, and a third in 1979, followed by several major plans and development projects in the eighties and nineties. The plans differed over the years in both style and scope, but there was a broad continuity of essential purpose among them—namely, to catalyze renewal of the downtown district. The plan authors likewise agreed (despite temporal, perceptual and ideological differences) on the principal cause of the Downtown’s troubles: namely, the rise of private car use and the drastic spatial transformations that followed. Thus, the record suggests that in the case of Downtown Providence there was a recurring correlation over time between transportation challenges—especially the spatial demands of private car use—and the will to plan, even in cases where the stated goals of individual master plans were not solely transportation related.

Through analysis of both the master plans and the ever-changing built environment, I hope to demonstrate this close historical correlation between transportation challenges and plan proposals. In the concluding chapter, I briefly discuss the present-day iteration of Downtown and the role that public interventions, especially those resulting from physical plans, have had to play in its ongoing formation. Finally, I attempt to show how this study of the recent past might inform contemporary practice and policy.

If I had to do it over again today, this would be a very different project. But I think the core argument is still a sound one.

Note: a version of the chapter on Interface: Providence was also published as a stand-alone essay in the Journal of Planning History. It’s behind a paywall, so just let me know if you need a copy! For my other writing on Providence (and more), visit samiacohen.com.