How is Providence’s Historic Aesthetic Maintained?
We previously offered the opinion that Providence needs more historic districts. The current Providence Historic District Commission (PHDC) functions efficiently and those who seek to improve their property or build new are not unjustly burdened by the process. We would like to illustrate why we believe the PHDC works well by reviewing the past months of activity.
#PHDC oversight in local historic districts
To recap, the job of the PHDC is to review plans for alterations to structures within a historic district. These alterations fall into two main categories and are reviewed by staff and volunteers with a background in architecture, construction, and/or urban design. Through the work of the staff or through public review, the alterations proposed come to public light and are given scrutiny. The fact that these plans invite comment from those outside of the project’s owners, developers, and designers is the most important part of this review process.
The commission or staff review all applications and either approve or deny a “Certificate of Appropriateness.” A building permit for exterior work cannot be issued within a local historic district without this certificate.
#How the PHDC conducts its day to day
The Commission posts its agenda and meeting notes publicly, as well as its Annual Reports (access the 2023 report). The reports look broadly at the impact of the Commission. They reviewed 149 applications during 2023, and 49 of those received a public hearing. Of the 149 total applications in 2023, only three were denied (2.01% denial rate). The 2024 Annual Report has not yet been released, but through our own activity tally in 2024, they reviewed 52 “major alteration” applications and another 100+ “minor alterations” internally, with a small handful of denials.
Each month, staff receive intake of new applications. Most are freely put forth by the homeowner, developer, or architect but a few are put in after an alteration had begun and a neighbor, staff member, or commission member was alerted. The staff decides if the application falls into one of the following categories.
#Minor Alterations
The Commission reviews many applications (about two-thirds) “in-house” without a public hearing. These are considered “minor alterations” and cover things like basic repairs, the addition of awnings, signs, storm windows, fences and gates, mechanical equipment, shutters and blinds, gutter systems, and similar small improvements. The same Historic District standards are applied, but the staff is empowered to move these applications quickly through the system.
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.
#Major Alterations
One-third of applications receive a public hearing because they are considered “major alterations.” These are larger in scope, easily viewable from the public right-of-way, and can not easily be reversed.
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 considering 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 — the construction of large unsupported panes of glass is a mid-20th-century capability. Windows and doors are one 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 includes all major alteration applications from 2023 and 2024:
- 37% — Solar
- 34% — Fenestration (new or replacement windows, doors, or skylights)
- 22% — Construction (additions of dormers, decks, additional stories, and five proposals for brand new construction on vacant lots)
- 4% — Roofs (changing slate roofs to asphalt)
- 2% — Demolition (one non-contributing garage and one industrial complex)
- 1% — Exterior (one request to paint a stone church that had not been painted previously)
At a public hearing, plans are reviewed, questions are asked, suggestions are added, 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 applications the PHDC reviews, what their concerns were, and how their feedback shaped the projects in a positive way.
#545 Broadway, Broadway Historic District
In 2020, Application 20.037 (PDF) 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 PDF, a developer proposed the construction of a new three-unit mixed-use house between 535 and 547–549 Broadway.
Both neighboring homes are located in the Broadway Historic District. 535 is a home constructed in 1880 and 547–549 is the James T. Kennedy House, 1886. Both were designed with fashionable Queen Anne or Italianate details.

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.

The new designs went before the commission three times in three public meetings — October 2020, February 2021 (PDF), and Application 23.112 (PDF) in September 2023. The application received conceptual approval in October of 2020.
The architect 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.
545 Broadway 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.

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 sight lines 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 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.
An edited version of this article appeared in the Providence Eye, 08 January 2024, with input and edits by Debbie Shimberg.
Corrections: Since publication, we have corrected the history for the two neighboring houses at 545 Broadway. We mistakenly identified one as the Mrs. Margaret Gough House at 551–553, which is not a direct neighbor of 545.