Comments on: 62 Taylor St http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/62-taylor-st-providence-ri/ down and out with the city's vacants Sat, 11 Sep 2010 03:22:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Stump Blankenship http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/62-taylor-st-providence-ri/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Stump Blankenship Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:23:03 +0000 http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/?p=626#comment-68 The lot next door at <a href="http://maps.provplan.org/ulr/detail_p.asp?plu=045-0792-0000" rel="nofollow">68 Taylor is listed as having the same owner as the house</a>. It's neat to see a house standing in the backround of the 2001 photo survey on what's now a vacant lot at <a href="http://maps.provplan.org/ulr/detail_p.asp?plu=045-0473-0000" rel="nofollow">93 Chester Ave.</a> which is currently owned by the adjacent church. The lot next door at 68 Taylor is listed as having the same owner as the house. It’s neat to see a house standing in the backround of the 2001 photo survey on what’s now a vacant lot at 93 Chester Ave. which is currently owned by the adjacent church.

]]> By: Faust http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/62-taylor-st-providence-ri/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Faust Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:59:40 +0000 http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/?p=626#comment-67 I took the Photo "walk around". Time for a little "thinking outside the box". There appears to be several, adjoining, vacant lots. Acquisition of one of those might create a parking area. That would make it considerably more attractive. I took the Photo “walk around”. Time for a little “thinking outside the box”. There appears to be several, adjoining, vacant lots. Acquisition of one of those might create a parking area. That would make it considerably more attractive.

]]> By: Faust http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/62-taylor-st-providence-ri/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Faust Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:42:07 +0000 http://www.forgottenprovidence.com/?p=626#comment-65 Interesting building at what appears to be the "right price". I notice a couple of things. There is no roof overhang top the front porches. Should the porches need repair, there is no need to support the roof. It appears to have a pitch roof, these tend to shed water better than flat roofs. A gable window indicates there should be "head room" in the attic. This facilitates repair and addition of insulation. It even suggests additional living space. Being a 3 deccker, it can be assumed that the windows are "Providence size", replacement sash should be commonly available. In that era, windows were not nationally produced. There were "Boston" and "Providence" sizes. Its "future" is troubled by a small lot, which is 50% occupied by the foot print of the building. Not much room for parking, or anything else. Interesting building at what appears to be the “right price”. I notice a couple of things. There is no roof overhang top the front porches. Should the porches need repair, there is no need to support the roof. It appears to have a pitch roof, these tend to shed water better than flat roofs. A gable window indicates there should be “head room” in the attic. This facilitates repair and addition of insulation. It even suggests additional living space. Being a 3 deccker, it can be assumed that the windows are “Providence size”, replacement sash should be commonly available. In that era, windows were not nationally produced. There were “Boston” and “Providence” sizes.

Its “future” is troubled by a small lot, which is 50% occupied by the foot print of the building. Not much room for parking, or anything else.

]]>