COMPLETED: Main and Temple Development (Sage-Allen Project)

[Bill Mocarsky]

I really like the Main Street side of the development. Restoring the older building and filling out the sides is a great improvement in my opinion.

I do have a problem with the design of the Market Street side.

Is that vinal siding on the town houses?

Personally, I have always thought of vinal siding (and tin trim) as being tacky. I would have never guessed that it would be used near the epi-center of downtown. One good thing about South Florida is that you won't find too many houses with vinal siding.

Why was the building in the middle of the block demolished?

I would have preferred to keep that structure and add an infill building on the corner of Market Street.

What's the deal with the corner of Temple and Market Streets?

[MadVlad]

That concrete base is horrible. Wouldn't some nice steps and stoops be better?

[Jerry2]

Those townhomes are hideous and don't belong in any downtown anywhere. I would be outraged. Everything from the color scheme to the choice of materials is terrible. This is definitely a suburban planned development plopped in the middle of one of America's oldest cities. I just looked back at the original renders. There is no excuse for them turning the original design into that.

[blackstone]

Here's an assist. The townhomes don't look all that bad to me in these pictures. I know they are more suburban than we would have wished but they actually look pretty livable. Which is the idea. I'm sure that UHart will fill them easily.

[spatulashack]

Is that vinal siding on the town houses?

[blackstone]

The townhouses are clad in fiber cement; not wood or vinal.

I do have a question about Temple street though. Wasn't there supposed to be street facing retail on this street or am I crazy? Is anyone going to have a reason to walk down Temple?

[beerbeer]

Decide for yourself, better or worse than what was promised?

[HartfordTycoon]

Decide for yourself, better or worse than what was promised?

[blackstone]

Decide for yourself, better or worse than what was promised?

[spatulashack]

Decide for yourself, better or worse than what was promised?

[jcrc]

I don't think it looks great. The original drawing was OK, now it's just weird, not exactly hideous but definitely not visually pleasing.

[Luca Brasi]

The current design of the townhouses is wrong on so many levels.

1. The entrances to the townhouse should be facing the street bringing the streetscape to Temple instead of inward facing away from the street. Hartford has made this mistake so many times and doesn't seem to learn.

2. The architecture of the townhouses does not take its environment into consideration one bit as good architecture always does. The materials are all wrong... the look is all wrong. This design is far more suited to cookie cutter suburbia than the downtown of a historical US city. Rowhouses done properly here would have looked fantastic.

3. What does a pedestrian see walking down the south side of Temple? Concrete walls? Another blunder that just keeps getting repeated in Hartford. Is there going to be retail at the corner of Market and Temple? It looks like a pedestrian entrance for the garage.

4. Temple is yet another one way going from Main to Market making it difficult to drive from Market to Main. At least this can be changed.

5. The corner of Temple and Market although improved (ANYTHING over what was there is an improvement), remains uninspired and nondescript. I wonder how many people will mistake the townhouses for the Residence Inn, considering the sign is on the corner and the actual hotel is in a very non-Residence-Inn-looking historic building set back from the street?

I'm not buying that the developers didn't make a killing here. Not considering the housing subsidies they received and the final materials and design used.

[Luca Brasi]

It would have been nice if the townhouses continued on the other side of the street as well down to the corner of Temple and Market. The city could have worked out a deal with the Marriott to give them back the parking in the morgan St Garage that they would have lost. It would have been a huge improvenment to the Temple/Market area.

[HartfordTycoon]

The current design of the townhouses is wrong on so many levels.

1. The entrances to the townhouse should be facing the street bringing the streetscape to Temple instead of inward facing away from the street. Hartford has made this mistake so many times and doesn't seem to learn.

2. The architecture of the townhouses does not take its environment into consideration one bit as good architecture always does. The materials are all wrong... the look is all wrong. This design is far more suited to cookie cutter suburbia than the downtown of a historical US city. Rowhouses done properly here would have looked fantastic.

3. What does a pedestrian see walking down the south side of Temple? Concrete walls? Another blunder that just keeps getting repeated in Hartford. Is there going to be retail at the corner of Market and Temple? It looks like a pedestrian entrance for the garage.

4. Temple is yet another one way going from Main to Market making it difficult to drive from Market to Main. At least this can be changed.

5. The corner of Temple and Market although improved (ANYTHING over what was there is an improvement), remains uninspired and nondescript. I wonder how many people will mistake the townhouses for the Residence Inn, considering the sign is on the corner and the actual hotel is in a very non-Residence-Inn-looking historic building set back from the street?

I'm not buying that the developers didn't make a killing here. Not considering the housing subsidies they received and the final materials and design used.

[blackstone]

The current design of the townhouses is wrong on so many levels.

1. The entrances to the townhouse should be facing the street bringing the streetscape to Temple instead of inward facing away from the street. Hartford has made this mistake so many times and doesn't seem to learn.

2. The architecture of the townhouses does not take its environment into consideration one bit as good architecture always does. The materials are all wrong... the look is all wrong. This design is far more suited to cookie cutter suburbia than the downtown of a historical US city. Rowhouses done properly here would have looked fantastic.

3. What does a pedestrian see walking down the south side of Temple? Concrete walls? Another blunder that just keeps getting repeated in Hartford. Is there going to be retail at the corner of Market and Temple? It looks like a pedestrian entrance for the garage.

4. Temple is yet another one way going from Main to Market making it difficult to drive from Market to Main. At least this can be changed.

5. The corner of Temple and Market although improved (ANYTHING over what was there is an improvement), remains uninspired and nondescript. I wonder how many people will mistake the townhouses for the Residence Inn, considering the sign is on the corner and the actual hotel is in a very non-Residence-Inn-looking historic building set back from the street?

I'm not buying that the developers didn't make a killing here. Not considering the housing subsidies they received and the final materials and design used.

[HartfordTycoon]

with regard to issue 4. its probably too narrow for two way traffic and i don't understand the need to have all roads spilling into main street. with regard to issue 3, "The development will include approximately 125 units, ranging from market rate apartments to town homes catering to graduate students and corporate interns. The development will include about 315 parking spaces and accompanying street-level retail, consistent with Hartford's ongoing strategy of emphasizing street-facing, pedestrian-scale activity". this is a cceda site statment that is quite old. the plan on temple i believe was always to have retail. i think they are looking to create a street that looks and feels like pratt.

[T52]

The retail being introduced to Temple Street is in the Richardson and that work is taking place now. The final skin of the garage includes tile panels in the large voided areas and laser etchings in the 2x2 voids. The "retail looking" space on the corner of Temple and Market is a student activity center. As far as steps into Temple Street as has been discussed the reasons that they were not laid out that way include security, the slope and narrowness of the site and the need for parking as I indicated in my first posting. As to question about why the middle building didn't remain, those buildings were a disaster from a structural and environmental perspective. Again, the need for parking played heavily on the final site layout and there are minimal dimensions that work with garages and this site with a 110' width at the "choke point" is about 10' too narrow which in turn caused problems and inefficiencies.

I will refrain from responding from my gut to the comment about the developer making a killing on this project but ask you to consider this. If it cost twice as much to build in the City and the rents have to be competitive in the suburbs, does that mean that the suburban developers are making a double killing? I think you should check your facts on the degree of subsidy that these projects receive and reconsider the vilification of these developers. The current group of developers truly have done great things for Hartford at considerable risk. On the Sage Allen project Marc Levine deserves the gold star for his tenacity and I truly hope that it proves to be a successful venture.

Lastly, please stop comparing the finished Temple Street project to the conceptual drawings that keep popping up (probably from the CCEDA site). The final approved drawings on file with the City of Hartford look exactly like the project you see. THey are also the same drawings that CHFA has on file and upon which the financing was based. In the last 30 years I have been involved with budgeting more of these projects than I care to remember for numerous developers and very few get built because the economics do not work. Pretty pictures need to face a reality check called a pro-forma. Do you remember Anthony Catailla (sp?) or Pan Pacific to name a few? These projects are tough and they don't always work out when they are completed. There are not lenders lining up to finance them and they take numurous creative sources to make it happen. I am absolutely certain that this project barely happened and we should be thankful that it did. I do have copies of the approved renderings but have been unable to upload them to image shack - if I can I will post them.

[HartfordTycoon]

The retail being introduced to Temple Street is in the Richardson and that work is taking place now. The final skin of the garage includes tile panels in the large voided areas and laser etchings in the 2x2 voids. The "retail looking" space on the corner of Temple and Market is a student activity center. As far as steps into Temple Street as has been discussed the reasons that they were not laid out that way include security, the slope and narrowness of the site and the need for parking as I indicated in my first posting. As to question about why the middle building didn't remain, those buildings were a disaster from a structural and environmental perspective. Again, the need for parking played heavily on the final site layout and there are minimal dimensions that work with garages and this site with a 110' width at the "choke point" is about 10' too narrow which in turn caused problems and inefficiencies.

I will refrain from responding from my gut to the comment about the developer making a killing on this project but ask you to consider this. If it cost twice as much to build in the City and the rents have to be competitive in the suburbs, does that mean that the suburban developers are making a double killing? I think you should check your facts on the degree of subsidy that these projects receive and reconsider the vilification of these developers. The current group of developers truly have done great things for Hartford at considerable risk. On the Sage Allen project Marc Levine deserves the gold star for his tenacity and I truly hope that it proves to be a successful venture.

Lastly, please stop comparing the finished Temple Street project to the conceptual drawings that keep popping up (probably from the CCEDA site). The final approved drawings on file with the City of Hartford look exactly like the project you see. THey are also the same drawings that CHFA has on file and upon which the financing was based. In the last 30 years I have been involved with budgeting more of these projects than I care to remember for numerous developers and very few get built because the economics do not work. Pretty picture need to face a reality check called a pro-forma. Do you remember Anthony Catailla (sp?) or Pan Pacific to name a few? These projects are tough and they don't always work out when they are completed. There are not lenders lining up to finance them and they take numurous creative sources to make it happen. I am absolutely certain that this project barely happened and we should be thankful that it did. I do have copies of the approved renderings but have been unable to upload them to image shack - if I can I will post them.

[jcrc]

How long is UHart's lease? Are any of the apartments leased? And how's H21 doing? Each night I counted no more than 10 units that have lights on.

[spatulashack]

How long is UHart's lease? Are any of the apartments leased? And how's H21 doing? Each night I counted no more than 10 units that have lights on.

[beerbeer]

Another interesting side by side. The final product is a nice enough building. But what was promised was SENSATIONAL.

[drc72]

I guess all I can really say is that I respectfully disagree with the assessment of the projects appearance. While I'm truly glad there isn't a surface parking lot in this location and the injection of youth in the center of the city is awesome I just don't like the way it looks. I realize it's just my opinion and preference and everyone is going to have a different take but some of the things that jump out at me:

-I don't think the original facade and the new structures on either side of it mesh well. I really don't like the contrast in colors between the two. One being quite ornate, the other very bare (maybe I should take up a collection!?!)

-The townhouses don't match anything else in the development. One of the photos in which all three portions are visable comes across as a mish-mash of colors and styles, I actually found myself saying "what the hell is that?"

-I feel as if the courtyard is going to become the equivalent of an urban cul-de-sac. A nice out of the way, invisible gathering spot for students. Maybe its more attractive to potential buyers if these units are ever sold, but I don't see it helping the "people on the street" feel which the city needs.

-Opening Temple Street to traffic, coupled with the townhouses back end facing the street actually makes this less pedestrian friendly than having the mix-master. I now see very little difference between Temple and Talcott Street. Maybe development of the lot behind the Richardson can fix this but when Constitution Plaza was built this was supposed to be the path connecting Main Street and the Plaza.

I don't want to be a buzzkill but I don't like the outside appearance of the building and while the inside might be what sells the building I won't be one of the 200 or so residents enjoying that aspect. Rather twice a week I'll be looking at a structure I just don't find asthetically pleasing. In spite of that I wish the project success and if the public loves the project all the better.

[Jerry2]

Separated at birth?This is taken from Jim Sawhill's area. No wonder he likes it.

[spatulashack]

Another interesting side by side. The final product is a nice enough building. But what was promised was SENSATIONAL.

[MadVlad]

I blame whoever puts up townhouses that look like they belong in Avon. I also think the original pics are much better. Way to dumb down a development. And as far as this question: "If it cost twice as much to build in the City and the rents have to be competitive in the suburbs, does that mean that the suburban developers are making a double killing?" Yes, I do think they are making a double killing. I put DSL lines into developers/builders houses in Glastonbury, Avon, Simsbury, Burlington etc all the time. I couldn't afford their bathrooms.....