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

[spatulashack]

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.....

[MadVlad]

If I show you a Farberge' Egg then give you one that Cluck-Cluck in the backyard laid, would you be let down? I would....

[jdrct]

If I show you a Farberge' Egg then give you one that Cluck-Cluck in the backyard laid, would you be let down? I would....

[MadVlad]

But the developers never showed you a Faberge Egg.

[jdrct]

They didn't show me the backyard Betty they are showing now either, but you got my point, didn't you....

[blackstone]

But what is the need to have 4 one ways spilling into Market from Main? Also, street level retail is non-specific and could be regarding Main Street.

[MadVlad]

Personally, at this point, I could really care less what renderings were or weren't promised. Pictures don't appear out of thin air, they came from somewhere. I didn't create them, I'm assuming you didn't create them, and we all know Santa and Rudolph didn't either. The current product is horrible, doesn't fit the area, and I, like most others here, are offended by the result. We hold our city in high regard, and when presented by Santa's Elves with what could have/should have been, we are insulted.

Let's recap, shall we?:

No one disputes the following: Sage Allen facade is saved, bringing people, particularly students that can rock out with their...(you get the idea), to live downtown is good, and opening that street from the nonsense it was prior is a good idea.

That's where the world starts to blur. JFK, Elvis, and Jimi Hendrix create some pictures (no one else seems to have created them, despite their uncanny resemblance to what is shaping up) and distribute them to the world of the living to create mass confusion. What shapes up in their place a) doesn't fit the neighborhood, b) is a shadow of what could have been (see JFK, Elvis, and Jimi reference), and c) should make us feel bad for the poor, poor developers, that is just doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Boo hoo. Their development looks like crap no matter what was promised. Then they come here and tell us we are bad people for seeing it the way we see it.

When I was 8 I got bit by the neighbor's dog. I got over it.

[T52]

When I was 8 I got bit by the neighbor's dog. I got over it.

[JHChris280]

Actually no. Based on what you originally wrote, you are still among the crowd that thinks the renderings from the CCEDA web site were the "promised" renderings. If you look at the renderings on file with the city, you will find that they did indeed show you what was constructed. But hey, why bother with facts, when you can have more fun vilifying those who are on the hook for $53 million. (They were given loans not grants. They got to pay it back)

[MadVlad]

I'm not sure you did - perhaps a blood test is in order.

If we use the numbers we know, perhaps we can put this in perspective...

Cost: $53,000,000

Unit Count: 120 (78 in the fromt, 42 in the back)

Cost per Unit: $441,667

compare that to a $441,667 house mortgage

20 year @ 6% payment = $3,164.23

I think the rents start at a third of that

but wait, thats just the mortgage, not management or operating costs

there is a little retail (4%) and perhaps some excess parking (I think there are 343 parking spaces and 300 bedrooms).

sounds like a killing to me...

[T52]

Whether it's the CCEDA, the developers, the city, or those who still think the CCEDA images are what was promised this was one of the cities important projects and it ended up receiving little attention. With that said, I think there's too much finger pointing at individual posters who preferred the version being showed on the CCEDA. The fact of the matter is that site probably has more information than anything readily available to a lay person. Yes, I know that's early version and I personally abandoned that idea long ago but I'm not going to brow beat anyone for not knowing otherwise.

Honestly, I never would've known what was finally filed with the city, except for one image showing the Main Street view. Maybe T can offer some insight.....how long in the process of financing, site work, etc. were final designs submitted and approved by the city? What am I trying to get at? Is it realistic to think the project was too far along to scrap because interested parties didn't want to quibble over asthetics?

[MadVlad]

Constitution Plaza compromised the residential portion to "get 'er done". It worked for a bit and is now considered a white elephant. Being a builder, once your end is done, you are done, but your structures last beyond your tenure. To suggest that because a building is great because it meets what was in the final plan is faulty logic. What really makes it great is when it recognizes it's surroundings, which this doesn't along Temple St. What makes it great is the 'gingerbread", which being a builder, you could really care less about, at the end of the day. Hartford needs less boxes. The premise that building something to build something is wrong. We have already conceded the good points of the project: The Sage Allen facade was saved. Residents will be brought downtown. Temple St was opened. What the conversation here is about is the project's future, what was illustrated prior was not the end result, and the way it works with the surroundings. We've had people here from other States say" Wtf is that thing? It doesn't belong in a Downtown"? That doesn't effect you, I see. Which is fine, because you'll draw your paycheck and move onto the next project, which is your right to do. But don't come here and tell us that our opinions are wrong because the developer did or didn't score a windfall.

[T52]

Constitution Plaza compromised the residential portion to "get 'er done". It worked for a bit and is now considered a white elephant. Being a builder, once your end is done, you are done, but your structures last beyond your tenure. To suggest that because a building is great because it meets what was in the final plan is faulty logic. What really makes it great is when it recognizes it's surroundings, which this doesn't along Temple St. What makes it great is the 'gingerbread", which being a builder, you could really care less about, at the end of the day. Hartford needs less boxes. The premise that building something to build something is wrong. We have already conceded the good points of the project: The Sage Allen facade was saved. Residents will be brought downtown. Temple St was opened. What the conversation here is about is the project's future, what was illustrated prior was not the end result, and the way it works with the surroundings. We've had people here from other States say" Wtf is that thing? It doesn't belong in a Downtown"? That doesn't effect you, I see. Which is fine, because you'll draw your paycheck and move onto the next project, which is your right to do. But don't come here and tell us that our opinions are wrong because the developer did or didn't score a windfall.

[beerbeer]

Nothing was promised. As has been said countless times in this thread, the CCEDA renderings were never the ones approved by the city and judging by how old that website is, were very, very early concepts. Here is the rendering that was APPROVED by the city:

Hmm... it looks like they delivered the spitting image of what they "promised." The developers were not responsibe for making sure a development authority in Hartford didn't release early renderings that were never signed off on. If you want to blame anyone, blame CCEDA. The developers themselves never had those ornate renderings on their own site.

[MichaelQReilly]

Let me chime in my thoughts on this project, which are pretty much the same as everyone elses. The final product leaves alot to be desired, but at the end of the day, its better than what was there before and its certainly better than a parking lot.

One thing that I've noticed about this project, which is a huge problem with alot of urban development since the end of WWII, is this weird need to be overly complex when it is not necessary. Others have touched on this a bit but let me elaborate further. Long experience has shown that simple buildings that fit into a streetscape work best in a city. Yet this always seems to be ignored. I could cite a million examples from Constitution Plaza to the Boston City Hall complex to the Bushnell Tower to name just a few. Instead developers, architects, planners or whoever feel the need to include over elaborate plazas or alleys that in renderings are always depicted as lively and occupied, but which in reality always wind up as non-functional, stark, empty spaces that destroy cities' fabric. I honestly don't understand why this is done. I don't know if it is some kind of desire to try and give the project another dimension by the planner/developer or whether it is just another symtom of the idiotic achitectural elite who are so intellectually pompus yet churn out hideous buildings that are quickly shown to be disasters and soon become a burdens to thier cities.

While this project isn't that bad in this respect, it still has that weird alley for the townhouses. Why even include it at all? It takes away from interaction with the street, as has already been noted. If cost was such ans issue, why spend all the money on the windows, doors, siding etc. to make this extra alley? Why not make it space inside the building that can in turn be used to generate revenue?

I'm convinced that this is one of the reasons that it is so expensive to do urban projects. Developers who build buildings that don't do these wacky things and instead fit simply into the existing street pattern seem to be among the most successful, see Larry G. and Donald Trump for two perfect examples. I honestly thing that if all of these projects were simplified in this way that they would be much more successful.

[Jerry2]

I'm still not convinced with all the pro-comments on here. The Sage-Allen building looks fine. Even if it cut corners, it is still a beautiful building that was refurbished. I buy the rising construction costs theory that they may have had to cut back. This is happening all over the country. However, what has me outright pissed, and I'm not even from Hartford, is that those townomes are tacky and way out of place in any historical city. The color scheme looks like hues of Haagen Daas sherbert. This color scheme does not age well anywhere in the Northeast. These townhomes are something you would expect from a Southern gated community. The only hope now is to incorporate some retail facing the street. Can you even cut through that alleyway or is it a dead-end? I gotta go to Htfd. soon.

[Luca Brasi]

Actually no. Based on what you originally wrote, you are still among the crowd that thinks the renderings from the CCEDA web site were the "promised" renderings. If you look at the renderings on file with the city, you will find that they did indeed show you what was constructed. But hey, why bother with facts, when you can have more fun vilifying those who are on the hook for $53 million. (They were given loans not grants. They got to pay it back)

[Luca Brasi]

If we use the numbers we know, perhaps we can put this in perspective...

Cost: $53,000,000

Unit Count: 120 (78 in the fromt, 42 in the back)

Cost per Unit: $441,667

compare that to a $441,667 house mortgage

20 year @ 6% payment = $3,164.23

I think the rents start at a third of that

but wait, thats just the mortgage, not management or operating costs

there is a little retail (4%) and perhaps some excess parking (I think there are 343 parking spaces and 300 bedrooms).

sounds like a killing to me...

[jcrc]

I'm not sure you did - perhaps a blood test is in order.

If we use the numbers we know, perhaps we can put this in perspective...

Cost: $53,000,000

Unit Count: 120 (78 in the fromt, 42 in the back)

Cost per Unit: $441,667

compare that to a $441,667 house mortgage

20 year @ 6% payment = $3,164.23

I think the rents start at a third of that

but wait, thats just the mortgage, not management or operating costs

there is a little retail (4%) and perhaps some excess parking (I think there are 343 parking spaces and 300 bedrooms).

sounds like a killing to me...

[redbaron]

They weren't given grants? The whole reason that Temple St., Colt, H21, Trumbull Center, etc. are rentals and not condos is so they could qualify for Rowland's per unit subsidies to spur development downtown. Why do you think everyone raves over David Nyberg's condo projects? Its because he uses NO public money. Statement for The University of Hartford:

"The developers, 18 Temple Street LLC, received support from the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA), which is providing construction and permanent mortgage financing for the project; the Capital City Economic Development Authority (CCEDA), which provided a significant subsidy for the housing component of the project; and the Connecticut Development Authority (CDA), which provided financial assistance through sales tax relief"

[jcrc]

Ultimately it doesn't matter if the developer made a killing or not, we all have to live with these out of place and in my opinion rather strange looking suburbia townhouses in the middle of urban Hartford. Luca is right rowhouses done properly here would have looked fantastic.

[Bill Mocarsky]

And getting back to prior post... the reason the townhouses were oriented inward and not out to the street was because of the slope of the street, security and the need for parking? I've never heard more weak excuses for poor design.

[T52]

Temple Street Approval Renderings

http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rend2.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rend3.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rend1.jpg

[ctman]

it's wierd how the townhomes open to the interior alleyway, but it is definitley an improvement over what was there. i remember walking by that building and the smell of mildew was strong even on the sidewalk. do i prefer the rendering on the cceda site to the approved project, yes, and who wouldn't. what was approved is what was built and kudos to the developer for his commitment to saving the facade when it probably would have been a whole lot easier to drop the whole building and start from scratch. i would prefer temple street brought traffic onto main insted of the otherway around but having it is a start.

[drc72]

Temple Street Approval Renderings

http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rend2.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rend3.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rend1.jpg