107 replies to this topic

[HartfordGuy1]

When you borrow 60 million dollars from USA Capital and  and up to now, you don't pay it back, it's easy.

[shwoz]

MadVlad, on Dec 22 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

I believe Larson's point was that he could actually get some funding for I-91 due to it blocking the Colt National Historical Park from the River. I-84 has nothing to do with Colt, so there would be no connection, and no reason, for the Feds to give money for that project.

Thats what I mean,screw Colt,infrastructure is the most important thing,I84 must be dealt with not some private and somewhat shady project like Colt.I wonder how much money is lost daily due to traffic tie-ups on 84?91 isn't perfect but gridlock in the area near the Colt building isn't nearly as bad as the main east-west thoroughfare in the Capitol region.Besides I91 is built on top of a dike and how do you deal with the Park river which empties in the Ct river half way between Colt and the CCC?

[MadVlad]

shwoz, on Dec 23 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

Thats what I mean,screw Colt,infrastructure is the most important thing,I84 must be dealt with not some private and somewhat shady project like Colt.I wonder how much money is lost daily due to traffic tie-ups on 84?91 isn't perfect but gridlock in the area near the Colt building isn't nearly as bad as the main east-west thoroughfare in the Capitol region.Besides I91 is built on top of a dike and how do you deal with the Park river which empties in the Ct river half way between Colt and the CCC?

Did you even read what I wrote?  He's trying to get free money.  Yes, of course I-84 is worse than I-91, but if someone else is willing to foot a lot of the bill, you go with the cheaper one first, I'm not seeing the problem with that, especially when the end result will still be a huge positive....

[beerbeer]

It would be nice to fix the I-84 viaduct.

But they covered over I-84 downtown and what happened?  Nothing.  The interstates were ill conceived but there are plenty of cities cut by interstates and it's no big deal.  I-84 is NOT the problem.

No parking.  Bad tax structures. Corrupt mayors. Fix those and I-84 will not be an issue.

[The Voice of Reason]

shwoz, on Dec 22 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

V of R,what is your fascination with burying 91?Riverfront Recapture was a great success and now people want to link the city with the river,its already been done.....84 is a much more urgent project that needs to be dealt with right now.What the hell Larson was thinking when he talked about 91 I'll never know, maybe its one of those things where a congressman reaches for the earmark he thinks is most likely to be approved even though burying 91 is unnecassary.Get on the Aetna viaduct I84 project Mr.Larson,its much more important.

I would not call it a fascination, but I am definately enthusiastic about the potential of such a project.
Riverfront may be a huge success, but it was also just a band aid for the larger problem.  Hartford is STILL not connected to its single greatest natural resource.  Additionally, most of the monies spent on riverfront re-capture would not be wasted by an I-91 Project.  In fact the park space would be expanded, and the result would be a much more attractive city to LIVE IN.  The park space would also be immediately SAFER, weather in reality or just perception.  The current park along the river is highly disfunctional and mostly useless, and I can speak from experience as I do attend events at the riverfront.  (still a massive improvement so I assure you I am not down on riverfront recapture at all).  So the long and short of it is that you may think this city is connected to the riverfront, but I think it's barely just been re-introduced.  I see the potential economic impact of some kind of I-84 reconfiguration as being more than an I-91 project, but I see I-91 as much easier to do, much cheaper to do, and I also like the idea of free money from the Feds, not to mention what would likely be a large State assistance to make the Capitol a better city.  If this project helps re kindle the Colt gateway, as well as the capewell condos, and the capewell hotel/hotels I would be thrilled.  I have no doubt the industrial and low density buildings South of the civic center would be re developed as well.  So regardless of your traffic concerns and lost economic viability due to I-84s problems, I think I-91 is a much more realistic opportinity and I want to put my full support behind it.

That being said I would likely support an I-84 project if I had one to support.  Its just a much larger can of worms.  

This is the same thing as voting for someone who has a chance of winning an election even though they are not your ideal.  Sure I could vote Liebertarian or Green or some other thing, but voting Republican or Democrat is the only sure way that your vote will count in our political system as it stands today.

Cheers

[Lowerdeck]

The best and most cost effective solution to I-84 in this state is re-routing it.  All it takes is new signs and new exit numbers.  (And I'm a strong supporter for mileage based exit posting in this state anyway.)

Do we know exactly what kind of effort it will take to cover I-91 in the Hartford area?  Is this just throw something on top like the tunnel on I-84, or is this a massive construction project like the Big Dig... or what some of you want with I-84?  We really don't need a Big Dig scale project in Connecticut, let's not be like our neighbors in Mass.

And about the voting, unless you vote for the guy with the D ... your vote probably didn't matter.  Unless it's a local election in certain parts of the state.  Statewide, federal, Hartford city ... no.  The only winner I voted for in '06 was Rell.

[beerbeer]

The "big dig" brought billions of federal dollars to Mass. It is often thought of as a giant mess, but in truth it was a gravy train for state businesses.

[The Voice of Reason]

beerbeer, on Dec 26 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

The "big dig" brought billions of federal dollars to Mass. It is often thought of as a giant mess, but in truth it was a gravy train for state businesses.

AGREED!

I just read an article yesterday about the official completion of the dig.  The article mainly focused on all of the problems and marvels associated with the project, but be sure it was a huge success.  Traffic actually moves in Boston now.  There have also been all kinds of projects adding to the value of Boston that embrace the new waterfront and greenbelt.  New buildings and a larger tax base.

I would be thrilled if Hartford could get a mini big dig project much like Providence has.  

These are the kinds of projects that completely change how a city is perceived.  Not to mention how it looks and interacts with its transit options.  

If everything were done right the city would get its waterfront back, 84 would go away, and in all likelihood the city would gain another bridge across the river.  While reconnecting East Hartford and Hartford via street level traffic.

[Bill Mocarsky]

beerbeer, on Dec 23 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

It would be nice to fix the I-84 viaduct.

But they covered over I-84 downtown and what happened?  Nothing.  The interstates were ill conceived but there are plenty of cities cut by interstates and it's no big deal.  I-84 is NOT the problem.

No parking.  Bad tax structures. Corrupt mayors. Fix those and I-84 will not be an issue.

Beerbeer, Why would you compare the downtown canyon to the viaduct?

This is how I see it.

The canyon
The void between downtown and the neighborhoods to the north is not the canyon. In fact, the downtown street grid is not even interrupted. The real void is the several blocks of surface parking lots north of the canyon. This is the edge of downtown waiting for a Future wave of development.
I can think of 2 reasons why the cover over the canyon has very little impact.
1.) There is nothing on the other side but several blocks of vacant lots.
2.) The plaza itself is dysfunctional. It doesn't serve (and isn't needed) to facilitate movement across the highway.

The viaduct
The urban fabric is interrupted by the raised segment of I-84 west of downtown. There are important assets on both sides of the viaduct.

In short
The canyon Street grid is intact. Edge of nowhere.
The viaduct Street grid interrupted. Generators on both sides.


Speaking of the viaduct, I heard through the grapevine that the DOT may be willing to consider alternatives.

[beerbeer]

Bill,

The I-84 viaduct cuts Asylum Ave at a natural boundary, a steep hill, between downtown and the Asylum Hill business park.  It doesn't really cut anything off, it just reinforces the topography. Even if I-84 didn't exist,  I think downtown would end at the train station and the Asylum Hill office park (Aetna, the Hartford, the Archdioses, etc) would still have the same character.

The Viaduct cuts Park Avenue at another natural boundary, Pope Park, the natural valley for the Park River and an artificial boundary, the rail line.  

None of these should be impediments to the natural flow of the city.  I-84 hasn't really interrupted any growth. There is plenty of room in the existing neighborhoods. The viaduct just reinforces the boundaries of natural neighborhoods.

The city's true problems reside at city hall and in the state capital building. They have taxed the city to the brink of extinction. The highways are eye sores.  But the real problem was the DOT killing the Griffin Line, which would have reduced the need for surface lots and began the process of bringing true public transportation to the city. Removing the viaduct (which would be great) accomplishes nothing without fixing the real problems.

Edited by beerbeer, 03 January 2008 - 11:28 AM.

[Bill Mocarsky]

beerbeer, on Jan 3 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

The I-84 viaduct cuts Asylum Ave at a natural boundary, a steep hill, between downtown and the Asylum Hill business park.  It doesn't really cut anything off, it just reinforces the topography. Even if I-84 didn't exist,  I think downtown would end at the train station and the Asylum Hill office park (Aetna, the Hartford, the Archdioses, etc) would still have the same character.

It reinforces the topography in a negative way

beerbeer, on Jan 3 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

The Viaduct cuts Park Avenue at another natural boundary, Pope Park, the natural valley for the Park River and an artificial boundary, the rail line.  

None of these should be impediments to the natural flow of the city.  I-84 hasn't really interrupted any growth. There is plenty of room in the existing neighborhoods. The viaduct just reinforces the boundaries of natural neighborhoods.

I guess the same could be said about I-91 being situated at a natural boundary.

beerbeer, on Jan 3 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

The city's true problems reside at city hall and in the state capital building. They have taxed the city to the brink of extinction.

That is another issue.

Edited by Bill Mocarsky, 03 January 2008 - 12:39 PM.

[beerbeer]

Not true about I-91.  Unless they put it in the river.  Cutting the city off from the river was a huge mistake.  Access to the river truly enhances the quality of life of the city.

If  the state had the billion bucks to get rid of I-84, it would be better spent on the Griffin Line and substituting rail for the busway.

Edited by beerbeer, 03 January 2008 - 12:49 PM.

[Luca Brasi]

[quote name='beerbeer' date='Jan 3 2008, 01:48 PM' post='912854'

If  the state had the billion bucks to get rid of I-84, it would be better spent on the Griffin Line and substituting rail for the busway.
[/quote]

I agree. I think the idea that 84 has ruined downtown is a bit overstated and an excuse for other problems. As Bill mentions, the street grid is uninterrupted downtown and the platform over 84 downtown has been designed to support a highrise.

The viaduct could easily be developed around like it has in any other major city. Of course it would be nice to bet rid of it, but the bigger problem is the surface lots that line 84 from Asylum Hill into downtown.

[Bill Mocarsky]

beerbeer, on Jan 3 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Bill,

The I-84 viaduct cuts Asylum Ave at a natural boundary, a steep hill, between downtown and the Asylum Hill business park.  It doesn't really cut anything off, it just reinforces the topography. Even if I-84 didn't exist,  I think downtown would end at the train station and the Asylum Hill office park (Aetna, the Hartford, the Archdioses, etc) would still have the same character.

If you get the chance, check out some cities with some topographic changes that actually enhance the landscape. Some major cities not too far from Hartford that have some good examples are Boston and Montreal.
In Montreal, McGill University is nestled on a slope between downtown and Mont Royal.
In Boston, check out the Boston Common and Beacon Hill transition.

Other nearby examples can be found in White Plains, Quebec City, Portland.

[shwoz]

Just gotta say I love Portland ME.and that city wouldn't be the same without its hilly terrain and natural topographical boundaries so well incorporated in its downtown and waterfront.

[MichaelQReilly]

There have been a couple of articles in the Courant about this project in the past week.  Apparently the developer wants $9.5 million from the state to start the project back up.  The state in turn has said that they aren't necessarily opposed to putting more  money into the project, but they want the developer to get his finances straight first.  

Here is the first article:
http://www.courant.c...0,3446117.story

And here is an editorial from today's paper
http://www.courant.c...0,5840115.story

My take on this is that the state should help out the developer.  I know that they have had a lot of money issues, but their work has been top notch.  As a big preservationist, I've been really impressed with the attention to detail in the work that has been done so far.  I realize that authentic restoration is necessary to qualify for all the preservation tax credits, but that hasn't stopped developers from doing a hack job with other historic structures (Sage-Allen anyone?).  Given that this is a critical time for the project in terms of the National Park status, I really think the state and or city need to be more proactive in getting this project moving forward.


By the way, as an on going development, shouldn't this thread have a sticky?

[Lowerdeck]

MichaelQReilly, on Apr 27 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

By the way, as an on going development, shouldn't this thread have a sticky?

There seems to me like a lot of stickies already in the Hartford section.


Anyway... doesn't seem like a huge number for the state to pick up.  As long things are all straightened out, should be good for Hartford.

Edited by Lowerdeck, 27 April 2008 - 06:37 PM.

[The Voice of Reason]

Lowerdeck, on Apr 27 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

There seems to me like a lot of stickies already in the Hartford section.

Anyway... doesn't seem like a huge number for the state to pick up. As long things are all straightened out, should be good for Hartford.

Maybe we should put some of the completed projects into a new completed forum. or maybe just a forum for projects only?

but on the topic I agree this one we can throw away some money on. The developer may not have delivered on promises, but they have not done anything shady. they seem to be suffering from the econemys faltering than anything else, and even still they are fighting for the park and historic status.

I think that the state should offer to lease all of the office space and help them out that way. if that would happen it would help the project significntly, and the tax payers would still be getting something for their money. the state has workers in offices all over the place.

Hell if not the state, the city could lease all of the office space.

My half baked proposal:
City/State should both evaluate their current leases and arange to move as many workers to colt as possible. Colt would cut the state a slight brake on the lease in order to have valuable leases signed.

These leases would improve the credit worthiness of the project.

Webster bank would be used to re-finance in some kind of sweetheart deal like they work when the state/city are behind the project.

Homes for America Holdings uses the loan to push the project forward and get the 10M state grant they are needing right now.

As people move into the offices over the next 2 years due to the above deal, the residential units will begin to lease out and even a few retail spots open due to the increased usefullness of the site.

This should put the project into safe zone and really the only change is that the city/state hand money in the form of a lease to a developer rather than a cronie.

Edited by The Voice of Reason, 27 April 2008 - 08:22 PM.

[Captain59]

Could this help bring back The Whale?!?!  

[Chessplayer]

Captain59, on Apr 30 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

Could this help bring back The Whale?!?!  

Probably not.  But it's worthy in its own right.