274 replies to this topic

[DanielW]

The Voice of Reason, on Jul 23 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

Dan, I am not sure you know the answer to this, but I think it worth asking.

with this as my preface:
It is my opinion that a new office building in Hartford would generate significant interest from the existing office tennants. and even pull from the burbs. We have had no new offices in this city in decades, and it is this reason many potential tennants choose new construction in the burbs.

I wonder, if "you" would be finalizing design before shopping the space around, or will you be shopping the space around before you finalize the design.

Meaning that if someone is interested in a decent sized chunk of space would you build larger than 100k? how much larger?

I ask partially due to my thoughts that there is a demand for LEED buildings in Hartford and also Trevelers just across the street is leasing space like crazy.

.... Its a great question, and it says a lot about the insight you have in city workings.

You know I can't answer it.  

I wish I could share beyond what I already have, really I do.  You folks have been such a good source of insight into what is going on with Hartford in its current state, I felt like I owed it to you all to say thanks.  And, for the record -- we're still watching - I don't want that relationship to end by any means.  Feel free to keep putting in your wishlist items and personal thoughts on our little project.

But please understand that this project is vitally important to all of us working on it.  We sincerely stand by our original statement that we want to make this a project that you will all be proud of.  I can't -- I won't -- do anything here to muck any of that up, even in an indirect way.  

The project, as I have said, is in the early planning stages.  Nothing is set in stone as of today.  The story in the Courant has certainly gathered interest, and we will see what and where that interest will lead to.

So, until the time that I can release more - and that day is coming soon - the most I can do is the occasional wink, nudge, and/or a redirect to the company website and press release.

Dan Whittemore
AI Engineers, Inc.

[Hiramicus]

thanks for the info!  any hints on a timeline?  when might we expect ground breaking?  (i have no concept of how these things proceed).

[Chessplayer]

DanielW, on Jul 23 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

Feel free to keep putting in your wishlist items and personal thoughts on our little project.

I've heard (indirectly) that many companies give discounts to workers willing to live in or near downtown.  Is AI considering such incentives for its employees?

[The Voice of Reason]

DanielW, on Jul 23 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

.... Its a great question, and it says a lot about the insight you have in city workings.

you flatter me.
Seriously, I feel fairly naive most of the time but thats mostly because I recently (3yrs) moved here.

DanielW, on Jul 23 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

And, for the record -- we're still watching - I don't want that relationship to end by any means. Feel free to keep putting in your wishlist items and personal thoughts on our little project.

Oh, now you've done it.  You went and opened up a can of worms.  

For the people who want a highrise or something
the current building has
10,852 SF in the basement
12,400 SF on the first floor
16,148 SF on the 2nd floor
20,618 SF on the 3rd floor
12,656 SF on the 4th floor
totalling 72,674 SF

The current foot print is 182X132 according to the city.  This is pretty close to the entire property size of .55 acres or 23,958 SF

A large portion of the first floor is taken up by parking ramps.  I am just guessing here but I would assume the basement is used for broadcast equipment or editing or some such stuff.

I would think that any new building hoping to reach the goals put fourth would interact wih the street.  Therefore including retail street frontage would be a high priority, and possibly retail on the 2nd or 3rd floor where it interacts with the plaza and part of state street due to the incline.  Retail might not be the right word since there is mention of some kind of training center or what not for young engineers, but I could easily see the first 3 floors being used for purposes other than office.  The design of this building being interesting, or something we can be proud of means it is likely to be a cube.  

The only floor of broadcast house that is really all office is the 3rd floor.  At 20,618 SF it is quite a sizable floor plate.  If you lose a few thousand SF to some kind of interesting asthetic design the office could easily be 6 stories tall.  this means at 100,000 I would not get my hopes up for anything more than a total height of 8 floors from Columbus.  AI would occupy 2 floors leaving another 4 to lease.  

for scale purposes only

[ConnMan]

Dan, do the metro Hartford area a favor and have your demolition company "accidentally" place a couple of charges about 50 yards north of Broadcast House and knock that rat infested hotel down.

I have a funny story about that hotel...

A few years back they had an open house inside the hotel where they were selling all the dirty, outdated, out of style furniture and such. I went to this event (really to just see the inside of the hotel) and stumbled upon the kitchen where everything was left as it was the last night of operation, almost as if the place had closed the day before (dirty dishes, pans, etc. all over the place). Also left in the kitchen? A penthouse mag dated the month the joint closed for good - sitting on a counter! It's probably still there...

[DanielW]

The Voice of Reason, on Jul 24 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

Oh, now you've done it. You went and opened up a can of worms.

[proceeds to open said can]

I see you are doing your homework as usual.  I do have problems with some of your assumptions, though.  For instance, LEED NC 2.2, Indoor Environmental Quality Points 8.1 and 8.2 have something to say about your "cube".

http://www.usgbc.org...x?CMSPageID=220

Dan Whittemore
AI Engineers, Inc.

[The Voice of Reason]

That section refers to natural light so I am assuming that means even smaller floor plates because cubicles without direct view of the outdoors keep you from getting the point. or points if you are after 90% Not knowing what level of LEEDs you would be going after... I can only assume gold, because I think Platinum would need to be next to the train station, but I am not really familiar with LEEDs standards. I might get my read on one night from that link you provided however.

I want to just say that I am psyched that you guys are doing something there, but that location to me would be a great one for residential. Any chance you can get a few million from the city to build say 200 residential units on a 2nd tower? at .55 acres you can definately fit two towers on site.
A residential tower at around 90'X132'  then a smaller say 10 floor office tower at say 72'X132' fronting the street with southern exposure and maximum visability for you.

Just a dream.

Edited by The Voice of Reason, 27 July 2008 - 07:19 PM.

[The Voice of Reason]

SURVEYOR

[Chessplayer]

It's certainly an interesting building.  I'll reserve judgement and wait for the new rendering, but it would be a shame if what is to be built here is less than great.

[T52]

Chessplayer, on Jul 30 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

It's certainly an interesting building.  I'll reserve judgement and wait for the new rendering, but it would be a shame if what is to be built here is less than great.

One of the interesting things about that building is that the construction technique used was lift slab - banned in this State after the collapse of L'Ambiance Plaza.  In the late 70's I worked for an architectural firm in there.

[DanielW]

The Voice of Reason, on Jul 26 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

I want to just say that I am psyched that you guys are doing something there, but that location to me would be a great one for residential. Any chance you can get a few million from the city to build say 200 residential units on a 2nd tower? at .55 acres you can definately fit two towers on site.
A residential tower at around 90'X132' then a smaller say 10 floor office tower at say 72'X132' fronting the street with southern exposure and maximum visability for you.

Duly noted.

The Voice of Reason, on Jul 30 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

SURVEYOR

Now what are THEY doing out there, I wonder?  

Chessplayer, on Jul 30 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

It's certainly an interesting building. I'll reserve judgement and wait for the new rendering, but it would be a shame if what is to be built here is less than great.

We will try our best.

[Chessplayer]

T52, on Jul 30 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

One of the interesting things about that building is that the construction technique used was lift slab - banned in this State after the collapse of L'Ambiance Plaza. In the late 70's I worked for an architectural firm in there.

Do you know anything else about the construction and design of the building?  Modernism is a difficult style to understand and appreciate, but I always find that when it's explained there's much more creativity and rigor than meets the eye.

DanielW, on Jul 30 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

We will try our best.

Everything presented so far has given reason for optimism.

[MichaelQReilly]

Man, that building is truly grotesquely ugly.  One of the many buildings built post war that makes you wonder, "Were the architects secretly having a contest to try and design the most hideous buildings possible?"

[The Voice of Reason]

http://www.courant.c...0,5798138.story

Phoenix said Thursday it is finalizing a lease for Phoenix Investment Partners in downtown Hartford but wouldn't identify the building.

Joe Fazzino, a company spokesman, said Phoenix Investment Partners is seeking 30,000 to 40,000 square feet of space and that Virtus will have about 140 employees downtown. The employees are expected to occupy the new location within six to eight months, he said.

Dave,
If you have nothing to do with this, I would contact them, let them know your plans quickly, then tell them to negotiate a short term lease innitially that would end when your building would be finished.

I would have PM'd this to you but your PMs are disabled.

Cheers!

Edited by The Voice of Reason, 31 July 2008 - 05:52 PM.

[JayCT]

MichaelQReilly, on Jul 31 2008, 10:42 AM, said:

Man, that building is truly grotesquely ugly. One of the many buildings built post war that makes you wonder, "Were the architects secretly having a contest to try and design the most hideous buildings possible?"

I find Broadcast House to be kind of neat with its zig zag canopy and roof line.  Very 1960's and almost kind of a Jetson look.  Of course it could use a renovation but from what I have read here it is more likely that it will be demolished.  

As a former student of historic preservation, I will remind you that most old buildings are thought of as "hideous" at one time.  There is a period in every building's life where it is looked down on as being so out-of-style (usually when the building is around 30 years old until it is about 60 year and it is starting to be thought of as historic).  After a while that changes and people look back and realize that the building is pretty nice.  Unfortunately, all of Constitution Plaza is in that 30 to 60 year period.  Jay

[The Voice of Reason]

JayCT, on Aug 1 2008, 02:46 PM, said:

I find Broadcast House to be kind of neat with its zig zag canopy and roof line. Very 1960's and almost kind of a Jetson look. Of course it could use a renovation but from what I have read here it is more likely that it will be demolished.

As a former student of historic preservation, I will remind you that most old buildings are thought of as "hideous" at one time. There is a period in every building's life where it is looked down on as being so out-of-style (usually when the building is around 30 years old until it is about 60 year and it is starting to be thought of as historic). After a while that changes and people look back and realize that the building is pretty nice. Unfortunately, all of Constitution Plaza is in that 30 to 60 year period. Jay

What you say may generally be true, I have a hard time beliving that very many of the concrete buildings from the era of the plaza will ever be looked at fondly by the greater populous.

The 60s and 70s were a time when a lot of junk was mass produced in construction.  While I like the funkyness of broadcast house, I do not see it worth preserving in any way for asthetic, historical, or even sentimental reasons.  Poor design is poor design.  Buildings like this were not built with human use and comfort at their core.  Just look at Bushnell plaza. just a horrible place.  Sure it had a big name architect, but the design was more for the sake of design than ultimately for living in and shopping at.

just my opinion

Edited by The Voice of Reason, 06 August 2008 - 09:00 AM.

[T52]

The Voice of Reason, on Aug 1 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

What you say may generally be true, I have a hard time beliving that very many of the concrete buildings from the era of the plaza will ever be looked at fondly by the greater populous.

the 60s and 70s were a time when a lot of junk was pass produced in construction.  and while I like the funkyness of broadcast house, I do not see it worth preserving in any way for asthetic historical, or even sentimental reasons.  poor design is poor design.  building like this were not built with human use and comford at their core.  Just look at Bushnell plaza.  just a horrible place.  sure it had a big name architect, but the design was more for the sake of design than ultimately for living in and shopping at.

just my opinion

In design, there is function and there is form. On the form side there is is the building shape and then there is the gingerbread which is like the little pagoda roof and ornamentation that people associate with buildings like Broadcast House. Actually, there is often more in common with the core of buildings than many people imagine. Column spacing, floor to floor height and live load capacity of the floor often dictate the potential use (or re-use) of a building. In downtown buildings, the shape of the site usually dictates most of the footprint of the building. Many times some efficiency is lost in a building conversion but at a cost savings over complete demolition and re-construction. That having been said, the "ugly buildings" in that 30-60 year timeframe are often re-skinned into a more contemporary architectural style only to be de-skinned and returned to their original look 30 years later. Even the "Butt Ugly" building is a potential gem in the rough. Given the current state of the economy, I'd be inclined to take a second look at re-cycling a building like the Broadcast House.

As for Bushnell Towers, I worked with that architect on a different project and found him to be incredibly gifted. Don't under-estimate the developer's role in the process...

[MichaelQReilly]

JayCT, on Aug 1 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I find Broadcast House to be kind of neat with its zig zag canopy and roof line.  Very 1960's and almost kind of a Jetson look.  Of course it could use a renovation but from what I have read here it is more likely that it will be demolished.  

As a former student of historic preservation, I will remind you that most old buildings are thought of as "hideous" at one time.  There is a period in every building's life where it is looked down on as being so out-of-style (usually when the building is around 30 years old until it is about 60 year and it is starting to be thought of as historic).  After a while that changes and people look back and realize that the building is pretty nice.  Unfortunately, all of Constitution Plaza is in that 30 to 60 year period.  Jay

I agree with you for the most part Jay, and I've debated this extensively in other places.  That said, there is a certain strain of architecture, starting with Bauhaus (sp), continuing through Brutalism, and alive and well today with the likes of Liebeskind and Gehery that pretty much rejects everything we know about what makes a good building, holds up the cutting edge as a singular measure of a building's worth, as is pretty much actively hostile (intentionally or not) toward its surrounding and its users.  Imho, there is a special place in hell for the architects that foisted crap like Boston's city hall upon a town and destroyed a perfectly functional mixed use neighborhood in the process.

[The Voice of Reason]

T52, on Aug 1 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

In design, there is function and there is form. On the form side there is is the building shape and then there is the gingerbread which is like the little pagoda roof and ornamentation that people associate with buildings like Broadcast House. Actually, there is often more in common with the core of buildings than many people imagine. Column spacing, floor to floor height and live load capacity of the floor often dictate the potential use (or re-use) of a building. In downtown buildings, the shape of the site usually dictates most of the footprint of the building. Many times some efficiency is lost in a building conversion but at a cost savings over complete demolition and re-construction. That having been said, the "ugly buildings" in that 30-60 year timeframe are often re-skinned into a more contemporary architectural style only to be de-skinned and returned to their original look 30 years later. Even the "Butt Ugly" building is a potential gem in the rough. Given the current state of the economy, I'd be inclined to take a second look at re-cycling a building like the Broadcast House.

As for Bushnell Towers, I worked with that architect on a different project and found him to be incredibly gifted. Don't under-estimate the developer's role in the process...

I feel the same about "Butt Ugly"  was thinking about that just the other day while stopped at that light facing the building.

And yeah I have nothing against I.M Pei, just that specific building and its non tower aspects.  lets face it the tower is fine, its the plaza and interaction with the street I hate.  I only wrote what I did because people love to defend that development and even fawn over it simply due to Pei's involvement.  My perspective is that no matter who worked on it, parts of the development are not succcessful. you can blame it on the era it was built vs the current interests of city dwellers, or Blame the developer in this case.  Because the design was much better than what was built, and if built to its full scale there would have been a much better product.  Isn't it always about the money in the end?  

I actually quite like the Bank of China tower.  Its really one of my favorite skyscrapers in terms of concept and asthetics.  Not to mention the engineering aspects of that building would surely blow my mind.

Another favorite is the John Handcock in Boston.  Best reflection ever...

but I digress.

[T52]

The Voice of Reason, on Aug 2 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

I actually quite like the Bank of China tower.  Its really one of my favorite skyscrapers in terms of concept and asthetics.  Not to mention the engineering aspects of that building would surely blow my mind.

Leslie Robertson of Twin Towers fame did the engineering on the Bank of China ... another pretty talented designer