Space Needle

[MadVlad]

Wichita plans a Peerless Tower

I've been saying for a long time now that Hartford can achieve a tower/Space Needle type thing. Wichita has one in the planning stages, so why the hell not us? Give me your reasons why/why not, you've all heard mine already....

[blink55184]

sounds like its still alot of talk- which might mean nothing as of now.

I like the idea alot of something to put Hartford on the map in that manner, Id like it to be something really original tho.

[catdr]

I agree. Great idea. Some huge symbol of the city that would be instantly recognizable.

[GregV]

I know I've said this before, but IMO a space needle is not what Hartford needs. Evenutally, maybe there should be an office/mixed-use skyscraper with a restaurant/observation deck at the top, perhaps a rotating one. But I think the city should focus its efforts on making the area more attractive for residents/luring new ones than undergoing a grand project with such a narrow use.

[beerbeer]

It will never be built Vlad. But I appreciate your consistancy.

[Bill Mocarsky]

It will never be built Vlad. But I appreciate your consistancy.

Hartford needs more people with this attitude.

[Luca Brasi]

I know you have been saying this for a while MadVlad, but just how exactly do you propose financing this thing?

[mcheiss]

sounds like its still alot of talk- which might mean nothing as of now.

I like the idea alot of something to put Hartford on the map in that manner, Id like it to be something really original tho.

The Peerless Tower isn't a done deal yet, it's still in the planning stages, actually it's still a vision.

I doubt it will even be built.

[beerbeer]

Bill, I'm not negative at all. Read my posts. I love that Vlad has space needle fever, luckily it's a non-contagious disease.

Besides, the fact that his tower in Kansas will never be built has nothing to do with Hartford

[MadVlad]

Well, financing is definitely the issue. I personally don't have the dough, so if people wait for me, nothing will be built. I'm hoping some visionary somewhere reads some of my ramblings and gets inspired. Constitution College, the Hartford Space Needle thingie (I'll have to work on an official name), I think these things can have a place in Hartford.

And, don't get me wrong, I'm in full agreement that there are other higher priorities right now. However, does one have to preclude the other? Can only one building or plan exist at a time? Of course not!!

I'll restate my plans for a Hartford Tower. I feel that Hartford needs to establish itself as a destination (obviously, amongst other things). This tower can do that. New York City doesn't have one, Boston doesn't have one, Philly doesn't have one. The closest Towers like this (to my knowledge) are in Quebec City and Niagara Falls. If marketed properly, the city could really draw some people to town, and have a better chance of keeping them here. See the Wadsworth, see the Mark Twain House, see the Hartford Tower, have dinner in the rotating restaurant overlooking the city and the River, then go see a Whalers game...... see, I really am brightening the future. Seriously though, it can go on Farmington Ave., whether in my prefered spot (the corner of Broad St and Farmington Ave, right next to I-84 where the grassy corner is), or Bill M's spot (diagonal across the interesection where the Hartford's underground parking is). That area is THE perfect place, it makes a nice bridge from downtown to the Mark Twain House, it's close to downtown, and Union Place. It's right off the highway, so easy to get to. We can also make it one of the Monorail stops....... we are getting one of those, aren't we?

Evenutally, maybe there should be an office/mixed-use skyscraper with a restaurant/observation deck at the top, perhaps a rotating one.

And exactly how is that exciting in any way? We need something dynamic.

[Hiramicus]

hrm... I don't think Hartford Necessarily needs a tower, but any architectural anomaly would be appreciated. The Arch put St. Louis on the map; the Golden Gate defines San Fran; so we should pick something that'll say "hartford". like an arch bridge

[beerbeer]

The state had a chance to build a spectaular signature bridge when it redid the Charter Oak Bridge. Instead they build something that looks like an interstate on-ramp.

[MadVlad]

That's another sticking point with me: a nice, city-street bridge. For example, Springfield has that great, awesome bridge crossing the river from downtown. Basically all we have are highway fly-overs. We need a nice, signature bridge, one that connects city street with city street. Think how nice it would be just to drive down the road from East Hartford to Hartford instead of dealing with on-ramps, off-ramps....

[Luca Brasi]

It's ridiculous that Hartford doesn't have a bridge to get you to East Hartford without getting on an Interstate. Its not like the Connecticut River is the size of the Mississippi River...

[Bill Mocarsky]

I would like to see a bridge (in the form of a city street) connect Charter Oak Avenue to East River Drive. Some of the benefits that I can see from the "Coltsville Bridge" are:

It would ultimately link Silver Lane to Hartford.

It would offer an alternate course between downtown and route 2.

It would form a gateway to Coltsville from the east.

East of the river buses (or LRT) could put Coltsville alongside a transportation corridor.

I-91 is elevated at this point on the Hartford side, allowing enough clearance for a road to go under.

[ctman987]

I think a city street bridge would be a great idea. We are fortunate enough to have the CT River run right next to Hartford and we have thousands of people who cross the CT River daily whether its for travel, for work, for leisure, whatver. Why not make a city street alternative that would add architectural flare to the cities bridges and city overall and even alleviate some traffic on the Bulkley Bridge and Charter Oak Bridge

[HartfordTycoon]

We definately need for this to happen. I've felt this way for a long time. Why do you have to get on the Highway and go through Downtown to get to East Hartford all of the time. It's quite ridiculous.

[Recchia]

We definately need for this to happen. I've felt this way for a long time. Why do you have to get on the Highway and go through Downtown to get to East Hartford all of the time. It's quite ridiculous.

It seems to be like this in many cities, and it's quite annoying. In Providence, the only direct way to East Providence is on an interstate, unless you want to take a half-assed, half blocked off falling apart bridge a few blocks north. Traffic congestion on both is horrendous. Luckily, they are building a new pedestrian bridge as part of a relocation project of the interstate. This should help things a lot, considering it will add a nice link to a long bike path on the east bay as well.

[MadVlad]

Ok, so we are all agreed then, we build the "Coltsville" bridge, then the Hartford Tower!!! See, I knew you'd all get on board....

[LItoCT]

I think the problem with a street bridge is that there is no real need for it on the East Hartford side...the only thing there is East River Drive. The founders bridge is a street bridge on the Hartford side and becomes a highway to get to downtown East Hartford, which is inland, that bridge is practical in that manner and should be Hartford's showcase bridge. Another problem I can think of with the Coltsville bridge is that it would have to go over I-91 - not under - because if it went under it would have to go through the flood dykes and that would leave the Colt gateway open to flooding every spring. I, for one, would love to see a smaller, more intimate bridge, but I think the fact is that the Connecticut river is not suited to one in the state of Connecticut...come to think of it, I can't think of one non-highway bridge over the river in the entire state (Arrigoni, I think, is highway on one side, like Founders bridge).

[LItoCT]

Ok, I forgot the bridge in East Haddam...but that's a rural area.

[MadVlad]

Arrigoni is still a street bridge, it just is a huge bridge.

[Bill Mocarsky]

I think the problem with a street bridge is that there is no real need for it on the East Hartford side...the only thing there is East River Drive.

This area is potentially one of the hottest areas for development in East Hartford. The main reason East River Drive seems remote is for the lack of connections. It would probably be hotter if it linked up with Coltsville and Adriaen's Landing.

The founders bridge is a street bridge on the Hartford side and becomes a highway to get to downtown East Hartford, which is inland, that bridge is practical in that manner and should be Hartford's showcase bridge.

I don't see how a road or bridge could be street on one side and highway on the other. I think of it as a highway spurt leading into the city.

Another problem I can think of with the Coltsville bridge is that it would have to go over I-91 - not under - because if it went under it would have to go through the flood dykes and that would leave the Colt gateway open to flooding every spring

When I come up to Hartford, I would like to take a look at the Highway there. If I remember correctly, The road is elevated to allow for ramps to go underneath for the Whitehead Highway. If the Dyke is still a hurdle, can't it be modified to allow for this?

I, for one, would love to see a smaller, more intimate bridge, but I think the fact is that the Connecticut river is not suited to one in the state of Connecticut...come to think of it, I can't think of one non-highway bridge over the river in the entire state (Arrigoni, I think, is highway on one side, like Founders bridge).

Is the river really that unsurmountable in Connecticut?

It is unfortunate that the Bulkley Bridge was hijacked by the expressway. It was originally designed to be a landmark for the city with landscaped approaches on each side. The planners looked at several bridges in Europe. I believe a street bridge can and should be built.

[LItoCT]

East Hartford along the river would develop if a bridge were built no doubt but...the problem is 1: Whitehead Expwy is still inside the dykes...I91 is raised by the colt building to go over railroad tracks...in order to build a bridge there it would have to go over I91 using a limited access on/off ramp like Arrigoni does on the Middletown side (it would probably have to be as tall as Arrigoni) or it would have to go under I91 and through the dykes...thus it would have to have mechanical dykes that would close off the bridge every few Springs when the floods are very high (also expensive and could shut the bridge for days at a time). I think the problem is a bridge would have to be as high as the existing bridges to be built. This increases expense and the only way to justify expense is to make it a highway bridge, which has a larger percieved capacity. Additionally, the regular spring flooding of river makes anything much lower than the Bulkeley bridge problematic.

[Bill Mocarsky]

......or it would have to go under I91 and through the dykes...thus it would have to have mechanical dykes that would close off the bridge every few Springs when the floods are very high (

How high above street level is the dyke in that area? Could the Dyke protude out so the road can clear it?