XL Center Renovation/Replacement Plans

[MichaelQReilly]

You want to see a real ghost town? Picture Hartford during the 3-4 years it will take to knock down the Civic Center and build the new arena, all without either of the two. No UConn, Wolfpack, Concerts, etc...

Yeah, I tend to think this plan is a bad idea. It makes way more sense to put the new arena north of 84 and put normal mixed use where the civic center is now.

[Bill Mocarsky]

The red circle represents the footprint of Madison Square Garden (NYC) superimposed over the Hartford site.

Allyn Street extends to Trumbull. I extended Haynes Street (should it be pedestrian only?) to Allyn, for better access between the Goodwin Hotel and proposed arena. I would also like to see Haynes Street extended to Jewel Street.

[Bill Mocarsky]

Here is a variation. Allyn Street extends to Trumbull. Pedestrian paths align with Pratt and Haynes Streets.

Imagine if Church Street was closed without Allyn Street being reopened. What a knot in the middle of downtown that would be. It would be very awkward trying to get from Union Place to CCC, for example.

[The Voice of Reason]

Bill, nice work.

It looks like you are using Virtual Earth at 100Yds.

I just went and looked at Staples Center in LA. It is MUCH larger than MSG. It was built in 1999. MSG was built in 1968. I know they did some major renovations at MSG, but it might be better to use Staples center for footprint comparison. I can't get that at 100 yds so Im just blowing hot air here.

I am thinking the arena itself would abut directly against the street or pedestrian plaza to the south. I also think it would be a pedestrian only street that would connect Allyn to Pratt for the movement of people not for cars.

I see walking from Sage Allen area bars after work to arena bars just before the game or just after the game across a Trumbull streeet with trees down the middle. but I see myself walkng streight avross trumbull to this imaginary street. hehe

[Bill Mocarsky]

I just went and looked at Staples Center in LA. It is MUCH larger than MSG. It was built in 1999. MSG was built in 1968. I know they did some major renovations at MSG, but it might be better to use Staples center for footprint comparison. I can't get that at 100 yds so Im just blowing hot air here.

I am thinking the arena itself would abut directly against the street or pedestrian plaza to the south.

I superimposed the Staples Center footprint over the site. There was no problem fitting the arena between Allyn and S Chapel streets. The problem was the east to west space. It would fill out the area between Ann and Trumbull Streets, bumping in to the Hilton. A building like that would be way out of scale for the area. It looks more appropriate for the fringe of downtown, the north meadows or even Rentschler.

However, Boston's TD Banknorth Garden fits the site.

With that being said, my preferred site would be:

I also think it would be a pedestrian only street that would connect Allyn to Pratt for the movement of people not for cars.

I was wondering, if you were in a car at Union Station, near the corner of Spruce and Church, what would be the best route to 960 Main?

[The Voice of Reason]

That is a very good question, but generally I would say that urban core is not a place to easily travel by car. I do not know how much time you have spent driving in other urban cores, but from my experience I do not expect easy access to anything. All that matters to me is easy access to a parking garage, then I walk the 4 blocks or whatever. I think CT being rural in mind set, and suburban in practice make for unreasonable expectations for cities. From my life experiences, commutes around Hartford are not bad at all compared to other places. Downtown traffic is only ever bad when the morons who do not know how to deal with a city grid panic in an attempt to get home and pull into intersections creating grid lock.

but back to your question, yes it would make that trip more difficult. I would turn north from union station take a right onto church. follow church to Ann, Hang a left at the new Arena and a right onto South Chapel St. this would take me over to main street where its always easy to take a right or I could stay on Chapel untill Market and park in the garage.

I park in the garage to be leveled, and there is almost never a car on that street. The only traffic comes from people coming and going to the garage. With the street and garage gone I do not think it would be a problem.

Also Bill, I checked out TD Banknorth arena in Boston, AA arena in Miami the Delta center, and agree, it seems only Staples in huge. I would say a footprint for 120% of MSG would be pretty accurate for modern round arena. I gotta check the one in Utah as that one is round if I recall, but that will have to wait till I am home.

[Afro Saxon]

Who will we be building this for? For what purpose? Who will use it? The Wolf Pack? I like the idea of a new arean being built but I'm not sure I can imagine it being put to good use.

[HartfordTycoon]

Who will we be building this for? For what purpose? Who will use it? The Wolf Pack? I like the idea of a new arean being built but I'm not sure I can imagine it being put to good use.

All of the things that currently happen at the Civic Center will be more than enough to put a new arena to good use and add the potential for growth opporutnities that the current arena will not. I really don't follow this argument of "what will we use it for?" Maybe I'm missing something, but last I checked the Civic Center is heavily used and on it's last leg, which in my mind makes this time for a new arena. That's what time it needs to be in Hartford. New Arena Time.....

[Cotuit]

Its expensive, but seems to me this would be a good opportunity to deck another piece of 84. Put it above 84 between Trumbull and Pleasant, might need to bend North Chapel a bit, but that would create a nice little block north of North Chapel for a retail strip with some mid rise towers.

[jcrc]

All of the things that currently happen at the Civic Center will be more than enough to put a new arena to good use and add the potential for growth opporutnities that the current arena will not. I really don't follow this argument of "what will we use it for?" Maybe I'm missing something, but last I checked the Civic Center is heavily used and on it's last leg, which in my mind makes this time for a new arena. That's what time it needs to be in Hartford. New Arena Time.....

heavily use as Chicago Stadium(1929-1994)? Boston Garden(1928-1995)? I thought the reason for a new arena is because the current one is under used and cannot attract top tier venues (even though Civic Center gets similar things KC's brand new arena gets) due to it's size, lack of luxury box, or whatever inadequacy arena proponents say it lacks. If the place is heavily used, I would think the shops inside would still be there.

Most here are all for saving the Mass Mutual building even though the argument for its demolition is because the building is obsolete, but the same people have no problem tearing this one down. I am not sure I understand the logic.

[mikel]

heavily use as Chicago Stadium(1929-1994)? Boston Garden(1928-1995)? I thought the reason for a new arena is because the current one is under used and cannot attract top tier venues (even though Civic Center gets similar things KC's brand new arena gets) due to it's size, lack of luxury box, or whatever inadequacy arena proponents say it lacks. If the place is heavily used, I would think the shops inside would still be there.

Most here are all for saving the Mass Mutual building even though the argument for its demolition is because the building is obsolete, but the same people have no problem tearing this one down. I am not sure I understand the logic.

The logic is that modernist (and brutalist) structures are unloved at the moment. Just like non-modernist buildings were unloved and destroyed like crazy from WWII until recently. I wonder if 20 or 30 years from now people will be bemoaning the removal of the Hartford Civic Center mall. Maybe they'd think just because it was not exactly filled at the time, it didn't mean it would always be so empty. Maybe they will miss all the seating and interesting concrete formations that were removed for Northland's project. Perhaps people will miss it like they miss Front Street, remembering the good times shopping and being there. People seem to miss the Boston Garden more now than they did when the excitement of the new Fleet Center still existed. These new generic corporate arenas with their wider seats, lack of slope, and luxury boxes everywhere aren't an improvement to me.

[The Voice of Reason]

Think of this whole concept more like a car. yes a very expensive car but a car. You own your 1989 Taurus wagon outright. it gets you to work it might complain but it works. maintenance costs have increased over the last few years but you have paid for them out of layalty to your old friend the taurus wagon. your kids have grow up some and they need a little more room in the back seat. not a lot but it would be nice to have. The value of your car might be 1500 if your lucky and it just reached 120000 miles. The 60k tune up is going to cost you 900 dollars and you need brake work too. Is it worth prolonging the death of your old taurus or should you buy a new car with more room and better safety features. At some point the answer is buy new. For Hartford we are at the point of shopping for something new. if you read the article you will see 2013 mentioned quite a few times. I get the feeling the city cant do anything till 2013 without breaking a lease agreement. So for the next 5 years the city is going to work towards getting a new arena planned funded and built. And the cornerstone of this plan is getting a pro team.

So to me this is the city actually planning ahead. and I am impressed.

[Hartfordfan]

if you go to hartford.gov you can see the feasibility study of the xl center.

[The Voice of Reason]

if you go to hartford.gov you can see the feasibility study of the xl center.

THANKS

the interesting part is from page 70-80ish

lots of renderings

[jcrc]

Think of this whole concept more like a car. yes a very expensive car but a car. You own your 1989 Taurus wagon outright. it gets you to work it might complain but it works. maintenance costs have increased over the last few years but you have paid for them out of layalty to your old friend the taurus wagon. your kids have grow up some and they need a little more room in the back seat. not a lot but it would be nice to have. The value of your car might be 1500 if your lucky and it just reached 120000 miles. The 60k tune up is going to cost you 900 dollars and you need brake work too. Is it worth prolonging the death of your old taurus or should you buy a new car with more room and better safety features. At some point the answer is buy new. For Hartford we are at the point of shopping for something new. if you read the article you will see 2013 mentioned quite a few times. I get the feeling the city cant do anything till 2013 without breaking a lease agreement. So for the next 5 years the city is going to work towards getting a new arena planned funded and built. And the cornerstone of this plan is getting a pro team.

So to me this is the city actually planning ahead. and I am impressed.

That is not a valid comparison. For one thing car depreciate in value, real estate appreciate in value. Car is, unfortunately disposable, building can and should be preserved. If upkeep and maintenance cost out weight the cost of a new building (assuming new building has lower cost for upkeeping), then why not tear down Mark Twain House, Wadsworth Atheneum, Old State House (and make surface parking lot as one proposal called for), current gold dome State House and build new one. I mean they are all pretty old. Right?

[jcrc]

if you go to hartford.gov you can see the feasibility study of the xl center.

That is after they didn't like the recommendation the other group of experts who were against a new arena from a few months back.

[jcrc]

Can someone explain why Civic Center with AHL = $42 million direct spending and new Arena with AHL = $75 million direct spending? Page 6 of the study. Why would a new arena increase attendance by 78%?

Also, the example given in the study, Verizon Center in DC cost sports team owner Abe Pollin nearly $220 million. The District provided financial assistance in the amount of $70 million for land and site preparation costs. Does that mean Northland should cough up 75% of the cost and public funding should be 25% of the new arena?

[beerbeer]

Pollin owns the building an is making out like a bandit.

But even if the DC had covered the entire cost of the MCI/Verison Center, it still would have come out ahead. The stadium has led to a building boom and the area is now an economic powerhouse. It turned a dormant part of the city into one of the liveliest neighborhoods in Washington.

In fact, the only reasonable conclusion that could come from studying the Verison Center is that building an arena is a must. No matter how you get it done, it enhances the life of the city and more than pays for itself.

Edited January 28, 2008 by beerbeer

[jcrc]

Pollin owns the building an is making out like a bandit.

But even if the DC had covered the entire cost of the MCI/Verison Center, it still would have come out ahead. The stadium has led to a building boom and the area is now an economic powerhouse. It turned a dormant part of the city into one of the liveliest neighborhoods in Washington.

In fact, the only reasonable conclusion that could come from studying the Verison Center is that building an arena is a must. No matter how you get it done, it enhances the life of the city and more than pays for itself.

He has every right to make out like a bandit, he took bulk of the risk. If Northland also take on bulk of the risk, then they too should have to chance to make out like a bandit. However, if the public sector is to take 75% of the risk, then public sector should take in 75% of the loots. Just trying to be fair instead of the typical connection driven corporate welfare in Hartford.

[The Voice of Reason]

After looking through that rediculously long report, I have a few conclusions.

We are pretty clever on these boards as our ideas are quite simular to the conclusions that HOK made. They mention a connector between Allyn and Pratt to unify downtowns two entertainment and retail districts. They are also most focused on spuring development around the arena location. They highlight all of the parking lots west of the arena site down to the train station as targeted growth areas.

I for one think the best way for this arena to have the affect desired would be to tie several properties into the development and set minimum density requirements.

If The City/State/Arena group required the development of certain parcels to be in place before they released funds for the arena project itself, the result will be greater than the sum of its parts. For Northland/AEG this would be a no brainer. They would have to commit to developing the metrocenter II parking lot with ground floor retail and some minimum amount of housing as well as a minimum parking requirement. The city should also place a minimum height of 5 floors on this site as well as the other prospective development lots. Think of it as a replica of Trumbull on the park but to a slightly larger scale for the housing and a much larger scale for the parking.

I am not sure what the city could require, but it seems to me that the city could include these parking lots in a development zone or district to change tax lawa and set up bond funding. The city could easily make it less profitable for the owners to keep the lots as parking Than to develop them into 5 story mixed use buildings fronting the street. The city could also make it attractive for certain larger parcels to include residential (or office) towers to maximize density. I think if this semi forced private involvement would get the public more behind such a large public project.

[The Voice of Reason]

He has every right to make out like a bandit, he took bulk of the risk. If Northland also take on bulk of the risk, then they too should have to chance to make out like a bandit. However, if the public sector is to take 75% of the risk, then public sector should take in 75% of the loots. Just trying to be fair instead of the typical connection driven corporate welfare in Hartford.

I do not think that there is any evidence as yet to any portion of costs being picked up by any given party. lets remember how early on this whole thing is.

But if I were to guess, AEG would be putting up a good amount of the cost and expect a great deal of profit. AEG is interested in this market and has chosen Hartford as its foothold. AEG is an arena development/management company. Northlands primary role is to get a professional sports team and to increase the value of its holdings around the arena.

The city and state wants both of the above and would be thrilled if they got some new construction to tax out of the deal.

If the corporate residents of Hartford want the same, then this is just might happen.

I would be disapointed if the city/state paid for the whole thing and no other lots were developed with private $

[beerbeer]

I think this configuration would make sense for Allyn/Pratt Street. The new street (as shown by the red line) would allow a continuous flow from Main Street to the Train Station.

It also allows enough room (green space) to put a world class arena north of Allyn/Pratt.

Edited January 28, 2008 by beerbeer

[MadVlad]

How about making Church St a tunnel under the arena? Also, I love the idea of tying in development of some of the open lots for an entertainment/residential district. The question is, why stop at 5 stories? Make it a minimum 10, that way the density would be guaranteed.

Edited January 28, 2008 by MadVlad

[mikel]

How about making Church St a tunnel under the arena? Also, I love the idea of tying in development of some of the open lots for an entertainment/residential district. The question is, why stop at 5 stories? Make it a minimum 10, that way the density would be guaranteed.

Yes that would guarantee those lots would remain empty forever. Great idea. Hartford's age of skyscapers is over thankfully. I would say implement a MAXIMUM of 5 stories. Also, the tunnel idea....

[jcrc]

I do not think that there is any evidence as yet to any portion of costs being picked up by any given party. lets remember how early on this whole thing is.

But if I were to guess, AEG would be putting up a good amount of the cost and expect a great deal of profit. AEG is interested in this market and has chosen Hartford as its foothold. AEG is an arena development/management company. Northlands primary role is to get a professional sports team and to increase the value of its holdings around the arena.

The city and state wants both of the above and would be thrilled if they got some new construction to tax out of the deal.

If the corporate residents of Hartford want the same, then this is just might happen.

I would be disapointed if the city/state paid for the whole thing and no other lots were developed with private $

When Northland first mentioned a new arena, they suggested total cost is about $400 million, and they were seeking about 75% public financing. While they did say it was their starting position, it suggested heavy public financing.