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

[ctman987]

I was by there this weekend (was home for thanksgiving) and saw that they are making room for a CitiBank on the ground floor by the State House Square side of the building.

Well its good that the space is leased, and there arent many CitiBanks in Greater Hartford (there big in NYC but in the Hartford area there slowly catching on...they just opened one at the former Krispy Kreme on the Berlin Turnpike),

On the other hand this is more prime retail space that will become home to another bank...just steps away from a Soverign Bank, Wachovia Bank and CT Bank and Trust.

[HeartbeatHead]

I HATE WHAT THEY DID! NO BRICKS...its jus like...SUBURBAN

[redbaron]

Actually they are to a degree. When you are competing for grant money along with other developers and you win based on the concept you presented, I would say you need to deliver on what you showed you were going to do with taxpayer money. This project was subsidized more than any other downtown and no other project has been dumbed down from the original concept more than this one. Between Rowland's per-unit housing subsidies, preservation grants, city funds for infrastructure and tax breaks, I'd love to know how deep the developers went into their own pockets if at all. Someone at Hartford Economic Development told me that this project was subsidized to the tune of 90%. If that is true, you better deliver.

Like MadVlad, I am very disappointed in this project which is situated among Hartford's architectural gems. Nondescript wood framed housing with clapboard siding? Downtown? How long will that last?

[MadVlad]

I'm not willing to settle. We know brick is expensive, so if it was a problem, why put it in the original plan? Why? Because that's how they got it done, then changed it to something they REALLY planned to do. It's a bait and switch. By the way, they still used brick, so I don't think that was the problem. I think they were trying to soak as many pennies out of the project as they could and scaled it back as much as humanly possible.

[Luca Brasi]

The project wasn't actually subsidized more than any project in Hartford, it actually didn't get many grants or tax breaks, it's mostly in the form of lower interest rate financing from CHFA. Which gives out loans for urban revitalization. Although I agree with most of the posts, there are a number of realities going on. Brick is expensive and construction prices are skyrocketing. We should be happy we have more housing, students coming to downtown, a new parking garage, and retail space, than focusing on building materials. Hey this could have been a surface lot. I believe our criticism should be on other projects that are not happening. Wasn't Capewell supposed to be done this January?

[beerbeer]

I thought "bait and switch" was illegal. Guess it's okay if you're a politically connected developer.

[jdrct]

I thought "bait and switch" was illegal. Guess it's okay if you're a politically connected developer.

[drc72]

I'm just glad the space is filled. If it's one thing I can't stand it's empty storefronts.

[redbaron]

I'm just glad the space is filled. If it's one thing I can't stand it's empty storefronts.

[JHChris280]

Go back to the first posts, this building was an EYESORE... Another rotting piece of Hartford history. I am pleased it has been saved. Yeah I would rather have bricks, and more of an ornate facade but I'm sure it wasn't finacally possible. I don't believe it's settling on second rate product, I still think they did a great job. I still say wait til the final product in unveiled.

[robm324]

Whether the developer followed the contract or not....even if they did and the state did not do a good enough job of locking the developer into the original site plan, this is still a misuse of taxpayer money to use that much public subsidy and scale back the project and materials that much. In my opinion.

[beerbeer]

The Market Street side of this project looks like bad public housing.

[MadVlad]

The Market Street side of this project looks like bad public housing.

[spatulashack]

The University of Hartford held an assembly where anyone interested in living downtown could come and see if it was right for them. I saw the updated renderings and everyone is over reacting. The main building fronting Main St. is all brick. The townhouses fronting Market will use siding but they definately work fine for that area. It isn't like this change ruins the fabric of the street seeing as how there is NOTHING on Market that in any way resembles a typical urban street anyway. Let's face it, anything on Market is a plus to me. The new facade of the townhouses looked great in the new renderings and you really can't judge it right now based on the construction site. Also, don't forget that stores will still be lining this portion of the building on Temple St. There have been no changes to this project other than the changes to the facade. Why not complain about the lot at Main and Asylum or the complete lack of progress on 111 Pearl St or the Hilton Lot which to me ruins the entire western portion of downtown. Complaining about a change in building materials on college dorms just seems like a waste of time and energy. I can tell you that judging by the pictures, this building will be one of the nicest residence halls of any college in the state.

[MadVlad]

Why not complain about the lot at Main and Asylum or the complete lack of progress on 111 Pearl St or the Hilton Lot which to me ruins the entire western portion of downtown.

[jdrct]

There seems to be a misuse of the word "scale down" The building and the site plan is still identical to the scale that was proposed. It's the facade that everyone seems to be upset about. And there still seems to be this notion that somehow the developers are cutting back on the project and stuffing the excess state money into their pocket. This seems to be a simple case of the developer running out of money. If the state was hung up on the facade, they could have kicked in another $3 to $5 million and gotten the brick and the cornices. They didn't.

[beerbeer]

The state already kicked in money. The developers promised one thing and delivered another. It's that simple.

Suppose you bought a BMW and when you showed up to get the car, they brought out a cheap Honda. They explain that the price of the BMW has gone up and changed your order. Would you accept that?

[Luca Brasi]

I don't have a problem with the facade on Main as much as the cheaply constructed condo-looking structures along Temple. As mentioned above, it looks like bad public housing. Its awful. It ruins the streetscape. It sticks out like a sore thumb smack in the middle of so many architecturally significant buildings. Because of their cheap construction, imagine how they will look in 10 years. I wonder if these will still be standing in 100+ years like the brownstones on Capitol? Or like their immediate neighbor, the Richardson? The opportunity to do something significant has been lost.

Something like this would never fly in many other cities which have design review boards. The attitude that "anything is a plus" has led to the acceptance of inferiority for far too long in Hartford and doesn't work anymore. If you are going to do something, do it right.

[jdrct]

The state already kicked in money. The developers promised one thing and delivered another. It's that simple.

Suppose you bought a BMW and when you showed up to get the car, they brought out a cheap Honda. They explain that the price of the BMW has gone up and changed your order. Would you accept that?

[/qu

The developers promised to deliver X-number of units for market-rate housing and X-number of units for student housing and they did that. The state promised money for the project before the renderings were even unveiled. This was not a case of promising a BMW and delivering a Honda. This is a case of promising a BMW and then the client becoming upset when they are delivered a green BMW when they really wanted a blue BMW, but never said so in the contract.

This sort of reminds me of when Rentschler was built and people complained about the fact that most of the seats were benches and not seats. It wasn't a matter of the state scaling back the project, it was a matter of the state never kicking enough money into the original budget. Simply put the money the state gave the developers wasn't enough do the work that was in those renderings.

[MadVlad]

Here's a novel idea, maybe the developers could cough up spome douigh to make the project viable. It really isn't the State's responsibility to make the numbers work. These developers are putting up a crappy product where one doesn't have to be. I'm sick of people settling just so something can fill a spot, it's the way second-rate cities are built....

[redbaron]

Here's a novel idea, maybe the developers could cough up spome douigh to make the project viable. It really isn't the State's responsibility to make the numbers work. These developers are putting up a crappy product where one doesn't have to be. I'm sick of people settling just so something can fill a spot, it's the way second-rate cities are built....

[beerbeer]

Rentschler is a bad comparison.

The seats werre always going to be benches with chairbacks in the middle three sections. That was how it was designed, illusrated and built. The developer delivered exactly what was promised.

That's not what happened at Sage Allen.

[kappy712]

Actually, that's slightly incorrect. Rentschler (and i'm not sure who had design/financing control- UConn, CCEDA, or someone else) had the option of adding another section on each side of the 3 Chair Back Sections with chair backs. However, it decided to spend that money on a state of the art sound system, akin to the one the Patriots had just put into Gillette stadium.

As for Sage Allen, the growing sentiment is: It might not be perfect but its better than before. Which seems to be the true motto of Hartford.

Rentschler is a bad comparison.

The seats werre always going to be benches with chairbacks in the middle three sections. That was how it was designed, illusrated and built. The developer delivered exactly what was promised.

That's not what happened at Sage Allen.

[Luca Brasi]

It wasn't a matter of the state scaling back the project, it was a matter of the state never kicking enough money into the original budget. Simply put the money the state gave the developers wasn't enough do the work that was in those renderings.

[JHChris280]

Actually, that's slightly incorrect. Rentschler (and i'm not sure who had design/financing control- UConn, CCEDA, or someone else) had the option of adding another section on each side of the 3 Chair Back Sections with chair backs. However, it decided to spend that money on a state of the art sound system, akin to the one the Patriots had just put into Gillette stadium.

As for Sage Allen, the growing sentiment is: It might not be perfect but its better than before. Which seems to be the true motto of Hartford.