Jump to content

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


Cotuit

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Because they ran into a host of unanticipated structural problems when they opened up the walls and got in there. Remember this project crawled for a long period of time because of the issues with the site. This was a building that was essentially neglected for 10 years.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the exterior was a little more ornate. I'm not completely sold on it being crap yet. But I certainly don't think anything sinister happened here. I think the complexity of dealing with this building got away from some of the parties involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing sage allen favorably to H21 is absurd. H21 is built with all first class materials - the glass curtain wall alone, cost almost as much as the entire sage allen development. I even witnessed the developers of sage allen speaking in amazement (at a benefit in the great room) at how much money northland spent on materials and common areas. h21 was built entirely true to its renderings. period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading the postings on the Sage Allen project and feel compelled to offer some insight (no, I am not the Developer of this project) The reason that downtown Hartford residential development is difficult from a financial perspective starts with the layout of the City. Consider that if you work in New York City and decide to commute, you commit to a considerable investment in time and aggravation therefore the rents in the city can command the premium required to cover the higher costs of constructing residential units in the city (this is absent any discussion of rent control which applies to existing units, not new ones).

In Hartford, relatively easy access (I.E. the intersection of I84 and I91 at the heart of the city) creates a different scenario (as does the smaller population). For the price of a 10 or 15 minute commute (which might become 30 minutes at peak traffic times) a commuter can get into some pretty nice suburban areas where development/construction costs are much lower. This simple fact means that the City rents are in direct competition with suburban rents. There is no way that a suburban developer would pay to deal with the site constraints and logistics of a project such as Sage Allen and therefore the reduced cost of suburban development translate either into lower rents, higher profit margins or some combination of the two. Downtown Hartford residential units must compete with suburban rents while paying a premium for development costs. Hartford is somewhat lacking in support facilities for residential living (it is getting better) and while not impossible, there are considerable logistical challenges which create the perception that living in Hartford without a personal vehicle is difficult. Suburban surface parking with nice landscaping might cost $1500 a space while a downtown underground garage blasted into rock (as was the Sage Allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing post! Thanks for all the information. Can you provide any information on the decision to make Temple one way from Main to Market instead of the other way around? I know the city probably had the say but I'm curious as to the reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware that the road is narrow and I never expected a two way road. What I DID expect was to finally have a way to get to Main from Market. Right now there are 3 one-way roads, all heading in the wrong direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-52. You could come up with a similar sob story for every construction project ever undertaken.

Sounds like the developer either didn't do his due dilligence or he purposely low-bid the contract with the intention of changing it one he was on the ground.

Sorry, no sale. The project was a bait and switch. Pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-52. You could come up with a similar sob story for every construction project ever undertaken.

Sounds like the developer either didn't do his due dilligence or he purposely low-bid the contract with the intention of changing it one he was on the ground.

Sorry, no sale. The project was a bait and switch. Pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beerbeer,

It is not a sob story nor is it bait and switch, it's just reality. A critical look at the two buildings to the north reveal similar realities. Both G. Fox and the Richardson were much simpler conversions from mercantile that relied on Drivit for major portions of their skins to get the numbers to work. The Convention Center also shares that facade (Drivit). What you are grousing about is the last 3 or 4% (a fraction of the inflation encountered) while totally losing sight of the greater picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading the postings on the Sage Allen project and feel compelled to offer some insight (no, I am not the Developer of this project) The reason that downtown Hartford residential development is difficult from a financial perspective starts with the layout of the City. Consider that if you work in New York City and decide to commute, you commit to a considerable investment in time and aggravation therefore the rents in the city can command the premium required to cover the higher costs of constructing residential units in the city (this is absent any discussion of rent control which applies to existing units, not new ones).

In Hartford, relatively easy access (I.E. the intersection of I84 and I91 at the heart of the city) creates a different scenario (as does the smaller population). For the price of a 10 or 15 minute commute (which might become 30 minutes at peak traffic times) a commuter can get into some pretty nice suburban areas where development/construction costs are much lower. This simple fact means that the City rents are in direct competition with suburban rents. There is no way that a suburban developer would pay to deal with the site constraints and logistics of a project such as Sage Allen and therefore the reduced cost of suburban development translate either into lower rents, higher profit margins or some combination of the two. Downtown Hartford residential units must compete with suburban rents while paying a premium for development costs. Hartford is somewhat lacking in support facilities for residential living (it is getting better) and while not impossible, there are considerable logistical challenges which create the perception that living in Hartford without a personal vehicle is difficult. Suburban surface parking with nice landscaping might cost $1500 a space while a downtown underground garage blasted into rock (as was the Sage Allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The former tenant in the Lerner Building was a discount clothing store that was moved into another space to the north. The Sage Allen clock presently resides on Pratt Street to the west but is scheduled to be relocated into it's former place in front of the Sage Allen building.

For what it is worth, the City's former relocation of the clock was indicative of the City's plans to demolish the Sage Allen - that project was designed and bid out - surface parking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.