Manchester Infill & Small Developments

I wanted to respond to MonopolyBag's comment about transit on the Hooksett thread, but since the focus of my response (and I think Monopoly's point) is regional, I wanted to post it here:

Monopoly said: I would also like to see bus route form the Manchester Transit Authority expanded to Hooksett center, Gofftown center and just a bit further than the Manch. border. As it is now it basically stops where Manchester stops.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the MTA is a city department/agency, not a state one, so it operates outside of the city only through agreements with the neighboring towns. I know there has been discussion of running a bus between Manchester and the sprawling mess of big box stores in southeast Hooksett, but I really think greater Manchester as a region needs to look into a much better transit system within and around the city. Take a look at what cneal just posted on the Portland thread as an example of what Manchester needs to look into. Doing something like this would help focus local planning boards and developers on specific areas that make sense from a transit and land use standpoint, as well as addressing current transit needs that are not being met in the already walkable neighborhoods of Manchester. I believe there is also an ongoing study at the SNHPC to look at the possibility of a regional transit authority. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best way to bring cohesion to regional land and transit planning--plan reliable regional transit between and within existing dense, walkable, mixed-used center city neighborhoods, downtown Manchester, historic (and more recent) outlying villages and population centers, and even the more suburban shopping districts where most people need to go at least occasionally.

At the same time, local and regional planning should discourage any additional sprawl, instead favoring increasing density and adaptive reuse of both urban and suburban buildings and areas. Bedford, for its many planning failings, has done a decent job at encouraging reuse of existing developed sites instead of new greenfield development. Stop n Shop was allowed to build a bigger store with less parking on the site of an old Caldor to prevent it from building a new store on an open site. Similarly, the long-quiet Bedford Mall is being redeveloped. Of course, this isn't perfect--a wooded hillside fell to a Target a few years ago, but the idea of reusing existing structures and sites, and increasing the density even in a suburban shopping district makes it easier to be served by transit. Stores like Target and Wal-Mart are going to continue to favor suburban-style shopping districts, so the key going forward is going to be to prevent them from building in new sprawling areas, and instead get them to redevelop more expensive, likely smaller sites that can be served by transit and perhaps even shared parking.

Most of Manchester, as well as villages in Hooksett and Goffstown, and more suburban but still dense areas of Bedford, Goffstown, Hooksett and Londonderry would all be served well by reliable transit service. Such service, even if regularly used by only a portion of the population, would increase property values and encourage redevelopment and increased density, while reducing sprawl and better connecting the region. The proposal in Portland looks great, and a similar thing could easily be done in New Hampshire if the various regional and local planning and transit bodies come together.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the MTA is city run, MBTA and Merrimack Valley buses are all regional run which is why they are better, not that the Merrimack Valley Transportation couldn't use an upgrade.

I would like to see the MTA converted into a regional thing and convert all the buses to regional and just begin there.

Yes, I hate big open land being converted into paved parking lots when there is so much crappy vacant buildings and parking lots already. Proper planning and multi-use development is key.

Example is converting the large parking lots (not parking garages) into low level parking garages with buildings on top, or half retail half parking, or housing with parking. Just I think too many times developers do not build parking and the city ok's it and then parking becomes a problem.

I love open land as much as I do nice quality development.

If regional public transportation/bus/shuttle or whatever service was put in for Manchester, I would see a few buses going to Nashua and Salem centers, shopping centers and large apartment/condo developements in Londonderry, derry, maybe even salem, merrimack, hooksett and bedford. And then hitting all of the town centers around the area and just tie that into the already fairly good bus routes of Manchester (although better more defined bus routes could be built.)

Lastly, where are the bike racks to lock up bikes in Manchester? Come on...
 
Not to get too bogged down in politics here, but politics obviously have a huge impact on development. I'm curious to see how the huge shift at the state level in New Hampshire will affect issues like commuter rail, regional planning and general infrastructure funding. My guess is that it doesn't bode well. In the past, New Hampshire Republicans have been fairly moderate and prudent as opposed to stingy, and in Manchester even Republicans like Frank Guinta supported rail and other issues that would benefit the city. Guinta has since changed his position, but I wonder if that was just for politics. Curious to hear anyone's thoughts or insights.
 
So based on your post it seems Gov. Lynch is no longer the gov?

If so that's kinda a bummer, he seemed to have a grasp on reality and promoted many things that I thought were important.
 
Lynch is still governor, but the lopsided turnout (huge Republican turnout, low Democratic turnout) and the national mood resulted in an unprecedented shift in the Legislature and Executive Council, which has resulted in veto-proof Republican majorities in both houses. Given how anonymous most state house campaigns are, it's hard to say what the priorities of the new government will be, but I am betting a dual focus on budget cutting and trying to reverse recent progress social legislation will lead. Part of this budget cutting will probably mean huge cuts in local aid, which most cities and towns rely on for infrastructure and development projects. My hope is that Governor Lynch will prove as adept as he has in the past with working with both parties, and that given the history of the Republican Party in New Hampshire, a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats will thwart some of the more extreme budget cutting and social proposals. People, at least in the Merrimack Valley, including several elected Republican municipal officials, support things like commuter rail, infrastructure investment and greater regional planning cooperation. The Republican rhetoric about taking the state back (ironic given that the plurality of native-born New Hampshirites are Democrats) is worrying though; my fear is that they have an axe to grind, and a lot of the progress in planning and development will be put on hold for at least the next two years. We'll see, though.
 
I was in town over the weekend, and while I didn't have my camera I scoped out a couple of the ongoing projects, and thought I'd update a little:

The Elliot at Rivers Edge looks great and is coming along nicely. This was the first time I had drive by on Queen City Ave since the spring, and it feels much closer to the road than I had imagined. I think that's a good thing in that it will feel less like a campus and more like a part of the city. Hopefully some of the run-down buildings along Queen City Ave will be redeveloped in the coming years. The neighborhood around there seems like it has a lot of potential to become an interesting, mostly residential hub just south of downtown as long as the Elliot spurs greater development. That would only help spur further development in the Warehouse/Gaslight districts between there and downtown.

On a smaller note, there's a really interesting looking building on Vernon Street a block back from Queen City and next to the Elliot. I had seen it back in April, but forgotten about it. I just saw it from Queen City this time, but it looks nearly complete. It appears to be a multi-unit, infill housing project, probably a rowhouse, but it's a laminated wood structure. Assuming I'm right about the housing, it would be the most interesting new residential project I've seen in the city in years. If anyone knows anything about it or has any photos, I'd love to know more.

Pandora appears to be nearly complete and looks great. I remember last year my aunt had concerns about the solar panels on the roof, but I really like it. Like the glass stair tower at DEKA along the Canal Street, the solar panels are a nice, modern, functional addition to an old building. The Millyard needs to be preserved, but it also needs to be a living, evolving landscape. The Pandora tower was lit up at night and really looked beautiful. I'm really excited about the restoration and reuse of that building.

Smaller projects I noticed included construction at the apartments south of the ballpark, and rehabilitation of the beautiful Odd Fellows building in the Hollow. I've said before how much potential I think this neighborhood has in the long run if the city will invest in it, so I'm really glad to see them doing that. When the equally beautiful old firehouse there was lost several years ago, I was worried that the same fate may befall the Odd Fellows building.

On a less fortunate note, the old Granite Square Theatre (the shuttered Tong Ho House for the last several years) a the intersection of Second and Granite Streets is being converted to an Elks lodge. I'm glad the building is being reused, but this is a prime spot and an important, if small old building. One of the few remaining movie houses in the city center, the building is located at the major gateway to both downtown and the West Side. This spot would have been a great bar or something where the neighborhood and visitors could gather. I don't want to discount the role of the private clubs on the West Side that serve largely as member-only bars--these are important community gathering places, but I think a more public gathering place, possibly a commercial bar/restaurant/cafe, would have done a lot more to revive some life in Granite Square.

So does anyone have any other info on these or other projects? Any word on the armory or Market Basket development?
 
Last edited:
What is armory?

MB will be done in March starting in Jan. Using the same building so fast build.

The place on vernon st. is some eco friendly European style building of a house.
http://baltic-builders.com/en/current-projects

Pandora basically is complete, I like the new parking.

And yes, granite St. does have potential and since so many workers will be there I expect more to be done in terms of lunch places, maybe a restaurant or two, and maybe some small shops.

The theatre kinda sucks becoming Elks, that's new. I was hoping it would just be restored and preserved as a historical factor or yes, a bar or small food place since that doesn't do much in terms of changing the building.

But remember they want to build a retail strip or diner there as well as a large building or something around there on those parking lots and empty lot. Just the economy probably no helping that go any faster.
http://www.yourmanchesternh.com/plans-and-projects/bids-and-proposals.aspx

The Riverside Condo complex beyond the baseball stadium, although I hate those style condos/apartments (usually tear down a forest to build them) better than nothing. Would have rather seen something better there like a larger building complex or something more creative for apartments/condos. That style they are building is just done so often because it is cheap.

Anyways, with this completed (it was on hold due to lack of funds) and then the baseball stadium and the river's edge and the new park, I hope this helps the riverwalk. I really would like to see an all out riverwalk along the whole river with arm's park developed and near the mills outside seating restaurants and everything.
 
Thanks for the link on the Vernon Street rowhouses--that project looks great! I hope the city sees more projects like this--well-built, small, infill projects in dense neighborhoods. This will definitely help bring in a more economically diverse group of residents who would not otherwise consider living in some of the city center neighborhoods, hopefully adding to rather than displacing current residents and making the neighborhoods more vibrant places. Portland has seen a lot of interesting infill projects like this lately it seems, and I'm glad to see this in Manchester. I think this, more than projects like the Riverside Condos (completely agree with you there) and Manchester Place (better than Riverside), is a model for future residential development in the city center.

Here are some images from the website Monopoly posted:
eco-house-bb-project1-2.jpg


bb-eco-house-06.jpg


bb-eco-house-08.jpg


bb-eco-house-02.jpg


The Armory is the brick building on Canal Street just south of the Amoskeag Bridge. There was some discussion over the summer on this forum (maybe around p. 26-27) about Gatsas and Lynch looking to move the armory and redevelop the building or at least the site. It's a pretty nice Art Deco structure that could be reused nicely, and the site is huge and would be a great anchor to the far northern end of downtown. I haven't seen anything since though.
 
Last edited:
Two promising articles in the Union Leader today:

First, the municipal complex on Valley Street was approved. Cutting back on energy efficient materials seems pretty shortsighted, but I'm glad to see this project moving forward--hopefully it will clean up the beat up municipal properties along Valley Street making the area more attractive, and it will free up the current downtown police station building and property for future redevelopment.

City municipal complex project OK'd
MANCHESTER ? A smaller than planned municipal complex project is moving forward still at the $43.5 million price tag.
The aldermen unanimously approved the project at a special meeting Tuesday night. Contracts will be signed and bonding finalized in the next few weeks. Construction is set to begin in early 2011.
Initially, the cost came in at $54.7 million, but adjustments to building size, material and features has brought the cost to the $43.5 million budget the aldermen had agreed to bond earlier this year.
The municipal complex will still include the Public Works and Police Departments headquarters and vehicle storage, maintenance, shops and salt storage buildings. But the size of the vehicle storage building has been cut by nearly half, so some vehicles will be parked outdoors. The Public Works shops building, used for repairing city equipment, will be housed inside the current Surplus Office Supply store on Valley Street.
Other cutbacks include scrapping the vehicle wash building and relocating it in the maintenance garage, cutting the size of the Public Works administration building by about 7 percent, cutting the police station firing range from 10 to five bays and cutting the carport capacity from 20 to 10 vehicle spots. Smaller changes include cutting back on energy-efficient material, for items such as roofing, to opt for less expensive materials.
Public Works Director Kevin Sheppard and Police Chief David Mara both said they were satisfied with the project, even after the changes.
"Based on the funding, we support this 100 percent," Sheppard said.
They said the city would still be able to expand if more room is needed. The current plans for the police station could accommodate more detectives and up to 50 more officers.
"I feel confident there will be enough locker room space, enough room to accommodate the extra evidence coming in and that there would be enough training space to provide the training we need," Mara said.
As for the cuts to items like the firing range, Mara said he has already begun seeking outside funding and hopes to have the money for the full 10 bays before the project is complete.
Alderman Patrick Arnold questioned why the board was signing off on the construction manager contract before seeing it. The city has retained an attorney from Sheehan, Phinney, Bass and Green to help draft the document, yet the aldermen won't have the opportunity to consider the attorney's advice, he said.
"You have to appreciate our situation. You are asking us to commit to a contract we haven't seen," Arnold said. "If we are paying attorneys to do something and we say, 'Whatever you want to do is fine,' that doesn't jive with me ... I just wish this board saw a final version of this contract."
Alderman Phil Greazzo also objected to the lack of a contract.
"Voting for $43 million without a contract in place for what we're about to do, a lot can happen," he said.
To allow for some review, the aldermen added a provision to the spending motion limiting Harvey Construction, the winning bidder for construction manager, from spending more than $2.5 million until the contract is finalized and approved by the aldermen. Mayor Ted Gatsas pledged to have the contract before the aldermen by mid-December.
Before the aldermen began their more than two-hour debate, Gatsas reminded the aldermen of the importance of the project, even with the possibilities of staff cuts in the next budget. With discounted bonds available to the city, low construction costs and record low interest rates, now is the time to move, he said.
"I know that we're in very, very difficult times financially but I think we could save $500,000 to $700,000 a year with the efficiencies," Gatsas said. "We've found a way to overcome obstacles and I think this is something we should come together and do as a board because I think it's best for city of Manchester and our employees."
Click to expand...

The city's year-old tax cap was also invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling. My view on tax caps is that they are the epitome of shortsightedness. First, the argument that elected officials cannot be trusted to write a budget is foolish--if people are opposed to new taxes or spending, they can vote the officials out; that's a de facto cap against irresponsible spending and taxes. Second and more importantly, especially in New Hampshire there's this inaccurate idea of fiscal conservatism that basically states that all spending is bad. This ignores the role that (especially local) government has to play in spurring development; if the city spends money upfront (and perhaps has to raise taxes to do so), but the investment attracts more businesses, then it's fiscally responsible. Tying the city's ability to invest money is not only a hassle, it prevents greater return on investment which in the end will negate the initial money spent.

Supreme Court rejects Manchester effort to cap taxes, spending
CONCORD ? The New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected a cap on taxes and spending that Manchester voters approved a year ago.
In a unanimous opinion, the court ruled Wednesday that the cap, passed as an amendment to the city charter, goes against state law that lays out details of how a city with a mayor and board of aldermen should operate.
While the amendment requires a two-thirds vote to override the cap, state law says budgets should pass on a simple majority vote, the court said.
"The proposed charter amendment is inconsistent with state law. Because the amendment constrains the board to either abide by the spending cap or act by a two-thirds majority to override it, it conflicts with the board's authority to adopt a budget," the court ruled in an opinion written by Associate Justice Gary Hicks.
Voters in Manchester passed the cap in November 2009. It limits increases in city spending and property taxes to the increase in the consumer price index.
The city aldermen, a group of citizens and the non-profit Keep Manchester Moving challenged the amendment, saying that among other things it intruded into the normal business of adopting a budget.
The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition argued for the cap, saying the amendment, "is simply a change to the structure and formation of the City's annual budget procedure." It said state law provides a general outline for city charters, not a hard and fast rule.
The case has an impact beyond Manchester, since six other cities and towns have similar caps.
Three state agencies - the Attorney General Office, the Department of Revenue Administration and the Secretary of State's office - had argued that nothing in state law prohibits the cap. Because the language of the amendment provided a way to exceed the cap, aldermen maintained "ultimate authority" over spending decisions, they reasoned.
Click to expand...
 
Not to bust your bubble, but that Municipal Complex is old old news.

Just there use to be a presentation with a time line of development online, but I can not seem to find it any longer. Basically this new complex will house everything from highway, police, to graffiti clean up.

It will be an impressive build, and in my opinion and the cities hopes, will make that area of the city a bit nicer. As well as provide the city with better means to a proper facility and allow for a better working city.

I wonder what will happen to all the old plots of land that currently house the old police and stuff like that. One can only imagine.

I saw some concepts of the building before, and they look very nice.
 
I drove through Manchester today and noticed a sign stating Restoration Phase I of Valley Cemetery. No idea what it was, it was night and could not read it.

Also I drove through Nashua yesterday and they already have their Christmas light sup on trees in the Down Town area, what about Manchester? Concord I drove through but not downtown so could not speak for them yet.
 
Okay, so I am wondering what happened to the Stop n Shop sign on South Willow. It was there one day, and now nothing. Any information?
 
I just stumbled upon a new website, goodgood Manchester, devoted to things going on in Manchester, as well as proposing new ideas and getting more residents engaged. It looks very promising, and I think would benefit from some voices interested in development in the city. Getting people engaged and involved in activities in the city and especially in neighborhood and community development will be big in the coming years, I think. One recent item on the website is regarding the growing identification of and with neighborhoods in the city:

gview
 
FrankLloydMike said:
I just stumbled upon a new website, goodgood Manchester, devoted to things going on in Manchester, as well as proposing new ideas and getting more residents engaged. It looks very promising, and I think would benefit from some voices interested in development in the city. Getting people engaged and involved in activities in the city and especially in neighborhood and community development will be big in the coming years, I think. One recent item on the website is regarding the growing identification of and with neighborhoods in the city:

gview
Click to expand...


Thanks, I'll check it out.
 
Got a booklet on the New Elliot at River's Edge care facility. Basically it was just explaining what they are going to have there and promoting it. I am more pumped about the new park than anything else. Supposed to help the river walk a ton.

Can't wait until it looks something like this
columbus-riverwalk.jpg


Or this
212422890_jdoTD-S.jpg


Or this
images
 
Any idea if the booklet is available online anywhere? I really think the Rivers Edge project has huge potential to encourage redevelopment of the neighborhood around it, southern Elm Street and the riverfront. The Riverwalk will be great, but in addition to more activity in the middle, it needs solid anchors. The Rivers Edge and the park there should do that at the southern end. Hopefully with this anchor, the Riverwalk will develop more through the Millyard. That would definitely breathe some life into what is currently basically an urban office park. People strolling along the Riverwalk through the Millyard will definitely want something to do there, and cafes, shops and restaurants should naturally pop up in portions of the Millyard if the city supports it.
 
Riverwalks really are great attractions. One of coastal/waterside towns and cities' biggest exports is their ability to sell tourism and quality of life. That said, it is amazing how few towns capitalize on these things. Portland has nothing as nice as the walks pictured above, although the eastern prom trail and Baxter Boulevard serve similar functions and are, I guess, nice enough. Where is the first picture above? It is charming. Is the second one Providence? Boston? I am pretty sure the last one is Nashua, NH.
 
Yes on the landmarks / anchors for the walk. Same with the riverfront condos there. But yes, not only is it good for the city, but personally, I enjoy things like that. Paths, trails, and walkways. Just fun to kill time. The new Boston Charles park there is a good example, I love it.

The pictures, haha wish they were all NE, maybe they are. Just googled river walk and found those pics.

Arg, can't find them again and got stuff to do.

I got no idea if the booklet is online. It is kinda boring, just explaining the facility. Well boring to me. I already read about it and know what is going on. N pics yet or anything and the front over pic is just concept pic. So nothing to impressive yet. If I do see it online I'll share though.

And never found that Hooksett bridge thing again, i did look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top