Manchester Infill & Small Developments

I read that on fortress, never saw the response before.

Well this summer i was walking and then wanted to take the bus, but had no idea where it stopped.

I think this may be why light rail transit is more used as it is defined mroe so than a bus route.
 
Quote from home page of Manch. site, "The City of Manchester Department of Public Works is beginning construction of the Municipal Complex. During construction the Department of Public Works will be located at 228 Maple Street (4th floor.) Phone numbers and e-mail addresses will remain unchanged however the mailing address will change. Mail should be sent to: Manchester Department of Public Works, 228 Maple Street, Manchester, NH 03103."

Good to know it is about to get started. Having a proper and very new facility only helps the city in many ways. That area also needs to be built up better, it literally smells around there if you walk by there. This will also free up some more land for development as all the city run municipal things like police and recycling I believe will be run out of here.
 
I saw that notice, too... I'm trying to get a bit more information on the project, but from what I've heard and seen it sounds promising on several fronts. It will free up the site of the current police station, which is located on the edge of downtown and the often overlooked Kalivas/Union neighborhood (around Kalivas Park and Union Street). From very preliminary, mostly massing study renderings, the new police station and DPW buildings appear to be urban-scale buildings fronting Valley Street, which will be a huge improvement over the old fence that now barely shields garbage trucks and other city vehicles.

Additionally, the new complex will bring more jobs to the Valley Street area, which I think has the potential to be transformed as a more attractive mid-density, city-center shopping district. I think this would be less of a neighborhood business center like Webster Street, Granite Square, Kelley Street or the Hollow, for instance, and more of a site for larger-scale, citywide retail and mixed-use development that should ideally be accessible for pedestrians, transit and drivers. I've written a bit about this on the East Side Neighborhoods page of LivableMHT.

Speaking of replacing the current eyesore site, John Clayton has a piece today about the demolition of the old incinerator there now:

John Clayton's In the City: Who'll shed a tear for old incinerator?
Monday, Mar. 14, 2011

THERE ARE TIMES when the demolition of a city landmark can make folks get understandably misty -- I'm thinking here of landmarks like the Notre Dame Bridge or Our Lady of Perpetual Help church -- but I doubt anyone is going to shed a tear over the razing of the city incinerator.

It's scheduled to be taken down next month -- the soaring, 135-foot red-brick chimney included -- and for those poor souls who once worked there, it will be an act akin to the dismantling of Dante's Inferno.

The incinerator seemed like a good and necessary thing back in November of 1936. That's when the city signed a deal with the Frederick Page Contracting Co. of New York to build the thing for $134,567.

In a twist that would be unthinkable today, the head of the city Highway Department -- Francis B. Kenney -- wanted to go with a higher bid of $136,900, but, since FDR's Public Works Administration was picking up 45 percent of the tab, the low bidder got the job.

The Feds also mandated that the plant be up and running -- or up and burning -- by June 15, 1937, which is when the city's many garbage dumps (such as the so-called Amoskeag dump and the Maple Street dump on the site of what is now the Hunt Pool) were left to fester, unmolested by fresh trash.

Back in 1937 -- pre-EPA, mind you -- no one seemed concerned about the plumes of smoke that emanated from that red-brick chimney, and with city crews often working three shifts a day, those plumes were a constant.

It's bad enough to imagine watching a game at Textile Field and dealing with the cascade of fine white ash. Try to imagine going to work every day in an enclosed brick building where the temperature was like the surface of the sun, only hotter.

"It was such a nasty job that most people would work a couple of days, go home and never come back," said longtime Highway Department employee Dan Garrity, who's been gathering anecdotes from those who once worked there. "That's why the guys who stayed had a lot of freedom to do the job the way they wanted. They had showers down there, so, 40 or 50 years ago, it wasn't unusual for guys to take cold showers during their shifts and walk around working in their bathrobes.

"The state police and local police used to destroy their evidence there," he added, referring specifically to liquor and marijuana seizures, "and we've heard stories that a lot of what was brought in didn't necessarily make it into the incinerator. They used to go through the scavenger trucks looking for scrap metal or stuff they could sell for salvage, too. That's what they used to pay for what they called the 'Garbagemen's Ball.' It wasn't unlike the firefighter's dinner is today, until the department put a stop to it."

And until they stopped using the incinerator around 1978, it provided enough BTUs to heat the entire city yard complex, including the water works, the traffic department and the highway department.

Yes, the incinerator was an undeniably colorful crucible at the corner of Valley and Lincoln, but no one -- especially the guys who worked there -- will shed a tear when it all comes tumbling down.

John Clayton is the author of several books on Manchester and New Hampshire, including his newest title, "Remembering Manchester." His e-mail is jclayton [at] unionleader.com.
Click to expand...
 
Well, there use to be a powerpoint on the municipal complex online. But that is gone now. Basically they are trying to combine as much as they can into one large complex. This was a bout a year ago, but the concept drawings were of a much more attractive building. They had pictures of how they store the city vehicles now and then proposed and it is much better. More organized, more accessible, and in the long run, should allow the city to operate more efficiently.

Yeah, Valley st. has potential being the street it is but is basically a trashy road right now.
 
This wasn't unexpected, but it is extremely disappointing. The current legislature is voting against the wishes of 75% of New Hampshirites who support the restoration of passenger rail in the state, and the economic well-being of southern New Hampshire for reasons that make no sense at all:

House pulls the plug on state's Rail Authority
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief

CONCORD ? The New Hampshire House voted to put the brakes on the state Rail Authority, voting 190-119 to put it out of existence.

Opposition in the House has been strong to the authority, a volunteer board established by state law. The New Hampshire Rail Authority has been working on the study and design for commuter rail that links Concord, Manchester and Nashua to Boston.

Critics say the plan will cost the state in terms of money to cover bonds for rail upgrades, as well as ongoing government subsidies once it is in place.
NHRA supporters say the agency has already obtained $4.1 million in federal funds to begin study of all aspects of economic impact of expanded freight and passenger rail. Restoration of rail has strong support from business communities in Nashua and Manchester, they said.

The Senate has to approve the repeal bill before it can take effect.
Rep. John Hikel, R-Goffstown, said rail will prove to be an unending cost for state taxpayers based on decisions the NHRA makes.

"This group of unelected officials can spend your money and not be held accountable for their actions," Hikel said, arguing that rail costs will amount to $50 for each citizen. He noted that even though funding will primarily be federal money, the funds still come from taxpayers.

"We need to tighten our belts and do more with less, but the message just isn't getting through to rail aficionados," he said.

Rep. Brian Rhodes, D-Nashua, argued that the state is wasting a rare opportunity. He noted the state got just 1 percent of the federal funds allocated for rail in the New England region. The NHRA has cost the state nothing, he said.

"Yet again, an opportunity for job creation and economic growth was defeated by House Republican leadership," Rhodes said.

Peter Burling, NHRA chairman, said he'll make his best arguments to the Senate, but called the House vote "sad."

He said, "The people on the Rail Authority have accomplished everything we set out to do, and the only thing standing in our way is the politics of rail. We did it all without spending a dime of taxpayer money."
Click to expand...
 
I wanted to post in response to the commuter rail situation. I am not really new to the site, I have been following the posts for a couple of years now, but I have never really felt a need to post before. It seems I am a unique breed to this thread because I actually live in Manchester and I am a homeowner at that. I have lived here for about 4 years. I am originally from Massachusetts but moved to NH because of jobs, affordability, etc.
I am extremely frustrated that the NH House does not seem to realize the benefits that bringing commuter rail to Concord through Nashua and Manchester could bring to the state. It is frustrating that Mayor Gatsas also does not seem to realize the benefits that a commuter rail through Manchester from Boston would do for the city. I feel that if he was to push for this than it would have a lot greater chance of happening. I hope that the next city elections bring in some politicians who might actually realize the benefits a commuter rail could bring to the city.
I also find it asinine that currently there is no way to take public transportation between Manchester and Nashua, the states two largest cities, without first heading all the way to Boston and then coming back up.
Hopefully the Senate will have a little more common sense than the House, but I find that unlikely. Hopefully this has to go through Governor Lynch before it can take affect because he seems to be about the only politician we have left here that has any sense.
In the end, even if this manages to pass I doubt it will be the end of commuter rail forever. It will probably push any preliminary start date back at least a couple of years though. Unfortunately if things keep going the way they are going I am not sure I will want to stick around long enough to see a commuter rail in NH.
Also, I have read Frank Lloyd Mike?s dream of a trolley system in Manchester but I would think that it has zero chance of happening until after commuter rail service is restored. I dream of the day when I can hop on a trolley down the street from my house (at this point I would be happy to hop on a bus that I don?t have to wait an hour for and that would still be operating at 7:00 PM when I got back) and take it to downtown where I could catch the train to Nashua, where I work, or to Boston for a concert or something.

In other news they are putting up some nice townhouses on Mammoth Road where it intersects with Masabessic St. This is the site where two big abandoned house where burned last winter/spring on either side of Wayland Ave. One has already been erected and they just demolished the other burned property. I am praying that they put a three story building there that allows the lower floor to be used as a commercial storefront or a restaurant or something. It doesn?t seem likely because the other one was just developed into town houses. Still three townhouses is better than one big abandoned building, even if they should have put it closer to the sidewalk.
I have never seen anything online about this so that is why I thought I would mention it. It is just down the street from where I live so I drive by every once in a while.
 
This actually pisses me off, our leaders are not representing us 75% of the state. And "we" are not arguing for rail, we are arguing for the study to be done. They just are afraid of the end result that if rail is a feasible and important part of NH's development to stay up to date with other states then it will be harder to argue against.

I am sorry that most people in NH do not have a ton of money they are sitting on and own 2 BMWs and would hate to take a much more environmentally and cost effective form of transportation, especially with gas going up at the rate it has been.

I am a bit confused due to lack of knowledge the order that the bill must go now to be passed, but is there any way where I can write more letters to people or whatever. This is kind of ridiculous as this is so close to passing. Their reasoning is not sane! And again, they are fighting against people who are for a study, not rail!
 
After reading all the reviews, many people are ignorant there. Arguing that rail is not a good answer and it is good to get rid of the NHRA. But aren't the NHRA there to determine whether rail is good or not.

Others say rail is bad because it never profits. But rail isn't there to profit, neither to highways.

Another even mentions that why does Boston Express go to Salem/Derry and not Nashua/Concord. Um.... It goes to Salem, some place in mass en route to Nashua, Derry, Salem, Concord, and Manchester and I have been on it countless times with a full bus. However I have no idea how it is doing. But good service, and it is used.

Just gets me frustrated how people don't even know what is being argued for and what the NHRA wants to do before arguing for rail.
 
Hi Peter--it's great to hear the thoughts of someone actually living in Manchester at the moment. It seems like there used to be more people from Manchester regularly posting here, but you're right, at the moment it's mostly non-residents, such as myself.

I think it's incredibly discouraging that Mayor Gatsas isn't supportive of this, and furthermore that he essentially gave the land allocated for a large, intermodal transit station and transit-oriented development away for a grocery store (which should have been included in the larger project). This can be overcome by locating the station elsewhere downtown, and I believe the Bedford Street lot at Spring Street is the next choice. Still, his remaining quiet--or maybe even opposing--rail is in direct conflict with the views of the vast majority of Mancunians, the stated desire of local businesses and economic development groups, and the long-term well-being of the city. As a Republican, his support would have gone a long way, I'm sure. And this really shouldn't be a partisan issue; it makes so much sense and I really have yet to hear one rational explanation for opposing passenger rail in Manchester.

I agree with you, though, that this is going to happen. It might be delayed a few years now, and it might be more expensive later, but with gas prices rising, public support growing, and more people and businesses looking for walkable, urban cities served by good transit, I have no doubt that it will happen. I could be misunderstanding this, but I believe that now that the MBTA has the rights to the tracks through Nashua, Manchester and Concord, the NHRTA is valuable but not necessary to study, plan or operate passenger rail or receive federal funding. I believe all those functions can now be played by NHDOT, which I hear is also supportive of rail, and the MBTA can operate commuter rail similar to how it does in Rhode Island. Again, I could be mistaken, but that is my understanding at the moment.

I also completely agree that commuter rail needs to happen before any streetcars can, if they ever do. I'd really love to see a streetcar network, and I think Manchester could support it if it made the zoning changes to encourage more density and walkable, transit-oriented development. But I think better regional transit connections like commuter rail need to come first. Even if a streetcar never happens--though I don't think the city should be so timid as to rule it out--a better bus system is needed. We'll never see first-floor retail on Mammoth Road if a bus doesn't serve the area more than once an hour and into the evening. Better transit lets people get around without a car, and that makes them more likely to walk around their own neighborhood, which reduces the need for parking and the propensity for sprawl, and increases the attractiveness of things like first-floor retail, townhouses and so on.

I'm glad to hear that something at least reasonably dense is being built at Massebsic and Mammoth... if you have a chance to snap some pictures, please post them. That said, if they're less than great, I almost think the abandoned buildings are better in a sense. Both of those houses were pretty nice old buildings with good street frontage that, if fixed up, could have provided a nice face to the intersection and nice homes or apartments in the neighborhood. The one with the turret had some especially nice old details. Not every old building is worth saving, and the fires damaged them pretty extensively. It would be great if at least one of the new buildings had ground-floor retail--the area could use a little cafe or something--with housing above, and for both to be built up to the sidewalk or with very minimal front yardage.

My fear with new townhouses, if set far back from the street and not much of a neighborhood asset, is that an opportunity at an important intersection is lost for another 40 years or so. A similar thing happened a few years ago, when a dreary market at the intersection of Lake and Hall in the Hollow was demolished and replaced with a gas station. The market, like the abandoned houses, stood replacing, but it's replacement is certainly not an improvement and renders the site unlikely for redevelopment for a long time now.

I also wanted to mention that the MTA does have a bus between downtown Manchester and Nashua. Route 9 runs every two hours, so between connecting points at either end, I'm not sure it's viable option for you. Like the rest of Manchester's transit system, frequency is an issue. To their credit though, the MTA seems to be working to improve service and ridership with new improvements like this. They need more of a regional focus and better funding, however, to make major improvements, in my mind.

Anyway, Peter, I hope we hear more from you as a current Manchester resident.
 
This is a big project, though I think the siting of it is way off. An office/light industrial park such as this would be great as part of a second phase of Rivers Edge or development along the river-side of Main Street on the West Side, where Hillier recommended directing such developments back in 2006:

Hackett Hill fire station work on tap
By TED SIEFER
New Hampshire Union Leader
Saturday, Mar. 19, 2011

MANCHESTER ? After more than a year of at times contentious negotiations with the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, a local developer says he's ready to break ground next month on a fire station on Hackett Hill Road, as well as the first phase of a 1.2 million-square-foot industrial and office park.

The aldermen helped developer Richard Danais of Danais Realty Group clear what he hopes will be a final hurdle when they voted to approve a contract for the fire station with a different builder and a price tag that is potentially $72,000 higher than what they approved last fall.

The higher estimate could cut into any profit the city might yield from the $2.8 million sale of 12 city-owned plots to Danais for the business complex. As part of the deal, Danais has agreed to build the new fire station.

Mayor Ted Gatsas insisted on hammering out a set of "adjustments," presented to the aldermen on Tuesday, that would keep the cost close to the original amount, $2.38 million, rather than the new contract bid of $2.46 million.

"I did some calling around to contractors that are out there selling kitchen equipment, and I think it can be done for less," Gatsas, a former business owner, said at the meeting.

The Manchester Fire Department will also be seeking state and federal grants to defray some of the costs.

Danais, for his part, expressed cautious optimism that the station could be built below the estimate.

"We feel we can accomplish this number -- not without some difficulty, but I think we've made some reasonable adjustments," Danais said.

The price tag for the station rose because too much time had elapsed since the deal was first approved, and the project had to be rebid. Earlier this month, Seaver Construction emerged as the lowest bidder, replacing Eckman Construction as the designated contractor.

The approval of the new contract came after aldermen voted last month to pay Danais's company $225,000 to cover costs associated with delays in building the fire station and rerouting an access road.

Several aldermen were skeptical of the potential cost savings of the "adjustments" in the new contract.

"I certainly don't get that warm fuzzy feeling with this package right here," said Alderman Ed Osborne at the meeting. "I have a funny feeling we'll be short $10,000 here and $10,000 there, and we'll be coming back here."

But a majority of the aldermen voted to approve the new contract on the grounds that not doing so would further delay the project and lead to even higher costs.

"Why are we micromanaging our fire chief?" said Alderman William Shea. "Why are we worrying about furniture and things that obviously aren't that essential to a fire station?"
With the purchase agreement with the city expected to close by the end of the month, Danais said he hopes to start construction on the fire station in mid-April and to complete it in the fall.

He also plans to build the phase of the office, industrial and distribution complex, even though the economic recovery remains fragile.

"I'm going to be as low risk as I can," Danais said. "I have people I'm speaking to (as potential tenants). This is not being built as spec space. We're going to follow the market. As the market gets busier, we'll get busier."
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this sounds like a done deal. Hopefully more information will come out with greater detail about the project, and perhaps it will end up being more geared toward the sort of industrial/distribution that is scattered throughout the city and better located on the outskirts. If that's the case, then perhaps the project will clear up current distribution/industrial properties primarily in the area south of Valley Street for more appropriate city center development and not divert too much office space from downtown/Rivers Edge. We'll see.
 
MEDO's website actually has some information on the Northwest Business Park/Hackett Hill. It looks pretty disappointing as far as diverting businesses, office space, jobs and development from urban areas of Manchester and even the surrounding towns.

Hackett%20Hill%20Final%20Concept%20Plan.pdf


edit: forgot to post link
 
I love how even in a city like this where there are vacant lots, warehouses, and mills, they still turn to a preserve originally designed to keep as a pristine natural area to develop their large one floor warehouses and small short office buildings.

I mean, it would be crazy to build an office building in the business district in Manchester, wouldn't it? (sarcasm)
 
Exactly... this seems to follow in the line of the Market Basket--city land being sold for a quick buck without consideration to a longer term or larger scale view of development. The Market Basket should have been incorporated as part of a much larger mixed-use development including an intermodal transit station (though I think the Bedford Street lot has its own advantages as a station site), and Hackett Hill should remain open space. It's the most rural area of Manchester, contains a sensitive and nationally significant ecosystem, and ill-suited for this sort of development.

With a bit more creativity and work, the city could encourage development of a research park at Rivers Edge or the West Side, and either turn the Hackett Hill land into an open space preserve or turn it over to a non-profit conservancy. Sure, the city wouldn't get the land sale money or add the property to the tax roles, but relying on those goals is short-sighted. Hackett Hill is entirely auto-reliant and on the far edge of the city; it will not create result in the new restaurants, shops or residences that an urban research district would. The city is missing an opportunity to develop underused land in the city center into high-value research office space and attract as residents the middle- and high-income earners who would would work there.

At least as of the 2002 development plan, the development of Hackett Hill business park is being overseen by the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The MHRA has played an important role in many important projects in the last several years such as Rivers Edge, the arena (though I think the site could have been developed much more densely) and airport, but more often it has been the driving force behind most of Manchester's reprehensible urban renewal past (gutting all of the following: Notre Dame/McGregorville Flat Iron District, Granite Square, Millyard). This unfortunate past is not unique to the MHRA; the BRA in Boston and authorities in other cities have the same marred past. Still, I'd like to see MEDO, the city's Planning Department and SNHPC, all of which rely on experts, professionals and community feedback, have a greater role in directing development and planning.
 
If you want a real world answer, I think it is money. Money also prevents cities from developing things.

Obviously the city wants money form selling the land.

But I am guessing that it is cheaper to mow down a forest than redevelop a lot in a city. Which is probably why Walmart, Lowes, and other big Box stores love to develop in woods over vacant or trashy lots which could provide for a good location. I am actually surprised (and although it would be nice in a sense to have put more thought into the MB down town) it is being built there. The use of the current building is probably what is so attractive there.

But I think there is more development on open land (forested or not) than there is in a city that has many vacant lots and buildings. And again only guessing, but I assume this is because it is cheaper.

From an environmental sense it is horrible. I have been reading that Triumph of the City from Edward Glaeser, someone posted an interview with him here. But even though addressing many economical issues, he addresses many environmental. And when there are large scale developments outside of a city it kills me. I have walked that preservation land there in Manchester and it is quit beautiful. Sad to see it developed with large offices and warehouses when it would be double as nice to see new skyscrapers built in the city and the forest left alone.

Although I love a good walk in the woods, I also love looking at an awesome skyline. This development basically goes against both of these.

I think this may also change the view from 293. Currently when driving by the preserve you get a lot of forest there, but in the future you will see some non "architectural works of art" instead. Kinda stinks.

Silver lining though... give me a second. It will be more people into the city, and although not inner city, it will bring them, and this may then promote more growth in the future, maybe not as fast, but it will. So at least it is being built (over an amazing preserve, just don't think about that.) But there is the potential that more of the preserve gets eaten up in the future even beyond the reserved for future development areas, again, just ignore this fact and it doesn't seem so bad.

Hey maybe that is how city officials (as FLW says, professionals) justify these moves, they just ignore any facts that are negative, and look at the good ones.

You mention the Rivers Edge too, I would actually hate to see any development there with any industrial. West side maybe. But that area would be great for a movie theatre. Standard big AMC or Regal would be fine and probably more stable (wouldn't close over time.) But with two in Hooksett and non downtown, it would be great. I read online some people want that, and I know I did when i would visit my friend in Manchester. We would have to drive to Hooksett then back to hit up the Red Arrow. Woulda been nicer to just walk there.
 
Although I love a good walk in the woods, I also love looking at an awesome skyline. This development basically goes against both of these.
Click to expand...

This is exactly it! I'm going to try to find a bit more information on the project from the city, then I'm going to write the inaugural post in a new LivableMHT series I'm thinking of calling Livable/Unlovable based on GCPVD's Like/Dislike.

But I think there is more development on open land (forested or not) than there is in a city that has many vacant lots and buildings. And again only guessing, but I assume this is because it is cheaper.
Click to expand...

It's easier for a developer to purchase a big plot of land, bring in their own access roads, lay it out from scratch, and wipe it clean if they like than it is to redevelop urban areas or develop infill projects in existing neighborhoods. The problem is exactly what you say, though, more sprawl and less investment in existing areas. The problem, as I see it, is that the city is not doing enough to encourage urban development, and in fact is doing the exact opposite through the MHRA's role at Hackett Hill.
 
M. Brown said:
Manchester 2010 census results

109,565
Click to expand...

Thanks... I'm glad to see that Manchester is still growing, as expected, but i wish there were just a few more people to push it to 110,000. At least those last 66 people pushed us into the position to round up to 110,000!

With improved transit, rising gas prices, further downtown development, and investment in the surrounding neighborhoods, I hope Manchester can attract enough college grads, young professionals and so on to move to the urban city center and push the city to 120,000 by 2020!
 
Last week in the Union Leader, I saw an article about new development in Manchester. I got excited until I read it. The only projects listed were a new Dunkin Donuts on Queen City Ave, a renovated Hess Station on Queen City Ave, a Goodwill store, a Dollar Tree, and a cell tower behind McDonald's on Second Street.

I hope the Elliot continues quickly with the next phase of River's Edge. It seems like things have been quiet in the city lately.
 
I read that article in the Union Leader as well. The only thing that slightly sparked my interest was this: "...two additional retail spaces at the Elm Street Demoulas Super Market development...."

Not really sure what that is all about as I haven't seen any other news about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top