Manchester Infill & Small Developments

[FrankLloydMike]

Illustrated skylines of Manchester and Portland by Joan Breault

An interesting comparison of Manchester and Portland in today's Union Leader:

McCune’s Manchester
The Queen City vs. the Forest City
Adam McCune

I bellied up to the bar at the Great Lost Bear in Portland, Maine. There was a typical lunch crowd; small groups huddled around burgers, quietly eating and sipping on cold beverages.

Right above my head was a picture of Michael Jackson.

Not the singer, the British beer writer. The place is a beer bar and its striking likeness to Manchester’s Strange Brew Tavern got me thinking about the similarities and differences between two of New England’s jewel cities.

Obviously, Portland has the leg up in tourism.

Beaches and islands nearby help that. According to Portland’s Downtown District, the population swells from 66,000 to nearly two million on a busy summer day. Perhaps the added foot-traffic gives more credence to their art and culture status.

Come to think of it, I’m kind of bothered by the idea that Portland is known as a foodie and art city and Manchester isn’t....yet.

“I do see Manchester being recognized for our incredible variety of amazing dining destinations and arts and cultural venues,” Samantha DiPrima, Director of Marketing and PR for Intown Manchester told me.

“The fact that Portland is on the seacoast and is a tourist destination may be why some see it as being more recognized for assets that we have in common.”

That may be true. But what we make up for in famous funny alumni.

I find it somewhat ironic that Boston’s Comedy Connection has a satellite operation in Portland, yet the likes of Adam Sandler, Sarah Silverman and Seth Meyers all have roots here. Manchester is funny, if only by associations and our double-sided dead-end Elm Street.

Walking along Congress Street in Portland gives you a similar feel to Elm Street in the Queen City. There is a specific shade of red from the bricks that highlights both cities, and while Manchester’s mill city roots certainly birthed more brick, you can see remnants and traces of it in Portland.

The New Hampshire Institute of Art is blossoming in this city, highlighted by their recent expansion and Intown Manchester’s banner campaign, which relaunched this week with the help of photography from students. It certainly rivals what Portland offers at Maine College of Art.

Portland’s seaport also holds a bounty of beautiful islands just a ferry ride away. All we get in equivalence is an island beyond the dam on the Merrimack. Out of reach except for a few bored teenagers and some adventurous kayakers.

Both cities have rival baseball and hockey teams, and both host large venues for music and entertainment.

But even though I can admire and respect Portland, I still get an odd sense of phoniness while I’m there. There are some in the city that are simply putting on airs, like a wanna-be Boston.

And I guess that’s the real difference between the cities.

Manchester seems more real to me. They may have the fantastic wonder of Peaks Island, or the beauty of a massive ship coming into port, but we have something more palpable. There is substance here, and not the kind that dwindles from two million to 66,000 just because it might snow.

DiPrima puts it best: “Manchester is unique, diverse and vibrant. People like to try and compare different downtowns and hyperfocus on what one may have that the other doesn’t and don’t spend enough time celebrating what we do have as individual communities that make us unique and incomparable to others.”

I don't agree with all of it. I don't get a feeling of phoniness in Portland (or Boston, for the most part). Portland is certainly hipper, and maybe that's what he's getting it--I can definitely see a sense of "putting on airs" by hipsters, and restaurants and boutiques with built-in instant personality, which I guess could be construed as phoniness sometimes--but as much as that can annoy me in Cambridge or Boston, I think it's a very important component in making cities like Manchester and Portland more interesting, lively places to live and visit. Manchester could use a bit more of it--and judging by the growing number of art students, hip restaurants and even fixed-gear bikes I see in the city, I think it's getting hipper.

Manchester has some great natural assets--the Merrimack River, Massabesic Lake, the Uncanoonuc mountains, and even more mountains, rivers, lakes and beaches a short ride away--but they are currently underutilized and under-promoted. I've said this before, but Manchester could do a much better job of promoting itself as a good place to live (and an easy daytrip from Boston) for outdoorsy types if it developed or encouraged boat rentals on the river and Massabesic, rock climbing on Rock Rimmon and the continued development of the trail network, among other things.

Still, it will never have the same general tourism draw of Portland or Portsmouth. No part of Manchester is as quaint as Market Square or the Old Port, and lovely as the river is, it's no ocean. As McCune alludes to, tourism is huge in making a relatively small city like Portland feel much bigger, and attracting the sort of restaurants, shops and general feel that allow it to be compared (favorably or unfavorably) to Boston.

Without the natural asset of the ocean and the historical asset of narrow, meandering streets, Manchester needs to work a bit harder to attract tourists, as well as residents looking for an urban alternative to Boston. It should continue to bill itself as a good place to do business and as a good place for business travelers and conventions--which judging by the major hotels in the city, seem to be its overnight bread and butter. The city has also been doing a better job of attracting daytrippers to baseball games, concerts, shows and museums, as well as the downtown dining scene that attracts people from surrounding towns.

Whereas in Portland and Portsmouth, I get the sense that greater livability for residents largely followed an increase in tourism, I think in Manchester the opposite may turn out to be true. If Manchester can make its downtown and city center neighborhoods (Rimmon Heights, the lower North End and Straw/Smyth seem best positioned to be the forerunners here) more attractive places for young people and middle-income families (the type currently moving to Boston or the neighboring suburbs) to live, continue to grow the presence of colleges in the city, and continue to improve the dining and shopping scene downtown, then I can see it growing as a minor tourist destination in the coming decades.

Manchester lost too many vital buildings and neighborhoods to urban renewal (downtown used to continue all the way to Valley Cemetery, for instance), and partly as a result it has lost too many young people, middle-income families and other residents to neighboring towns and other cities. It needs to act like the city it is--through better planning and zoning, along with better urban amenities like public transit--and build upon the strengths and history it has in order to restore its sense of urbanism, and draw new and former residents back.

And part of that means that it will need to get a bit hipper, but that's okay with me. If Manchester is to continue to grow into (or I would say return to being) a real city, it's going to need to be able to attract all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

As a side note and plug, please vote for LivableMHT's Urban Livability Awards if you haven't already... among the categories are Manchester's greatest strength, its greatest natural asset, and its best urban role model (Portland is an option).

 

[Patrick]

Illustrated skylines of Manchester and Portland by Joan Breault

An interesting comparison of Manchester and Portland in today's Union Leader:



I don't agree with all of it. I don't get a feeling of phoniness in Portland (or Boston, for the most part). Portland is certainly hipper, and maybe that's what he's getting it--I can definitely see a sense of "putting on airs" by hipsters, and restaurants and boutiques with built-in instant personality, which I guess could be construed as phoniness sometimes--but as much as that can annoy me in Cambridge or Boston, I think it's a very important component in making cities like Manchester and Portland more interesting, lively places to live and visit. Manchester could use a bit more of it--and judging by the growing number of art students, hip restaurants and even fixed-gear bikes I see in the city, I think it's getting hipper.

Manchester has some great natural assets--the Merrimack River, Massabesic Lake, the Uncanoonuc mountains, and even more mountains, rivers, lakes and beaches a short ride away--but they are currently underutilized and under-promoted. I've said this before, but Manchester could do a much better job of promoting itself as a good place to live (and an easy daytrip from Boston) for outdoorsy types if it developed or encouraged boat rentals on the river and Massabesic, rock climbing on Rock Rimmon and the continued development of the trail network, among other things.

Still, it will never have the same general tourism draw of Portland or Portsmouth. No part of Manchester is as quaint as Market Square or the Old Port, and lovely as the river is, it's no ocean. As McCune alludes to, tourism is huge in making a relatively small city like Portland feel much bigger, and attracting the sort of restaurants, shops and general feel that allow it to be compared (favorably or unfavorably) to Boston.

Without the natural asset of the ocean and the historical asset of narrow, meandering streets, Manchester needs to work a bit harder to attract tourists, as well as residents looking for an urban alternative to Boston. It should continue to bill itself as a good place to do business and as a good place for business travelers and conventions--which judging by the major hotels in the city, seem to be its overnight bread and butter. The city has also been doing a better job of attracting daytrippers to baseball games, concerts, shows and museums, as well as the downtown dining scene that attracts people from surrounding towns.

Whereas in Portland and Portsmouth, I get the sense that greater livability for residents largely followed an increase in tourism, I think in Manchester the opposite may turn out to be true. If Manchester can make its downtown and city center neighborhoods (Rimmon Heights, the lower North End and Straw/Smyth seem best positioned to be the forerunners here) more attractive places for young people and middle-income families (the type currently moving to Boston or the neighboring suburbs) to live, continue to grow the presence of colleges in the city, and continue to improve the dining and shopping scene downtown, then I can see it growing as a minor tourist destination in the coming decades.

Manchester lost too many vital buildings and neighborhoods to urban renewal (downtown used to continue all the way to Valley Cemetery, for instance), and partly as a result it has lost too many young people, middle-income families and other residents to neighboring towns and other cities. It needs to act like the city it is--through better planning and zoning, along with better urban amenities like public transit--and build upon the strengths and history it has in order to restore its sense of urbanism, and draw new and former residents back.

And part of that means that it will need to get a bit hipper, but that's okay with me. If Manchester is to continue to grow into (or I would say return to being) a real city, it's going to need to be able to attract all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

As a side note and plug, please vote for LivableMHT's Urban Livability Awards if you haven't already... among the categories are Manchester's greatest strength, its greatest natural asset, and its best urban role model (Portland is an option).

All thoughtful and insightful points Mike. The thing that bothers me is that we (defined loosely to mean architects, planners, and lovers of quality urbanism—i.e., anyone who has ever noticed the difference between a positive and vibrant “place” and a stagnant and unattractive one—understand what it takes to get good cities. The question is, why aren’t we implementing these things? Instead, we are stuck with heads in the sand and approaching things by making dents in the surface, without addressing the substance of the problems. We have the ability, through laws, to require developers to do certain things. Zoning currently “requires” buildings not to build too close to the street. Well, why not “require” them to build close enough to the street to create the lively places urban designers say require certain height to width ratios? We can, but we don’t. The reasons are bureaucratic and historical in nature, and number many, but they are not particularly complex. We just need the political will to fix them. How about electing planning directors, and thereby holding them accountable? How about community design charrettes which drive zoning schemes, instead of contract zoning building a convoluted and muddled and overly complex guiding policy?

I think Manchester, like any city, has potential. Portland is great not for the islands, but for itself. The islands are great because they are islands. But you don’t experience them in Portland proper. It would be like saying Burlington is nice because of the mountains. There aren’t any mountains in Burlington. Is Boston nice because of Cape Cod? Are Newbury Street or Central Square anymore alluring because of their proximity to Martha’s Vineyard? Arguably not.

Next, if this author wants to see “real,” tell him to visit anywhere in Portland other than Congress or the Old Port—it’s just like Manchester: blue collar Northern New Englanders with the middle class sprinkled in. I don’t know what he meant by fake, other than how you described it (the places like Urban Outfitters, which move in and try to capitalize on a sort of grittiness which is self-created). There are obnoxious hipsters, but at the same time I like them in the aggregate. They are strange people, but enjoyable to watch in the sense that the bring variety, however weird or annoying they may be as individuals. They probably think the same thing of me when I walk by in a suit (on occasion, anyway). That’s one of the great things about city life—diversity and the eclectic nature of things. Suits, immigrants, immigrants in suits, hipsters, kids, adults, people en route to the symphony, coffee shop baristas, executives, tourists, carpenters, restauranteurs, fishers, wanna be gangstas, etc. etc. etc. It’s just people being people, nothing more, and people are all strange in their unique ways. The more the better—each can feel comfortable expressing their “them-ness” more fully when they feel free to stand out, which they do when surrounded by a variety of others, and that’s a more enjoyable setting for everyone.

This can take place in Portland, Manchester, or Timbuktu, if the right elements are present. It all comes down to proper urban design, which has nothing to do with islands.
Lastly, Portland’s population does not swell to 2 million. It’s doubtful if it tops 200,000, which I believe is the number the article meant to quote. I would say 150,000 – 200,000 on a busy day. And that isn’t at one time, but over a series of hours. It may feel more crowded because of the narrow streets in the downtown, filled with people on foot, but it’s definitely NOT 2 million.

 

[Lrfox]

Portland is great not for the islands, but for itself. The islands are great because they are islands. But you don’t experience them in Portland proper. It would be like saying Burlington is nice because of the mountains. There aren’t any mountains in Burlington. Is Boston nice because of Cape Cod? Are Newbury Street or Central Square anymore alluring because of their proximity to Martha’s Vineyard? Arguably not.

Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard? No. Those places are nearly 2 hours away by car, ferry, plane or some combination thereof.

However, I would argue that the Boston Harbor Islands are one asset that makes Boston more unique. Boston's coastal location certainly adds to its allure. Do the harbor islands make any specific location in Boston (i.e. Copley Square) better? No. Those individual locations are great on their own merits. But having wonderful natural resources nearby bring up the value of the sum of the parts. Same goes for the city's waterfront parks (Columbus, Esplanade, Piers Park, Castle Island, etc.). Those places aren't THE reason that Boston's as great as it is... but they certainly play a big role

Portland's the same way. While Portland isn't an attraction BECAUSE of the islands and the harbor, the islands and the harbor combined with places like Congress Street and the Old Port do make it all the more appealing.

San Francisco is a perfect marriage of natural and urban beauty. Would SF be great without the Golden Gate, Baker Beach, the Bay, and the hills? Probably. But if you blend the two, you have one hell of a combination.

When I read that article, I got the impression that the author was saying the primary difference between the Portland and Manchester in terms of tourism was the coastal location. I disagree. There's no doubt that that has an impact, but I think that most people vacationing in Maine simply for the coast tend to do so outside of Portland. There are certainly some who make Portland the hub for their coastal Maine visit, but most visiting Portland do so more for the city than the natural aspect.

The big difference between Manchester and Portland is that Portland is a historic seaport city and Manchester is an old mill city. Frankly, the seaport city is sexier to tourists. I LOVE gritty older cities. I do. But If I'm planning a vacation, I chose the old seaport city 99 out of 100 times. The cities may be comparable (I think they are), but the fact that Portland's on the ocean is a BIG tie breaker in terms of which is more appealing to visitors.

Next, if this author wants to see “real,” tell him to visit anywhere in Portland other than Congress or the Old Port—it’s just like Manchester: blue collar Northern New Englanders with the middle class sprinkled in.

Agreed. For better or worse, visitors to Portland rarely ever leave that small little section of town on the Peninsula and spend most time at touristy attractions and around other tourists. Portland, like any other city in New England, is largely middle class outside of the downtown area. I never thought Portland felt "fake." If you judge ANY city (esp. one with many tourists) on the tourists and the tourist attractions, you'll get a terrible impression. If I judged Boston on Quincy Market, San Francisco on Pier 39, or NYC on Times Square, I'd hate each and every one of those places.

Lastly, Portland’s population does not swell to 2 million. It’s doubtful if it tops 200,000, which I believe is the number the article meant to quote. I would say 150,000 – 200,000 on a busy day. And that isn’t at one time, but over a series of hours. It may feel more crowded because of the narrow streets in the downtown, filled with people on foot, but it’s definitely NOT 2 million.

Thanks for mentioning this. I have heard that 2 Million number a few times and it makes me want to pull my hair out when people blindly quote it. I don't know where it comes from, or how it came to be; but it's ridiculous. That number seems like it could be an accurate tourist count for the city over an entire year. I work in the hospitality industry. While we don't have any properties in the Portland area so I've never looked into it in detail (we do in Manchester), analyzing statistics like this is big part of my job. The entire region of Cape Cod gets 6 Million tourists annually. It's hard to fathom Portland getting 2 Million in a single day. 150-200k seems far more realistic.

 

[Patrick]

Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard? No. Those places are nearly 2 hours away by car, ferry, plane or some combination thereof.

However, I would argue that the Boston Harbor Islands are one asset that makes Boston more unique. Boston's coastal location certainly adds to its allure. Do the harbor islands make any specific location in Boston (i.e. Copley Square) better? No. Those individual locations are great on their own merits. But having wonderful natural resources nearby bring up the value of the sum of the parts. Same goes for the city's waterfront parks (Columbus, Esplanade, Piers Park, Castle Island, etc.). Those places aren't THE reason that Boston's as great as it is... but they certainly play a big role

Portland's the same way. While Portland isn't an attraction BECAUSE of the islands and the harbor, the islands and the harbor combined with places like Congress Street and the Old Port do make it all the more appealing.

San Francisco is a perfect marriage of natural and urban beauty. Would SF be great without the Golden Gate, Baker Beach, the Bay, and the hills? Probably. But if you blend the two, you have one hell of a combination.

When I read that article, I got the impression that the author was saying the primary difference between the Portland and Manchester in terms of tourism was the coastal location. I disagree. There's no doubt that that has an impact, but I think that most people vacationing in Maine simply for the coast tend to do so outside of Portland. There are certainly some who make Portland the hub for their coastal Maine visit, but most visiting Portland do so more for the city than the natural aspect.

The big difference between Manchester and Portland is that Portland is a historic seaport city and Manchester is an old mill city. Frankly, the seaport city is sexier to tourists. I LOVE gritty older cities. I do. But If I'm planning a vacation, I chose the old seaport city 99 out of 100 times. The cities may be comparable (I think they are), but the fact that Portland's on the ocean is a BIG tie breaker in terms of which is more appealing to visitors.



Agreed. For better or worse, visitors to Portland rarely ever leave that small little section of town on the Peninsula and spend most time at touristy attractions and around other tourists. Portland, like any other city in New England, is largely middle class outside of the downtown area. I never thought Portland felt "fake." If you judge ANY city (esp. one with many tourists) on the tourists and the tourist attractions, you'll get a terrible impression. If I judged Boston on Quincy Market, San Francisco on Pier 39, or NYC on Times Square, I'd hate each and every one of those places.



Thanks for mentioning this. I have heard that 2 Million number a few times and it makes me want to pull my hair out when people blindly quote it. I don't know where it comes from, or how it came to be; but it's ridiculous. That number seems like it could be an accurate tourist count for the city over an entire year. I work in the hospitality industry. While we don't have any properties in the Portland area so I've never looked into it in detail (we do in Manchester), analyzing statistics like this is big part of my job. The entire region of Cape Cod gets 6 Million tourists annually. It's hard to fathom Portland getting 2 Million in a single day. 150-200k seems far more realistic.

I completely agree with your previous post, and thanks for describing what I meant to say, what I was I guess trying to say, in an even better way. Sure, the islands help, but the point is that often times you hear people say a place is great for the attractions nearby--not the case. Exchange Street is cool because of its urban design, the fact that there are a lot of shoppers on foot and the buildings meet the street appropriately, regardless of nearby islands. The same street or a couple streets like this could and do exist in any number of cities, and Manchester could very easily build streets like this with a form based code. Islands or not. I think the seaports often get this type of design because people would come in on ship, no horse, no buggy, no car, and simply walk around. In retrospect, that did wonders for urban design.

I have NO idea where the 2 million a day came from....that's nearly four times the city of Boston....um, no. I think I read somewhere the yearly average for Freeport was 3 million, and I almost wanna bet that includes Portland.

 

[grittys457]

lol at 2 million. Yes, twice the state's population arrives in the six block old port during a nice summer day

 

[Seanflynn78]

Portland's downtown definitly has more commerce and "urban feel" than Manchester, but part of it is Portland is a seaport city. Manchester is a huge Mill town, very similar to Lowell and Worcester, MA. With that said, Manchester has come a long way with making Elm Street feel like a true, clean inner city with proper lighting, parking, and revitalization of Elm Street businesses. I am also impressed with the almost finished downtown Market Basket grocery store and new restaurants opening up...I hear two 24 hour diners will be opening downtown, one by the owner of Murphy's tap room....also right on Elm Street across from the Verizon Wireless Arena.
Portland is is my favorite "small city" in New England... reminds me of a mini East Coast style San Francisco. Also The Great Lost Bear is one of the best bars in New England too...and I'm not even a dead head. The only thing missing for Portland is a great nick name...like Portland, OR....AKA Stump Town.

 

[Patrick]

http://www.manchesternh.gov/website...econ_dev/8B15BCC97BE54662A403D9450B2956E8.pdf

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I agree with most of the comments so far.

Patrick said:

The thing that bothers me is that we (defined loosely to mean architects, planners, and lovers of quality urbanism—i.e., anyone who has ever noticed the difference between a positive and vibrant “place” and a stagnant and unattractive one—understand what it takes to get good cities. The question is, why aren’t we implementing these things? Instead, we are stuck with heads in the sand and approaching things by making dents in the surface, without addressing the substance of the problems. ... How about electing planning directors, and thereby holding them accountable? How about community design charrettes which drive zoning schemes, instead of contract zoning building a convoluted and muddled and overly complex guiding policy?

I totally agree and find this incredibly frustrating. I'm not sure if this is the case everywhere, but my impression in Manchester is that the planning director and department are not the issue--they have drawn up a wonderful, pro-urban master plan, but the mayor and alderman are the ones who need to implement it. Without going back to the planning disasters of the past, I think if anything the planning department needs to be given more power. Maybe that means electing them, but I'm not so sure. The charettes idea is great. There's a group, PlanNH, that does several community charettes each year. It would be great to see them concentrate on a couple Manchester neighborhoods sometime.

Lrfox said:

Portland's the same way. While Portland isn't an attraction BECAUSE of the islands and the harbor, the islands and the harbor combined with places like Congress Street and the Old Port do make it all the more appealing.
...
When I read that article, I got the impression that the author was saying the primary difference between the Portland and Manchester in terms of tourism was the coastal location. I disagree. There's no doubt that that has an impact, but I think that most people vacationing in Maine simply for the coast tend to do so outside of Portland. There are certainly some who make Portland the hub for their coastal Maine visit, but most visiting Portland do so more for the city than the natural aspect.
...
The big difference between Manchester and Portland is that Portland is a historic seaport city and Manchester is an old mill city. Frankly, the seaport city is sexier to tourists. I LOVE gritty older cities. I do. But If I'm planning a vacation, I chose the old seaport city 99 out of 100 times.

I absolutely agree--places like Portland (both of them actually), San Francisco and Seattle are great in part because of the contrast between their urban centers and their natural surroundings. Even if you never go to Peaks Island, seeing the water from the city center or a glimpse of the mountains in distance heightens the experience of the place. I'd say this is true of these cities even more than Boston, because the city is so flat, and though it's improving, so detached from its waterfront. Again, the Merrimack is no ocean and the Uncanoonucs are no Mt. Hood, but in some ways I can see Manchester more easily making something of those aspects than Boston of the harbor. Like the harbor in Portland, they're ever-present--views of Uncanoonuc are available throughout the city and the river is at its very heart. Improving access to and attractions along the river would be fairly simple and vastly improve the city.

I also mostly agree with the argument that tourists go to Portland for the city--they are going there for the galleries, the restaurants, the feel of the place, and possibly as a jumping-off point to Maine's more typical outdoor activities. I really think Manchester is too close to Boston and lacks the romance Lrfox mentions about seacoast cities to ever be much of a tourist destination, but with the right policies and attracting the right kind of development, it could easily build upon the strengths downtown and in the Millyard to create a more vibrant urban area that would be welcoming to residents and even just people coming to town for the day. I don't see a full-fledged Exchange Street or Marker Square anywhere, but definitely something more bustling than today. Portland, Oregon might be a better role model for Manchester than Portland, Maine in that way: it's a gritty, former industrial city on a river. The scale and demographics are different, but I think there are plenty of precedents Manchester could learn from in making it a more interesting place to live without worrying too much about tourism.

Seanflynn78:

Portland's downtown definitly has more commerce and "urban feel" than Manchester, but part of it is Portland is a seaport city. Manchester is a huge Mill town, very similar to Lowell and Worcester, MA. With that said, Manchester has come a long way with making Elm Street feel like a true, clean inner city with proper lighting, parking, and revitalization of Elm Street businesses. ... Portland is is my favorite "small city" in New England... reminds me of a mini East Coast style San Francisco. Also The Great Lost Bear is one of the best bars in New England too...and I'm not even a dead head. The only thing missing for Portland is a great nick name...like Portland, OR....AKA Stump Town.

Portland has a more commercial and urban feel for several reasons, I think: it is farther from Boston, so it is naturally more of its own commercial hub; as Patrick said, the seaport nature changed the way people arrived; its development predates Manchester's by a century; it is an unplanned city of meandering streets rather than a planned city on a grid (as irregular as Manchester's may be). I don't, however, think it's fair to say that Portland is a "seaport city" and Manchester is a "mill town", even a huge one. Manchester has had more residents than Portland for well over a century, long before either sprawled out to the fringes in the 20th century. They are different cities--Portland, as a seaport, has always been cosmopolitan. Manchester had ethnic diversity (relative to the rest of northern New England), but fairly little economic diversity as a mill city. While that cosmopolitan history gives Portland a leg up, there's nothing to say that Manchester can't match it nowadays. Manchester is no longer a manufacturing city, and while it struggles with some of the economic issues of its past, it also stands to benefit from its strengths: elegant buildings lining a major New England river, a resurgent downtown, neighborhoods dotted with parks, proximity to major cities, a growing number of college students, and so forth. Again, it needs different policies to really capitalize on those strengths, but its history makes it no less a city than Portland in my mind.

From Patrick again:

Exchange Street is cool because of its urban design, the fact that there are a lot of shoppers on foot and the buildings meet the street appropriately, regardless of nearby islands. The same street or a couple streets like this could and do exist in any number of cities, and Manchester could very easily build streets like this with a form based code. Islands or not.

I completely agree, and I even have one street (or a few as a district) in mind. Stark Street runs from Elm Street just north of City Hall through the old boaringhouse district to the river (the only street to run that entire length). Along the way, it briefly becomes pedestrian-only at the steps around the Mill Girl statue, and it ends at the southern end of Arms Park and UNH-Manchester. The mill just south of the Mill Girl statue (Tower Mill) is also about to be converted into high-end apartments.

There have been plans floating around from the planning and parks departments to transform Arms Park as well as Canal Street, though neither seems likely to happen until policies and priorities shift a bit. Similarly, UNH wants to expand their campus, but needs restored financing from the state. If these developments were coordinated with improving Stark Street and encouraging a greater variety of uses along it, as well as Market Street, the area could become the heart of a quainter counterpart to Elm Street, teeming with shops, restaurants and apartments, and linking across Elm Street to Hanover Street. I wrote a bit about this back in September.

I believe the City's goal about a decade ago was for the Gaslight District between the ballpark and stadium to be transformed into a quainter, entertainment-focused downtown district, especially with the rail station that was supposed to be located in the area (this still needs to be completed for Manchester to harness its potential). While I really like the Gaslight District, I see it as a bit more of arts and bars district, which is great, too. But I think it would make a lot of sense for Stark Street to become more of a destination, especially since like Exchange Street (indirectly, but still), it leads from the downtown core to the waterfront.

 

[Lrfox]

I don't see a full-fledged Exchange Street or Marker Square anywhere, but definitely something more bustling than today.

I don't see why not. Exchange, while very nice, is a tiny stretch of roadway. Granted, it's probably one of the most cohesive and best all-round streets in any small city in New England (Church in Burlington, Thames in Newport and Market Square in Portsmouth are the only few I can think of that come close at the moment), but I can see Manchester with something similar. Exchange is probably Portland's best urban street, but it's not the primary urban street (Congress has to get that nod, as does Elm in Manch). There are a number of streets in Manchester that I could see rivaling Exchange in the future.

Portland, Oregon might be a better role model for Manchester than Portland, Maine in that way: it's a gritty, former industrial city on a river.

Pittsburgh PA may be another role model city. Pittsburgh is a river city with some serious hills. Neither the hills nor the river(s) in Pitt are going to win awards for being the most naturally beautiful places on earth. However, combined with the urban surroundings, they make for a wonderful setting. Manchester has the river and it has the hills. It's certainly more than capable of using those assets to its advantage. Pittsburgh has done a great job of evolving while making the most of that industrial heritage.

I love Manchester. I have family there (Central St.) and love visiting. Elm Street seems to get better and better each time I go.

 

[Patrick]

I think State and Middle, as well as Fore all give Exchange a run for its money. I don't particularly like Commercial Street, however, and am surprised the APA listed it as a great urban street a while back. It is one sided. Sometimes I get the feeling people cite the working waterfront as a great asset out of fear of saying otherwise (which may lead to them being ostracized in the local community), which may underlie Commercial street's listing as a great street. It's just too wide and unurban, in my mind. I also like a couple of the residential streets off peninsula, in the Oakdale neighborhood, as well as Congress, which has really stepped up its game recently.

In Manchester, I agree that there is no reason why a street like Exchange or even better cannot be created or re-created. Zoning just needs to change. I was in Manch in September, on a weekend night, and there were maybe 5 people on Elm Street. It was boring, and the best place around was a Margharitas with sidewalk dining. We left and went to Boston, which was hopping. I couldn't understand why a city almost twice the size of Portland had nothing going on. Where was/is everyone? Sleeping? Boston? The mall?

Church Street is absolutely fantastic, but a little fake (not complaining, just saying). It's a wonderful place to stroll around for a while, but it gets old (as do most places, unless they're home).

 

[Portlander]

I don't think you can create a new street similar to Exchange Street in Manchester. What makes Exchange Street so special is it's historical aspect and authentic character. It's popularity with pedestrians also has a lot to do with the narrow width and slope of the street and it's dead center location in the Old Port area. Though Exchange Street is only 3 tenths of a mile long, it is all of the commercially viable streets around it (Market, Middle, Fore, Moulton, Milk) that makes it feel even more substantial.

Manchester's company town grid layout with wider and straighter streets would make it hard to replicate even using existing structures. Some of the secondary streets that branch off of Elm down to Canal (Market, Middle, Merrimack) could have some potential but there are many gaps and empty lots from the urban renewal days which would make a seamless streetscape tough to pull off. I do love the collection of restored rowhouses in that part of town and I think the arena end of Elm Street has improved considerably when I was in town last month.

My two cents when it come to the comparison discussions. Manchester has always reminded me of a smaller version of Springfield, MA. Obviously the rivers, geographical orientation, Interstate highway location (opposite sides of the river, Manchester wins), both skylines highlighted by two primary structures, and a similar feel between Elm St and Main St. Primary difference between the two visually is Manchester's impressive massing of textile buildings where they ended up in Chicopee instead of downtown Springfield.

 

[Lrfox]

I think State and Middle, as well as Fore all give Exchange a run for its money. I don't particularly like Commercial Street, however, and am surprised the APA listed it as a great urban street a while back. It is one sided. .

Definitely, Middle Street. I actually like the architecture on Middle better too. I don't know about Fore. Yes, it's lively, but only in pockets. The garage and empty lot make it one sided down closer to Union Street. While the little square (where it's cobble stones) is very pretty, but it doesn't do much for street life. And at the far end (in the Old Port, near where the Fore street restaurant is) is really kind of quiet. CERTAINLY not a bad street. It's more active than most, but compared to Middle and Exchange, it has gaps.

I completely agree with you on Commercial. I remember having this discussion with you too. Again, not a bad street by any stretch, but it's not the best in Portland by a long shot. It's way too one sided.

I don't think you can create a new street similar to Exchange Street in Manchester. What makes Exchange Street so special is it's historical aspect and authentic character. It's popularity with pedestrians also has a lot to do with the narrow width and slope of the street and it's dead center location in the Old Port area. Though Exchange Street is only 3 tenths of a mile long, it is all of the commercially viable streets around it (Market, Middle, Fore, Moulton, Milk) that makes it feel even more substantial.

I don't think you can just create an Exchange Street atmosphere. However, I think Manchester DOES have the historic, authentic character and narrow streets as raw materials to begin with. Something like West Merrimack Street could work really well (check it out on streetview ). That's pretty historic, narrow and authentic if you ask me. There are a number of different spots like that. I know it's not currently set up as a retail street and would need some work in that department, but it's HARDLY unprecedented. That's why we say it's going to take some work. Newbury Street in Boston was designed as residential street and was converted to retail. Now it's arguably the best retail street in New England (one of the top in the country).

My two cents when it come to the comparison discussions. Manchester has always reminded me of a smaller version of Springfield, MA. Obviously the rivers, geographical orientation, Interstate highway location (opposite sides of the river, Manchester wins), both skylines highlighted by two primary structures, and a similar feel between Elm St and Main St. Primary difference between the two visually is Manchester's impressive massing of textile buildings where they ended up in Chicopee instead of downtown Springfield.

I think the comparisons in those articles are a bit over the top. At the end of they day, Portland and Manchester are two VERY different cities in VERY different states of evolution. The geographic proximity makes it impossible to ignore the similarities that do exist though. In fairness, I'm guilty of doing the same exact thing in therms of Comparing New Bedford to other cities. Portland strikes me as the city most comparable (as a result of the downtowns divided with the historic seaport districts and the more office/arts oriented sections as well as the fact that both are historic and active seaports and not too far off in terms of population) in New England. While comparisons are fun, each of these cities is very different and should be treated as such. Portland's just a good role model for any small city making improvements as Portland is a success story. Still, it's only natural to want to compare. We all do it.

I can see the Springfield comparisons to an extent, but I think Manchester is a MUCH better city. For starters, Manch is more intact. Outside of Main Street, Springfield feels like a shell. Manchester's neighborhoods, especially closest to downtown are nicer (Forest Park is nice in S'Field, but not nearly as urban as what's in Manch) and more urban. I feel like there's more you can do in terms of incorporating Manchester's urban core with the natural surroundings than Springfield which has a massive highway running along the waterfront and it isn't going anywhere. Springfield is just a sad, sad, story whereas Manchester is clearly a city in the midst of making serious progress.

 

[Portlander]

Lrfox, my intent was not to discount Manchester's historic and authentic character but to emphasize the amount of infill and new construction that would be required to attempt a similar Exchange Street corridor in that area. Then the street would not be as historically viable whereas Portland's Exchange Street has no new construction since the Gannett Building at Exchange and Congress which was built in 1947.

Was not comparing Springfield and Manchester as to which one is a better city, was just pointing out similar characteristics that I have experienced and felt when I have visited them. I totally agree that every individual city brings different positive and negative attributes to their viewed image which makes comparisons sometimes difficult. We are usually on the same page when it comes to reality checks and I would personally prefer to live in Manchester if I had to chose between the two. Springfield has always struggled to emerge from Hartford's larger shadow.

Commercial Street has come a long way and has really grown on me and I feel it has become Portland's second "main drag" after Congress and ahead of Exchange. I do not fault the street for not having a tight lineup of structures on the south side because it is a waterfront corridor. Actually think it has become more busier traffic/pedestrian wise than Congress Street, especially during the summer and fall. I am old enough to remember the trains going down the center of the street and the burnt out Pocahontas coal pier where Di'millos is now located.

 

[Lrfox]

Lrfox, my intent was not to discount Manchester's historic and authentic character but to emphasize the amount of infill and new construction that would be required to attempt a similar Exchange Street corridor in that area. Then the street would not be as historically viable whereas Portland's Exchange Street has no new construction since the Gannett Building at Exchange and Congress which was built in 1947.

I know you weren't trying to discount anything, but I think there are some streets in Manchester that could easily incorporate shops without losing much historic character. W. Merrimack (in the link above which I just fixed) is one of them. That street is one among a number of streets that's narrow and historically in tact. Just picture some awnings, window displays, and wooden signage and, most importantly, PEOPLE! and you have a great atmosphere on par with something like Exchange St.

Was not comparing Springfield and Manchester as to which one is a better city, was just pointing out similar characteristics that I have experienced and felt when I have visited them. I totally agree that every individual city brings different positive and negative attributes to their viewed image which makes comparisons sometimes difficult. We are usually on the same page when it comes to reality checks and I would personally prefer to live in Manchester if I had to chose between the two. Springfield has always struggled to emerge from Hartford's larger shadow.

I certainly agree with the similar characteristics. I actually mentioned a few posts back that one of the huge differences between Portland an Manchester is that one is a historic port city and the other is a historic mill town. In that sense, Manchester shares a lot more in common with cities like Lowell, Springfield, and other industrial cities than it does with Portland.

Commercial Street has come a long way and has really grown on me and I feel it has become Portland's second "main drag" after Congress and ahead of Exchange. I do not fault the street for not having a tight lineup of structures on the south side because it is a waterfront corridor. Actually think it has become more busier traffic/pedestrian wise than Congress Street, especially during the summer and fall. I am old enough to remember the trains going down the center of the street and the burnt out Pocahontas coal pier where Di'millos is now located.

I think my issue with Commercial Street is the parking lots and garages on the waterfront side. If it abutted the water directly (it only does in a few small spots), I'd be more inclined to give it more praise. However, the vast majority of space along the waterfront side of Commercial Street in the Old Port area is parking lot after parking lot. The street still manages a lot of foot traffic, and the opposite side of the street is quite nice. Portland has a number of great streets, and I wouldn't put Commercial on the top of that list until better use is made of all of that parking lot space. To be fair, I have no idea what it was like many years ago, and haven't actually been to Portland in about a year. So things could certainly have changed for the better. Also, Commercial Street has won an award for being a great street so apparently I'm in the minority with my feelings on this one.

 

[Patrick]

Lrfox, my intent was not to discount Manchester's historic and authentic character but to emphasize the amount of infill and new construction that would be required to attempt a similar Exchange Street corridor in that area. Then the street would not be as historically viable whereas Portland's Exchange Street has no new construction since the Gannett Building at Exchange and Congress which was built in 1947.

Was not comparing Springfield and Manchester as to which one is a better city, was just pointing out similar characteristics that I have experienced and felt when I have visited them. I totally agree that every individual city brings different positive and negative attributes to their viewed image which makes comparisons sometimes difficult. We are usually on the same page when it comes to reality checks and I would personally prefer to live in Manchester if I had to chose between the two. Springfield has always struggled to emerge from Hartford's larger shadow.

Commercial Street has come a long way and has really grown on me and I feel it has become Portland's second "main drag" after Congress and ahead of Exchange. I do not fault the street for not having a tight lineup of structures on the south side because it is a waterfront corridor. Actually think it has become more busier traffic/pedestrian wise than Congress Street, especially during the summer and fall. I am old enough to remember the trains going down the center of the street and the burnt out Pocahontas coal pier where Di'millos is now located.

Great points. Commercial Street is not a bad street, but from an urban design standpoint it's more of an edge than a public outdoor room. That's all. Definitely full of energy. I just think its less of an inviting urban space, as busy as it may be (although its business sort of counters that argument, so it may just be a personal preference and not an objective observation).

Manchester and any place can create an exchange street architecturally, that's what I meant, but it takes a lot more to get the vibrancy that is attendant to this small stretch of coolness. Like you said, it takes a whole supporting network of secondary streets with residences, offices, etc. all densely located next to each other.

 

[Matt68]

Hello,
Great points by both Lrfox and Patrick about Commercial Street. Commercial Street has always been my favorite street in Portland because, as Patrick points out, the energy on the street. In addition to the energy on the street, I find it aesthetically appealing as well as despite all the parking lots and garages as Lrfox points out. The Gulf Of Maine Institute, as it grows,and it is growing, will only enhance the energy on the street, particularly the western end of Commercial Street.

Matt

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I think the difficulty in creating a street like Exchange in Manchester stems less from the urban fabric of the place than it will from the lack of tourism. Exchange Street would be a nice place to stroll and would have wonderful buildings lining without them, but I really don't think it would be nearly as lively without tourists. That's not to say that everyone there is a tourist, but it just adds so many more people and allows more boutiques and the like. The same is true of Church Street in Burlington, which I agree feels fake in a way, and benefits from college students and some tourists.

Obviously something like an Exchange Street in Manchester would attract more tourists--even daytrippers--but I think it would be a long time (and possibly never or very rarely) that it would attract the sort of crowds you see on Exchange. That's okay, though--a similarly nice street could be developed to draw in smaller crowds and cater to locals. That's basically what I meant about it being difficult to create something on the scale of Exchange Street in Manchester.

Portlander:

I don't think you can create a new street similar to Exchange Street in Manchester. What makes Exchange Street so special is it's historical aspect and authentic character. It's popularity with pedestrians also has a lot to do with the narrow width and slope of the street and it's dead center location in the Old Port area. Though Exchange Street is only 3 tenths of a mile long, it is all of the commercially viable streets around it (Market, Middle, Fore, Moulton, Milk) that makes it feel even more substantial.

Manchester's company town grid layout with wider and straighter streets would make it hard to replicate even using existing structures. Some of the secondary streets that branch off of Elm down to Canal (Market, Middle, Merrimack) could have some potential but there are many gaps and empty lots from the urban renewal days which would make a seamless streetscape tough to pull off. I do love the collection of restored rowhouses in that part of town and I think the arena end of Elm Street has improved considerably when I was in town last month.

I totally disagree, however, with the idea that Manchester doesn't have a authentic historical streets that could feel like Exchange. While many streets in Portland meander, Exchange is in fact straight. It's capped at either end (relatively unlike Church St, which bleeds out a bit at the end even with the church, I think), so I think it's short length is actually what makes it such a dynamic urban space, along with it being at the center of a distinct district full of intact historical buildings.

Those are all characteristics shared by the boardinghouse district (which needs a good name similar to the Old Port) that Lrfox mentioned in Manchester. Burlington is on an even more rigid grid than Manchester with comparably wide streets (much wider throughout the downtown than any of the boardinghouse streets in Manchester), and manages to exude an urban vibrancy comparable to larger cities.

Unlike most other streets in the city, cross-streets typically end at Elm Street. This was even more the case before urban renewal in the 1970s and 1980s, which widened Bridge Street, and widened and realigned Granite Street with Lake Ave across Elm. Many of the streets in the boardinghouse district--Stark, Market, Middle and Pleasant--end at Elm Street (or Franklin in the case of Middle), providing a sense of urban enclosure. Only Merrimack crosses it, and the height of the old Carpenter Hotel does a decent job of providing an urban end to it anyway. Market and Middle, also, continue from Franklin as intimate pedestrian-only plazas and alleys. Most of the streets are pretty well capped at the Canal Street end as well, as they slope down (like Exchange) to the mill buildings. Merrimack and Market Streets frame the mill towers at their ends especially well, and as I mentioned earlier, Stark Street continues on through a narrow, pedestrian passage through the mills to the river.

Obviously, providing a truly nice lower end to these streets would mean fixing up Canal Street, but that's a good idea in its own right. As was recommended in a planning study a few years ago, Canal Street, Bedford Street and the rail tracks should be reconfigured into a landscaped boulevard, with widened sidewalks and retail at the end of the boardinghouse district. This, along with zoning to allow and city encouragement of mixing some retail into one or more of the boardinghouse streets, would create a very different, quainter and more intimate counterpart to Elm Street, while at the same time creating a pleasant way of moving from the river and Millyard to the heart of downtown.

As Lrfox said:

I know it's not currently set up as a retail street and would need some work in that department, but it's HARDLY unprecedented. That's why we say it's going to take some work. Newbury Street in Boston was designed as residential street and was converted to retail. Now it's arguably the best retail street in New England (one of the top in the country).

Exchange Street was easier because the buildings were historically housed retail, as well as warehouses and other types that are easier to adapt to retail use. But mixing boutiques, cafes, bars and restaurants into the first floor of old rowhouses is hardly a novel idea or hard to do. Hell, the Strange Brew mentioned in the original article is partially located in an old boardinghouse on Market Street.

And that's where a little infill could actually help a lot, I think.

Portlander:

my intent was not to discount Manchester's historic and authentic character but to emphasize the amount of infill and new construction that would be required to attempt a similar Exchange Street corridor in that area. Then the street would not be as historically viable whereas Portland's Exchange Street has no new construction since the Gannett Building at Exchange and Congress which was built in 1947.

Tommy's Park in the Old Port and some of the newer buildings along Congress Street are actually great examples of some of the historically sensitive infill that would hugely benefit the boardinghouse district in Manchester. I very much disagree that a few infill developments would make the area less "historically viable." Quite the opposite, actually. I love the Old Port, but history didn't stop in 1947, and while I support preserving what historical buildings exist, complementing them with respectful, contemporary structures is part of what I like about any successful city, including Portland.

And really along the key streets of Market, Middle and Merrimack, there's not a whole lot of infill that's needed. I'd really like to see a fairly tall (4-6 story) building in the parking lots along Franklin Street--something with housing about retail, which could serve as a sort of mini-anchor for smaller shops and restaurants in the old boardinghouses. I wouldn't mind--and might actually prefer--a small park in the parking lot between Middle and Market, which is sometimes used for rallies due to its proximity to City Hall. If done right, and if the L-shaped parking lots between Middle and Merrimack along with the small one behind City Hall Plaza (tower) were filled in, I think it could have a feel very similar to Tommy's Park.

More infill would be required along Stark or Pleasant Streets, but I really see Market, Middle and Merrimack as the heart of the district. And with the right zoning, policies and encouragement from the city, I could see a path that led pedestrians from Arms Park and the river up Stark Street to Canal, then slightly over to Market Street up to Elm, and potentially even across to Hanover. The way to do that would be through some beautification, signage and so forth, but especially through allowing a promoting a mixture of shops, restaurants and so forth along the path.

There's nothing in the urban fabric or historical composition that would preclude that, just a need for the city to lead an initiative with property owners and developers in the area.

The leafy boardinghouse district and Millyard with Franklin Street in the foreground

This is already an incredibly pleasant street, and as you can see from the signs, many of the buildings are already used as offices. Change the zoning (if necessary, see below), maybe widen the sidewalks, provide some pedestrian amenities, work with developers and property owners to encourage restaurants and retail, and throw some glass doors on, and this place could be teeming with activity in no time. Photo by sflaggjr.

The area is already zoned as part of the Amoskeag Millyard Mixed Use District - Amoskeag Corporation Housing Historic District Overlay:

Amoskeag Millyard Mixed Use District (AMX). It is the intent of this Ordinance to recognize the Millyard as a unique architectural asset of the City which warrants special consideration in promoting the retention and reuse of its existing buildings within a mixed use district. The Ordinance provisions for this district recognize that the future prosperity of the Millyard and the economic well-being of the downtown can require special reviews of planning and design issues such as pedestrian linkages to the downtown and the Merrimack River; maintaining a balanced diversity of uses; responsiveness to changing market demands; proper design control and planned integration of uses; and the promotion of additional resident and visitor enjoyment of the Millyard and the Merrimack River. [Note: Two historic district overlays are found within the AMX district: see Amoskeag Millyard Historic District Overlay, and Amoskeag Corporation Housing Historic District Overlay]

Amoskeag Corporation Housing Historic District Overlay. The Amoskeag Corporation Housing Historic Overlay District is hereby superimposed over the Amoskeag Millyard Mixed Use District (AMX). The purpose of this overlay district is to protect an area of unique character and architecture which can contribute significantly to the attractiveness and vitality of downtown Manchester. The creation of this overlay district recognizes that the character and nature of the area depends on the unity of design of a complex of buildings that represents a value greater than the sum of the individual contributions of each structure. The character and value of the area within the overlay is recognized as a fundamental component of the City’s early development. The continuity of rich architectural expression, quality and integrity in closely related styles, materials, scale and detail of individual buildings is an integral component of long range development goals for the downtown. The opportunities that the area offers are include retention of the architectural and historic values characteristic in this complex, and the
presence of valuable resources for present and future housing and office needs. Through coordinated landscaping, development of pedestrian ways, and improvements to private and public open spaces adjoining the buildings, a rich, attractive and vital urban environment can be created and preserved for future generations. This overlay is intended to regulate the exterior appearance of existing and proposed structures, and to restrict those activities that could alter the use and appearance of the exterior spaces adjoining these buildings, while encouraging the rehabilitation and improvement of this area.

Just add retail and restaurant uses to the housing and office already allowed, and provide for a bit more flexibility while ensuring historic preservation, and I think the zoning would better allow for the sort of dynamic urban space that is at the heart of its intent.

 

[Patrick]

I think the difficulty in creating a street like Exchange in Manchester stems less from the urban fabric of the place than it will from the lack of tourism. Exchange Street would be a nice place to stroll and would have wonderful buildings lining without them, but I really don't think it would be nearly as lively without tourists. That's not to say that everyone there is a tourist, but it just adds so many more people and allows more boutiques and the like. The same is true of Church Street in Burlington, which I agree feels fake in a way, and benefits from college students and some tourists.

Obviously something like an Exchange Street in Manchester would attract more tourists--even daytrippers--but I think it would be a long time (and possibly never or very rarely) that it would attract the sort of crowds you see on Exchange. That's okay, though--a similarly nice street could be developed to draw in smaller crowds and cater to locals. That's basically what I meant about it being difficult to create something on the scale of Exchange Street in Manchester.

Portlander:


I totally disagree, however, with the idea that Manchester doesn't have a authentic historical streets that could feel like Exchange. While many streets in Portland meander, Exchange is in fact straight. It's capped at either end (relatively unlike Church St, which bleeds out a bit at the end even with the church, I think), so I think it's short length is actually what makes it such a dynamic urban space, along with it being at the center of a distinct district full of intact historical buildings.

Those are all characteristics shared by the boardinghouse district (which needs a good name similar to the Old Port) that Lrfox mentioned in Manchester. Burlington is on an even more rigid grid than Manchester with comparably wide streets (much wider throughout the downtown than any of the boardinghouse streets in Manchester), and manages to exude an urban vibrancy comparable to larger cities.

Unlike most other streets in the city, cross-streets typically end at Elm Street. This was even more the case before urban renewal in the 1970s and 1980s, which widened Bridge Street, and widened and realigned Granite Street with Lake Ave across Elm. Many of the streets in the boardinghouse district--Stark, Market, Middle and Pleasant--end at Elm Street (or Franklin in the case of Middle), providing a sense of urban enclosure. Only Merrimack crosses it, and the height of the old Carpenter Hotel does a decent job of providing an urban end to it anyway. Market and Middle, also, continue from Franklin as intimate pedestrian-only plazas and alleys. Most of the streets are pretty well capped at the Canal Street end as well, as they slope down (like Exchange) to the mill buildings. Merrimack and Market Streets frame the mill towers at their ends especially well, and as I mentioned earlier, Stark Street continues on through a narrow, pedestrian passage through the mills to the river.

Obviously, providing a truly nice lower end to these streets would mean fixing up Canal Street, but that's a good idea in its own right. As was recommended in a planning study a few years ago, Canal Street, Bedford Street and the rail tracks should be reconfigured into a landscaped boulevard, with widened sidewalks and retail at the end of the boardinghouse district. This, along with zoning to allow and city encouragement of mixing some retail into one or more of the boardinghouse streets, would create a very different, quainter and more intimate counterpart to Elm Street, while at the same time creating a pleasant way of moving from the river and Millyard to the heart of downtown.

As Lrfox said:


Exchange Street was easier because the buildings were historically housed retail, as well as warehouses and other types that are easier to adapt to retail use. But mixing boutiques, cafes, bars and restaurants into the first floor of old rowhouses is hardly a novel idea or hard to do. Hell, the Strange Brew mentioned in the original article is partially located in an old boardinghouse on Market Street.

And that's where a little infill could actually help a lot, I think.

Portlander:


Tommy's Park in the Old Port and some of the newer buildings along Congress Street are actually great examples of some of the historically sensitive infill that would hugely benefit the boardinghouse district in Manchester. I very much disagree that a few infill developments would make the area less "historically viable." Quite the opposite, actually. I love the Old Port, but history didn't stop in 1947, and while I support preserving what historical buildings exist, complementing them with respectful, contemporary structures is part of what I like about any successful city, including Portland.

And really along the key streets of Market, Middle and Merrimack, there's not a whole lot of infill that's needed. I'd really like to see a fairly tall (4-6 story) building in the parking lots along Franklin Street--something with housing about retail, which could serve as a sort of mini-anchor for smaller shops and restaurants in the old boardinghouses. I wouldn't mind--and might actually prefer--a small park in the parking lot between Middle and Market, which is sometimes used for rallies due to its proximity to City Hall. If done right, and if the L-shaped parking lots between Middle and Merrimack along with the small one behind City Hall Plaza (tower) were filled in, I think it could have a feel very similar to Tommy's Park.

More infill would be required along Stark or Pleasant Streets, but I really see Market, Middle and Merrimack as the heart of the district. And with the right zoning, policies and encouragement from the city, I could see a path that led pedestrians from Arms Park and the river up Stark Street to Canal, then slightly over to Market Street up to Elm, and potentially even across to Hanover. The way to do that would be through some beautification, signage and so forth, but especially through allowing a promoting a mixture of shops, restaurants and so forth along the path.

There's nothing in the urban fabric or historical composition that would preclude that, just a need for the city to lead an initiative with property owners and developers in the area.

The leafy boardinghouse district and Millyard with Franklin Street in the foreground

This is already an incredibly pleasant street, and as you can see from the signs, many of the buildings are already used as offices. Change the zoning (if necessary, see below), maybe widen the sidewalks, provide some pedestrian amenities, work with developers and property owners to encourage restaurants and retail, and throw some glass doors on, and this place could be teeming with activity in no time. Photo by sflaggjr.

The area is already zoned as part of the Amoskeag Millyard Mixed Use District - Amoskeag Corporation Housing Historic District Overlay:





Just add retail and restaurant uses to the housing and office already allowed, and provide for a bit more flexibility while ensuring historic preservation, and I think the zoning would better allow for the sort of dynamic urban space that is at the heart of its intent.

That last picture is probably the best I've ever seen of Manchester. Imagine what the City would be like if more of it looked like that, or if the areas which do look like that were better connected with each other. Infill, as you said, is the key.

I think if Church street comes to a sort of hard to define end, it's at the other end (Main Street). Exchange is nice because it has City Hall to look up to on the North, but it has always bugged me how the site line leave City Hall a little to the left of center, almost like it was an accident that the City's most beautiful street frames its most important building. Usually this is done on purpose (see Burlington's Church Street, Annapolis, MD, etc.).

Change the zoning, bring in the young professionals and artists, and wait. That seems to be a recipe for success. Density helps, too, so a few more high rise or high density office structures with well employed people in them wouldn't hurt, either. Also, unlike Portland, the major suburban retail draw outside of downtown Manchester is actually in the control of the same jurisdiction as the City's downtown (in Portland, the mall is in South Portland, a different town, so we have to compete with that City's policies), meaning the City should be able to literally guide commerce back downtown if it wants to. Enough of the mall, stop building out there, or if buildings are allowed make them retrofit the area into a TOD with a greater mix of uses. This stuff is not rocket science, and people want it. That's why it amazes me that it doesn't occur more often. Architects know how to design quality houses and urban street layouts, planners know how to plan for them, people say they want them, so.....what am I not understanding? I know public works complains about street width and snowplowing and federal aid for maintenance of streets under 33' wide, but there are so many other groups in favor of urbanism that I think something more must be going on. And, the funny thing is, urbanism is the only type of development where the two most frequently contentious groups in real estate (developers vs. environmentalists) actually get along for once. So, to recap, people want this stuff, we know how to give it to them, and administratively it is a very cooperative process. Moreover, the people who enjoy the suburbs actually stand to benefit from more concentrated growth downtown (i.e., away from their cul-de-sac subdivision). so, what's going on?

 

[FrankLloydMike]

That last picture is probably the best I've ever seen of Manchester. Imagine what the City would be like if more of it looked like that, or if the areas which do look like that were better connected with each other. Infill, as you said, is the key.

I think if Church street comes to a sort of hard to define end, it's at the other end (Main Street). Exchange is nice because it has City Hall to look up to on the North, but it has always bugged me how the site line leave City Hall a little to the left of center, almost like it was an accident that the City's most beautiful street frames its most important building. Usually this is done on purpose (see Burlington's Church Street, Annapolis, MD, etc.).

Change the zoning, bring in the young professionals and artists, and wait. That seems to be a recipe for success. Density helps, too, so a few more high rise or high density office structures with well employed people in them wouldn't hurt, either. Also, unlike Portland, the major suburban retail draw outside of downtown Manchester is actually in the control of the same jurisdiction as the City's downtown (in Portland, the mall is in South Portland, a different town, so we have to compete with that City's policies), meaning the City should be able to literally guide commerce back downtown if it wants to. Enough of the mall, stop building out there, or if buildings are allowed make them retrofit the area into a TOD with a greater mix of uses. This stuff is not rocket science, and people want it. That's why it amazes me that it doesn't occur more often. Architects know how to design quality houses and urban street layouts, planners know how to plan for them, people say they want them, so.....what am I not understanding? I know public works complains about street width and snowplowing and federal aid for maintenance of streets under 33' wide, but there are so many other groups in favor of urbanism that I think something more must be going on. And, the funny thing is, urbanism is the only type of development where the two most frequently contentious groups in real estate (developers vs. environmentalists) actually get along for once. So, to recap, people want this stuff, we know how to give it to them, and administratively it is a very cooperative process. Moreover, the people who enjoy the suburbs actually stand to benefit from more concentrated growth downtown (i.e., away from their cul-de-sac subdivision). so, what's going on?

I think the key is connecting the areas that already look like that photo (as well as other nice areas like Hanover Street), and sprucing up nearby areas that are full of potential like the Gaslight District and even sections of the Millyard. The urban neighborhoods surrounding downtown--which are more of a mix of wood-frame Victorians, triple-deckers and the like, but many of which have seen better days--will naturally follow once areas like the boardinghouse district are more desirable places to live and walk to. I guess that's sort of rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that with the right zoning and encouragement, targeted infill and some street beautification, the issue isn't a lack of areas like the one in that photo, but rather that the city isn't realizing the potential they hold. It should probably start small and be targeted in one area (maybe even a single street), and I think the boardinghouse district would be a good place to start, and then wait and let it grow as you said.

I couldn't agree more about how Manchester--and other cities--could easily change their priorities and zoning to encourage downtown and city center development and reduce sprawl, which as you've said is what people say that want. I don't see South Willow Street and the mall area becoming TOD anytime soon, but the City could--and needs to change its priorities to ensure that new development occurs near Elm Street, not South Willow. I've said this a lot lately, but Manchester needs to act like the city is. Lots of places--and perhaps in New Hampshire especially because of the reliance on property taxes--there's a race to the bottom, as you've said before, and Manchester doesn't want to miss out on getting the Super Wal-Mart rather than seeing it in a neighboring town. But I think it needs to let those towns fight over developments like that and concentrate its resources on competing with Nashua, Concord and Portsmouth for downtown retail and restaurants, and with Portland, Portsmouth and other cities for attracting downtown employers and residents looking for an urban lifestyle.

I also agree the Main Street end of Church Street has a less defined edge, but it also feels like the neighborhood and city continues more at that point. That may just be my perception or that that end feels busier, but while the church frames the end nicely from afar, by the time you get up to it, it feels strangely empty to me. Church Street if much more forced than I like, but it's still a very enjoyable urban space, but I've often enjoyed darting down the cross streets to get food or drink rather than staying on Church Street. Interestingly, I think Manchester and Burlington share a bit of a disconnect between the main downtown drag and the waterfront. It's less noticeable and less of a problem in Burlington because the waterfront is a bigger draw and the streets leading to it are generally more pleasant, but they're really not much of a place themselves--just something to pass through/by between places. Of the three cities, only Portland seems to be completely successful of uniting a waterfront and a parallel major road.

 

[Patrick]

I think the key is connecting the areas that already look like that photo (as well as other nice areas like Hanover Street), and sprucing up nearby areas that are full of potential like the Gaslight District and even sections of the Millyard. The urban neighborhoods surrounding downtown--which are more of a mix of wood-frame Victorians, triple-deckers and the like, but many of which have seen better days--will naturally follow once areas like the boardinghouse district are more desirable places to live and walk to. I guess that's sort of rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that with the right zoning and encouragement, targeted infill and some street beautification, the issue isn't a lack of areas like the one in that photo, but rather that the city isn't realizing the potential they hold. It should probably start small and be targeted in one area (maybe even a single street), and I think the boardinghouse district would be a good place to start, and then wait and let it grow as you said.

I couldn't agree more about how Manchester--and other cities--could easily change their priorities and zoning to encourage downtown and city center development and reduce sprawl, which as you've said is what people say that want. I don't see South Willow Street and the mall area becoming TOD anytime soon, but the City could--and needs to change its priorities to ensure that new development occurs near Elm Street, not South Willow. I've said this a lot lately, but Manchester needs to act like the city is. Lots of places--and perhaps in New Hampshire especially because of the reliance on property taxes--there's a race to the bottom, as you've said before, and Manchester doesn't want to miss out on getting the Super Wal-Mart rather than seeing it in a neighboring town. But I think it needs to let those towns fight over developments like that and concentrate its resources on competing with Nashua, Concord and Portsmouth for downtown retail and restaurants, and with Portland, Portsmouth and other cities for attracting downtown employers and residents looking for an urban lifestyle.

I also agree the Main Street end of Church Street has a less defined edge, but it also feels like the neighborhood and city continues more at that point. That may just be my perception or that that end feels busier, but while the church frames the end nicely from afar, by the time you get up to it, it feels strangely empty to me. Church Street if much more forced than I like, but it's still a very enjoyable urban space, but I've often enjoyed darting down the cross streets to get food or drink rather than staying on Church Street. Interestingly, I think Manchester and Burlington share a bit of a disconnect between the main downtown drag and the waterfront. It's less noticeable and less of a problem in Burlington because the waterfront is a bigger draw and the streets leading to it are generally more pleasant, but they're really not much of a place themselves--just something to pass through/by between places. Of the three cities, only Portland seems to be completely successful of uniting a waterfront and a parallel major road.

I agree. About Burlington:

On the other end of the Church from which Church Street gets its name begins the North End, a ghetto of sorts (on the Burlington scale) begins behind it (known as the North End), which is probably as rough as any section of Portland or Manchester, and maybe rougher than anything Portland has (more like a stretch of Lewiston). I've always thought it curious, therefore, that of the streets running north-south (parallel to Church), many become one-way OUT of the North End at that perpendicular street (Pearl is it?). So, unless you want to get to the North End, you can, but if you're a tourist who knows nothing about the city, it is very difficult to stumble into that area, with exactly the effect you spoke of (which I think are deliberate).

I agree about Manch acting like the place it is. No more race to the bottom. Also, while I don't see TOD occurring at the mall anytime soon, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be advocated for and planned for, or it never will. I know you know this, but I'm stating it for the record. Places like that (and the Maine Mall, Burlington Mall, Portsmouth Mall, etc.) have no business existing. They are undesirable to urbanists, as well as those who love the stores in them. They are difficult to go to, unattractive, and all around inefficient. Not to mention all they are, essentially, is a traditional main street moved indoors. Many nowadays even have post office outlets in them. Take the roof off and move it a few blocks toward Elm Street and it would look like a traditional downtown.