Manchester Infill & Small Developments

[FrankLloydMike]

I have no idea. We got lost several times and also tried to find the mall. Is this en route to the mall? It may have been another time we were down there looking for my wife's prom dress, too. I can't remember.

It is kind of on the way from downtown to the mall, depending on how you get there. Your wife's prom dress--is she from Manchester?

One more thing: if I recall correctly, the North End is Burlington’s densest neighborhood, which is in large part why the average density of Burlington trumps both Portland’s and Manchester’s. As a student, I didn’t spend much time there (essentially, the local ‘hood).

I think I've also heard/read somewhere that the North End is Burlington's densest neighborhood. It also goes to show how both population density and overall population is misleading.

Manchester has about 5,000 more residents than Cambridge, but has 6.5 square miles of land compared to Manchester's 33. There are only a few neighborhoods in Manchester that approach Cambridge's overall 16,422 people-per-square-mile density. Of course, Manchester's density of 3,320 is misleading because so much of the outlying areas of the city (especially the extreme northwest and much of the eastern edge) is largely undeveloped.

At roughly a third the size of Manchester in terms of population and land area, Burlington's population density edges out Manchester's at 3,682. Anyone who has visited Burlington's North End and Manchester's West Side or neighborhoods just east of downtown, though, I think would agree that Manchester is considerably denser. Since Burlington contains very little undeveloped land (except for that weird area just north of the North End), its population density looks artificially high. Actually, it's probably completely accurate, whereas Manchester's looks artificially low.

That’s cool Bedford is on board with smart planning, and I like the planners’ response “that’s the point.” Really, what we see today, is that the affluent neighborhoods are embracing urbanism and the middle class and impoverished neighborhoods are sorely lacking a huge amenity—walkability, keeping them fat and displaced.

It's very cool, and frankly surprisingly progressive for a town known in the area for its conservative politics and elitism. But it sounds like it's part of a larger trend like you mentioned. I really liked the planners' response, as well, but was a little discouraged by a couple board members who were reluctant to work regionally for fear that Bedford wouldn't be so "special."

 

[Seanflynn78]

Frank, why is Bedford the suburb of Manchester that is so wealthy? I don't really see anything special about the town's LACK of scenic views, appealing downtown (Bedford really doesnt have a downtown), or a diverse yet elitism population. There are suburbs of Boston (Winchester and Brookline), Hartford (West Hartford and Farmington), and even Worcester (Shrewsbury and Auburn) where there is some factors...like I mentioned above which Bedford lacks. Makes me laugh when I hear people in the Manchester area act like living in Bedford is similar to living in Greenwich, CT or East Greenwich, RI which both have appeals based on location and safety, and appeal. But in the Manchester area, I see Goffstown and Londonderry just as nice/ "Swanky" areas than Bedford. I guess I just don't understand why Bedford is so "special" I do understand that they have a ton of McMansions that were built in the past 25 years and and ugly stretch of Route 3/River road which wants so badly to look like yuppyville. Don't get me wrong its a fine town if you want to hide in the woods, and pretend your kids go to great schools. I find the north end of Manchester more appealing since it reminds me of an area that is actually diverse, beautiful (very New England-like style), and in an great village setting.

Sorry that I rambled and I don't mean to insult anyone in the Bedford area as it is also a nice place live and raise family since the crime rate is so low.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Frank, why is Bedford the suburb of Manchester that is so wealthy? I don't really see anything special about the town's LACK of scenic views, appealing downtown (Bedford really doesnt have a downtown), or a diverse yet elitism population. There are suburbs of Boston (Winchester and Brookline), Hartford (West Hartford and Farmington), and even Worcester (Shrewsbury and Auburn) where there is some factors...like I mentioned above which Bedford lacks. Makes me laugh when I hear people in the Manchester area act like living in Bedford is similar to living in Greenwich, CT or East Greenwich, RI which both have appeals based on location and safety, and appeal. But in the Manchester area, I see Goffstown and Londonderry just as nice/ "Swanky" areas than Bedford. I guess I just don't understand why Bedford is so "special" I do understand that they have a ton of McMansions that were built in the past 25 years and and ugly stretch of Route 3/River road which wants so badly to look like yuppyville. Don't get me wrong its a fine town if you want to hide in the woods, and pretend your kids go to great schools. I find the north end of Manchester more appealing since it reminds me of an area that is actually diverse, beautiful (very New England-like style), and in an great village setting.

Sorry that I rambled and I don't mean to insult anyone in the Bedford area as it is also a nice place live and raise family since the crime rate is so low.

Sean, no need to apologize. I grew up in Bedford (in a small house that my dad grew up in, not a McMansion) and in the North End of Manchester, and I'd choose the North End any day.

I think part of what makes Bedford appealing to the affluent is that it feels like you're out of the city but it's the closest town to downtown Manchester (except Pinardville in Goffstown). People in Bedford like to tout it as "rural," which is laughable, but I get that they're trying to say that it's leafy and wooded even in the subdivisions (less so in the newer ones). Even South River Road, the major area of sprawl in Bedford, is more attractive (or less unattractive at least) than the strips in Hooksett, Londonderry or Merrimack.

Another thing it has going for it is exactly what Manchester sometimes suffers from: perception. People around Manchester think of Bedford as affluent and desirable--even though I agree, it's no West Hartford or Brookline--and I think that can be sort of self-reinforcing. And I think there's simply the matter that money can't buy taste. The old houses--even smaller ones--in Manchester's historic neighborhoods are so much more beautiful, interesting and certain better-built than any of the McMansions in Bedford. And the walkable neighborhoods around them are such better places to live. But if you're dealing with people who think their cheaply built, cooker-cutter house with a four-car garage is like living in Greenwich, I don't think we should be too surprised when they choose the McMansion over a well-built Victorian.

And the "specialness" isn't something I buy into--it's what a lot of people in Bedford seem to think. I think Goffstown, with its village, or Milford farther out are much more interesting towns than Bedford, but really they're all in basically the same boat as suburbs of Manchester, Nashua and even Boston.

Manchester, on the other hand, is special--it's the only true city in New Hampshire in my mind, and with the right policies and ideas, it can compete for the sort of residents and businesses that now go to Portsmouth, Portland cities like that. Bedford can never do that.

If Manchester is to attract more of the affluent people who currently move to Bedford and other towns, I think it's going to need to compete more with Portland and Portsmouth, and even Nashua. In that sense--again--Manchester needs to act like the city it is. Let Bedford compete with Londonderry and Goffstown; Manchester should rise above it.

All that said, I think it is very important that Manchester and the surrounding towns--and even Nashua and its suburbs--work together more cooperatively. If Bedford wants South River Road to be a pleasant, mixed-use and eventually walkable area (a laudable goal), then it should realize that that will be most successful in the same way that Beacon Street is in a much bigger way in Brookline. Beacon St is pleasant because Boston and Brookline work together to make it seamless. Bedford has nothing without Manchester, and Manchester needs to work with surrounding towns like Bedford to ensure that the city and region is the sort of places where residents--some of whom will inevitably move to Bedford--and businesses will want to locate.

 

[Patrick]

Sean, no need to apologize. I grew up in Bedford (in a small house that my dad grew up in, not a McMansion) and in the North End of Manchester, and I'd choose the North End any day.

I think part of what makes Bedford appealing to the affluent is that it feels like you're out of the city but it's the closest town to downtown Manchester (except Pinardville in Goffstown). People in Bedford like to tout it as "rural," which is laughable, but I get that they're trying to say that it's leafy and wooded even in the subdivisions (less so in the newer ones). Even South River Road, the major area of sprawl in Bedford, is more attractive (or less unattractive at least) than the strips in Hooksett, Londonderry or Merrimack.

Another thing it has going for it is exactly what Manchester sometimes suffers from: perception. People around Manchester think of Bedford as affluent and desirable--even though I agree, it's no West Hartford or Brookline--and I think that can be sort of self-reinforcing. And I think there's simply the matter that money can't buy taste. The old houses--even smaller ones--in Manchester's historic neighborhoods are so much more beautiful, interesting and certain better-built than any of the McMansions in Bedford. And the walkable neighborhoods around them are such better places to live. But if you're dealing with people who think their cheaply built, cooker-cutter house with a four-car garage is like living in Greenwich, I don't think we should be too surprised when they choose the McMansion over a well-built Victorian.

And the "specialness" isn't something I buy into--it's what a lot of people in Bedford seem to think. I think Goffstown, with its village, or Milford farther out are much more interesting towns than Bedford, but really they're all in basically the same boat as suburbs of Manchester, Nashua and even Boston.

Manchester, on the other hand, is special--it's the only true city in New Hampshire in my mind, and with the right policies and ideas, it can compete for the sort of residents and businesses that now go to Portsmouth, Portland cities like that. Bedford can never do that.

If Manchester is to attract more of the affluent people who currently move to Bedford and other towns, I think it's going to need to compete more with Portland and Portsmouth, and even Nashua. In that sense--again--Manchester needs to act like the city it is. Let Bedford compete with Londonderry and Goffstown; Manchester should rise above it.

All that said, I think it is very important that Manchester and the surrounding towns--and even Nashua and its suburbs--work together more cooperatively. If Bedford wants South River Road to be a pleasant, mixed-use and eventually walkable area (a laudable goal), then it should realize that that will be most successful in the same way that Beacon Street is in a much bigger way in Brookline. Beacon St is pleasant because Boston and Brookline work together to make it seamless. Bedford has nothing without Manchester, and Manchester needs to work with surrounding towns like Bedford to ensure that the city and region is the sort of places where residents--some of whom will inevitably move to Bedford--and businesses will want to locate.

I think Sean said a lot that was 100% right--I especially liked the fact about hiding in the woods and pretending to go to good schools. Good according to whom and by what standard? We have places like that outside of Portland, and know kids (defined loosely) from both city and suburban schools I can't say I see a huge difference in outcome (colleges attended or career choice) between the two that is attributable to education, although there were more disadvantaged kids in the city school, leading to lower chances later (but these kids would be disadvantaged regardless of where they went to school, and the same is true for those with more opportunities, so why label it as having anything to do with the school?).

Mike, do you not consider Portsmouth and Nashua real cities? It's tough to say because of the density/population trade off, but I think Portsmouth is a real city, Nashua too, although I tend to consider Manchester Nashua one metro area (15 mils apart is nothing for places with as many people as they have). Does anyone have any pics of the North End of Manchester that is being raved about?

 

[MonopolyBag]

Google maps...? Personally, I think it is a nice area (my buddy lives there) but it is not easy to get to downtown without a car and I like walkability better (for exerciser and shear convenience.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=manch...=FLtWMzjsKdcPIMn-DdBt6g&cbp=12,355.65,,0,7.66

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I think Sean said a lot that was 100% right--I especially liked the fact about hiding in the woods and pretending to go to good schools. Good according to whom and by what standard? We have places like that outside of Portland, and know kids (defined loosely) from both city and suburban schools I can't say I see a huge difference in outcome (colleges attended or career choice) between the two that is attributable to education, although there were more disadvantaged kids in the city school, leading to lower chances later (but these kids would be disadvantaged regardless of where they went to school, and the same is true for those with more opportunities, so why label it as having anything to do with the school?).

Mike, do you not consider Portsmouth and Nashua real cities? It's tough to say because of the density/population trade off, but I think Portsmouth is a real city, Nashua too, although I tend to consider Manchester Nashua one metro area (15 mils apart is nothing for places with as many people as they have). Does anyone have any pics of the North End of Manchester that is being raved about?

I think you and Sean are right on about the schools. Bedford, until recently, sent its high school students to Manchester schools.

I'd consider Manchester and Portsmouth real cities--I should have put that differently--but on a much smaller scale than Manchester. While Nashua is fairly close in population, its growth is fairly recent and very suburban. Its downtown feels like the city shouldn't be much bigger than Concord, and that's because until the last fifty years it wasn't. Its a real city in so many ways, but much more than Manchester, it's dominated by suburban-style housing and development. Portsmouth is obviously much smaller, and much more tourist-oriented. That doesn't mean it's not a real city, but it does change the dynamics (for better or worse).

Nashua and Portsmouth both have their charms. Portsmouth is indisputably the nicest city to walk around in, has the best downtown restaurants and shops, and is probably the most livable in New Hampshire. And Nashua, I'd say, has doing a much better job of articulating an urban vision and promoting itself as a city than Manchester has.

Still, Manchester is far more urban over a far larger area than either Nashua or Portsmouth. Portsmouth's downtown is currently much more successfully urban than any area of Manchester. But Manchester is the only of the three cities in which I can imagine a future where a vibrant downtown is surrounded by several distinct, urban neighborhoods. It may not go that way, or it may take awhile to get there, and if/when it does it may still not be as charming as Portsmouth, but I just don't see that happening in Portsmouth or Nashua.

Nashua is too suburban outside the downtown, and Portsmouth has some nice but very small (and very expensive) neighborhoods right outside downtown but ends quickly. (Once the Memorial Bridge reopens, I think Kittery Foreside might be the closest thing to a distinct urban neighborhood right outside downtown Portsmouth).

So I guess that's what I meant by a real city--which I admit was a pretty sloppy way of putting it--a city that is big enough to offer a multitude of urban amenities. Again, in Manchester a lot of those amenities are only potential at the moment, but I think with the right policies and a vision from the mayor and planners it could get there. Portsmouth, for instance, is very walkable but too small (and with nearby urban nodes just slightly too distant) to really support a strong transit system I think. Manchester is the only one of those three cities with walkable (if not always desirable yet) neighborhoods right around downtown, leading to other walkable urban neighborhoods further out that would actually benefit from and could probably support robust bus service if it was offered. It's the only one of the three cities where I can see really strong distinctions between various neighborhoods, which is one thing I personally look for in a city--I want a place with an interesting downtown, but also with lively neighborhoods with their own identities.

I know a lot more about Manchester than either Portsmouth or Nashua, and I know fairly little about Nashua compared even to Portsmouth. Maybe my assessment is unfair or inaccurate, but personally I can't see moving to Nashua or even Portsmouth for the same reasons I would consider moving to Manchester (not to say that I wouldn't ever consider it, especially Portsmouth).

And I totally agree that Manchester-Nashua should be considered one metro area. I'd love to see them combine or cooperate on things like mass transit and planning (though they're in two different MPOs). And the distance and fairly similar size of the cities makes for a bit of split personality. If they were half the distance, I think it would be more natural. Still, I think Manchester is the indisputable capital of the arts, sports and business in the Merrimack Valley, while Nashua offers a lot of cultural amenities and dining options, as well as quite a strong secondary business center. I think considering Manchester as a primary hub and Nashua a close secondary, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Does anyone have any pics of the North End of Manchester that is being raved about?

The North End is largely residential, and its exact boundaries are disputed. The city defines it as basically everything north of Salmon Street (two blocks south of Webster). I guess that makes sense, though I'd divide it into lower and upper, with the lower portion (maybe south of Carpenter St) much more urban and walkable, and the upper portion fairly suburban. It's sort of the area where the older, Victorian-era northern end of the city and a prewar streetcar suburb mix.

The major road through the area is Webster St, though it would be a stretch to call it the heart of the neighborhood. It's part of Route 3 and a major thoroughfare into downtown. Still, there are several older buildings (mostly old houses converted to offices) lining it and the road isn't very wide. It would be easy for it to become more of a neighborhood center with the right redevelopment, and the zoning there now encourages that. Replace a couple of the gas stations with mixed-use development and I think it would take off easily.

This is a photo of what the building at 82 Webster St looked like when I lived nearby. If you click on the photo, you can see what it looks like fixed up now from Google street view:


There are a couple other retail buildings along Webster St (notably Bunny's Superette) that could also be fixed up. Similarly, a lot of the old houses that now house offices could have the first floor renovated and converted to retail/restaurant use.

Even the produce store down the road does a good job of providing some urban interest for walkers as well as drivers in a garage-style building set back a bit from the road:

There's a pretty handsome firehouse nearby, which replaced a really beautiful one that I believe became structurally unsound (not totally sure though) in the 1990s. It would have made a great restaurant with apartments above:

There are also a couple of high-rises on the edge of the North End/downtown, as well as some nice parks (Stark and Livingston), but I think what people really like about the neighborhood is just the leafy streets with a mix (at least near Webster) of single-family houses and apartments in a reasonably dense neighborhood within walking distance of downtown. Without much of a neighborhood center, though, it's hard to find good pictures. I'd say just plop down on Google anywhere between Elm, Clarke, Union and Beech Streets to get an idea.

I just dropped down randomly on Monroe St, a little side street I'm not sure I've ever actually been down, but it looks pretty indicative of what people like about the neighborhood.

 

[Seanflynn78]

I tell my wife all the time that the north end of Manchester might be one of the nicest and pleasant neighborhoods in New England. The reasons are simple, small older homes that are still in great shape (mostly owner occupied), the streetscape...trees lining the streets and sidewalks, and housing clustering...most of the homes were built in the past 100 years with excellent planning, not right on top of the road, but also not set back 1/4 of a mile either.
Mike, it's funny you mentioned the North end starting at Salmon St. I live on the corner of Union and Brook St.(straight back of Pappi's Pizza) and I always thought we lived in the north end. I guess our neighborhood would be considered Smyth/Straw? My wife and I are looking at buying a house in the neighborhoods north of Orange Street. We are going to pay a little more for a house, but I believe it is well worth it once we find something worth buying. My favorite street has to be Maple Street in the North End where it intersects Salmon....a great neighborhood!

 

[Patrick]

I tell my wife all the time that the north end of Manchester might be one of the nicest and pleasant neighborhoods in New England. The reasons are simple, small older homes that are still in great shape (mostly owner occupied), the streetscape...trees lining the streets and sidewalks, and housing clustering...most of the homes were built in the past 100 years with excellent planning, not right on top of the road, but also not set back 1/4 of a mile either.
Mike, it's funny you mentioned the North end starting at Salmon St. I live on the corner of Union and Brook St.(straight back of Pappi's Pizza) and I always thought we lived in the north end. I guess our neighborhood would be considered Smyth/Straw? My wife and I are looking at buying a house in the neighborhoods north of Orange Street. We are going to pay a little more for a house, but I believe it is well worth it once we find something worth buying. My favorite street has to be Maple Street in the North End where it intersects Salmon....a great neighborhood!

Reminds me of this suburban Portland neighborhood.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&r...code_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q8gEwAA (zoom to street view at marker) which now has a great local market in it and just had a fantastic local coffee shop close. These neighborhoods are suburban but much more appealing than the normal burbs, here and in Manchester I'm sure.

http://rosemontmarket.com/

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I tell my wife all the time that the north end of Manchester might be one of the nicest and pleasant neighborhoods in New England. The reasons are simple, small older homes that are still in great shape (mostly owner occupied), the streetscape...trees lining the streets and sidewalks, and housing clustering...most of the homes were built in the past 100 years with excellent planning, not right on top of the road, but also not set back 1/4 of a mile either.
Mike, it's funny you mentioned the North end starting at Salmon St. I live on the corner of Union and Brook St.(straight back of Pappi's Pizza) and I always thought we lived in the north end. I guess our neighborhood would be considered Smyth/Straw? My wife and I are looking at buying a house in the neighborhoods north of Orange Street. We are going to pay a little more for a house, but I believe it is well worth it once we find something worth buying. My favorite street has to be Maple Street in the North End where it intersects Salmon....a great neighborhood!

Yeah, I think there's some real debate over the exact boundaries of the North End. I kind of like the idea of defining neighborhoods by what neighborhood center/square they're around. In Cambridge, the official neighborhood boundaries are defined by rather than around squares. For instance, Central Square near me is where Mid-Cambridge, Cambridgeport and maybe a couple other neighborhoods meet. I don't know anyone who says they live in Mid-Cambridge as opposed to Central Square, which makes more sense to me. I think Salmon north is definitely centered around Webster, but it could probably go several farther blocks south as well.

Personally, as much as I love the first couple blocks north of Webster, I really like the area you're in now more. It's just a bit denser--while still affording small city yards--and a bit older with houses that I prefer, though I also love the 1920s-30s bungalows like the one my mother owned. I think it has a slightly different, though equally nice feeling than that of the North End within a couple blocks of Webster, though the two definitely bleed into one another. The only thing Straw/Smyth is lacking is a well-defined neighborhood center. Even though Webster St needs some work, it's a clear (and potentially strong) center. Straw/Smyth seems a bit defined by being in between--in between Webster and downtown, in between small neighborhood centers at Webster St, and Bridge and Union. I guess that's okay, though--it's not far from either, so maybe it offers more.

Straw/Smyth is such a clumsy name, though--I don't know how anyone settled on that. I think part of the problem is that the Planning Department tried to group fringe suburban neighborhoods in with more urban (or at least pre-war suburban) ones, so Straw/Smyth stretches from a great urban neighborhood at the edge of downtown all the way up along Hooksett Road and to the Hooksett line. I think it would make more sense to officially call the area around you Oak Park, since there's already a grassroot Oak Park neighborhood group. Hell, even from a real estate perspective, that sounds a lot better than Straw/Smyth.

Reminds me of this suburban Portland neighborhood.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&r...code_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q8gEwAA (zoom to street view at marker) which now has a great local market in it and just had a fantastic local coffee shop close. These neighborhoods are suburban but much more appealing than the normal burbs, here and in Manchester I'm sure.

http://rosemontmarket.com/

That comparison looks right on. They both look like fairly dense, mostly residential neighborhoods centered around a (bit too loosely defined) mixed-use center, with a few too many gas stations in prominent spots. My guess is that the North End in Manchester, at least up to a couple blocks north of Webster, is older than this area of Portland, though.

This building at Brighton and Montrose in Portland is a great example of what could easily be done with some of the old houses along Webster in the North End (or on major streets in the middle of Straw/Smyth). And while I'd rather see this building along the sidewalk or the parking replaced with outdoor seating and plantings, this is exactly the sort of building (perhaps with apartments above) that could be built in place of a couple gas stations in the North End. And it looks like it's home to the sort of bistro that the North End sorely lacks.

 

[Patrick]

Yeah, I think there's some real debate over the exact boundaries of the North End. I kind of like the idea of defining neighborhoods by what neighborhood center/square they're around. In Cambridge, the official neighborhood boundaries are defined by rather than around squares. For instance, Central Square near me is where Mid-Cambridge, Cambridgeport and maybe a couple other neighborhoods meet. I don't know anyone who says they live in Mid-Cambridge as opposed to Central Square, which makes more sense to me. I think Salmon north is definitely centered around Webster, but it could probably go several farther blocks south as well.

Personally, as much as I love the first couple blocks north of Webster, I really like the area you're in now more. It's just a bit denser--while still affording small city yards--and a bit older with houses that I prefer, though I also love the 1920s-30s bungalows like the one my mother owned. I think it has a slightly different, though equally nice feeling than that of the North End within a couple blocks of Webster, though the two definitely bleed into one another. The only thing Straw/Smyth is lacking is a well-defined neighborhood center. Even though Webster St needs some work, it's a clear (and potentially strong) center. Straw/Smyth seems a bit defined by being in between--in between Webster and downtown, in between small neighborhood centers at Webster St, and Bridge and Union. I guess that's okay, though--it's not far from either, so maybe it offers more.

Straw/Smyth is such a clumsy name, though--I don't know how anyone settled on that. I think part of the problem is that the Planning Department tried to group fringe suburban neighborhoods in with more urban (or at least pre-war suburban) ones, so Straw/Smyth stretches from a great urban neighborhood at the edge of downtown all the way up along Hooksett Road and to the Hooksett line. I think it would make more sense to officially call the area around you Oak Park, since there's already a grassroot Oak Park neighborhood group. Hell, even from a real estate perspective, that sounds a lot better than Straw/Smyth.



That comparison looks right on. They both look like fairly dense, mostly residential neighborhoods centered around a (bit too loosely defined) mixed-use center, with a few too many gas stations in prominent spots. My guess is that the North End in Manchester, at least up to a couple blocks north of Webster, is older than this area of Portland, though.

This building at Brighton and Montrose in Portland is a great example of what could easily be done with some of the old houses along Webster in the North End (or on major streets in the middle of Straw/Smyth). And while I'd rather see this building along the sidewalk or the parking replaced with outdoor seating and plantings, this is exactly the sort of building (perhaps with apartments above) that could be built in place of a couple gas stations in the North End. And it looks like it's home to the sort of bistro that the North End sorely lacks.

This area of Portland is sort of old and sort of new(ish). I don't know how old Manchester's North End is. If you look at the street layour, you'll notice more of a grid extending off of Brighton until it becomes less punctuated, which is when old half streets were extended through to capisic to make way for a new subdivision. So half the street is an original streetcar line suburb, while the other is cookie cutter 1955 development (which is where I live).

That building you show is the former spot of Rosemont Bakery, which just moved across the street into a far superior new building with exposed brick interior: http://www.pressherald.com/business/any-day-now_-dawns-for-rosemont-markets-move-_2010-09-23.html

Next to that building not shown is a hair salon, also adapted re-use of residential, winding its way up Montrose (I grew up on the corner of Montrose and Belfield, a few blocks up)

The bistro is JP's as you said, and it is along the lines of something more commonly found in the Old Port. Pricey, formal. In the summer, it looks much better because there is al fresco dining. The one thing I don't like about this neighborhood is that its many great elements, however good they may be individually, lack comprehensive feeling because they are punctuated by a gas station and large parking lot and busy street. If the traffic were more local and the gas station were not so imposing, we would see the restaurant, market, shops, and other services (two barbers/salons) all in close proximity as a 'neighborhood' rather than individual locations. JPs used to be Rachels, and before that an ice cream shop 'treats and eats.' This was my neighborhood center growing up, one of two actually, the other being Deering Center, the old downtown of Deering, which today is yuppified. http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VTxlwpTmga4/TjDBVUL9B1I/AAAAAAAAI7k/5CURfWj_L1s/s640/054.JPG

Deering Center has all the makings for a top rate urban neighborhood, with a mixed use center (retail and office below residential), markets, post office, restaurants, elementary, middle and high school(s), a college, pharmacy school and medical school, and great old architecture along Stevens Ave (formerly King's Highway). Worth a stroll around on google maps

 

[MonopolyBag]

I tell my wife all the time that the north end of Manchester might be one of the nicest and pleasant neighborhoods in New England. The reasons are simple, small older homes that are still in great shape (mostly owner occupied), the streetscape...trees lining the streets and sidewalks, and housing clustering...most of the homes were built in the past 100 years with excellent planning, not right on top of the road, but also not set back 1/4 of a mile either.
Mike, it's funny you mentioned the North end starting at Salmon St. I live on the corner of Union and Brook St.(straight back of Pappi's Pizza) and I always thought we lived in the north end. I guess our neighborhood would be considered Smyth/Straw? My wife and I are looking at buying a house in the neighborhoods north of Orange Street. We are going to pay a little more for a house, but I believe it is well worth it once we find something worth buying. My favorite street has to be Maple Street in the North End where it intersects Salmon....a great neighborhood!

The north end is nice, but it actually lacks sidewalks. It also needs more distinguished bus stops, and bike paths. I was driving in Nashua, they they have a sidewalk along Main St between the large chain stores and the downtown area. Past Riviere College. It is really looking nicer. Also, Haverhill is just coming along fast with the new MRTA parking garage and condos and Apartments. If only Manchester was growing this fast. Lack of train station and regional transportation anyone?

And one thing I think Manchester needs, which Nashua has a better one, is a LARGE public park, North End or not. Something that is about 6-10 times the size of the (what is it Victory) park in the downtown area. I know they have Livingston (good, but mroe of a forest, which I like) they also got that wetland with paths int eh preservation area north west hackit hill. And also Stark park, derryfield park, and MacKintyre ski, plenty of gold courses too. But they need one dead center of the City, with looks to it so it is distinguishable. That will attract people, and look amazing. The dog park they just built, is SAD! Needs something called landscaping and curb appeal. All it has is Curb Turn-off.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

This area of Portland is sort of old and sort of new(ish). I don't know how old Manchester's North End is. If you look at the street layour, you'll notice more of a grid extending off of Brighton until it becomes less punctuated, which is when old half streets were extended through to capisic to make way for a new subdivision. So half the street is an original streetcar line suburb, while the other is cookie cutter 1955 development (which is where I live).

That building you show is the former spot of Rosemont Bakery, which just moved across the street into a far superior new building with exposed brick interior: http://www.pressherald.com/business/any-day-now_-dawns-for-rosemont-markets-move-_2010-09-23.html

Next to that building not shown is a hair salon, also adapted re-use of residential, winding its way up Montrose (I grew up on the corner of Montrose and Belfield, a few blocks up)

The bistro is JP's as you said, and it is along the lines of something more commonly found in the Old Port. Pricey, formal. In the summer, it looks much better because there is al fresco dining. The one thing I don't like about this neighborhood is that its many great elements, however good they may be individually, lack comprehensive feeling because they are punctuated by a gas station and large parking lot and busy street. If the traffic were more local and the gas station were not so imposing, we would see the restaurant, market, shops, and other services (two barbers/salons) all in close proximity as a 'neighborhood' rather than individual locations. JPs used to be Rachels, and before that an ice cream shop 'treats and eats.' This was my neighborhood center growing up, one of two actually, the other being Deering Center, the old downtown of Deering, which today is yuppified. http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VTxlwpTmga4/TjDBVUL9B1I/AAAAAAAAI7k/5CURfWj_L1s/s640/054.JPG

Deering Center has all the makings for a top rate urban neighborhood, with a mixed use center (retail and office below residential), markets, post office, restaurants, elementary, middle and high school(s), a college, pharmacy school and medical school, and great old architecture along Stevens Ave (formerly King's Highway). Worth a stroll around on google maps

Deering Center does look nice--it's funny that it's not at a major intersection, at least in the same way that Rosemont is. I'd heard of Deering Center before, but could never locate it on a map. Looking at a map of Portland, I'd never guess that there would be a neighborhood center there.

The area of the North End south of Webster (and scattered throughout the first couple blocks north of Webster) is pre-automobile, mostly late 19th-century, and a fairly dense mix of single-family, and multi-unit housing, but almost all of it detached. The first several blocks north of Webster are largely pre-war, with a lot of bungalows, mostly single-family but with multi-units mixed in. As you can see in this map, the area was right between two streetcar lines, which I'm sure led to the development of the area in the early 20th century.

Oddly, much of the North End is separated from downtown by the decidedly not dense mansions of the city's former titans of industry, which line Elm Street for a couple blocks on either side of Webster. There are somewhat newer mansions like this along River Road near Stark Park, as well. I wonder how much this separation and the fact that no streetcars actually ran down Webster Street are to blame for the lack of more of a neighborhood center were it seems like one would have naturally popped up.

And speaking of things happening naturally, I think a big to point out is the different development patterns between Manchester and Portland. The lack of a grid makes Portland on the peninsula a little less predictable (and maybe interesting) than Manchester's downtown, but I don't think it's a huge difference, especially given how irregular Manchester's grid is. Off the peninsula, though, Portland's development follows only a few major corridors with side streets leading off of them. I'm guessing that stems in part from former streetcar lines as well as pre-existing roads. It makes it easy to identify neighborhood centers (with the exception of Deering Center), though, and I'm sure it helped to define them.

In Manchester, you can get from downtown to Webster St many different, parallel ways--along Elm, along Pine, along Union, along Maple, just to name the major north-south roads. I think that helps to explain why it's hard to identify a neighborhood center in the North End--or in similarly nice neighborhoods like Hanover Hill or Straw/Smyth--and why one may have never really developed. Instead of one, fairly dense center of commercial and community activity, there are shops, churches and small restaurants scattered throughout the neighborhoods, mostly on major streets but even on some side streets.

I think it's important, in making these neighborhoods increasingly attractive places to live, to actively promote new neighborhood centers where they make sense. In the North End, that's easily along Webster St.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

The north end is nice, but it actually lacks sidewalks. It also needs more distinguished bus stops, and bike paths. I was driving in Nashua, they they have a sidewalk along Main St between the large chain stores and the downtown area. Past Riviere College. It is really looking nicer. Also, Haverhill is just coming along fast with the new MRTA parking garage and condos and Apartments. If only Manchester was growing this fast. Lack of train station and regional transportation anyone?

And one thing I think Manchester needs, which Nashua has a better one, is a LARGE public park, North End or not. Something that is about 6-10 times the size of the (what is it Victory) park in the downtown area. I know they have Livingston (good, but mroe of a forest, which I like) they also got that wetland with paths int eh preservation area north west hackit hill. And also Stark park, derryfield park, and MacKintyre ski, plenty of gold courses too. But they need one dead center of the City, with looks to it so it is distinguishable. That will attract people, and look amazing. The dog park they just built, is SAD! Needs something called landscaping and curb appeal. All it has is Curb Turn-off.

I forgot to mention in my last post that development in the upper portion of the North End is almost entirely fairly typical post-war suburban, with some old farmhouses and mansions scattered in, as well as two Frank Lloyd Wright houses, one open to the public and one not. This upper area definitely does not have very good sidewalks, and I certainly would not call it walkable. The dense, lower portion (I'm saying roughly south of Carpenter, and definitely south of Clarke) has pretty good sidewalks. Of course some could use repair, but I think they're in no worse shape than anywhere else. And the area seems to have more actual bus shelters at bus stops than some other neighborhoods as far as I can tell, with several like this one along the #5 route. I think the real problem, as with elsewhere in Manchester, is that the bus line doesn't run frequently enough and doesn't run through what should be the neighborhood center. As a side note, I'm actually working on a speculative proposal to improve the MTA bus system for LivableMHT.

As far as a major downtown park is concerned, Manchester kind of used to have this. Kalivas, Victory and Veterans Parks all used to be almost twice as big as they are now. Especially Veterans, which was originally called Merrimack Common, was a larger urban park. It stretched the entire block between Elm and Chestnut until the courthouse was built along Chestnut. It may have even included the land that the federal building sets on across Chestnut, but I don't know. And it used to have a pond.

I agree that there's something appealing about a huge city center park like Greeley in Nashua, Boston Common and Deering Oaks in Portland. Still, in all those cases, I'd say that the parks are more on the edge of downtown than Veterans is in Manchester. I think Veterans functions pretty well for major downtown events, like the chili fests and concerts, and it would function even better if the block facing it between Central and Lake is ever redeveloped.

Aside from that, though, I kind of prefer Manchester's collection of several block-sized, park "squares" like Veterans, Victory, Kalivas, Pulaski, Bronstein, Wagner and Oak, scattered throughout the city center, to a single huge park and only a few small additional parks as in those other cities. You don't get the same concentration of activities as you do at Deering Oaks, but I'm largely okay with that. That said, the parks could use some programming improvements. A skating pond in Veterans would be a nice addition, for instance.

And I think Manchester does have one opportunity for a major downtown park of a slightly different sort: a re-imagined, re-designed Arms Park. It works great for the fireworks and other major events, but otherwise it's a glorified parking lot. UNH-Manchester should be allowed to build on part of it in exchange for offsetting the lost parking in a new garage, and the rest of it should be developed into a mix of greenscape and hardscape, so that it can still be used for intense activities like the fireworks and fairs. And it should be given some more active program than Veterans in order to draw people there, as well as making it the jewel in the Riverwalk if that's ever completed. It could fill a role similar to Prescott Park--probably the best park in New Hampshire, and one of the best in New England--in Portsmouth.

 

[MonopolyBag]

I would rather see completion of the riverwalk over any new park any day. I do think however that the parks could all be improved, some more than others. Bike racks being number one. And just overall maintenance.

Yes, the southern end of the North End is very very nice as well, and does serve better to being more walkable.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I would rather see completion of the riverwalk over any new park any day. I do think however that the parks could all be improved, some more than others. Bike racks being number one. And just overall maintenance.

Yes, the southern end of the North End is very very nice as well, and does serve better to being more walkable.

I agree--the Riverwalk needs to be the priority, and it should be complemented by a re-designed Arms Park at its heart.

And things like adding bike racks, as well as painting "sharrows" or real bike lanes, are such a cheap and easy way for the city to promote biking and make itself a little bit nicer. They really need to step that up.

It's a few years old now, but the Parks & Recreation Department published a master plan for the parks that has a lot of great stuff in it. Everything from a grand overall vision for "greening the city" and incorporating the parks into more urban aspects of the city like an intermodal transit center, to specific objectives for each individual park. It's worth checking out.

Unfortunately, like the city itself, it seems to be a case of a great master plan that has largely gone unimplemented. Granted, the economy really fell out over the last few years, but the city needs to get more creative (and maybe be given more leeway by the legislature) to raise revenue for things like this. And the state needs to invest more in these sort of improvements as well--Manchester can't do it alone.

The parks master plan also notes that the Department, as well as several others in the city, used to be an authoritative agency but is now only an advisory board to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. While some authoritative agencies have led to poor planning decisions in the past, I think taking some load off the BMA and giving it to boards of experts (or at least people involved) like the Parks Department and Planning Department might be a good idea, at least to some degree:

Under the City’s charter adopted in 1982, each city department commission had “full
control and management of its department, subject to the directives of the board of
mayor and aldermen.” 9A City charter revision changed the Commission from an
authoritative to an advisory body “to consult, advise and make policy recommendations
to the department heads and Board of Mayor and Aldermen …”

As a side note, I really love the arch over the stairs down to the water at Arms Park, with the old Parks & Recreation logo from the 1980s-1990s:

 

[Patrick]

I think I've also heard/read somewhere that the North End is Burlington's densest neighborhood. It also goes to show how both population density and overall population is misleading.

In my opinion, the North End is definitely the densest (it was the "ghetto" of Burlington when I was there, and not sure what its status is now (such places have a surprising tendency to gentrify over night)). Winooski (next door) is even denser. It is one square mile, with 6,000 people in it (old mill town, recently redeveloped mixed use transit oriented town center along the river, VERY cool....google cascades at winooski falls and related projects, all linked to each other usually, on google). You're right about density and population overall, I guess.

As another example of this, consider that although it is three times as big in population, nowhere in Providence, Rhode Island has a density as high as one little census track/blocks in Portland's West End (which rises surprisingly to 23,000 people per square mile, even though it's only a half mile squared in size.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

In my opinion, the North End is definitely the densest (it was the "ghetto" of Burlington when I was there, and not sure what its status is now (such places have a surprising tendency to gentrify over night)). Winooski (next door) is even denser. It is one square mile, with 6,000 people in it (old mill town, recently redeveloped mixed use transit oriented town center along the river, VERY cool....google cascades at winooski falls and related projects, all linked to each other usually, on google). You're right about density and population overall, I guess.

As another example of this, consider that although it is three times as big in population, nowhere in Providence, Rhode Island has a density as high as one little census track/blocks in Portland's West End (which rises surprisingly to 23,000 people per square mile, even though it's only a half mile squared in size.

I've driven through the North End of Burlington--last about a couple years ago--and I'd say it seems about the same as you describe it. Not a "ghetto" compared to some other cities, but definitely down and out. Still, it seems like an interesting area with all the weirdly angled streets and such.

I've been to Winooski a couple times, too, and agree that it's very neat. That old mill town square seems like it's coming along really nicely. Vermont seems to have peculiar (at least compared to the rest of New England) laws regarding the incorporation of cities. If I recall correctly, Burlington is the only city that wasn't carved out of a larger town. I think villages become incorporated areas within towns, and then villages can incorporate into cities, which is why you have doughnut cities like Rutland within Rutland town, and why Winooski is only a square mile.

In all my visits to Portland, I've never been to the West End... except bringing a camper who had broken his arm to Mercy Hospital when I worked on Sebago in high school. On Google though, it looks a lot like side streets in Cambridge. Where did you find the density info by census tract? I'd be curious to know the density of some areas in Manchester.

 

[Patrick]

I've driven through the North End of Burlington--last about a couple years ago--and I'd say it seems about the same as you describe it. Not a "ghetto" compared to some other cities, but definitely down and out. Still, it seems like an interesting area with all the weirdly angled streets and such.

I've been to Winooski a couple times, too, and agree that it's very neat. That old mill town square seems like it's coming along really nicely. Vermont seems to have peculiar (at least compared to the rest of New England) laws regarding the incorporation of cities. If I recall correctly, Burlington is the only city that wasn't carved out of a larger town. I think villages become incorporated areas within towns, and then villages can incorporate into cities, which is why you have doughnut cities like Rutland within Rutland town, and why Winooski is only a square mile.

In all my visits to Portland, I've never been to the West End... except bringing a camper who had broken his arm to Mercy Hospital when I worked on Sebago in high school. On Google though, it looks a lot like side streets in Cambridge. Where did you find the density info by census tract? I'd be curious to know the density of some areas in Manchester.

You're right about the interesting nature of the North End, which is why these places gentrify eventually--but for now, it's (burlington's version of) a ghetto.

I don't know what the laws are with respect to town incorporation in Vermont, but for a general exploration of why cities in the Northeas are inelastic while cities in the South are elastic (gobbling up via annexation all land to their peripheries), I recommend the interesting read of "Cities Without Suburbs," written by the former mayor of Albequerque (I think if not know I misspelled that City). It argues that smarter planning takes place when the whole kingdom is under one ruler, essentially.

The west end of Portland is a neighborhood of contrasts. When you went to the Old Mercy Hospital, you were near one of the dividing lines between rich and poor. The neighborhood behind Mercy is full of traditional low income units, with their share of crime, but there is almost a seamless blend/integration between that area and the one even further west (the Western Promenade), which is where all of the mansions are, and a city park, Olmstead designed I think (actually, maybe one of his sons). Even further west, beneath the greenbelt, is the St. John/Valley Street neighborhood, which is again low income (referred to colloquially as the St. John's Valley, because it has a lower elevation than the mansions above it). Usually, the St. John's Valley is referred to as just that, although technically it is the western most end of the peninsula, and the West End refers to the Western Prom only if used in a positive way (as in gubenatorial candidate Rosa Scarcelli grew up in the west end), otherwise to Brackett Street and surroundings if used in a negative way (as in, there was a robbery in the west end). I think it's a great neighborhoodin many spots, with more good than bad, and is one of the most intact urban neighborhoods around. In all, there is more wealth there than the Eastern Prom, which is chic and trendy if not established.

The density figures were something I saw back in 2005, and I found them on the census bureau website in a layout that color coded city demographics by census block/tracks. I have tried to locate them again, twice, and was once successful and once not, so it is really luck in browsing through. Just type in Manchester, density, demographics, etc. on the American Community Survey I think. I think I did the comparisons and found Portland to be denser than anywhere in Northern New England as well as a few southern new england cities (which is why I remember the data 7 years later almost), but remember this is just for a small neighborhood, one half square mile in size, which happens to house about 11,000 people. Good luck and please post if you find it (if you are unsuccessful, try searing through the NNE threads on urbanplanet.org

 

[FrankLloydMike]

In this week's "Looking Back" column in the Union Leader, Aurore Eaton, executive director of the Manchester Historic Association, explains the history of the layout and design of Manchester. Here are some highlights:

The Amoskeag managers focused on doing two things: building a millyard that would support textile operations on a magnitude never before seen in the United States, and creating a substantial city that would meet the needs both of industry and of its work force. Of course, the Amoskeag stockholders were primarily motivated by the desire to maximize the profit potential of their Manchester enterprise, but their aspirations went beyond this. These wealthy financiers, known today as the Boston Associates, wanted the new city to be beautiful as well as functional. They had seen the grimy industrial enclaves of Europe, where the working class lived under deplorable conditions, and they wanted to make sure that their own employees, and other people living in the city, would have a chance to be happy, healthy and prosperous. This approach was not only good for business, as it inspired loyalty and hard work, but it also suited the self-image of these enlightened Bostonians. From this impetus would emerge the City of Manchester, the only large-scaled planned city in New England.

The Boston Associates developed Lowell, Massachusetts , and other industrial centers in the region, but Manchester stood out as unique. With unprecedented control over vast territory, the Amoskeag managers had a clean slate on which to create the prosperous city of their imagination. To facilitate transportation and the orderly arrangement of commercial buildings, houses, schools and churches, the company built up the city streetscape on a neat grid system that followed the points of a compass.

An 18-year old novice engineer, Ezekiel A. Straw, was put in charge of laying out the streets and lots for this first city plan. ... He plotted out Elm Street as a broad boulevard, 100 feet wide, and the side streets as 50 feet wide. He included land for Manchester’s first two public parks, Concord Square (now Victory Park), and Merrimack Square (now Veterans Park). These parks preserved some of the original trees and open areas to provide pleasant spaces for the enjoyment of the populace, and they also served another important purpose. At each park a small brook was dammed to make a pond that could be used for fighting fires.

It would be great if those ponds still existed, especially the one in Veterans Park, and could be used for skating in the winter and maybe with a fountain in the summer. I'm assuming the brooks have just been buried, so I wounder what it would take to recreate a small pond there.

The column also explains that prior to the development of the city, the town center of Derryfield (as Manchester was originally known) was along Mammoth Road between the Merrimack River and Massabesic Lake. While most of the city was laid out on a grid, a few existing roads remain, most notably Old Falls Road (part of which I believe is now called Massabesic Street) from Derryfield center and the Amoskeag Falls. It now ends in the Hollow, and gives that neighborhood its quirky layout.