The bridge over College Street would disappear, and buildings and grade-level cross streets begin to rise as early as the spring of 2011, if the city wins a federal grant for its Downtown Crossing project.
That picture was drawn at Wednesday’s City Plan Commission meeting, where the board approved applications for grants for three major projects: The Downtown Crossing, Union Station, and Church Street South.
To support an ambitious effort to link the medical area and the Hill with downtown and Union Station, the city has applied for a $21 million federal grant.
By a unanimous vote, the commissioners approved the submission of the grant, known as Tiger II. The funding would come through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus.
“If it comes through, work could start,” said Executive Director of City Plan Karyn Gilvarg (at left in photo with city planner Joy Ford).
Click here to see the City’s Plan’s vision for Downtown Crossing on the municipal web site. And here for a story on the mayor’s vision of an expanded downtown as a result.
The total project, which turns Route 34 into 11 acres of developable land bordered by the expanded and bike friendly “urban boulevards” of North and South Frontage, costs $31.7 million.
The balance of $10 million is being paid for with $5 million from the state Department of Transportation, $3 million from the state Department of Community and Economic Development; two million of city capital funds and a half million from Winstanley Investments.
The first building to be put up in the newly created “crossing,” is already in the works, in a project by Science Park and 300 George St. developer Carter Winstanley.
Gilvarg said the city applied last year, during the high tide of stimulus funding, for the same amount of moolah, but the proposal was turned down.
There were some 1,500 applicants and the city made the first round cuts, but not beyond, she said.
So the city huddled with the state’s Congressional delegation to find out how to sharpen the application, Gilvarg said.
One improvement to this year’s application is the higher match rate. A second is the inclusion not a global cost benefit analysis, but a separate one each for affected areas such as transportation, economic growth, and so forth.
Gilvarg said the city expects to hear if the proposal is successful by November.
Union Station, Church Street South
Commissioners also approved by unanimous vote two more federal grant submissions for other downtown projects.
One submission concerns the city’s quest to build a “transit-oriented development” of offices, retail and housing wrapped around Union Station. That project has been much talked about, but little concrete has been done.
The city is teaming up with the NY-CT Sustainable Consortium, a regional planning group, to apply for $5 million from a pool of funds created by the federal departments of housing, transportation and environmental protection.
The city’s share would be $225,000.
The money, matched by an additional $50,000 from city funds, would be used to develop a detailed master plan for the office, retail, and housing features of the plan.
“This would kickstart that project. Get it to the next stage,” said Gilvarg.
“Very ambitious plan, but not very much money,” said City Plan Commission Chairman Ed Mattison.
Finally, the commission approved a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) challenge grant application. If awarded, the city would get $960,000 to develop a master plan to reconfigure the two developments across the street from Union Station: Church Street South and the Robert T. Wolf housing complex.
Elicker said, “These three grants together are fantastic. They begin to correct the damage caused by [Former Mayor] Dick Lee.”
City Engineer Dick Miller, not a member of but a consultant to the commissioners, had the last word. “We can’t do anything without money.”
Duo Dickinson had a good opinion article in the register this weekend about how ridiculous the plan for Route 34 West is. Its basically calling for an infrastructure even more elaborate than the original highway plan. Use of the word Boulevard to describe the design is really pretty embarrassing to boulevards around the world and prime example of a horribly designed "boulevard" is our own Ella Grasso.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2010/09/19/opinion/doc4c957eb61d931445026521.txt
The issues facing the city today are largely influenced by things they don't control at the state and federal level. The way funding is distributed is completely counterproductive to what the city is hoping to end up with. Things like HUD are what helped caused the decline of cities in the first place and other government programs that were enacted to address specific issues. We can't separate housing development from job creation or retail development or park space, they are all equally important. The design and planning ideas of the last 80 or so years has been proven to be inconducive to creating sustainable, adaptable, inclusive, dynamic and desirable communities. We cannot fix the problems of places like Church Street South-monoculture of low incomes, standardization of buildings, no discipline of front and back, lack of mixed use, etc-by addressing just a housing issue through the HUB funds. A lot of our problems require simultaneously addressing several problems. It's encouraging that the city may be able to draw funds from 3 different sources, but the mandates for right-of-way for the state highway, minimum parking requirements, affordable housing percentages, etc are all brick walls standing in the way of creating communities that are authentic, complete, and naturally diverse. If the Route 34 project really want to get somewhere, they should propose to rebuild the Oak Street neighborhood brick for brick as it was originally designed (before several generations of developers bought up the properties and subdivided them into slum apartments) with large homes, rowhouses, and mixed use buildings. And if that neighborhood were even to return to slum conditions again after several generations, hopefully by that time we'd have some sensible federal programs enacted that instead of mass demolition, provide tax credits and subsidies for individuals to restore properties to their original form.