You are here
Home > News > Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester?

Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester?

next Mayor Jones is proposing a horse trade. And the trade is to be made in Manchester.

http://www.falydelaferiaalrocio.com/research-essay-on-drugs/ The proposed deal that has been struck by the City Administration and Fountainhead Properties’ South Canal, LLC is to occur just West of Hull Street at the foot of The Mayo Bridge. And it could lead to at least two 16 story towers, perhaps more. The deal as explained to me, and from what I could read about the project, is comprised of the following components:

  • The City will trade a 1.1 acre sub-parcel of City owned land to South Canal, LLC at a value appraised at $260,000. The value for this land is justified at such a low amount despite being riverfront property because it is viewed as inaccessible due to a clouded easement across South Canal LLC’s parcels.
  • South Canal, LLC will agree to fix the city owned bridge at an estimated cost of $800,000, thereby providing automobile and emergency vehicle access to the South Canal development.
  • The property will be rezoned from RF1 to B-4C to enable larger towers than could otherwise be built with the existing zoning. The proposed tower(s) are to be no larger than 16 stories. This new zoning enables the towers to accommodate somewhere between 400-600 units and would allow for river and city views above the existing 40 foot high flood wall.

http://www.sgc.utoronto.ca/index4.php?cheap-essay-writing=english-paper-writing-help The full details for the proposal can be found in the attached documents:

  1. ord-no
  2. application-form-applicants-report
  3. proffered-conditions
  4. survey-parcel-diagram

http://albaniaturismo.com/?p=how-to-write-a-good-reflective-essay At first glance, the proposed development of the property does not appear to conflict with the City’s Riverfront Development Plan. The plan clearly shows development at the “South Canal Lofts” and is silent on what should be done with the City owned property proposed to be traded to South Canal, LLC (gray area to the left).

go to link screen-shot-2016-07-15-at-6-26-01-am

http://lalalia.com/?p=college-papers-and-quoting The property would increase real-estate tax collections for the City which is desperately needed for schools, infrastructure, and countless other city services. The project would also add more housing in Manchester on a parcel that is currently an eyesore. With that having been said, I suspect some will take issue with such large towers, especially those whose river/city views will be impeded by the proposed structures.

research papers on cyber security The proposal is scheduled for an October 10th, 2016 City Council Public Hearing Date at 6PM. So folks, what do you think?

source site http://kirehalli.com/?p=best-essay-help Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester?

Loading ... Loading ...

57 thoughts on “Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester?

... and 15 more


  1. Not a detriment to the public since there is no ground level view there but it will be to those who presently have a view of the City at the condos nearby. All in all seems a fine deal. I doubt 1.1 acres is enough to do a separate development on so why not? Any way the City can attach a demand for restaurant space on the river side? In the entire “River City” there are only two restaurant locations that address the river… Legend in Manchester and the two restaurants at Rockett’s Landing.

  2. I think it is a good deal, but would like to see fewer floors that would block the views behind them. Buildings should be “stepped back” to allow a view over top and to get the highest value for land further from the river (IE you can build back from the new buildings and still have a river view). The views between Legend and the river is that of a junk yard right now, so any new development will be a positive. Any new private money just portends additional private money, and brings in tax revenue too.

  3. I’m inclined to agree with Justin Sheppard’s comments. I don’t see why the city needs to surrender a sweetheart deal to South Canal to incent them to fund improvements to infrastructure (a bridge) that only serves their site. Let them buy the extra parcel for the assessed $260K if they want it as part of their assemblage.

    I’m also untrusting to have Mayor Jones continue to give away assets the last few months of his term. He’s proven to be someone we can’t trust. So is he parting with assets because it truly is in the best interest of the city? Or does he have backroom deals setup to ensure himself a soft landing in the private sector?

    1. Thankfully, South Reynolds has plans for a grocery store fronting Hull between 4th and 5th Streets. Regardless, the lot in question would not be appropriate for such retail.

      This development is on the wrong side of the flood wall to allow for a riverfront restaurant but something to serve the flood wall walk could be nice, if supported.

      This tower would be too far over to obstruct Legend’s view (unlike the proposed South Reynolds towers) though it could certainly enhance it.

      Anyone scoffing at the price of the bridge upgrades clearly has not paid much attention to typical infrastructure costs. This sounds like a great deal for the city who would otherwise be responsible for some of that cost.

    2. Legally, the city is required to maintain the bridge if there are going to be people on the other side of it. Really, this deal saves the city $540,000 in bridge repair. I think that’s pretty cool.

  4. People are complaining about so many things on here. “What about a grocery store,” “What about the bridge,” etc. The large the development on the river the more likely those things are to get fixed. Adding a 2 story development isn’t going to bring demand for a grocery store. It isn’t going to make a northsider see how good of an investment fixing the bridge can be.

    If this gets approved, it might change my mind from looking for a house in Church Hill to looking in Manchester. If it gets derailed because of NIMByism, I just might say fuck it and move to a city that doesn’t hate progress.

  5. I hope this deal goes through. People in this town seem to hate change. The city only has but so much space. Develop the property and the city will reap the bennifits in the long run from taxes. Some people want the city to grow as long as it is NIMBY. Manchester is a diamond in the rough. I am glad to see somone taking interest in property that has been neglected for years.

  6. Grocery stores and retailers look at demographics before even considering opening shop in any area. This development will add hundreds upon hundreds of new residents, making it appealing to grocery stores, which are so desperately needed in the area. It’s a cart before the horse situation. Neither the city or the developers can force a company to move to this area, but they are making all the right moves to attract the businesses Manchester needs.

Comments

Top