Left In Lowell

Hamilton Canal Vision Session III

22 Responses to “Hamilton Canal Vision Session III”

1. Peter Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am

   I was there too and it was very inspiring and exciting! I am thrilled with both the plans and the excitment and support behind what looks to be an incredible project!! I’m reall looking forward to watching this project take shape! Let’s hope the theatre aspect gets the funding, THAT would really be the icing on the cake!

2. Peter Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 10:31 am

   You can’t really “worry” about any perceived “separation” mimi. The basic facts are that the National Park welcome center lies between the 2 (downtown and the HCD)so it is what it is. I think between the trolley routes and the general flow of the project right up to the National Park building they did the absolute best they possibly could, given the geography and existing structures, don’t you? It’s really an exciting time to live here!

3. joe Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

   The JAM are just isn’t going to be an integral part of downtown. Heck, the neighborhood changes just crossing Dutton Street, of course it’s going to change crossing the canal!

   That’s OK - it doesn’t have to be a seamless extension of downtown. What used to be called the “South Side” or “South End” of Downtown wasn’t an integral part of it in 1895, and it was still very successful.

4. Bob F Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

   We do need to worry about separation between the new project and Merrimack, Central and Market. If the court house provokes attorneys to leave these streets for new digs, and the shiny new retail space draws shoppers from the old d’town then what? There needs to be a way as the plans are finalized to make the entire new project open and welcoming to the neighborhoods around it or the HC area will be like the Emerald City while other parts of the city might take on the look of Kansas after a twister.

5. jdayne Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

   Kudos to many for moving the Hamilton Canal District (HCD) to the point of yesterday’s charrette. In no order of how impressed I am by my new home city and those who live or work or expect to invest here:

   1. The plans and ideas Trinity and associates presented evidenced that they listened to comments from prior charrettes. More than any single feature of yesterday’s plans, that the developer listened so well and responded so intelligently suggests that over the multi-multi year time line of this build-out Lowell is more likely to be surprised on the up than down side by this development team.

   2. What fabulous participation by residents of Lowell. Whether attending for the first time or one more in the string, excellent civic engagement and commitment of time and thought to the greater city. Really reassuring to a new resident when other attributes of civic life are less reassuring!

   3. A special word on traffic issues (near and dear to my husband, who loves this stuff). Some of participants stepped up with outside-the-original-box ideas (the fellow who proposed extending Jackson Street top among them) and a goal of a livable, walkable, visitable city. I am not suggesting Trinity would not have responded, but I also credit regulatory requirements (impact statements et al) that are a big incentive for any developer to work out solutions to problems that are of long standing, but that their development will exacerbate. Better road connections, better trolley routes (real trolley routes that are more than a Disney-land loop), a better pedestrian experiences. . . will be a net benefit well beyond the HCD. And those most familiar with the area who have walked, driven, photographed . . . clearly influenced the developers to see beyond the obvious.

   4. Bernie Lynch was great to address my question about the canals. Lowell’s canals are highlighted as a special feature of the city, but the truth is that they are a deteriorating asset owned/controlled by a private company with no economic interest in anything but the water power they provide. For the HCD and all of downtown/canal Lowell to realize any “special” potential, issues with the canals simply must be addressed. Permanent solutions. Routine maintenance. Real accountability. I love annual clean-ups as much at the next volunteer sort, but free time is not a substitute for corporate citizenship when what is viewed as a community “good” is really under private control.

   5. Lastly, nice to see City Councilor Martin, who appeared to listen and enjoy and who took the spotlight only when put in it, and then only briefly. But long enough to make the important point that this is Lowell’s first private development of scale. I have been troubled that so much of the Lowell success story comes out of significant public works (the National Parks, the ball park, the auditorium). I am a big fan of public support of a city like Lowell, and deeply appreciate these investments, but such public investment cannot sustain a city. This project steps the city into a new phase.

   Oh yes, and as Mimi noted, more meetings to come, so hope to run into many of you there.

6. waittilnextyr Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

   I was wondering what interest Enel has in the canals that would prompt them to maintain them. Apparently they have 5 power plants on the canal system, the largest of them capable of about 17 MW, and the other 4 bring the total to about 24 MW. We are paying about 10 cents per KW hr, so that capacity could bring as much a $20M in annual income. However, after expenses, downtime and corporate profit, they apparently don’t have much left for canal maintenance, other than that necessary to keep the water running. There should be a requirement for them to maintain the waterways in accordance with the NHP guidelines, and if they fail to do so they should lose their right to our waterways.

   “Boott

   HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: Lowell, Massachusetts
   Capacity: 24 MW
   Equipment Type: Horizontal Kaplan and Francis Units
   Head: 37 feet (primary plant)
   Average Flow: 3300 cfs (primary plant)

   The Boott Project, on the Merrimack River, was acquired in 1986 and is operated and maintained in connection with our 17-MW Lawrence Project in Lawrence, Massachusetts, also on the Merrimack. The project consists of a primary 17.3-MW plant built in the 1980’s and four smaller plants dating back to the turn of the century that were once part of a textile mill operation. The plants are located at a national historic site in downtown Lowell.

   After acquiring the project, our operations and maintenance group was responsible for increasing revenue by nearly 20 percent through such measures as reconfiguring the tailrace and plant automation. Plant facilities also include both a fish ladder and a fish elevator, as well as a visitors and education center. Plant operation has required close cooperation with federal and state resource agencies and historic preservation interests.”

   There is also a 346 KW defunct water power system in the JAM area, although I don’t know exactly where it is located. That could provide some of the power required by the HC development if it were available and operational, a step toward an energy neutral site.

7. Peter Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

   Bob, surely you don’t suggest the vacant lots now comprising the district are preferable to today’s downtown than this project would be! What I meant by not to worry is, the project has taken this into account fully. you can see this by looking at their plans. It is the simple fact that currently existing buildings line Market street about 95% of the way from Central to the Canal. There’s simply no magical way to make this flow 100% perfectly. If you check out the plane you’ll see the developer’s plans do the absolute best possible with this simpel fact. I’d hate to see that old New England Can’t-Do spirit creeping in at something that looks so positive promising!! As a JAM area resident I walk around the current sight almost daily and with a little imagination I can see for myself how beutiful this will be!

8. waittilnextyr Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

   There may be additional opportunities to connect with the present downtown if the area of the JAM plan to the east of the HCD could be modified. A walking extension of Palmer Street by the Roy garage could provide more direct walking access to the “island”, but the property on the island is outside the bounds of the HCD and may have a physical interference from an existing mill building. Could that be overcome?

9. gnsesq Says:
   March 16th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

   Let me repeat that Trinity is doing all that it can to add/enhance the connections between HCD and Downtown (and other neighborhoods). Witness their embrace of the Jackson Street extension. There is no benefit to their development to being cut off from the City. A pedestrian crossing of the canal at Loft 27 (just outside the HCD) is critical to linking the downtown to the JAM district and HCD. Allowing pedestrians to come across near the end of Palmer Street will help them reach the downtown retail district. And making it easy for the downtown residents in the Market and Middle street areas to reach the HCD will make their development all the more lively. Trinity and the City are planning a vibrant new urban neighborhood, not a shopping mall or a gated community. It has the possibility for being a significant economic engine for the City for the next 25+ years. Kudos to all who are working so hard (and effectively) to make it happen. I encourage everyone to check the website, provide feedback and join in the remaining meetings.

10. daniel Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    Hey all… I did not attend the meeting, though I am interested in the plans presented on connecting with the gallagher terminal… on the PDF on the site I see that the rail is potentially laid as traveling all the way to the south common (and presumably somehow over thorndike to the terminal) As an aside, maybe this will get the comfort furniture people to finally sell out (such a beautiful wasted building)…

    Did anyone here anything specific about the plans for this HCD to Gallagher connection?

11. Mimi Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 6:39 am

    Daniel:

    The HCD’s to the Gallagher Terminal was discussed extensively. It sounded as if it a major component of the revitalization plan.

12. KMM Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am

    The reality of bringing the trolley across Thorndike to the terminal seems to be a difficult fix. Since South common is a beautiful, yet underutilized space, I wonder if there is potential for making that end of the common the actual trolley stop. People would only have to cross the street. The pededstrain crossing could be enhanced and the light cycle changed to favor pedestrians.

13. Tim Little Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    KMM: A pedestrian overpass from the South Common to Gallagher Terminal would seem a pretty straightforward fix. I don’t know how many pedestrians I’ve seen almost blindsided trying to cross against traffic at that intersection as it is.

14. daniel Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    I would love to see the Trolley actually come out to South Common…
    It would have to follow the outside edge on the north-west side above
    the pine trees (to maintain a good grade).
    It could stop at that overgrown mini-plaza with the dilapidated
    benches bang opposite of the intersection.

    It would kill two birds with one stone.

    I remember reading once about proposals to utilize trolleys all throughout Lowell.
    Imagine system that made it easy for all those Motorola employees at crosspoint to
    take a lunch break in downtown. Just a hop on the trolley, past the Lowe’s and the Target, through the HCD and into downtown. (dreaming)

15. waittilnextyr Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    The requirement to make it handicap accessible may complicate the overpass solution.

16. Tim Little Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Waittil: How’s that?

17. waittilnextyr Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 9:03 am

    Waittil: How’s that?

    It would have to be high enough not to be taken out by some truck, and with sufficient ramp run on both sides to make it manageable for wheelchair mobility. Not that it couldn’t be done, but it has to be built into the design and space allocation. But maybe the trolley’s themselves wouldn’t be so accomodating, so a shuttle bus (at the terminal) could be the handicap option.

18. Tim Little Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Thanks, Waittil; I guess I never thought that would be that big of a deal, just eyeballing the space.

19. waittilnextyr Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Tim, at tonight’s council meeting Trinity gave a brief on the project. Hank Keating, the Trinity project manager, was talking about the options at the intersection of Dutton St., Fletcher St. and the extended Jackson St., and he talked about pedestrian crossing. He stated that the road level crossing with traffic control lights was preferable to a NPS plan to create a walkway bridge. He said that in order to reach the height required with handicap access, it would take a 300 yd ramp on each side of the intersection, and said that generally these overhead ways are not well used. I expect the same would be true for Thorndike St. and the Transportation Center.

    On another note, some on the City Council wanted to include local architects in the evaluation of the HCD planning. What they apparently don’t know, there were some local architects that took it upon themselves to attend the prior Vision Sessions held by Trinity. Maybe not the architects they wanted to be there, but the ones that had enough interest to do so without being asked. And they participated in the group evalutions of the initial plans and made some constructive comments that were included in the current plan displayed by Trinity.

20. Lynne Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Translate “local architects” with “I want my friends to have some more say…what do you MEAN it’s an open and transparent process!!??”

21. joe Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    Hank Keating is absolutely right about the proposed overpass at Thorndike and Fletcher. It’s a boondoggle. People won’t use it. They ought to put that money into the canals, but it would take an act of Congress.

    But there’s a difference at the Gallagher terminal: a pedestrian overpass could connect directly to the existing elevated pedestrian walkway that the people using the trains pass through. They’re already up there as part of taking the rail, and the stairs to get people from street level to overhead (the stairs and elevators) are already there.

22. jdayne Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Let us hope that self serving requests don’t drive the development out of town. Just as capital can flow out of the US and dollars can be dumped, interested developers, potential residents, eager companies can watch an inept city council and — oops — decide that there are better places for to expend time, attention and dollars than Lowell.

Leave a Reply