1
10
5
-
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_01.pdf
b93cfa97383391e234ea90a8511c8ef8
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_02.pdf
4223128342fd865436f04c882aede3a7
PDF Text
Text
���������������������������������������������
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_03.pdf
a6f884527921717ce5148efba14e6f82
PDF Text
Text
�������������������������������������������������
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_04.pdf
ce2ee4ffb10b16a5806d6b95a3c1e12f
PDF Text
Text
�����������������������������������������
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_01_kerrigan.jpg
1b11736761a1eefac42fd2a9fe272627
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_02_Stewart.jpg
af36eba4b7b3856b5daeb7b433c1d431
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_03_street.jpg
71b7dbd5f132db6ac541a952027c7cd5
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Ledgers_DRG_1_2/6018/DRG1_2_DG101_1920_women_03_treadwell.jpg
58013eda0a29b2739d65f7864ab83070
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Danbury Ledgers, DRG 1&2
Description
An account of the resource
299 ledger books
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Municipal records of Danbury
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1852-1937
Has Version
A related resource that is a version, edition, or adaptation of the described resource.
<a href="https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/findingaids/ctdbn_drg1_2_danburyledgers.xml">Link to finding aid.</a>
IIIF Collection Metadata
UUID
488cd81e-f006-4362-865c-bab9476a86b1
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Danbury Women Voters (1st - 4th districts)
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Danbury
Description
An account of the resource
4, 8 x 13", bound ledgers
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
These contain the names of registered women voters in Danbury. Checks indicate whether a ballot was cast. Most contain totals for the voting district in the back
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1920
Subject
The topic of the resource
Suffrage--United States
IIIF Item Metadata
UUID
9fbef8bb-48b1-428c-a441-05a0bae40df7
HIS 210
Women's suffrage
-
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Public_Library/1584/danburyCityLedger.pdf
31b32328b4ad41ac0bf90294e021803c
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Danbury Public Library
IIIF Collection Metadata
UUID
d7cc0b85-79da-4850-b9e6-08620e3de524
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
City of Danbury, board of Councilmen minutes
Subject
The topic of the resource
Danbury (Conn.)--History
Description
An account of the resource
9 x 15", 500pgs
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Council Board minutes for the first year of the chartered City
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Danbury
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Danbury Public Library, Local History Room
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Danbury Public Library
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889-1890
Has Version
A related resource that is a version, edition, or adaptation of the described resource.
<a href="http://archives.library.wcsu.edu/relatedObjects/boroughLedgers/danburyCityLedger/#page/1/mode/2up">Page turner version</a>
IIIF Item Metadata
UUID
63ef3ef4-21bc-4a81-acfe-dbd67895e512
Borough of Danbury
Danbury Public Library
Ledgers
Page turner
-
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Firebug_clippings_etc./1533/1889_178_OctPayStevens.jpg
ef2c0d96ccc29efd7b849cab31f73bc3
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Howard Stevens awarded payment for services
Subject
The topic of the resource
Danbury (Conn.)--History
Description
An account of the resource
1 pg from ledger
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Howard Stevens was fired from the Danbury Fire Department because he confronted and threatened Chief Meyers over his bill for servicing the steam engine. Stevens is shown here to have been paid $40. $10 was claimed to have been owed by the Borough and $30 was claimed to have been owed by the City.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Danbury
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Danbury Public Library; City of Danbury, Council Board Minutes.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889-10-15
IIIF Item Metadata
UUID
aeca06df-17a4-4b01-9810-35066da24038
Danbury Fire Bug
Howard Stevens
-
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Firebug_clippings_etc./1532/1889_012_EllwoodEngineerMayCouncilBoard.jpg
4c02b27026999a1d552fcbc2d0f66a36
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Firebug_clippings_etc./1532/1889_017_MeyersElected.jpg
4e3a4d58d5df05a81ae3b517022182f9
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Firebug_clippings_etc./1532/1889_021_SealOfTheCity.jpg
1f1cf9c5cfc2cf2c48f52db3cf8efd27
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_Firebug_clippings_etc./1532/1889_022_tablePreviousVotes.jpg
5f08a45c1df1ef9d7a1a69e7843c1cb0
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Council Board Minutes regarding City's first Chief Engineer, creation of the seal, etc.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Danbury (Conn.)--History
Description
An account of the resource
4 pgs of ledger
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Danbury
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Danbury Public Library; City of Danbury, Council Board Minutes ledger.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889-05
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
There is a significant difference between the wording in the original ledger and what appeared in the published minutes of the Common Council regarding John Ellwood's election as first Chief Engineer of the City Fire Department.
The published minutes state: "On motion a ballot was ordered for the selection of a chief of fire department, resulting in the choice of Mr. John H. Ellwood."
The original ledger states: "Voted: To proceed in the same manner of the Election of Chief Engineer a Ballot being taken - without a choice it was [new line] Voted: To take a formal vote which resulted in the choice of J.H. Elwood he receiving a majority of the Votes Cast." For the other city officers named, the wording - "without a choice" and "majority" do not appear.
IIIF Item Metadata
UUID
862240b7-a210-4b01-b323-d4f2bd554e39
Danbury Fire Bug
Morris Meyers
-
https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/files/original/Danbury_redevelopment_research/247/Memorandum001.pdf
0d1913dbc7daf2b51122833549a6dd82
PDF Text
Text
I
i
MEMORANDUM
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Danbury
Policy Decision on Parcel A Development Options
This memorandum summarizes the broad policy options for
development of Parcel A which have recently been evaluated by
the Danbury Redevelopmenr Agency at the November 4, 1980
meeting.
Recognizing the importance of integrating Parcel A with
an overall use policy direction for the downtown as a whole -whether Parcel A is developed independently or as a part of a
larger project -- this most recent round of planning for
Parcel A also recognizes the importance of moving toward a
better utilization of this valuable resource and is a proper
step in moving ahead with needed downtown revitalization.
Prior policy decisions of this Agency have established
the following objectives and criteria for moving ahead with
the redevelopment process:
Establish general development goals (type of use or uses
and scale ) in advance of and as a guide to any formal
solicitation of developer proposals;
Maintain appropriate flexibility in these development
goals to encouraae creative responses to an overall
development focus; .
Avoid "reactive1" d ecisions to unsolicited proposals
before the Agency can reach a consensus on general
development goals as noted above;
(
Understand the objectives of all legitimate interest
groups in relation to downtown development and, where
possible, incorporate such objectives into the Agency's
Development goals to facilitate project implementation;
and,
�Memorandum
Page two
Solicit developer interest and establish selection
criteria based on these goals and objectives.
To highlight the general development directions
available
to the Agency, three illustrative development options were
hypothesized.
recommendations
These are not, per se, development program
and any associated policy recommendations
should
not be viewed as an effort to fix the precise mix or scale of
*
uses. These illustrative
options may be summarized as follows:
A.
Mixed Use, Present Site — Development of office
retail and housing (totalling perhaps 700,000 to
750,000 square feet of space at build out plus
associated parking) on the presently controlled 6.3
acres of Parcel A and 2.7 acres along the new Liberty
Street.
B.
Mixed Use, Expanded Site — Same as above, but expanding the site by approximately 3 acres to a total of 12
by including land to the west of Parcel A up to the
present buildings fronting on Main Street. Such expansion might accomodate roughly one million square
feet of space at ultimate build out.
C.
Regional Retail, Expanded Site — Development of a
major, regional serving retail mall on a "site" somewhat enlarged (by perhaps 3-5 acres) from B, above.
This option would include at least three major
department stores and would cover, say, 800,000 to
1,000,000 square feet of retail space.
On November 4, 1980 the Agency voted 4-2 to endorse option
B—
Mixed Use, Expanded S ite -- as the preferred development
direction for Parcel A.
This decision, along w ith this memoran-
dum and other supporting materials, is to be presented to tiic
Mayor's office and other interest groups, as appropriate, for
input and refinement in an effort to move ahead with downtown
development.
�Memorandum
Page Three
Principal"risks and rewards" associated with each option
which were presented and deliberated upon by the Agency in
reaching this decision are summarized below.
Fiscal Considerations.
All of the above concepts would
likely have a positive fiscal impact on the city (assuming needed
capital improvements, as discussed below, are funded with a
minimum of city debt).
While there may be numerous mixes and
scales of development under- any of the concepts, it is estimated
that Concept A m ight generate annual property tax revenues of
approximately $900,000, Concept B perhaps §1.1 million and
Concept C on the order of §1.1 to §1.3 million -- once each
project is built out.
Costs of public services required by each of these concepts
(such as utilities, police, and fire protection, public works,
general government and education) .cannot be reasonably estimated,
but in any event, each of these concepts is likely to create a
measurable "surplus" for the city on an annual operational basis.
Each concept, however, will require a significant level of
capital improvements in the form of parking, site acquisition,
access and circulation improvements as well as open space uses
and linkages with present activities.
Parking required for all concepts must be in some structured
(i.e., "garage") form and will represent a required up-front
capital investment that will most likely have to be funded by the
public sector -- whether through the city itself,or a local
parking authority.
Parking required by Concept A would carry an
�Memorandum
Page four
estimated cost of $9 million whereas Concept B would represent
a capital investment for parking of approximately $12 million.
Concept C, on the other hand, might require a parking structure
that would cost between $17 and $24 million, in today's dollars.
Other capital improvement costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but it is probable that Concept C will carry
with it a substantial requirement for site acquisition monies
as will Concept B, although to a lesser extent.
On the other
hand, Concept A by definition,will not require much additional
site acquisition.
Cost associated with improved access and
circulation will be incurred for both concepts A and B and, to
a much greater extent, for Concept C.
With regard to this latter point, development of a major
regional shopping mall in the downtown will most likely demand
very substantial access improvemen.ts from Interstate 84 which,
in turn, may require various land takings and major new construci
tion. Concepts A and B will require improved access and circulation, but these requirements may largely be met within the
existing right-of-way configurations.
Lastly, carpful development- of open spac<~' uses and project
linkages to current downtown area activities w ill be nios L important in minimizing land use impacts and maximizing opportunities
for integrating any new development with present downtown uses.
Again, it is anticipated that such costs would be more substantial
^
under Concept C than under either Concepts A or B.
�Memorandum
Page five
Thus, it is apparent that the regional retail program will
carry with it the most substantial capital cost requirements -especially in the form of improved access to 1-84 and substantial
structured parking —
and, unless a very high percentage of these
capital funds can be secured
from non-local sources, the potential
fiscal benefit of this concept could be reversed.
This is not to
minimize the significance of capital improvements necessary for
Concepts A or B, but rather to indicate relative differences.
Job Creation*
All development concepts would, of course,
generate significant construction employment as well as long term
operational employment. It is understood that each of the above
described concepts would generate annual, full time employment of
perhaps 1,000 to 1,300 jobs.
In this respect, the only particular distinction that might be
drawn amongst
these alternative development concepts is the nature
of permanent employment that might be created. That is, Concept C
i
will require a high percentage of clerical and sales people versus
the higher percentage of office-using employment generated under
Concepts A or B.
In this regard, then, Concepts A and B may gener-
ats somewhat higher payroll levels but will require skill levels
that are already in substantial demand within the region.
Potential Obstacles.
Several potential obstacles to
development have been identified and would include the following:
site assembly; access; parking; funding; and, land use impacts.
These are noted as "potential obstacles" in that they will
�Memorandum
Page six
require time for completion (and possible loss
of competive edge
to other projects), commitment of funding (and associated time
requirements as well as uncertainties), cooperation and commitments
of other agencies or interest groups (such as the Danbury Parking
Authority) or the potential for criticism and legal efforts at
stopping a project (for example, potential impacts on the "urban
fabric" of downtown that might be viewed as incompatible with the
objective of certain interest groups).
From these perspectives, it is clear that Concept C -- the
regional retail mall -- would have the most difficult hurdles to
overcome.
Again, this is not to minimize development obstacles for
Concepts A or B, but to note the relatively greater risks to pro-
(
gram implementation which that Concept could face.
Timing.
Timing is of interest in two respects -- how soon
might construction actually begin a/id occupancy of at least the
first phase occur?
i
out or completion?
And, how long would it take for project build
Given the substantial access improvement requirements of
Concept C as well as the site assembly/acquisition
needs it is
probable that construction could not begin on a regional retail
mall for perhaps five years or more.
While this schedule might
possibly be advanced, experience indicates that the probabilities
are not high.
It is clear that this Concept would necessarily
be pursued as an all or nothing proposition in the planning phase.
Given the less radical access improvement requirements of Concepts
A and B, actual construction of first phase occupancy under either
�Memorandum
Page Seven
of these concepts might take place within two to three years.
On the other hand, however, once the'regional retail program
was underway it would likely be a "one phase" program with total
build out and occupancy within two to three years.
Concepts A and
B, however, would most probably be done in several phases and.could
ultimately take longer to build out.
With the above consideration in mind, the Agency voted 4 to 2
to pursue Concept B as the currently preferred alternative development direction for downtown Danbury.
Tn essence, Concept B was preferred to Concept A in that the
"rounding out" of the development area to incorporate and provide a
proper "linkage" to existing uses along the eastern side of Main
Street was perceived as an achievable and appropriate objective.
The more important distinction of course, was with regard to
•
Concept B versus Concept C. In this respect, the "risks" of
i
Concept B were judged less severe than the risks associated with
Concept C.
Specifically, it was recognized that Concept B could
not forestall the competitive impacts on downtown retailing that a
">urburban mall might generate and that market supports for existing
us well as new retail development in the short term would be conStrained from what was preceived as the high probability of surbur;
ban mall development.
On the other hand, while part of a Concept C
•Strategy would be to preempt a surburban mall development effort in
near term and to make downtown Danbury highly competive against
�Memorandum
Page eight
potential suburban mall development in the longer term/ the
very difficult 1-84 access requirement as well as the parking
structure needs and overall scale of a major regional mall were
viewed as obstacles or risks that were not warranted by the
potential rewards.
In a desire to provide Initiative in downtown revitalization
and to move ahead with proper development of'Parcel A" the
Mixed Use, Expanded Site option was perceived as having
the most reasonable chance of near term success along with
the flexibility allowed by a gradual development program.
�31
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
To be attached to but not a part of the Danbury
Redevelopment Agency memorandum on Parcel A Development
Options.
t
The Redevelopment Agency recommends that the following
items be implemented;
1. ' Immediately seek funding for an access to, and
parking within the CBD as recommended in the Plan of
Development.
2.
Encourage commercial, professional, cultural and
entertainment uses in or near the CBD and strict enforcement
of existing zoning regulations outside the CBD.
3.
;
Actively support a Regional Mall in Danbury.
4.
Acquire additional blighted and distressed properties
in or near the CBD.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Danbury Policy Decision, Memorandum
Description
An account of the resource
1 memo
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
City of Danbury
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Danbury Policy Decision on Parcel A Development Options This memorandum summarizes the broad policy options for development of Parcel A which have recently been evaluated by the Danbury Redevelopment Agency at the November 4, 1980, meeting.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1980
PDF Search
This element set enables searching on PDF files.
Text
Text extracted from PDF files belonging to this item.
I
i
MEMORANDUM
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Danbury
Policy Decision on Parcel A Development Options
This memorandum summarizes the broad policy options for
development of Parcel A which have recently been evaluated by
the Danbury Redevelopmenr Agency at the November 4, 1980
meeting.
Recognizing the importance of integrating Parcel A with
an overall use policy direction for the downtown as a whole -whether Parcel A is developed independently or as a part of a
larger project -- this most recent round of planning for
Parcel A also recognizes the importance of moving toward a
better utilization of this valuable resource and is a proper
step in moving ahead with needed downtown revitalization.
Prior policy decisions of this Agency have established
the following objectives and criteria for moving ahead with
the redevelopment process:
Establish general development goals (type of use or uses
and scale ) in advance of and as a guide to any formal
solicitation of developer proposals;
Maintain appropriate flexibility in these development
goals to encouraae creative responses to an overall
development focus; .
Avoid "reactive1" d ecisions to unsolicited proposals
before the Agency can reach a consensus on general
development goals as noted above;
(
Understand the objectives of all legitimate interest
groups in relation to downtown development and, where
possible, incorporate such objectives into the Agency's
Development goals to facilitate project implementation;
and,
�Memorandum
Page two
Solicit developer interest and establish selection
criteria based on these goals and objectives.
To highlight the general development directions
available
to the Agency, three illustrative development options were
hypothesized.
recommendations
These are not, per se, development program
and any associated policy recommendations
should
not be viewed as an effort to fix the precise mix or scale of
*
uses. These illustrative
options may be summarized as follows:
A.
Mixed Use, Present Site — Development of office
retail and housing (totalling perhaps 700,000 to
750,000 square feet of space at build out plus
associated parking) on the presently controlled 6.3
acres of Parcel A and 2.7 acres along the new Liberty
Street.
B.
Mixed Use, Expanded Site — Same as above, but expanding the site by approximately 3 acres to a total of 12
by including land to the west of Parcel A up to the
present buildings fronting on Main Street. Such expansion might accomodate roughly one million square
feet of space at ultimate build out.
C.
Regional Retail, Expanded Site — Development of a
major, regional serving retail mall on a "site" somewhat enlarged (by perhaps 3-5 acres) from B, above.
This option would include at least three major
department stores and would cover, say, 800,000 to
1,000,000 square feet of retail space.
On November 4, 1980 the Agency voted 4-2 to endorse option
B—
Mixed Use, Expanded S ite -- as the preferred development
direction for Parcel A.
This decision, along w ith this memoran-
dum and other supporting materials, is to be presented to tiic
Mayor's office and other interest groups, as appropriate, for
input and refinement in an effort to move ahead with downtown
development.
�Memorandum
Page Three
Principal"risks and rewards" associated with each option
which were presented and deliberated upon by the Agency in
reaching this decision are summarized below.
Fiscal Considerations.
All of the above concepts would
likely have a positive fiscal impact on the city (assuming needed
capital improvements, as discussed below, are funded with a
minimum of city debt).
While there may be numerous mixes and
scales of development under- any of the concepts, it is estimated
that Concept A m ight generate annual property tax revenues of
approximately $900,000, Concept B perhaps §1.1 million and
Concept C on the order of §1.1 to §1.3 million -- once each
project is built out.
Costs of public services required by each of these concepts
(such as utilities, police, and fire protection, public works,
general government and education) .cannot be reasonably estimated,
but in any event, each of these concepts is likely to create a
measurable "surplus" for the city on an annual operational basis.
Each concept, however, will require a significant level of
capital improvements in the form of parking, site acquisition,
access and circulation improvements as well as open space uses
and linkages with present activities.
Parking required for all concepts must be in some structured
(i.e., "garage") form and will represent a required up-front
capital investment that will most likely have to be funded by the
public sector -- whether through the city itself,or a local
parking authority.
Parking required by Concept A would carry an
�Memorandum
Page four
estimated cost of $9 million whereas Concept B would represent
a capital investment for parking of approximately $12 million.
Concept C, on the other hand, might require a parking structure
that would cost between $17 and $24 million, in today's dollars.
Other capital improvement costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but it is probable that Concept C will carry
with it a substantial requirement for site acquisition monies
as will Concept B, although to a lesser extent.
On the other
hand, Concept A by definition,will not require much additional
site acquisition.
Cost associated with improved access and
circulation will be incurred for both concepts A and B and, to
a much greater extent, for Concept C.
With regard to this latter point, development of a major
regional shopping mall in the downtown will most likely demand
very substantial access improvemen.ts from Interstate 84 which,
in turn, may require various land takings and major new construci
tion. Concepts A and B will require improved access and circulation, but these requirements may largely be met within the
existing right-of-way configurations.
Lastly, carpful development- of open spac<~' uses and project
linkages to current downtown area activities w ill be nios L important in minimizing land use impacts and maximizing opportunities
for integrating any new development with present downtown uses.
Again, it is anticipated that such costs would be more substantial
^
under Concept C than under either Concepts A or B.
�Memorandum
Page five
Thus, it is apparent that the regional retail program will
carry with it the most substantial capital cost requirements -especially in the form of improved access to 1-84 and substantial
structured parking —
and, unless a very high percentage of these
capital funds can be secured
from non-local sources, the potential
fiscal benefit of this concept could be reversed.
This is not to
minimize the significance of capital improvements necessary for
Concepts A or B, but rather to indicate relative differences.
Job Creation*
All development concepts would, of course,
generate significant construction employment as well as long term
operational employment. It is understood that each of the above
described concepts would generate annual, full time employment of
perhaps 1,000 to 1,300 jobs.
In this respect, the only particular distinction that might be
drawn amongst
these alternative development concepts is the nature
of permanent employment that might be created. That is, Concept C
i
will require a high percentage of clerical and sales people versus
the higher percentage of office-using employment generated under
Concepts A or B.
In this regard, then, Concepts A and B may gener-
ats somewhat higher payroll levels but will require skill levels
that are already in substantial demand within the region.
Potential Obstacles.
Several potential obstacles to
development have been identified and would include the following:
site assembly; access; parking; funding; and, land use impacts.
These are noted as "potential obstacles" in that they will
�Memorandum
Page six
require time for completion (and possible loss
of competive edge
to other projects), commitment of funding (and associated time
requirements as well as uncertainties), cooperation and commitments
of other agencies or interest groups (such as the Danbury Parking
Authority) or the potential for criticism and legal efforts at
stopping a project (for example, potential impacts on the "urban
fabric" of downtown that might be viewed as incompatible with the
objective of certain interest groups).
From these perspectives, it is clear that Concept C -- the
regional retail mall -- would have the most difficult hurdles to
overcome.
Again, this is not to minimize development obstacles for
Concepts A or B, but to note the relatively greater risks to pro-
(
gram implementation which that Concept could face.
Timing.
Timing is of interest in two respects -- how soon
might construction actually begin a/id occupancy of at least the
first phase occur?
i
out or completion?
And, how long would it take for project build
Given the substantial access improvement requirements of
Concept C as well as the site assembly/acquisition
needs it is
probable that construction could not begin on a regional retail
mall for perhaps five years or more.
While this schedule might
possibly be advanced, experience indicates that the probabilities
are not high.
It is clear that this Concept would necessarily
be pursued as an all or nothing proposition in the planning phase.
Given the less radical access improvement requirements of Concepts
A and B, actual construction of first phase occupancy under either
�Memorandum
Page Seven
of these concepts might take place within two to three years.
On the other hand, however, once the'regional retail program
was underway it would likely be a "one phase" program with total
build out and occupancy within two to three years.
Concepts A and
B, however, would most probably be done in several phases and.could
ultimately take longer to build out.
With the above consideration in mind, the Agency voted 4 to 2
to pursue Concept B as the currently preferred alternative development direction for downtown Danbury.
Tn essence, Concept B was preferred to Concept A in that the
"rounding out" of the development area to incorporate and provide a
proper "linkage" to existing uses along the eastern side of Main
Street was perceived as an achievable and appropriate objective.
The more important distinction of course, was with regard to
•
Concept B versus Concept C. In this respect, the "risks" of
i
Concept B were judged less severe than the risks associated with
Concept C.
Specifically, it was recognized that Concept B could
not forestall the competitive impacts on downtown retailing that a
">urburban mall might generate and that market supports for existing
us well as new retail development in the short term would be conStrained from what was preceived as the high probability of surbur;
ban mall development.
On the other hand, while part of a Concept C
•Strategy would be to preempt a surburban mall development effort in
near term and to make downtown Danbury highly competive against
�Memorandum
Page eight
potential suburban mall development in the longer term/ the
very difficult 1-84 access requirement as well as the parking
structure needs and overall scale of a major regional mall were
viewed as obstacles or risks that were not warranted by the
potential rewards.
In a desire to provide Initiative in downtown revitalization
and to move ahead with proper development of'Parcel A" the
Mixed Use, Expanded Site option was perceived as having
the most reasonable chance of near term success along with
the flexibility allowed by a gradual development program.
�31
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
To be attached to but not a part of the Danbury
Redevelopment Agency memorandum on Parcel A Development
Options.
t
The Redevelopment Agency recommends that the following
items be implemented;
1. ' Immediately seek funding for an access to, and
parking within the CBD as recommended in the Plan of
Development.
2.
Encourage commercial, professional, cultural and
entertainment uses in or near the CBD and strict enforcement
of existing zoning regulations outside the CBD.
3.
;
Actively support a Regional Mall in Danbury.
4.
Acquire additional blighted and distressed properties
in or near the CBD.
�
IIIF Item Metadata
UUID
13b317c4-6624-456a-84ad-e29296a395fd