New Haven Independent

Posted by: JP | September 13, 2006 6:54 PM

I think this development will benefit downtown but I also have some concerns. The bottom most illustration is my personal favorite as it seems to blend into the area very nicely and has a mix of heights and facades.

My concerns center around the overdevelopment of downtown. Specifically the building of more condominiums when there is an apparent slowdown in the real estate market. I have lived in New Haven 30 of my 34 years and I wonder how many empty-nesters there are that will make downtown home. Also, if we take away parking spaces where are those people going to park, not to mention the new people associated with the new development.

Why would employees of downtown cultural organizations get earmarked housing? Will people of "modest" incomes be able to go to these shops and live in these buildings or is this a further Manhattanization of New Haven?

Posted by: nutmeg | September 14, 2006 9:02 AM

This site, in the heart of downtown, is a surface parking lot now. How could these proposals, if realized, be considered 'overdevelopment'?

The fact of the matter is that the Shartenberg site is probably the most underdeveloped site downtown. The real question is which proposal will best contribute to the development of downtown.

Posted by: charlie | September 14, 2006 12:11 PM

I agree with Nutmeg. In all likelihood, the best proposal is most likely the densest scheme that provides the greatest amount of revenue to the City.

Parking can be provided underneath the building. Combined with the new garage on Wall Street, there will be plenty of parking in the area. Plus, density at that site would encourage mass transit use.

Posted by: JP | September 14, 2006 1:40 PM

To clarify my "overdevelopment" comment, I was directing that on the number of condominiums that are in the works. There is building underway at College and George and some plans for the site on the other side of College St. There are high rises going up in Westville. Condos in Boston are being auctioned at major discounts, I think it may be time to let the market cool off a little before rushing in and building more condos. I love New Haven but I question the real number of suburbanites that will move here and stay.

The lack of parking has always been a drawback to going downtown. To take away more spaces exacerbates the problem. We should encourage mass transit but how many people would really use it? People that work downtown like to be able to park close to their office, is that too much to ask?

The city could lose revenue if it gets stuck with empty apartments/condos.

Posted by: Delegate | September 14, 2006 4:24 PM

Speaking of parking, the Rose development comes the closet to what is needed. Downtown residents and workers need a place to shop for food and staples without having to have a car.

Posted by: tom lee | September 14, 2006 4:39 PM

Why do so many of these plans have the owners of Roomba running a hotel? What do people who own a restaurant know about managing a hotel? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have an Ian Schraeger, or even a Hyatt, Westin, or Four Seasons? I can understand Roomba having a restaurant within the hotel -- other than that, I just dont get it.

Posted by: Keith Osiewicz | September 15, 2006 12:13 AM

I lived and worked in New Haven in the late 1990's, and I can't believe the plans I am seeing. When I lived there, most of the buildings were vacant. If they are building new buildings like the ones above, does this mean all of those vacant buildings are filled now?!

Posted by: Ned | September 15, 2006 8:21 AM

The" year-round ground-floor market ... proposal submitted by Artspace and Jonathan Rose Companies LLC" seems like it could easily degenerate into an indoor flea market. As for the "overdevelopment" of New Haven - the city has lost close to 100,000 (?) thousand people from its peak population, that combined with the fact that it is one of the poorest cities in the country indicates that there is plenty of potential for more population and economic growth - especially among people who will not further burden the welfare system. New Haven could use a lot more gentrification.

Posted by: charlie | September 15, 2006 5:25 PM

Tom, Roomba could easily run a boutique hotel with a good hotel manager. You see these type of upscale, small hotels popping up all over cities these days, especially in places like New York City. They are not proposing a massive Hyatt or Mariott here.

Keith, yes, buildings were vacant in the 1990s after the major New England recession of the early 1990s. But since then, land values in downtown have literally quintupled and there has been a massive influx of people into the area. There are luxury apartments under construction or completed all over downtown New Haven, many with waiting lists, and the retail vacancy rate is at its lowest point since the early 1960s - 100 new businesses, mostly restaurants, have opened just within the past year or two.

Ned, New Haven has not lost 100,000 people from its peak population. The population has shrunk somewhat from 1950, but that's only because of the decline in family sizes. Building has slowed because there's no land in New Haven - it's almost entirely occupied because it's such a small city in terms of land area. But New Haven, if you consider it as a city (and not just the 17 square miles laid out in the 1700s), has continued to grow rapidly since the 1950s. Yes, the growth has occured in neighboring towns, which filled in areas that were formerly farmland with housing, but those areas are directly tied to New Haven via buslines and major streets. In any state outside of New England, these areas would be considered part of the City of New Haven. The fact that New Haven has one of the densest downtown areas in the country - denser than Seattle, Denver, Baltimore or many other large cities - is a testament to the fact that New Haven is really a much larger city than some people think of it as. Also, New Haven is not one of the poorest cities in the country (Hartford and Providence, but not New Haven, are in the top 10 poorest, if you take the % of families living in poverty), and if you consider what I said above it's actually one of the richest cities in the country. However, yes I agree that the new area should not be developed as an indoor flea market.

Posted by: Esbe | September 16, 2006 12:49 PM

Note to Keith O. -- yes, most of the older buildings in the downtown have been or are being redeveloped, largely for residential and restaurant use, although there is office space for bio-tech and medicial uses as well. Ground-floor (non-restaurant) retail is doing so-so and there is little demand for classic "corporate office space" (beyond professional services like architects and lawyers.) The residential use is hardly just empty-nesters, as implied above, but also a large number of Yale and Hospital employess without kids and also very a large number of reverse commuters -- folks who work in subburban office parks but want to live somewhere interesting.

As for over-development, recall that these are private investors making the decisions and so the city is not at risk -- if the Condos end up selling at a discount the city is not harmed at all.

And I agree that there is currently tons of low income housing within easy walking distance of downtown -- adding more subsidized housing will encourage more abandoned houses in the poor neighborhoods near downtown.

Posted by: Keith Osiewicz | September 17, 2006 11:53 AM

I loved living there, and I always wondered why not many others did. I guess I was just ahead of the curve. Sigh. I should have bought property.

Posted by: Ned | September 17, 2006 4:28 PM

Tom you are correct, New Haven has "only" lost approximately 40,000 people since 1950 (please come back, we miss you). Losing population to neighboring towns does not count as population growth. As far as building slowing due to lack of available land - has anyone done a study on this? Wouldn't have anything to do with an uncooperative city hall? Personally, I would like to see a New Haven with less crime and grime and a thriving downtown with construction cranes dominating the skyline. The flea market fear is not unfounded - it nearly happened to the Malley's building, and I think was the subject of a lawsuit(s) between the city and the flea market operator.

Posted by: jadetree | September 18, 2006 10:10 AM

"the year-round ground-floor market..." It works in Philly (Reading Market). If they used that as an example, it would be wonderful.

Posted by: jared | September 18, 2006 1:44 PM

Why do we not see a rendering of the C.A. White proposal?