New Haven Independent

Posted by: charlie | December 12, 2006 10:14 AM

Is the City out of its mind in trying to turn away a developer like this? Also, are the 0.5% of people involved with local government -- who think they are speaking for us -- delusional? The bedroom cap is a horrible idea even before you consider that it might turn away one of the best development deals proposed in the past 20 years. The City should be encouraging more units, not less. Increased density would help revitalize the area to an even greater extent than what the developers have already proposed. If anything, the zoning should be changed to require very high density development.

Posted by: why not | December 12, 2006 12:11 PM

Why not put a new Hooker school there instead of the much fought over Whitney Ave location, That consolidates the locations of East Rock School and the athletic fields and rink. A comprehesive plan for routing traffic and parking could create a beautiful campus setting. The building should be razed. It is totally obsolescent.

There is enough retail space on State St., especially since there is no parking. Artist space could be incorporated into the plan, which could help introduce the children to art.

Rental units are flooding New Haven and every developers expects hugh rents, and to have taxes deferred. There is not enough growth in our population to absorb all these units. This may lead to a significant drop in rental rates, thus property value.

Also the East Rock neighborhood has many rental properties, and the owners depend om the rents to cover the cost of ownership for the little guy. We should protect that interest.

Posted by: ? | December 12, 2006 2:31 PM

This is a great plan. Good open commuciation between the city, the BZA, the neighborhood and Christie Warek will be the key to moving this project forward.
Anyone who feels passionatley about this plan moving forward should show up to related meetings open to the public as it is usually only the neighsayers that do so.
It appears that the developers are trying to do a good thing for the neighborhood and the city.
If you are a concerned East Rocker, you should make your opinions known, but not attempt to hold up a relatively unstable project if you do in fact support it.

Posted by: Esbe | December 12, 2006 2:37 PM

This is an unbelievably bad decision -- the plausible alternative is for nothing to happen at that site, for it to remain an empty and decaying drag on the fortunes of the city. Why are we opposed to urban density -- the plan is to be some sort of failed pseudo-suburb?

If built, these apartments would increase the appeal of the neighborhood, rather than drag down nearby apartments, which right now are greatly hurt by the appalling condition of the present structure. Folks keep saying that there isn't demand for all these apartments, even while all the new apartments downtown fill up (typically *without* tax abatements) at high prices. Folks want to move to New Haven if given the right building.

And, the Hooker school won't be built there. The parents are in complete opposition to a school on a former industrial site at the margins of the neighborhood. Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: ? | December 12, 2006 2:40 PM

I would disagree with the statement that there is plenty of retail space on State ST.
State ST in nearly occupied with successful businesses and could use the opportunity to expand.
More renters will help grow our tax base and retail income.
This is not a site for a school.(Though I see the convenience of the rink and fields...which both by the way are saturated with users)
The schools new location is absolutely ideal for the the greater whole of the city.

Posted by: pro-development AND pro-honesty | December 12, 2006 4:19 PM

The community has been very supportive of this project but, unfortunately, has been jerked around by the local development team. The developer is seeking a use variance as well as a tax abatement. In other words, they are seeking quantifiable benefits from the public and the public has a right to ask a few simple things in return. For example, the public has a right to demand that the new development doesn't jeopardize the quality of life of local homeowners and residents and that the development doesn't jeopardize the ability of local restaurants and businesses to attract patrons who require parking. Throughout the process the developers have threatened that any small concession on their part will jeopardize the future of the project. And it's become impossible for a reasonable concerned citizen to know when the developer is being earnest and when the developer is simply crying wolf. If the developers would spend less time loudly gossiping about the mayor, their local alderperson, the BZA, and New Haven Register reporters in a cozy coffee shop half a block from city hall (yeah, we're not dealing with Mensa members here) and more time understanding their own internal financing structure and needs and honestly sharing those needs with the community, everyone might benefit.

Posted by: Roland Lemar | December 12, 2006 4:37 PM

To be fair, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved every component of the developers plan, minus a few units, and the "cap" that the BZA placed on the developer was essentially EXACTLY what the developer had submitted in their plans. Blaming the BZA for enforcing the plans that the developer had submitted is not a reasonable position to take. If this project is unfeasible because of the bedroom cap, then the project that the developers themselves submitted was, in fact, unfeasible to start with.

Everyone who worked with this team to move this proposal forward is excited about the prospect of this type of development occurring on State Street and we will ALL continue to work with the team to ensure that their development can progress in a way that is both beneficial to the development team and to the surrounding community.

A project like this could be an incredible opportunity for the neighborhood as it would add vibrancy to State Street, remove a blighted eyesore from a prominent location, exhibit a tremendous investment in our community and illustrate how New Haven can work to bring about innovative, mixed-use and community friendly developments to formerly derelict and outdated industrial buildings. The City, the BZA and the community have each worked hard to make sure that this development advances, and they each will continue to do so to ensure that a well conceived and well developed project arises on this location.
Any attempt to blame the BZA for placing conditions on this approval is inappropriate and exhibits a naivity about the project as submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Posted by: ROBN | December 14, 2006 4:36 PM

"The public realm has two crucial roles in our collective existence. First, it is the physical manifestation of the common good. Second, is literally the dwelling place of civic life. And so if you fail to design the public realm with deliberate artistry, and by so doing degrade and dishonor the public realm by turning it into a uniform automobile slum simply to accommodate x-number of cars, you will automatically degrade the quality of civic life and the public's collective ability to conceive of a common good beyond incessant motoring."
James Howard Kunstler
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/45418/

Posted by: laura | January 6, 2007 12:20 AM

I feel I must respond to the comment made about putting Worthington Hooker School on this site. As a former student who loved the elementary school and the middle school to a lesser extent (mostly because of the building) I feel involved in this issue. I'm now in high school at Wilbur Cross, and having both the elementary school and middle school within walking distance would be wonderful! I know that many others would like to visit the school.
The Whitney Avenue site is the best for many reasons. First of all, it is close to the Elementary school, which would make logistics for its many traditions (international day, revels, the opera, etc.) simpler. The children from both schools would be just a short walk away from eachother. In addition, both schools are a stones throw away from East Rock Park and Wilbur Cross High School's fields. This lack of fields has always been a problem. However, between those two locations the schools would have plenty of space for soccer games, basketball, football, and most any other sport. In the case of the park, having an ongoing presence of a large group of people would help to keep crime down in the park during the daylight hours. The park is also a vast resource for learning, especially science classes. I fondly remember taking nature walks with "Ranger Dan" during elementary school.
All in all, my point is that people (mainly that small group of Everret Street neighbors) needs to stop being selfish and thing about the children. In my opinion, shared by many others, these people are racist, they don't want Hooker's diverse population in their backyard. All the nonsense about traffic is ridiculous. Hooker is a neighborhood school, which means that most of the kids who attend can walk to school! That is the whole point of keeping it in the neighborhood. As a side comment, State Street IS NOT in the East Rock neighborhood, and is quite a walk from the Elementary school.