New Haven Independent

Posted by: pat | February 13, 2007 8:20 PM

We hoped that the winner would bring a project to New Haven that would have the correct scale. This is
not New York but a small walkable city and the winner brings us another building that will be demolished down the road(just like the Coliseum). Please reconsider before embarking on this.

Posted by: charles | February 13, 2007 10:17 PM

Anything's better than a parking lot - but let's make sure that the Unions don't ruin the development this time, like they did with the Cancer Center (postponing it by a year and costing the city hundreds of millions of dollars in the process). Aldermen should put pressure on the Mayor and the developer to make sure that the development gets started ASAP. Remember, that increase in the grand list is the equivalent of more than a million dollars in new revenue each month for the city.

Posted by: Esbe | February 13, 2007 10:59 PM

I am very much in favor of increased housing density downtown, and having an experienced and well-financed developer is great, but I have a few hopes / concerns / questions about this project.

• -- How will the project feel/look at the street level?
  
• -- Relatedly, what retail will be featured? If it really turns out to be Trader Joe's, then that is a huge thing for folks downtown.
  
• -- Given the number of bidders, there had better not be any property tax forgiveness!
  
• -- How do other downtown apartment developers feel about this large number of apartments hitting the market all at once? Will this kill off any other planned project?
  
• -- Is there some sort of guaranteee (a bond?) to be sure that the project actually gets built?
  

Done right, this could be very exciting.

Posted by: correction | February 14, 2007 12:37 AM

Charles,

Typically it takes almost seven years for the city to realize any significant increase in revenue, and that's only if the city deferral plan is used. Many times, like the Connecticut Financial Center, next to City Hall, the taxes are abated for years. Just check on how much taxes the Financial Center has to pay.

Posted by: jsedam | February 14, 2007 9:17 AM

What I don't understand is why this scheme was chosen, when they are simply going to throw out the design and open it up to community design charrettes. There must be some monetary or scheming reason why becker and becker's scheme was selected, if it's simply going to be thrown out and restarted from scratch. In my opinion nothing about this design is redeeming and would not contribute to the rebirth of lower chapel street.

Posted by: charles | February 14, 2007 9:22 AM

Actually, I know how much it pays. I'm saying that the Unions are going to kill this project, just like they killed a number of others throughout the city. Did you notice that the winning proposal was backed by a Union pension fund? No surprise there. Wait until you see what proposal comes out of this - it's going to be significantly worse because they're going to have to end up paying union wages, which will double the cost of the project. Once again, the unions (who mostly don't even live in New Haven) have the power, not the people of New Haven who need tax revenue from the private sector.

Posted by: Esbe | February 14, 2007 10:29 AM

So, the inside of the Register story today suggests an 18 story tower, which is only a little more than half the height of the original suggestion and inline with other city towers and with the condo tower suggested for College and Crown. Now we need to see that they work on the street-level feel of the place.

Also: to "Correction," the city doesn't have to offer any tax deferral at all -- didn't the tax money from Ikea start flowing right away? On the other hand, I don't believe Charlie's $1 million a month estimate of the taxes, even at the original size. 400 apartments at an extremely high $10,000 in per year taxes is "only" $4 million per year, yes? (and the real number would be much less than that)

Posted by: Kevin | February 14, 2007 12:49 PM

In adition to ESBE's questions, I wonder where all of the residents/shoppers will park, and what impact the removal of the lot will have on the dowtown parking crunch.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 14, 2007 1:45 PM

uggg I have to say something. I will keep it lite :)
First thank you PAT!!! I could not agree more, this kind of building is not right for New Haven!! There were 2 bids that were perfect for this spot and for New Haven! I bet this baby will be our citys next big nighmare now! Wrong choice people. This city dumbed all that money into re-doing the store fronts and bringing back a certian kind of charm to downtown and now they are going to put this up!
This was a big choice for this city and the direction we want to see it go.
Do we want it to go in a New York direction or a Boston direction.
I would of liked to of seen it go the Boston style and way.
Hmmm wonder why they choose it hmmm union backing maybe?
I will repeat ohh what a tangled web we weave....

Posted by: charles | February 14, 2007 1:53 PM

There's no reason why $1M per month (or $10M per year) is out of the question. With a development of 500,000SF, that would work out to $2/SF/Year. So a 1,000SF apartment would pay $2,000 per year in taxes. The 25,000SF of retail space would pay $50,000/Year in taxes. That's nothing. As a comparison, look at the IKEA tax revenue/SF figures - and IKEA isn't even really downtown. Once again, the Unions are going to keep this from happening, of course - they'll drive up the construction cost until it is unfeasible. Look for nothing to happen at that site until 2012 at the earliest.

Posted by: charles | February 14, 2007 1:54 PM

There's no reason why $1M per month (or $10M per year) is out of the question. With a development of 500,000SF, that would work out to $2/SF/month. So a 1,000SF condo would pay $20,000 per year in taxes. The 25,000SF of retail space would pay $50,000/month in taxes. That's not too bad. As a comparison, look at the IKEA tax revenue/SF figures - and IKEA isn't even really downtown. Once again, the Unions are going to keep this from happening, of course - they'll drive up the construction cost until it is unfeasible. Look for nothing to happen at that site until 2012 at the earliest.

Posted by: charles | February 14, 2007 2:07 PM

ESBE, there would be more to the development than 400 apartments. There would be lots of offices, retail, for-profit parking, etc., as well, which could provide additional tax revenue.

Posted by: Paul Wessel | February 14, 2007 2:11 PM

Based on public reports on this project, the City appears to have selected a developer with a history of interesting projects. The developer seems to have good ideas and, importantly, the ability to realize them. See information on them at http://www.beckerandbecker.com/portfolio/.

Posted by: patches | February 14, 2007 2:50 PM

If the award was made for a 30+ floor tower but it is now 18+ floors, shouldn't we have the redesign now compared to all the original designs? It is not fair to the original architects to change the design- radically- after the award was made. Or am I missing something here? This is now a different submission!

Posted by: Esbe | February 14, 2007 7:21 PM

Charles -- I was convinced by your math for a moment, but $2/sqft x 500,000 sqft = $1,000,000, not $10 million (am I missing something?) I think that you are correct that taxes will actually be higher than $2/sqft, but I have trouble getting to $12,000,000 a year. Still, I agree that there there is a lot of tax money here.

Throw in a Trader Joe's, a somewhat scaled down size and more attention to the street front, and I will be happy. If there is union money behind it, well, then maybe it will actually get built.

Posted by: cedar hill resident | February 14, 2007 7:23 PM

Patches I agree! If all the groups that bid on this project were told what the city wanted and changed there designs they could of all won the bid!

What about the Newman's Design and the C.A. White Design. They were fitting to the city. They offered simalar property use and parking!
CA Whites offered mini streets that would lead people to a courtyard in the middle of the block with cafes overlooked by balconies, how beautful a feature is that! And a hotel and parking.

Posted by: charles | February 14, 2007 8:26 PM

ESBE, the $1m/month would be the upper limit of revenue, if the project were successful, incorporated not just residences (but also high-end office space, parking, retail etc) and assessed at the correct value. However even if tax revenue did not approach that ballpark figure, the spillover effect of a new development like that - in terms of the # of other tax-paying businesses it would support - would easily top that. If this thing isn't stalled by labor union politics, the result could include a much quicker build-out of downtown which could include new buildings that lift a major portion of the tax burden on the rest of us. That's why the project should move forward ASAP, with or without the mostly-suburbanite Unions!

Posted by: Kate | February 15, 2007 12:54 PM

Paul, I don't know if you actually looked at the Becker and Becker site, but from the information they provide about their projects I see nothing that gives me confidence that they could build this type of structure. Nor does it appear they have experience building in New Haven. A toy shop and a garden center, come on! Who picked these guys!

Posted by: Esbe | February 15, 2007 2:15 PM

Umm, Kate, on the Becker and Becker site you somehow missed, for example, the 500 apartment, $100,000,000 project at

http://www.beckerandbecker.com/portfolio/mixed-use/theoctagon.php

which happens to be similar in size and cost to the project here. I can think of good reasons to favor the local developers, but I don't think that your "toy store" argument is one of them ...

Posted by: jsedam | February 15, 2007 2:25 PM

Who picked these guys is right! Of the 8 or 9 schemes proposed, this is the one that makes the least sense for New Haven---it's just a bad design. One story retail shops on Chapel Street with a park on top! (Do the designers know the site is one block from the Green, and a couple of blocks from Wooster Square??) An anonymous, yet very large tower (Woody Allen's line about a restaurant whose "food is so bad and the portions so small" comes to mind . . .) that contributes nothing to the street, and has nothing to do with the scale and character of Chapel Street? The administration can't really care so little about the City, can they? Or do they just want to blow up another building in 40 years? This is a problem with an administration with so little self-esteem that they're willing to let unions make decisions about the urban growth and future of New Haven.

Posted by: Ned | February 15, 2007 2:34 PM

Something that seems in desperate need of a solution is the chokehold that parking/traffic concerns have on development in New Haven. The city can be made to function well for cars or pedestrians, but not for both; right now, it seems, to me, that cars appear to be given a much greater preference over people. Are there any plans to develop a decent transit system to serve/defragment the city and its residents? In addition, the misallocation of land resources to building car warehouses, aka, parking lots/garages starts to appear a little irrational when one starts to contemplate a few thousand new residents all needing square footage to store their vehicles at the expense of basic aesthetics, yards, trees, clean air, and otherwise more productive urban land. What kind of wind tunnel and shade is an eighteen story tower going to project onto the surrounding area? Might New Haven be better off remaining a low rise, but filled in, low traffic city, rather than a high rise massive parking garage city?

Posted by: cedar hill resident | February 15, 2007 6:42 PM

I think the ethics pledge needs to be reviewed with this choice!!! Who's friend got this?? The union hmm I am sure the other bids had enough financial backing! Please try to use the word UNION to make us think that the choice was a good one!! Please..... give the people of New Haven more credit than that!! We are about to get a lemon a GIANT LIABILITY and we were worried about filling up Science park!! Didn’t one of the bids offer under ground parking??? This way it was not an eye sore but there was parking for the place?? This city has become a very community orientated city. This monster of a building screams mistake!! I realize affordable housing is an issue in this city but a bunch of high price condos downtown is tax revenue which many help to lower taxes so that the surrounding areas can become affordable. There is very little in town housing that is affordable. A bunch of retail shops instead of a few at the bottom of a high rise says even more revenue. One trader joes will not pull it off a lot of smaller shops will. Sorry I may be an average person but even I can see the loss this thing is going to bring!

Posted by: cedar hill resident | February 16, 2007 4:28 PM

Lynne,
I have lived in New Haven all my life,growing up on Wooster St. to were I am now, in the Cedar Hill Area.I wanted an affordable place in New Haven so I moved to a semi bad area knowing that I had the love of this city to make a change for the better in my area (which I have been doing).
When dealing with downtown residents there are several recurring complaints, which are parking, and not affordable housing but that there are no condo’s in the downtown area for sale. Now I realize people like me want more affordable places to live in New Haven, but the reality to that happening in the downtown area with the changing staues of the people that are moving in is not going to happen. You have people that want to own not rent. Even if the good intentions of this building is to provide affordable housing, the reality is they will not be affordable by the time they are done. They will be high cost apartments for the commuters from NY. But if you were to focus on turning this small corner of the city into a revenue making corner. A corner were the taxes payed to the city were able to lower the surrounding streets of downtown into more affordable places to live I personally think that many more people in the city could benefit than the few that would live in this structure.
When the city puts so much focus on downtown the reality is all yes all of the surrounding areas are being neglected!! We see this happening already. All the city resources are being used in the downtown area and the communities around the city are getting less and less help but we are tax payers to. But my main complaints on this building is that it just destroy the beauty of the area the history of this city the history that give this great city a name.
And from your post I see that you do not shop in the stores downtown were I do. There are a lot of great stores downtown for clothing and many other needs. But I guess a trader joe is what we all need?? Hmmm I go to the grocers out side of town because I am a penny pincher and I drive around to save a buck but if I did not have to reality is that New Haven does have the stores that are needed. I no many people that do not have cars and manage fine with the stores the city already have to offer.I can count 4 main grocery stores not including the smaller ones.
And if you took the time to look at the half a dozen bids that were submitted, a lot of them had more to offer than the one that was chosen. Remember small shops does not always mean bars and boutiques this corner could of been a self sustaining area of downtown if done right. Unfortunately for all of us I do not see that happening with the present choose of design.

Posted by: pdh | February 16, 2007 5:12 PM

No sooner has the dust settled from the demolition of the Coliseum (leaving the taxpayers with the continuing burden of bond payments for years to come) than the City comes up with a new folly!

When will we learn that virtually any project that the corrupt leaders of this one-party town sets their hands is bound to be a financial disaster for the public -- & a windfall to politically connected insiders!

How many failed malls, civic centers, and bankrupt tax-subsidized enterprises will it take before the public learns to say NO to our peculiar form of state capitalism!

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 19, 2007 10:14 AM

Lynne, I see your point and I deal with 100's of in town residents daily and have more than just a personal attachment to this project but reality is that one trader joes should not and will not benifit this city as a whole. I have no problem with a trader joe's. I just think that the choice on so many other levels was a very bad one. I am speaking as a resident here and I feel that this project with this choice will not benifit the city in the long run.

Posted by: charlie | March 13, 2007 2:35 PM

Even better than a TJ's would be convincing Limon (the large new gourmet market up State St.) to open a second location on this site.