New Haven Independent

Posted by: charles | February 5, 2007 9:05 AM

Yet another example of neighborhood activists killing a project that would have been beneficial to everyone. Parking problems? Right. If anything, density on the site should have been upped, and parking decreased, in order to make the area more walkable and accommodate more people. I hope they're able to find a developer after all of their petty shenanigans. Look for a Walgreen's ribbon cutting by '08.

Posted by: Ned | February 5, 2007 10:39 AM

Death by a thousand cuts. "The developing duo, who in the past bent over backwards to be available to neighbors and the press" Maybe they should have bent over forward so the helpful "neighbors" could have screwed them easier. Perhaps if the developers were allowed to proceed without the "affordable" units and the parking demands, or with greater density the project might have been economically feasible. Maybe the project was never economically feasible, but having multiple parties, with no economic interests at, stake meddling with the developers doesn't seem like a great way to encourage investment in New Haven. Meanwhile, the existing housing stock continues to degrade at the hands of absentee slumlord/investors, as evidenced by a number of blighted and negelected buildings on Willow St. (and vicinity), as well as an abandoned building on the corner of Willow and State Street. Oh, and by the way, why aren't the "neighbors" putting their two cents into the small condo development, which apparently escaped their scrutiny, on Foster St., between Willow and Canner Streets? best rush right over there and start making demands for a community center, public housing, parking lots, community "grants", etc. before it's too late!

Posted by: still say | February 5, 2007 10:56 AM

I still say that is the location to raze the buildings, and develop a school. Then the fields can serve Cross, East Rock and the new school. School buses clog the roads anyway. We don't need more residential jammed in there

Posted by: Live right near this | February 5, 2007 2:48 PM

So teh neighborhood's concerns, which were ultimately all accepted by the developer as positive additions, made the whole Christie-Wareck company fall apart? You commenters are idiots? I wish that the process that happened here happened everywhere across the city - the whole process played out exactly the way it should, developer and neighborhood coming together to support the project, but I quess you guys weren't paying attention to the actuality of the situation, only the pres.. What killed this project was the death of the company, not the neighborhoods concerns.

and a school on this site? Only if youv'e got an extra $50million to clean up the land. A school would never fly here. The only reason they could pull of their development as is was because they could avoid breaking ground in some of the worst, most environmentally damaged areas.

That's the problem with some of you guys, you don't know anything, you just like to be cranks.

Posted by: Kevin | February 5, 2007 8:28 PM

In response to Ned's comment, the project had an affordable housing component from day one that was based on the funding that the developers had arranged, rather than any "demands" by the neighbors. At the three neighborhood meetings and ZBA hearing I attended, I did not hear anyone express any concerns regarding affordanble housing.

Posted by: Still say | February 5, 2007 9:14 PM

Live right near this.

You make great points. I happen to live right near this also. If the site is that contaminated it is not usable at all for any reason. No, you can't put residential there. Just remember what happened in Newhallville and Hamden by the middle school.

The city is spending millions on polluted land on River Street whicih is stupid. however the state is to aid in clean up(ha ha). Most likely that will never happen. The city is spending millions to build a school on Water St. which has no benefit at all, no access, no parking and no facilities.

Blake field has been a great park to me for over fifty years. We hated it when the East Rock school led to the destruction of many homes and businesses in this neighborhood.

But if you look at that space you have an opportunity to create a campus setting and help all the kids that require top educational opportunities, and a state of the art situation.

It also ends the Whitney Avenue nightmare as well. In fact, the peopele on Nash Street could benefit since the buses could be rerouted off State Street to the lot. Ask anyone that lives on the block across from the school and they will tell you how adverse the school buses are in the morning and afternoon.

Also, there would be enough space to include art space and after school programs, both educational and athletic, thus giving the opportunity for the kids to get exposure and supervision they need. Heard about any shooting lately. Heard the kids say they need somethng to do?

You must know a little about site clean-up. I would love to see the environmental test that you cite, since you have a cost you must have a phase 1, 2 and 3. That's a big investment, who did it?

Also if the site is so contaminated no one should buy it. By Ct General Statutes The liability stays with the former owner to clean it unless sold then the buyer would accept the liability. Have you notified DEP? Star Supply is at 100 Gando Dr. and you can certain speak to an attorney to have you and your neighbors file suit to hold them accountable. You should also let the selling agent know so it is disclosed. I can only hope a prospective buyer reads this. By the way I happen to know alot about this topic, and have been successful in Detroit and Baltimore.

Posted by: Ned | February 5, 2007 9:39 PM

"I wish that the process that happened here happened everywhere across the city" The end result doesn't seem to result in much happening anywhere, but maybe that explains something about the economics and politics of development in New Haven?

Posted by: Ben Berkowitz | February 5, 2007 10:51 PM

Charles,
Don't believe the Walgreens hype...It's an empty threat.
Did you read the article? This clearly has nothing to do with East Rock resentment for the project.
I think I speak for the majority of East Rockers when I say that any developer with a similar proposal and a successful strategy for implementation would be welcomed. The real problem is that the latter was non-existent in this case(and East Rock was willing to go along regardless.)
I agree that Christie Wareck had a great plan, I also agree that the current housing market proves risky for this type of development, but I will never agree that the evident failure of this project had anything to do with East Rockers opinions of what should or shouldn't happen in their neighborhood.
I personally would love to see the same plan implemented with housing affordable to recent Grads and Young professionals who don't make the upscale downtown condo market salary.
Though I know nothing about the costs of the project, I do think it would work as the population in this part of East Rock clearly fills this demographic.
New Haven needs a housing market that allows for the newly employed to invest themselves in the city by investing their money in a New Haven home.
News Flash: There aren't many Wall Street suits walking around New Haven, but their are a ton of well educated people who know a good investment when they see it.

This is a property on the edge of East Rock near the highway, there's no reason why the prices need to be a reflection of East Rock's top dollar.
Hopefully another developer sees the sweetness in this deal before the property sits vacant for a couple of years...a much greater likelihood in New Haven than a Walgreens.

Posted by: Live rihght near this | February 5, 2007 11:14 PM

Ned - Don't be a dumbass-clearly I was referencing the the process that led to the developers approval, not the infighting between the developers that led to their self-destruction. ned, you really are an idiot if you saw my comments as anything other than that. Did you actually read the above article that clearly outlined the situation or are you such a hater that you just want to blame people other than those at fault?

As far as cleanup, the developers choose a convuleted site design in order to get around the contaiminated soil - capping the bad stuff with tar and surface parking and locating the residentialin the "good" prts of the site. The developers, from what I heard from the local alderman, did do some site testing, but I'm not sure to what level, but he confirmed that the soil conditions did play a part in the layout of the site. A school, with its related requirements, will never be built here and shoudn't be - though the new Hooker site is also less that ideal, at least it arised froma democratic process.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 6, 2007 9:54 AM

I am sure people are already looking at it.

Posted by: still say | February 6, 2007 11:32 AM

Has anyone even been in this building? I have many times. I disagree with the idea that an alderman has seen environmentals. The buildings have all concrete floors and core samples would have to be drilled to check for contaminants in many areas. The bottom line is...if the site in contaminated, get the evidence and have Star Supply clean it up. It's their responsibility by law. Why should New Haven, or the State for that matter have to do a clean up. Another question...how can all the utilities be run, namely sewer, water, gas and electric, if the soild can't be disturbed? You can't just cap contaminated land and put residential or any use on it. Let's see the alders address this first and foremost. Heck, State law requires that environmentals be done when a use changes from, and the law mentions this use, a dry cleaning business to residential. However, I believe the alder you are referring to let a dry cleaner on Willow St be converted with no testing. When city plan was asked about it. They said oh gee how did we miss that

Posted by: Live right near this | February 6, 2007 3:26 PM

Still say - I got confirmation from both Alders Mattison and Lemar that at the very least Phase I environmentals were done on the site and that the reason the site plan was so poor was because "capping in place is, unfortunately, a legitimate management plan for this type of soil contamination" or so says Alderman Lemar. I remember Alderman Mattison telling us at a community meeting that for some reason, Star Supply is exempt from the cleanup and the added cost that the developers have to face is because the soil is fine for the use that is currently allowed on the site. It is the developers choice to change uses, so therefore, in CT they are responsible for the cleanup costs, though CTDECD often gives grants to help clean up these sites. Regardless, to qoute alderman Lamar again, " I doubt that either the city or the state want to spend the type of money neccessary to make this site suitable for a school"
Both Alderman Mattison and Lamar seem like reasonable and honest people and I doubt they would need to lie about the status of the site contamination.

And I doubt you even know what your talking about anyway - alderman dont "allow" anything to be converted - the Zoning Board of Appeals does and a zoning compliance officer would have to sign off on that use, so, no,no alderman did what you said.

Posted by: Anstress Farwell, New Haven Urban Design League | February 6, 2007 4:07 PM

The Phase 1-3 Environmental Reports are on file at the City Plan Department. City Plan staff reviewed these reports when discussing the project with Christie Wareck Co. and in formulating their recommendations to the BZA. The site plan was developed to deal with the specific contamination issues at the site. The Phase 3 report found that the site was suitable for residential and commercial use. The League joined the Management Team in supporting the project in main. The adjustments to the plan that neighborhood, the city, and our organization advocated were ones that could be readily addressed in the next and last steps of the review process. Whether or not the the Christie Wareck Co. pursues this project, it is important to recognize their leadership in creating a plan that incorporated significant historic buildings in a mixed use plan that had the potential of enhancing the neighborhood and the park. The public process thus far has helped all concerned parties appreciate the site's great capacity for adaptive reuse.

Posted by: Bob Frew | February 6, 2007 6:51 PM

When the land costs are high the risks are also high. At 3M with a 60 unit (which is the density of the neighborhood) condo the land cost per unit would be 50,000. Traditionally land cost should not be more than 10%, the condos would have to sell for 500,000. the numbers just dont work. The city bought a site on whitney for 1.5M, which is ideal for high density housing and could return a reasonable profit for a developer. The Star Supply site will not move until the land cost is substantially reduced.

Posted by: charles | February 7, 2007 6:16 AM

Bob, the density should be increased to make this project feasible. High rise towers would be the best bet here.

Is the city serious about creating a walkable, high density environment (more residents = greater concentration of services, such as more frequent buses and better retail options) or is it just another NIMBY-driven suburb?

The restrictions on building density at this site, which is right on a major road, are absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by: Live right near this | February 7, 2007 3:15 PM

Charles- Again, you prove you don't know what you are talking about an just post random thoughts without understanding the issue at all. There are no restrictions for the density on this site. The restrictions were on the bedroom count because the developers refused to provide the board with the neccessary details and the board essentially just approved what the developers submitted. It was then when the developers tried to blame the BZA for upholding a standard that the developers themselves had submitted. The reason the board did this was because they and the neighborhood were concerned about a 300 bedroom development bringing with it hundreds of cars that were going to park in the surrounding neighborhood.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 7, 2007 3:51 PM

Charles
This city does not need anymore ugly high rise buildings. We are killing the architectural beauty of this city something that brings people here is slowly disappearing. Look at bridgport trying to undo that same ugliness that there city suffered from all because they thought it would bring in more money; that was short lived and ended up costing them in the end. To reuse the building that is there, a beautiful BRICK building would be an asset to the area. To preserve the charm of New Haven. A high rise will only ruin that area and those that live there know that. NO MORE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS!
but I do understand that you are looking at if there is a large group of consumers in that small area it will bring in larger retail businesses. Right. But at what cost. The destruction of a beautiful place?? We are finally at a turning point were the downtown store fronts are looking the way they use to that old world look and charm. Imagen putting some ugly sky scraper there! That would be awful.

But I guess there are 2 sides to the coin and both have there pluses and minus. But I would hope that the city was wiser than that. I know the people of New Haven are and that the people are not afraid to fight anymore we are on a role. There are people out there that will suck up this property now that some of the ground work has been laid out.

Posted by: charles | February 7, 2007 9:23 PM

"the neighborhood were concerned about a 300 bedroom development bringing with it hundreds of cars that were going to park in the surrounding neighborhood."

Doesn't "the neighborhood" recognize that there is more to the life of the city than parking? In fact, I think "the neighborhood" you are talking about is actually just a few people who are noisier than the rest. The reason for that is because the rest of the city - i.e., the other 130,000+ people who pay taxes to the town of New Haven - would be much happier to see a high density development there, given the number of new jobs and increased viability of urban mass transit and urban life that would be provided by something that didn't have a petty artificial limit on the number of bedrooms.

Posted by: Live right near this | February 8, 2007 8:38 AM

Charles- That "artificial limit" was exactly what the developer's plans asked for and presented to the neighborhood. Maybe if they had asked for more and presented more, they would have gotten more. But they were shady and would never answer specific questions about the number of bedrooms they were looking to construct, so the BZA held them to their submitted plans. If these developers had been more up front with their plans and shown how to accomodate parking, they would have given them what they wanted - the Economic Development people, the local alderman and the local community all loved this project and wanted it to succeed, the developer just kept getting in her own way.

Posted by: James | February 8, 2007 4:57 PM

Just a comment on the notion of holding Star Supply responsible for the contamination. This is an old old industrial property (a previous Independent article stated that it the building was built in 1875 and first used as a commercial laundry). It likely had many different industrial occupants over the years. The mere fact that Star Supply was the most recent occupant does not mean that they are responsible for the cleanup. Further, in many cases, properties in New Haven are contaminated not by any current or prior occupants, but by polluted fill material placed before any buildings were even built.

As "Live Right Near This" says above, it may well be that the site contamination exceeds residential cleanup criteria but not industrial/commercial criteria. So any requirement for a "cleanup" would only arise from a buyer who wanted to convert the site to residential use.

Posted by: Ron | February 8, 2007 5:15 PM

Charles,

I live on Nash and have to hunt for a parking space every day along with the other residents of Nash St. Mechanic St is almost as bad for parking. If you want high density housing lets build a 50 story apartment buiding and put it on your street. Don't worry about parking the people that will want to live there don't need or want cars. They'll simply fly to wherever they wish to go. The developer in all of their meetings never asked for a 300 bedroom project. They said , in every one of their meetings with the neighborhood that their architectural drawings were exactly what they proposed. They weren't interested in changing anything. And the BZA took them at their word. They were given what they asked for and then they discovered they didn't have the ability to get the project done. That had nothing to do with the neighborhood and everything to do with a bad partnership.

Posted by: Ned | February 9, 2007 12:03 PM

After a private chastisment and some thought, I need to apologize for my ignorant and ill considered comments regarding the people, from the community, who expressed their concerns and aired their views, regarding the Star Supply development. Please accept my sincere apology.