New Haven Independent

Posted by: steveh0607 | July 26, 2007 10:21 AM

A few things: 1)The writer gives the impression that the developer made a commitment to provide a certain number of residential parking spaces, then changed their minds at the last minute in an attempt to go back on a some kind of promise. In fact the developer requested a certain number of spaces up front. There was no reduction in the number of spaces "promised". 2) The Shartenberg site was not declared a special exception. The Zoning Ordinace requires a Special Exception application for any parking reduction or Daycare request. a Special Exception is a catagory of use that is allowed but requires a closer look. The BZA did not confer any "special" status on the site or developer.

As to the merits of the proposal, it plays to the strengths of the city as regional center. In a world, and economy, that will become more regional and local as oil suppies become constrained in the years ahead, it makes sense to develop the downtown as a vibrant mixed-use place. It can be argued that a thirty-story tower may be out of character for New Haven by being too high, and that it may eventually cost too much to heat and electrify it, but the concentration of population and businesses in downtown cannot be anything but good for the health of the city and its position as a regional center.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | July 26, 2007 12:29 PM

The BZA is DeStefano's third arm, coming after the BOA and the BOE. What a surprise... They approved the deal with out ever seeing or reading a building analysis of need assessment, justifying the demand for 500 apartments and 631 cars.
After all they also approved in the blind, the high school on crown st. with about 250 cars, the Gateway college with appox. 1000 cars, the new coliseum which will need 500 to 700 cars.

What a wonderfull city we are developing... Choke..choke.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | July 27, 2007 10:26 AM

Chris Vigilante - environmental???? Pls pass along whatever you are smoking. lol...I've read your qoute about six times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. If we don't provide parking, people won't drive? If we have 500 apartments, only 333 of them will have cars? Webbloger is correct -- with developments requiring more than 2000 parking spaces in various stages of build out, cutting parking is not too smart or visionary. BZA - my bad. That's almost as dumb as putting the high school on Crown Street in the first place, next to bars and raucus nightclubs and Gateway at the entrance to the city.