New Haven Independent

Posted by: Yair | September 7, 2007 2:19 PM

I completely disagree with you about the Shartenberg deal. First, the bugaboo of a "Hartford-style tower" versus street-level urbanism: This is a RESIDENTIAL tower, and if the apartments sell it will put many people on the street. You can't have street-level urbanism without plenty of pedestrians. Moreover, the street-level part of the plan has a grocery store and other retail. What's wrong with that? You want to make New Haven prosper by slowly adding 3-story buildings? Good luck. A city needs density at its core.

Second, the two valuations, and what the site is "really" worth: who's to say the second, higher, valuation is the correct one? In your previous article you said it changed because it included a comparison with the College street project, but that project is STALLED. How much is it worth? Moreover, we are talking about a difference of a few million dollars whereas the project itself is 160 million. If it's easy to bring 160 million dollar projects into the city without paying a few percentage points somewhere, why aren't there ten of them?

I don't have an opinion on whether Kelly Murphy is competent or not, but I really see nothing wrong with this deal for the city.

Posted by: nfjanette | September 7, 2007 4:31 PM

Paul is "right on the money" - pun intended - with his analysis of the poor handling of this deal. And what a deal it is for the developer: not only have they managed to change the proposal to better suit themselves after the design competition, but the city either deliberately or incompetently delayed the second valuation report until the last minute possible. How convenient.

It's easy to sling around the claim of the deal being worth 160 million dollars "for New Haven". Supporters of this crooked deal should be sure to follow that money over the years to both see if ever comes close to that amount and into which pockets it goes, all to fund a 31-story modern urban wart that will loom over downtown.

Posted by: Yair | September 7, 2007 5:10 PM

Why is it an urban wart? What in the world is wrong with a building that has many apartments in it, and shopping on the ground level? The coliseum was a wart (maybe wart is too weak a term). Macy's was a wart. They tended to kill the street life and didn't bring enough people in to the city.

The only worry I can think of is that the apartments will lie empty or turn into slums. But if that is all that can happen to an apartment building in the city, we're doomed anyway. I don't think it's the case.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 7, 2007 8:09 PM

I can't make comments on somethings said "conflict of interest" as they say but I can say that the last comment made in todays compost is well said!!! My ward has to wait till the elections we have no primary this year but I am hoping that the other wards make some changes... knock on doors and talk to your community and let them know the issues.. you would be surprised how many don't come out and vote because they don't understand how important this primary is!! And the ones we want out are counting on this. We have to be part of the change... go out and talk this weekend to all your neighbors!!

Posted by: Esbe | September 8, 2007 8:59 PM

Paul, you refer to "new urbanism" and "unsubsidized development", but much or most of the development you refer to was subsidized. Almost all of the original 9th Square rebuilding was very, very heavily subsidized, much more than Shartenberg. The recent Centre Pointe building diagonally across from the Green was heavily subsidized, much more than Shartenberg. Much of the retail/restaurant development in downtown is effectively heavily subsidized by Yale. A good number of renovations of older buildings into apartments were done without city subsidies, but those rental developments generate giant federal tax credits that aren't available to the developers of new projects and the cheap old buildings are mostly gone.

Also, unlike city projects those private buildings were free to use cheap labor and low-cost construction -- in one case illegal immigrants pulled out asbestos without any protections, a serious crime. The Johnson-Simmons Condo building went up without city subsidies, and appears to be a financial failure. The "Landino" condo project that figures in the new assessment on Shartenberg may not be financially viable after all, so is that a good reference price? Also, Landino is free to simply not build anything for years and years while waiting for the market to improve.

Before you finish your book on New Haven and New Urbanism, you might want to get your facts straight. Also: the Upper West of NYC has tall buildings and is a collection of great urban neighborhoods; Jane Jacobs was smart but wasn't right about everything.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 9, 2007 7:59 PM

100% accurate. There are few dissenters or even questioners on the NH BOA -- they are more like boosters. A cheering squad designed to rubberstamp every idea proposed by the DeStefano administration. We currently are enjoying in the City of New Haven, some of the highest property taxes in the entire United States; the highest gas prices; near highest sales taxes; record borrowing; record endebtedness and declining schools. We have not had serious economic development in this city in years -- with the exception of real estate or service related development; we've lost nearly all of our manufacturing base. The number of homeowners is decreasing and city spending is making records.

Hello Houston -- err, New Haven. We have a problem. To solve it, we need thinkers, questioners and listeners. We don't need aldermen who are beholden to the DeStefano machine for their living; we don't need rubber stamp boosters. We need real democracy, debate and solutions. If you care about this city, it's time for change.

Posted by: joshua jones | September 10, 2007 8:20 AM

This is real easy. Yale got the Buyer factory in West Haven. They got they grads to develop Sartenmburg. They got they union to put up the cash. They got the state to put up a railroad depot in West Haven. Big subzidy for the rich to get to work on my union dues. Man, they are smart. An Destefano help them

Posted by: Paul Bass | September 10, 2007 8:41 AM

Esbe -- good points. Yes, those projects you mention were subsidized. And I didn't make the right distinction in my commentary between those projects and the store-by-store, house-by-house individual kind of "development" that I believe organically builds a city, without subsidy. Have we even replaced yet all the stores that were driven out of the Ninth Square.
I also agree with you that Jane Jacobs wasn't right about everything; but I think people who claim to be guided by her vision eventually get around to embracing density at any cost, and disposing of the valuable elements of her vision in the process. Growth for growth's sake takes on its own logic and ends up building in unanticipated costs, while compromising quality of life and the human-scale nature of a city. At least that's my view.
BTW, I don't have a book planned on new urbanism! There are plenty of folks in town who know more about it, including, it appears, you...

Posted by: Esbe | September 10, 2007 3:11 PM

Paul -- your reasoned response makes me feel guilty about being too heated in my prior post. To bad you aren't writing a book!

Truth is, I am a little nervous about the height at Shartenberg and I do think a number of good things have happened in New Haven precisely because in those cases no explicit city subsidies were available, and so folks experimented at relatively low cost. But I also know how much cheaper it is with new construction to "build up" and at least the current plan has relatively modest subsidies, a sort-of decent street wall and a first-floor grocery store -- very different than, say, the CT Financial Center or the Coliseum. And I don't think any of the other plans, several of which I greatly preferred esthetically, were viable with city-hall demanded wage rates but without large subsidies.

The "Union Pension" funding just cuts through New Haven politics in a way that other developers can't -- DeStefano pushed aside big local campaign contributors associated with the other plans, because this one was going to work. You link to today's Reg editorial on the difference between Shartenberg and YNH projects -- the difference is in the union backing / opposition.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | September 10, 2007 5:13 PM

Long ago unions could deliver. Once upon a time, Mike Sviridoff, sat in John Bailey's suite (filled with the smoke from Bailey's cigars) and participated in picking the state ticket. Mike was head of the AFL-CIO and the powerful UAW in Connecticut. Bailey respected his power to raise money and to deliver votes.

Today, the labor movement is a shadow of its 1960's glory. Maybe they helped DeStef in his disastrous campaign for governor. But they weren't effective. DeStef thinks he owes them! He should move away; they cannot deliver anymore.

John is so utterly wrong in opposing YNH because of Its fight with the unions and in supporting a stupid Shartenberg project because it's union backed.