New Haven Independent

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | March 28, 2008 12:25 PM

Paul, it's not just the City that's responsible for getting these cock-a-mamie projects built. Builders and developers never build with their own money. They have to get financing - usually institutional financing. That means they need to sell these projects to some financing institution willing and able to advance the money.

Banks need to do what's called "underwrite" the deal. To say the least, underwriting standards deteriorated substantially. That was one of the causes of the "real estate bubble." BUT, when enough projects fail, regulators force much more strict underwriting.

Regulators' increased rigor and supervision, plus a large inventory of completed properties from the bubble reduce availability of funds and the need for new projects. Developers "caught in the middle" with incomplete projects then: (1) try to change the design or use to something acceptable to the institutional financers; or (2) abandon the project.

You're right! New Haven doesn't need another "luxury" hotel. BUT you can't blame these guys for trying!

Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | March 28, 2008 12:30 PM

Was College Square "politically connected," or just willing to spend $7M to buy the site? If they bought it fair and square, they can do whatever they want with the site, right?

The whole argument will be sort of moot if they actually build their 4-star hotel, fill it with a few of the thousands of people who visit Yale every day, and pay millions of dollars in new taxes to the city starting next year (the revenue largely coming from people who might otherwise be staying in Trumbull). Like you said, not all new buildings are bad! I guess we'll see what happens, but I kind of doubt that they would throw tenants out if they didn't have some kind of plan to raise the density of uses that parcel.

Posted by: robn | March 28, 2008 8:10 PM

"goo goo liberals like in East Rock...."
(????)
Sounds like an interesting story...please elaborate....

Posted by: your off base | March 28, 2008 11:07 PM

Tk's was a dump coopers was a dump and the wine shop is still there just to let you know since your such a new havener. Even if they dont build anything it will be better then what was there.

Posted by: Those Goo Goo Liberals in East Rock | March 29, 2008 9:22 AM

Hey Robn - The Goo Goo Liberlas in East Rock who approved Shartenberg were Lemar and Mattison. Lemar argued for the deal to include an affordable housing component, a grocery store and to be LEED certified - in exchange, he voted for the deal that was almost entirely allowed "as of right"- Mattison wanted to sell the property for $1 because he thought that the tax revenue that it would genertate, in addition to the environmental concerns (which are now over $2.5 million in costs) plus the $4m parking deal that the city made a stupid deal on 20 years ago were worth giving up the $4.4 million in appraisad value for the property.

Posted by: William Doriss | March 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Hey Paul, Chris "Motor-Mouth" Matthews got nothin' on you. Otherwise, I like the video,... the beer bottles and the shovel. Those were the best parts. Say hi to your mayor, if that's what you want to call him.

Posted by: robn | March 30, 2008 2:33 PM

TGGLIER,

Hey bud, I'm no big fan of the Shartenberg process or its result...I'm just saying...the Shartenberg project was approved by an 18-8 BOA vote. Last time I checked, Roland Lemar and Ed Mattison didn't clone themselves 8 times each...so I guess there must be "goo goo liberals" elsewhere in the city. Likewise, I don't ususally hear the word "liberal" connected to crassly managed real estate/development projects...so I'm just looking for some elaboration here.

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/09/shartenberg_app.php

Posted by: Paul Bass | March 30, 2008 7:53 PM

Rob N: In 1989 I covered (for the old, paper-version Independent) deliberations over a thoroughly corrupt, inane, hopeless gumbo of corporate welfare called Washington Center. Looking back no reasonable person would believe a) it made any sense; or b) government had any right giving elected officials tax breaks on development projects in their own districts. At the time it barely passed, because two aldermen, sincere and smart people who didn't have their hands out, were talked into it by duped City Hall officials, partly by believing they won some important "concessions" that didn't change anything important. By coincidence, these two aldermen represented the same two East Rock wards as two of the aldermen who played a similar role in justifying the Shartenberg deal -- new faces, similar politics and integrity and smarts. I believe ultimately that liberals play the most damaging role in development in New Haven, though not for lack of good motives. It's been the case for close to 50 years.

Posted by: robn | March 30, 2008 10:01 PM

Paul,

Putting aside for a moment your implication that these two aldermen were/are the most liberal in the city (something I can neither confirm, nor deny, nor comprehend its relevance), it sounds like you're hanging the outcome of a better than 2/3 majority vote on two guys...a vote which, without their support, would have still been a 60% majority.

Like I wrote, I'm not happy about the process or outcome, but there only would have been a different outcome if these two aldermen plus 4 others had voted differently. Unless you can add four others to the "goo goo" list and describe how these six whored out their core principals, with all due respect to you, I don't think you've got a coherant story.

Posted by: Paul Bass | March 31, 2008 7:43 AM

Rob N -- I think what you say makes sense. My point was that in both cases -- 1989 with Washington Center, 2007 with Shartenberg -- idealistic liberals from wards 9 and 10 played crucial roles in the process. They were among the most involved in public discussion, had a lot of legitimacy because of their reputations for honesty and smarts, and in my view played influential roles with their colleagues. (There was actually a small group that swung the preposterous Washington Center plan after receiving what they considered important concessions, the kinds of last-minute minor changes that developers and city officials hold in abeyance to swing the goo-goos.)

Posted by: WestvilleMom | March 31, 2008 2:29 PM

Paul: I'm not an "insider" regarding the main gist of this story, but was intrigued with your comment, "I believe ultimately that liberals play the most damaging role in development in New Haven, though not for lack of good motives." I assume you are referring to the legacy of Mayor Lee, public housing projects a la liberal-think, along with other things. Could I ask you to clarify a bit by answering a question? Would you contend that the goo-goo elites (and I include Ralph Nader here who came to town to put his 2 cents in) accomplished an architectural coup (as well as an embellished tax base) by bringing us the uber-chic IKEA ugly big box store, as opposed to the plebian mall? I guess the broader question is this: With Yale here and one of the highest concentrations of architects anywhere, do you think the "powers-that-be" have lost sight of the "common man" in planning and have been basically using New Haven as a giant Legoland to turn their theories into reality?
Specifically, let's take "malls"---a generic term which has many variations. One of my favorite spots in DC is Union Station, which is a vibrant mix of mall, train station, tourist hub, etc. This is a model which works. Despite the disparaging views of New Haven's elites, malls are where the "common" people shop. I think the train station proposal (for example) is missing the boat because of anti-mall prejudice. Urban malls tend to work best when they connect one area to another, to encourage people to walk THROUGH them (Milwaukee comes to mind.). A well-designed (emphasis here) linear mall across the street from the train station could connect Union Station diagonally to Church Street and interconnect with (possibly) adjacent bus stations and tourist kiosks, as well as a (possible) trolley line, as previously discussed in the NHI.
Anyway, your comment piqued my interest. How many more people would come to New Haven (even from New York) if they could arrive via train to a vibrant, energetic marketplace with easy connections [walkable & bike-able, too, via Church St.] to downtown theaters, the Yale Bowl, the tennis center, tourist buses/trolleys, Yale (of course), Gateway C.C., and other not-yet-foreseen destinations? A lot of what I'm seeing coming out of the "liberal" planning process is just too "precious"...too much foie gras and not enough turkey, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: robn | March 31, 2008 11:11 PM

Wait a second!!!

Weren't the New Haven liberals the ones who were AGAINST foi gras??? Are planners really turkeys?

Now I'm really confused.

Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | April 1, 2008 9:17 AM

Great comment, Westville Mom. I am intrigued by your idea and think it generally aligns with some of what the City Plan department has been brainstorming about that area between Union Station and Church Street. Of course, it's all up in the air right now as the Route 34 development searches for a funding source. If you'd care to write something and post it on the Downtown blog linked above, we can keep the discussion going.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | April 1, 2008 9:21 AM

ROBN--sorry for the confusion....you're reading too much into my food metaphor. The intended implication was that "foie gras" would be the fancy bistros, expensive dress shops, and pricey theaters (I am NOT against theaters!) and "turkey" would be eateries, regular stores or department stores where you can buy necessary items like children's clothing, sneakers, etc.---you get the picture. My post was already too long, so I spoke in "shorthand" and wasn't very clear. As long as planners keep thinking "high end" and "trendy", their success will be limited, unless their goal is Rodeo Drive, and I don't think it is. (Have we really learned ANYTHING from Jane Jacobs?) I rarely shop in downtown New Haven any more, but did so regularly in the past. People who drive to Hamden, Orange and Milford to go to Macy's, Penney's, Pier 1 Imports, Bed, Bath & Beyond, etc. etc. would likely welcome a more interesting and stimulating shopping experience in New Haven if the merchandise were available here. But that brings us back to the reason the original mall failed and that was CRIME. .........And that's a whole OTHER story....................

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | April 1, 2008 10:31 AM

Where have you been Westville Mom?

The City subsidized Long Wharf Mall failed because Westfield, an Australian mega-mall developer with unlimited funds, owning Milford and Trumbull malls was willing to spend millions to pay lawyers to raise every single legal objection possible. And ultimately, because the City and the Long Wharf developers could not afford to maintain several expensive lawsuits, the cases were settled, and the central property sold to Ikea.

Since the settlement, Westfield has expanded its Milford Mall, closest to New Haven to multiples of the size it was at the time of the Long Wharf litigation.

You're whistling Dixie if you think there will be anything like a downtown mall here EVER. Maybe several small, sensitive developers who care more for beauty and long term property value enhancement like Yale and Joel Schiavone will rehab properties to bring in small boutiques. And maybe there'll be enough of a concentration of specialty shops to bring folks here to shop. But department stores? Whole Foods? Not in your lifetime, lady.

By the way have you read about the very frequent outbursts of crime at the Milford Mall? Have you heard there is crime in the suburbs? Crime isn't keeping people from shopping in New Haven. It's high real estate taxes that keep small business from locating here. And if you think that's bad just wait 'til we get the penny municipal sales tax.

It's not ignorance of Jane Jacobs (times have changed in the last 50 years). It's economics! The only retailers/restauatuers who can afford to be here are the pricey ones. You can still go to Milford (avoiding the crime) and Hamden for free parking, affordable clothing and restaurant frahchises.

Posted by: robn | April 1, 2008 10:33 AM

WVMOM,

I was pulling your leg about the foi gras thing. Agreeing that normal working class people need decent places to shop, I'd like to make a few points about your mall comment. (specifically mall, as opposed to affordable retail)

The issue urban planners have with malls is that they are introverted and they leave a dead street front (an anti-mall attitude is actually a very Jane Jacobs sentiment...populist; not elitist). Very rarely do malls liven a surrounding street front so if you bring in big or medium box retailers you risk deadening sidewalks. Chapel Square Mall was a perfect example of this, even when Macy's was alive an kicking.

Malls are quasi-public spaces and legal precedent limits mall operators powers to exclude the public, including rambunctious teenagers. Which leads to the fact that as long as the surrounding mostly white suburbs hold fearful disriminatory views of congregating black teenagers, a downtown mall won't be attractive to outsiders who are neccesary for its economic viability.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | April 1, 2008 1:33 PM

TAX DOLLARS: I remember the very day I stopped going to the Chapel Square Mall...it was when a shooting occurred downtown and a picture of a guy at the mall in a large coat with a concealed weapon underneath was plastered on the front page of one of the sections of the Sunday New Haven Register, along with a story about gang members with concealed guns. My first-born was a baby then and I wasn't about to risk his life. Ditto this for just about everyone I knew with little children. Having lived in NYC when you had to carry mugger money and Columbia students were being shot on Morningside Drive, I beg to differ with you on crime. It took a Giuliani to fix that situation, but John DeStefano is, alas(!), no Rudy. Do you ever talk to suburbanites? Some of them think they're going to get shot if they even venture into New Haven. While I agree with you about crime in Milford (once having had to step over blood spatters in the mall near Sears), it is the perception of New Haven that counts and it's pretty hard to counter that perception when you watch the news.
As for malls, I think we differ on definitions. There are PLENTY of smallish, well-designed urban malls all over the country, but they are called "arcades", "gallerias", etc.
ROBN: Here, again, we differ on definition. Chapel Square, if I do say so, was NOT a well-designed mall, with its tiny entrance on the Green being one of many deficiencies. [By the way, what I was studying at Columbia all those many years ago was architecture.] Neither is the Post Mall a well-designed mall (and that's an understatement.) So these are not really good examples to use. While technically you're correct about Jane Jacobs, your objection would only apply if we were talking about a dead, cliched type of mall and that's not what I meant. The Jacobs concept of "city" was messy, diverse, and definitely not "upscale." New Haven is a hyper-controlled version of "city"... (remember the hysteria over whether there should be another Dunkin' Donuts?) The "if you build it, they will come" saying has some truth in this regard....if you ONLY build for the very rich and the very poor, then you will only GET the very rich and the poor. (A chicken and egg argument.) The messy mix of all types is unattainable if you do not build for the middle-class. If you're trying to convince me that some of these development decisions/rental decisions/planning decisions, both city and Yale, are not elitist in their intent, I find that hard to swallow.
Practically speaking, though, I would think it would be much easier to attract retailers (GapKids comes to mind as an example) to a "Galleria" downtown (along with many other retailers), than to a vacant single site. A "Galleria" could be a through-block site situated mid-block with regular stores on the rest of the block. There are tons of smallish versions of these everywhere. But excellent design is KEY.
Anyhow, what I would REALLY like to see is a serious, comprehensive survey of surrounding towns and suburbs to determine what THOSE people would like to have in New Haven and then take it from there. This would necessitate a whole new kind of thinking by the administration, as well as backing off from the urban/suburban class warfare rhetoric regarding taxes.....wishful thinking, I know.

Posted by: Walt | April 1, 2008 3:48 PM

No insult meant, but who the heck is Jane Jacobs who is mentioned so often above?

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | April 1, 2008 7:10 PM

Do I ever talk to suburbanites? I was one for 25 years! Couldn't stand it! So I moved back to New Haven 31 years ago. Despite New Haven's problems, it's a far better place to live and bring up kids then say -- Westport. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Posted by: oh no | April 1, 2008 7:32 PM

oh man are you guys really talking about turning New haven into a strip mall. Geez you know you can drive from new haven to phily on route 1 and its the same stores every 5 mile. The reason people move into urban areas is to get a way from the Gap, and Pier 1, and the Olive Garden. If you want to eat at the cheesecake factory stay in the burbs WVmom.

Posted by: robn | April 1, 2008 11:45 PM

WALT,

Jane Jacobs was an early (post WWII) champion of people oriented city planning (vs top down patriarchal planning) check out her seminal work..

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Death-and-Life-of-Great-American-Cities/Jane-Jacobs/e/9780679741954

WVMOM,

You're preaching to the choir mother-sister...you're preaching to the choir!

Posted by: JP | April 3, 2008 9:06 AM

I am getting into the game very late here, but I agree with Paul. If we think back to the building of the Chapel Square Mall and the general urban renewal of the 50's and 60's in New Haven, can't we see that is what is happening again? This time we are talking about upscale shopping, eating, and living instead of highways and housing projects. I made this point in a post a couple of years ago-why would you kick out businesses that are established and paying rent so some developer could build some pie in the sky luxury condo tower? Now the tower is going to be a luxury hotel? We have two hotels in downtown which are not at full occupancy, do we really think another one will work just because it is luxury?

Taxes are high in New Haven but I cannot believe it keeps middle of the road retailers from setting up shop in New Haven. Coopers was a viable business without being high-end, did it have a tax break? I enjoy the talk about TK's and that it was a dump. Maybe it was, but people liked it. You can't have everything upscale and polished. Rudy's is a dump too, should we close it down and put a tower there?

Posted by: Ned | April 3, 2008 10:38 AM

"why would you kick out businesses that are established and paying rent so some developer could build some pie in the sky luxury condo tower?" - because you can!

Posted by: JP | April 3, 2008 9:42 PM

I can't help myself but to comment again. I think what we have learned and what Paul is trying to say is that large projects that make grand promises never work out. But small projects that actually fill a need and try to blend in work smoothly. I grew up on Brownell St. and it pained me to see that burned building on the corner of Pendleton and Whalley. It is so much nicer now with a small scale apartment building.