New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | September 13, 2008 8:42 AM

Paul,

I think you're hitting some critical points. Most people would like to see an increased amount of taxable propoerty, and more density downtown. How we do it is really the issue.

Prior to the past few years, developers typically sought to build taller in order to achieve a commodity of scale. This gets you an efficiency of foundations, elevators, stairs, infrastructure, not as much building skin as you would have with multiple smaller buildings. One might even argue that fewer taller towers allow more light to the streetscape (this is the raison d'etre of New York's zoning setbacks for buildings). But in either case, tall or short can be good or bad, depending upon design.

Today, construction costs have escalated so dramatically in the past few years that high rise construction methods are hard to justify in a city like New Haven whose market can only bear so much rent/revenue to support that construction. This reason alone should encourage the city to reconsider their expectations for Shartenberg and Coliseum. If similar bulk can be achieved in a lower building shape it would be a win win. Theres no reason why New Haven should be fixated on towers and City Hall shouldn't be embarrased to consider different bulk diagrams. The litmus test should be, "if its good its good."

Posted by: hamsamwich | September 13, 2008 2:41 PM

human scale don't pay taxes paul. there's not much land left--you have to go higher. also, what was so great about a surface lot at shartenburg and a crappy liquor store on crown, not to mention that god awful suburban TKs

do what you do best and leave the developers to development

Posted by: robn | September 14, 2008 8:33 AM

HMSW

You can get similar bulk in both high and low diagrams and you can get human scale with either model, depending upon how sensitively you treat the streetscapes. Pauls agitation may arise from the same curiosity we all have about why, when you peek over the fancy fence at Shartenberg, theres not a shovelful of dirt thats been overturned. hmmmm?

Posted by: hamsamwich | September 15, 2008 12:19 AM

"You can get similar bulk in both high and low diagrams and you can get human scale with either mode"

Thanks Robn: but how do you do that if your acreage does not change? A large number of very tiny apartments to be sold at exhorbitant prices to cover the construction costs? Those won't work in this market.

I am equally as agitated with people who crticize everything in new haven just to be contrarian. The slow real estate market is not exactly unique to new haven.

When there's nothing going on, people complain, when there is some sign of life in the city, people complain or try to bleed developers dry with concession.

Given the stagnant economic base of urban centers-like new haven, how else are you going to decrease the tax burden of homeowners? Bring industry back to the city? Redevelop our large inventory of brownfields? I think not.

BTW, the construction sign at shartenburg is far more attractive than that god awful gravel lot formerly operated by Laz; the city has not lost any taxes and those parkers have been absorbed elsewhere in the parking system...and don't even get me started about people bellyaching about parking capacity. All of the shartenburg parkers disappear one day w/out a single hiccup in the system. hmmmmm?

And as to the fine businesses that were displaced by the announcement of a new hotel...Paul seriously? It's time new haven starts playing with the big boys as a world class city. This ain't Waterbury.

Posted by: ROBN | September 15, 2008 9:59 AM

HMSW,

You can get the same bulk in a low diagram by doing two buildings half the height, or three buildings 1/3 the height, and so on...depending upon the tolerance of the site footprint (shartenberg is actually a pretty big site, but spreading out is admittedly complicated by the parking bulk). A lower diagram just more dense at the street level.

My comments about inactivity are focussed more towards the city, which has repeatedly claimed that construction work is proceeding...city hall shouldn't be fibbing to the public.

My comments about bulk are supposed to be encouraging in a neutral way. Theres clearly been some financing trouble and I don't think adapting the goal to the economic climate is neccesarily bad. The good news is that the financing seems to have been released!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | September 15, 2008 2:33 PM

I'm glad the financing is finally in place. Ironically, Becker and Becker at the big presentation at City Hall with our Development Office, claimed they had the financing in place already. Guess somebody fudged that one.

Now, Becker's waiting on another taxpayer hand out, yet another one in a string of them - perhaps if they put their hands on a shovel instead of the taxpayer's pocket, they might get this thing built. We pay the city's outrageous building permit fees and we pay the sales tax and all the other taxes associated with living in this high cost city and state. Why should Becker be any different?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 16, 2008 4:34 PM

Gary,
Funny thing the second place team lose because they did not like their financing and again the proposal was far healthier that the team that won. HMMM someone in ED is working up to a bigger and better job.. Hopefully soon before the city is one ugly non New England non Ivy league looking and city!

Posted by: john W | September 16, 2008 11:33 PM

CedarH, what would a Non-New England Non Ivy League town look like?

IF you are referring to the proposed new skyscrappers- at the shartenberg and 10th Square sites, let's be real. New Haven already looks TOO IVY League.. This is a CITY not a village. Sorry to sound infantile, but we are inandated with (DRAB,dark,Ugly) buildings, that seem to reflect the same drab color sceme as Yale's campus. This is New Haven CT , not Yale CT. It is known that New Haven is up and coming as a city with a NY feel. You can't avoid that. There are many proposals for minimal story, dense constrcution- look at the proposal for the Rt 34 corridor.

Please let us have at least 2 more skyscrapers that don't reflect a gloomy , gothic town..( KNights of Columbus,temple medical,conn finan center just to name a few,...lol....

I LOVE NEW HAVEN and I want it to at least LOOK vibrant to passerbys...;-)