New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | March 6, 2009 8:16 AM

Could the NHI either post the presentation materials or provide readers with a link to the materials?

Posted by: anon | March 6, 2009 10:02 AM

ROBN, you can view the Route 34 materials on the City Plan website.

Tokunbo highlighted the problem - it looks like Hamden. Suburban-type and office-park development, up to several stories high, favoring autos, with large garages and parking lots, in the middle of a dense, traditional New Haven neighborhood from the 19th century.

For the neighborhood to approve the project, I think that the city needs to rebuild the streets that were there in the 1920s -- a small, dense two way grid with beautiful homes on each side and an occasional retail outlet, not a "big box" across from the cemetery. Think of neighborhoods like Edgewood Park, East Rock, etc. The City's plan keeps high speed roads and wide rights of way, therefore bending to the will of the DOT, suburban drivers and major employers.

The City, State DOT and Hospital interests who have led this plan forward are going to have to compromise a bit, including on how you can basically get rid of Route 34 entirely. This is a good thing, since 100 more years of auto-centric development is not a good long-term choice for New Haven.

I will say that the presentations look great and the consultants seemed to do a good job trying to incorporate the concerns in a very rapid timeframe (since some people have the general view that ANY development is better than none), but they have a lot more explaining to do.

For example, the neighborhood doesn't want one-way streets because two-way streets are so much more successful, in case after case after case. Look at the places people want to spend time in in New Haven: Orange Street, State Street, Grand Avenue, Crown, Westville Center, etc. Those are all two-way streets. Even if you go to central London, the busiest corridors are all two-way streets with one lane in each direction. Manhattan used to have two-way avenues until the misguided traffic planning of the 1950s hit, and in terms of quality of life and access to transit, the city has never recovered from what it once was. Read Jane Jacobs. You build a city for people first and then accommodate traffic. You don't build for traffic and then hope people will come.

Explain this, and modify the plan so it really connects the new neighborhoods, and we can make this a great place for everyone. Most importantly, listen to what the neighborhood wants!

Posted by: East Shore Guy | March 6, 2009 10:40 AM

I can understand community input on such big changes to the neighborhood. The city would be wise to listen to the residents that are most effected by the development. I too understand that you cannot have a referendum on every block, but you do need to listen.

Perhaps if self appointed community leaders like this Ewing would stop shouting and try talking other might listen. It is the easy route to organize by means of fear and promises of losing your neighborhood to new development. Its much harder to address the problem in a beneficial fashion that tenders a dialogue which leads to a positive outcome.

Both sides need to stop yelling and start listening. Glad I don't live over there.

PS - it would be nice to see these plans. could you really post them please?

Posted by: Anstress Farwell, New Haven Urban Design League | March 6, 2009 12:13 PM

Robn:

The link to general information about the RT 34 project:
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/Route34MDP.asp

Last night's presentation has not been posted on the city's website yet. But you can see many of the principle features of the plan in the two concepts which preceded it:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/pdfs/Rte%2034%20concepts%20021009%20final.pdf

These plans fail to embody the city's stated purpose of reconnecting the neighborhoods and created a mixed use, mixed income development. Already, the great opportunity of this 22 acre site has been spoiled the by grossly scaled, banal Lot E and Pfizer CRU buildings. Unfortunately, these buildings don't seem to be one-off projects. More of the same is being designed for the adjacent blocks by Spagnolo Gisness Architecture is the Boston firm responsible for the Lot E building.

Their website shows schematics for future development. Check the illustrations at their website (be sure to click on the small boxes). Lots of glassy banal buildings, parking, and pedestrian bridges to allow Yale Medical Area employees and visitors to stay off New Haven's streets. This is not a formula for a safe, integrated, and vibrant community.

http://www.sga-arch.com/ontheboards.aspx?subnavid=110&id=1196

Here's a quick link to the city's Lot E page:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/EconomicDevelopment/projectlote.asp

We need to do better than this.

Anstress Farwell, President
New Haven Urban Design League
203 624 0175 t
urbandesignleague@att.net

Posted by: nfjanette | March 6, 2009 12:18 PM

This is turning into a classic NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) revolt. The problem with such local thinking, when it lacks a larger vision, is that it would lead to disparate, uncoordinated transportation chaos. We saw this in action when people complained about the electrification of the shoreline railroad tracks: local concerns (scenic and increased rail traffic concerns) were pitted against regional/national concerns (reduced trip times, more flexibility in power generation). Obviously, the challenge is to find a proper balance in local vs. regional vs. national concerns.

Once you get past the anti-automobile opinions that have been already offered, it's clear the city has woken up and realized that this is a major artery that leads to the western parts of the city. There is plenty of New Haven west of downtown that needs this road - we don't even have to bring in the suburbanites that live farther out. The congestion at rush hour is bad enough in this part of the city; radically reducing the throughput on the Rt 34 connector is not the correct plan. Although high automobile speeds are not compatible with pedestrians, one way streets have some safety advantages for both driver and pedestrians because they simplify pedestrian crossings and eliminate left turns against oncoming traffic.

Making the case for the roads remaining multi-lane, one-way roads doesn't mean interesting ideas such as a separated bike path have to be abandoned. In fact, it might be even safer for bikes on such a path without all of the cross streets that were blocked in the current road configuration. This could be setup as a mini-greenway that would preserve some of the current openness of the connector while allowing for plenty of mixed development as well.

Posted by: Pedro | March 6, 2009 12:23 PM

While I think there might be some room for compromise, I do have to say that 2 1 way roads that are designed to move at 25-35mph will pose a much smaller risk than the speedways currently in place. They can still move a lot of traffic at that slower speed. The lights are pretty much timed for that in any case. There's a lot of traffic in many places that are nevertheless pedestrian friendly.
There mere presence of developed buildings and cut down sight lines will slow the traffic down in any case.

Posted by: norton street | March 6, 2009 12:35 PM

this site has so much potential. something incredibly expressive can be done, something people will want to visit and stay it, not travel through.

legion ave can the a 2 way corridor for the city like whalley, grand, and dixwell, but north frontage road should be downsized greatly and turned into a neighborhood road like winchester, elm, or central. major intersections like serman, orchard and dwight can have commerical retail and office buildings. while every other parcel of land is residential, dense and mixed use closest to downtown and increasingly less so the closer to the blvd you get, with large parks closest to the blvd that connect to fields across the street.

there is also an opportunity to do something radical and innovative, like turning north frontage into a strictly pedestrian/bike road with a textured surface of brick possibly. with small shops and restaurants with residential units above, north frontage should terminate after winthrop (which it should turn into) and scranton should connect to orchard through the parking lot at the corner.

The route 34 connector should represent a timeline. Starting closest to downtown with tenements style (only in outside appearance, interiors should be mordern apartments) buildings, 4-7 story brick buildings with some retail on the first story. stick some rowhouses in there, and then in the middle part between about orchard and winthrop there should be traditional new haven style housing, 3 story 2-3 family homes with big porches and lawns. then as you get closer to the blvd was see less dense neighborhoods with small homes, borrowing possbily from south american architecture to represent to new wave of immigrants to the city.

this time line has tenement style houses from the 1920s era of european immigrants, traditional style homes for the current times, and south american style homes to represent the future. thsi entire area should focus much much less on automobiles, have walking paths on the backs of homes instead of alleys, and bumps curbs out to make crossing the street easier. make this something that people will write about and praise and want to visit, not a series of boxes that no one will care about or even notice. also mass transit should be a major part of this, buses or trolleys that go from downtown chapel street to the blvd.

Posted by: norton street | March 6, 2009 12:53 PM

nfjanette, individual cars are not the future. this project needs to represent the future and respect the neighborhoods past. AKA get rid of cars, the future is not cars, before this neighborhood was demolished it was not about cars, cars destroyed the neighborhood we should get rid of them.

china and india for the past couple years have been developing affordable cars for their populations, thats potentially half the worlds population now/soon having access to automobiles, the US has been pretty alone in the massive car ownership market but not for long. in the near future people will have to live close to where the work, shop, and enjoy recreation.
i recently heard that shanghai (previously known for its massively crowded roads because of bikes) has no banned all bikes from roadways because they were getting in the way of cars. things are going to change drastically real soon, we should plan for it, and this is a great opportunity to do so. we need to stop using oil for trips to the stop and shot and start conserving it for things we need.

Posted by: anon | March 6, 2009 12:54 PM

I agree with all of your points, NFJanette - but how would you like to see a "major artery" through your particular neighborhood?

The idea that "we need to keep things the way they are" is a logical fallacy - there are always opportunities to make changes for the better. High volume one-way roads that destroy a neighborhood, combined with pedestrian bridges and no mixed-use development, creates an island. Not a reconnected, pleasant neighborhood to live in.

The city should think more about creating livable neighborhoods and less time worrying about regional traffic. Last time I checked, places that people really want to live in, like Boston, Greenwich Village, or San Francisco, aren't exactly easy to get around at 50 MPH.

Posted by: ROBN | March 6, 2009 1:05 PM

MR FAREWELL

Thank you for the link.

ANON,

I agree with your assessment that the fundamental flaw in this planning is the failure to radically rethink the configuration of Rt 34. The plan has small scale residential structures facing what is essentially a speedway. These fast roads make for very undesireable housing, will have anemic pedestrian presence and will therefore be unfit for any meaningful retail infill. At the very least, if high volume traffic on RT34 is a state mandate, the planning of the new neighborhood should be introverted to the cross streets. ...or sacrifice an eastern block and merge all of the high volume traffic onto either Frontage or Legion and glue the new neighborhood up to an adjacent neighborhood so it isn't an isolated island.

Why is it that every time I see presentation materials to the city there is ONE design? I think its arrogant for designers to show up to a meeting with ONE design. As long as the city accepts this Howark Roarke cr@p, we'll continued to get insufficient insight from designers.

Posted by: robn | March 6, 2009 1:08 PM

My last crack wasn't exactly correct becuase i now see that there were two concepts presented in March, but isn't his a big enough project to warrant 10 or 20 highly differentiated design proposals?

Posted by: Melissa Bailey | March 6, 2009 1:12 PM

Hi all,

I added a link in the fourth paragraph of the story to a jpg with a drawing of the plan they handed out. Hope that helps.

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | March 6, 2009 1:26 PM

ESG,

The shouting was because we have been talking for the last 20+ years. In fact for many years we were the ONLY ones talking, planning and preparing. A good 10+% of my and several other resident's life has been dedicated to this project.

At first glance this 'final' concept plan was not what we talked about and so we felt blindsided. But I have also said that I need to look at the plan more closely. Up to last night I have gone on record saying that our partnership with the city is strong and we are working well together on the project. I do not expect that to change.

As I stated to the consultants at the meeting, an example of what has stoked our ire is the fact that from the first presentation several years ago we have pushed back on the number of residential units recognizing that the only way to get that density is to build up. There was a plan that had 10+ story buildings going up on the site to reach 700 units. Over the last several meetings that number was dropped back to a more reasonable 300-400. When we show up at a meeting and are presented something that bumps the number up to 800, higher than the original plan we were against, that says to me that you could care less about our wishes and are catering to big developers and YNHH. In other words... business as usual. I sat there listening to the presentation with a growing feeling of being betrayed.

So if I'm already feeling betrayed explain to me why I should take your word on the traffic questions? All we asked for is evidence. Show us.

This is NOT the classic NIMBY case because we ALL want to see this area developed and as I stated earlier have been pushing the city to move on it for years. For that reason I know we can come to some agreement and are committed to getting there. But the fact remains that this IS my back yard and for some of our residents that is a very literal statement. So if we want to call it NIMBY then it would be "not THIS PLAN in my backyard."

So what's next? We go back to the table and figure this out. It is a public process so we invite all to join in the discussion... or you can just keep second guessing by posting here. (Sorry, had to put that dig in.)

Posted by: Susmitha Attota | March 6, 2009 2:23 PM

The presentation will be up online either by the end of the day today or early monday. Thanks for your patience.

Posted by: Susmitha Attota | March 6, 2009 2:43 PM

Here's the link to the presentation:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/pdfs/Rte%2034%20Pref%20concept%20030509.pdf

Posted by: nfjanette | March 6, 2009 2:48 PM

I agree with all of your points, NFJanette - but how would you like to see a "major artery" through your particular neighborhood?

I live one block away from Whalley Avenue, so I understand the dynamic well, even though the road details are different.

Posted by: anon | March 6, 2009 3:59 PM

Thanks Kevin! Can you let everyone know about the next public meeting?

Posted by: norton street | March 6, 2009 4:25 PM

current site:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.307076,-72.945839&spn=0.005988,0.018024&t=h&z=17

my proposal(not complete):
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044678272300_1085910074_30149744_1512711_n.jpg

current view(from legion ave looking north towards auburn street):
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.305859,-72.945764&spn=0,359.981976&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.305945,-72.945777&panoid=HGpq2INgO6b5AL6d2Wya4g&cbp=12,354.375,,0,3.767857142857145

proposal for new auburn street:
http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044678152297_1085910074_30149741_3394230_n.jpg

looking out of a 3rd floor window on proposed new auburn street:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30149741&id=1085910074

view of alley way between legion and north frontage, and waverly and day streets:
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044678192298_1085910074_30149742_7028492_n.jpg

current view:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.306956,-72.942073&spn=0,359.981976&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.306839,-72.944122&panoid=2P5A4TO7thLN416uohj88A&cbp=12,266.37883636759267,,0,-1.8571428571428588

proposal:
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044678232299_1085910074_30149743_7798216_n.jpg

current view:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.306956,-72.942073&spn=0,359.981976&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.305898,-72.946855&panoid=xFwuUetKicCQdcGh2Kybxw&cbp=12,63.55384035301903,,0,-5.5000000000000036

proposed:
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044678512306_1085910074_30149745_2698865_n.jpg

if the link attota posted was from the presentation that this article is written about, then some of the images used in that presentation are a good start. the pictures showing walkable streets with permeable buildings are encouraging if those are what will be recreated on the route 34 site. however, there were also many images of seperated bike paths and large streets with were disconnected and are not ideal for this project and should be avoided, the massive bike path takes away land that could be taxable, use the road for the bike paths.

Posted by: Alex | March 6, 2009 4:48 PM

This is the perfect opportunity for a low energy use neighborhood where people can live and walk to get their groceries and necessities and have little need for cars. It would also be great to have a trolley to get them to downtown. Also solar power should prevail in the area as well as green space. This is also an opportunity to make a neighborhood that blends smoothly with the bordering neighborhoods. We don't need a white suburban wasteful sprawl dropped into this area.

Posted by: anon | March 6, 2009 5:04 PM

Agreed Alex, truly sustainable development (not green-washed) would be healthier for all.

Someone above pointed out how the horrible Lot E and Pfizer buildings have ruined the neighborhood already, making it impossible for this land to ever be worth anything. While it is true that those two projects (along with Career High) have certainly hurt the desirability of the rest of the corridor by making it a generally unpleasant place to walk, overall, the area isn't a lost cause. Also, Lot E and Pfizer buildings, and Career High, can be torn down in 10-20 years, so things can change.

Posted by: norton street | March 6, 2009 5:50 PM

here are some more images, also i am a student and any feedback on this stuff would be appreciated.

what the intersection of congress and lafayette used to look like before it was parking lots:
http://photos-f.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-snc1/v2079/220/6/1085910074/n1085910074_30110669_7656.jpg

view from 3rd floor apartment on new proposed auburn street:
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044678112296_1085910074_30149740_7841278_n.jpg

land use diagram:
http://photos-b.ll.facebook.com/hphotos-ll-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044709713086_1085910074_30149825_8028754_n.jpg

axonometric view:
http://photos-c.ll.facebook.com/hphotos-ll-snc1/hs036.snc1/2603_1044709753087_1085910074_30149826_6366829_n.jpg

Posted by: Stunned | March 7, 2009 2:12 PM

I can't belive the City is paying this guy. All he's done is drawn some squares between two parallel racing tracks. A two year old could have done better. At least there would have been some curves. These developments will be the slums of the 22nd century. Throw it up cheap. Get the taxes. Who cares about the residents. If this is the best city plan can do the department needs to be closed down.

Posted by: robn | March 8, 2009 9:23 AM

NS,

I think that its great you've taken some initiative and gotten ideas on paper. On the positive side, the stand-out idea in your land use diagram recognizes the Rt34 problem and appears to divert all heavy volume traffic to one side of the site, allowing the new neighbrhood to merge with an adjacent neighbrhood. On a more critical side, be careful about the nostalgia for rowhouses you're showing in your renderings...that era of housing generated some of the worst housing stock ever (deep, airless and lightless). Its not that they can't be done well, its just that they generally weren't. If you want to learn more about this, read A History of Housing In New York City by Richard Plunz. It includes meticulous studies of high density rowhouses including many plan diagrams.

Posted by: juli | March 8, 2009 11:46 AM

i would be interested in attending the next public meeting as well. could someone post information on it? thanks!

Posted by: Frank | March 8, 2009 1:01 PM

As a 25 year resident of West River I have to agree with Kevin, it feels a bit like a bait and switch routine when our neighborhood is all of a sudden presented with double the number of units and the same old traffic configuration.

How about taking our neighborhood suggestions seriously. The current traffic madness makes our streets one of the highest pollution locations in the state. We want this to change. I would like to see no buildings higher than 3 stories in this corridor, every roof top covered with solar panels and a means to bring this power to public housing units like 730 George St. as well, to help lower the extreme electricity cost of those units. Producing our own energy could perhaps help the state reduce energy subsidy costs as well. Bringing back small scale local shopping means our community can drive less to post road or other grocery and retail stores. Local community needs local access to parks and recreation. Right now you take your life in your hands just to cross the Boulevard to West River park even after they built a pedestrian overpass that the neighborhood can't even access!

I love the idea of pedestrian malls but I am not sure that would work. I would have to see a design that accounts for the heavy traffic issues that would need to be resolved.

One idea would be to run a trolley all the way up to Yale Bowl and reclaim the seldom used parking lot there as a regular open commuter parking area. That trolley could make the turn on the Boulevard and come down one side of the connector and still minimize its slowing impact on the occaisional high traffic of the Boulevard.

This would possibly also help reduce traffic congestion for yale Bowl games in our neighborhood. We also want to see a program that brings real jobs to our neighborhood which is extremely low-income and under-employed. We are tired of phony training programs with no jobs at the end of the rainbow.

I am now doubly sorry I was unable to attend this particular meeting and I will hopefully not have a time conflict for the next one. Thanks to Kevin, and all those who stood up for west River.

Posted by: norton street | March 8, 2009 1:55 PM

Robn, thanks for the response. and the rowhouses ive shown would be illusions of or allusions to rowhouses, the vertical level changes would not be articulated in plan or section. they would appear to be narrow individual apartments seperated by party walls but with modern steel construction the apartments could move horizontally with level changes. the idea is to make them look traditional on the outside but modern on the inside. thats the key to this neighborhood, make it look traditional and nastalgic on the outside but very much modern and futuristic on the inside of buildings and the neighborhoods inner workings.

this project also brings up an issue that will be the deciding factor in the future of the cities other struggling neighborhoods. cities should have state streets (highways), county streets (whalley, whitney, kimberly/howard...), city streets (again whalley, chapel, state, grand...), neighborhood streets (winchester, shelton, elm, edgewood, congress, columbus, blatchley...), and community streets (pedestrial friendly narrow roads and walking paths). when we realize the importance and differences between each of these, we will be able to create prosperous neighborhoods in a once-again thriving city.

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | March 8, 2009 7:35 PM

We will make sure that the next meeting is posted on the calendar on this site, there will be a facebook page and we will post it on the West River calendar (http://bit.ly/wrivcal). It might also be posted on the city's website.

Also please understand that this is a concept plan for the MDP. There will be opportunities to speak out more when we actually get to zoning and development so this is not the last chance for the public to speak and hopefully be heard.

Having said that, there is absolutely NO reason we can't or shouldn't set the expectations of the developers properly up front. It is always easier to step back from a stronger stance than to try to get tough later. Proper plans prevent poor production.

Posted by: anon | March 8, 2009 7:46 PM

Great suggestions, Norton Street. Keep 'em coming! I like your proposal to focus on creating truly prosperous neighborhoods first, traffic second. I think that the city would benefit enormously from an approach like that.

Posted by: anon | March 9, 2009 10:41 AM

"Their website shows schematics for future development. Check the illustrations at their website (be sure to click on the small boxes). Lots of glassy banal buildings, parking, and pedestrian bridges to allow Yale Medical Area employees and visitors to stay off New Haven's streets. This is not a formula for a safe, integrated, and vibrant community. http://www.sga-arch.com/ontheboards.aspx?subnavid=110&id=1196"

Yikes! Thank you for bringing these pictures to everyone's attention. That's not what New Haven should look like!!!

Posted by: Mike in Westville | March 9, 2009 1:48 PM

Lost in all of this discussion is the potential elimination of the only higher-speed east-west traffic route through the city, using Frontage/Legion. Yale U. has effectively bisected the city, making it difficult to travel from west side to east side. And now we want to make it harder with new development along this efficient travel route? The larger needs of New Haven should have a place in the discussion, too.

Posted by: Anstress Farwell, New Haven Urban Design League | March 9, 2009 4:24 PM

Some food for thought on Medical districts:

A New Urban News article describes the work in some cities to make medical districts attractive places that fit in their neighborhood settings:
http://www.newurbannews.com/MedicalInsideOctNov06.html

A tidbit. Sometimes the shortest is the sweetest. Kunstler is a writer and critic on architecture and the environment.
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200411.html

Posted by: anon | March 9, 2009 4:46 PM

Though the New Haven FBI building is also pretty horrific, hospitals are no doubt the worst offenders when it comes to completely destroying the urban environments around them. Medical establishment "which itself behaves like a metastisizing disease" is an understatement.

At least YNHH isn't quite as bad as some of the other hospitals out there - hospitals in Newark, Detroit and Memphis come to mind. They might as well have built a radioactive moat surrounding the hospital.

Posted by: norton street | March 9, 2009 5:24 PM

Mike, if youre looking to go from downtown to westville there's the B bus and Q bus. If you get all of your friends to ride the bus too, then that would be cars off the road=less traffic=buses can get from stop to stop faster.

keeping north frontage and legion ave how they are should be out of the question.

Posted by: nfjanette | March 10, 2009 12:50 AM

The money for this grand vision being argued is coming from where? Better wake up - nothing is going to be built here by anyone unless there is dramatic improvement in the economy.

Posted by: anon | March 10, 2009 9:26 AM

NFJ, there's more money out there than you think, especially for parking garages tied to medical office space with giant pedestrian bridges. And for government-subsidized housing. Those are two areas of the economy that are still growing fairly quickly.

Posted by: Anstress Farwell, New Haven Urban Design League | March 10, 2009 1:15 PM

The great ideas are being generated through this informal "virtual workshop" on the Independent. Thank you New Haven Independent! These comments demonstrate the value of an open community process. We need to explore more ideas before this project reaches MDP status.

"Norton Street's" concepts are excellent. His/her goals - to reestablish a regular street grid in the neighborhood - is something we also see as essential to creating a cogent urban place. Here's a link to a map and memo we submitted to the City in December, which explores the same goals in a different way:

http://urbandesignleague.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/43/

Let us know what you think.

Anstress Farwell
624 0175
urbandesignleague@att.net

Posted by: Two2Three | March 10, 2009 3:49 PM

Fifty years ago New Haven became the poster child of urban removal, destruction of impoverished neighborhoods to be replaced with highways, large-scale commercial buildings and parking garages. Private cars were worshipped. Hailed as the model city in a positive vein, New Haven actually became infamous as a model of the wrong way to develop.

The Route 34 corridor was designed as a 16-lane superhighway to Derby with the intention of bringing prosperous suburbanites in to shop at Macy's and Malley's. This corridor was viewed by local residents as an unwanted wall between the Dwight and Hill neighborhoods.

Walls of highways or of high-rise buildings destroy the fabric of the city as is well documented. There are many ways to make walls that divide us.

A concerted effort on the part of citizens who had a different vision for our city, similar to the commentators on this story, killed the Route 34 highway. But not before the highway wall constructed from I-95/I-91 to the air rights garage could be built.

Another wall, a mile long parking garage, was designed to replace State Street between downtown and Fair Haven. This too was killed by concerted citizen action.

The Pfizer building and the under construction parking garage/commercial space to its west, are extensions of the Route 34 corridor dividing wall. It may be useful to see the planned extension to the Boulevard as another extension of that wall.

City planners should listen to those who want livable, enjoyable, mixed-use neighborhoods that sparkle with variety.

Above there are good development suggestions to prevent the Route 34 wall from becoming reality. Instead, a long mangled part of New Haven could become a real model of urban design.

Posted by: anon | March 10, 2009 4:08 PM

I like the map. That boulevard could be ultimately extended all the way down to the Harbor one day. Maybe the green median should be a bit wider

Posted by: tokunbo | March 11, 2009 2:53 PM

norton street i've been reviewing your diagrams and would like to share some of my thoughts. i can be reached at aanifalaje@yahoo.com

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | March 11, 2009 6:16 PM

If anyone knows how to contact the folks from the old Oak St. neighborhood that still meets can you ask them to contact me at kevin@westrivernsc.org?

Posted by: Patricia Kane | March 12, 2009 9:33 AM

As a homeowner on Dwight St., I was disappointed by the design last presented. Clearly the priority was retail development, something that would add to the City's tax base, but would also increase auto pollution and noise levels even more.
The designers didn't create this scar thru the City's neighborhoods, but their designs didn't really provide what community residents asked for: a human scale and the opportunity for re-connection with neighbors on both sides of Rte 34.
Why not put the road underground,the way Boston buried I-95 and heal the scar? Too costly?
Well, it's costly to live with traffic, pollution, noise and plain old ugliness too.
A bike lane along a busy road, in my opinion, is less attractive a route than a trip along Edgewood Avenue and the opportunity to view some beautiful architecture and stop by a lovely park.
The housing the designers wrapped on the outside of the retail buildings didn't strike me as a particularly attractive place to live. Do you really want to listen 24 hour a day to the ambulance sirens that already put our nerves on edge?
How about a dog park for all the urban dwellers with pets? Amenities attract people and add to property values as much as good schools do.
New Haven is retail-deprived compared to other towns, but putting more people in cars, rather than using spaces along Whalley Avenue already served by buses or close to dense residential development, misses an opportunity to add to the flavor of the central city.
We can do better.