New Haven Independent

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 27, 2009 8:45 AM

Aren't you gonna love the look of that corrugated metal as it ages? Maybe we can start putting Quonset huts in the vacant lots to compliment this look. And what's the deal with Mattison? Vote him out of office, and he's still involved with the city as chairman of a commission? Gotta love New Haven politics and cronyism!

Posted by: Vinyl Siding | November 27, 2009 9:47 AM

Why don't they just use vinyl siding? I mean that's really "economical". And aluminum siding is so 70s. If we want crap, let's at least have today's crap.

Doesn't Town Green remove any graffiti within a day or 2? My guess is that the developer took a stray comment and used it to save a couple million dollars.

Since this is the only new development (other than Yale) started in the last 5 years by the DeStefano economic development team, you'd think they would pay attention to these kinds of details with all the free time they have.

Posted by: JackNH | November 27, 2009 10:01 AM

Take a look at the Loria Center --the Art history building, no less!-- at Chapel and York if you want to see what 360 State will be like . . . .Soviet-era nuclear power plant. New Haven: city of architects, city of bad new architecture.

Posted by: Greg | November 27, 2009 10:24 AM

The Yale Center for British Art is made out of the same stuff, sure, but it looks beautiful. I don't see the same beauty in the above drawings.

Posted by: streever | November 27, 2009 10:31 AM

fedupwithliberals, you may be unhappy with these plans (as many are) but don't go trashing Mattison for doing his job.

He's completely correct that City Plan is not a design charrette but a land use administrative body. You can be unhappy with the logic behind a board or commission, but don't take it out on the people who serve--for free--and actually do the jobs as laid out, NOT the jobs as you'd like to see them.

Mattison was also a good alderman: he was the only alder who thought of the homeless, an issue you aren't concerned with, but the stark economic reality that hit them after he lost his seat reminded everyone that Ed served a valuable role on the board.

Again, you may not agree with someone, but instead of just spewing your anger, why not try to see their values, and that they too have moral compasses and guidelines they are working off of? City Plan is not given authority over every design aspect, so why call it cronyism when they DON'T meddle into enterprise?

Isn't that what you republicans want? Free trade? Really, I might name myself, "Fedupwithconservativeswhodon'tknowtheirownvalues"

Posted by: streever | November 27, 2009 12:24 PM

Just to get to the heart of what I find wrong with Fedup's perspective (and several others here) Yes, I have no doubt there is cronyism. But why target those of us who naively devote dozens of free hours a month to this type of work? Why target Ed, who was an 1800 dollar a year alderman who donated more than that a year to homelessness causes, and now is the unpaid chairman of a commission for which he has no financial interest?

Look people, government needs volunteers to run, especially at this small scale. Fedup, I guarantee you a spot on any board/commission, and not because of cronyism, but because I have the decency to do some research.

Many boards have empty seats and openings. As a minority party--I assume--you'll have your pick. You can even join the coveted BZA, of which I am an alternate. Because I'm a democrat, I'm not allowed to have a full seat. That's cronyism for you. You, a republican, could step in off the street and get a loftier position than I with no work.

So when you run your mouth, please try to do it about your ideals, and not indvididuals. It's really uncalled for the way you attack hard-working people who make no money and are not elected to do volunteer work for their community. Ed, myself, and many others are doing this work out of a sincere desire to improve New Haven.

Posted by: Can't we all jusy get along | November 27, 2009 1:45 PM

All I want to know is when are they going to put the city bus stops back on Chapel Street between State Street and Orange Street? If you are lucky enough to make it across the State Street divider before getting run over, you are to out of breath to make it the next 3 blocks to Temple and Chapel to catch the bus.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 27, 2009 3:12 PM

The corrugated metal is a no-go. This isn't a utility shed out behind some farm that only 3 people see in their lifetimes. C'mon.

If they just put flat metal panels or some kind of terracotta rain screen (Alphaton terracotta rainscreen systems are very popular in Europe, and will soon come to the US, why not get a jump on it?) the building would actually be really nice. I definitely like the contrast between negative and positive space, as seen in the solid and transparent sections of the facade. Its a very simple, clean looking building that could do its job very well if given a decent facade material.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 28, 2009 6:24 AM

STREEVER

"why not try to see their values, and that they too have moral compasses and guidelines they are working off of? City Plan is not given authority over every design aspect, so why call it cronyism when they DON'T meddle into enterprise?" "Why target Ed, who was an 1800 dollar a year alderman who donated more than that a year to homelessness causes, and now is the unpaid chairman of a commission for which he has no financial interest?"

I don't know where to begin! First of all, the money that aldermen get is a stipend meant to offset expenses. It is not a job and not meant to be. The last yearly stipend on record from 2007 is $2000, not $1800. And I do believe there are perks like free cell phones that figure in as well.

You think that people who sit on commissions have no ulterior motive than to be a good citizen and do their civic duty? I got two words for you.. Boise Kimber. What do you think his angle is? I know what drives Ed Mattison, and it's precisely his self serving, single issue view of the world and pompous, dismissive attitude towards the people of ward 10 that got him bounced from being alderman. He happens to be the Executive Director of a non profit agency whose funding is derived from government entities. That's how he makes his money. It behooves him and his organization to be involved with government power brokers. He might be a nice guy who champions the poor, but don't paint him as Mother Theresa. He has an angle. If it were up to Ed, all of New Haven would be a halfway house! And by the way, ordinary citizens do not just apply for, and sit on boards of importance to the way the city is shaped. David Streever, East Rock Community Organizer and Cycling Advocate, does not have the power to effect that. It is a mayoral political patronage appointment. In this case, 4 years. So yeah, cronyism. Even if it were possible, what's the point of an opposition member sitting on any board in this town? In a one party system, it would be an act of utter futility, and a supreme waste of time.

As far as your tired and overplayed emotional charge of me and conservatives not caring for the poor and downtrodden, I beg to differ. It is your side that enslaves people for generations by making them comfortable in their poverty and subsidizing their lifestyle with waterfront condos, granite countertops and free utilities... all at the expense of working people. And all to ensure perpetual political power!

Not for nothing, but when you subsidize something, you get more of it. That's why New Haven is growing an underclass. If you really cared about the poor, you would not make it a way of life. That's not compassion Mr. Streever, its enslavement and plantation politics. In my world, that's immoal.

Posted by: streever | November 28, 2009 8:26 AM

(I agree with you Norton, it's ugly, but precious little we can do about it now)

Posted by: robn | November 28, 2009 8:48 AM

Gimme a break...The BAC is clad with flat pickled stainless steel, a far more expeelegant and expensive facade than painted corrugated steel. This design is DOA.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 28, 2009 9:23 AM

Good to have Streever back!

Posted by: Crash | November 28, 2009 10:31 AM

The sample in Dick Miller's hands looks like a prefinished aluminum panel with a specific rib pattern (companies who make these panels have 5 or 6 to choose from). They are cheaper than brick, or the beautiful stainless steel which clads the Center for British Art, but they are a far cry from 70's aluminum siding. The ribs will keep the metal from "oil-canning," like the big flat panels on that new Water Street school. The design as shown will probably just fade into the streetscape. This isn't a crazy choice of materials and, in my opinion, isn't worthy of outrage, although it is a little boring. The City Plan Commission's job isn't to provide a subjective opinion anyway.

Now a question - why was the rendering credited to Deborah Berke? I know she did the interiors. She did the renovation to the School of Painting up on Chapel - if this is her work chances are it will be detailed properly and this will be a good-looking building.

Posted by: Pioneer | November 28, 2009 6:16 PM

I'm going to have to say, the material doesn't look very pretty here. I hope that a nice alternate will be found and agreed on. Also, notice on the right side of the photo on the street the modern futuristic-looking bus.. if only.

Posted by: streever | November 29, 2009 4:47 AM

Thannks jones, it feels good to be back :)

Fedup:
"As far as your tired and overplayed emotional charge of me and conservatives not caring for the poor and downtrodden,"

Where did I say this? If anything I said you want the gov to stay out of business. That's pretty fair.

But you haven't answered any of my questions. You've said Mattison does all this work because he's a pompous ass, and told me not to view him as an angel. I don't. I view him as yet another hard-working person who I am happy to serve with.

You also honestly believe that you can't apply for a city board & be accpeted. Well, probably not if you apply as FedUpWithLiberals, but if you are a New Haven resident and you apply with your name, and Republican party membership, I can guarantee you they'll find you something.

I don't doubt that favortism happens. I don't doubt that corruption exists. But if you spread your net wide enough, you're bound to find something everytime. I just ask you, where's the beef?

The Mayor really gave Ed free jobs because Ed's a pompous ass who enjoys doing the work? that's Ed's payback?

Sounds like you think Ed's a sucker.

Posted by: robn | November 29, 2009 8:46 AM

Being that the city gave considerable leeway to the developer including breaks on the parking count and no discernible judgment on the quality of parking shoved up against the street, here must be some gatekeeper on aesthetic issues. Just exactly who is the gatekeeper for the quality of the project?

Posted by: Ned | November 29, 2009 8:58 AM

It looks better than the empty lot that was on that site for the past 30+ years...

Posted by: Norton Street | November 29, 2009 1:33 PM

The repeating vertical lines that would appear on the facade with the corrugated material will look very strange. Having strong horizontal lines makes much more sense. Also in order to make a better facade material, 1 or 2 additional stories could be added to the building, which could be available to lease as office space. This would offset some of the additional cost of having a better facade material.

The reason I like this building accept for the corrugated metal is because it reminds me of a building that used to stand at the corner of State and Chapel. The proposal is like an abstracted version of this building:

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs031.snc3/11855_1180668471970_1085910074_30461524_6583875_n.jpg

The way to make this a good building and not an eyesore is to use a terracotta rainscreen system:

http://www.jamesandtaylor.co.uk/m1/m1_s6.htm

Doing so would produce something like this:

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs031.snc3/11855_1181006000408_1085910074_30462289_4454329_n.jpg

or

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs011.snc3/11855_1181006040409_1085910074_30462290_4559815_n.jpg

Posted by: Anon | November 29, 2009 3:38 PM

There's too little information here to make a judgment on the building facade. If the facade is ugly or deteriorates in the future, it can fairly easily be maintained or replaced. That's true of any building. City planners should focus more on the scale, context, use, transportation impact, extent of glass, etc., which in this case is more than appropriate (though the sidewalks should have been widened and road narrowed back to its pre-1960s width as part of this project). Unlike the 5 floor parking garage going up farther down Chapel, this building will add a great deal of vitality and comfort to the street.

Posted by: nancydrew33 | November 29, 2009 3:44 PM

Ed Mattison is the Executive Director of the South Central Behavioral Health Network, which has a contract with the City of New Haven that gets renewed annually. I thought it was a conflict of interest to serve on a City commission and be employed by an agency that receives City funding. Mattison continues to serve as administration rubber stamp .

Streever- you are a good guy but quite naive about City Hall operations. You might appreciate comments from Fed Up if you were around from the beginning of JD's reign.

Fed Up- You are so right on target- espcially about Kimber. Consider me a liberal who occasionally gets fed up.

Posted by: my2cents | November 29, 2009 11:02 PM

I dont always agree with nortonstreet, but I think his/her suggestion is interesting. Especially when you look at the images on the builder's website: http://www.360statestreet.com/green_building.html
All of these images, I presume from when the building was proposed, have a pink-ish beige terracotta look. But now, they're opting for aluminum siding. I'm disappointed because I think the proposed images look better. Nevertheless, I think the building is an asset to New Haven. I hope it comes out beautiful whatever they go with.

Posted by: streever | November 30, 2009 5:56 AM

Nancy Drew,

If you're going to accuse someone, I just ask that you do it: instead of FedUp's paranoia posting, making City Board membership sound like a wonderful thing. I serve on one, and it's hard work, with 0 benefits.

I'm pleased by your compliment, but disappointed in your sleuthing.

Nancy, as of 2008, the Network's directors made a grand total of 75k. It's a salary of 70k + 4k in benefits. All other employees combined made 215k. Their accountant made 16k. The network spend 750k on actual services, documented, and made 750k in grant programs. Sounds legit. Ed is making a very average salary for someone administering almost a million dollars in nonprofit services.

Nancy, I'm also disappointed in your ability to stay on target. Why is this related to Kimber in any way? This is about BUILDING MATERIALS.

FedUp is completely off-target. He doesn't understand the way City Building commissions work, and he got "fedup" about Mattison not vetoing a building material, something he wouldn't be allowed to do unless it failed in a measurable way. He did his job. Why is patronage and Kimber brought into this?

Look people, I know political patronage and cronyism go on--Kimber is a great name to drop--but this article isn't even remotely relevant. A commissioner did his job properly. Why do you even care? Do you really hate the material?

It looks great on ArtSpace and on other buildings downtown, and fulfills most of the objectives. It's extremely easy to clean. Ultimately building--and design--are about trade offs and working within paramaters.

I'm extremely happy we have "Cronies" like Ed in positions of responsibility, and not anonymous paranoiacs who can't even focus on a simple topic.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 30, 2009 6:09 AM

NANCYDREW33

Thank you for your supportive comment. You are right about Streever. He probably is a painfully naive nice guy with a lot of optimism and boundless energy. Three qualities which I have lost over the years. New Haven needs people like that, but unfortunately, the city has reached a tipping point of no return. It would take a small army of non partisan Streevers to bring it back. Sadly, that will never happen.

STREEVER

"he was the only alder who thought of the homeless, an issue you aren't concerned with,..."

Not exactly a complimentary statement. Hence my defensive posture on your snarky charge of Republicans and conservatives not caring for the poor and homeless. As far as an answer to your question about Ed. He is not a sucker, but rather a political animal who knows where he gets his shillings from. Not to say that he isn't a likeable guy and great neighbor who gets involved in local issues, but follow the money.

Posted by: Pedro | November 30, 2009 9:40 AM

my2cents,
Actually the terra cotta frieze IS still going up, but for the rest of the building. The building in question actually abuts the rear of the building and originally was going to not be used by the 360 state project, but now since the grocery store is going to be twice as big, they needed this building lot as well, hence the building going up. I'm glad it's going to be a multistory building--it doesn't have to be since they are building it primarily for the ground floor square footage.

Norton Street's designs are a striking testament to what some color and texture can do. I'm definitely a fan. Nicely done!

I hope city plan leans on Becker and Becker a bit to rethink their design.

Posted by: streever | November 30, 2009 10:33 AM

FedUp,

Sorry, I make assumptions based on your anger over city spending. You seem to be happy when we spend less money on social issues, so I made a logical jump that you were not a big fan. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

I did follow the money. It lead me to a 70k salary for a man who oversees 1 million in spending and 220k in employees, with no other directors or executive staff. Are you calling him a tax cheat? If so, you should just report that to the IRS, instead of anonymously slandering him. It's silly to tell me to follow the money when I've pulled the IRS filings and all you've done is cynically spout off.

Can you show me your research? Either of you?

I've invested time & energy in tracking this down. Have you?

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 30, 2009 10:52 AM

STREEVER

I'm not in the habit of spying on citizens, looking into their financial dealings and publishing their salaries. Seems to be a bit of invasion of privacy going on. If you gave me access to his joint tax returns and financial portfolio, I'm sure I can find something.

And questioning a person's motives is a far cry from slander.

Posted by: my2cents | November 30, 2009 12:30 PM

Pedro, are you saying that the aluminum in question is only being used on this additional building, which appears to be 3 stories, and it won't be used at all on the main parts of the apartment building? If that's the case I think the article was a little misleading, but that would be great news. I think the building, with the terracotta-look looks great, and I'm excited to see it finished.

I think this project is great for the economic development of the city. It will help to connect the downtown/9th square/wooster st area. The supermarket will be a nice addtion as well for everyone in that part of new haven.

Now if someone would just fix up those couple vacant brick buildings/lot on the first block of crown st (at corner of state and crown).. does anyone know if that is happening? That would really tie the area in nicely.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 30, 2009 12:41 PM

"Not to say that he isn't a likeable guy and great neighbor who gets involved in local issues, but follow the money."
---
"I'm not in the habit of spying on citizens, looking into their financial dealings and publishing their salaries. Seems to be a bit of invasion of privacy going on."

That's what I call a duck.

Posted by: jawbone | November 30, 2009 1:34 PM

So sad. Every time I see an image of this project, it is different than the last image I saw. The city is being put over the barrel with regards to the design. It is hideous. Every image is worse than the last and every image in no way conveys how ghastly this building is in real life. I find the undifferentiated horizontal cornice of corrugated tin especially pleasing. Its looks like every other el cheepo metal facade that was erected in the 9th square back in the 50s to cover up the crumbling older facades. Way to select an unfortunate historical era for New Haven to emulate.
I know that it has been mentioned before, but I will also say that the Architect Bruce Becker is either trying to pull a fast one on what he thinks is a unsuspecting public, or he is flat out lying. Either way his characterization of this new building being akin to the British Art Center is both sad and cynical. Shame on you, Becker, for contributing to the poor opinion architects have with the general public. The BAC is a masterpiece of modern architecture and the cladding is nothing like your buck ninety eight corrugated tin. That crap looks like the steel decking that you pour concrete slabs on to. As far as the Yale Political Science building goes, that building is a totally different scale, in a totally different context and it is a TEMPORARY building. Thats part of why people find it acceptable...its ok for a TEMPORARY building.
While I'm on this rant, why is Deborah Berke's name credited underneath the rendering? Was she brought in to lend a little whiff of Yale School of Architecture pedigree?
Additionally, I find the graffiti comment racist. Poor soviet-era buildings such as this one are crying out to be tagged. I don't see any tags on the new COOP High School. For this comment Becker should be run out of town.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is construction and development going on in this city. But the City of New Haven is certainly not very discerning when it comes to what they will allow to be constructed. This building looks like an abandoned eastern bloc sanatorium.

By the way City of New Haven, I am happy to put my mouth where my mouth is. Give me a slot on whatever the city architectural review board is and I'll happily fill it.

Posted by: East Rockette | November 30, 2009 2:32 PM

From the 360 State Street website: "Living Green by the New Haven Green ... Green will be a way of life at 360 State, effortless in a LEED-certified model for sustainable design."

So how about some literal green? Whatever the material on the facade, you could overlay it with GreenScreen and some hardy climbing hydrangea or some equivalent that likes a sunny south-facing situation. This would bring a charming swathe of greenery to a hard-edged part of town, by visually linking the street trees (hmm, ghostly on this new rendering) to the roof garden (vanished in this picture - wait a minute, is any roof garden still in the plan?).

Now that I think of it, the sidewalk looks awfully narrow in this new rendering. Will "living green by the New Haven green" make itself felt at street level at all? Will there be room for any street trees and/or planters? I see a bus shelter, but I don't see any sheltering awnings to welcome and protect foot traffic in the six months of the year that the weather is crappy. Nor even - what's the techical term - anything in the grammar of the facade that tells me where to find the door to the grocery. Hmm. Not the most encouraging picture. Can the architects provide a few more?

NB I'm still very excited about being able to walk to the Unnamed Grocery Store, but avidly hope the building lives up to its green lip-service -- uh, I mean, guarantees -- and to the gateway historic site it will occupy.

Posted by: East Rockette | November 30, 2009 2:45 PM

Here you go, aerial view of the original design. Sure, the roof garden is a bit limp - two trees and some lawn, probably not intended to be accessible to the public - but it at least had a hint of the High Line or the Promenade Plantée. See also the fabulous Lotus Garden, built on top of a parking garage on 97th St in NYC.

(Ironic that we've lost a mini-greenspace here, the one that used to be on the roof of the entrance to the underground parking - even if it wasn't exactly welcoming and was most often used by bivouacking itinerant types, it was still a green "lung" for the surrounding greyspace).

And spot the nice wide sidewalk set-back on State St in the original proposal. Ample pedestrian reward for having run the gauntlet of the parking garage entrance/exit (is that still in the plan?), and plenty of room for grocery-shoppers to catch their breath, greet their neighbours, or eat their lunch under a nice tree. Does the latest revamp retain that feature? We can dream, right?

Posted by: Pedro | November 30, 2009 4:15 PM

my2cents, as far as I know, that is the case. The terracotta frieze is going to be designed by the artist who the did the work on the columbus school. It's juuuust barely apparent that the two structures are different colors if you look at the top right corner of the picture (you can still see the terracotta color)

East Rockette, that green space I believe is still part of the design. The drawing you linked to is in fact the latest rendering of the building.

This is the original here

And here is the current view

You can see the much improved facade and lighter color.

Here are two more views:
original

current

The building in question is the one at the corner of the site. While it's going to be part of the grocery story, it's going to be a visually distinct structure that wasn't going to be part of the original project. The doubling of the grocery store necessitated taking that lot and adding this structure.

As for the buildings on Crown I believe our friend David Nyberg is to blame for the sorry state of those buildings. Last I heard, he (under pretty intense public pressure) had promised to start work on the buildings. I don't know if he is the current owner or not, but I agree that those two buildings deserve better, even in this tough economic climate.

Posted by: East Rockette | November 30, 2009 7:26 PM

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Pedro. So the corrugated iron is for the building at the corner of Chapel and Orange. But the terracotta detailing will be on the building at the corner of Chapel and State? I get it now, I think.

I wonder why the terracotta vibe can't be continued across the site to the new structure on the corner of Orange St, though. It definitely warms up the design and brings it into harmony with the surrounding buildings, including the train station over the road.

(If only the architects of the SoM could be persuaded to toy with a similar palette, so there'd be at least some conversation with the Peabody.)

Posted by: my2cents | November 30, 2009 11:36 PM

thanks for clarifying pedro. I like the plans. glad to see the aluminum siding is for the small building only. I think the main building looks great, I hope they stick to that plan.

Rockette, I agree re the SoM building, I hope that last image isn't final! (though I'm psyched that they're building a new business school there)

Posted by: streever | December 1, 2009 6:41 AM

fedupwithliberals,

you claimed Mattison was illegally profiting. I pulled the LEGAL IRS filings he does which are available to the public and showed you he's not.

You still claim he's illegally making profits.

You try to paint me as a "spy" but I think it's clear who is who: you berate & terrorize people with allegations of misconduct, and I'm a man who stands by his name & does his work. Good luck to you in the future. You've lost this round. You keep speaking out of your hat, and I'll keep doing what I do.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | December 1, 2009 10:05 AM

STREEVER

Wow! I'd like to see where you can view the Mattison family 1040 tax returns without expressed permission or consent! Provide the link please.

Posted by: jawbone | December 1, 2009 11:47 AM

One observation...I live around the corner from Mattison. If he is illegally profiting from something, it sure doesn't show in his lifestyle. He and his wife live a quiet, simple life.
I'd suggest you go hang out with Glen Beck and peek under rocks and door locks somewhere else. Mattison ain't your man...

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | December 1, 2009 1:15 PM

JAWBONE

I'd like to know where you and Streever see any word that resembles "illegal" in my Ed Mattison comments? I also don't see any mention of profiteering either. My complaints were more along the lines of influence beyond what the voting public tolerated as well as conflict of interest as NANCYDREW33 pointed out. I don't care if you're talking about lobbying $10,000 or $1 million. It's unseemly to me to have him involved with the city beyond his professional role, considering how he is funded.

And if life has taught you anything, it's that you shouldn't be fooled by appearances. Frugality does not equal poverty.

Posted by: Tim | December 1, 2009 1:41 PM

Wow, and people wonder how come no one volunteers or gets involved in public life anymore when you're subjected to being raked over the coals just for wanting to help out.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 1, 2009 2:35 PM

FEDUPWITH LIBERALS - your words, referring to Ed Mattison as "a political animal who knows where he gets his shillings from." That's a pretty strong implication of corruption. Streever sets forth some facts. Here's a few more -

Ed Mattison graduated from Yale Law School, after which he went to work for lewgal services, representing poor people in New Haven. He continued in that capacity for many years. He also worked for the Corporation Counsel's Office in New Haven. He sent his children to New Haven public schools. When he was with the Corporation Counsel's office, he represented the welfare department. At a time when the welfare department was notorious for unfair treatment of recipients, he was one of the very few governmental lawyers who would answer the question, "Can we do this?" with, "yes, but why would you want to?" There have been times that I agreed with Ed and times that I did not, but I never doubted that Ed cared about community and saw his work as a mission to make his community a better place. If Ed is in this for the money, he's made some terrible choices, because he has managed to select positions at the bottom of the pay ladder, even though he has a resume that could place him at the top.

Posted by: Constant Reader | December 1, 2009 11:36 PM

Wouldn't the time for the city to get some concessions on design be BEFORE they gave the developer all those breaks -- you know, when they actually had some leverage? Also, shouldn't all of this happen before the building is under construction? Every two-bit small town zoning board knows this. How could New Haven get it so wrong?

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 2, 2009 8:52 AM

Fedup,

I suspect that Streever's referring not to an individual's tax returns, but the information regarding their finances that incorporated non-profits have to file with the IRS. Those filings are in the public record and would include the salaries of paid employees.

I don't know anything about Mr. Mattison, but I do know that Streever takes the time to get to know people so his opinion of Mattison's good character carries some weight, as does his understanding of the limits on the authority of a city board.

Posted by: Pedro | December 2, 2009 11:26 AM

Constant Reader, this portion of the building was never in the original plans.
They needed to double the size of the grocery store to attract a tenant, hence this build-out. they were originally going to put a separate building on this site at a future date, but now need the space, hence them now going to approval for it.

Posted by: East Rockette | December 2, 2009 4:16 PM

It's funny, I was staring so hard at the corrugated iron I forgot to notice the freaky day-glo yellow accents around the windows. What's up with that colour choice? Is it just what was on sale that week in the window trim section? It certainly doesn't speak to anything else in the area, except maybe the yellow line down the middle of Chapel St.

Mightn't it be better to go with a more neutral or complementary trim colour, something less likely to clash with the eventual livery of the grocery itself (not to mention the mellow terracotta colours of the surrounding buildings)?

Posted by: HewNaven?? | December 2, 2009 5:10 PM

All of you interior decorators and wannabe architects are missing the point. Does anyone remember that this was an empty lot for decades??

The visual renderings are just that - renderings!! They don't warrant such trite criticisms. All of the concerns with the facade are relatively easy fixes in the grand scheme of things.

Most importantly, the corrugated metal is barely noticeable, it seems, since huge glass windows dominate the street level in these drawings.

Let's get our priorities straight. Let's be thankful this isn't a parking lot anymore.

Posted by: streever | December 2, 2009 8:21 PM

fedupwithliberals,

if Mattison is not illegally making a profit, then you're washed up. You volunteer to sit on a board.

And as I explained to you repeatedly, that is the legal IRS filing of the non-profit, which lists Director's salary. It is available to the public. It is not his families paperwork in any sense. What is wrong with you? Do you read at a normal level? I'm honestly flummoxed, but I think I understand why you have so much indignation: you simply don't understand what is going on.

Posted by: Constant Reader | December 2, 2009 11:23 PM

Pedro, thanks for pointing this out. Clearly, I'm out of the loop and haven't been, uh, reading constantly. I do feel better knowing that the city didn't completely miss its chance.

New Haven??, I'm thrilled as anyone to see any empty lot finally filled and I'm certainly no fan of excessive rules or design by committee, but I think what offends everyone here is that a crummy design option is being presented as if people are too stupid to know the difference.

On a different note, can we please do something about the creeping threat of styrofoam buildings downtown? (See: corner of Chapel and Orange.)

Posted by: Pedro | December 3, 2009 12:26 AM

HewNaven, I agree with you 100% I just don't like the corrugated metal. I'm 1000% happier that this spot is not a parking lot like it's been, and 1000% happier that what is going there is a grocery store. I just wish that the building were a little more distinctive, considering that it's going to be occupying a prominent spot in the area. I love the fact that it's covered in windows and that it's multistory. It just looks a little minimalist for a corner that has so many attractive buildings.

Posted by: anthony | December 3, 2009 9:29 AM

I think the building looks lovely.
~anthony

Posted by: Bruce | December 3, 2009 10:39 AM

I like the look of the corrugated panel. It looks modern and artsy. The BZA is right to hold their objections to something they have no jurisdiction over and, really, no expertise.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 3, 2009 11:08 AM

HewNaven,
Good point, but we must compare this building to what was there before the parking lot and judge if whether or not it stands up to the historic precedent. Otherwise any ole shed that is built on top of a parking lot is arguable "better", but what does that really mean? It doesn't mean anything.
There are very good things this building does, which should be applauded, but the vertical lines that will show in the facade are VERY PROBLEMATIC. What this building does in terms of massing, proportions, transparency versus opacity, street presence, sidewalk line maintenance, etc may/most likely will be overshadowed by the terrible facade material, which is terrible because of the repeating vertical lines more so than the actual molecular make up of the material.

Posted by: DR | December 3, 2009 7:30 PM

Hard to believe I would write this, but the parking lot at Orange and George is better than the Coliseum. Well, maybe just the last years of the Coliseum.

Posted by: juli | December 3, 2009 10:05 PM

i really like east rockette's idea with some climbling plants growing up the siding! such a nice way to bring some green space downtown.

Posted by: john | December 5, 2009 4:30 AM

Omg....... no more terra cotta......Please.... I welcome the 360 project and the rendering of the corner of chapel and orange. I am just an average guy and not an architect in any way but please tell me the base colors/materials used on the majority of buildings in New Haven? Hmmmm was the old Yale Campus buildings used for foundation colors ....lol Let's see Conn Finan Center bldg,the Knights of Columbus Tower,Temple Medical, Peoples Bank,Whit/Grove,Granite Square,FBI building just to name a few... I could be totally wrong with my observation...again just on the outside of this topic looking in......... oh and not sure why people started going off on a rant referring to an idividual's salary. No I didn't read it fully but it seems in the scheme of things ....kinda irrellivant