New Haven Independent

Posted by: Pedro | November 16, 2009 9:36 AM

I think it's hyperbole to say that this will put Shaws out of business --Shaw's poor customer service and customer experience go miles to help themselves down that road.

If anyone wants to check out Sav A Lot for themselves, they have a location in Hamden down the road from Stop and Shop and it's in no danger of closing. It's also a 24 hour location which is also a great thing.

Do I think it's the highest and best use? 100% certainly not. There are better uses for this site, and there are better stores that could find success there. Downtown retailers seem to forget that customer service and decent hours go a long way to making a business a success. Staples had worse hours than the suburban stores and, like Shaws, terrible customer service compared to the suburban stores. This staples was several blocks from a UNIVERSITY and couldn't find success.

But I digress. I really hope that people fight this and bring a higher quality tenant to that location. However, if Sav A Lot shows up, maybe the increased competition will force Shaws to Spruce up it's act.

Posted by: remember | November 16, 2009 9:42 AM

Just remember: it is not in the purview of the zoning board to decide based on type of customer or the owner's personal characteristics. If you are opposing something, bring information relevant to why it is a bad use of the land. Read the zoning ordinance as it pertains to this use and come prepared to explain why it fails to meet the requirements in the ordinance.

Zoning also has no say on business competition. That is not a legal determinant. Keep that in mind.

Posted by: tony | November 16, 2009 10:16 AM

...
I still don't understand the objection to a laundromat. There are already several on Whalley.
Of course, a nice laundromat with wifi would be great for students as well as locals. I'd go and do laundry and work on my laptop.
While I think a T.J.Maxx, Office Max, Marshalls, Target, etc. would be nice, and Vuozo's multi-use proposal certainly sounds great (certainly viable so close to Yale and the hotel, etc.), and I would definitely not want to see Shaw's go away (I shop there and they stock items, like low-carb tortillas, etc., that I don't expect to see in a Save-a-Lot), still, I am offended by the notion that a discount store will bring "the wrong clientele".
Are single parents the wrong clientelle (that's me, but I am also a business owner)? Who? Latinos? (Soy yo). African Americans (my neighbors, our friends)?
Besides, there are already discount stores all up and down Whalley (there's a dollar store across from the Staples, now). I say anything that will bring jobs and savings to the neighbors is a good idea, and people should be grateful that someone wants to invest in the area when businesses keep closing, rather than keep refusing anything that is offered, leaving buildings undeveloped and empty, like the former Walgreens building that is just a hazard, now, undeveloped, unproductive, and open.
The vast majority of people living near Whalley Avenue are probably "the wrong clientelle", and we need jobs and affordable places to shop. Students from the nearby colleges would come to shop, too.
It's sad that Rite-Aid left, sad that Staples is leaving, but I think we should be glad that the owner of the building wants to develop something harmless, like a grocery store, at least, and not a bar, massage parlor, adult video store, liquor store, etc.

Posted by: eyequeue | November 16, 2009 11:21 AM

The property owner's first and last names are repeatedly misspelled in NHI, which makes it harder for people who might want to find out more about him or to contact him. It's Monqidh al-Sawwaf. No u in the first name, double the w (not the a) in the last name.

Posted by: Hew Naven?? | November 16, 2009 11:46 AM

Pedro,

You're missing the point in your customer service rant. (Also, Masterson has contested that Staples was even losing money).

Poor customer service is an inherent quality of big box stores. Don't expect anyone to care about you in a Staples, Shaw's, Rite Aid, Save-A-Lot, Take-A-Lot, Smell-A-Lot, whatever.

The people who work there are just average joe's trying to make a buck. They don't care if the quality of their service reflects poorly on their employer (i.e. the corporation).

There is simply no value in serving a business that has no basis in the community. And the workers, consciously or not, reveal that disconnection in their service.

Posted by: blue dog dem | November 16, 2009 11:47 AM

It's great that they had an architect complete drawings for the building. Are they going to pay for the renovations too? Seems they are pretty good at spending other people's money.

Have they reached out to these retailers to try and gauge their interests? Seems that they are meddlers in others affairs that might pertain slightly to them, but still is none of their business.

If Sav A Lot moves in, and is not successful, it will close just like Staples. Its clientele is foot traffic and no one will be driving there to shop, so if they don't like "that element" then they just don't like their neighbors.

Posted by: latichever | November 16, 2009 12:45 PM

This would be within walking distance of Yale, and Shaw's is on the outer reaches of walking. I think it would attract a lot of Yalies. Are they objectionabe too?

It's kind of funny that Walley, not exactly what I would call Rodeo Drive or Fifth Avenue, is getting this treatment.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 16, 2009 12:48 PM

Ugggggg....
Again, this is the wrong conversation.
Whalley Avenue does have a lot of discount stores, corner stores, and liquor stores. This serves the existing population as adequately as any other post industrial city's neighborhood thoroughfare does. There is, however, a very diverse population around Whalley. This diversity is not well represented in the stores. The point of trying to attract "upscale" joints is to help serve an existing population that is currently somewhat underrepresented, and to hopefully expand that population some. This is a good idea and one that deserves pursuit. Now there is a ton of underused space on Whalley because of surface parking lots, single story buildings and vacant lots. The first step to enlivening Whalley is to make it dense. This means filling in most or all of the gaps in the street facades with 3-4 story buildings (maybe a few 2 story or 4+ story) that are mixed use retail/residential or office/residential.
With density comes frequent choice; if you don't like the retail at one location, take 5 steps and you get to another place to choose from. This is what is important. McDonald's, while generally undesirable, can work in dense places:
http://www.nychinatown.org/storefronts/bowery/26bowery_med.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/19/100143024_10e1679852.jpg

The problem with fast food on Whalley is that they take up too much space, are ugly, poorly designed and single use. Burger King, for example, has a building that takes up less than 1/2 of the lot it sits on, the left over space isn't usable, its just asphalt. People often equate poor urban design with bad businesses, when really if you just fix the design element, the stores don't really matter all that much.

Shaw's is problematic for a number of reasons. Its out of scale, its ugly, its single use, its loading dock mutilates Whalley Ave, its energy inefficiency is something to frown upon, its parking lot is designed to hold max capacity even thought 99% of the time it is less than half full, etc. Shaw's provides decently priced milk, I'll give it that. But there's nothing wrong with spending a lot of money on food, it keeps humans alive. Cheap food is not an American right. It should be given up for the sake of our public realm. The amount Shaw's (and stores or its scale) takes from communities is greater than what it provides. Locally owned groceries are infinitely better than nationally owned chains any day. Romeo's and Nica's seem to be doing fine because they have a clientele that is securely built in: people who like to live and who realize that food allows humans to live. The problems arise when our of scale nationally owned businesses impose of neighborhoods.

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs046.snc3/13354_1173429611003_1085910074_30446191_2799854_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs046.snc3/13354_1173429571002_1085910074_30446190_2670505_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs066.snc3/13354_1173429491000_1085910074_30446188_3921323_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs066.snc3/13354_1173429531001_1085910074_30446189_7713023_n.jpg

Posted by: Offended? | November 16, 2009 1:05 PM

�the clientele� �We�re trying to change the people walking on Whalley,� Hmmmm does that mean we do not want the people who live, raise their children, and work here using the business' on Whalley Ave.? They should just be more up front about what exactly they mean here...Why try to sugar coat institutional racism! Say what you mean and mean what you say! We don't want minorities, and/or under priviledged people using the business' here. I thought all money was green...now we are inserting stigmas on the clientele we want. WASSD, WARG, Greer, and whoever else feels this way should get over their ignorance! No matter what business you want bring to Whalley Ave, know that WE ALL ARE WELCOME! Thank God for Civil Rights. I hope BZA slams this...egime!

Posted by: Neighbor | November 16, 2009 1:16 PM

Opposed to the Save-a-alot idea, however I am still stuck on the reasoning. As if their no better reasoning then Save-A-Lot’s expected clientele is “not what we’re looking for” in the neighborhood.

I'd like to hear from the neighborhood what they want! Where are the Alders in all of this?? I don't hear the voice of the citizens in this. Paul contact them see what their thoughts are. Why is there only these small interest groups working behind the scenes not being inclusive of the people this business decision will affect.

Posted by: Emily | November 16, 2009 3:39 PM

Offended has a point. This reeks of institutional racism! Who exactly are the riffraff they're referring to?

Posted by: Former Shaw's Employee | November 16, 2009 4:00 PM

FYI: Shaw's and Save-A-Lot are both owned by mega-retailer, SUPERVALU. Save-A-Lot stores are typically franchises, but the same company still owns both. See www.supervalu.com for more info.

Posted by: Brian Tang | November 16, 2009 4:28 PM

As someone who doesn't own a car, I would definitely appreciate someplace that sells things like socks and underwear. In theory there should be a huge market for this. I certainly feel like my options are pretty limited… (there's no way I'm riding the bus all the way out to the Milford Shopping mall and it's extremely difficult for me to get to Wal-Mart, what with Foxon Ave being so scary on a bicycle).

Posted by: HewNaven?? | November 16, 2009 4:38 PM

Offended?

I take the question mark to mean that you're not sure if you should be offended. Let me reassure you there is no reason to be.

You have asked,
"Hmmmm does that mean we do not want the people who live, raise their children, and work here using the business' on Whalley Ave.?"

I would argue that the groups mentioned in the article actually do care about the people who live and work along Whalley, atleast indirectly so.

By showing support for mixed-use buildings, parking in back and desiring services the community actually needs, and avoiding low quality, unsafe, and unhealthy services these groups are looking out for your children's best interest.

But don't get me wrong. They're by no means perfect. For example, Masterson's desire to lure a big-box retailer like T.J. Maxx or H&M is misguided and frankly despicable since she claims to be director of a community organization. Corporate money doesn't stay in the community, Sheila!

What we want and what we need are LOCAL BUSINESSES!!

Posted by: Zalman Alpert | November 16, 2009 5:16 PM

Great ! why not a Bloomingdales or Saks 5th Avenue or even better a branh of Ralph Lauren.! The wrong people they refer to is just a racist code for people of color , unemployed and the poor, the ethnic I am annoyed that you let them get away with these sort of code words.
hy not another grocery or a low end clothing store. The Yale community has more than a few clothing shops on Chapel and Broadway , the community needs stores designed for its budget, not for the readers of Vanity Fair and the New Yorker.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 16, 2009 5:22 PM

We do need more local businesses, however high commercial rents often make that reality difficult.

Many a would-be entrepreneur are simply priced-out of the market.

Posted by: anon | November 16, 2009 6:03 PM

Instead of thinking about the stores, think about the boulevard's overall impact on all of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Vacant buildings will make things much worse. I agree with Pedro that it is not a zero-sum game. Having two markets here may in fact bring more people to the area, in order to comparison shop.

Instead, the neighborhood should focus more efforts on improving the pedestrian environment and nonexisting crossings along Whalley.

It is ironic that the largest supermarket in this part of New Haven doesn't even have a crosswalk leading to its front entrance. Traffic regularly speeds along at 60 miles per hour through this area because the street is wider than Interstate 95.

The lack of attractive urban design, exemplified by the wide section of the street in front of Shaws, is the main reason why businesses are suffering -- if the environment were improved and the city put a halt on all the new strip malls that pop up every year, Whalley Avenue would be far more prosperous (not that it isn't already a great place, particularly where the pedestrian environment is most attractive, e.g., where there are still older buildings remaining like near the Soul Food shops, instead of gas stations/drive thrus).

Narrow the street and install pedestrian medians and some crosswalks, like what has recently been done on major streets in Newark and Philadelphia, and it would be a happier place. You could do this for a fraction of the cost of what the city is spending to re-do a few sidewalks near Whalley Pizza.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 16, 2009 6:40 PM

This is crazy! They oppose a grocery store?!?!? How can that possibly be bad for he neighborhood? Instead of celebrating the fact that the landlord found a tenant so the building won't be empty, they are fighting him because they want something upscale? These folks need a reality check. I'm surprised because at least some of them run business on Whalley so the know the reality of the neighborhood. They want more Yalies? Good luck. For the most part, the Yale crowd rarely goes past Popeye's. I'm sure the two recent shootings in the Popeye's parking lot don't help matters.

They had upscale at Dozo -- a reasonably priced Japanese restaurant serving sushi and excellent noodle dishes. Were any of the WASSD or WARG boosters regulars? I was, and I never saw John Vuoso there. [I hope I am wrong about this, by the way.] Seems to me they should have beaten a path to Dozo's door to help it succeed. That would have helped the neighborhood a whole lot more than tilting at windmills and fighting a responsible landlord lucky enough to have a new tenant. T.J. Maxx or H&M? Keep dreaming.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 16, 2009 6:52 PM

And another thing...

I'm not a big fan of the boxes, parking lots and fast food joints on Whalley, even though I patronize many of them, and will miss Staples. But lower Whalley has been like that in various forms since I was a kid in the 60's. Only then there were a lot of car dealers.

Posted by: Pedro | November 16, 2009 9:32 PM

Mr Jones, thanks for the history lesson, I forgot about all of the car dealers on Whalley! How quickly people forget. Brandfon Honda, Stevens Toyota are the two I remember. It actually explains a lot as to why Whalley looks as it does currently.

Posted by: Gretchen Pritchard | November 17, 2009 1:11 AM

Norton Street, I get where you're coming from about walkable urban neighborhoods, etc. etc., and your comments about single-use boxy little stores stuck in the middle of too much asphalt certainly resonate for me. But do you realize how incredibly insensitive this must sound to someone who's unemployed or on food stamps --

"Cheap food is not an American right. It should be given up for the sake of our public realm. The amount Shaw's (and stores or its scale) takes from communities is greater than what it provides. Locally owned groceries are infinitely better than nationally owned chains any day. Romeo's and Nica's seem to be doing fine because they have a clientele that is securely built in: people who like to live and who realize that food allows humans to live."

Yeah, I read Michael Pollan too, and I get where you're coming from. But there are people in the blocks around Whalley Avenue for whom a sanctimonious observation about certain kinds of food being too cheap for our own good would just be a slap in the face. And then to hear you suggesting Romeo's or Nica's as being a better idea, for their own good -- yikes.

I adore Romeo's and Nica's. They are assets to their neighborhood, and I am delighted that they are there on Orange Street for the Yale-grad-school Europhile clientele who like fresh artichokes and fifty kinds of imported pasta and pride themselves on making intentional food choices and have the money to do it. But they are laughably not the right model for lower Whalley Avenue. (I could see a Romeo's making it in the Village, a couple of miles northwest, among the twee little cafes and specialty shops, though.)

What I don't understand is why nobody in this discussion has mentioned Edge of the Woods. It draws a very diverse clientele, including people who are way more food-politically-correct than the patrons of Romeo's or Nica's, but it does it in a funky, folksy way that manages to be far more welcoming to more kinds of people, I think, than the boutique grocers on Orange Street. It sells fresh local organic produce and tries to do it for an affordable price. In my view it's a much better model than Romeo's for what might help to transform lower Whalley Avenue.

And let's be careful how we talk to each other and about each other, and try to walk in each other's shoes a little.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 17, 2009 9:37 AM

There were many car dealers on Whalley over the years. I remember Somers Pontiac, Crest Lincoln-Mercury, the Cadillac dealer [was that Brown and Thomas? They moved to Woodbridge where they built a leaky plexiglass bubble showroom that became Voloshin Cadillac, until Crest moved uptown to that spot.] On Whalley by the 70/80's there was also McDermott Chevrolet and Hyundai. I'm sure there were more that I don't remember. There was also an old car dealer building that became the Arcadia Ballroom.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | November 17, 2009 12:04 PM

Mister Jones,

Thanks for the memories. There's a reason want to forget the car dealerships on lower Whalley: they were unsightly structures, and inconsistent with basic human needs.

Just because lower Whalley has looked like crap for at least fifty years as you can recall, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Can we at least hope for improvement? Why should we settle for less than livable?

Posted by: City Hall Watch | November 17, 2009 1:45 PM

It is increasingly disturbing that legitimate businesses are being forced to kiss the rings of Eli Greer and John Vuoso et al. This small group of people seem intent on their own version of ethnic cleansing. One need only look at both the housing on Whalley and adjacent to it to see these are neighborhoods of modest means. The plan seems designed to drive out businesses that cater to them in favor of "upscale" businesses they can't afford.

Posted by: Retail Broker | November 17, 2009 2:03 PM

For all the prople who do not have any idea how commercial properties are leased listen up. I am a commercial retail broker near Hartford and what you people are asking is crazy. You want a Target, H&M, TJ Maxx, Marshalls?! Target is a 100,000+ sf store, Maxx and Marshalls are almost 30,000 sf and H&M is a high end retailer. The building is 17,000 sf. Do the math and see it won't work plus the incomes in the area could not support a higher end retailer. Save a Lot is exactly what that property needs. An affordable grocer for lower to middle income group. Do you want another empty blighted property in your already dismall city? If you don't take advantage of the few tenants that are expanding in this depressed economic time, who knows how long it will be before you find someone who wants to be there? Get smart and realize you are talking about Whalley Ave in New Haven and not Madison Ave in New York.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 17, 2009 2:58 PM

Gretchen Pritchard,
Easy access to affordable food and cheap food are too completely different things.
Also there is already a discount food store on Whalley between Sherman and Winthrop. The retail in the neighborhood needs to be balanced, what we currently have is not balance. Nothing has to be gotten rid of, just added to. If we filled in all the underused space there would be plenty of room for diverse retail without needed to get rid of affordable retail that people depend upon. A long term vision is important when discussing the issues that face post Industrial American cities.

Posted by: Alex | November 17, 2009 7:30 PM

I am white, middle aged, middle income and I shop at Save-A-Lot. I am low end? Who wants to pay Shaws' and Stop & Shop's rip off prices and get the abuse at Shaw's. Shaw's has never kept their promise to the city about the kind of store they would run there - 24 hrs, etc.

Save-A Lot is a 24 hr store and the people in Dixwell would certainly be glad to shop there, also - and they are not "low end people" regardless of their skin color! Keeping Save-A-Lot out is just an effort to gentrify Whalley Ave and bring in more white businesses!

Posted by: s s | November 17, 2009 7:41 PM

You will see many more Save a Lots in the coming years. Again Shaw's is owned by Supervalu which also owns Save a Lots. The later has been the companies most profitable banner. Low prices, wages, and limited variety.

Posted by: Bruce | November 17, 2009 9:36 PM

Norton Street: Romeo and Nica's are great for sandwiches, fancy cheese, produce, etc. Nobody "shops" at those stores for groceries -- they head out to the Stop & Shop in Hamden for that. I would never be able to survive shopping at those little specialty shops.

If save-a-lot has done their market research (I can guarantee they have) then their willingness to open a store shows that there is a market for their products (i.e. locals will want to shop there). If Shaw's has trouble keeping up -- great! That's called competition and that's good for consumers. Maybe Shaw's can use a little kick in the butt.

Government has no business deciding how many of what type of store is "good" for a neighborhood. Let the free market work. If people want their products they will buy them, if not the store will soon be gone.

Posted by: remember | November 18, 2009 7:47 AM

Bruce has depicted reality in how zoning appeals is allowed to look at this issue. Competition and personal judgements are not considerations.

If you wish to oppose or support this, check the zoning ordinances:
http://library6.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=19969&doc_action=whatsnew

and make sure that your comments address the specific zone and use that is occuring.

Posted by: Beaver Hill Resident | November 18, 2009 10:37 AM

It would be very unfortunate to lose Shaw's on Whalley Avenue. Imagine a huge empty store and a much larger, mostly empty parking lot for who knows how long. That's not what Whalley Avenue needs.

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2009 8:35 PM

Who is the WASSD? I know they are a special services district, but are they like downtown's Town Green SSD who has always had mostly whites on the board? Is this another white organization trying to keep the area under white landlord control?

Posted by: Norton Street | November 18, 2009 9:08 PM

Bruce,
In the early 20th century, and prior, people shopped at locally owned small gorceries that were located within walking distance of their house. People also went to butchers, bakeries, etc to get all their food needs. These various food stores would be visited multiple times a week if not daily.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs046.snc3/13354_1173429571002_1085910074_30446190_2670505_n.jpg
At mid century chains began to overtake the local groceries, by having a larger store with more food that were less frequently placed, but still within walking distance of their customers. These places were very similar to the smaller locally owned groceries accept for being less numerable and larger. People could make less stops at individual stores.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs066.snc3/13354_1173429491000_1085910074_30446188_3921323_n.jpg
Today, large nationally owned chains have replaced most other types of grocery stores. Most customers drive to these location weekly or monthly to stock pile food.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=shaw's&sll=41.351557,-73.02063&sspn=0.237619,0.703125&ie=UTF8&radius=18.25&rq=1&ev=p&hq=shaw's&hnear=&ll=41.351557,-73.02063&spn=0.237619,0.703125&z=11

Large scale grocery stores are very problematic. They require enormous parking lots, they attract lots of traffic, they require huge loading docks, they do not reinvest back into the communities that supply their wealth and they are extremely ugly. These big box stores destroy the public realm and take away from our daily lives more than they add to them.
I think it is important to look at what has been historically successful in our lives and to compare that to what is currently the conditions; doing so allows us to accurately evaluate our circumstances while giving us something to strive for in the future. It will be very important to the quality of our lives in the coming decades to rediscover a dense network of locally owned retail that have invested interests in the success our the community in which the stores is located.
A redesign of Whalley to support a density familiar to the Avenue a century ago would allow us to keep all the existing retail while making much more room for new retail that is aimed at various income levels, that would reflect the already various income level home owners and renters in the area, who currently go elsewhere to shop.

Posted by: Dan Plotkin | November 19, 2009 4:30 PM

What ownership interest in this property does Shiela Masterson, Francine Caplan and John Vuoso have that entitles them to decide what tenant will occupy the building? Are these people so arrogant and ignorant as to presume that the tenants they wish to have will come?

What kind of people do these three ... want on the street, white people? Non-white people should not have a convienent place to shop, is that it? Is it the liberal ... professors at Yale who object to this?

By the way, Save-A-Lot is owned by Supervalu and guess what? So is Shaws! Do you think Supervalu would put in a Save-A-Lot if they believed it would harm its sister store?

Go pay attention to something you actually know about, please. Your comments are offensive at the least & racest at best.

Posted by: Edward_H | November 20, 2009 11:56 AM

Good Lord, you would think a methadone clinic was opening up there from some of these naysayers, It's a grocery store for Christ's sake. If anyone wants a certain tenant to oocupy the space then buy the property and lease it up yourselves.

Posted by: OWheeler | December 6, 2009 11:30 PM

Hey! If you guys are interested in polling New Haven take this very short and concise survey! Hopefully we'll see what New Haven wants and what the Whalley Ave. residents want!

It's short and simple-

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2H2GF2T