Can Shaw’s Survive Save-A-Lot?

by Thomas MacMillan | December 9, 2009 1:11 PM | | Comments (44)

120809_TM_0052.jpg“Bob, how much is this mustard at Save-A-Lot?” zoning lawyer Anthony Avallone asked.

Bob Dwane, who represents the discount grocer, looked at the bottle of brown mustard. “Ninety-nine cents,” Dwane answered.

And how much would it cost at Shaw’s?

“A dollar forty-nine,” Dwane said.

That’s one major difference between Shaw’s and Save-A-Lot — and a reason that bringing a new Save-A-Lot to Whalley Avenue would not adversely affect the Shaw’s supermarket less than a block away, Avallone argued. The two stores have different “price points” and will attract different customers, he said.

111509_TM_0004.jpgAvallone mustered his mustard argument on Tuesday night before the Board of Zoning Appeals. He sought to convince the zoners to permit a Save-A-Lot to open at 84 Whalley Ave., the site of the recently closed Staples office-supply store.

Neighbors worry that a new Save-A-Lot grocery store on Whalley Avenue would mean the death of nearby Shaw’s. That notion just doesn’t cut the mustard, Avallone responded.

Not only are the stores geared toward different customers — they’re owned by the same company, Avallone said. That company, Supervalu, would never open a store that would threaten the viability of an existing, successful Shaw’s, he argued.

Since the area is zoned for auto sales, the Board of Zoning Appeals is charged with deciding whether a grocery store would be appropriate for the neighborhood. In part, this means deciding whether two grocery stores should operate so close to one another.

In addition to a zoning variance, the proposal requires city permission to have fewer parking spaces than regulations require. That portion of the application had to be referred to the City Plan Commission, so the BZA did not vote on the proposal on Tuesday. The final vote is scheduled for the board’s February meeting.

The Pitch

Avallone addressed neighbors’ concerns that Save-A-Lot would destroy Shaw’s. “It’s just not the case,” he said. They’re simply very different stores.

He sought to distinguish them in several ways. He presented Save-A-Lot as a no-frills, basic grocery store for people who don’t earn a lot of money. Shaw’s, on the other hand, has a much larger selection, and higher prices.

Shaw’s is a “full-service” store, offering a bakery, flowers, cards, a deli, a bank, and a drugstore, Avallone said. Save-A-Lot has none of those things. Shaw’s sells cigarettes and alcohol, he said. Save-A-Lot sells neither cigarettes nor alcohol.

Save-A-Lot offers about 1,500 products, he said. Shaw’s offers over 30,000. There are 83 kinds of mustard at Shaw’s, Avallone said. At Save-A-Lot, there are two — yellow and brown.

After demonstrating that Save-A-Lot’s mustard is cheaper than Shaw’s, Avallone said Save-A-Lot serves people on “fixed incomes,” like seniors.

Avallone pitched Save-A-Lot as a needed service for people with incomes of less than the area median of $39,000 per year. The grocery needs of those people should not be overlooked in a rush to preserve Shaw’s, he argued. “If we have to adversely impact on that population in order to save a big corporation, well then I’m in the wrong city,” he said.

120809_TM_0026.jpgBut the most compelling reason why Save-A-Lot doesn’t threaten Shaw’s is that they belong to the same company, Supervalu, Avallone said. Supervalu has done extensive market testing “to make sure that they don’t shoot themselves in the foot,” he said. “They’re not going to destroy a 60,000 square-foot store [Shaw’s] to have an 11,000 square-foot store [Save-A-Lot].”

“Some business will be lost by Shaw’s, of course,” Avallone acknowledged. But it will not be significant or substantial, he claimed.

Rick Meyer, vice-president of market development at Supervalu, said his company had done “significant market research” using “all the tools and toys” and determined that the two grocery stores could coexist happily. They serve different customers at different “price points,” he said.

Tom Talbot, deputy director of zoning for the City Plan department, asked Avallone to speak to the three requirements for a use variance: that a proposed use be reasonable for the property for reasons unique to the property, that the use require the minimum variance necessary, and that the use be in line with the city’s comprehensive plan.

Avallone argued that the proposal meets all three criteria. It will replace a retail use with another retail use without altering a building that is already uniquely suited to the purpose, he said. “If it isn’t part of the city’s comprehensive plan to provide affordable quality food … then I don’t know why it isn’t,” he said.

Neighbors Opposed

Ten people rose to be counted in opposition to the Save-A-Lot proposal. Several of them chose to speak. Despite Avallone’s arguments, they all voiced concern that Shaw’s would go under if Save-A-Lot goes forward.

Sheila Masterson, head of the Whalley Avenue Special Services District, said her organization had voted unanimously against the plan at a recent meeting. A Save-A-Lot would destroy the 60,000 square-foot Shaw’s, creating “a hole” at the center of Whalley, she said. Not only that, but it would also hurt other food stores on Whalley, like Edge of the Woods, Minore’s Market, and various convenience stores.

120809_TM_0047.jpg“You have to ask yourself, ‘What if?’,” said Pat Minore, of Minore’s. “What are we going to do with a 60,000 square-foot hole?”

Whalley activist Eliezer Greer objected to what he called an unfair characterization of people who shop at Shaw’s as distinct from potential Save-A-Lot shoppers. “Whalley has a lot of different types,” he said.

Shaw’s creates a lot of job opportunities for the community, he said. “It would be a tremendous loss if those people didn’t have jobs,” he said.

Responding to the concerns, Avallone said “logic dictates” that Shaw’s would prevail if Supervalu finds a conflict between its new 11,000 square-foot grocery Save-A-Lot and the old 60,000 square-foot Shaw’s, and has to shut one down. “Which one are you going to close?” he asked.

Board member Victor Fasano asked Avallone if he could turn that prediction into a written promise. Could he draft an agreement between Shaw’s and Save-A-Lot stating that if Shaw’s is negatively affected by Save-A-Lot, then Save-A-Lot will agree to close?

“I don’t know how to do that,” he said. He later said it would be simply too legally and technically complicated to create such an agreement. “All I can do is present the facts and say it doesn’t make sense for Shaw’s to go out of business for this smaller business,” he said.

Avallone said Shaw’s itself is in favor of the application. He promised to file a statement from Shaw’s to that effect.

After Avallone spoke, the board closed the item, then voted to reopen it when another neighbor asked to speak.

120809_TM_0055.jpgVictor Rogers, rector of the St. Luke’s Episcopal Church across from the proposed Save-A-Lot site, said he spoke for the more than 200 parishioners of his church when he opposed the plan. He said a longstanding agreement with the Staples management had allowed members of the church to use the store’s parking lot on Sundays. The Save-A-Lot would be open seven days a week, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. “That creates a problem for us on Sunday,” Rogers said.

Furthermore, Save-A-Lot is “not the type of business” his parishioners would like to see in the neighborhood, he said. They’d rather have a “sit-down restaurant” or a smaller “Marshall’s or Kohl’s,” he said

“A shoe store?” said BZA Chair Cathy Weber. “Alright man, there you go!”

Still Opposed

As the board moved on to the next agenda item, Masterson and the other objectors stepped out into the hallway. Masterson said she was unconvinced by Avallone and Supervalu representatives’ claims that Shaw’s is not in danger. “If you were in their shoes, what would you say?” she asked.

The prospect of losing Shaw’s has repercussions beyond just Whalley Avenue, Masterson said. The property is owned by the Greater Dwight Development Corporation, a non-profit that invests in the Dwight neighborhood. The profits from the property are “plowed back into the community,” Masterson said. “It’s not just and empty business on Whalley.”

If Shaw’s were to fail, all the other businesses in its plaza would go too, said Linda Townsend-Maier, president of the Dwight corporation.

“The question is, is it worth the risk?” said Minore. “I’m sure there’s other willing tenants” for the former Staples.

Minore said a Save-A-Lot wouldn’t really affect his store since he mostly sells meat. And if Shaw’s were to close, his business would go up, he said. “But my property values will go down.”







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Norton Street | December 9, 2009 1:35 PM

Can our neighborhood survive another regionally or nationally owned chain store that funnels money directly from the pockets of residents to distant corporate owners without ever making meaningful investments back into the community?

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | December 9, 2009 1:52 PM

I am 100% against this!!! You Would kill that whole plaza!! This in in way way worth the risk!!!!

Posted by: Margaret Middleton | December 9, 2009 2:00 PM

"If it isn’t part of the city’s comprehensive plan to provide affordable quality food … then I don’t know why it isn’t,” he said."

Good idea. Why not get some input from someone at the Rudd Center about what the health costs to city residents would be of opening a Sav-a-lot at that location? After we hear an assessment of the nutritional quality of the 1,500 items they offer then maybe we can talk about what we could be doing as a community to help poor people have access to "affordable quality food."

Posted by: Patricia Kane | December 9, 2009 2:33 PM

The city of New Haven is severely lacking in the variety of retail outlets one might expect in such a diversified area.

Why doesn't New Haven have its own Lord & Taylor or Bloomingdales, Kohl, Target, Home Depot, Athlete's Foot or Marshall's? Why do we have to drive out Route 1 to Orange and MIlford to shop or to North Haven for Petco? Why isn't Best Buy here?

The neighborhood has spoken and it wants a better selection of stores, not another grocery store.

It's time to tell our favorite stores we want them here. Let's spen our money in New Haven and save gas.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | December 9, 2009 2:46 PM

Victor Rogers, rector of the St. Luke’s Episcopal Church across from the proposed Save-A-Lot site, said he spoke for the more than 200 parishioners of his church when he opposed the plan. He said a longstanding agreement with the Staples management had allowed members of the church to use the store’s parking lot on Sundays. The Save-A-Lot would be open seven days a week, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. “That creates a problem for us on Sunday,” Rogers said.

How about the problem the church creates for not having to pay taxes that affect those of us who have to pay taxes.

Posted by: Pedro | December 9, 2009 2:48 PM

I have to say, that if Whalley Avenue Special Services District and Ms. Masterson is opposed to Save-A-Lot, the group is going to have to come up with a more intelligent argument than it being a competitor to Shaws.

How in the world does that make sense? THEY ARE OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY. Why would a company intentionally torpedo their own 60,000 square foot New Haven flagship? Is there any logical argument that doing so would make sense for them?

I'm not the biggest fan of Save-A-Lot for that area, but there are about a hundred better arguments than this one. If anything the argument helps Save-A-Lot getting the variances, because any reasonable person could see that a company isn't going to act against it's own financial self-interest.

Posted by: 63 Whalley Ave | December 9, 2009 3:02 PM

Did anyone ever think of polling the residents of this neighborhood to find out what their "needs" are?

I live right across the street from the abandoned Rite Aid next door to the proposed Save-A-Lot location.

No one from the various community revitalization groups contacted me or my neighbors. Does Masterson or Greer or Weber live in my neighborhood? If not, then why are they telling me what's best for it. Why aren't they asking me?

Even more troubling, is that I haven't heard from Alderwoman Gina Calder since I've moved into the ward almost a year ago. She might as well live in another city! I'd like to know what her opinion is on the issue. Do you have any opinions Gina? You're rather quiet while those outside your ward are quite vocal.

The polar forces in this debate - those of indifference and aloofness on one end and presumption and pretentiousness on the other - obfuscate the middle ground that the majority of the community stands on.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | December 9, 2009 4:07 PM

Patricia Kane,

You're definitely not speaking for everyone in begging for those chain stores. Who do they serve? Certainly not the community in which they reside. Their products are manufactured in foreign countries, their management is severly lacking in customer service, and worst of all, their profits mysteriously disappear from the community where they are produced thus leaving a gaping hole in the local economy.

For all the opposite reasons, I know plenty of people who are begging for the chain store's vanguished foe: exclusively local businesses!!!

Posted by: Nan Bartow | December 9, 2009 4:14 PM

I didn't think the Whalley Avenue would lose Staples. Its loss is a big one for this section of Whalley. We cannot afford the loss of Shaw's. We need a diversity of stores on Whalley Avenue so we can shop near our homes instead of having to go to the suburban malls.

Posted by: jawbone | December 9, 2009 4:16 PM

Patricia Kane,
While I respect your opinion and the right to have such, I disagree with you. If the stores you listed were downtown, I'd have to leave New Haven. Those stores don't add much to the quality of life downtown in my opinion. Big box retail will soon enough be a thing of the past and when they leave, they leave behind an environmental disaster and an eyesore.
I think that if you look close enough, you will find the kinds of things that you are looking for already there. Try Whalley Hardware, for instance.
We need to think in terms of making downtown more hospitable for small, practical businesses.
Of course Yale is helping much in that regard. They are trying to remake Broadway into a Cambridge Square-esque boutique retail experience for awhile now at the expense of more reasonable small businesses that actually add to the vitality of a small-city downtown.
There are so many reasons why a Kohl's or a Home Depot would never work downtown (and they would never want to anyway.) The first thing that comes to mind is the sea of asphalt parking lot they all think they need to park all those suburban drivers.

Posted by: Pioneer | December 9, 2009 5:31 PM

I am against this plan very much. I just think we can be doing something better with a space like this. Add onto the building, put in some new floors.. how about splitting the ground floor into two or three retail stores and using the floors above (if that is even considered) for office space or homes?

Posted by: HewNaven?? | December 9, 2009 5:46 PM

Thanks, Ned.

After reading that it seems more apparent than ever that the CEO of Supervalu is simply hedging his bet by putting a Save-A-Lot so near it's higher priced counterpart. He seems positive that the economic outlook is grim for everyone except Supervalu and he clearly doesn't mind if Shaw's fails as a result - that's the point of having the Save-A-Lot so near!

He's anticipating that our community will become more impoverished in years to come and that, as a result, a low-priced competitor to Shaw's will prosper.

"The American consumer's shopping habits have changed probably forever -- certainly for a long time. I don't think we are going to wake up in a few months and everybody will be back to 2006," the CEO added.

Posted by: Remember | December 9, 2009 5:55 PM

Zoning appeals does not have any jurisdiction over issues of competition amongst businesses. Financial hardships are not valid reasons for approving or denying a business.

Only the three things Talbot outlined are relevant:
that a proposed use be reasonable for the property for reasons unique to the property, that the use require the minimum variance necessary, and that the use be in line with the city’s comprehensive plan

Posted by: Ned | December 9, 2009 5:55 PM

From ®Savalot website:
"Here's how we save you[?] money...
Customers bagging their own groceries means less [fewer] employees at the store..." I guess all of those unemployed people will be freed to realize their potential as ®Ipod app developers and investment bankers?

Remember when gas cost fifty cents/gallon and the attendant cleaned your windows and checked your oil? Now gas costs 5x as much and what do you get: pump it yourself...

Posted by: Nan Bartow | December 9, 2009 7:26 PM

Jawbone, I'm a big fan of Whalley Hardware. It's a great addition to Middle Whalley, and it's one of a kind. There are no more hardware stores close by. We need more useful businesses that don't duplicate each other like Whalley Hardware.

Posted by: The Professor | December 10, 2009 5:28 AM

It's interesting to me that the article only mentions the "grocery store market competition" argument against the Save-a-Lot, while the comments seem to suggest a wider range of reasons for opposing the new store.

I'm inclined to agree with the idea that Supervalu is simply hedging--while I'm not a connoisseur of supermarkets, I've been to enough to see that the Shaw's is simply not as well stocked or kept in as good condition as other Shaw's locations--say, the one across the street from my friend's apartment in Boston. If you look at the meat selection at the Whalley Shaws, for example, you'll find it replete with shoulder steak and little else. Don't get me wrong, shoulder steak is tasty, but it's one of the cheapest cuts available. Supervalu's argument that Save-a-Lot is aimed at a demographic distinct from Shaw's would be far more credible if I didn't get the distinct impression that Shaw's is already aiming at that demographic.

Unfortunately, I'm a bit pessimistic about the prospects of getting a business in there that will be financially viable without, as Norton Street puts it, "funnel[ing] money directly from the pockets of residents to distant corporate owners without ever making meaningful investments back into the community." In order to get a business that brings money back into the community, there has to be some alignment of incentives--perhaps a local owner or a community benefits agreement. Given the economic climate, I don't really see either of these in the cards.

Ultimately, we have to accept that having something in the plaza is better than having nothing there, and that getting some sort of "altruistic," community-oriented business to move in may not be in the cards. I just think we can do better than a Save-a-Lot.

Posted by: Patricia Kane | December 10, 2009 8:15 AM

To 63 Whalley, Jawbone and New Haven:
Whalley is already loaded with chain stores - see Dollar Tree, Popeye's, Staples, Dunkin Donuts (3), Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.- so the issue isn't chain stores, it's what's kind of chain stores.
Whalley Hardware can't begin to compete with Home Depot. Does it sell tile or appliances? The answer is no.
Since I actually live in the neighborhood, I know what I'm missing, without claiming to represent everyone.
One of the reasons I moved to New Haven was for the opportunity to get out of my car and to walk to more places. I still think that's a good way to live.
Bringing in some nationally recognized stores is not incompatible with developing local businesses. Check out the Consignment Corner, the Dominican sidewalk food or my favorite, Edge of the Woods.
We can leave development to market forces or we can develop a vision for what the area can look like and what businesses we'd like to see.
New Haven is under-served in its retail outlets and I'd think the City's Office of Economic Development would agree.
New Haven is top heavy with non-profit, untaxed properties which produce high taxes for home owners. in comparison with some of the surrounding suburbs. Increasing the tax base by attracting established retail businesses would benefit everyone, including tenants. This is not an "either or" proposition, but something that could be intelligently balanced.
The Dwight / West River areas, along with Dixwell, are in need of jobs for people like the local carpenter I met at a Route 34 Plan meeting. He didn't need job training; he needed work.
My basic observation remains: people in New Haven have to drive out of town for too much of what they need. We can support the growth of locally owned business and still welcome a Costco to town.

Posted by: Mister Jones | December 10, 2009 10:21 AM

We can all dream and debate what kind of stores we would like to see in an empty space, but the choice is limited to willing tenants and landlords. Be real. The space is too small for a big box or even a Kohls or Marshalls. And be careful what you wish for-- what's better for the city and the neighborhood? A grocery store or a vacant space? Or another dollar store or worse?

My two cents: I'm not worried about attracting the wrong demographic. One difficulty faced by any business in that neighborhood is that it sits on the other side of the Yale and downtown line. People going out at night don't venture past Howe Street [and I remember when they wouldn't go near Howe Street]. Rudy's and El Amigo Felix draw crowds. Noodle bars all over town do business, but Dozo failed because it's on the "wrong" side of Popeye's. I love that chicken from Popeye's but with two recent parking lot shootings I can understand reluctance to go there. And I suppose Staples failed to attract enough downtown or Yalie daytime business. Will a grocery store do better in reaching across that divide?

Between the Broadway parking plaza, the hotel and the gas station and Popeye's, there's huge divide between the pedestrian friendly part of town and the car-culture of Whalley Avenue with its parking lots and drive-thrus. Businesses that might have bridged that gap, like Rite-Aid, Staples and Dozo are gone [although there's a new restaurant in the Dozo space I haven't tried yet]. A grocery store can't hurt, and may actually help the neighborhood.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | December 10, 2009 10:26 AM

Patricia,

You're not trying hard enough. You're accepting what chain stores want you to believe - that YOU need them! Don't be fooled, THEY NEED YOU even more. Which is why they'll deceive you to get your business. ("We offer only the lowest prices, etc".)

To prove my point there actually is a place where you can buy tile in New Haven. It actually has better variety and service than Home Depot, isn't that funny?

Tile America

Posted by: ROBN | December 10, 2009 11:22 AM

I wish our public officials would study our law more closely. Mr Talbot paraphrased the primary requirement for a use variance as , " a proposed use be reasonable for the property for reasons unique to the property..."

The paraphrasing is incorrect and I think Attorney Avallone is (silently) aware of that.

This is how the zoning law reads...
Section 63. Board of Zoning Appeals.
(c) Variances.
(2) Special treatment of use variances... the board shall not grant any use variance....unless:
a. The zoning regulations allow no reasonable use to be made of the property in question for reasons peculiar to the property and not applicable to the area as a whole.

The law says that a variance can only be granted if the required use (car dealership) is unreasonable.

BTW, I'm not in favor of more car dealerships...I just think that our public officials should either follow the law or change it through proper procedure.

Posted by: L | December 10, 2009 11:23 AM

I agree I don't want a great big chain store here, unless it is something that we need/want, so we don't have to brave the traffic out to Orange or Milford. The "protect Shaw's" logic is flawed, not only because they are the same company, but also because stores w/ 2 different price points will attract different kinds of customers - like a Dunkin' Donuts near a Starbucks, like we have downtown. What about a smaller chain, or a more local one, or even a more upscale one? An Apple store, a Pearl Paint or Utrecht art supply, Trader Joe's, a nice and brand-spanking-new Goodwill like out on Rte. 80, an antique mall, something like Fair Haven Furniture, etc... etc...

Posted by: City Hall Watch | December 10, 2009 12:23 PM

Those who think higher end retailers are going to invest heavily in the Whalley Avenue business district should look at the demographics not only of the specific neighborhood but of New Haven in general. We don't have the population, the money or affluence. We are statistically below the national average in owner occupied housing and family/personal income. We are higher than the national average in family and individual poverty, rentals, and housing stock that is vacant.

This is why the quality shopping you all wish to have is NOT located along Whalley and is located to some extent in the Broadway, College - Chapel, Temple street areas only. It's also why I endlessly criticize the city administration for supporting programs that do nothing to raise people up opting instead for handing out bandaids to poverty and lack of hope and accomplishment.

This is from the the U.S. Census Bureau for New Haven for 2006-08 (New Haven vs. U.S.):

1. Household Population: 110,850
2. Median HH Income: $39,250 v $52,175
3. Median Family Income: $46,915 v $63,211
4. Per Capita Income: $21,127 v $27,466
5. Families below Poverty: 19.4% v 9.6%
6. Individuals below Poverty: 23.8% v 13.2%
7. Total Housing Units: 52,459
8. Occupied Housing: 45,561, 87% v 88%
9. Owner Occupied: 14,432, 31.6% v 67.1%
10. Rentals: 31,219, 68.4% v 32.9%

It would be good to encourage other stores to move into vacant slots along Whalley to try and encourage more walking traffic and a greater sense of community. But I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Nothing brings down a neighborhood faster than an empty storefront with an unpoliced parking lot. This could last years and at the end of the day, it's unlikely you will get the tenant for which you dream.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | December 10, 2009 1:17 PM

Mister Jones,

The restaurant (Sweet Jasmine Rice) that filled in the space left vacant by DOZO has also failed. Big surprise.

It offered great food, amazing service, and affordable prices. But it was nearly empty every time I went in.

Now, one could make the argument that New Haven could simply not support another THAI restaurant, but I think other factors played a role as well.

A huge concern for this block has got to be the Frat House behind the SHELL station. It's a beautiful brick structure that instead of anchoring the corner (despite the Shell Station), has become a general blight on the community.

People may have reason to blame Popeye's for making the block look ugly, but how could anyone miss the frat house. Rarely do we see so much potential embodied in one building go to so much waste.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 10, 2009 2:38 PM

CHW,
This is a chart from 1900 showing the number of housing units that are owned versus rented:
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs011.snc3/11855_1188028175958_1085910074_30475401_4574793_n.jpg
This was when New Haven was a bustling industrial town with a soaring population of mainly working class people. At this time, New Haven also had one of the highest (if not the highest) numbers of US patents per capita. A big difference between then and now is that we are no longer an urbanist society, the US is a SUBurbanist one.
The manufacturing jobs that prepared the working class for becoming the middle class during the post WW2 economic boom (fueled by no global competition), which allowed us to growth at an astronomical rate has since mostly evaporated to 3rd world countries. The working class now has very few prospects and is in a state of perpetual poverty that will not be alleviated without returning to an urbanist society that consists of only towns, localized rural agricultural communities, and cities.


"Between the Broadway parking plaza, the hotel and the gas station and Popeye's, there's huge divide between the pedestrian friendly part of town and the car-culture of Whalley Avenue with its parking lots and drive-thrus."
Exactly.

It may be beneficial to come up with a plan for what the neighborhood would like to see Whalley Avenue become. This can be a document explaining provisions and guidelines or a rough plan of the corridor with building lots and existing buildings overlayed with changes or it could be both.
The reactive approach is not working; we cannot simply reject a proposal after hearing it, we must create a document that effectively communicates the goals of the neighborhood. Should Whalley be more like the Boston Post Road with large parking lots and boxes positioned off the street, or like Grand Avenue with a densely intricate fabric of local businesses that people walk to?

http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/photos/lp375/images/lp375_looking_e_from_us54_31-may-2001_hres.jpg

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_PCV_A/0_post_card_views_j_and_ms_comely_bank_avenue.jpg

http://www.spudles.com/travels/Europe2002Pics/Paris%20-%20Tree-Lined%20Boulevard.jpg

It would be beneficial to watch the entire lecture but here is a small clip from Andres Duany (30 seconds in is where it gets important)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4msHTzcrDI&feature=related

Posted by: JOHN | December 10, 2009 4:32 PM

"Customers bagging their own groceries means less [fewer] employees at the store"

That often happens anyway...

Posted by: anon | December 10, 2009 6:58 PM

Businesses along Whalley fail because of the ambiance created by howling, 50 mile per hour traffic. It is unpleasant to park there (and try to open your door into it), much less walk along it. Why would you take a date? Paint some much narrower lanes, put up year-round sand-filled in-road pedestrian crossing bollards, like Massachusetts (Boston, Cambridge, Watertown, etc), does on similar streets, and build a few real bumpouts and the entire boulevard would be transformed.

I used to patronize Dozo's frequently, but I would go for take out and bring the food back to friends' apartments -- the issue was not crime, vacant buildings, parking or lack of potential customers in the area, it was the experience of being there.

Shaw's is a good example - it's one of our largest grocery stores, but there's not even a crosswalk in front of the store across Whalley. I live a few blocks away but wouldn't even consider walking there because it would be so unpleasant.

There are decades of studies on walkable neighborhoods contributing to land values and retail sales. So why is ConnDOT, a massive bureaucracy in the Hartford suburbs with not a single employee who walks to work -- and whose representatives "talk down" to our residents just about every time they visit New Haven to address a controversial issue -- in charge of the majority of our most critical public spaces?

Posted by: willow street | December 11, 2009 7:05 AM

good. Shaws has been jacking prices up since inception. Always a 2 - 5 % difference between downtown Shaw's and Whalley Shaws.

Posted by: Beaver Hill Resident | December 11, 2009 10:23 AM

Where is the downtown Shaw's?

Posted by: Kevin | December 11, 2009 11:55 AM

@Robn

The way the BZA typically works in practice is to follow two rules (1) if a substantial number of neighbors come to the hearing, follow their lead (particularly if the alder shows up and agrees with them) and (2) if the applicant is represented by Tony Avallone or other regular BZA participants, grant the application. The interesting cases are those like this one, where the rules produce conflicting answers.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | December 11, 2009 1:17 PM

City Hall Watch has nailed the issue on the head. I find it incredulous that commenters float the idea of getting an Apple store, or Lord & Taylor or Bloomingdales. Even in a GOOD New Haven economy the demographics don't support it. Ikea only works because of its on/off location to the highway. Whatever your "vision" may be, (and there is no unified theme by the sound of it), if you can't lure the type of business you desire into the location, the best you can do is keep generating sales and income tax and keep a property used instead of boarded up.

Posted by: Cordalie | December 11, 2009 10:45 PM

There is going to be a "super-market" in the new building at the corner of State Street and Chapel. I fear that the "Save-a-Lot" is what the Whalley Ave area residents will be left with if the new market closer to me (and Wooster Sq.) is a Shaws or similar store.

Let's get the Rudd Center on this! Fast!

Posted by: Atwater St. | December 12, 2009 10:22 AM

We can't trust any big corporate owner to make a decision that is in the city's best interest. That is not what they are paid for. It's not to disparage corporate owners, just being real. Save-A-Lot doesn't have our best interest in mind and neither does their corporate owner. How many times have we heard corporate promises and then been witness to corporate hypocrisy? If Save-A-Lot does go in here, let's make sure it's what we want a citizens of New Haven and not simply because they say that they've "done the studies".

I for one would rather see almost anything go into the former Staples building than a Save-A-Lot. How about something that is not redundant that would bring something NEW to the neighborhood? That would be a novel idea.

Posted by: robn | December 12, 2009 11:52 AM

KEVIN,

Good points but in this case, there is no ambiguity in the law.

The applicant must prove a non-financial reason, specific to this site why the allowed use (car dealership) is an unreasonable use for this site.

An argument from the applicant that a supermarket is a reasonable use is irrelevant.

Posted by: Anon | December 12, 2009 2:34 PM

Well I am stumped by Supervalu's strategy.

When the recession hit, Stop & Shop's owners responded right away, cutting prices. What did Shaw's do?

It seems Supervalu's response is to segregate the burgeoning numbers of recession battered cash strapped customers from its so-called premium store to this cutrate franchise chain a few doors down.

Of course it will cause the nearby Shaws to lose business. Duh.

Considering they will be so close to each other you can easily hop over to both in one shopping trip with your shopping list without that much inconvenience, certainly that will happen. Does Supervalu need two separate buildings nearly next to each other to make these sales? Just really bizarre.

Are they really planning to keep this shaws open? Supervalu is losing money overall. Is this shaws losing money or doing well compared to other shaws?

If they close the shaws, what will they do with the real estate in this market, they own that store, right? Or no?

Considering that Supervalu owns both stores it is not competitive, it is rather anti-competitive.

It almost looks like this is some market lab experiment for Supervalu.

Also, get ready for a real aesthetics battle with this new store. Apparently Supervalu thinks it can slap some sign up with a flood light pointed at it and open for business.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703819904574555682819144084.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Get ready for the usual war - need to pull out the sign guidelines in the overlay zone and may need to just push on every item so this place does not look like a dump.

If they have to go cheap, we can at least make them not make it dumpy-looking cheap.

And by the way, re whalley we need to figure out how to really take on the DOT. We got a taste of their attitude with upper whalley but Whalley needs an overhaul. it needs all the pedestrian and bike paint and crosswalks, islands, cutouts, all the things to make it a more attractive safer boulevard. The DOT or some smart grant writer could be using funding on a great study - how to put together two impossibilities: pedestrian friendly and multi-lane truck-laden through road.

Posted by: Anon | December 12, 2009 2:52 PM

I've been thinking about this some more and I think Supevalue's cut rate store nontion is divisive for communities.

They say the fixed income senior or disabled person is going to buy mustard at save-alot and then shuffle over to shaw's pharmacy to pick up the prescription or the toiletries they can only get there.

Basically, Supervalu's premium/ghetto dichotomy is a lousy one. They should serve everyone out of the same store and brand.

It works like this: You sell the TWO mustard brands that save-a-lot sells for 99 cents at shaws for 99 cents, while the other 80+brands at shaws, at the prices that shaws sells them for, get it? This is how you increase your market without needing a whole other building, brand name and all the 'tude.

Posted by: anon | December 12, 2009 3:14 PM

I am back for a third time. I've been digging around, hardly a feat thanks to google.

Supevalu Realty has on the market three large closed stores for sale: New Britain, Waterbury and Southington.

Shaws store locator no longer lists stores in Waterbury, New Britain or Southington, although they are still coming up on google, are you with me?

Save-alot is going head to head with Stop & SHop in urban areas. Save-a lot has popped up in Waterbury, Hartford, Meriden, Dixwell in Hamden.

Let's take Meriden as an example. This is a small, low income urban area with probably the best looking stop&Shop store in the state.

Stop & SHop is weathering this recession by cutting prices and it has worked. Stop & SHop serves rich and poor out of one store. (No, I am not a shill for Stop and Shop, really, it is just working out that way for comparison)

What has SUpervalu got in Meriden? A downmarket Sav-A-Lot.

IS this Supervalu's strategy for urban areas? It stinks. It brings down neighborhoods. It segregates rich from poor instead of serving them out of the same stores with a good price range.

IF we are going to have a competing grocery on whalley, I'd like it to truly be a competitor, like a local such as Big Y, or a chain like Trader Joe's which is incredibly good on prices, or a shop-rite.

Posted by: Ned | December 13, 2009 9:23 AM

Shaw's plaza was poorly conceived from the start. It looks like it crash landed in New Haven from an anonymous suburb. The enormous blank wall facing Whalley, lack of pedestrian access, massive parking lot and satellite box store - it's all just ugly and uninviting and, if you have to drive to Shaw's, why not just spend a few more minutes in the car and go to Hamden? In addition, the paint is already peeling off of the cheap facade, which makes it look cheaper and uglier than it already is. Whalley is turning into a line of cinder block failed retail slums with parking lots (check out the Dollar store with the metal riot shields over the windows - nice!). Savalot, but at the expense of whom?

Posted by: robn | December 13, 2009 10:04 AM

Our laws and policies unfortunately encourage Big Box expansion at the expense of good land use and planning. For example, living in the East Rock neighborhood one has within a 10 minute drive, 4 Home Depots and 4 Lowes. We don't really need this many hardware stores...the placement of these stores is not a matter of healthy business strategy, but a war of attrition and sometimes a race to the bottom. The same thing with theaters, supermarkets, etc.

Posted by: Zalman Alpert | December 13, 2009 6:48 PM

Its fascinating how many of these comments are from people talking about marketing as if we were living in a planned community or better yet in dream land. People want cafes , antique stores, Kohl's etc Yes I would like a baseball card shoppe, a hobby store, atoy store perhaps a branch of Fao Schwarz, perhaps several used book shops, acard shoppe maybe even Frank Dupee's revival anyone remembr that wonderful store. Why not get real, the choice is Save a Lot or more fast food places 99 cent stores and Tatoo parlors.
While everyone is talking about the Save a Lot, I fear the opening of Whole Foods on the BPR will eventually cause the demise of the Edge of the Woods. That would be even more of a blow to Whalley Ave than the potential closing of Shaws.

Posted by: anon | December 14, 2009 1:40 PM

Zalman, we need some more aggressive initiatives then, like a business incubator on whalley.

whalley has improved. Even in last three years can point to improvements.

Posted by: Plan to Fail | December 14, 2009 2:49 PM

Zalman,

Don't be a curmudgeon. Why should we settle for fast food and dollar stores?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | December 14, 2009 10:37 PM

Zalman Alpert

While everyone is talking about the Save a Lot, I fear the opening of Whole Foods on the BPR will eventually cause the demise of the Edge of the Woods. That would be even more of a blow to Whalley Ave than the potential closing of Shaws.

I check them out. With there prices they are thoe ones who will be gone.

Posted by: HELENC.POWELL | January 4, 2010 4:59 PM

TO ZONE BOARD:I'M EMPOLYEE AT SHAW'S ON WHALLEY
AND DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS MTG.HOW COME
WASN'T NOTHING IN STORE CONCERNING THIS MATTER,ON
TRYING TO GET SAVE-A-LOT VS.SHAW'S IN THE EMPTY
SPACE WHERE STAPLES LEFT,SHAWS AN FULL-TIME STORE
WHICH HAS ALOT THINGS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS LAST
MINUTE GROCEY'S,BARKERY GOODIES,DELI AND OTHER
FOOD ITEAMS.IT CREATED JOBS FOR ALOT OF PERSON
IN COMMUNITY THAT COULDN'T FOUND JOBS OR HAD NO
PUBLIC TRANSPORATION,CAR,OR OTHER WAYS TO WORK.
I AGREE WITH THE BOARD ABOUT WRITTEN AGREE BETWEEN SHAWS &SAVE-A-LOT THAT IF SHAWS IS NEG
AFFECTED BY THE STORE THEN LOT WILL AGREE TO CLOSE.OUR WHALLEY AVE DIST HAS COME LONG WAY FROM
HIGH PRICE CORNER STORES AND SET EXAMPLE FOR THE
YALE STUDENTS,ELDERY,AND BUSNIESS AROUND THE AREA
BEING OPEN EARLY IN MORNING 7-11 WHICH HELP'S THE
NURING HOMES EMPOLYEER'S,CORRECTION OFFICERS,AND
VARIOUS ORAGANIZATIONS OR AGENCY'S HAVING TO GET
THEIR CLIENT'S MEDICATION OR SHOPPING DONE EARLY
ALONG W/CHECK CASHING FOR MANY OF US.SO PLEASE LET'S KEEP OUR STORE HERE AND CONT.DOING BUSNIESS
HERE AND MAYBE THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE REPLACING LIKE RESOURCE CENTER FOR YOUNG ADULT'S
AFTER SCHOOL OR BUSNIESS IN WHICH THE NEIBHOR'S WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME ABOUT WITH THEIR VOTE ON
ISSUE IN THAT SPOT.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35