New Haven Independent

Posted by: Norton Street | December 17, 2009 1:24 PM

Let's fight for this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/bananaphone5000/GORILLLAS/MainStreet3-23-60.jpg

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebizbite/library/Yarmouth-Main-Street.jpg

http://www.greatriverroad-illinois.org/MainStreet%20Galena.JPG

and fight against this:
http://students.umf.maine.edu/~durantz/Practicum/Webquest/stripmall.jpg

http://www.cpmra.muohio.edu/marketstudy/Strip%20Mall.JPG

http://www.flyingsensors.com/productions/portfolio/Commercial%20Real%20Estate/photos/Strip%20Mall%201.jpg

http://www.renparkonline.com/wp-content/gallery/strip-mall-updates/2007-1224-StripMall_001.JPG

Let's be proactive and not reactive. It is not a good strategy to wait until there are offers, then either reject or accept them, we must go after what we want. There is a lot of money around Whalley, unfortunately nearly all of it goes into the pockets of distance chain store owners who reinvest practically nothing back into the communities that all their wealth comes from. The number of grocery stores is irrelevant, New Haven used to have thousands of locally owned groceries.

Posted by: Nan Bartow | December 17, 2009 1:40 PM

I'm very happy to hear that the City Plan commissioners voted unanimously to recommend the BZA deny the grocery store proposal. This section of Whalley Avenue cannot afford to take a chance on losing Shaw's supermarket which serves many people from all income levels. I hope that the BZA listens to the opinion of the City Plan commissioners and votes to deny the Save-Lot-Proposal.

Posted by: anon | December 17, 2009 1:46 PM

This should be a pedestrian friendly, walkable streetscape, not a curb cut. Our land use policies are destroying this neighborhood.

Please eliminate the curb cut altogether.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | December 17, 2009 3:10 PM

What Norton Street is asking for is not all that far-fetched. What is depicted in those picutres already exists to an extent on the other side of the street east of Midas: small mixed use buildings brought out to the sidewalk (I believe there are three of them in between midas and popeye's). Although we could probably do better than what's currently there- in terms of architecture and the businesses themselves- that's essentially all we're asking for. It's not a pipedream!! It's a practical methodology that has been proven to work for two centuries:

MIXED-USE, COMPACT, WALKABLE.

Let's return to what works!!

Posted by: really? | December 17, 2009 5:25 PM

Norton: Disneyland!?!?!!?

Posted by: jawbone | December 17, 2009 5:47 PM

Norton Street. Is that first photo, from Photobucket, taken at Disneyland. It makes me want to barf. Seriously. It reminds me of a Pappy's Pizza Parlour. I would never want to return to the gaye olde nineties. They sucked.
Of course the stripmawl photos suck too. So I agree with you there.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 17, 2009 6:34 PM

Disneyland serves as a refuge from the autocentric places of modernism where people can walk around without having to worry about speeding Hummers. The point of the first few photos is to show how much better old Main Streets are from the current strip malls we design. Is this point not made? Does Disneyland actually have anything to do with the visual argument? Is it more important to take away a sense of human proportion, scale, density, diversity, and choice than the context that the photos were taken in?

The 'progress' of Whalley has been creating an increasingly hostile Avenue that consists of block after block of sensorally abusive continuous experiences only occasionally broken up by good buildings that survived urban renewal. As we left the past further and further behind, we have also left our best urban public realms.

Posted by: L | December 18, 2009 11:54 AM

Disneyland aside, I agree we should be more proactive. Maybe get someone from a local arch firm, or the Yale School of Arch involved in a plan. That part of Whalley should be a nicer, safer walk to/from Shaw's, and also a bit better for guests at the Marriott coming to our city, not knowing what they are in for when they get here. Frankly, he Marriott should kick in some dough for beautification projects, as well as Yale, whose sports contenders stay there. Also, there is a lot of re-use of big box stores going on out there, turning them into community centers, schools, medical ctrs, museums and theatres: http://www.bigboxreuse.com/ and http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/02/25/big-box-of-trouble-dealing-with-the-coming-plague-of-empty-superstores/

Posted by: streever | December 18, 2009 11:54 AM

Hmmm, old main streets are great, but that disneyland photo seems to imply they are a fantasy--none of the businesses in disney land have to be viable, they are all fantasies.

(Not disagreeing or criticizng, just pointing out what I think the others are reacting to--maybe a similar photo not taken at disney would sell this)

Posted by: jawbone | December 18, 2009 1:18 PM

Steever,
To clarify, I asked the Norton Street IF the first photo was Disneyland. I don't know if it is, or not. Probably not since there are old, cobby street car rails in the asphalt. That would be too real for Disneyland.
My point is that it should be possible to do urban design that addresses the kind of values that Norton Street espouses without having to build fake-o ye olde storefronts. That is what I detest.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 18, 2009 2:49 PM

L,
I am currently working on a plan for Whalley that I hope to show to the WEB community by the end of January; ideally it will help get the ball rolling and begin conversations on how to make Whalley more inviting and walkable through design. I'm a bit of an historicist to I believe it is necessary to look to the past for how to improve the future, but there are plenty of ways to quickly diverge from this way of thinking that is just as productive.
I have to say though, that Shaw's and the Marriot are two of the main buildings that make Whalley unpleasant to walk. They are monstrously intrusive to the scale of the neighborhood, and should be reworked entirely to work with the existing fabric of dense store fronts in stead of in complete contrast.

Posted by: streever | December 18, 2009 8:55 PM

ah sorry jawbone--
I agree, personally--just misunderstood your comment.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | December 18, 2009 9:02 PM

Norton Street

I am currently working on a plan for Whalley that I hope to show to the WEB community by the end of January

How about this plan. I think it would work for Long Wharf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Harbor

How about this for whally ave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQkb8RcYKkM&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Nan | December 20, 2009 8:19 PM

Norton St, I look forward to your presentation at the WEB at the end of January. I hope that Seth Poole has put you on the agenda. We need your ideas and anyone else's to make Whalley Avenue more inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists. It is certainly cold, uninviting, and dangerous at present.

Posted by: Francine Caplan | December 22, 2009 9:34 AM

The W.A.R. Committee is pleased that the City Plan Commission voted to deny recommending the Sav-A-Lot store in the old Staples building. What is even more important is for the City, Economic Development, W.A.R. and W.A.S.S.D to actually sit down together with the property owners and managers so that there can be a consensus on a PLAN.
This PLAN not only would encompass creating a beautiful Whalley Avenue with new "antique" lamp poles, pavers, crossing walks, landscaping, curb jut outs, free parking lot areas, new facades and rules regarding the look of buildings but ALSO how these new PLANS will economically boost the businesses already there and attract new businesses.
Whalley will continue to lose businesses or the ones we want if we don't start work on this huge project in 2010. We have seen the City work with other major thoroughfares and neighborhoods: West River, Grand Avenue (Fair Haven), State Street, Chapel Street. NOW it is our turn!