87 Union Moves Closer To Final Approval

PMC has done a horrible job with Strouse Adler. The place is a mess. They do not keep it up. There are no lights for resident protection. No one should listen to a word that they offer until they become a reasonably decent neighbor.

I'd love to see much higher density on his downtown site near the train station than what Petra has proposed. A 6 story wrap with a couple 30-40 story towers above would be great. Urban land like this is of critical strategic importance to the entire state, so Malloy should step in and ensure that higher densities can be accommodated and accepted by the neighborhood (e.g. By matching construction cost with targeted tax credits and grants to preserve surrounding historic fabric, improve the parks, transit, and sidewalk infrastructure within 1 mile of Union Station, and mitigate construction impacts).

And to make the units more affordable, the parking minimums need to go. Much of the construction cost is due to parking, which implies/effectively requires that renters or owners will be relatively wealthy people who own cars. Get rid of the parking spaces and use that real estate to create affordable units instead. In progressive cities, parking lots are being converted back into affordable housing.

Anstress, unlike PMC, is not acting out of self-interest. But I would argue that the proposal is exactly what she is calling for. When compared to the buildings around the park, on one hand, and 360 State on the other, the proposal is mid-scale and moderate density.

So wait, did they approve the .75 parking spaces per apartment, or did the developer withdraw the request?

Too much parking for this transit- and walking-rich neighborhood and Antress Farwell argues once again against genuinely urban development. How is this not already a transitional medium-height building sitting between the taller buildings downtown and the lower-rise buildings of historic Wooster Square? It is actually a little short for that role. Is 6 stories the natural middle-ground transition between 30 stories and 3 stories?

But never mind that, as it seems that Farwell never passes up an opportunity to argue in favor of housing fewer residents in the city. She is "urbanist" if "urbanists" are opposed to housing very many folks in city neighborhoods, forcing residents to move instead to outlying car-dependent places. I think her aesthetic preferences are more properly called "village-ist". She wants a "city" of quaint little villages and is opposed to the kinds of development that make up most real-life vibrant cities.

But: a good outcome in the end.

Esbey,
In my opinion, any development pattern oriented around pedestrians is urban. An argument could be made that sky scrapers and other tall buildings are not oriented around pedestrians because of their scale, which requires mechanical circulation (elevators), violates comfortable street proportions, and produces a high concentration of a single use. Urbanism has more to do with block size, diversity of uses and general walkability than density and building height.

This is a big building - it will occupy an entire block without any meaningful façade relief. It's probably a little more dense than is appropriate for this area.

I've posted this before but here it is again:

Friendship Houses has 60-units on a 2-acre site (30-units/acre)

Audubon Court has 70-units on a 1.5-acre site (46-units/acre)

Whitney-Grove has 37-units on a 1.32-acre site (28-units/acre)

The Comcast Site will have 200-units on a 2.27-acre site (88-units/acre)

This proposal calls for 325-units on a 2.72-acre site (120-units/acre)

I think Anstress is arguing that this project should be more in line with Friendship Houses just up the street.

Anstress is one opinion. Many more people are in favor than against.

JH, I love much of what you say on this site, but your response strikes me as [a] odd and [b] quite illustrative of my point. You say that a building with an elevator is not "urban" because it contains a "mechanical" transport device. Now, since it is not urban, does that make a building with an elevator "rural" or "suburban" or have you a new word for it? Do you really think that residents of high-rises in Manhattan walk less than the residents of Audubon Court in New Haven?

Personally, I don't think you are looking for "urban" neighborhoods, but rather retro-villages. A design philosophy that rules out Manhattan and Vancouver from qualifying as "urban" is a bit out of step with common speech.

But definitions are not important; outcomes are. A focus on lower density housing drives up housing prices (by restricting supply) and hurts the environment (by forcing residents to outlying areas and into less efficient housing.) It pushes tax revenue out of the city and into the suburbs. It favors the energy-inefficient aesthetic preferences of a particular (peculiar?) village-loving elite at the expense of the broader public, forbidding people from living in the most popular and cost-efficient forms of downtown housing.

It is more energy, land and cost-efficient to add an additional story to 7 (or 30) story building than to build additional foundations for new short buildings.

Apartments at 360 State carry a rent premium over similar apartments in shorter buildings because renters, on average, prefer them. Elevators turn out to be a fantastic and cost-efficient form of transportation to the grocery store.

I think the peak urban condition is when daily needs are within walking distance of one another both horizontally (on the street) and vertically (in buildings). Comfortable horizontal walking distance is about a 1/4 mile, while the limit is about 1/2 mile. Comfortable vertical walking distance up stairs is 3 stories, with the limit being 6-7 (the Parisian model).

This is what New Haven was like in the 19th century, and what most European cities are still like (due to stricter zoning and other protections to preserve tourism).

Although skyscrapers themselves are not walkable, they can promote urbanism when used correctly. The Coliseum Site project comes to mind with its plans for apartments, office tower, retail space and hotel. I would not describe Downtown Hartford as a good example of urbanism with its numerous commercial office skyscrapers that promote commuting.

Urbanism is just enough density and uses in the right proportion so that daily needs are within walking distance of one another while not being so dense that the place becomes oppressive and congested. Personally, I find Midtown and Downtown Manhattan oppressive.

What I like so much about Whitney Grove and Audubon Court is that they include apartments, townhouses, retail space and office space in proper proportion and scale for their context (on the edge of Downtown, similar to this Wooster Square site).

sorry all, I don't know why my last comment came out mostly in bold font -- I don't even know one could change fonts on this site and now it looks like I am shouting ....

What an unattractive building. I know that's not a very deep comment, but sheesh.

Billy, I believe the photo in the article is the original rendering. The rendering I saw at the last hearing was more attractive, although the architecture is 21st century, rather than the late 19th century style of most of Wooster Square.

Billy,

The renderings that keep being put forward have been incredibly ugly in the way they are done in ghoulish greys and blacks, in a barren drab landscape that looks as if it's been hit by a neutron bomb that has destroyed all living things. Why would the developer potentially damage his case by submitting things that look so undesirable? Architects usually try to make their presentation drawings seductive rather than repulsive.

The pictures are unsettling because they suggest the developer doesn't really care what his building will ultimately look like. Perhaps the different shades of grey indicate an intention to use varying materials on the facades in a way that will turn out OK. Perhaps decisions about materials have not yet, in fact, been made, so the drawings are made to look generic.

But still, the public relations aspect of them is decidedly negative. It's a case of -- What were they thinking?? If the builder doesn't care enough to present his proposal in a way that is attractive, will he care much about the real thing? People are right to be apprehensive.

I take seriously Anstress Farwell's concern that the public be involved in discussion and decisions around land use and planning. I feel confident that her motives are sincere and that her years of advocacy on these issues gives her credibility on these issues. I just don't agree with her assertion that in this case insufficient discussion has occurred. I think my colleagues representing that area--especially Alder Greenberg--have done a great deal of outreach to local residents, and they want this zone change.