New Haven Independent

posted by: Threefifths on January 14, 2013  6:27pm

This is about pushing the poor out and grabing the land.The real plan I heard was that Church Street South was to be turn into luxury condominiums and then sold to NEW Yorkers who when then just cross the street to union station and commute to work in New York or commute on Amtrak to Boston to work.This same thing is happing in Harlem on 125th street.

posted by: Wildwest on January 14, 2013  8:51pm

Great idea, lets put both Farnam and Church st complexes there. We can buy air filtration systems for them as well so nobody has any problems with allergies.

posted by: Charl on January 14, 2013  11:28pm

This would be the absolute best thing for the city of New Haven.

New Haven suffers mightily because of the Church St South housing project.  First of all, that entire complex is disgusting.  It is an eyesore, and it was designed in a way to allow major crimes to be committed. 

Have you ever stopped to wonder why so many Yale students opt to take the free Yale shuttle or pay for a taxi ride to travel less than 1/3 mile to the Upper Green area?  It is because individuals do not want to risk walking in the vicinity of that housing complex.  And I do not blame them.  I am an imposing male and I would not dare walk by on the sidewalk at night by myself.

Consider:  A new train stop was added less than 1/4 mile up the trainline, so that the people paying high rent for the new 360 State building would feel safe getting off at the other stop.

Razing the Church St South and moving the inhabitants would be a wonderful thing for the city of New Haven, and also for the residents.

Why not make nice, small townhouses instead of boxy-concrete buildings, with blind corners around every building, absolutely horrible lighting, and no aesthetic beauty?

posted by: yayaya on January 15, 2013  10:27am

As a Goatville resident, I am not in favor of this plan. Our neighborhood is already abutted by Farnham Court. Sorry to be a NIMBY but I don’t think this would be good for our part of East Rock, especially the newly rebuilt East Rock Magnet School. Also, the property along River Street could be “prime real estate” in its own way: water views, lots of open space. I’ll be interested to hear the arguments of others.

posted by: Walt on January 15, 2013  11:19am

Saving these properties for industrial development makes sense only until you consider the number of industries looking for space in the area, the region and the State—almost none in recent years,  and unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future, in our “Rust Belt”.

If possible,  for- profit housing development would be good if there truly is a   market for it.

The Housing Authority seems to be   building such attractive housing for the needy   (at least on the outside)  that real workers soon may abandon   their own houses and jobs in order to qualify for public housing,  nicer than that which they can afford with their worked-hard-for incomes

Good job—NHHA I guess, but my   forecast is not really that unlikely.

Solution??? 

I do not know.

posted by: RevKev on January 15, 2013  1:03pm

I want to clarify my statements. What I suggested was that the city rethink how we use our waterfronts. While I agree we need small industrial and manufacturing jobs in the city I question why we have to continue to build them on our waterfront? It is high value property. I understand that the existing infrastructure is set up for industrial but that was done a couple centuries ago when the waters were used for commerce. Now they aren’t used at all. That’s throwing away potential tax income as well as the creation of another cool spot in New Haven.

I also understand the cleanup issue. However the argument was presented that before we can even sell it to a commercial venture we have to bring it to a level of clean. The step from clean enough for commercial to clean enough for residential is not that great. The example of the old Winchester plant redevelopment was presented as an example of this. I don’t know the numbers but if it can work for the Winchester plant makeover I can’t imagine it not working for prime waterfront real estate. Mixed income. Mixed use.

So my challenge was both general and specific. The specific was to the River Street MDP and its focus only on industrial and manufacturing. Why does it have to be there? Why not Science Park or Long Wharf (by the train tracks?) or by the Blvd or Middleton Ave? Use that prime land for residential including Mr. Scott’s proposal. We should at least think about it and include it in the conversation.

And generally speaking I often feel like we get an idea, make it a plan and then stick doggedly to that plan regardless the introduction of new ideas or alternative solutions. Let’s not be so quick to dismiss the new. Especially if people keep saying it over and over again.

posted by: Powers on January 15, 2013  1:34pm

I could not agree more with Mr. Scott’s proposal to increase the urgency with which the Church Street South location is seriously considered as a site for redevelopment. 

As the city is moving forward aggressively with the Downtown Crossing project, it becomes increasingly clear that the city will remain functionally disconnected, with the majority of the city cut off from some of its most valuable resources (access to rail and the shore) if these housing projects are not relocated. 

Past projects of this nature (including the building of the Quinnipiac Terrace) have met with wild success, and offer residents a more humane, safer, and more attractive environment in which to live, raise their families, and participate in the life of the city.  All parties involved would win with such a proposal.  It’s just the right thing to do.

posted by: TheMadcap on January 15, 2013  1:42pm

How about we tear down Church St South, build modern public housing that fixes a lot of the old mistakes(i.e. having mixed incomes as well as home owners so you don’t have concentrated poverty), that way a good deal of the residents can move back in and not be victims of developers.(This includes both developers who want high earners in there, and people here who want to move the project because they don’t like looking at it, you’re not the ones who will be told to get kinky get out of your house)

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 15, 2013  2:56pm

Church Street South was originally envisioned as a wholesale, industrial and office park, but the area became a site for housing as a result of Federal requirements that the housing from the Oak Street neighborhood (demolished as part of the Oak Street Project Area) had to be replaced. Ludwig Mies van der Roge was initially retained as the architect for Church Street South Housing, which called for International Style apartment towers sitting in greenery and parking lots. Thankfully, Mies van der Rohe resigned and was replaced with Charles Moore.
Unfortunately, HUD limitations for financing commercial space in residential projects and an extremely tight budget, resulted in Moore’s design being extremely compromised from his initial visions. Furthermore, 1/4 of the project was never completed due to the contractor leaving in the middle of construction. However, Church Street South is still a interesting housing complex that doesn’t necessarily need to be demolished.
The interior courtyards could be privatized for residents with the use of new walls and gates. This would help enormously to reduce crime since a significant portion of crime originates from people who do not live in the actual complex but come into it from neighboring communities to sell drugs.
The buildings could be renovated with new interior finished and furnishings, and fasteners could be installed on the exterior concrete block walls upon which a new cladding material can be applied - perhaps brick, stone and or wood. Pitched roofs could be added like what was done at Farnam Courts and McConaughey Terrace, and could conceal new mechanical systems and some roofs could be made into roof terraces.
New development of low-rise townhouses, mid-rise and/or high-rise mixed-use apartment, office and retail buildings could happen on vacant and underused portions of the site and selective and surgical demolition can help improve circulation through the site and help with the barracks-style design of the buildings.

posted by: Atwater on January 15, 2013  3:46pm

Good idea: tear down the Church Street South housing projects.
Bad idea: relocate the residents to waterfront property.

The river front property could and should be used for light industry and/or private residential development. New Haven does not use its waterfront properly and to give it to dolers would be a horrible decision and a huge waste of money. If the housing project is demolished on Church Street South then the property should be used as public space, or sold to another private developer.

posted by: Powers on January 15, 2013  5:38pm

@ Jonathan, thanks for your comments; obviously you know quite a bit about the Church Street South project, and that is helpful.  However, I’m not sure a renovation of the existing buildings, however extensive, would really alter the area in a meaningful way.  This is prime real estate, and the buildings themselves, their arrangement, and their dated appearance—not to mention their association with crime in the minds of most New Haven residents—make them an eyesore and unlikely to be traversed by shoppers, residents of Downtown, and other frequent users of Union Station despite whatever renovation might be undertaken to make them more livable. 

@ Atwater, I agree that New Haven has historically underutilized it’s really beautiful waterfront land, and that there is already far too much industrial usage of that land in the first place.  I also agree that movement of residents of Church Street South to waterfront property would likely be an under-utilization of that property as well.  That said, the residents of that community deserve good, safe housing and a reasonable location for it.  Does anyone else have any other thoughts on where else this could be in the city besides prime places like between the train station and downtown and on the waterfront?

posted by: Stephen Harris on January 15, 2013  6:22pm

I think River Street should be reserved for light and craft industry. Housing near workplaces always makes sense to me.

Renovating Church St. South might end up costing more than a tear down. I think it’s best to replace it with a reconfigured mixed use development. Such a project might also lead to a general and much needed rezoning of the wider area.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 15, 2013  7:39pm

Charles Moore’s design is really underestimated. While the buildings are simple and boxy, the spaces that the buildings create are incredible. I should clarify that I think most residents should be relocated, but to scattered site units, not another prject-based complex. The primary cause of crime and other issues in low-income housing developments is the homogeneity of the population. East Rock and Newhallville have nearly identical streetscapes and urbanism, but would anyone argue that the “design” of Newhallville (and therefore East Rock) is problematic? Though there are significant issues with the design of Church Street South, they are fairly easily remedied with a combination of some surgical demolition, renovation and new construction.
New interior finishes and furnishings at Church Street South could attract private individuals and families because the design of the complex is actually quite good minus a few awkward hidden corners and blandness.
In my opinion, costs and design are not valid arguments to redevelopment Church Street South through demolition and rebuilding. However, there are valid arguments for redeveloping this site as opposed to a large scale renovation. 1) This area - next to the harbor, the I-91/95 interchange, Church Street South, Union Avenue, and the train tracks - is one of the most polluted areas of the city and the situation is not being improved upon with the city’s Downtown Crossing project, or the diesel fuel-powered high speed train that is soon coming. 2) Market demand is extremely high here with Union Station, the Medical District, and Downtown in very close proximity. 3) The complex is in a state of disrepair and obsolescence due to inadequate maintenance and investment over the years - a story familiar to many low-income housing complexes.
The idea of keeping this area as a site for family housing brings up a number of moral and ethical issues considering the low air quality of the area. Since the complex was designed specifically for families, it may be extremely difficult to retrofit units for people without young children, but it should be studied for feasibility before any plan for redevelopment is seriously considered.
I would rather see Church Street South renovated as housing for young professionals, and other families and individuals without children than to see a development in anyway similar to what Northland has proposed.

posted by: Wildwest on January 15, 2013  9:35pm

Jonathan, we need project based housing because that is all many people in New Haven know since that is how they were raised.

I’m surprised nobody besides me has mentioned the fact that Farnam and Church are both up on the block at the same time. Why not just team them up together and create the same thing we have on front st which surprisingly has worked out well???

can anyone tell me that the one experiment in liberal “whatever you want to call it” has not worked out well on Front St? besides the daily dumping under the bridge it seems to be quite civilized.

we need more of that.period.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 15, 2013  10:56pm

Farnam Courts is owned an managed by the Housing Authority of New Haven. Church Street South is owned and managed by Northland Development Co. of Massachusetts. Farnam Courts is public housing for tenants of a certain income level. Church Street South is a project-based Section 8 complex - not public housing. Typically Section 8 vouchers are used in small apartment buildings or houses that are often mixed with other market-rate units - Church Street South is very unique in this regard since the entire 301-unit development is low-income, federally subsidized housing as opposed to a mix. There are strict federal requirements regulating Section 8 vouchers and public housing. Its not just a matter of the City of HANH (which operates separately from the City) deciding one day to redevelop a site - they have to see what type of funding is available, they have to apply, and then they have to be accepted. Hope VI grants (replaced in 2009 by the very similar Choice Neighborhoods program), which funded Monterey Place, Quinnipiac Terrace, West Rock, and Eastview Terrace are extremely competitive and have strict requirements about replacing units, relocating residents and all sorts of design and planning considerations.
Additionally, HANH does not own Church Street South, a private corporation does. This adds an entirely new layer of restrictions and difficulties onto any redevelopment. Plans require an extensive review process and funding has to be used for specific things - its not like HUD would give HANH a pile of money to do whatever they want. My guess is that HUD wouldn’t want to use public funding for industrial site clean up to make room for public housing so that the site currently used for public housing could be made available for private profit. Maybe they would do it if Northland agreed to pay for the clean-up of the industrial River Street site, but you’d have to convince Northland to do that. Furthermore, River Street is a historically important employment center for Fair Haven, and it seems misguided to turn it into low-to-mid-density public housing like Quinnipiac Terrace and apartment towers for family housing seems like a worse idea.
Something like what was done with the Elm Haven High Rises is probably required where residents are relocated in scattered site Section 8 apartments elsewhere in New Haven area with some residents given the option of returning after redevelopment (or renovation).

posted by: Atwater on January 16, 2013  9:20am

@Powers: Why do the public housing residents deserve what other people have to work and pay for? Now, I do not think that the poor of our society should be left to the wind, but I do not think it is responsible to allow a certain segment of the population inherent rights which others do not automatically have. Therefore public housing should be Spartan and economical. It should be placed in an area with quick access to the schoolhouse, police station and market. It should be clean and safe. But, it should not go to areas of high value (downtown, waterfront, etc.). It seems that this city is all too willing to advance the culture of welfare dependence that has ruined it thus far. Hopefully that will change soon.

posted by: FromTheHill on January 16, 2013  12:59pm

I agree with Jonathan Hopkins but they need to get rid of the dead end on Columbus ave and re-connect the streets

posted by: Fairhavener on January 16, 2013  3:16pm

Q-Terrace was supposed to include more homeowner units—not surprisingly the NHHA and the private entity that manages it has not come through on said units.

I wonder if they can be trusted to not do the same bait and switch with any development the authority builds in the future.

Also, I wonder if Karen Dubois-Walton mentioned this fact to our Senator last week.

posted by: Native New Havener on January 16, 2013  11:29pm

Why do we have to house low income people in group housing? I can’t believe that most people want to live in that type of setting. Why not rehabilitate the two family and single family homes we have in New Haven and allow people to live in one of the many neighborhoods New Haven has, not just Fair Haven.

posted by: FrontStreet on January 17, 2013  2:22pm

Please, people, Fair Haven should not be New Haven’s designated, default neighborhood for low income housing.  The neighborhood is already stressed on various fronts and needs more a diverse, not homogenous, population in terms of household income.  The same could be said for New Haven in general.  The city is seen by outsiders as separated and segregated into economic and racial enclaves.  New housing for Farnham courts and Church Street South residents should be fairly dispersed into all New Haven neighborhoods, not just tossed into Fair Haven.