New Haven Independent

posted by: Anderson Scooper on February 19, 2010  5:08pm

WHY IS STOP & SHOP RED-LINING NEW HAVEN? (two stores in West Haven, one in Woodbridge, two in Hamden, one in North Haven, one in East Haven. But none in New Haven.)

It’s exciting that downtown is about to have its own grocery store, but if it’s at the expense of Whalley Avenue, I’m not entirely happy. Everyone in New Haven should have a grocery market within walking distance.

My understanding is that Shaw’s is unloading all 18 of its Connecticut stores. ShopRite is buying 11 of them, and Stop & Shop 5 more, with only the New Haven and Manchester locations being shut down.

I think the community should petition Stop & Shop to also buy the Whalley Avenue Shaw’s. I mean if they want to service Greater New Haven, they should be required to service New Haven too!

posted by: show me the greenbacks on February 19, 2010  5:33pm

I question the sustainability of $4,000/month rents for families and/or piano players and/or other 3-bedroom renters.  What will you have tomorrow when you spend almost 50K/year on rent?  There are structurally sound 19th century houses languishing in New Haven’s neighborhoods.  If people want to consider sustainability, they should get a $1500-2000/month mortgage for a house that already exists and that they can actually own.

posted by: dave coon on February 19, 2010  5:34pm

Note to self.  Take stocking cap off indoors when meeting powerful people that can help you attain your goals.

posted by: Dan on February 19, 2010  5:57pm

I really wish someone would have bought up the topic of how this building is going to influence neighboring rental markets.

To think that a working class family is going to be able to afford $4000 a month is harsh. This feels like it will be pushing our rents higher while more more wealthier/affluent families take up more and more of our city.

Not to mention that job loss is squeezing working people back on top of that. I’m just concerned that we are pushing wealth and urban “sustainability” for and only those with pools of wealth.

posted by: robn on February 19, 2010  6:39pm

Didn’t know the project had a fuel cell. Interesting. I take back some of the bad things I’ve said.

I’d love to hear more specifics about the inability to make the geothermal work. I’ve often wondered why that tech isn’t exploited in this region. Would Mr. Becker consider posting a case study green paper on the subject????

posted by: Anon on February 19, 2010  9:27pm

I hate to rain on a parade. I like the fuel cell and all, but is there such a thing as a green building that depends on recirculated, filtered air, that has windows like that?

Can you open these windows?

What in the design is passive solar? In other words, what in this design cuts down on the need for airconditioning in the summer?

Is that question now moot if a fuel cell is used? In other words, will there be no bad emissions from the air cooling?

Also, what brand of Particle board was used? WHo was the manufacturer?

posted by: Anon on February 19, 2010  9:33pm

To Anderson Scooper - you know what SCooper? You’re harping on this redlining by S&S is irresponsible, baseless and I’d say specious too but that would be granting you too much respect. You’ve had a response to the same comment on another story, you are ignoring it even though it contradicts this.

I hope you don’t do this to people you know. I’d hate to run into you if you do.

posted by: Anon on February 19, 2010  9:43pm

Scooper, furthermore, the S&S on Amity Road is in New Haven,—New Haven—, against the Woodbridge border. And the B Whalley Bus goes there constantly.

You also find one in Bridgeport and Meriden, etc. Your fixation is just wierd.

Anyone who puts a major grocery store in bridgeport is not redlining—- get off it already

posted by: anon on February 19, 2010  9:50pm

Sorry, one more then I’m done - Scooper, therefore, the company you want to question is Shoprite/Wakfern, they are the ones not serving Greater New Haven. It’s rediculous to accuse a company that already has a store here of refusing to serve Greater New Haven, and then to accuse it of redlining, a very strong accusation, is just plan malevolent.

Shop rite and S&S bought all the shaws in Connecticut except the Manchester and New Haven stores. At least S&S can claim the shaws in New Haven would cut into the business of its other store, the one it already has HERE.

Sheesh, enough already

posted by: Proud Fair Havener on February 19, 2010  11:02pm

you can rent a waterside condo 2 bd town house in Fair Haven for $2,000…the views of the marsh are unbelievable - and it’s only a ten minute bike ride downtown.
there’s condos for sale across the river that are prob still less expensive and the views! ....
We rent a house for what a studio apt wold cost a couple blocks down - and we love it here…even with “good” jobs we couldn’t afford to live at 360 State

I think their thinking new york market prizes not New Haven

posted by: robn on February 20, 2010  9:24am

Alternate caption for top photo…

Mistaking a successful software developer for a homeless person, a property developer offers him some loose change. Asked about the incident, the software developer noted, “I just wanted to say hi and offer to buy his company.”

posted by: are u all insane on February 20, 2010  11:03am

You have built a building that could save the world, but you cant figure out what a reasonable new haven rent should be.

A steal you call it for 4,000 a month.

Wow, and to think I thought this was going to be a positive for new haven.

As Leonard Cohen sang,“Everybody knows the dice are loaded”

posted by: Say What? on February 20, 2010  11:44am

The real meat of this story is calling seeclickfix an architect face of our future economy. 

It is quite frankly, the most useless website ever.  Is there any follow up on any of it?  NO…it’s basically a blog that goes nowhere.

posted by: streever on February 20, 2010  1:48pm

Is the NHI desperate for controversy?

The reporter (who I consider a nice fellow) approached Kevin & I, skeptical about the whole presentation, because there was “no outrage”. Both Kevin and I declined to be interviewed & said we had no comment.

The reporter then continue to talk to us, and Kevin said he had a “green crowd” here, who were just happy to hear that a major development had a green portion.

The reporter then said, “If there were architects…” to which I jokingly responded, “THEN there’d be blood”, referencing the online controversy I thought he was fixated on.

In reality, I think the opinions posited on the NHI simply are not held by a sizable portion of New Haven in a general sense. The NHI at times creates angles that don’t exist/looks for controversy, and it’s obvious when you see the level and quality of commentary (poor)

In general I applaud that they provide so much local coverage, but I think the reporters need to check some of their own opinions at the door instead of insisting to people they are talking to that they must think x or y. That was the 3rd time I’ve been told by a NHI reporter how I think/feel about something, so it’s no offense to Allan, but a point about the style of journalism of the paper.

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on February 20, 2010  2:25pm

These guys can talk about green, hybrid co-ops, and pat each other on the back all day long.  But in they end, they’re not giving New Haven or its residents what they need and deserve.  Access to affordable, safe apartments or markets.  Who will shop in that market?  Only those blessed enough to have $50,00 to throw away on equity-less housing?  Not me.  Not anyone I know.  And where would I park (for free, of course), if I did need to shop at that market?  These ideas and ideals are ridiculous.  They don’t support the people already living in the neighborhood, and don’t attract everyman.  Just the rich white (Yale) man.

posted by: TopKnotch on February 20, 2010  3:59pm

I really have difficulty understanding why the majority of people blogging here are complaining about this development.This is one of the largest developments to hit downtown in many years.Does anyone remember what was there before? A parking lot. 360 will add so many more people to downtown New Haven and is promoting green technology and reinvigorating an otherwise quiet section of downtown. Although the prices are high, its attracting a new type of high end buyer (or renter) to New

posted by: R on February 20, 2010  4:36pm

I agree that 4 grand seems steep for an apt., but if the city can continue to get higher-end shops and restaurants and a nice grocery store or food co-op downstairs, maybe we can attract some of the people who might otherwise settle in, say, Stamford right now. We have to try to draw them out here to add to our tax base and clientele. I think there is room for that kind of person here. In NY, artist studios and galleries always ultimately led to gentrification - why not make the empty, unfinished apts into artist studios and galleries, much like they did in Dumbo, Brooklyn. I know that might sound distasteful, but these are desperate times. I know how it feels to pioneer a neighborhood, and then get priced out of it when the yuppies move in. But I am not going to wallow in it. I moved out of NY to New Haven instead. 360 State’s green-ness, and the idea of a new quality store downtown is thrilling.

posted by: Sean on February 20, 2010  4:46pm

showmethegreenbacks - what will you have tomorrow if you’re spending 50k a year on rent?  You’ll have plenty if you’re making a lot of money.  Just because YOU can’t swing 4k a month doesn’t mean NOBODY can. 

Have we all forgotten that there’s an Ivy League University in this town (that puts New Haven on the map, mind you) and that many of the students there ought to be able to rent these apartments with money their parents have given them.

To summarize - There are very rich people in the world, they can afford more than $4k a month for rent.  Have you ever heard of Manhattan?

posted by: AndersonScooper on February 20, 2010  5:53pm

Anon—

I am happy to respond to you. (although I wish you’d come out of the anonymous shadows. You also sound like Stop & Shop managemnt, btw. :0)

To build perspective, why don’t we imagine that we’re talking about Bank of America here, and not Stop & Shop. Is it even conceivable that BofA would try to get away with branches all around Greater New Haven, but none in New Haven proper? What if GEICO wrote policies for all the suburbs, but just not New Haven?

This is what Stop & Shop is boldly doing right now. And I am simply flabbergasted that they didn’t also purchase the Whalley Avenue Shaw’s, when the opportunity arose.

Is it too late to ask Stop & Shop to do the right thing? What a great anchor a Super Stop & Shop would be for Whalley Avenue,—the long-term stability of which is so crucial to the health of the city.

posted by: Dan on February 21, 2010  3:29am

Topotch, R and Sean, what you have all three mentioned are exactly the problems with this project. Yes, of course there are rich people that can afford it, somewhere but it’s not us.

What that means for the rest of us that do live here is that with more wealthy people taking up more and more of our housing we are out. The city no longer is for working families but for the wealthy. Its the ol’supply an demand trick however, wealthy demands out speak us.

Also Manhattan is a good example of why projects like this are awful. What the city did is expell all the working class families out and brought in the walth of the world.

posted by: FacChec on February 21, 2010  12:40pm

“Rent levels are hardly set in stone and will ultimately be dictated by the market, but studios will go for between $1,200 and 1,400. If you have a large family or a grand piano, you can get a steal on a three-bedroom for $4,000”

$4000.. is that green enough for ya?

Becker, if your statement as above is true, you need to explain how residents from the New Haven Housing Authority section 8 certificates can pay the difference between the section 8 ceiling for a three bedroom, and your proposed $4000/mo? After-all, you did cut a deal with the city and the HA through Solomon, to rent 20 units to section 8 tenants.

You really need to explain how HA tenants will manage this, considering the maximum rent for a three bedroom section 8 is about $1,300.00 Max.

posted by: robn on February 21, 2010  2:08pm

DAN,

Cut the class warfare .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). If wealthy people are imported into New Haven into a new tax paying property it will lower the taxes of working class homeowners elsewhere and that’s good. I can’t believe that people are actually bitching about the rent levels in this project. There are plenty of neighborhoods in New Haven that have more affordable housing. What we need is more taxable property and denser habitation in the center city. The tower may not be beautiful but it will density downtown.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 21, 2010  6:41pm

The argument that 360 State is critique-proof because it is better than what is replaces-a parking lot-is a pretty weak position. There were decades of under-use of this site, which no one denies was unfortunate, but there were centuries of good use on this site-and surrounding sites-as well. Therefore, we must not only compare the new project to what it is immediately replacing, but also to what it is historically replacing.
This site when through several generations of planning, development and use. In the 17th century, very modest buildings lined the 9 squares; over the decades, the properties were continually divided up and densified with various types of buildings from houses, to apartments, to shops and restaurants. The site and 9th square reached its density peak in the beginning of the 20th century. After decades of decay, many buildings were torn down and replaced with parking lots, highways, parking garages or large scale buildings. Since about mid 90s, New Haven has been aggressively pursuing large scale projects to increase the grand list/tax base, and population of the city. These projects usually amount to grossly out of scale monstrosities in the middle of a tiny New England city.
The first thing that needs to happen is to preserve what is left of the existing historic character in downtown and build from this scale in the empty and underused lots. The main reason this does not happen is because downtown lots are too expensive and the only way to make them profitable is by doing enormous projects. There has to be a way to lower the artificially high lot prices and guidelines must be set to deter McDonald’s, gas stations, etc and encourage narrow mixed use buildings of 3-7 stories.
Once the lots are built upon with more modest structures and there is no more buildable land available, then demolition of obsolete buildings is appropriate. To erect a massive tower when there are still vacant lots galore seems like an action made in contrast with reality and logic.
There is a real problem of overly expensive lots in this and most other cities, and that is the central problem that should be addressed-how can we make it affordable for developers to create modest buildings that fill in the gaps of our city with people oriented designs?

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs214.snc3/22167_1242205370354_1085910074_30586345_3157696_n.jpg

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs234.snc3/22167_1242205410355_1085910074_30586346_2630063_n.jpg

posted by: Ben Berkowitz on February 21, 2010  11:04pm

Dave,
Noted on your fashion rules to adhere to while socializing neighbors at a bar. 

Rob,
Hilarious…and slightly ouch on the homeless comment. (Hat was purchased at local retailer Trailblazer…I’ll grow up to Enson’s someday I’m sure but I’m hoping not too soon.)

Say What,

Maybe there are ways SeeClickFix could do better at letting you know that 40% of issues on the site have been fixed. If there are things you want us to improve please email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) as well. The site was built in New Haven based on the feedback of users here and we like to be constantly kept aware of how you are positively or negatively impacted by the tool.  Thanks for speaking up.

posted by: observer on February 22, 2010  8:35am

$4,000 per month rent = 3 yalies per apartment splitting the rent.  So much for ambiance. Good luck!

posted by: robn on February 22, 2010  9:53am

BEN,

You know we love you baby. Taken alone, the Trailblazer headcoat, the Hugo Boss Jacket and the Don Johnson stubble are all quite smashing…taken together….soup line. In the words of the immortal Yves St Lauren, its all about the accessories.

posted by: J Abdenour on February 22, 2010  11:38am

360 State is a wonderful project, and will breathe new life into a corner of downtown way overdue for a face lift.
I also love how green it is, with its fuel cell and its electric cars.  I just wish that we could also do green in a way that didn’t have to be so stylish and expensive.
There’s a lot of wonderful old housing stock in New Haven, the rehabilitation of which would create many times the housing footage of 360 State for a fraction of the carbon footprint (and a small fraction of the price!)  The problem is that public transportation in New Haven is such a disaster that getting from most parts of the city to the train station is such a gigantic hassle that most people don’t bother.  I know I don’t - and I have to commute to Fairfield every day.
Unfortunately, the economics of living in 360 dictate that I stay put in my house near Westville and commute 50 miles a day.  Even combining the cost of mortgage, insurance, taxes AND utilities, it’s cheaper to live in my old foursquare than it would be to rent an apartment in 360 with a third of the square footage.

posted by: Michael S. on February 22, 2010  11:48am

Instead of courting health-food markets(which tend to be much more expensive than traditional grocery stores) and affluent residents to the city’s center, we should be promoting tax rebates for light industry and small-businesses, as well as subsidized, or below market, rental units for working class families.
I live and work downtown and I cannot help but recognize the marginalization of the city’s working people and the rapid gentrification of the area. As the bourgeoisie move closer to downtown, the working-class and working-poor are shoved further to the edges of the city.
The State Street tower should have never been built, it is an edifice which defines liberal hypocrisy and greed.

posted by: M on February 22, 2010  12:23pm

Gentrification is good.  It means people actually want to move downtown (increased demand equals increased prices).  For all you people advocating city living, explain to me how this will happen without gentrification.

posted by: Scot on February 22, 2010  12:24pm

I think this is great for the area! I’m surprised that some people are complaining about a high-end apartment bldg being built in New Haven. It’s not like they tore down an affordable housing complex to build it. It will make that part of town much more vibrant, safe, and pedestrian friendly, infusing many people in an area that was mostly parking lots and commercial. Its a good thing if people that can afford that type of rent are choosing to live in New Haven, rather than in the suburbs,  Stamford, NYC, etc. It will provide more money to support all the local businesses (so grocery stores dont go out of business, and so there aren’t so many vacant storefronts on Chapel St).

I think New Haven needs both affordable housing AND high-end housing (and everything in between). If they agreed to keep 20 units for sec 8, then I’m sure they will do that (not sure if that is the case or not). If the rents are too high, the market will correct them quickly.

I’m looking forward to seeing what grocery goes in there, be it a co-op or store.  Redding Terminal market in Philadelphia would be another good model if they go the co-op route.

posted by: Michael S. on February 22, 2010  1:57pm

Gentrification is synonymous with the homogenization of culture. A possible way to boost city-living while avoiding gentrification: the city could give property tax reductions and/or incentives to entrepreneurs who want to open manufacturing facilities in the city. New Haven, downtown included, used to have a lot of them. Industry would attract labor, this labor would need housing, ergo increase of demand, but the rent prices would be commensurate to the workers’ income level. What would not take place is the gradual and depressing monochromatic “yuppification” of New Haven. This city used to have a vibrant and eclectic downtown which in turn created a unique city character. To me that is important, it is something that we should work towards, it is something that would benefit all of the city’s citizens and not just a privileged few.

posted by: M on February 22, 2010  2:21pm

I don’t see gentrification as synonymous with homogenization at all.  Do you think Manhattan is homogeneous? I still don’t understand how you want to increase demand, but keep housing prices low unless you want rent control.  I want downtown New Haven to be a place that people want to live and work.  And that will necessarily increase downtown housing prices, to which I say great.  More property taxes for the city to function.  More people to spend money in stores, restaurants, and other local businesses.

posted by: Michael S. on February 22, 2010  3:45pm

The parts of Manhattan that are gentrified are culturally homogenous. Harlem is a good example of a place that many would say has lost its cultural character because of gentrification. I think that most people are forgetting that New Haven was a place where people did want to live and work, until the jobs left. Industry, not retail, but manufacturing and production, is what attracts people. If New Haven worked to re-establish industry then people would want to live here. Of course, these people wouldn’t be the affluent limousine liberals and blue-blooded Yalies that seem to flock to downtown now, the only ones who can afford it. They would be immigrants, tradesmen and women, and people of varied backgrounds. Landlords would obviously lower their rents knowing that what they might lose in per unit rent would be made up for in volume. And maybe our city council and mayor would consider property tax incentives and rent-control as another way to stabilize rents. If you really want to see an increase in tax revenue then you must promote the creation of an effective industrial base. The tower at 360 State Street represents a way of thinking that has doomed not only our municipal economy, but also our national economy.

posted by: M on February 22, 2010  4:37pm

I guess I just feel that you are looking backwards.  Low-wage industry and manufacturing is the past for city downtowns in the Northeast.  It’s not coming back.  Eds and meds and biotech and services are the future.  There will be plenty of places in New Haven to retain “character” whatever you mean by that. 

Rich people moving downtown would be a great thing for New Haven.  Where else should they go? Stay in the Guilford and Madison where everyone else on this board can complain about their environmental footprint?

posted by: streever on February 22, 2010  5:05pm

Michael S.
When I am rich I will invest in your idea to bring back industrial jobs to Connecticut. Hopefully you agree with me that the cotton gin is fundamental to a healthy economy.

posted by: anon on February 22, 2010  5:30pm

Studies show that gentrification is generally good for all parties involved, unless there are physical displacement issues (which can be mitigated through the political process).  This project may be one factor causing rising retail rents along Chapel, but A) there are plenty of other spaces for retailers in the vicinity, B) Chapel Street is not full of occupied retail spaces by any stretch of the imagination, C) higher retail rents directly translate to more tax revenue from downtown, which means lower taxes for everyone else, and D) there are many other factors creating higher rents, e.g., higher gas prices and lower crime.

That said, $4,000 per month is clearly a lot of money for one person to spend on housing, especially when so many folks in our community are facing sustained, long-term unemployment.  But if someone is going to spend $4,000 per month on housing, I’d rather that they have the option of spending it on an apartment New Haven than being forced to spend it on an apartment in Milford just because our market just doesn’t have that high quality of housing available. 

Unfortunately, this country has an enormous social equity problem that will take much more than buildings to solve, and much more than buildings to make worse.  It is a political issue.

70% of the nation’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest 1%, and that number gets larger by the day. The reason is simple. The poor and middle-class subsidize the wealthy in the form of payroll taxes, corporate tax breaks, employer tax breaks, mortgage subsidies, heavily subsidized transportation (if you can afford a car), etc.  The poor receive some benefits, like EITC and food stamps, but the wealthy get payouts that are much, much larger.

The problem is that people view medicare and food stamps as direct welfare, whereas subsidies (payments) for rich people’s home mortgages or to corporations who pay for employees’ health care are viewed as “tax breaks,” or as indirect payments. 

Since people can’t account for these indirect payments, they blame the poor for being poor when the reality is that they are poor because the government is constantly sucking money away from them and their communities, and giving it to the rich.

The city was wise to include affordable units in the 360 State project, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done at the state and federal level.

posted by: Michael S. on February 22, 2010  5:43pm

One more post and then I’ll let the issue go…
I agree, low-wage industry is in the past, but industry will always be necessary. The two are not mutually exclusive, one can work in an industrial job and be paid a decent living wage, the American middle class was built on vibrant and productive industry. As for Eds, meds and biotechs, those “industries” (It is odd that we identify education as an industry) are highly specific and require specialized knowledge, expensive knowledge. So the paradigm is one that continues to consolidate knowledge and wealth at the expense of others.
If you want downtown New Haven to become more than a playground for the rich then the re-establishment of local industry is essential. The character that one might “retain” through M’s example is superficial and meaningless and resembles Disney’s Main Street USA. I don’t know about you, but I would rather live in a place with genuine character and diversity. The wealthy who live in Madison and Guilford can stay there and enjoy their “green” hybrid cars, expensive coffee, blood diamonds, and sweatshop manufactured apparel.
Footnote?: Anyone who thinks that building an apartment/office tower is a practice of ecological conservation is truly foolish. It is laughable that the builder of the tower would have the gall to present it as such. But, people will believe just about anything I guess.

posted by: Westville Mom on February 22, 2010  7:26pm

As usual, another comment section in this paper has devolved into yet another discussion of class warfare and urban vs. suburban warfare.  For anyone who is the LEAST bit interested, there was an article today (by an Afr. Am. WOMAN) summarizing the gradual decay of the traditional Afr. Am. family, which gets a whole lot closer to the truth of why the “poor” are “poor” in New Haven:
http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2010/02/22/time_for_a_new_generation_of_black_americans?page=full&comments=true

As for downtown, I’m not sure which good ole days some people are referring to .... possibly the 1920s, 30s, and 40s?  An old friend (deceased) used to tell me about her haberdashery shop downtown, the trolleys, and all that.  Yes, it was nice.  She also told me about how she had to save every darn scrap of cardboard and everything else during the Depression and how unbelievably hard it was to just survive. Perspective, folks.

In the 1980s we had Macy’s and Malley’s, which helped a lot to “animate” downtown, but it was still a pretty rundown and grey town even then.  What really KILLED it, though (and I personally believe caused Macy’s to leave) was the crime—- and not just the crime but the PERCEPTION of crime by those outside the city.  Some things are actually better in NH these days, including the crime, but the PERCEPTION of crime by people outside the city is still a major problem!  Why does no one seem to notice this? Ever? ... It’s an “image” thing, as much as anything—(well, I’ll leave the schools out of it for now.)

A new building (any building) on the site of a former parking lot is something to celebrate.  What would REALLY encourage businesses and people to return, however, would be an all-out WAR on crime.  Certain sections of Tokyo used to have little glass booths on every corner with a cop inside.  With Yale students writing about being accosted daily by ubiquitous panhandlers, why isn’t there a major Giuliani-style initiative being launched?  Visible beat cops make people FEEL safe! Lower murder rates don’t really help how you feel when you’re walking the streets and worrying about being mugged. New Haven crime stats are better, but they need to be EXCELLENT and everyone in the state needs to know it .... as in, ... marketing.  Why aren’t there billboards on I-95 in Guilford and Madison saying, “If you lived in New Haven, you’d be home now!”???

Maybe the creative Mr. Berkowitz could come up with some suggestions for our long-suffering mayor.

posted by: Dan on February 22, 2010  8:49pm

I agree this is class warfare, your term not mine. This project excludes certain citizens based on the basic nature of the project and forces them to deal with the decisions made by the wealthier. How closer to class war can you get? We want sustainability too! But not sustainability that costs $4000 a month!

We can all make believe that there will be no market side-effects of this project however, it is not difficult to see where New Haven is heading and where organised wealth is trying to take it. Basically we’re looking at a mini-Manhattan. How uncreative and dull.

posted by: Wally on February 23, 2010  12:09pm

How do you force a supermarket to buy a store in New Haven, or anywhere?

ShopRite maintains lots of stores in cities. Look at the map of their stores on their website. They just don’t have a huge presence in New England or CT. Picking up the stores that they did is a major expansion, and presumably a big risk for them. Especially in a bad economy.

Same goes for S&S. I get that some people think they should have picked up the Whalley store too, but they didn’t. They’re not a charity, they’re a business. They have responsibilities to their owners and their employees in other stores.

No matter how loud you cry or stomp your feet, neither of these companies are red-lining, and calling it that distorts the history of *actual* red-lining. Calling this red-lining or accusing these companies of racism is as false as calling the president a racist or a socialist. It’s factually false, it sounds desperate, and it’s beneath what decent people do.

You can’t make a company move into a vacant store any more than I can make you buy a house you don’t want to buy or take a job you don’t want to take.

posted by: angelo on February 23, 2010  1:22pm

Dan (and others) - a lot of ideology, not many facts.  The story said apartments would go for as little as $1200, as much as $4000, depending on market.  Nothing in the article about the numbers of each, or what comes in between (there should have been, if this was good journalism).  Dan and others than jump on the $4000 number, as though all or most of the units will go for that price.  Is it a few penthouse units or half the building?  Aren’t 10% or so affordable units?  How much will one bedrooms go for?  Aren’t the answers to these questions sort of important to an intelligent discussion about gentrification?  How about taxes?  With everyone complaining about real estate taxes, isn’t it important that New Haven try to increase the tax bases where it can?

posted by: Ugo Dos on February 23, 2010  4:25pm

Note to self: Try not to wear expensive coat or beanie to ‘soup line’

http://www.zappos.com/n/p/p/7495647/c/4854.html?mr:referralID=f9d0585c-20b7-11df-a274-000423bb4e79

posted by: Dan on February 24, 2010  2:03am

Angelo, according to the article studios are going from $1200-$1400 and 3 bdrm are going for $4000. That leads us to believe that 1 and 2 bdrms will be going from $1400-$4000.

Article: Rent levels are hardly set in stone and will ultimately be dictated by the market, but studios will go for between $1,200 and 1,400. If you have a large family or a grand piano, you can get a steal on a three-bedroom for $4,000. A leasing office will be open on the corner of Orange and Chapel within two weeks.

However, you’re right Angelo, but rental levels are based on the market, not entirely but mostly. For example affordable housing programs or fixed income housing, eCT eCT The fixed programs aren’t what concern me. Those are regulated by the gov and I don’t fit into the programs. However, the markets have more play with costs and revenue and this is my concern. The market for this building was addressed by Becker:

Becker said he expected a third to half the renters to be Yale affiliated, graduate students, and people connected with the new Yale-New Haven Smilow Cancer Center. The number of university students has increased without a concomitant increase in housing stock, Becker added.

Seeing who the people are who move in is “the exciting, the fun part,” he said. Through the building’s website, 500 viable rental prospects are waiting.

I agree we need more information to understand the complete picture. My original qualm was how these issues weren’t discussed.

posted by: Ben Berkowitz on February 24, 2010  3:56pm

Ugo Dos,
Forgot to mention: coat was from Urban Ourfitters not Hugo Boss.

Anyone looking to buy me nicer clothing: I will gladly except donations and pass it on to the homeless.