Coliseum Plan Coasts On

Looks amazing. And I hate to dim enthusiasm, so to speak. But this member of the peanut gallery can't help but offer a tongue-in-cheek wisecrack:

If the place glows like it does in the architect renderings, is no one concerned about light pollution?

Yet another 785 parking spaces is an environmental disaster for downtown, which already has by far the highest asthma rate in the entire state.

Also, if the developer didn't have to build all of these 785 parking spaces, he/she could easily afford to incorporate another 100 or 200 affordable housing units for families into the plan. Unfortunately, the chief goal here is to line the pockets of suburban contractors, not to help struggling city residents.

The tax revenue might be nice, but unless 100% of it is dedicated to building new housing, we'll continue to see skyrocketing homelessness. The number of families using emergency shelters is up 16% just since 2010, according to the state.

Finally, what is to prevent this developer from just building the 785-space parking garage, keeping the rest of the area as a surface lot for the train station, and calling it a day?

When will ground be broken on Phase II? And what happens when it doesn't?

Also, is the affordable housing going to be along the same lines as at 360State, where half the subsidies go to single people, making $45,000-63,000yr, to rent studio apartments at 30% discounts? (I know a lucky young doctor, single and making $59,000/year, who has been given a $1400 per month luxury studios for approx. a $1000 per month. Is that what "affordable housing" is supposed to mean in New Haven?)

Look, in the final analysis I'm probably for this project. The developer is legit and we need whatever tax dollars it's going to yield us. But a big chunk of the project, and the estimated jobs, tax revenues, etc, are just promises. Is due diligence really being done here, and is the public being presented with a fair set of facts?

And is this the best we could bargain for in exchange for two prime downtown blocks?

@anonymous: reality is that this project will fail from a retail and hotel standpoint without adequate parking. New Haven, as it stands, is unable to sustain something like this alone. We are not Manhattan or Boston. You need the buying power of outsiders and suburbanites. The good news: people that come to New Haven from the suburbs park once and walk. They love their parking garages and they hate driving in cities. This will encourage MORE visitors to New Haven and less traffic on side streets. It will be an incredibly easy access from the highway.

A. S.: The last best deal for two downtown blocks gave them away for Gateway. And in better economic times, too, if I recall correctly. The Long Wharf vision by Pelli was likely a better deal, but that collapsed at the beginning of the Great Recession.

@AS

In regards to affordable housing, these were the numbers previously posted

20: Percentage of those apartments that will be "affordable," meaning restricted to "low income and workforce households with household incomes between 50 and 120 percent of the Area Median Income." At least 10 percent of the affordable apartments would have two or three bedrooms. No more than 50 percent of the apartments on any one floor would be affordable. The city would work with the developer to secure 19 units of project-based Section 8 vouchers and $1.5 million in capital fund from the New Haven housing authority.

What were Jorge Perez's amendments to the language? Did the developer cave to the demand for a unionized hotel?

Stylo: Your theory sounds like something from the 1950s. Somehow more parking garages = less traffic. Somehow more people from the suburbs (i.e., more parking spaces, instead of more affordable housing units for young working families) means we will have a better city.

Madcap: "between 50 and 120 percent of the Area Median Income" is an enormous range of income levels. I am sure it will end up being more complex, but if that's the standard that the city has set, then it means that a family making $100,000+ per year who moves into this new luxury development might count as one of the 20 percent of families getting an affordable unit.

ANONYMOUS,

Approx med household income (source US Census)

CT state 68,000
NH county 60,000
NH city 38,000

50-120%
CT state 34,000-82,000
NH county 30,000-72,000
NH city 19,000-46,000

50-120% of the area median is in fact a huge range, but on the plus side it means 20% of those apartments are not going to people with even higher incomes, because that area and that development will probably draw the same demographic as 360 State, and most of those households are probably well above 120% of the area median.

To second Stylo's remarks, 785 parking spaces/719 housing units comes down to slightly more than one space per unit (1.09, to be precise). Even if you assume that the retail, office, and hotel space will generate no parking demand, this is not an outrageous amount.

Moreover, the agreement requires the deveoper to come up with a transportation demand management plan on its nickel.

"The Transportation Demand Management Plan shall include such road and signaling improvements and modifications as may be reasonably necessary in order to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic resulting from the completion of the Project, including strategies, such as, and not limited to, bike sharing programs, ridesharing programs, and public transportation infrastructure. The City and the Developer shall work collaboratively to review the Transportation Demand Management Plan and seek to agree upon the same and to allocate responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Transportation Demand Management Plan and the costs associated therewith."

Robn:
Census median income for all households is not the basis for any affordable housing program. The figure used as the median would be around $80,000 but it depends on family size. I think 120% AMI would be ~$100,000 for a family of four.
http://www.chfa.org/content/Multifamily Document Library/NewHaven-MeridenHMFAIncomeLimits-HERA.pdf

Kevin: Given that many cities the size of New Haven or smaller now have no parking requirements at all -- perhaps because they prefer affordable housing and higher tax revenue, rather than more street-choking, lung-clogging parking and widened highways for suburbanites -- that ratio is outrageous. When we create parking requirements through zoning and development agreements, we subsidize auto travel for elites, and make housing far more expensive than it needs to be. Wonder why so many people are homeless? Look how many billions of dollars are spent each year to build and maintain unnecessary parking lots for elites.

Here is the link to the income ranges that get you a 30% discount on a luxury studio at 360State:
http://www.360statestreet.com/assets/pdf/Application_Instruction_Letter.pdf

Note the income ranges:
43K-67K in income for an individual
43K-76K in income for a couple

Why the State of CT is subsidizing yuppies to live at 360State is beyond me. Shouldn't that money be going to working families?

Sadly the 25 studios, which are part of this state-funded Housing Trust Fund program, account for half of the "affordable" housing at 360State.

A. S.: The folks at 360 State may be young, urban and/or professional, but they're clearly not "yuppies" with inflated salaries chasing big bucks. And as far as the subsidies go, I'd say NH would be well served by helping recent grads and dreamer-entrepreneurs build a better city.

Scooper,

We should use that same income criteria to give homeowners a 30% discount on their Real Estate Taxes!

Bill Saunders: Good point. A rent/tax rebate makes a great deal of sense. PA has had such a program -- perhaps only for seniors -- in place for many years.

Also, to Scooper's other point, I don't see why decent housing for "working families" must be in brand-new buildings in prime downtown locations.

Anonymous, name 10 U.S. cities the size of New Haven (let's say those with populations 100,000 to 150,000) that don't require developments to provide parking.

@ a contrarian I definitely agree that attracting young college graduates to residing in a city is definitely in the long term interest of the city.
It is worth noting the BoA has moved to dropping parking requirements on other developments, specifically residential. I am not sure what other cities do not require some regulation of parking availability but I have not seen this. There is a strong tide to dropping the required ratio but it is still present in every proposal I see in urban areas across the state. It also seems to be more likely if it is a residential centered project.