New Haven Independent

posted by: streever on February 25, 2010  1:04pm

I honestly don’t think that Inwald’s business model could function in many markets at all—it seems to require an inordinate number of grilled cheese sandwiches to be sold. I don’t think that’s a New Haven failing, but a price point vs overhead issue in the model. Not criticizing it: It’s a great model for an area with an incredible number of prospective customers, but New Haven simply is not that dense.

If we caved in on Tangoes and gave them all the parking lots they’d need for their out of town employees, we’d have even less density.

if you want parking lots, go to Hartford. If you want dense cities, go to Boston, New York, etc. New York doesn’t help businesses park their employees—they provide public transit.

that’s the way to work that, not to build parking lots. Unfortunately the speakers they chose do not have experience or knowledge of how to build cities, even though they may have excellent backgrounds in business building.

Perhaps Tangoes could have employed local citizens—much like Higher One or other successful New Haven based companies. Tangoes employees could also have used the buses, carpools, or trains.

posted by: East Rock on February 25, 2010  1:16pm

John Destefano is KILLING this city. He is pushing out not only private business but he is also pushing out the tax paying citizens. Whether its with his relentless Car ticketing programs, (Why don’t we call it what it is “A car tax”). Or whether it be his never ending tax increases, such as property and this proposed new City income tax. How about cutting spending for once John? I am sick of working two jobs to support people who will not work even one.

posted by: The Count on February 25, 2010  1:20pm

Kudos to Mark Volchek, because he “gets it.” You can have all the pizzerias and all the theatre in New Haven you want, but if a prospective business STILL has to land many miles away and then use surface transportation to come to New Haven, that’s an instant turnoff. Mark, keep on keeping on with Tweed’s turnaround. I know the rstrictons placed on Tweed from last year’s agreement between Mayor DeStefano and “Lady Ca-Ca” Almon don’t help much, but you and Tim Larson are doing a GREAT job getting the airport up to speed! (Too bad folks can’t blame East Haven for Tweed’s plight the way they have for other issues.) The safety overrun areas are in place, Taxiway “Bravo” will be extended to the end of Runway 2 (eliminating back-taxiing on the main runway and delaying waiting planes) and work on the “clear zones” is progressing. With these improvements, the probability of an airline bringing service to a region of one-and-one-half million people increases. And with increased activity, the airport’s dependence on public subsidy decreases. (Are you reading this, Yale Prof. Cameroun?)
Go, Mark!

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 25, 2010  2:05pm

If the employees loved being around Yale, restaurants and downtown so much, why don’t they just live in or near it? That way they don’t have to drive to work at all and can be around what they love for more of the day. When people don’t even consider living in a city as an option, yet don’t think twice about using a city’s roads, garages, lots and on street parking to work and receive pay checks, there is something very wrong.
All the parking garages, parking lots and overly abundant car infrastructure are going to be turned into inhabitable spaces in coming decades. Similarly to how old factory buildings and mills are being retrofitted, 12 foot garage floors with be insulated and the exteriors cladded to be turned into lofts, office space and ground level retail; surface parking lots with be developed into traditional urban development designed around walking, and overly-wide roads will be repaved, and narrowed to create planters for trees, and outdoor sitting space and travel lanes with be cut back for bus/trolley lanes and/or on-street parking with little to no curb cuts.
Unfortunately, until that time, we’ll continue to shovel what’s left of our dwindling capital into the institutions, programs, subsidies, and infrastructure that is simultaneously bankrupting everything else. We are bailing out the banks that provide the loans and mortgages that we use to buy houses we can’t afford in communities that require multiple cars for every driver because there’s nothing within walking distance, biking is too dangerous and buses are only for poor and disabled people if they even run efficiently or close by at all. We’ll continue to funnel money to banks so that they can provide credit for us to buy things for our homes that we can’t afford. Highways will continue to get billions while they produce no wealth, in fact, they lower property values of surrounding land which means even more secondary roads are needed to carry people away from highways so they can shop and live; meanwhile our rail system-cargo and passenger-rots further and continues to be an embarrassment among industrialized nations.
We do this because obviously the problem is that there is not enough parking for people who don’t pay city taxes, nor do a large portion (or any) shopping in the city. Let’s take away more taxable land and give it to a thin layer of asphalt so that it can be used to store cars for the 8 hours people give us the opportunity to use our city as a storage warehouse.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should provide incentives and subsidies to buy abandoned houses and buildings, build on vacant lots, and open stores in an urban environment, while taking away the funding and subsidies for suburban living and development so that the true cost is being reflected in price. Magically, crime would plummet, schools would improve, transit would expand, taxes would drop, farm land would become available closer to the central city, and gee wiz, we actually have a livable city.

posted by: robn on February 25, 2010  2:09pm

Paying 100 bucks/month for parking in a garage in New Haven is 2 bucks per work day per person. If you’re employees really enjoy the quality of life downtown (making them happier and more therefore productive), not paying 2 buck a day is stupid. New Haven doesn’t need stupid business owners looking for subsidies. It need entrepreneurs who understand QofL and who pay their fair share like everybody else.

posted by: eddie on February 25, 2010  2:36pm

Robyn: Not sure I follow your math. There are 22 work days in the month of March. If I pay $100 for monthly parking, my calculator tells me the cost is $4.50 per work day. From what I hear, though, monthly parking near downtown is closer to $120, so that’s $5.50 per day. And that’s if you don’t mind trudging through the rain or snow for several blocks, often along poorly lit streets. If you want to park right downtown, you’re edging toward $150—nearly $7 per work day! That’s a lot for some companies to swallow, especially those with lots of employees.

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on February 25, 2010  2:48pm

Who is this guy kidding?  It was n’t his fault…it was New Haven’s, the parking lot, the boogeyman’s, anyone else’s but his.

Providing adequate parking for your employees should have been part of his business plan, but wasn’t.  But I used to work at Yale downtown, and it cost $135+ to park there per month, and that was with the employee discount.  So I bought a monthly bus pass for $30, and left my car at home.  Problem solved.

He didn’t owe his employees free parking, but should have considered that when opening another business in a city, any city.  I’m also inclined to think that out of all his 130 employees, not all of them complained, and those who did could have made quality decisions to find the money to pay for parking.  How many smoke?  How many buy lunch daily?  How many buy coffee daily?  If parking was $2 a day, that is equal to a cup of coffee that most people pay for without blinking.

I don’t like how this so-called professional businessman blames the city, when the free parking that he’s really asking for would mean that my property taxes have to go up again.  And for what?  So a guy who wants to leave New Haven the minute his business succeeds gets free perks while he’s here?  No thanks.  I’m barely surviving as it is.

posted by: anon on February 25, 2010  3:19pm

What’s missing is a discussion of the long term costs of all that parking and parking subsidies. If you look at the long term accumulated infrastructure and finance costs and impact on neighborhoods, it is a very bad strategy.

Also, think of the long-term costs of unhappy employees forced to work at faceless suburban office parks and pay enormous sums each year for transportation. 

Unfortunately, a lot of this is determined by state and federal policy. For example, the underfunded, inefficient transit systems in every U.S. city except New York and DC, or the fact that our tax structure forces the poorest Americans to constantly subsidize middle-class and wealthy businesses and employees like the ones featured on this panel (through tax breaks, employer health insurance write-offs, mortgage subsidies, the latest so-called “jobs” bill passed by Congress which gives even more corporate subsidies out at the expense of low-income people, etc). 

The state needs to have a far better balance between the past 50 years of short-term, make-a-buck thinking and the types of long term strategies that will lead to sustainable, healthy, prosperous and equitable communities.

posted by: question on February 25, 2010  3:24pm

The lack of concern by Ms. Murphy coincides with my experience with her.  She does not appear to be support “smaller” or “small” economic concerns.  I feel that as an employee of the City, she should have expressed more concern and empathy for the business that has moved and the taxpayers who will foot the bill as a result of her “inability to recall the episode”.

posted by: Farren on February 25, 2010  3:27pm

The monthly rate at the Century Tower parking garage on Church Street is $148 per month.

posted by: robn on February 25, 2010  3:56pm

eddie,

Your right with your math, but I stand by my point that 2 bucks or 5 bucks a day is a small cost for a (successful) company to pay if their employees truly appreciate the atmosphere and amenities of downtown (restaurants, museums galleries, movies, bars etc..) Cultural amenities are energizing and stimulating and a good environment to be in if you’re in a successful and (presumably) creative business. Also good for recruitment.

posted by: nutmeg on February 25, 2010  4:03pm

in this day and age, when companies move, it has more to do with the preference of the boss (or the boss’s wife) than employee preferences or any local incentives.  a simple google search reveals an Al Subbloie as an Orange resident.  why do you suppose there are so many corporate hq in fairfield county?  it has nothing to do with the physical characteristics or unique resources of the place- it’s where the boss lives.

that said, streever is right on about density.  underperforming downtowns tend to have lots of parking while healthy downtowns have parking supply problems and high costs.  new haven’s been focusing on accommodating auto traffic and parking for sixty years and what are the results.  with great highway access and garages on every block downtown, people are still complaining about parking.  what more can you do?

posted by: Walter on February 25, 2010  4:29pm

But businesses that establish themselves in the city do pay city taxes, Jonathan. Employees will tend to shop and eat at local places. They also pay state taxes that filter back to the city - and sales taxes on what they spend when they’re here.

If they paid your “I hate suburbs” city tax too, what company would set up shop in New Haven, given a choice?

Also: how can you force your employees to relocate next door to their place of employment? No company can afford relocation costs for *all* of their employees, or limit their searches to people within walking distance of their jobs. There’s no incentive to relocate to a job in an economic environment where you’ll only be at that job for 3-5 years.

This isn’t high level economics here.

posted by: Lance on February 25, 2010  4:33pm

Destafano is trying to get a few new city taxes implemented as well.  I’m sure that will be a BIG help in keeping old businesses and drawing new ones.  LOL.

posted by: William Kurtz on February 25, 2010  5:10pm

Maybe there’s room for some entrepreneurial spirit with a van to rent some parking space out at any of the closed and abandoned big-box store parking lots in the surrounding towns (such as Circuit City in North Haven, or Builder’s Square—remember them?—on Bull Hill Lane in Orange) and run a shuttle service to downtown.

posted by: eddie on February 25, 2010  5:12pm

Robyn: Not to belabor the point, but you’re poo-pooing a very significant cost. Even a lowball estimate of the cost of parking downtown comes to about $1,200 per employee per year. If you figure a typical employee earns about $50,000 a year, then it’s the equivalent of adding 2.5 percent to the payroll.

Many companies in Connecticut are having trouble enough just keeping pace with inflation, never mind throwing in perks like free parking.

I’m not arguing that companies are justified in nickel-and-dime-ing their employees. But I don’t think we can brush off the fact that the lack of affordable parking in New Haven is a serious impediment to attracting and retaining businesses.

I work at one of the few large private businesses left in downtown New Haven. If you were to stand in front of our offices and poll employees about whether they’d prefer to stay in New Haven or move to the suburbs, I guarantee you that every last one would support moving—and cite the cost of parking as the reason.

I’m one of the few lucky enough to live close enough that I can walk to work, and I enjoy the bounty of good restaurants and culture that the city has to offer. But I pay dearly in property taxes for the privilege.

New Haven is in real danger of entering a municipal death spiral if it does not address the real issues that are sending businesses and residents fleeing for the suburbs.

</rant>

posted by: anon on February 25, 2010  5:30pm

The more parking, the worse a city is. 

Graph all the cities in the world, central parking density vs. positive characteristics - very simple math.

Businesses complain about parking because they just want more subsidies, or as an excuse for the real reasons for moving (which typically have to do where the exec lives).

New Haven should immediately ban all new parking garages and remove parking requirements from its zoning ordinances, as the cities rated “most livable in the world” have all done.

posted by: Downtown New Havener on February 25, 2010  5:38pm

To Mr. Inwald,

The fact that your comment appeared in both the Register and here illustrates how unfounded negative opinions can still gain such traction in our town.

Like so many other dismissive SOM students, it sounds like you don’t get out much. Thanks for your 1997 viewpoint on a New Haven where you “don’t always feel comfortable walking around.” Funny, but I don’t “always feel comfortable” in the Connecticut Post Mall, and statistics show that sales at the mall itself are moribund at best. Who’s giving you your retail data, Mr. Inwald?

Destination foot traffic is EXACTLY what New Haven is doing best right now. While other small New England cities have urban centers with office buildings that empty out at 5 PM, New Haven has a truly residential core.

Do your research, Mr. Inwald. You have this wrong, and need to get out of your outdated, biased Yale bubble. There’s a reason that New Haven has seen a resurgence in restaurant activity every year for the last 15. And the retail environment keeps improving despite the national economic downturn that has crippled places like the Connecticut Post Mall.

Oh, and one other thing: you’re betting on the wrong horse if you’re moving to ANY mall. Increasingly, old-school malls are falling by the wayside, and from a real estate perspective, malls are now seen as the most risky place to invest. Just look at the number that have closed, downsized or been recommissioned and repurposed because the retail inside failed.

I think the REAL problem is that, in a place like New Haven with so many outstanding culinary choices, a grilled cheese outlet—as cute and homey as it sounds—is just not a destination. Like the flash-in-the-pan peanut butter and jelly outlets that appeared (and disappeared) a few years ago, your grilled cheese concept is a novelty at best. Sure, you’ll have your followers. But are you a destination? Trust me, Mr. Inwald: New Haven is a much more enduring, appealing and interesting destination than any grilled cheese stand. ”

posted by: Moved to the "Burbs" years ago on February 25, 2010  6:14pm

Typical Response from a City “Employee” its all bull it was not on the City’s agenda to save the company from leaving.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 25, 2010  6:31pm

Walter,
You try to make suburban commuters sound like they’re contributing a lot, when really that’s the same thing single parent welfare recipients contribute-“shop and eat at local places” “sales taxes on what they spend when they’re here”. And the working class (which make up most of New Haven) financially supports all the highways and suburban construction subsidies that they don’t use, unlike the funding that the suburban middle class pays to cities, which they do use and use way more than what they’re actually paying for. Like I’ve said many times, suburban families that commute to New Haven are to New Haven, what single-parent welfare recipients are to New Haven.
These places that commuters shop at wouldn’t happen to be Starbuck, Dunkin Donuts, Subway, and CVS, would they? Because surely you are aware that those chain stores funnel money from the community to distant owners and invest very little back into the places where the stores are located. And don’t even try to act like people do a lot of shopping in New Haven, they’re spending the big bucks at Bed, Bath & Beyond, Stop & Shop, CostCo, and the like. I agree that businesses do pay city taxes, as they should. So should the employees, managers and people who use the business. Local networks of organization made this country great, we’re ruining it by nationalizing, and globalizing.

posted by: anon on February 25, 2010  6:41pm

The Caseus grilled cheese truck seems to do perfectly well in New Haven. 

Inwald seems to have a typical elitist attitude about the city being less safe, when the fact is that driving to the mall puts you at many times greater risk of injury and death.

posted by: I just love a Greek Salad on February 25, 2010  6:42pm

You include comments from Murphy regarding the EDC.  I understand that Michelle Whelley has not renewed her contract and will be leaving the organization. Why doesn’t NHI do some investigative reporting as to how successful the EDC has been under the tutelage of the city and why Whelley is returning to Baltimore?  Smells funny?

posted by: Tanner on February 25, 2010  7:39pm

While CT has a fine Rail System the location and surrounding areas where built up before the increase in automobiles. Unless your within walking distance or a spouse can drop you off there is limited public transportation. The proposed expansion connecting New Haven and Springfield would have similar problems. The Service on Shoreline East is helped by the amount of Parking at some stops.

posted by: david silvestone on February 25, 2010  8:43pm

I read the story of the Yale entrepreneurial society event with great interest. As chair of the Science Park Development Corporation, we are excited by the revitalization occurring in this historical part of New Haven and , I might add, by the ample amount of parking available for all of our tenants.  In addition to 25 Science Park, 4 and 5 Science Park also offer office and lab space for both developing and established companies.  While I can’t comment directly on what happened to Tangoe, I can assure Al that if he were to give New Haven another chance, he would be pleasantly surprised by the time, attention, and assistance he would receive from the Economic Development Corporation, the City of New Haven Office of Economic Development, and if he chose Science Park as a potential location, by the Science Park Development Corporation.

posted by: Michael Inwald on February 25, 2010  10:10pm

To Downtown New Havener - I appreciate your viewpoint and at this point in time, I agree that malls are struggling with the rest of the economy. Please know that I didn’t, by any means, suggest that New Haven isn’t a wonderful place, and I hope you have a little love for grilled cheese in there somewhere as well.  I certainly understand the great successes New Haven has had with restaurants and retail, and I am a customer of businesses throughout the city every day - so I can assure you that I “get out” often.  I was just suggesting that it could improve foot traffic with stronger retail - that’s all.  I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that there is always room for improvement.  I also was never comparing CT Post, or any mall, to New Haven.  They are different animals. 

And To Anon - I’m sorry you took my comments the wrong way.  I first would like to say that I do love New Haven, and my comments about the safety were taken out of context.  In particular, I commented that the city has improved greatly.  Most cities could always improve levels of safety - this is not an elitist viewpoint, it is a typical one.

posted by: Walt on February 26, 2010  7:51am

Off topic, but a maybe a chance to ask Streever a question

Why did you gripe on See/Click/Fix that the traffic light at Davis and Ridge,in Hamden (my neighborhood)  does not change for bike folk?

The light as far as I know, is time=controlled and does not change for either   cars, or bikes automatically

Most of the bikists in that area unfortunately just ignore the lights as I see it

You are usually sensible.  What’s your complaint on that one?

posted by: nfjanette on February 26, 2010  9:24am

I get the impression that the author attempts some spin on the anti-city news from businesses that are explaining their negative experiences.  How?  By throwing down the Carter Winstanley trump card at the end and hoping it will leave the final impression.

The problem with that approach is that Mr. Winstanley is no ordinary local business startup; he appears to have significant amounts of available funding and a relationship with Yale that has helped fill his ventures with their employees.  Both 300 George Street and 25 Science Park have Yale tenants as core constituencies.  That’s great for Mr. Winstanley, but hardly indicative of the dynamic targeted by the discussion forum that is the focus of the story.

Then we have the chorus of neo/new-urbanists than, upon reading the testimony of a business owner that a factor in relocating out of the city was parking, declare the city should nuke all the parking garages!  Good work, fellas, that will have businesses streaming into the city in no time.  As in, never.  While I don’t want a city composed only of parking garages, I recognize the need for the integration of parking resource.

It is, however, also true that the much needed expansion of parking and improvement of services at Union Station has been delayed over a decade by the city and state governments and that North-South (NH-Hartford) commuter rail offerings are skimpy at best currently.  It’s incorrect to claim all the suburban rail stations are lacking in parking; the Shoreline East stations were all rebuilt with increased/improved parking and spare but improved passenger facilities.  The new West Haven train station is being constructed at considerable cost as well.  However, the older stations toward Fairfield county do suffer from restricted parking, sometimes because the value of the surrounding real estate interferes with expansion ideas.

David Silvestone, however, Get’s It.  His response, ironically made possible in part by Mr. Winstanley’s recent investments in Science park, directly target the concerns articulated by the business owners.  Or, at least some of them; it’s hard to imagine going out for a night on the town around Science Park and surviving the experience.  Mr. Silvestone, at least, is actively reaching out to such businesses by trying to understand their needs - exactly the approach such businesses take when they model their wares to the needs of potential customers.  We need to be willing to listen and hear the information from businesses when they tell the city why they aren’t coming to set up shop and then respond with positive ideas to address their needs whenever possible.

posted by: Ben Berkowitz on February 26, 2010  9:53am

Just purchased a ticket from NHV to MIA for 210.00 Round-Trip.  Thanks Mark!

Mayor McCheese,
I’m at a loss for words but mostly because I already said them in the Register’s comment section. I’m guessing people will think twice before inviting you back to a panel.

Lame!

posted by: robn on February 26, 2010  9:58am

EDDIE,

If employees value or like being downtown more than their parking fees, they shold stay…if not, they should go. I think that there is a tipping point beyond which automobile infrastructure begins to hurt a city. As one commenter put it well, New Haven has been building automobile infrastructure (parking garages an highway connections) for years, what good has it done us?

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 26, 2010  6:41pm

nfjanette,
“...nuke all the parking garages!”
What planet do you live on? Underused lots like surface parking are going to be developed, some are in the process of being developed, and the city is trying to attract more development on underused sites. Parking garages most likely will not go away, they will just be re-purposed. Like old factories and mills have been converted to office space, lofts and retail, so too will garages. They are skeletal, which means they are easily adaptable to new uses through insulating, cladding, and surfacing which would make them inhabitable. There is no argument for why inhabitable space like parking infrastructure, is better than inhabitable space. Please make that case, because you would be the first to ever be able to do so.
It’s true that you have a few decades of planning, zoning and code practices on your side, but I have centuries of planning, design and observation on my side. The current function-based planning that has been popular since the late 30s has been proven to be bad over and over again, yet we continue to do it, and then try to make bandages for all the problems. We must fundamentally change the way we relate to the places we inhabit and use to solve the problems that have been created. You are on the wrong side; its just wrong.

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs464.snc3/25501_1245808060419_1085910074_30593127_7047141_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs464.ash1/25501_1245808100420_1085910074_30593128_4112371_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs444.snc3/25501_1245808140421_1085910074_30593129_6608525_n.jpg

Those images show the systematic degradation of Broadway through this past century. A century ago, Broadway was a plaza with a central green space lined be trees and mixed use buildings. Trolleys ran through to Dixwell, and Whalley occasionally. Tower Parkway did not exist, York Square did.
Tower Parkway was developed George Dudley Seymour sometime in the 30s as a way to circulate the ever increasing number of automobiles through downtown more efficiently. Back then, it was actually a parkway with a green median surrounded by the New Haven Public High Schools-Commercial (became Cross), New Haven High (became Hillhouse), and Boardman Trade School. The trolley lines on Broadway were reconfigured to go through the green space as to get out of the way of cars. Broadway was still very pedestrian friendly and the new trolley hub that was created was nice. The entire street, however, was no longer one giant plaza.
Today, the trolley tracks have been taken out of the green space and replaced by a parking lot (uninhabitable space), the trolleys themselves have been replaced with buses and instead of going back into the center of the street as a prominent focal point, they have been pushed to the side of the road. Yale keeps Broadway active today, because they have to, otherwise it’d be another unpleasant car-infested strip. Tower Parkway’s green median has been taken out to add more travel lanes so more cars can drive faster through downtown and the public High Schools have been scattered throughout the city and private college residences and fences have popped up in their place to separate the people who now inhabit the place from the street, which a century ago would have seemed crazy since the street had always been the best public realm in America cities up until the auto-age.

If you’d like, I can show you dozens of other examples through the city where auto-centric designed has destroyed everything that people loved and cherished about a place. And if you give me some time, I can give thousands of examples throughout the country.

posted by: Downtown New Haven on February 26, 2010  10:38pm

Mr. Inwald,

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and it sounds like you perhaps have a more realistic perception of New Haven than your comments during the panel suggest.

At the same time, I wonder if the retail brokers you’re working with are perhaps a bit biased towards malls, as many brokers are. Quite a few “retail experts” look at misleading demographic data, including data that would show that Downtown New Haven is much “poorer” than it really is—a statistical anomaly that occurs because the census considers students (undergrads and grads) with little or no annual income to be living in poverty. While statistically this is true, I’m sure you’d agree that student-driven poverty statistics provide a somewhat inaccurate view of the true economic health of Downtown New Haven.

Even more puzzling is your mall strategy. Even before the recent recession, analysts had noted a phenomenon known as “mall fatigue,” in which the traditional enclosed shopping mall was losing favor and declining in most metropolitan markets. Between 2007 and 2009, more than 400 of the 2,000 largest malls in America closed; the last new major mall in the U.S. opened in 2006. Only one big mall is scheduled to open this year. The recession has only exacerbated the problem, with projections showing that 150,000 mall retailers will close this year. Clearly, more mall closings are imminent.

As I mentioned before, many malls are being repurposed as mixed-use developments incorporating offices or residential units. And the more successful “mall-like” properties are those that, not surprisingly, imitate the traditional mixed-use streetscapes of older urban centers. Mall developers seem to realize that increasingly, Americans are tiring of the sterile sameness of the enclosed mall, preferring instead a landscape that doesn’t force them, more or less, to stroll between contrived corridors between anchor stores.

So given that this “mall fatigue” phenomenon is much more than a trend—and not just a reflection of the current national economy, as you suggest—my question remains: who’s giving you your outdated location advice? Is it a dynamic, well-informed broker, or some guy who’s still living in the halcyon mall days of the 1980’s?

posted by: robb bartolomeo on February 27, 2010  1:13am

I dont think city dwellers really understand how bad the parking situation is to out of towners. If you live in the city, you have a different mentality when it comes to parking. Its one of those things you give up to live in a city. Suburbanites are used to walking from their kitchens into their garage, then they drive their car to the store, restaurant or work and park conveniently for free in a parking space as close to the door as possible. When they come to New Haven they can park on the street and risk a $25 ticket from the ticket nazi’s or pay $10 or more dollars to park their car and be lucky if they get it back not scratched or broken into.  You can have the attitude thats what parking is like in cities and all your going to do is discourage these suburbanites from opening businesses and spending their money in New Haven.  Affordable, secure and convenient parking needs to be seriously addressed in this city if we want those lucrative suburban dollars downtown. Keep saying “thats what you get when you come to the city” and they’ll stop coming all together, don’t you people ever learn from past mistakes. They dont have to come here, they can stay in the suburbs and avoid New Haven all together, theyve done it before, it could easily happen again. In reading some of the comments, I cant believe some of the attitudes, telling people they should live downtown if they wanna work here and take a bus, or that the product their selling is stupid anyways. Those are great comments to discourage new business owners. The parking situation could be easily solved, the city could set up a central valet station on Church Street, right by the highway exit, run it 24-7-365, make it affordable,secure and welcoming ($5 for any 24 hour period would be very enticing and make huge amounts of revenue cause the volume would be tremendous) This would make the city easily accessible to suburbanites,reduce traffic downtown,and provide additional revenue and jobs for the city, it would also encourage private lots not to gouge customers. New Haven needs to be the friendly, welcoming city to insure its continued success.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 27, 2010  2:50pm

robb bartolomeo,
Please take a seat, class is about to begin.

Prior to the industrial revolution, there was no such thing as a “suburb”. Suburban developments are a product of industrialism and the industrial city. Without the cramped, dirty, noisy and generally unpleasant living conditions that existed in central industrial towns and cities, there never would have been a desire to create large lot, big set-back, and grand houses surrounded by landscaping that were connected to the ordered grids of cities and followed very urbanist design principles. Between the 1850s and turn of the 20th century, developers made a living off of buying up large houses in cities and subdividing them to create tenements for factory workers. This created situations where 6 or more families (30+ people) were sharing one house and one bathroom. It quickly became apparent that better living conditions were needed. Trolleys made it possible for people to live outside of walking distance to their work; these lines were used for commuting from newly built “suburbs” just outside of the central city. This is around the time that Fair Haven, which had been a small town based on a marine economy, became incorporated into the city. Example of this early trolley suburbs is the Edgewood neighborhood, that was built off of a Main Street (Whalley) and had streets lined with detached multifamily houses with small setbacks, big backyards and lots of greenery. Later suburbs were created to give the recently created middle class even more generous living conditions, which is why around 1910, we see Beaver Hills and Westville pop up as a continued suburbanization of the western part of the city. In the 1920s, Westville, which had previously been a small manufacturing and pastoral town, became incorporated into the city. These neighborhoods were largely modest single family houses built along transit lines and the increasingly popular automobile. The suburbs built between the 1980s and 1920s are some of the greatest neighborhoods in this country because they provide options-walking to the main street for daily needs, walking to the community park along pleasant streets, walking to a transit stop to go to work or downtown, and driving on gracious streets if you could afford it. Beginning in the late 30s, developers became aware of the massive demand for single family houses, which made them realize they could essentially begin building shoe boxes on 1/4 of an acre and people would buy it, which is why the architectural and urban design quality plummets at this time. There still some great neighborhoods coming out at this time, but the 30s marks the end of designing neighborhoods for the public good, and the beginning of designing neighborhoods for developers to line their pockets with cash. Developers put less and less money into increasingly standardized neighborhoods that were backed with public funds, which allowed them to keep for money for themselves. The north western section of Beaver Hills near SCSU is from this era, so is the southern-most section of Westville near Derby Ave. These places were designed entirely around automobile usage without the options of other means of transit. Also at this time, the city undertook some projects that made it easier for cars to navigate the city and many buildings were demolished to make way for parking lots.
During WW2 factories ran 24/7 and focus on centralized urban manufacturing places was extremely important. Immediately following the end of the war, the factories shut down, and the country and this city were on the verge of slipping back into another depression. To avoid this, our country took on the largest project in the history of the planet: to suburbanize all 3.7 million square miles of out landscape. This put millions of people to work building homes, laying highways, roads, sewers and electrical lines. Unfortunately, these new developments were designed around automobile use instead of the good suburbs of the 1910s that were built around walking first, then transit, then car usage. By the early 1950s, urban areas like New Haven, which had been choked with cars since the 30s, were exploding at the seams trying to accommodate all the cars that were pouring in from the suburbs. These new suburbs did not become incorporated into the city of New Haven, because 1) they lacked the connections that Westville and Fair Haven had to the local network of streets and 2) New Haven was a declining industrial city that was becoming increasingly dysfunctional and the surrounding towns did not want to become incorporated even though they depended on New Haven for jobs and services. In the mid 50s, this country took on another enormous job that was aimed at opening up old city centers for highways, parking, and large scale redevelopment projects (like the Coliseum). New Haven, under Mayor Dick Lee, took on one of the largest “urban renewal” projects in the country. He demolished all the slums and replaced with with highways, parking, and big buildings. New Haven, and cities across the country made the biggest sacrifice ever for the suburbs. We destroyed our cities for the suburbs, we destroyed centuries of slowly built networks just so people could more conveniently drive from suburbs (that didn’t pay city taxes) to the central city were the jobs were. Unfortunately urban renewal completely failed. The government’s intervention did little to stop the trends of suburbanization. The retail sector realized that the middle classes-their economic base-lived in and were moving to the suburbs, so they too took their jobs from the city and moved them out to suburban strip malls. Later, offices realized that their employees lived in the suburbs, so they too moved to office parks in the suburbs. The built environment in suburbia is one of the most awful things in the world, the visual brutality of office parks, strip malls and subdivision housing rivals that our 3rd world slums. Not only is it ugly, but its bankrupting the country. Our populations can no longer afford the suburban lifestyle.
If after WW2, we had invested our money into fixing up old houses in cities and turning 6 family tenements into 2 family apartments or single family houses, or construction Westville-like suburbs that connected to existing trolley lines, and street networks of the city we likely would not be in the financial predicament we currently are because people would be able to afford a modest suburban lifestlye based on walking to the corner store, or the main street to get daily needs, or a ride into downtown on a trolley instead of being forced to drive everywhere. Driving can be nice, but having a choice is infinitely better.
Cities made the ultimate sacrifice for suburbs-we leveled entire city blocks for parking garages. We actually continue to do this today. The amount of taxable land that is used for parking is astounding and yet, its never enough. Suburbs have created an unquenchable thirst in America’s middle class. This needs to change and the way to do it is to stop accommodating for suburbs.
The solution is to incorporate some of the surrounding suburbs into the city and work to reconfigure them to become walkable towns. Others will need to be abandoned and the materials salvaged and the land turned back into farmland and cities will need reuse the plywood, framing and windows to construct new buildings on underused lots in the central city.

That was the short version, if you’d like a more in depth explanation of how auto-mobile suburbs destroyed this country, our cities, our work ethic, our sense of civic responsibility, our sense of place, our history, the working class and just about everything else, then let me know.

posted by: robn on February 27, 2010  3:08pm

ROB B,

On the flip side of your equation, city dwellers who drive less (or don’t drive) subsidize through their federal income tax dollars, massive sprawling road infrastructure all over the US. The argument that suburbanites are getting some sort of bad deal because they have to pay for city parking just doesn’t wash.

This whole discussion is just a crass way for business owners to lean on city hall for subsidies.

posted by: EastRocker on February 28, 2010  10:37am

note to Jonathan Hopkins:

Strunk and White:  Elements of Style.

Check it out.  How to write with brevity and clarity.

posted by: Mister Jones on February 28, 2010  12:07pm

Al Subbloie:  Did you tell anyone you were leaving town?  “I don’t think anyone knew we left. Nobody seemed to mind,” he said.  Sounds to me like he made a new real estate deal, and moved out of town without any effort to make it work downtown.  That happens all the time.  It’s a little disingenuous to blame it on parking or lack of love, years later.

Michael Inwald:  The Cheese Truck seems like a runaway success.  I understand that a truck or cart has a lot less fixed overhead than a storefront.  For that matter, a storefront has a lot more overhead than your little mall kiosk, I bet, even with high mall rents.  Malls have traffic, for sure.  But don’t dump on New Haven just because your business model doesn’t include it.

posted by: Walter on March 1, 2010  1:26pm

Interesting discussion, but two thoughts:

1. Who’s against a grilled cheese truck?

2. Jonathan - I’m not sure why you’re allowed to post such long comments, or why you think you’re expert enough to give a rambling incoherent ‘lecture’ to people who express reasonable opinions. Aside from you, nobody is discussing disassembling suburbs and forcing people (at gunpoint?) to move to cities. It’s irrational, a fundamental misunderstanding of the history you profess to know, and I’m baffled as to why the Independent gives you a platform to beat on other good-faith commenters. Your posts are often wrong on the merits, and needlessly rude as well.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on March 1, 2010  4:53pm

East Rocker,
Thanks for the reference, I did try my best to compact 150 years.

Walter,
Feel free to just skip over my posts (especially the one’s that I’ve posted specifically to another commenter). I realize it makes the page quite a bit longer and more difficult to scroll through, but that extra milli-second of scrolling won’t break your fingers. I also realize that in general, posts from people that are too often long, can be annoying, but in this case, the commenter I was responding to had something 180 degrees wrong, so to start from scratch to explain why that person is wrong takes a while.
Is this the appropriate place to do so? Perhaps not, but someone put an idea out in public and another person responded to it-it happens. If you can point out the flaws in my post, please do so. I am a student and I don’t want to nor do I mean to put false information out.
The reason I feel its okay to post comment like that are because these are life and death matters. The urban exodus fueled by government subsidies following WW2 are directly connected to rising crime rates, lose of jobs, services and retail, which lead to decades of cultural degradation through isolation in urban youth, which is what explains crimes like this:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/04/woman_beaten_in.php
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/krystal_retells_the_story/
The same is becoming true for suburbs, the isolation created from cul de sacs, separated houses and car dependence has bred depression and crime, which is at a rate greater than 1950s urban areas.
Canada’s government, for example, after WW2 provided subsidies and funds to individuals to use to hire private contractors to fix up old houses, put on additions and revive cities, which is why Canada’s cities are the safest on Earth. America subsidized the construction of new buildings, not the revival of existing urban buildings. This needs to be corrected, and it takes an effort to eliminate the ignorance that plaques most of the country.

posted by: Mitchell Young on March 1, 2010  6:11pm

I don’t want to defend Mayor DeStefano or Al, but reading the comments it is pretty clear that they are not the problem.

Many of the posters have an anti-business bent to begin with, and probably will have to change that if they want to see more private sector employment in New Haven.

Tangoe got a great piece of real estate in Orange it’s good for the company. I do think they could have been wooed to stay, I don’t think it was necessarily about subsidy. It was about a real estate environment in New Haven that is mostly small time and not very dynamic.

If New Haven is going to have quality private sector employers like Tangoe, it can’t rest on having nice restaurants, etc.  The place that has done the best over the past several years in attracting private sector employers is Shelton,it doesn’t have the amenities, it has the developers.
- Economic development is like gardening you can use pesticides and herbicides - ie incentives, targeted tax breaks, or subsidies or you can have the right soil and climate condition.

For business, those conditions are tax costs, energy costs, health costs, red tape, quality trained people, affordable housing, reasonably good and affordable transportation.

You can not have one thing, but you can’t not have all of it.

There is a great myth being formed in Connecticut that job creation and mass transportation are linked. It matters in Stamford it doesn’t really matter in New Haven - which is not to say it isn’t a good thing or even worthy of subsidy.

Telling people they have to take the bus, because that’s a choice you would make will not create jobs today in New Haven or anywhere else.

On energy costs: when New York and Connecticut leaders killed Broadwater they killed thousands of jobs, and laid the groundwork for long-term job decline in Connecticut and New York. Ironically they also made saving energy and reducing carbon much harder, if not impossible.

More natural gas would have had a large positive impact on energy prices and lowered energy prices for major employers and users like government and hospitals that also need to reduce costs.

perhaps most importantly it would have propelled co-generation technology at major employers and manufacturers which save money, energy and it would have made the air cleaner in Connecticut and New York too.

Connecticut continues to spend millions on poorly productive green technology instead of using those funds to lower costs for major employers. The problem is not as simple as where companies locate, it is where they get work done.

Everyday it becomes easier to source products and services from lower cost producers. This includes high quality services like software, and engineering design.

What are your priorities when your back is against the wall.

The problem for private sector job creation is that the decision makers and thought leaders are in sectors where there jobs are mostly captive and protected. Ask yourself are your opinions being formed by the security of your employment.

Connecticut spends millions on incentives for individual industries and companies instead of creating a healthy environment for all companies.

—

It is very difficult and expensive to have an employee in Connecticut and in New Haven. It’s rents, it’s parking, it’s energy, it’s worker’s compensation, it’s state and fed taxes and employment taxes, it’s health costs and more.

The cost of a single employee for a company like Tangoe is nearly as much as the median per capita income in New Haven - that’s BEFORE the employee even gets any of the money.

This is why there are relatively few low wage jobs in New Haven and why they are becoming more scarce.

posted by: nutmeg on March 2, 2010  12:53am

i’ve got to clear up one big misconception about the opposition to broadwater.  those who opposed it did not generally object to generating energy from natural gas; instead, they took issue with the proposed site of the facility in the middle of long island sound.

had the proposed site for this facility been a small rural harbor away from populated areas, there would have been much less opposition.  unfortunately, in 21st century connecticut, every piece of shoreline has been taken over by the suburbs.  there’s no place left to site a facility like this, let alone find space for new haven’s port to grow.  these same forces are keeping tweed from expanding and even crowding out commercial and industrial real estate in the suburbs.

are the high cost of doing business hurting the state’s economy?  absolutely, but blaming taxes and energy costs and red tape is missing the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  frankly, it’s the state’s older, wealthy population that’s driving up the cost of labor, real estate and health care and pushing out young people.  we put all the eggs in the bedroom community basket and now we’re dealing with the consequences. 

so don’t blame the people who object to parking garages in downtown new haven.  their point of contention is that parking is “small time and not very dynamic”.  replace the garages with offices and housing and we’ll all be happy.

posted by: robn on March 2, 2010  2:07pm

MITCHELL YOUNG,

Most of the negative posts aren’t anti-business, they’re anti-freeloader. Most everybody in New Haven pays for the services they use so why should a few people be singled out for free parking? The arrogance gauls me.

posted by: Robb Bartolomeo on March 2, 2010  8:14pm

Jon Hopkins
Thanks for the lesson, it was beautifully written, very enlightening and entertaining but none the less completely IRRELEVANT.  We live in 2010, the majority of people are not going to give up their circular driveways and 3000 sq. foot homes to live in the city.  Face reality and solve problems realistically. 

Robn you want suburbanites to “use” the city, they bring in dollars that fund the stores and the restaurants that pay property tax to fund your home.  The businesses dont need welfare or schooling so they have a lighter impact on the budget.  If a business pays $4000 in property tax, and you pay $4000 for your home, your getting a subsidy because the business isnt sending kids to school.  That suburbanite who opens a business in New Haven just helped you out.

The bottom line is New Haven needs the suburbs to be succesfull, whether its fair or not is really not important, Life isnt fair. 

New Haven continues to loose business owners; offices,restaurants, etc. to the burbs, keep up the attitudes you have and your taxes will raise 6% every year.  New Haven needs the burbs, they dont need us, and the sooner we learn and accept it the better off we will be.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on March 3, 2010  12:28am

Robb,
You’re correct about life being unfair, but its been unfair for city dwellers for the better part of the last century, and it’s never been unfair to suburbanites, so I think it’s time the suburbs are inconvenienced for once in their short little lives.
Besides, the problem is that the suburban middle class can no longer afford the suburban middle class lifestyle. Sure, some people can and those people will likely remain to enjoy their lives, but there is a large percentage, dare I say, a majority, who cannot afford to drive everywhere, cannot afford to heat and cool their overly-sized home interiors, cannot afford to cut their gigantic lawns and cannot keep up with all the expensive fashions and gadgets that determine social prominence in suburbia. It has become apparent, however, that the middle class in this country is still capable of mustering up a lot of influence through protests even after several generations of mental and physical numbing of one’s self through sitting on the couch watching the tube for hours at a time. This means that they may succeed in elongating the life cycle of suburbia for another few generations. Since so many people cannot afford the lifestyle, and the systems that supported the lifestyle have crashed, if our government does decide to “bail out” suburbia, it will likely come from borrowing from China and blowing the rest of our dwindling capital on highways, subdivisions and supplying the middle classes with cheap plastic crap to fill their empty lives with. Unfortunately, this will destroy just about everything.
Urban centers like New Haven peaked at around 1910 and went into a bumpy decline in the 20s, 30s and 40s before going into full on decline mode until today. Suburbs also peaked, that was 2 years ago. Urbanism, and will likely not return, at least not in a way familiar to us. Suburbanism is dead, as a parasite, they killed their host and are draining what’s left out of the source. While its true that suburbs are not as dependent on cities as they were a few decades ago, and cities are not independent from suburbs like they used to be, it is ridiculous to claim that suburbs don’t need cities, when they are a product of them! I acknowledge that there’s a mutual dependence, and this dependence is not good. Both entities failed and something new needs to be done to ensure the economic and social well-being of our citizenry in coming decades.
It would be wise to reuse what we have to build a new future that doesn’t pit municipality against municipality and doesn’t bankrupt people just looking for a decent place to live and raise children.

posted by: Mitchell Young on March 3, 2010  8:00pm

Regarding lowering the cost of business and changing the energy picture in Connecticut.

The Hartford Courant did editorialize regarding Broadwater that we did not need more natural gas coming into the state. 

They said, what we needed to do was conserve energy. That was the position of many “so called environmentalists”. Unfortunately this is a kneejerk and uninformed reaction.

In order to get new cleaner and more efficient natural gas technology into the state, we can offer incentives, grants, tax breaks or we can get the price of gas down by adding suppliers.

Which is better for government budgets, for poor people, for the environment?

To improve things,  to progress is to find reasonable approaches.  Was there a real impact coming from Broadwater on the environment, no doubt. There was no safety issue, there is a compressed natural gas facility right outside Waterbury, you didn’t hear any uproar from Atty General Blumenthal about that one blowing up.

The state have negotiated payments to support environmental clean up and even conversion of existing dirty power plants. Broadwater officials were eager to work with the more polluting power plants to help them convert from COAL to gas.

Atty General Blumenthal said we didn’t need Broadwater, because there would be a facility built in New Jersey - it was also blocked.

If the profits were great to be had, there was an opportunity to extract revenue (taxes). Most people didn’t want the casinos we got them but at least governor Weicker extracted a few hundred million per year.

That’s not the issue anyway, this was about jobs and the cost of living in Connecticut and in New Haven high costs makes job creation and retention difficult.

The state is preparing to spend $75 million to attract one company Starwood with 800 jobs to Stamford. They’ll move a bout 15 miles.

800 jobs is a lot and adding to the headquarters companies in lower FF County a good thing.

$130 Million for a few movies being filmed, maybe a studio or two.

Even now in the midst of dire budgets, legislators, Democratic and Republican want to create a new patchwork of tax credits.

Either fix the base problems of the general business environment or you will be having to spread fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides into the the business environment. They will help some ‘plants’ but will eventually keep the business environment toxic.

Unfortunately the problem starts with energy costs, ironically an area in business that we should be able to get under control.

There are numerous techniques, unfortunately the same folks that want to address business costs with a $2500 tax credit for hiring someone need to turn their attention to the right issues effecting employers.

Energy is one, some of the others are listed in the earlier comment.

To the freeloader issue - Al solved his parking problem - which was in fact a rent issue, and a personal property tax and a real property tax issue. What does it cost to house an employee where.

If you don’t think the attitudes on this page are anti-business read them again, ask a few business people to read them see what they say.

By the way some developments have received subsidized parking in New Haven.