Zone Change OK’d

Hopefully this means that we can begin building upward to 10-20 or more stories. Significantly increasing density in our downtown is the only way to create more affordable housing and prevent citywide gentrification. We shouldn't try to limit development anywhere within a mile of the downtown, even if some 2 or 3 story buildings are overshadowed. Cities have to change over time as energy costs change - ours needs to find room somewhere for another 50,000 or so residents in the near future.

New Haven is not a city that is ever going to have 10-20 story buildings downtown. You say this in every comment section anonymous and it just isn't going to happen unless you can find a way to double the city's population overnight. You don't need skyscrapers for density, we are not Boston or LA. Most of the European cities with their lauded density do it with buildings that are 4-5 stories.

Until the jobs base grows, until someone starts bettering the city and can convince more fleeing Yale grads that it's better to stay here than go start their careers or businesses in Cambridge or Brooklyn or Madison, the demand won't be there for 10 or 20 story buildings.

Curious and madcap - really? 360 State filled up rather quickly and that was 30 stories. Buildings one quarter of that size would fill up within weeks.

It doesn't matter if Yale students stay in New Haven - the demographics of this country are very rapidly changing, Yale or no Yale. New Haven already has a bunch of 10-20 story buildings and will have many, many more in the coming years.

That said, I agree with the point that 6-8 story buildings work as well as if not better than 10 if you can somehow maximize lot coverages rather than put down towers here and there. As far as visual appearance goes, the 10-20 story buildings can also be "wrapped" by 6 story facades to become more attractive. This is being done all over Washington DC.

Anon, really.

We have no industry. If you want this to be more than 10-20 story versions of 360 State, all filled with people who can afford to pay $2,500 for rent, then that conflicts with your vision of a city that isn't gentrified.

New Haven needs more jobs, good jobs. We need entrepreneurs and scientists to stay here and LOVE it here, and start new businesses, and hire people to work here.

Housing doesn't draw in residents on it's own, it accommodates those people who want to live here for some reason or another. We need to make more of those reasons.

Curious: Quite the opposite. 360 State is pricey because 1) It was built that way and 2) It is the only new housing in downtown. As more housing is built, prices on older buildings come down. Apartments meant for the wealthy today (like Sherman Avenue 100 years ago) become apartments for the middle class in the next generation. When you don't build enough - which is what is happening in New Haven, as demand greatly exceeds supply here - that's when you get gentrification.

So if we just build tons and tons of housing, people will move here for no reason? If we build a million units of housing, the population will jump by a million, all those units will be filled?

I do like the idea of a tiered approach to a city block. For example, limiting a block to containing one 15-story building, two ten story buildings, five six story buildings, for argument's sake. That way you don't end up with massive towers dominating a whole area.

Curious, nobody said to build a million units. But the city easily can (and needs to) absorb another 25,000 units in the near future, at least. There are 50,000 people in nearby parts of Connecticut who would gladly move somewhere where they didn't need to drive just to get a quart of milk, if such a place existed and were as attractive as most of New Haven is. Add to that the fact that just in the next few years, there will 100,000 more people living in this area who will be too old to drive.

Building a couple new units at the Wallingford train station, or opening one "360 State Street" every ten years or so doesn't cut it - we need to add 10,000 units per year, like what other cities are doing.

We are in a crisis - one that isn't being felt by upper middle class employees at Yale or in the City of New Haven, but which is being felt by everyone else.

Where are these numbers coming from?

25,000 units is another 50 buildings like 360 State. You think we can fill another fifty buildings like that, and another 20 per year?

Where are these extra 50,000 to 75,000 people going to work?

Curious:
We have some of the highest occupancy rates in the nation, and some of the highest rents & home prices.

Using a free market theory, we'd speculate that New Haven has more demand than supply in at least certain types of housing, and we'd see lower prices & better value with more competition: which is exactly what we'll get with another 25,000 units.

Streever, you're welcome to answer the same question. Speculation aside, where do you get that number from?

Take a look at 360 State on satellite view, Google Maps.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=360 state street 06511&ie=UTF-8&hq;=&hnear=0x89e7d84aa6919273:0x5ac34c36f97d7cb6,360 State St, New Haven, CT 06511&gl=us&ei=pIGKUdfQF6X20gG18oDoDQ&ved=0CEAQ8gEwAA

It takes up half a block. It casts a shadow that covers another half a block.

Where do we locate another 20 buildings like downtown to create your 25,000 more apartments?

Where are these people going to work? Yale employs 15,000 when you add up all the staff, faculty, and appointees. You're talking about adding another 1.6 Yale Universities worth of people to the city of New Haven. I ask again, where will they work? Do you really think housing is the priority over jobs here?

http://oir.yale.edu/yale-factsheet

This amendment standardized the yard and building requirements which is a good thing. As to building height, that is primarily controlled by the floor to area ratio. Different size lots could have very different building heights.

A city with four story buildings can achieve all the residential density it needs to support transit and retail. What we also need to do is to figure out a way to get more manufacturing and other types of employment.

@Curious
Where is the dichotomy between housing and jobs?

People clearly want housing: we have a huge demand. Extra housing units will lower the price of housing. This is pretty basic market economics, and requires 0 government intervention: the government is over-intervening right now, limiting the number of units available, which is letting a narrow range of folks profit enormously by controlling that limited resource.

It doesn't mean jobs aren't a priority if we get the government to stop artificially limiting a resource.

It doesn't mean housing is a GREATER priority, either.

I'm totally confused by the argument. If you just want to see New Haven remain, on the whole, more small and village-like, I think that is an OK point of view--it just isn't being presented here as far as I can see as an argument.

Opening the zoning laws doesn't mean we won't have jobs. There is no conflict between jobs & housing, unless we are talking about the city using eminent domain to seize thriving businesses, shut them down, and build tenements :D

Curious, most of the workers living in New Haven don't actually work in New Haven. If we add 25,000 units in New Haven, the people who move in will most likely work in the city as well as in some of the hundreds of thousands of jobs located nearby.

Furthermore, there is a massive (and growing) population of hundreds of thousands of people in Connecticut that is retired and not working. Since many of them can't drive, would prefer to live somewhere where they don't need a car. New Haven is pretty much the only option.

So to answer your question, yes, the city easily can accommodate another 50 or so buildings like 360 State Street over the coming few decades, assuming that other infrastructure keeps up. As Stephen points out, it would be preferable to add, say, 100 or 150 slightly shorter and/or smaller buildings instead of 50 more towers.

I'd just like to see you guys quote one single reliable source to back up these arguments you're making, because it just sounds like a lot of opinion that you want to be taken as fact. I'm not going to debate opinions.

My name is Corinne Blackmer, and I am the homeowner at 163 Dwight Street, which backs up the property that is currently a parking lot, but on which RMS will be constructing its new development. I initially opposed this project, because I did not like how I was apprised of the same (this was not the fault of Randy Salvatore) but I am now 100% behind this project. Of course, being in a BD-1 zone will enhance the value of my property, but that is only one consideration. This development, most important, looks intelligently into the future. More and more people will need environmentally sound housing in our cities and all the conveniences and needs nearby as the costs of living in the suburbs, both environmentally and economically, becomes unfeasible. This development is one part of this intelligent response to future needs based upon the emerging realities of our planet. Our cities will therefore become more dense, and contain all needed businesses within walking distance.

@curious
What?

I said that New Haven has one of the highest occupancy rates in the nation and highest rents for the region: these are both easily found with a simple google search. In fact, both have been mentioned in this very paper! I'm sorry, but I'm not going to google things for you :). I will, however, show you the link to this site:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/vacancy_rates_lowest_in_usa/

New Haven has the lowest vacancy rate in the USA--cite, NHI :). Better?

As to a dichotomy between housing & jobs: I'm sorry you asserted it, because it is impossible for me to give you "proof" that your opinion is wrong. I'm not sure how you want me to rebut that opinion with evidence--all I can do is what I did already, which is ask you, how does this zoning improvement reduce the number of jobs available? Like I said: it seems like a false dichotomy, and I'd like to see something backing up your assertion.

That link reminds me, has anything ever come of Nicotra's plan for a new 25 story apartment building? It seems like with a recovering economy and and the highest occupancy rate, this is one tower that's actually feasible in the city. If its built though I do hope its less god awfully ugly than 360 State is. I mean in other areas 360 could've looked okay, but its on a bloc with a lot of vintage architecture and it just doesn't fit in with its style.

C Blackmer is correct, and the trend she points out is going to be far more transformative than anyone currently predicts. Let's get ourselves ready now.

Smaller buildings cost less, are easier to maintain, and are not alienating like towers.

In the coming decades as energy supplies constrict no one will be building towers except the very wealthy.

Building height should fall between a fixed number of floors for the sake of predictability as well as aesthetics.

Stephen, other than DC, which is considering abandoning its height limit, are there any other cities that don't accommodate housing towers?

Most areas should be limited to 8-10 stories (areas like much of East Rock or Fair Haven, other than the properties near State Street and the railroad corridors which can accommodate higher density). But Downtown, the harbor, and surrounding areas need to accommodate more people, which is something that can initially be done with towers. If a few more towers are built, land cost may rise to the point where it is more feasible for developers to acquire and build out full-block, 8-story buildings. But New Haven, like most other cities in North America, isn't ready for that kind of limitation yet.

Anon,

Old Amsterdam, Venice, Berlin, Copenhagen, Lisbon, Marseilles, Lyon and many other old world cities have, for the most part, low profiles. I know we are not old Europe but their urbanism works without towers everywhere; so can ours.

I think New Haven is a perfectly sized small city. It doesn't need towers but it does need to redevelop some kind of manufacturing base because globalism is time limited due to the creeping energy problem.

The other arguments against towers are cost to build and maintain and aesthetics. I think towers are dehumanizing.

I hope Washington comes to their senses and doesn't destroy the city.