168 More Apartments On The Rise In Dixwell

The City could have subdivided this parcel into 35 lots and sold each lot for $15,000 to local residents and builders. The City would have received more money for the land, wouldn't have needed to provide tax breaks, and 100% of the benefit could have gone to local residents and builders. That would have been inclusive growth.

Instead, the City sold the property for $500,000 to a Fairfield County developer, provided long-term tax breaks, and only 20% of the laborers are New Haveners. If the property was going to be sold to a large-scale developer, the City should have at least sold the land for market rate (millions of dollars) and not given tax breaks.

The City got taken advantage of.

mixed on this, I am happy that something is there. But living in the middle or it and having the increased traffic that will come with that and the other building will not be very fun. plus because of it there is an increase around my neighbors of animals around our sheds digging things up. But it's great for the city. Can't wait till it is all done and they increase my property taxes again. I'll probably be paying more than they will with the tax breaks. Another concern is our houses are shaking through out the day. hopefully our foundations or something else is not being damaged. I understand developing but this is a lot. The small homeowner deserves a tax break not the big landlord

More homes for humans is always a good outcome. Even better is that many will be affordable. That comes at a cost, of course, because the city did not maximize its own revenue from site. I am fine with that.

On taxes, new developments increase the city's "Grand List" of taxable properties and we should press the Board of Alders to pass that benefit along, at least partly, in the form of lower tax rates. We should be setting off a "virtuous cycle" of more building allowing for lower tax rates which then allows more people to move into our city, spreading the tax burden further, etc.

Specifically, 10 apartments will be reserved for Section 8 voucher holders.
This is nothing more then ten token apartments.

These apartments are not going to be for the so call community.These are for the folks coming in from out of state like New Yorkers who can afford to pay this rent.

“This being a majority African-American, Black community, people have been taken advantage of,” said Morrison. ​“It is important that people can live in this community — can stay. People are gonna have luxurious apartments right here in Dixwell — and not have to pay” exorbitant rents.

You got that right.In fact,Those who took advantage of them look just like them.

"Judas Goat" clip from Compulsion (1959)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWNZw4Ihxzw

According to Joseph, two-thirds of construction workers at the site, managed by Whiting Turner, are Black, Latino, and/or women, and almost 20 percent are New Haven residents.

Token Jobs.I wonder how many of those 20 percent New Haven residents can afford with what they are paid to live in these apartments?When Henry Ford made cars.All of his workers could afford with the money he paid them.

Livable City Initiative Director Arlevia Samuel recalled working with Joseph from the project’s inception in 2016, and pushing through numerous bumps in the road. ​“I told you we’d get here,” she said to Joseph. ​“Job well done, bro.”
Bro? Sounds more like Black Capitalism.

Looks good, wish it could be even bigger! But oof, the way those roads out front are styled like high-speed freeways seems so unfriendly. Hope there’s some traffic-calming coming in the future, like filling in the missing crosswalks and sidewalk, maybe even replacing the unnecessary Munson St one-way lane with a plaza or parklet for the new residents to enjoy.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis and need to be building many thousands of new housing units each year, not just a few hundred each year.

There should be more state subsidies, so that developers like this one can use more structural steel and build up to 20-30 stories high. This would have been a great site for a couple of high-rise towers to house some of the thousands of new students and staff being added at Yale over the next few years.

@mattbaume,

Agreed! I'm definitely with you on your comment..

The traffic around the area will likely increase due to there being more housing and general activity and amenities that would attract more people.

Not to mention the future project of the “Winchester Center” which is literally up only one block from where Munson and Canal Streets are located.

It's indeed a challenging intersection that would eventually need traffic calming... But I'm thinking that there would probably have to be traffic lights there, with bicycles even having their own signal for when they cross the street when approaching from the bike trail.

But very good ideas!

@anonymous,

High rise buildings that are around 20 stories or taller would mainly be good in the Downtown area.. because the height requirement of new tall buildings would likely be acceptable or "non-prohibited" where there's also other tall buildings located.

However, a development like this is actually perfect for a thriving smaller neighborhood like Dixwell: that's just now starting to see some "inclusive economic growth."

Data Haven says 60% of New Haven households earn less than $50,000 per year, and the vast majority of new units are rented at rates out of their reach, and the so called “affordable” units are still over 1/3 of their income and not affordable considering how much inflation has impacted their budgets.

https://www.ctdatahaven.org/sites/ctdatahaven/files/New Haven 2016 extended profile.pdf

The amount of truly affordable units are shrinking in the city and in Greater New Haven and in CT and nationwide. The federal government, the states, the municipalities are going to have to make a serious effort to address affordable and subsidized housing for our country.

"I agree that taller higher rise buildings belong downtown."

We need to expand the definition of what "downtown" means, then, or we'll never be able to solve the housing crisis. Downtown is no longer the "Nine Squares" that were laid out by some Puritans in 1638.

Obviously it would be a bad idea to add huge residential towers in a rural area with no infrastructure like Bethany, but there is so much demand for housing that we need a lot more of them than just what could possibly fit within the Nine Squares.

Large residential towers should be allowed as-of-right almost everywhere in New Haven, West Haven, and southern Hamden, unless they are blocking the approach to Tweed airport or something. It would be great to see Dixwell Avenue lined with 40-story residential buildings all the way out to Hamden Town Hall, and Whalley Avenue lined with buildings all the way out to the JCC in Woodbridge, for example, especially now that the city is about to be investing hundreds of millions of dollars into better bus transit.

We can either change zoning rules so enough housing can be built, or we can have mass homelessness.

@WendyLost
Where are you? I hear crickets. I would love to hear what you have to say to 3/5.

SReilly WendyLost
Sep 12, 2023 10:39 pm
Flag
Wendy, congrats on diagnosing 3/5's absurd arguments, you clearly hit a nerve.

Sorry Looks like she change her Tune.
I whole heartedly agree with 3/5 that we have a massive housing problem in this city, (along with nearly all of America. I agree with 3/5 that the worst abuses of this housing shortage often fall on poor folks, black and brown folks, and too often, the intersection of those two groups. However, because I care about this just as much as 3/5, it especially pains me to see that his solutions are most often about railing against housing, even like in this case, when it means 58 units of varying levels of affordability will be introduced into our city.

A variation on ThreeFifths' argument. The development will do some good, both for the households getting the subsidized apartments and the housing market generally.

But aside from the Section 8 units, the developer will be able to charge rents for the subsidized units that are unaffordable to most moderate and all low-income households. There are tens of thousands of income eligible households in the housing market. The developer will, reasonably, select tenants based on their likelihood of paying the rent, using lawful screens such as credit scores.

The Section 8 units will likely go to low-income tenants and the development will give certificate holders more choice. But it does not appear that the project is creating more certificates.

New Haven Urbanism, there are dozens of small/medium size residential parcels currently available. I have seen little interest on the part of devlopers of buying and building on them. Many of the parcels are owned by the city, even more by private parties. But I agree with your point that the city does not have a strategy for reusing vacant land.

WendyLost, I'm fine with upzoning as Minneapolis has. But that is not the problem here - more than 70% of the housing here is already multi-family. The two cities have very different housing markets.

I favor building more market rate as well as subsidized housing. I agree with Anonymous that that if sufficient market rate housing is not built, middle-income tenants will push rents up in lower rent neighborhoods. And filtering (the wonky term for the phenomenon you describe) does happen. But in the short/ medium term it will primarily help middle income tenants. The new developments are putting downward pressure on rents in East Rock. In Newhallville, not so much.

I support changing the zoning ordinance to facilitate the construction of more housing. But the city's primary problem is a lack of income, rather than a lack of new housing supply. New housing costs $300,000-$400,000 per apartment. Absent very substantial subsidies, such housing is simply unaffordable to low and moderate income households.

ThreeFifths, Mukhija uses the term "panacea" ("cure-all"). People who believe the market, by itself, will solve all housing problems are naive at best. But we need to build lots more housing as well as increasing housing subsidies.

NH Urbanism, the majority of vacant parcels, small and large, are privately owned. Many of these parcels are already zoned multifamily and would require no city approval to develop. The very limited development of such parcels suggests that your proposal is unrealistic.

NH Urbanism, there are real barriers to development. The city can reduce some of the zoning barriers. I believed we agree that it should. And we agree that it is difficult to develop in-fill single lots.

But I am aware of larger, residentially zoned lots that have sat vacant for years, in some cases decades. Specifically, I am aware of such parcels on Whalley, Orange, Crown, Chapel, and Legion. All but the last are privately owned.

Like you, I am dissatisfied with how the city handled the Canal Street property. But I have seen scant evidence of small/medium size developers who would have been willing and able to respond to the city's offer if it had divided the property.