106 Apts. OK’d For Crown Street

Awesome news! More market rate apartments is exactly what New Haven needs. Now if we can only find a way to build 3,000 units a year for the next 5 years we'll be making progress.

That's great! The city should be bending over backwards to encourage more private developers to come in and build luxury housing like this.

New luxury housing is the only viable way to free up units for low income families -- and it costs the city nothing:

"For each 100 new, centrally located market-rate units, roughly 60 units are created in the bottom half of neighborhood income distribution through vacancies. Even more remarkable, 29 vacancies are created in neighborhoods in the bottom quintile of the income distribution." Study: https://fullstackeconomics.com/how-luxury-apartment-buildings-help-low-income-renters/amp/

New Haven should keep adding 5 or 10 affordable units for special populations here and there (usually using government funds at a cost of $500,000 per apartment), but the scale of that will never even come close to putting a dent into the overall affordable housing crisis.

While I would like to see a small percentage of units reserved for affordable units, this location is ideal for higher rise buildings, unlike other proposed developments in the city it would be in keeping with the streetscape in this particular area.

We must Remember the Traitorous Charlatans and Scoundrels who have sold there souls to the the developers who pumped cash into places they had long spurned.And with the Help of Judas Goats help get rid of the poor and working poor.

Mark 8:36 KJV: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
No shame hast the Judas Goat!!

@Heather C.

I actually agree with your comment, but I would think that if the city center was to really grow in population and become denser with more people who would want to live Downtown then that would probably more likely make way for taller residential buildings to be built...

but seeing more taller buildings Downtown would be great to see because I believe it would make the skyline of the city look even better from a distance

No one is pining for a return of the Crown theater? XXX.

Homes for Humans!

No more Ballroom :(.
https://www.theballroomevents.com/index.html

Seriously? People are using the "Trickle Down" theory for housing?
That building only for the rich will trickle down old houses for the poor?
Ugh. Come on, you know the real deal. Black Rock will corner the market in apartments. Buying up all the houses and properties. Pricing OUT affordable housing. Forcing everyone to live in their overpriced rentals.

10XDope RIP 🖤🖤🖤

posted by: anonymous on September 23, 2021 2:28pm

That's great! The city should be bending over backwards to encourage more private developers to come in and build luxury housing like this.

New luxury housing is the only viable way to free up units for low income families—and it costs the city nothing:

Keep drinking that Kool -Aid.Read this Study.

Here's What We Actually Know About Market-Rate Housing Development and Displacement

But this unquestioning reliance on new construction—a code phrase used by developers to signify for-profit building—is deeply flawed.

For one, for-profit new construction is overwhelmingly geared toward the luxury market. But it's lower-income households who face the most severe affordable housing shortfalls. While our high-end stock has steadily grown, since 1990 on balance we've lost over 2.5 million affordable units renting for under $800. To what? In large part, rent increases.Secondly, new construction takes decades to depreciate down to rents that are actually affordable to most renters. "Trickle down" isn't happening fast enough.Even worse, however, new construction actually fuels displacement in the short term, even when no already existing housing is knocked down. Why? Numerous studies show that market-rate housing development has price ripple effects on surrounding neighborhoods, driving up rents and increasing the burden on lower-income households. Many residents in communities transformed by gentrification can already attest to the connection between for-profit development, rising living costs, and the mass exodus of lower-income residents.We need to talk about market-rate construction, and displacement. Here is the what the research says:Studies show that market-rate housing development is linked to the mass displacement of neighboring low-income residents (Davidson and Lees 2005, 2010; Pearsall 2010).

Part One

Part Two

Such displacement occurs even when low-income housing is not directly demolished and destroyed to make way for new development—because it operates through indirect and exclusionary means, such as "price shadowing" (Davidson and Lees 2005, 2010). Market-rate housing production causes significant price impacts in surrounding neighborhoods, raising area rents and real estate taxes (Oliva 2006; Pearsall 2010; Zuk and Chapple 2016). These price impacts have resulted in higher housing cost burdens for low-income residents, as well as their displacement (Davidson and Lees 2005, 2010; Pearsall 2010). In fact, a study of displacement in New York City based on a survey of 18,000 housing units found that most displaced households were forced to move due to cost considerations; in contrast, low-income residents who managed to remain in gentrifying neighborhoods overwhelmingly lived in public housing or rent stabilized units insulated from price dynamics (Newman and Wyly 2006, 29, 41, 43). Rent burdens rose considerably in gentrifying areas, so that only 1 out of 15 poor renters remaining in these New York City neighborhoods rented in the unregulated market (40-1).The influx of higher-income residents, whom market-rate developments are typically geared toward, is itself associated with the displacement of vulnerable groups from the same area.Finally, as bitter a pill as it may be to swallow, we cannot rely on the private market to provide the new construction we need. Our housing market is broken. Most renters now pay unaffordable levels of income on rent. But for-profit housing cannot meet most renters' needs, and that's by design: when profit determines pricing, the housing needs of low-income folks never matter as much as the demand of a few rich individuals at the luxury end.

https://shelterforce.org/2018/11/05/heres-what-we-actually-know-about-market-rate-housing-development-and-displacement/

Tikon2000, the problem with filtering (what you call trickle down) is not that it does not happen. It does, but it is slow to benefit low and moderate income people. The person who moves into these new apartments currently lives somewhere else. Their departure will decrease housing demand in their current neighborhood, putting downward pressure on rents there. But the "somewhere else" is much more likely to East Rock or Westville rather Fair Haven or the Hill. I've lived in East Rock for 35 years. Historically, you rarely saw "for rent" signs between October and May. You routinely see them now. This is good for East Rock tenants, but does little to help those in Fair Haven, the Hill, etc. Eventually the new apartments will reduce rents elsewhere, but it will take quite a bit of time.

Pike owns or manages about 5% of the housing units in town. I don't worry about them or anyone else cornering the market, which would require them controlling closer to 50% of the market.

THREEFIFTHS- thank you for the info.

Kevin McCarthy- the problem with lack of demand for older stock housing in the Western city neighborhoods and the East Rock neighborhoods is that the taxes are not going down for the property owners, nor is the cost of maintenance, repairs and upkeep of 75+ year old multi family housing. So smaller landlords who have rented to Yale affiliated and middle income professionals in the past now have empty units, and rising expenses. They can't afford to carry those costs for long without being fully rented at market rate rents, so then they will sell to Mandy, Pike or Ocean or other mega landlords, real estate investors and developers who will eventually have a monopoly on setting market rate rents after they put lipstick on a pig makeovers in these old buildings. Landlords look at neighborhood market rate rent comparisons to set their rents, so any units near these new builds and rehabs the rents will go up as long as they get painted white and grey and have stainless steel appliances added to them. As long as they are slightly cheaper than the new builds, they will be considered bargains. Gentrification ripples outwards and draws in higher end residents and businesses, driving out poorer residents and the smaller mom and pop businesses and the businesses that cater to the lower end and lower middle rent residents. Some commenters have a belief in the trickle down theory, when actually it is a pushing out and pricing out of the poor and working poor and lower middle class in the area in reality.

Heather, I'm an East Rock homeowner. My house is nearly 200 years old. And the two-family next to mine is managed (poorly) by Pike. 🤓

The gentrification scenario you describe can happen. And housing markets are more complicated than described in simple Econ 101 models. But generally, the addition of housing supply lowers rents. This is true if you look at a single housing market over time or compare multiple markets. Rents are going up almost everywhere, and affordability is a real problem. But this is true in neighborhoods that are seeing little if any development (e.g., Fair Haven) as well as those that are seeing extensive development (e.g., the Hill).

New Haven Public Schools graduates thousands of students each year.

What percentage of those students will be able to buy a home and live in the city? Or even afford rent..

This housing is being built in a commercial, not residential, neighborhood. Being built on a parking lot and in a dance hall (former Mason's Hall?), no one is being displaced. Moreover, because there is no other housing nearby, certainly no low rent housing, there is no "halo effect". As Kevin says, the competition for these tenants is East Rock and Westville, not Dixwell and The Hill.

Heather C: the theory (and actuality) is not "trickle down". The fact is that when rich(er) people want to move into a city, they will do so. Yale is flourishing, biotechs are growing, and there is a moderately large group of people who want to live a more urban lifestyle and will pay to do it. These people, and their desire to pay to live in New Haven, exist regardless of how many new buildings are constructed.

In the absence of new construction, developers will buy older buildings, upgrade them and rent/sell units for a price that the prior residents cannot afford. This is direct displacement gentrification. The aesthetic NIMBYs love it, because historic buildings are "lovingly renovated" as the poor residents are pushed out. You get $1,000,000 NYC apartments in what used to be tenement housing for poor garment workers. $3,000,000 lofts that used to be occupied by manufacturing firms, and then by starving artists. None of this involves new construction. Huge profits are made by the pre-existing owners, who did nothing to earn them but hold onto land.

Now, when you ban new construction, the process I just described is accelerated and made worse. New construction absorbs some of the richer new residents, softening the renovation pressure elsewhere. Restrictions on new construction push a city into pure displacement gentrification, greatly pleasuring the preservationists, who hand out awards as the poor disappear from whole neighborhoods, towns and cities.

When you advocate less new construction, you advocate pure displacement gentrification.

posted by: Esbey on September 25, 2021 1:57pm

Now, when you ban new construction, the process I just described is accelerated and made worse. New construction absorbs some of the richer new residents, softening the renovation pressure elsewhere. Restrictions on new construction push a city into pure displacement gentrification, greatly pleasuring the preservationists, who hand out awards as the poor disappear from whole neighborhoods, towns and cities.

When you advocate less new construction, you advocate pure displacement gentrification

More Kool -AId

You see. Displacement happens in various ways.You have what is call "Direct displacement" Which is when residents are forced to move because of rent increases and/or building renovations. You have "Exclusionary displacement"Which is when housing choices for low-income residents are limited. You have "Displacement pressures" Which are when supports and services that low-income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood.You also have Cultural displacement. Like the Study said.

For one, for-profit new construction is overwhelmingly geared toward the luxury market. But it's lower-income households who face the most severe affordable housing shortfalls. While our high-end stock has steadily grown, since 1990 on balance we've lost over 2.5 million affordable units renting for under $800. To what? In large part, rent increases.Secondly, new construction takes decades to depreciate down to rents that are actually affordable to most renters. "Trickle down" isn't happening fast enough.Even worse, however, new construction actually fuels displacement in the short term, even when no already existing housing is knocked down. Why? Numerous studies show that market-rate housing development has price ripple effects on surrounding neighborhoods, driving up rents and increasing the burden on lower-income households.

Three-Fifths, do you have any actual New Haven data (numbers) that departures from neighborhoods undergoing development are any higher than from neighborhoods not undergoing development? Saying "I have a friend who lived in Dixwell for years, but now is living in Hamden" is an anecdote, not data. Gentrification has certainly happened in NYC. But it is an entirely separate housing market. If it weren't, my house would be worth a lot more than it is.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 27, 2021 12:55pm
Three-Fifths, do you have any actual New Haven data (numbers) that departures from neighborhoods undergoing development are any higher than from neighborhoods not undergoing development?

You have ask me this Before.As I told you Speak to the people.There are studies as I said that.Numerous studies show that market-rate housing development has price ripple effects on surrounding neighborhoods, driving up rents and increasing the burden on lower-income households. Many residents in communities transformed by gentrification can already attest to the connection between for-profit development, rising living costs, and the mass exodus of lower-income residents.You and I know the city would not keep data that departures from neighborhoods undergoing development are any higher than from neighborhoods not undergoing development? The people who lived at Church Street South were push out.

Three-Fifths, I asked for New Haven data. You haven't provided any. You regularly provide anecdotes from NYC. They may accurately describe the market there. But contrary to belief of some, New Haven is not the sixth borough of NYC.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 27, 2021 6:46pm

Three-Fifths, I asked for New Haven data. You haven't provided any. You regularly provide anecdotes from NYC. They may accurately describe the market there. But contrary to belief of some, New Haven is not the sixth borough of NYC


Why would the fox keep the data on the hen house?The data is with people.Talk to them.They will tell you about being push out.In fact I I hope Data New Haven would look into this.Like I said.The people who lived at Church Street South were push out.

Three-Fifths, the tenants of Church Street South were pushed out due to owner's negligence, not gentrification. Nothing has gone up at the site since demolition started, more than three years ago. No one lives there now, rich or poor, black or white. At this point no development is planned for the site. Given all of the apartments under construction or in the pipeline, I would be surprised if anything happens there in the next couple of years, if then.

Kevin McCarthy: The neglect at Church Street South had been ongoing for many years. It was in bad shape when Community Builders sold it to Northland. Northland bought it with the intent of quickly razing it and replacing it with more upscale housing, direct displacement. It had buy-in from DeStefano on this plan, but then DeStefano left, the alders gained power, and Colon and others objected to the proposed project and delayed the razing, all while the buildings further decayed. (Randy Salvatore's Hill North project was similarly delayed by Colon, even though no one was being displaced.)

1644, I largely agree, although I don't know that Alder Colon substantially delayed Salvatore's development. It's a big, complicated project and City Plan was short-staffed at the time of its development.

My point is that the displacement that occurred at Church Street South was not the result of gentrification. Three-fifths sees gentrification as ubiquitous. He is mistaken While it has been widespread in NYC, the city is to say the least an unusual place. Nationally, most lower income neighborhoods have not seen a substantial influx of wealthier residents. There simply aren't that many well-off people, and most of them are happy living in their higher income neighborhoods or suburbs.

This is also true locally. While there have a few small areas that have gentrified (Mansfield Street, parts of Dwight), most of the city has not. Dixwell, Fair Haven, Newhallville, West River, West Rock, etc. were predominantly lower income and predominantly black/brown when I came here 30+ years ago. They still are, and there is no large-scale private development going on in any of these neighborhoods. (The ConnCAT development would have a significant impact on Dixwell, but I have seen no construction equipment there. The construction equipment that was at 201 Munson Street is long gone.) The demographics of Winchester Lofts is decidedly different than the rest of the neighborhood. But the development occurred at a disused factory and has had little effect on the neighborhood, which is still predominantly African American and working class.

What is widespread is housing unaffordability. Rents have risen faster than incomes almost everywhere and this is a real problem. Simply building more market rate housing is not going to solve this problem. But failing to build such housing will exacerbate it. Most people are not poor and live in unsubsidized housing. If sufficient market rate housing is not built, they will move to lower income neighborhoods, raising rents there.