112 New Apartments Planned For Grand

I would be interested in an analysis of the sun's angle and the actual effect of the proposed building's height on light coming into and onto the Lyon Street neighbors. The building itself is setback from rear lot line, and a six foot fence, and shrubbery will replace the building walls that now go up to the lot line. Moreover, in our climate, shade in the can keep us cooler. Unfortunately, unlike the tree leaves that shade my homes in the summer, the new building won't fall away come winter.

A clarification about the Gateway Corridor issue. Our neighborhood group did not stop or want to stop the plan to make this part of Grand Avenue a Commercial Gateway Corridor. Rather, we initially asked for it to be separated from the initial tri-part proposal that included this section of Grand Avenue with Whalley Avenue and Dixwell Avenue. The request for separation was due to the very different character and composition of this section of Grand Ave- historically it had been an important sopping are while Whalley, for example, was notable for its car dealerships, it is a significantly small area, has a relatively narrow street, iis composed of small lots, and is directly enveloped by a residential area zoned RM2 unlike the other areas in the proposal. The BOA voted to exclude Grand Ave from that particular proposal so it could be considered separately. Further discussion with City Plan actually led to an increase in the corridor length to include the part of Grand from State to Olive Streets. Our neighborhood committee was then tasked with creating zoning for the Grand Avenue Commercial Gateway Corridor and accomplished that. Another meeting with CP was held in which the final zoning plan was discussed and agreed upon. Then came COVID and all was put on hold. We have been trying to get this project back on track and very much hope to sit down with City Plan to present and discuss our zoning proposal and to hear what the City's current plans for this area are.
We very much look forward to a revitalized Commercial Gateway on Grand Avenue in the very near future.
Also, as clarification, the building will be SIX stories and I believe 72' tall plus 2 parapets. The ground level is slated for parking and a small lobby with NO commercial space.
We welcome those interested in working with us to remake Grand Avenue into a gem as it had been long ago hope the City will help make it shine.
Thanks to all who have spent so much time and effort on this project.

A classy development that replaces an long-unoccupied eyesore with much-needed housing in a city and state with a HUGE housing deficit? Win-win-win.

Of course, local NIMBYs will NIMBY; ultimately they have no right to prevent the rest of our city from accessing housing in their neighborhoods just because they want a few hours more of sun on their lawns. If they want a bucolic setting, they can move to Litchfield, where they can have this setting without forcing the renters in this city to needlessly suffer from lack of housing. We can't let them impede the real progress New Haven is making in closing our housing gap. Attitudes are changing in this city to embrace the reality of real-world effects of supply and demand for housing, in a way that makes me optimistic about our city's future.

The plan has a few aspects of concern to me. As noted, it is out of scale for the neighborhood -- 50% taller than anything on this stretch of Grand and double or triple the height of Lyon Street properties. Also, to have the first floor dedicated almost entirely to parking seems to ensure a pedestrian experience about as bleak as it is now. There is also a proposal to make some kind of tiny semi-paved park in the part of the property (currently Unger's rear drive) that extends to Lyon Street - which seems just odd.

Every article about Mona Berman et al's NIMBYism should include the fact that they tried to NIMBY a youth shelter. Yes, a youth shelter.

They're against this one, too? Big whoop, dog bites man, etc etc.

I'm way more interested in what the family who started the tasty Jamaican restaurant at the corner of Grand & Olive thinks about this than I am in what the NIMBYs on Lyon Street think about this.

I actually like this type of proposal for this section of Grand Avenue... Mainly because it's much closer to Downtown than it is to Fair Haven. So, it basically provides an easy connection to the Downtown for future residents who will eventually live in that area...

However, I agree that the proposed building should have some commercial space included as part of creating a more walkable version of Grand Avenue.

The area in question should basically be a mix between residential and commercial, but going towards Fair Haven it would make sense to have that section as a commercial zone only..

5 or 6 stories is not bad there.. It's not too tall, and at least it's better than only 3 stories.

The inclusionary zoning units are “10 percent of the units will be reserved for tenants making no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), which currently translates to around $57,350 for a family of four.”
But with only studios, 1 bedrooms, and 2 bedrooms units, a family of 4 is unlikely to be renting them. We do have families of 4 or more people who need affordable housing. And before commenters jump in about how families are smaller, it depends on your income levels. Poorer families and immigrant families are more likely to have more children or extended or intergenerational family members living in their household.
The article says it will be “Constructed in light colors” but the rendering by the architect is dark grey and black exteriors, which absorb heat, so which is it? Plus the exterior is just another ugly Lego block style facade, why not brickface and arched eyebrows over the windows to match the neighboring buildings styles?
Ground floor parking is not helpful for revitalizing the neighborhood, and makes it less walkable. The neighborhood needs pedestrian and residents friendly businesses on the ground floor to improve the streetscape and it would help match the commercial zoning goals. They should move the parking to the rear of the building, and leave the distance from the sidewalk the same as it is now, which would help the buildings behind it get more sunlight with the taller building being farther away from their rear lots than the proposed plan.
There is a four story building down the street, so if the top two stories are recessed to avoid the sense that they are out of scale with their neighboring buildings, then that should help it to fit in. Just put the smaller studio units on the top 2 recessed floors.
The neighbors should be able to weigh in their concerns about walkability, parking, sunlight, buildings out of character with the neighborhood, and other items that impact their quality of life.

“The city needs to choose if this is a commercial corridor or a residential area,” said Berman. ​“They need to clarify what their intention is, especially after all the work we’ve put in to get the zoning pinned down.”

The whole idea of dividing commercial from residential seems to me to be a basic error in an urban environment. You can't have walkability unless residential and commercial are blended. I live in Beaver Hills, the city pioneer in all-residential zoning, deliberately designed in the 1920s as a park-like environment for "the businessman" and his family with neat little garages for their automobiles. And Beaver Hills, unlike almost all the other New Haven neighborhoods, has no corner stores, no little cafes or small businesses. It's quiet and pleasant. But you need a car (or the one bus line at the edge of the neighborhood) to go anywhere at all except to the Walgreens on Whalley Avenue.

Is this really what we should be promoting? And even "residential" neighborhoods in an urban setting should be trending towards purpose-built apartment buildings, not single-family houses, especially on major streets like Grand Avenue. There is a long tradition of such buildings in all the great cities.

Of course it's possible to build them in ways that are not plug-ugly like so many of the newer buildings proposed for New Haven, including this one.

Am I correct that this is the first new post-IZ housing proposal in the "core" district, which requires 10% affordable set-aside?

Who are the real NIMBY's. It's those who insist that one block of Grand Avenue be the site for over 14 social service agencies while their neighborhoods don't house any.
Is mixed use with ground level commercial space and residential units above asking too much? Is that NIMBY? Using the IZ as an excuse to eliminate commercial property requirements serves nobody but the out-of-state developer's pocket book.
And for those of you who are unfamiliar with the area, low income housing exists here already; NOBODY is asking no more to be built.
Lyon Street was a dump years ago- the pioneers who bought there made it one of the nicest areas in the city. And until out-of-towners started buying up the properties to earn big profits, many of the rental units met AMI housing guidelines. AND there always has been (or was?) Section 8 housing available in this neighborhood.
Let's look at underlying problems and stop the name calling. Work with us, not against us. We all want the best for our city.
The sun/shade factor from my perspective is not the biggest issue- the issue is how best to serve the entire neighborhood, how to activate the streets, how to make this part of Grand as successful as it once was- read the history of the street to better understand the possibilities. These big box buildings with teeny apartments and no cross ventilation will be gone in a decade or two and we'll be back to the blight that we see today, blight purposefully created by landlords who then flip the properties at HUGE profits (as was the case here). The city makes deals w/ those developers and waives enormous fines.

Not including the core IZ designation overlay, the current designation of this part of Grand is BA- mixed use with required commercial space on the ground level and residential allowed above.
And yes to mixed use- commercial AND residential- this plan is for residential only.

Nearly a third of renters in New Haven County (not just the city) are severely rent-burdened. This means they spend half or more of their income on housing costs. Building more housing is not a panacea. But it is a necessary component in addressing this problem.

Several years I attended a neighborhood meeting on an earlier version of this proposal. The NIMBYism of the participants at that meeting was notable (some of the participants are friends of mine, others are quoted in this article). If you look at photos of this part of Grand Avenue from the mid 20th Century, you will see far greater density and a much more lively street. FWIW, I live one block from the Audubon, which is substantially larger than the proposed development.

1664, a legal anecdote. Years ago, I wrote on the common law doctrine of ancient lights. (The idea that your neighbor cannot block your access to sunlight.) The leading CT case in this area, which held that the legislature had abolished this right in the 19th Century, dealt with a property perhaps a block away from this proposed building.

CY2, I am old enough to remember when Victorian architecture was considered ugly (well into the 70s). And I have lived long enough to see mid 20th Century architecture be considered cool. We both lived through a time when Post Modernism was avant garde. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Heather, if a four person household consists of two adults and two children of the same sex, a two bedroom apartment will work. Spoken as someone who shared his bedroom with his two brothers for 15 years 🥸. More significantly, the vast majority of renter households consist of three or fewer people. The reason why so few 3+ bedroom apartments are being built is that there is little demand for them. Moreover, apartment buildings are a long-term investment. Household size has been decreasing my entire life (I’m 69). It would be financially foolish to assume this trend will reverse.

1644, this is the first large post -IZ development in the Core Area. Bob Frew's much smaller SoHu development is subject to the ordinance. My fuzzy memory of the BZA meeting and the IZ map is that it is in the Core Area.(Work has not yet begun on this project.)

Lyon Street resident, it is fair to say that this area has more than its share of social services agencies. That has nothing to do with this proposal. If anything, the development would block this space from being used for that purpose. And nearly every neighborhood houses some social services agencies. East Rock has Adult Probation, Clifford Beers, and IRIS, Prospect Hill has several sober houses, and Westville a variety of agencies.

Another Lyon Street Resident, I think we agree that developers are primarily in the business to make money. If they thought they could make money building three bedroom apartments, wouldn't they do so?. If anything, the zoning ordinance encourages larger apartments.

I believe this is a net positive project.

I also don't think every apartment complex built should have ground floor retail. It can be difficult to fill, and there's probably a reason it's not included in this stretch of land.

It is still walkable to plenty of retail and dining. It won't be a detriment.

I’m sorry. Is this development demolishing a park into apartments?

I must be confused. You NIMBY’s are not serious people. You are driving the cost of housing up by throwing up nonsensical roadblocks, citing shadow.

Property rights goes both ways. The owner of this lot has the right to build, just as you all had the right to own.

PS. Do you Lyon Street NIMBYs realize that people are moving to states like Florida and Texas, where the housing development is overwhelming environmentally unfriendly (aka spread out single family homes that require cars and new development)?

Texas is offering $300,000 McMansions (read: no red tape to build build build), and here we are, arguing over stopping badly needed, mild-density housing, near transit. Oy.

Not a handsome design. That being said, it’s about time for residential to return to this block. Unfortunately, its height will have a noticeable daylight impact upon Lyon st neighbors but it’s difficult to render an opinion because the author failed to tell us if this building is as-of-right or not.

I’m not really familiar with the Inclusionary Zoning rules but just looked up the underlying zoning. This appears to be a BA General Business district and residential multi family would be allowed here. However the FAR is 2 and the site is about 22Ksqft so they’re entitled to build @44Ksqft. If the proposal is 112 units then it’s probably about 110Ksqft, meaning that the developer is asking to increase the allowable area by 250%.
My personal opinion is that, for this very narrow street, a four story limit (incl ground level) would be more appropriate and respectful to the scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
Along this street

Robn, because this project is subject to the IZ ordinance, the units can be as small as 600 gross square feet. The developer also would be allowed a higher floor area ratio limit. Based on no actual knowledge, I suspect the developer would be fine with five floors. Assuming the building covers about half of the lot, they could build four floors as of right.

Ms. Berman’s last statement in the article represents an understanding of zoning that was true 100 years ago, not now. Zoning in this country began a little more than a century ago, and routinely called for the separation of uses. But mixed used buildings, with commercial uses on the ground floor and housing above were and are ubiquitous in cities.

While the article is very good, it does not cover the fact that under the IZ ordinance, developments like this in the Core Area must set aside 5% of their units for Section 8 tenants. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I believe the set-aside requirement violates state law (CGS § 46a-46a). This law bars housing discrimination based on “lawful source of income”. The state Supreme Court has held that Section 8 benefits are a lawful source of income. Landlords cannot advertise any preference with regard to lawful source of income. This means they cannot advertise “No Section 8” (a good thing). But also means, I believe, that they cannot give a preference to Section 8 tenants. The city cannot require what the state prohibits.

“This project will promote more much-needed affordable housing in the area,” Gardner told the meeting attendees.

Affordable for who?Wake up.The lack of housing options for renters with extremely low incomes are driving the overall affordable housing shortage across the country.
This says it all
“AFFORDABLE HOUSING” IS A SCAM!

“Affordable Housing” Is Gentrifying Housing

Thus, “Affordable Housing” contributes to the very processes it claims to alleviate. “Affordable” apartments are often built in neighborhoods from which resources have been historically divested, where land values are lower, and future returns more promising to private investors. In most cases, long-term residents receive no preferential access to “Affordable Housing” in the neighborhoods they for decades have called home. Applicants are subjected to discrimination based on invasive criminal background checks and reviews of their immigration status — which, in any other circumstances, are illegal in the State of California.[15] More, as argued above, they can’t afford the “Affordable Housing” on offer. The County-wide AMI standard, combined with the policy’s outcome of producing the most housing for the highest-earning “low-income” category, forces long-term residents of low-income communities into a losing competition with higher-earning residents from elsewhere in the county. As “Affordable Housing” Developments introduce higher-income populations into historically poor neighborhoods, they contribute to the displacement of long-term, low-income residents, inviting price-gouging, harassment, evictions, and the flipping of amenities throughout the neighborhood.

https://latenantsunion.medium.com/affordable-housing-is-a-scam-9a4c43ba8149

My bad forgot this.

Evictions Are SKYROCKETING Beyond Pre Pandemic Levels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toskardGffA

Robn, just to clarify, the minimum unit size and Floor Area Ratio provisions of the ordinance operate independently. A developer could build a larger building, have smaller units, or both. I suspect this developer will seek a variance on the height limit.

ThreeFifths, the Section 8 units, assuming they are built, will be affordable to low/very low income households. The other subsidized units will be affordable to moderate income/working class tenants.

Heather, there simply not that many large households, at any income level. There is an average of 2.0 persons living in each HUD subsidized housing unit (Section 8 and public housing). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/pictures/files/US_2022.xlsx The vast majority of newly built apartments, subsidized or market rate, are one or two bedrooms, because that is where the demand is. Large, low-income households face a particularly difficult time finding affordable housing. I don’t want to minimize their challenges. But household size has been shrinking for decades for all demographic and income groups.