96 Apts Approved For Harold’s Bridal Shop

Hurray! Another over priced, non-descript Lego block!!

Exactly! Same old stick built gushypap construction designed to fall down in 30 years after it's made a fortune for its owner.

OK--- I thought it was just me thinking that the picture is so boring and ugly and cookie cutter.

Is there ANYTHING that City Plan will not OK. Why 96 ? Why not 196? What's market rate in COVID AMERICA? What gifties is the City forking over to these carpetbaggers??

ESTEBAN--- I don't think it will even last 30 years.... but what is gushypap???? (Sounds awful)

Enough with the negativity. Agree that this design probably won't win any awards. But, it will be a huge improvement over the vacant building there now. It will bring some life to a pretty dead block in the heart of downtown and will generate incremental tax revenue. If the architecture/construction was more stylish (and more expensive), the rents would need to be higher, and you boo-birds would complain about that too.

Yeah, all about the Money isn't it?
Gushypap is wet wallboard.

Rents will decline along with the rapid deterioration. These are the slums of the future.

Why not at least double the height of the building instead of only adding 2 stories??

Because that is the nature of "stick built" construction. It's a very economical way to put up a building quickly however, any more weight above the sixth floor and the building will collapse on itself.

I'm all in favor of more market rate apartments. The more the better. I'd like to see a moratorium on low-income housing. Yes, a moratorium.

Why such a seemingly radical socially insensitive position?
Glad you asked. Because right now the working class and middle-class homeowners (like me) bear the brunt of taxes in New Haven, and its no longer becoming affordable for the small homeowner to live here. New Haven needs to grow the Grand List and this is one way to do it. It will also lower rents over time.

Low-income housing on the other hand is a double whammy to the local economy: Property comes off the tax rolls and low-income households require additional expensive, wrap-around services. Those services are already underfunded in New Haven.

More market rate apartments will raise tax revenue so we can support the low income people who already live here. It's time to let surrounding towns do more on the low-income front.

Dennis Serfilippi

@Dennis Serf

A moratorium on low budget housing doesn't encourage home ownership, especially when these guys are getting tax breaks to build apartments. I don't know what kind of breaks these guys are or are not getting, however where do you think they try and get that money from when a developer doesn't pay taxes? From us, that's who. Those "expensive, wrap around services" are more a function of the wealth inequality that's rampant.

Building more market rate apartments won't work, because at some point those hip young Millennials or "zoomers" or whatever marketing term they're using for them now for them now, will eventually find out you can get a place in Branford for half of what you're paying for the "market rate".

Perhaps, but Branford is boring.

CityYankee, as the article notes, the Board of Alders amended the zoning ordinance to allow this many units. And the BOA has chosen not to impose design controls on developments in this zone. The City Plan Commission's role in a site plan review is to simply check that the development complies with the zoning ordinance.

quinnchionn, as the story notes, the building will have seven stories. It was originally approved for five.

Parking spaces should match bedrooms why build only 41 spaces

So tired of all the naysayers who prefer vacant lots and abandoned buildings to anything less than architectural marvels. It's so easy to carp from the sidelines. I'll wager none have any actual experience in building or developing anything. This will add density and residents to lower Elm and State. I just hope MOD actually builds it this time! I've been driving past Harold's vacant windows for what seems like longer than three years.

This great news! Great for the grand list and great for downtown merchants (if we ever get back to normal). And I like the design. It has good articulation and fenestration. It's tasteful and restrained. Ken Boroson is good architect.

This is good news, though it'd be nice if it was to be built taller. Build where things are vacant and grow the Grand List. Growing the Grand List is what helps keep our taxes from going up even more! Don't worry about parking, that'll sort itself out especially downtown. And providing parking does little to grow the Grand List, but building/expanding buildings does. Hell, if the Grand List were to grow grow grow then maybe our taxes might even go down. That, and get more PILOT from ...

You're not getting it. It can't be built any taller than seven stories because of the inherently weak construction. This is not masonry over steel, it is plastic over wood. In the long run, it will bring far less tax money than a properly constructed building would have. Deterioration and depreciation will offset short term gains in the long run. In thirty years we will be left with a sagging structure unfit to inhabit.

Jmpelectric, 30% of New Haven households don't have cars and requiring excess parking makes housing more expensive. The Board of Alders has reduced the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance; there is room for further reductions.

Dennis, privately-owned low-income housing does not come off the tax rolls. Under CGS Sec. 8-215, municipalities can abate the taxes on such developments, but I do not believe New Haven presently does so. Property taxes are phased in for new developments, but that is true for market rate and subsidized housing.

Estaban, we've had this discussion before. The longevity of buildings depends on how well they are maintained. My 1844 wood frame house is in good shape. If its previous owners had failed to periodically paint and re-roof it, it would have fallen apart. Moreover, given this building's height, it will probably have a steel frame.

Kevin, yes of course the longevity of buildings depends on how well they are maintained. My 19th century wood frame house is nearly as old as yours and is in excellent condition. That is because it is a single family house in which the owner lives. And also the old growth lumber of the 19th century is no match for the low quality farmed lumber of today.
A 96 unit apartment house is corporately owned and maintained in proportion to its level of profit. If it's not putting out, nothing will get put in...certainly not the loving attention with which both you and I have maintained our homes.
If this were a steel framed project, this would be able to carry much more weight, and thus many more floors. It is not. It will be constructed in the same "stick built" manner as The Novella, The Parkside, College and Crown, and other quick profit projects. These designs are pages out of a template book, designed for high profits over short terms.

Has no one ever asked why, with ALL these projects filling city blocks, the city's financial health continues to spiral out of control. Unfunded liabilities (such as for pensions) stands at $760M and outstanding bonds stand at $651M. Though "unfunded liabilities" and "bonds" roll of the tongue like garnish around a vodka martini, they represent huge municipal obligations, also known as debt. $1.4 billion dollars of debt hop-skips over the measly municipal budget $569M almost three times.

None of these projects has reduced New Haven debt 1¢.

Low income and affordable housing need to be spread across all the communities in the state. Some would argue that it should be focused in the cities where social services are located, but, I think those should be spread out amongst all the communities as well. If you grew up in a town or rural area, you should be able to stay in or near that area, instead of being forced to go to the cities. And all these new construction apartment buildings built with cheap construction, that all look alike, will be like the 1950's-1980's shoddy buildings that are falling down and being torn down because they were built quick and cheap, not built to last over a century. The argument that single family houses last longer because the owners take care of them, and that apartments and multi family buildings fall apart because their owners don't live in them doesn't have to be true, our cities need to hold landlords accountable for maintaining their properties. The penalties for not doing so should be punitive enough to make it ruinous financially to let them get run down.

Annie, excellent point. There are Huge fiscal problems here that are go well beyond growing the Grand List. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think it's safe to say that many past leaders both locally and state-side have failed to tackle or even realize these Huge fiscal problems. That said, growing the Grand List is part of the solution -is it not?

Annie, a good chunk of the property taxes you and I pay goes towards pensions and debt service (repayment of the principal and interest on city obligations). This is true for the private developments as well. All of these developments are paying taxes on the pre-development value of their property. In many cases, this is the value of the land. Most of them are taking advantage of the tax deferral program, which phases in the tax on value of the new construction. Older developments, such as 360 State, are already paying close to their full taxes. FWIW, I'm not a city employee and I have no financial interest in any of the existing or proposed developments. I think the Board of Alders could further tighten tax deferral program. But the changes would not affect the existing developments.

Esteban, I suspect the building is designed for seven floors because (1) the zoning ordinance allows this height as of right and (2) the developers believe this design maximizes their projected profit. The Feldmans are decent guys, but they are businessmen. If they believed they could make more money by getting a variance and building a bigger building, presumiably they would do so.

There's much more to the story of where tax money goes, but if your example of the fully deferred 360 State Street is correct, their assessment is $54M for a building that cost almost $200M. That implies that all these other podium projects will be assessed at 25% of value when fully deferred, which means they will be paying less tax per acre than the row houses on Court Street near Wooster Square.

Annie, with limited exceptions that don't apply here, municipalities have to assess properties based on their fair market value. Assessors have to consider three methods in getting to this value, comparable sales, cost, and income (CGS Sec. 12-63b). They have latitude on how much to weigh each approach, but have to be consistent within classes of property. (They can't cherry-pick the assessment method to maximize tax revenue.) In practice, assessors value multi-family housing primarily based on the income approach. Based on what has happened to rents in recent years, I would not be surprised if 360 State's assessment went up in the next revaluation.