Wall Street (Building) Revolution Advocated

The total project would cost the developer $13.3 million, if the city sold the site for $1 and contributed $12 million in site infrastructure. It would generate around $340,000 in taxes for the city every year.

NH gives 12 million in infrasctructurev to get 340,000 in taxes.... sounds like a sucker deal.... New Haven will do it.....

Its doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the city to invest $12M in infrastructure money around a property that generates only $340,000 in annual taxes. Forgetting for a moment that the BOA just loves to give out 7 year tax phase ins, 36 years would have to go by before you recovered @$12M....however that initial investment in a fund with a modest annual return of 4% eroded by 2% of inflation would have become $47M in the same timeframe. So essentially the city takes a bath.

In other words, if the site needs $12M of infrastructure for any size development (not necessarily correct, but I'll make that assumption) the development would need at least 3.5x as much taxable sf to just break even over an excruciatingly long time period. 5x as big would recover the investment in a reasonable decade.

Can someone please break down the $12 million site infrastructure cost for a one-acre paved site located downtown? Let's see some actual numbers.

What is being pitched here appears to be a plea for large city subsidies in order to create fake-old looking developments, as opposed to using modern building methods that will allow for buildings that house residents and generate tax revenue without large subsidies. That sounds like a bad idea.

By way, I think it is clear that recent developments have almost always promoted a walkable city by adding new (walking) residents and retail spaces and by filling in the parking voids that make downtown seem cold and scary. Almost all the recent buildings are 6-8 stories, the height of a Parisian apartment block. The occasional high rise would be fine, too. So I don't even get the criticism.

That said, if there are some zoning rules or building codes that could be properly relaxed and allow for different kinds of unsubsidized buildings, that would be interesting.

The city should look to maximize housing density, jobs, and tax revenue here (freeing up resources internal or external to the site for affordable housing, schools, and other infrastructure), not try to create another Court Street just because the architects like that or have some personal interest in surrounding the child center with expensive townhomes.

Another hotel might be nice, especially if the 5 or 6 other hotels that were about to be built around downtown prior to the pandemic don't move forward.

I don't want to see another high rise luxury apartment building downtown. The city has a bunch of new build residential buildings either recently built or in the planning stages with studio and 1 bedroom "market rate" units, we really don't need more. A better use for the parcel is mixed use with ground floor retail, food establishments, arts, businesses, services mix, and 2nd-4th floor residential mixed income 1-3 bedroom units. Anything taller than 4 floors doesn't fit in well with the neighborhood feel, and cuts down on natural light for the neighboring buildings and the street. We really don't need another Stamford or Hartford with the tall buildings and the empty streets at night. Part of what makes New Haven so livable is pedestrian friendly streets, variety in building uses and facades, and mixed use buildings downtown with street level all varieties of commercial uses.

Heather C:

In what sense do we not "need" more market rate one bedrooms? We have enough tax revenue, so we should stop? Do people in market rate one bedrooms not walk the streets and patronize the street-level restaurants and shops? Are the people who live in them somehow not quite fully human and therefore don't deserve an urban place to live, just like you and me? Is the planet better off if we force them to live in a suburban development? Does their presence in our town attract employers? Who "counts" and who doesn't?

Why do four story buildings lead to street life where 6 story buildings, housing more people, do not? Have you been to Paris? Are the miles of 6-8 story large apartment blocks in Paris oppressive? Why do 20-30 story buildings inhibit street life? Have you been to the Upper West Side? To Tokyo? To Vancouver? Are the streets empty there?

How will New Haven pay for the massive subsidies required for your idea? The mayor says we have a $60- million deficit already.

I mean.. Why can't it be a mix between high-rise buildings and shorter structures that's around 3 to 5 stories?

Adding retail is always good, but I would think that having more high-rises in a growing mid-sized city like New Haven would also be a good thing as well.

You have a lot more buildings in Downtown that's only around 4 stories tall rather than 20 or 30.

Dear Quinnchionn--- NH is not a growing city. Yale U and Hospital are growing. I believe NH is losing people and businesses as we speak. We need business to want to come and stay here and it is not happening. Corner stores and coffee shops can't build a local economy.

@Esbey... slow clap, AMEN.

Esbey- I think you're confusing what I'm saying. I'm saying there are a bunch of high rise studio and 1 bedroom units buildings either already built, currently being built or going to be built. We don't need more of them because there are going to be plenty. New Haven isn't Paris or Tokyo or NYC, it's never going to be either of those. The reason people move here and like it here is for the varied and unique architecture and mixed building uses that make it a pleasant and vibrant community in a smaller city that isn't a large metropolis. If you want a big city, NY and Boston are a short ride away. If all the new builds and rehabs units are "market rate" then the city becomes a place where only upper middle class and wealthy can afford to live. When you have mixed use and mixed income unit buildings, then you have a melting pot of people from all walks of life working, living and socializing together instead of a upper class playground where the poor people who serve the upper classes in the retail, restaurant, and service industries have to commute from the far flung suburbs because they can't afford to live in the city. If that's what you want, San Francisco, Portland OR, and Seattle are already at that point. Cities should have smart and thoughtful development that makes sense for the people who live and work there, and buildings that compliment its streetscape, and that add something that is needed that was missing before.

One of the things I liked about the Joel Schiavone development of Chapel St was it embraced the look and feel of the original buildings and made people who walked that stretch of buildings stop and look into windows, stand around and talk with their friends, and slowed traffic on the street and separated the traffic from the sidewalk with trees and planters. There was a good mix of restaurants, retail, arts and cafes with offices and residential units above. It was clearly done out of love for the city by someone who understood and enjoyed the city's functions and atmosphere. The current construction-light petrochemical materials buildings that are being built with studio and 1 bedroom units are mostly being built by developers and out of town investors not out of love for their city, but only for maximizing their profit. These buildings won't stand the test of time for 100+ years like the rest of the city's buildings, and aren't looking at the city's current residents needs, or at market trends for the next 30-75 years, but only to satisfy current market trends and line their investors pockets. We need thoughtful development, not get rich quick development schemes. What happens when these buildings start to crumble and fall apart? When market trends change? Will we have a mass demolition by neglect when these developments no longer hold profits for their owners due to their cheap building materials breaking down and need exorbitant rehabilitation? I'm sure they will need rehabbing in 20-30 years or less. Cities that let development happen without a city plan often struggle with the poor choices made that hindered that city's appeal down the road.

Heather, thanks for the reasonable response. I still don't get what "need" means. People want to live in New Haven, there are empty lots to build on, why do we want to keep them out?

I think many people misunderstand the small scale of the recent building "boom." In the last decade, New Haven has issued an annual number of building permits that ranges from very close to zero up to about 500. I haven't seem the 2020 numbers, maybe it is a little higher? There are over 50,000 units in the city already. The scale of building isn't high enough to change the city that fast. In a real "boom" year we are building about an additional 1% of housing stock, but usually not that high. Further, most of that stock is built on empty lots. We keep almost all of the old buildings. We are simply adding a little bit of "present day" character to our mosaic. We could do a lot more without changing the city very fast.

I didn't mean that we are going to "be" NYC or Tokyo or Vancouver. Those cities are just proof that there isn't one magic kind of building that leads to walkability and a pleasant life.

Dear Heather, what you worried about has already happened in NH at least twice. Whoever shows up with a bag of money gets to decide what happens--- The FED in the 50's, The boom of the 80's, HOPE VI & other programs, and always Yale. NH has no real plan--- the people with the money decide what will be done and they get all the real profit. NH taxpayers get the bill, the taxes, and the shaft for places we can't even afford to rent!!!

Wooster Sq is fighting over a POLE at Wooster and Olive Sts. How pitiful is that?

Citypoint86/Robn, I suspect the $12 million infrastructure estimate is largely driven by the new streets/laneways in the proposal, together with the associated water, sewer, and telecommunications lines. Historically, there were some buildings in the interior of the block, so some of these lines may already exist. But creating new streets is really expensive.

Retaining the current superblock design would substantially reduce the infrastructure cost. But it would preclude Orr's human-scale design.

Another conundrum is money. While I find Orr's design aesthetically appealing, I suspect developers proposing more conventional designs would be willing to offer the city substantially more money for the parcel.

KM,

Money is always THE issue if the city has to pony up to assist a private development. But in terms of good planning, as much as I respect Robert I'm afraid I disagree with the idea that this swath of downtown should be so low density. If you look just a couple of blocks away at the Audubon (a project which I don't entirely love BTW) you can learn some lessons.
1) Internalization of the parking decks is critical to preserve street life.
2) Maintaining some communal open space on the ground level is important for a a project of this scale.
3) Although I think it could have been a bit more broken up, the scale and articulation of the Audubon street façade is quite nice and reminiscent of Court Street. Its 6 stories but with a setback line above the 4th. The other facades are not as successful but forgivable since Orange Street faces a much more high urban context.
4) Post Covid I'm sure they'll have success with their restaurant but the reality which you've pointed out many times is that its not appropriate to demand retail every project in NHV because we're oversaturated with empty retail space.
5) High rise construction is economically infeasible in NHV (360 State was a fluke of over generous subsidies and undersized assessments, probably due to the political weight of its primary investor... a public pension fund). Sticks and bricks construction will physically limit heights to about what s done at Audubon.

I think the parcel will become more valuable when Farmington Canal is completed And covid is over. A simple idea is to divide the parcel into 2-5 pieces and sell to different developers. Restrict height on southern parcels to allow light and views to northern parcels. Stop super block development and get back to Urban eclectic.

Robn, you're right, although I was talking about the purchase price. And I think the pension fund backed 360 State Street because it met its investment needs. Rather maximizing its return on investment in the short run, the pension fund was looking for a long-term income stream that would meet its long-term obligations. The rents from 360 State do that nicely.

There are at least two alternatives to address the infrastructure cost issue. The city could issue tax-increment financing bonds to cover these costs. The bonds would be repaid from part of the added property tax attributable to the development. Alternatively, the city could initially sell part of the block, e.g., the lots on State and Wall streets. This parcel would need little infrastructure to be developed. Depending on how well the initial development went, the city could then sell the rest of the block in one or more parcels. These parcels could be subsequent phases of a development similar to what Robert Orr et al. propose, or something denser.

Finally, if anything Esbey overstates the growth of the New Haven market. We focus on new units. But every year, units are lost to fire, "demolition by neglect", and redevelopment. If you assume that the average building life is 100 years, the loss rate is about 1%. In other words, for all of the development New Haven has seen recently, the total number of housing units has remained nearly steady.

@robn (and other commenters thinking about the cost calculations) -- This is Emily Hays, the reporter for this article. I've updated the article with the correct cost and tax estimates. I put in incorrect numbers originally, because those were the numbers on an earlier draft of the spreadsheet that the management team received accidentally instead of the final draft.

Importantly, there is no $12 million infrastructure subsidy in the final spreadsheet! Robert Orr and others clarified that figure came from calculations they did on the current proposal for the Coliseum site and was never meant to be in the 10 Wall St. spreadsheet. They are trying to draw up a model that would not use subsidies.

Esbey- I don't want to keep any people out, I just want to keep the cityscape un-intimidating, pedestrian friendly and within the same scale and complimentary to the neighborhood, and a diverse mix of units with a variety of number of bedrooms to appeal to all sorts of needs. Westville neighbors generally approved a proposed new 4 story building behind Whalley Ave at the old 500 Blake St Cafe because it was planned in keeping with the feel of the area and complimentary to the village. Neighbors near the Yale School Of Business generally dislike the "airport hanger" feel of that building which ignored the neighborhood buildings feel and scale. Most people I know love the modern style Yale "Whale" hockey rink which is complimentary to the neighborhood. Ninth Square was a mostly empty and abandoned section of town until it was rehabbed, but it continued to feel that way until restaurants, shops and art galleries started to open on the street level, which created more pedestrian traffic and a neighborhood feel.
City Yankee- I want the city to learn from their past mistakes and during this unprecedented development boom have a thoughtful plan for the city. The Route 34 "highway to nowhere" took decades to sit like a scar dividing the city and is only just now beginning to be repaired. Some of the commenters like Robn have great suggestions on how to make new builds friendly to the streetscape and pedestrians. Developers can be good neighbors by being open to comments and suggestions on what the neighborhood would like to see done, and the city can encourage smart development and planning to compliment and enhance the New Haven experience and living for all of us.

Stamford used to be a livable suburban town with a lot of small, family based businesses and a Bloomingdales.

Would someone please let these well-intentioned neighbors know the city is bankrupt.

The market does not want this sort of development. If it were profitable, it would have been built already. The demand does not exist for this housing. This is the same issue as the retail included with these apartments. Look around at the vacancies. Walk down Audubon. Empty storefronts. Walk up and down Chapel. Many empty storefronts. The City needs taxes and doesn't need to give more money away. The 9th square redevelopment was a colossal failure, resulting in a bailout/sale. The city needs to attract businesses that employ people and citizens that pay taxes. Given the level of debt and mismanagement, continued social experimentation must stop.