Talks Stall On Prime Property’s Future

Church Street South was never "a community". The unfortunate residents were the community. Church Street South was a poorly built, neglected, crime-ridden, and dangerous Hogan's Ally. It's a shame the re-build was awarded to the very same company responsible for its neglect and eventual demise.

Stay Woke. I think this will be like what happen to that mall that was to be build in West Haven when those Greedy Judas Goat Developers force those people out of there home with telling them they would use enmien domain to make them sell.

More proof that developments happen despite of, not because of Elicker?

The city could really use a mayor that's more aggressive on development, and attracting companies outside of the Yale sphere of influence (like a Lego, which CT lost).

Anyway, I hope this project starts ASAP. It is an embarrassment as it stands on the doorstep of one of New England's busiest train stations.

This site is ideal for a "Transit Oriented Development" with high-rise housing near a transit hub. All this posturing is about who will benefit most from the eventual development.

Also, NHI, thank you for shining a light on this. It will help hold both parties more accountable to moving forward.

“Then Hill neighbors insisted on at least 28 percent affordability in the mix.”

This seems like the main problem here, no?

The former New Haven Arena lot and the corner of State and Chapel sat as unpaved parking lots for decades until The FBI built its NH Headquarters, that sent blue New Havener's into a tizzy but today The FBI is are friend. 360 is a success, just need for the tenants to pay top dollar for groceries. The area across Union Station doesn't have to be filled tomorrow, let us see what is needed. Building apartments in a city is stupid. What is the demographic of people living in New Haven and commute to NYC, Stanford or points in between? It might work in lower Fairfield or upper Westchester but we are much to far for a daily commute. If office buildings and bio-labs where in that space more people might commute into New Haven using the three rail lines. It is a shame at least one of those two new office towers over 34 could have been the anchor of a South Church business development. New Haven's "leaders"have always seem more interested in getting people out of town quickly instead of inviting them in.

While the blame seems mixed at first read, it is clear the "developer" is the problem here and not the city. As Mike Piscitelli said, "shovels are in the ground all over the city". Piscitelli, Elicker, and others are a group of public servants that has proven themselves willing and able to get deals done with developers and put the gas on economic development in New Haven. They rarely speak out AGAINST developers in the city.

On the other hand, Northland seems in no hurry to develop or sell its property, likely waiting to cash in on appreciation from the Union Station redevelopment. Can the city put the pressure to them in some way- through eminent domain, an "empty land" tax on some of the most valuable real estate in the city, or otherwise? As of now it is a detriment to the city, with lot of sidewalks around the site going unsalted in winter, being buckled and needing fixing...

Wake up.These judas goats are selling you all snake-oil and three card monte.The only thing come to is what I said in 2021

Residential Waterfront Plan Pitched

Imagine picking up lunch at a food hall, picnicking as kids play in a sculpture park, and viewing New Haven Harbor up close as residents move in and out of two new apartment towers.

A developer offered that pitch at a hearing about plans to build up to 500 apartments on Long Wharf.
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/fusco_long_wharf
THREEFIFTHS
Oct 7, 2021 3:29 pm

I stand by what I said before.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 13, 2021 11:15am

Ha Ha.Take from the Play Book call Battery Park City Apartments in New York.Get ready for the High Rents.

Is Battery Park City Expensive?

Image result for average rent in battery park city
RENTcafe recently released a report that explores which neighborhoods in the country, by ZIP code, are among the most expensive in 2019. ... Manhattan's 10282, encompassing Battery Park City, was found to be the most expensive neighborhood in the country with an average rental price $6,211 per month.

What is the average rent of a Studio apartment in Battery Park, NY?
Looking for a studio apartment in the Battery Park neighborhood? Expect to pay around $2,996.

What is the average rent of a 1 bedroom apartment in Battery Park, NY?
One-bedroom Battery Park apartments rent for around $3,704.

https://www.gatewayny.com/lower-manhattan-apartments-photos/

Land-Value-Tax is needed.

This project needs to provide a real sense of community. "Church Street South" is really nothing but a street name. The old complex was basically just an eyesore, but also like a rotten tooth that needed to be gone due to its very poor condition for mainly low income residents who have lived there in years past.

I like that the developers are basically creating a new district called "Union Square." It's something that will create a sense of place between Union Station and Downtown.

A "transit-oriented" type of development is an instant no brainer here. It's outside one of the busiest train stations in the entire country and it will be how commuters get in and out of the city by train.

I honestly would prefer to see some high rise apartments built on this site.. mainly because you don't really see enough of that Downtown. A lot is needed to make the train station more convenient as a transit-hub destination, but if you're trying to add a real significant number of units then you might as well build up taller rather than not.

That potential is definitely there..

Here we go again the cat is out of the bag, SLUM LANDLORD gets bought out for enormous sum over accessed value and the city gives the property away under some do-gooder guise and guess who might get a few more votes and guess which tax payers get stuck holding the bag.

Yes!!!

Gottesdiener should not be trusted. His Northland has an identical record in downtown Hartford of mothballing premier real estate holdings. The City should play hardball and take the property by eminent domain and sell it to a developer who will build something there.

Stop the posturing. Shovels are in the ground all over the city because as private developers, with virtually no affordable units that can't be subsidized by the rest of the tenants in the building, need only approval of the city - not a collaborative partner in making their project financially feasible. Why is Piscatelli and Elicker so hostile? Who cares if the owner wanted to redraw the plan and present something different? It's his property. Why is there no action on his request?

It's almost as if the current administration doesn't understand the complexities of building in the current interest rate/materials/labor environment - particularly the 300 units of affordable housing. It will clearly cost more to build and maintain than what traditional financing will cover. Once again, Elicker's sense of privilege and being comfortable bullying people to get what he wants is on full display and it's not necessary.

“ “We also informed the mayor that the costs to create 300 units of affordable housing will produce a significant funding gap, exacerbated by the current economic environment, requiring, in all likelihood, a robust public private partnership. The mayor has not engaged, in any way, on the funding gap.”
“More constructive than the mayor’s political pandering,” he continued, ​“would be responding to our development submission and working collaboratively to close the funding gap through joint grant requests, state and federal aid, and/or a tax agreement.””

So the developer is basically looking for tax breaks and government funding handouts to replace the 300 units of Section 8 that was there previously, and to ensure the building of affordable units. But the deal was that they bought 300 units of Section 8 housing, and they have to replace them, since they were not properly maintained due to the landlords neglect.
This property should be a high rise development, with mixed income units, with a rooftop garden and green storm water absorbing landscaping green space surrounding it and solar panels. It should be a mixed use building with a full service grocery store like the ShopRite in Milford to serve the increasing number of new residential units with less vehicle parking that are being built in the area. It could also have the lab space, various retail with services and activities and entertainment, restaurants/cafes, and it should be renamed Union Square. It should have delivery truck loading bays for the grocery store and businesses and one with an elevator that can handle appliances and furniture for moving, and a covered drop off/pick up driveway. It should have a flood/storm water mitigation garden facing the train station. This location with the proper development, could be an incredible place for people of all incomes to live in and a fantastic welcoming visual presence to train passengers and to change the image of the city.

Can someone explain to me why there will be a money gap because of the 300 affordable units? Does it cost more to build affordable apartments? What am I missing?

The city, people, politicians etc. are ALWAYS complaining about LACK of affordable housing AND HOMELESS shelters so why not replace what was there to house all these people who need a roof over their head? I don’t think we need anything luxurious right in that location. There’s enough high class apartments being built all over the city now on every little empty piece of land developers can find. They are even building apartments on top of apartments like 900 Chapel St.

Makes sense to me with that gigantic piece of property. Of course, what usually makes sense rarely happens. I guess it depends on who’s making the decisions.

It will probably cost around $300,000 for the developer to create each new unit on this site. HUD's Fair Market Rent payments will only cover a fraction of those costs over the lifetime of the building. It makes no sense to try to cover the gap between what it costs a private developer to build a new unit and how much HUD will subsidize that unit through rental assistance. Closing a gap of this magnitude would likely require significant local property tax breaks, state and federal development grants, and state- and federally-subsidized loans in addition to HUD's rental assistance. It makes no sense to provide affordable housing this way.

ISeeRacism/OneCityDump, subsidized housing routinely costs more than comparable market rate housing. Federally-subsidized housing is generally subject to Davis-Bacon, requiring the use of union labor. This may result in a better product, but does increase the cost of the housing. (FWIW, my dad was a lifelong member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.) And subsidized housing often exceeds Building Code requirements for handicapped accessibility. A good thing, but it adds costs.

I don’t whether the city’s or developer’s version of the state of play is more accurate. But I do know that there is a finite market for apartments at the rents currently being charged in new developments. There is certainly unmet demand at this point, but there are hundreds of market rate apartments under construction and hundreds more in the pipeline. The new apartments are filling very rapidly. But at some point, likely before Church Street South is redeveloped, this will no longer be the case.

I have no idea how anyone would finance 300 affordable units at the site. Rep. DeLauro was able to pull some impressive rabbits from her hat in her former capacity on the Appropriations Committee While she remains a powerful official, her ability to do so now is definitely diminished.

So I'll add a quick industry insider take on Northland as I've had a decent amount of experience dealing with them and I know many other CRE professionals that have dealt with them. Here are some things you folks should know.

1 Northland is the most tightlipped real estate operator/developer that I (and many others) have ever encountered. I've never know them to tell anyone outside their organization what they are up to. There is a typical amount of polite friendliness and general sense of rapport that most of us in the industry have when interacting with each other, Northland is an exception to this.

2 Other major developers who have developed in New Haven already have tried to contact Northland about this site, and the response everyone gets is typically something like "We aren't looking to sell at this time", and that's usually the only answer you will get, and people have gotten that answer year after year after year etc.

3 Many folks think that Northland utilizes some complex income tax mitigation strategies that include designated loser write off properties. There are many well founded theories that this is what they are doing with their massive commercial vacancies in downtown Hartford. Long story short, these guys are super comfortable sitting on vacant non cash flowing properties.

4 They are not going to do anything unless it pencils out for their specific financial objectives for this site, which unfortunately are not clear at present and they likely won't disclose what those objectives are (see previous bullet points).

5 These guys likely aren't going to consider any appeal to ethics or morality to build affordable housing on this site. But you can take a look at their website or LinkedIn to see their very on the nose virtue signaling campaign. Its all rainbows and deep respect for diverse cultures with these guys on the outside while they sit on their vacant properties in your city center.

Coved/Mark Twain’s revenge, the state actually authorized New London to implement a Land Value Taxation pilot. LVT is a straightforward concept that if vacant urban land is taxed at a higher rate than urban buildings, developers will build stuff rather than sitting on empty land. The idea has been around about 125 years. But as Mark Twain’s Revenge notes, implementation is way more complicated. New London never implemented its pilot due to local politics.

1644, I don’t know that this parcel meets the requirements of Conn. Agencies Regs. § 12-107d-1 et seq. Getting forest land designation is a bit more complicated than simply planting trees. I do agree with you that the city would have a tough time arguing that the property is blighted. And while Kelo v. New London would allow the city to take the property even if it isn’t blighted, I doubt the city would risk the case being reversed by the current Court (not huge fans of stare decisis).

New Haven Urbanism, I suspect the per unit costs would be a bit less due to economies of scale, particularly with regard to soft costs. But the gist of your argument is right. Making this project affordable for low and moderate income would require substantial amounts of subsidies, even if the tenants have Section 8 certificates.

One small note. Gottesdiener means “God’s servant” in German (also Yiddish?). We shall see.

1644, thanks for the clarification.

While Church Street South should primarily be used for housing, there are other sites in town where commercial tree planting could make economic as well as environmental sense. In particular, there are several large parcels on the banks of the Quinnipiac River that I suspect are on a flood plain. (Although I don’t recall seeing this area flooded in my daily commutes up to Hartford.) There is also the site of the former UI substation on Court Street, which is fenced. The soil there is contaminated with PCBs and other nasty stuff, and the site likely will not be developed any time soon.

A lot of If’s, ands and butts about this property across from Union Station and funding gaps. Maybe now that marijuana is legal and the state has made or somebody has made $13.3 million in one month maybe there’s money there to fill any spending gap for this property?