PMC
Project design.
A Wooster Square developer’s altered plans for a 13-story apartment complex include more affordable housing and sidewalk improvements — drawing a mix of praise and criticism in its quest for support.
Those reactions came at an online community meeting convened Monday night by Ward 7 Alder Eli Sabin to share updates and hear input on a proposal for a new apartment building in the parking lot of 78 Olive St.
The developers, PMC Property Group, currently own the Strouse-Adler building (also known as the “Smoothie Building”) at 78 Olive — and are seeking to build the 136-unit apartment complex on part of the same lot that currently serves as surface parking.
In order to proceed with the project, PMC is applying to rezone the lot from BA (General Business) to BD‑1 (Business/Residential) in order to allow more density — a change that other recent Olive Street developments have secured. The City Plan Commission approved the rezoning application in January; the Board of Alders Legislation Committee will next review the matter.
After PMC’s initial presentations drew criticism from neighbors, Sabin negotiated with the developers, PMC Property Group, to produce an amended building proposal with new affordable housing and environmental infrastructure commitments.
At Monday’s meeting, Sabin shared that of the 136 proposed one-bedroom units, PMC has agreed to set 10 percent below market rates for the building’s first 25 years. Previously, PMC had proposed all market-rate units.
Per the revised plans, PMC would restrict 7 units for people making up to 60 percent of the Area Median Income, or up to $43,260 for a family of one, and 7 units for people making up to 80 percent AMI, or $57,680 for one person.
These rates are still higher than what the city’s new Inclusionary Zoning Law requires of developers, but Sabin noted that PMC would not be receiving a tax abatement.
According to Sabin, PMC also agreed to provide the city with $150,000 for local traffic and pedestrian improvements; to fund a traffic study assessing the viability of a bike lane on Chapel Street between State and Olive Streets; to install American Disabilities Act-compliant ramps and crosswalks at the Chapel, Union, Artisan, and Court intersections; and to repair sidewalks along Chapel.
Finally, Sabin said, PMC has redesigned some of the street-level attributes of the building after neighborhood feedback, with plans to incorporate a new large window and a mural on previously empty walls.
“I pushed them as hard as I possibly could” on these issues, Sabin said. “I think it’s as much as we’re going to get.” By the end of negotiations, he said, “they thought that what they were offering us was unfair.”
Sabin, who sits on the Legislative Committee that will soon review the zoning change, said he is keeping an “open mind” and seeking neighborhood feedback about how to vote.
If the Board of Alders rejects the rezoning application, Sabin said, PMC will likely choose not to build on the property — but the developer is considering going forward with plans to build just 44 units, which would be permitted under current zoning conditions, all at market rate.
At the meeting, 10 attendees spoke out in favor of the building, while eight opposed it.
Some neighbors argued that 60 to 80 percent AMI would not be affordable enough.
“I have strong objections to calling it ‘affordable housing’ if it serves 60 to 80 percent AMI,” said Anstress Farwell, a Wooster Square resident and president of the New Haven Urban Design League. “It actually serves middle income people, and not lower income people.“
Farwell added that in New Haven’s affordable housing shortage, “the greatest need is for families.” Since the proposed building would provide only one-bedroom units, “this doesn’t at all address that need.”
“There’s a gigantic sacrifice being asked in terms of form, coherence of neighborhood. These are no small things,” Farwell added.
Alex Werrell agreed. “It’s not that we have a dearth of roofs to go over people’s heads; it’s that people are not able to afford those roofs.”
Other attendees argued that the added housing stock itself would help ease affordability issues in New Haven.
“If we don’t build this building, people are still going to move to New Haven — they’re just going to move elsewhere,” said Will Viederman, who works with Elm City Communities, New Haven’s public housing agency. “That will eventually make it more expensive for people struggling to stay in housing the most.“
Sam Greenberg, who works with young people experiencing homelessness as part of Y2Y in Wooster Square, noted that the already-difficult task of finding homes for the organization’s clients “became much more difficult in context of Covid, when lots of students moved off campus” and the city’s housing supply tightened.
“It may not be the affordability we want,” he said of the proposal, “but providing affordable units is a win for people who need it who are working and trying to live here, and that’s exciting.“
Downtown resident Margaret Pavlovich argued that creating more affordable one-bedrooms might make it easier for individuals to find housing without needing to live with housemates, possibly freeing up more multi-bedroom apartments for families.
In addition to this philosophical divide about how to make New Haven more affordable, attendees debated how the city should approach the question of rezoning.
Sabin had suggested that the Board of Alders could approve the rezoning and, at the same time, note that the approval does not signify a precedent for other possible Wooster Square developments. But some neighbors cautioned against “spot-zoning”: changing the city’s zoning one lot at a time rather than focusing on big-picture neighborhood goals.
“I would encourage the Board of Alders not to respond reactively, on a case-by-case basis, but to look at [zoning issues] holistically,” said Linda Reeder.
Labor, Climate, "Extreme Ugliness"
Clockwise from top left: Eli Sabin, George Knight, Alex Werrell, Tasha.
One participant, who identified herself as Tasha, asked Sabin whether PMC has committed to hiring union contractors, and to prioritizing local recruitment.
“We can’t legally require that,” Sabin answered, adding that “PMC did agree to meet with local unions.”
Later on, Carpenters Local 326 Regional Manager Jeff Wolcheski piped up in support of the project. “If something is going to be built on that site, I know as an organization, we are in favor of the development to go with the 13 stories. That will provide a lot of opportunity for contractors,” he said.
Eli Pales raised the potential impact of the development on climate change. “The environmental issues here are huge,” he said, noting the building’s proximity to the train station and to the center of the city. Residents of the potential development might not need to commute to and from work via car, he said, reducing the area’s carbon footprint. He was echoed by a handful of other speakers.
Mona Berman offered a different view: “The environment has to do with more than just cars driving to work. The environment has to do with good air quality that comes from good planning … The environment has to do with greenery.”
Residents also bemoaned the building’s proposed design.
George Knight, an architect and professor, declared that “the building that’s been proposed — I say this as an architect — is certainly an inferior one, one that we would be saddled with for years and years.”
Farwell cast the sketches as part of a trend of “extreme ugliness” built throughout the city.
Charles Musser, who lives near Wooster Square, took issue with the proposed height of 13 stories. The 44 units permitted under the lot’s current zoning would be preferable, he said.
As the meeting drew to a close, Sabin said he would bring architectural concerns to PMC and continue mulling the issue. “I’m gonna be thinking a lot more about this and talking to folks about what makes sense,” he said.
Terrible design that should not be approved. The BOA should call their bluff and let them build 44 units instead of 136. Its highly unlikely that they could make it even worse. And if they go ahead it at least it would be a smaller terrible building. NHV has to stop putting up with 3rd rate architecture. Show some balls!