26-Story Tower Plan Dusted Off

I am ALL for a new building downtown New Haven - ESPECIALLY that the design is so MUCH more eye pleasing to me... So all we need is just $150 million?

What downtown culture? That block is made up of some of the least appealing stores in the city...

The most beneficial building types are those that provide that option of easy adaptability. Sky scrapers are very difficult to adapt for new uses once their design life and design purpose have expired. Large buildings tend to be expensive to repurpose and renovate later on down the road.
Additionally, large buildings tend to require large parking, which usually has to be provided above ground in places that are the size of New Haven because the investment capital just isn't available to place parking underground as it might be in a place like Boston of New York City. This creates an issue at the street level of having a disconnect between the public on the street and the people using the building on upper stories. In the case of 360 State, the parking structure separates the building users from the general public. If this purposeful can somehow avoid that issue, it would certainly make it a much more viable project.
State Street definitely needs to be redeveloped and if a project like this can get the ball rolling on further improvements, it should be supported. State Street should be narrowed and redesigned so that buildings can once again line both side of the street as they did prior to urban renewal. The best model for redevelopment and adaptive building typology was probably discovered and enacted by Baron Haussmann and Napoleon III during their large reconstruction project on Paris in the late 19th Century with the utilization of 7 story mixed used courtyard buildings.
Follow ups on the development of this project would be very interesting to see additional renderings and plans.

Imagine the sound of an eraser being thrown across the room and hitting the table.

The city's current parking requirements should be eliminated from the entire downtown area, if not the whole city. They are a serious impediment to developers.

We need more jobs and taxes. Get rid of the parking requirements and we'll see more development, and better development.

Let the private market provide parking, not the taxpayers.

Rising parking costs would only help, by stimulating investments in forms of transportation that are sustainable (e.g., anything other than private cars). If we could reduce our city's vehicle ownership by 10%, literally hundreds of millions of additional dollars would be spent in the local economy instead of in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Cities such as Portland and Washington have added population while dramatically reducing vehicle ownership (though they aren't even remotely as competitive/efficient as many European cities); New Haven needs to do the same.

Just as importantly, the city needs to stop being afraid of congestion. Congestion is the sign of a healthy city. Today, I walked down 20 blocks of Route 34 (a road with obscenely high speeds that ConnDOT should face criminal negligence charges for ever allowing), and 2 blocks of lower Orange Street (a road with typical urban speeds of around 10 to 15 miles per hour, which might be considered "congested"). The 20 blocks of Route 34 had exactly zero businesses and zero children hanging out with their parents. The 2 blocks of Orange Street had dozens of thriving businesses, and packs of young mothers with children enjoying the scenery and the sidewalks. Which kind of city do we want? If you look at the past 10 projects of ConnDOT (and their close collaborators at City Hall, Yale University and the other "big players"), it is clear that they are looking to build a future New Haven that is more along the lines of Route 34 or Whalley Avenue (recently expanded from 2 to 4 lanes), rather than lower Orange Street.

This trend is a disaster in the making, and must be stopped - especially if we want to see good jobs and a stronger tax base in our city.

Development these days seems oriented towards putting up these tall buildings. If we could instead replace all the surface parking lots with 3-6 story buildings instead of building single tall buildings, the city as a whole would look a lot better.

Of course it's merely a dream however.

Thats a slick design. Bravo!

anon,
I definitely think something needs to happen with the minimum parking requirements built into the city's zoning ordinance - it is a massive problem for economic development, a massive burden for the city, and a completely outdated way of doing things.
Most likely, the process of reforming parking in the city would happen gradually. For skeptics who think that reducing parking requirements would stop new businesses from opening, prevent people from working downtown and destroy the city's economy, a slower process that gradually moves away from the impossible-to-obtain ideal of endless suburban-style parking spaces in a finite urban context can probably be achieved.
The minimum parking requirement (MPR) could be changed to a maximum parking limit for starters. Then the requirement for on-site parking can be changed to shared lots within a certain distance from the development site, which can be gradually increased. Then fees can be initiated for commuters, and parking rates can be increased.
Simultaneously, however, the city would need to begin to comprehensively plan transportation and parking so as to provide adequate transit service, viable biking facilities, and safe and pleasant pedestrian infrastructure so that transportation options are available prior to the driving disincentives are leveraged.
Car parking facilities could also be provided at the periphery of the city where frequent transit service connects to and from parking to downtown.
In Florence, Italy for example, residents are provided with a special voucher that allows them to bring their cars into the city center for parking, while non-residents are banned from driving within the city center. Underground parking garages and parking lots are provided near the periphery of the city and workers either walk from those parking facilities, or if they have a work vehicle (like public works employees, construction workers, etc) they get a permit for the vehicle to drive in the city only during work hours. This is made possible because the city center is only a 30-45 minute walk from edge to edge. New Haven doesn't quite have the size nor density for this to be a viable goal, but something in that direction is certainly possible.

If I'm one of the "few" buyers who put a nice chunk of change at 360 State Street for that apartment with a view of Long Island Sound and your reading this article, looking at the size of Mr. Nictora's building and the lot he's looking to build on I'm thinking what?

Another hot air developer seeking his five minutes of media exposure

James--

Stores like Rainbow, Blue Nile, and Family Dollar serve a purpose in any town. They used to be tucked away in the Chapel Square Mall. By bringing them out in the open, we create a lively neighborhood that caters to lower-income residents and provides office space above. Don't forget that restaurants and bars, like Thali, etc. are just around the corner. Just because something is a little down market doesn't mean it can't contribute positively to a city. If you invest in a block and integrate it into a city context, you get successful neighborhoods.

great idea. just get a new architect. this looks like low budget 90's.

<b> <a href="http://www.lasvegastourism.com/hotels/venetian1.jpg&quot;&gt;Las Vegas</a>

Chris Nicotra has been a phenomenal landlord. Whenever I leave the office I look at that lot and cross my fingers for a development. Build it Chris!

I've heard all the arguments but to sound shallow,thanks for adding another building to our city's skyline!!! ;-) For many years the only 2 buildings that dominated the skyline were the UGLY Knights of Columbus (tootsie roll building) and the CT Finan center bldg. thanks 360 and hopefully the future Nicotra bldg........speaking of 360....If this building is built,the people at 360state will not be happy about you blocking their views of Long Island Sound. lol...lol

I generally agree with J. Hopkins. Skyscrapers are expensive to build and costly to maintain. I would much prefer to see five story buildings on lower State Street because they can be more easily adapted to a variety of uses and would better fit the character of New Haven.

As to the zoning regulations: I think its time for a Form Based code to replace what we now have. The current regulations mostly reflect the thinking of the early 1960's. It's a good idea to update them.

I'm all for re-filling the surface lots that pockmark the city from redevelopment's heyday, so if Mr. Nicotra can make this work, then all the better! Even if he has to scale down to fit a reduced budget, I think the site would prove successful.

Hopefully development on the downtown side of State Street will spur the city to start lobbying the state to re-visit realigning state street back to it's original width, allowing for the parking lots next to the tracks to be turned into buildable lots.
It's an incredible amount of land, and just about the last section of downtown devoid of buildings.

While five- to seven-story buildings would be more esthetically appealing, the fact that no such building has gone up in New Haven for the better part of a century suggest that they are uneconomic.

Kevin,
That's a fairly accurate observation about what type of buildings have not been constructed over the last century, but it is a mistake to explain this through economics. 5-7 story buildings are not against markets or uneconomical, they just simply aren't encouraged under the existing tax structure, zoning ordinance, and this mixed-use building typology has fallen into a blind spot for conventional, specialized developers.
The markets are dependent upon what is allowed and encouraged through law and what is rewarded through subsidies. By changing the rules (the zoning ordinance, the tax structure, and the subsidies, tax credits and tax breaks) to support the best building typologies, rather than sky scrapers, single family detached houses, national chain stores and office parks, 5-7 story mixed use buildings with no on-site parking could be encouraged.
There's no reason land couldn't be sold for $1 to a developer of a 5-7 story building, as was done with 360 State. There's no reason why a form-based code couldn't be adopted as the city's zoning ordinance. There's no reason why the tax structure cannot be based on land value rather than real estate. There's no reason why tax breaks can't be provided to small businesses and stores instead of to large national chains.
Change the enabling devices to encourage what is good and good things will be built. If this is not done, than most likely we will just continue to see a plethora a surface parking lots with the occasional sky scraper, big box store, scattered 19th century buildings, parking garages, vacant lots, large single use office and lab buildings and medical buildings in New Haven.

Zoning Code Fact Check

New Haven's Zoning has 0 (zero!) parking requirements for office, retail and restaurant uses in most of downtown, the BD and BD-1 zones. Only residential uses require off-street parking spaces in those zones, and those spaces may be shared with day-time office uses or leased. Its often the building owners or developers that are more concerned about providing dedicated parking than the code. The City has not built a publicly financed garage downtown for more than 20 years.

Don't knock Hamden. We live her because it is safer and the quality of life for families is better than New Haven. Any proponent for a healthy urban center KNOWS that suburbs are critical.

Fact Check:

Though garages have not been "directly" funded by taxpayer bonds in recent years (though one might argue that 360 State Street was, through land
depreciation and the $1 price of the property, in a similar way as a few other major new garages), there are parking lot developments like the Coliseum Site redevelopment which have been.

Even without considering direct costs to city or state budgets, it is true that all city residents, taxpayers, owners/renters of housing downtown, and individuals who use downtown services or stores pay enormous indirect costs to support parking provision.

These are "hidden" fees, and made larger every time more spaces are added. The only way to reduce them is to ban new parking, eliminate all requirements, and progressively scale back the square footage of asphalt each year, as many other countries are now doing.

A huge share of our national economy, and the majority of our international trade deficit, now goes towards provision of cars, fuel and car parking, leaving very little left for education, libraries, transit options (for the majority of people, who can't or can't afford to drive), parks or working families.

The zoning ordinance has made enormous leaps forward in recent years, that is certainly true. However, continued leaps forward are necessary. Minimum off-street, on site parking requirements for residential uses in downtown is still a problem.
Moving forward, the city should adopt maximum parking limits for off-street, on site parking facilities for residential projects, and eventually they should be prohibited entirely. Comprehensively planned and located communal parking facilities (funded privately by the shared contributions of developers) located within a certain walking distance of a given site should be encouraged as a replacement for on-site parking. On street parking (perhaps dedicated spots with parking permits) should also be encouraged for use as primary parking for residential uses.
Limiting off-street, on-site parking increases building frontage and street frontage, it decreases the number of curb cuts (thereby increasing the number of on-street parking spaces), and it promotes more walking at street level to and from parking facilities, housing, work, shops, recreation and civic functions thus activating the street with people. This would also encourage transit use, walking and biking.

sleeping giant,
Most of New Haven is technically suburban. Only the areas that were developed around a strict human scale of walking are truly urban. With this definition of urban, only downtown, a small part of eastern Fair Haven, the Westville village, and maybe some parts of Dixwell, the Hill and Wooster Square would really qualify as the urban centers. The other parts of the city are varying types of suburbs built around either horse-drawn street cars, electric trolley lines, or automobiles.
The last type of suburban development pattern that retained any kind of civic functionality, economic viability, sustainable characteristics, and aesthetic appeal were the late trolley-line/early automobile suburbs of the early 20th century.
The vast majority of the sprawling, automobile dependent suburbs that have popped up since the end of WW2 (maybe a little before) have been ugly, unsustainable, dysfunctional and heavily subsidized. Hamden has some good suburban development, what remains of a nice old town center, and some nice landscapes, but I think there is no question that the majority of Hamden's building stock is now made up of the type of mind-numbing suburban sprawl that is at the route of our current financial crisis, the moral degradation of our society, and our dependence on foreign oil.

Build it wiothout consideration for parking is how New Haven's parking woes started in the first place. If you build it they will come IF THERES A PLACE TO PARK !!!

think ahead,
New Haven's parking woes started on October 1, 1908 when the Model T, a car that would become affordable to the masses, was first introduced.
The city government's history of inadequate planning began in 1910, when Mayor Frank Rice refused to pursue the recommendations outlined by Cass Gilbert and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in their "Report of the New Haven Civic Improvement Commission".
The city government's history of aggressively bad planning began in 1954 with the administration of Mayor Richard Lee and his redevelopment agency.
This period of the city's planning history is marred by automobile-oriented design and accommodations. So the truth is actually the exact opposite of what you claim. We are slowly moving away from those solely automobile-oriented planning practices, which is a good thing, because during urban renewal, we realized that New Haven cannot be redesigned around the car. There is too much existing urban fabric that was built before the automobile age, there is not enough (cheap) land and open space, and there is not enough funding.

Good points Jonathan,
I'd also argue that bottom up planning can help our community design and build a community that fits its population today and in the future.
New urbanism was a top down assault on communities and should not be repeated.

Ben,
I'll assume that you meant to say "urban renewal" and not "new urbanism", which is something that has a lot of merit in the planning profession.
It might actually surprise you, but I do not oppose the practices implored by the Lee administration during redevelopment, like acquiring property through eminent domain, I opposed the design principles and planning practices that were used by the architects, city planners and traffic engineers.
During the modernization project of Paris in the late 19th century, which Napoleon III commissioned Baron Haussman to design, large swaths of medieval Paris were demolished in a manner very similar to urban renewal in America. However, the design of streets and buildings were informed by tradition, in terms of classical proportions and human scale details. This is in complete contrast to the efforts of modern American planners to turn New Haven into a paradise for quick moving cars and trucks from the suburbs, as well as a corporate playground for large companies and monotonous institutional, public and civic buildings.
Even Cass Gilbert's plan for the formal entrance to the train station from The Green involved demolishing parts of the Oak Street neighborhood, but for the creation of a beautiful boulevard and series of public squares.
Gilbert's recommendations were never realized, however, and the city ignored the compounding problems that were slowly building within the New Haven in the early 20th century. Serious problems had established themselves in New Haven by the start of the Lee administration and there was a strong argument for government intervention to address issues like poverty, traffic congestion, substandard housing conditions, etc.
For instance, I would support eminent domain if it kicked people out of crowded slum buildings so that those buildings could be rehabilitated with fewer, larger apartment units. Unfortunately, that is not what typically occurred during urban renewal, except for certain projects in Wooster Square and a few others like the Henry Street rowhouses.
I also wouldn't necessary put too much faith in the general public to decide comprehensive planning strategies for their neighborhoods. While public participation is necessary and quite good, it can also turn very bad and unproductive if overly relied upon.
Good planning mostly depends on the principles that are followed. Generally, planning works out well if it is informed by traditional design principles, human needs, and a thorough understanding of context as was the case with the Italian Renaissance, Baroque city planning, the City Beautiful movement and authentic New Urbanism. Planning tends to go poorly when elite business leaders, politicians, intellectuals, and academically trained designers and planners make uninformed and experimental choices that effect other people. Luckily, reform movements like the New Urbanism are out there trying to change the established planning profession and conventional planning practices.

Jonathan, I have some issues with top-down command and control city planning that simply imposes the days current values onto development.

If I read your argument correctly, New Haven would have been "saved" rather than "destroyed" had Lee simply been a New Urbanist.

I agree that cities need to be dense, cities need to be walkable, and cities need to more closely match the 19th and early 20th century patterns of development, however large-scale, large destruction redevelopments are not to be taken lightly.

The Paris plan was successful in part due to it being undertaken by a dictator with absolute power, very similar to the massive infrastructure gains that China is doing. It also obliterated more than half of the existing medieval city. It also took Paris' underclass and relegated them to the outskirts, reserving the central city for the middle and upper-class, and igniting off an over century-long problem that the country still has yet to come to terms with.

Yes, what remains is enduring and "works well." but while much can be gained from the theory, the practice of what was undertaken is certainly something we should not be looking upon with any more favor than what happened in New Haven in the 50's.

I agree that as it stands now large-scale development is generally favored over small-scale due to infrastructure improvements that need to be amortized into the cost of redevelopment, and I think that won't go away any time soon.

But all over the city there are opportunities for small-scale redevelopment of vacant lots with new properties. I think that urban infill, once the economy stabilizes, will be one of the most exciting activities in the city. Mr Nicotra's tower is a particularly exciting example of this. Even at a smaller scale, it will be a success.

I have great hopes for State Street. After Route 34, it's the last section of largely vacant downtown real-estate ripe for development.

I hope in near future the street can be realigned street back to it's original configuration, re-opening the east side to building.

State Street used to look like <a href="http://www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm-cho/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cho&amp;CISOPTR=14248&amp;CISOBOX=1&amp;REC=14&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, and I think that there is no reason that it can't be revived.

Pedro,
We could probably discuss this for hours, and I greatly respect your opinion and your perspective is one that needs to exist, it just happens to be a perspective that I do not share.
I am aware of the problems with Paris' modernization project, but I think those problems ultimately become secondary to what was created as a result on the project - the most beautiful city that has ever existed. Also, many of the previously wealthy neighborhoods are now inhabited by recent immigrant groups, largely from northern Africa. The immense adaptability of the design has lent itself to affordable housing uses.
If the Cass Gilbert boulevard were realized, it too would have displaced working class families from their tenements and replaced them with upper middle class residents. Also, if that boulevard were realized, I very much doubt that the Oak Street connector would have been constructed, because that area would not have been considered a slum during the redevelopment era. In that case, would the authoritarian use of power by the city to enact Gilbert's plan really have seemed like the wrong thing to do in the lens of (imaginary) history, or would that outcome be better than the one that did occur, which left us with Route 34.
Given time, horrible things can be seen to have clearly been the correct thing to do. Would anybody restore Paris to its medieval fabric? Would anybody demolish Michelangelo's St. Peter's and rebuilt the original medieval church that was there prior to its demolition for Michelangelo's design? If Gilbert's boulevard were constructed, would anybody destroy it today and replace it with tanneries and tenements?
I would, however, in a second replace Route 34 with the original Oak Street neighborhood in a second.
This topic is actually something I am very interested in and instead of posting another huge post here, I just hope we can continue the discussion another time, because it is a fascinating issue with a moral core.

No more skyscrapers in downtown new haven!