How About Some Coffee With Those Condos?

A more desirable use for this site would be commercial office space, but this proposal is certainly better than the alternative of letting the property continue to rot.

Why is there is a strong pull towards the construction of boutiques, restaurants, cafes, and other businesses which employ low wage earners and do little to boost the city's tax revenue? This is especially true of the East Rockers and the city's other bourgeoisie neighborhoods. A factory would employ a lot more people and might attract the working-class back to New Haven's East Rock area.

This looks great especially if there is mixed use. East Rock/State Street are getting better and better every day.

Johnathan,
Explain your opinion to me. I live one block away from this site. I want more people living in my neighborhood. Not commercial office space that goes 'dark' after dark.

I dont know why but i love this building. My friend used to live on the second floor and had his and his wifes paintings all over. It was a great artist spot and we used to sneak in to the other side to mess around with the old printing press machinery and gadgets. He has since moved out and the building seems to be decaying. And whats the deal with the house next to it. abandoned? i would love to buy that house and fix it up but apparently its better left decaying.

Residential uses have minimum parking requirements, which means more cars in the neighborhood and more traffic congestion. Commercial office space would encourage existing residents to walk to work, and could mean no parking because employees could use existing on-street parking that residents are not using (because they are at work).
Residential uses are vacant during the day which provides opportunities for break-ins during the day since there are no residents home during the day.
I don't think the condo project is a bad proposal, I just think neighborhoods needs job centers to be complete communities.

Johnathan,
With all due respect, because I know that you are a thoughtful person, but I totally disagree.
Your anti-car fetish is the proverbial snake eating it's own tail. It prevents you from seeing reality.
My own house was built to house workers at the Marlin firearms plant down the street, but, those days are LONG gone and not coming back. There would be no guarantee that any commercial space in this location would provide jobs for the neighborhood. That is just nonsense. This neighborhood is full of workers, AND students, AND retired people, AND unemployed people just like the rest of America. Commercial use would totally increase the amount of cars in our neighborhood and not do as you claim.
As to your claim that residential neighborhoods are vacant during the day, thus being able to compare them to vacant commercial space at night, it nonsense, too. This neighborhood is brimming with activity all day.
Come on down and see for yourself.
In any event, the property desperately needs to be redeveloped and just about anything will be an improvement over the existing miserable condition of this property.

JH,

You're off base on a couple of points.

East Rock/Goatville is a mix of working class, professional and students. The latter tend to be around the neighborhood during the day because classes are sporadic.

A typical commercial office developer will (even if zoning asks for less) provide as much parking space as office space...50-50...becuase thats what the market demands...today, not in a future utopia.

Marlin Building currently has a 6% vacancy rate (which is admittedly great if you're the owner) but not 100% and doesn't mean that there is a burning desire for small footprint office space in this area.

The best use for an old factory building would be a new factory. New Haven has enough boutiques, cafes, restaurants, etc. If this city is going to be more than a community of bourgeoisie academics and "professionals" than it needs to start rebuilding its industrial strength.

If the developer is reading this, can you please comment on the status of the environmental assessments and remediation being done on this project?

@Atwater:
You're 100% right that if New Haven wants to be strong, we need to bring back middle class people -- right now we don't have much in between the Yale-centered East Rock and Westville neighborhoods, and the poor parts of the city. A lot of middle class people move out to the suburbs. I think part of the key is going to be keeping the kids (especially the immigrant kids) who are growing up in New Haven IN New Haven. How do we do that? A factory isn't going to provide good jobs, can be more cheaply constructed out in the 'burbs, and doesn't get people living in the city. I'm not convinced that fancy condos are the solution either, though. We need to look at how we can create neighborhoods that are safe [and have decent schools!!], but that aren't ridiculously expensive.

The average manufacturing wage in China is about 150 bucks a month, depending upon who you ask. http://www.worldsalaries.org/china.shtml A minimum wage worker in CT earns 1,420 bucks.

Availability of manufacturing space isn't the problem, a never ending supply of slave labor and a lack of US protectionism is the problem.

robn and davec,
I think you've misunderstood my opinion on this one.
In my opinion, I agree with Atwater that the best use for the building would be manufacturing for low-skill workers. The second best use for the site would be re-use as commercial offices (like Erector Square). The third best use would be mixed-use commercial retail and residential. The fourth best use would be residential. The worst thing that could happen would be for the building to be demolished or left vacant.
With the current reality being that manufacturing is not locating in US cities, and with no proposal for commercial office space, then this proposal is a good one that should be approved.

The argument for why job centers need to exist in neighborhoods is because that is why New Haven's neighborhoods exist in the first place. Western Fair Haven and East Rock south and east of Orange and Humphrey were built by developers and speculators looking to capitalize on the need for worker housing around the factories located near the rail road and State Street (Erector Square, Lehman Bros., Star Supply, the Nicoll/Willow/Mitchell block, etc.). Without a balanced mix of jobs, shopping, housing, recreation and civic space, neighborhoods cease to be cohesive structures for daily life.
By no means, do I believe that this proposal is somehow a doomsday scenario, it is merely not the ideal use for the site, in my opinion.
I have the exact same opinion on the Winchester rehab - in the absence of a proposal to create low-skill manufacturing jobs for Newhallville, I support Winstanley's project because it is better than the alternative of continuing to let the building rot.
I agree that East Rock has a lot of activity during the day, but this is because of the mixed-uses. But by continuing to turn buildings into residential properties (Star Supply Co., the old Lovell School, Lehman Bros., etc.) that mixed-use quality is actually being homogenized with only residential use, thus contributing to the creation of a commuter/bedroom community, where most residents are out of the neighborhood during the day, have to commute to work, and are contributing to job creation elsewhere, for instance in the Hill neighborhood where Yale and downtown have been steadily encroaching with medical and office buildings by demolishing people's homes.

My dream for this location would be live/work. I don't even know if it is possible.

@James DG: Factories do provide stable jobs that, if regulated and managed, can create a multitude of career opportunities for its employees. Also, they can attract residents. As John Hopkins has pointed out, a lot of our neighborhoods were created in response to a need for housing for the workforces of the city's many factories.
You're right, it probably is a lot cheaper to build a factory in the suburbs. We, the people, have to begin to provoke the city to reduce property taxes for commercial/industrial businesses, as well as offer other incentives for manufacturers to come to New Haven.
Skilled trade unions can also help by actually using their political power and economic clout to build their own shops in the city.
A lot can be done and should be done to restore the working-class. But, proposals like the one cited in the article, seem to indicate a lack of interest in restoring industry in the city.
New Haven represents the national trend. We have become a society of consumers, before we were a society of innovators, craftsmen and manufacturers.
I am continually upset by the multitude of proposals for businesses that only benefit a small section of our city's population. And by city hall's narrowness in vision which seems to limit development to only the school system.

Developers aren't responsible for changing our government policy - they need to cater to the local market or else their projects will fail. If you want affordable housing, mixed-income or mixed-use developments, ask your representatives to create more incentives for it.

About 50% of adults in East Rock and central Westville have earned graduate degrees, a number that is much higher than most suburbs. This is a pretty good sign that there is a lot of demand among the middle class for mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods that are clean, safe, not overly burdened with traffic, good for walking, and located close to downtown. The 50% in Westville/East Rock compares to less than 5% of adults in Newhallville, Fair Haven, or West River. Given that these areas look almost identical (in physical form) to East Rock and Westville, if community leaders want to create more jobs and opportunities for the citizens and homeowners in their area, it seems that they should try to copy some of the things that East Rock and Westville have been doing.

Atwater,
I agree with you, but the city can do very little to bring back manufacturing; that level of change really needs to come from the federal government. As anon points out, the systems that shape the kind of development that occurs need to be changed to induce the kind of investment that is needed. This includes changing the zoning ordinances throughout Connecticut, reforming the tax structure, getting rid of greenfield development and new construction subsidies, and some other legislative changes. The developers are merely responding to the tax credits they can currently apply for, the market studies that are available for the area, and the zoning regulations of the city.


If we wanted to get serious about bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US (which, as a country, we aren't), we would...
1)raise the top marginal tax bracket rate to at least 35%
2) get rid of tax loopholes for corporations
3)cut military spending on its 200+ foreign bases, wars and weapons development (we already have the largest reserve weapons arsenal in the world 6 times over)
4) cut foreign aid to places like Israel ($3+ billion a year)

We should use that revenue to invest in...
1)rehabilitating industrial structures in the rust belt (midwestern-great lakes cities) and the eastern shore of the US for re-use as manufacturing plants
2) providing government contracts to engineers, architects, skilled manufacturers, unskilled assembly workers, and construction workers to...
a) design, build, assemble and attach solar panels to our nation's housing stock
b)rebuild the passenger rail road system with improved, upgraded and expanded rail facilities and some new high speed rail
c) disassemble foreclosed and abandoned suburban housing and re-use the materials to build new housing as urban infill projects

These contracts would be similar to the war-time manufacturing contracts that kept the economy afloat during WW2, and similar to the construction contracts (as part of the GI Bill and National Housing Acts) that prevented us from slipping back into another depression after the War. And the contracts could be partially funded by redirected funds from welfare, food stamps, medicaid, public housing, section 8, and unemployment checks.
The contracts could last 10-15 years and serve as an uplifting force for the current underemployed and unemployed populations of the US, and during this time the tax loopholes for corporations could be removed, legislation could be passed to mandate American companies that sell to the American middle class to have to hire American workers to produce their goods, NAFTA could be repealed, and entitlement programs could be reduced in size or replaced completely with voucher systems of some kind (the insurance companies would need to be reformed, or replaced with a single payer-type system). This would result in lower taxes, a lower cost of living for Americans, and more affordability for corporations to hire Americans thanks to lower healthcare costs and lower salaries as a result of healthier lives in urban, walkable, transit-connected environments that reduce the cost of living for people (and thereby justify lower wages/salaries).
At this point, the manufactories could be converted into manufacturing/office space, office/retail space, or live-work units.

Suburban Foreclosure Crisis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/business/economy/23housing.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper
Example of disassembly of houses:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/green_demolition_breaks_ground_in_new_haven/
Examples of possible locations for high speed rail with investments in existing rail lines as well:
http://newurbannetwork.com/article/how-salvage-obama's-high-speed-rail-'disaster'-14561

We are morally and legally committed to the cleanup of the property, and are currently working with the EPA, DEP, DECD and environmental engineering and legal firms to identify and remove any contamination that may be left over from the Lehman Brothers operations.

Rezoning this block to RM-2 with the addition of some kine of neighborhood convenience use makes perfect sense. But a restaurant might not be a good fit because upper State Street is awash in restaurants and it only takes a few minutes to walk there.

While I understand the thinking that would lead one to believe that the only salvation of American industry is the Federal government I do not agree with it. I honestly think that any real and lasting change has to begin on the local/municipal level. An increase in dependency on the Federal government simply creates a massive welfare-state whose citizens are left to deal with its successes and failures. It also creates an entrenched class of people who retain power of society's resources and wealth.
Citizens, through their local governments, can effect changes to zoning ordinances, local tax rates and can initiate financial incentives to lure business owners to their area. Citizens can also have more control over municipal funds by petitioning for direct budget referenda.
The point is that a democratic industrial society has more than the necessary means to create significant changes when they are needed. The problem is the lack of will and apathy from the masses. I see this apathy right here in New Haven. The citizen blames City Hall, City Hall blames Hartford, Hartford blames Washington D.C. It is rare for the citizens to actually seize the power that is rightfully theirs. Somehow we became disconnected from the true nature of our government, it is meant to be the servant of the people, not the other way around.
The proposal for the old factory in East Rock should not be approved, but it probably will be. Even though there seems to be a significant voice of opposition (from the citizens), as well as better ideas for the transformation of an abandoned industrial building. Alderman like Justin Elicker is a perfect example of a representative who has limited his interests to a very small portion of the city's population. His suggestion of creating a hardware store with a café inside it is laughable and serves little to no practical purpose. Case in point, the other week I needed some hardware supplies for a painting job, it would have been nice if there was one in my neighborhood ( Upper State Street), one I could walk to. But, instead I had to take a bus to Hamden where there is actually a seemingly thriving locally owned hardware store, they did not sell wine or coffee, just nuts, bolts, paint, etc. An alderman that realizes that people need things other than wine and coffee, books and beer, would be a nice change.

A few points.

Jonathan hits the nail on the head. The task of reversing the way we do things is daunting indeed and most of the heavy lifting involves the federal government. In the mean time, to be practical, New Haven should do what it can. In this case redevelopment of this block into residential with some supporting neighborhood convenience use is a good thing. A restaurant isn't needed because upper State Street is awash in restaurants.

The larger argument about retaining work places is well taken. New Haven should preserve most of its industrial zones to take advantage of the manufacturing that will, of necessity, return. This also includes work/live and artisan manufacture; the western end of Science Park is an ideal location for that. We have a port that can be used once again as the regional hub of export/import.

The need to prepare for the return of manufacturing is vital for our long range future. The economy runs on oil and world oil production has plateaued at about 86mbd. Demand is once again outstripping supply. The easy oil is gone which is the only reason why BP and others are drilling 6,000 feet below the sea; that's where the oil is. It's difficult and expensive to extract, and the rate of extraction cannot keep up with demand. That's the meaning of Peak Oil. Furthermore, the International Energy Agency has said that a severe oil crunch will manifest between 2010 and 2015. It seems to be starting. As oil becomes more expensive the current long supply and distribution chains will contract forcing the world to reorganize its economic model from global to regional/local whether anyone likes it or not.

Although the City cannot change the current economic model, it can prepare itself for that transition, which brings us back to what we can do as a City. And at the risk of sounding like a one-note-Johnny, that means rezoning. Transect zoning is a good model to use.

Atwater,
Again, I mostly agree with you. My last post does not represent the only way of going about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US, just the way that I think is most plausible, likely to happen, and worthy of support because it would be faster than locally-supported efforts, which take long periods of time to build. If there is a viable local movement that will get us to the necessary ends, I'll support it, but until then, the best bet, in my opinion, seems to be to try to convince congressmen, and other representatives at the federal level to work for the people and not large corporate interests.
To be honest though, both seem rather unlikely. Stephen also points out that peak oil is approaching (or already here), which means that time of the essence. I remain hopeful, but also pessimistic about our country's ability to get on track before an energy crisis is upon us and we no longer have the resources to retain our standard of living and change for a new paradigm.
Hopefully peak oil is still 20-30 years off, and the world still has enough energy reserves to use to build the infrastructure, economy and living arrangement of the future. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.
As for shrinking the size of the government, if a plan like the one I've outlined above were enacted it'd take a massive investment of federal funding. However, the resulting infrastructure that would be built would replace or shrink many functions of the government. For instance, HUD, the EPA, entitlement programs and other functions of the government could be greatly reduced or gotten rid of because the problems that existed back when these agencies were created would now be solved or addressed.

New Haven has a poverty rate of 30%+. The majority of residents in New Haven do not own property and pay no local taxes other than car taxes perhaps. New Haven also happens to be the most federally-funded city in America over the last 50 years.

Model city? New Haven is a model of how government know-it-alls and their over-reaching has created a city of intrusive highways, an impoverished under-educated citizenry and an increasingly frightened cloistered elite.

Government has also spent billions trying to prop up the Winchester Arms of this country through wasteful subsidies. When a company becomes uncompetitive all by itself, it ought to be allowed to die all by itself. Does anyone believe it was any force other than government intervention that delayed for half a century the demise of the Winchester plant? It's been like watching a cancer victim die a slow death for 50 years. And all around it, poverty and violence have only gotten worse.

And this debate is about which level of government ought to take charge?

You can dream all you want but there are no low-cost manufacturers looking to re-locate here (or in most places in the U.S.). East Rock property owners will accept nothing more in their neighborhood than a quiet clean pretty looking assembly plant if anything industrial at all. Wasn't this the neighborhood that fought tooth and nail for ten years to keep out a few grade school kids from skipping down the block?

You advocate for government intervention to off-set the competitive forces from places like vietnam or malaysia so that low-skill jobs can come to a neighborhood near you? Who pays for that? And for how long? Forever? What a dismal vision for the future!

Drain the swamp. Reduce bloat, bureaucracy, and the great big government employment agency at all levels. Privatize government services and schools. Let the market decide where things go.

The role for Government? Maintain reasonable pollution and safety standards. Govern education quality but don't run them. Stop transferring wealth only to subsidize poverty. Don't subsidize ANY industry including oil, wind, or electric.

Ensure that everyone has the knowledge and ability to compete in life. There will be winners and losers, there always are. But we would end up with a city of far fewer have-nots than we have today.

In addition to reducing entitlements, retire the world's cop. The boys won't like us taking away their toys but take the peace dividend and double our intelliegence capabilities to make sure we are secure HERE.

If the "evil-doers" want to bring their grievances to us ala 9/11, we can let any potential sponsoring state know that a significant attack will be responded to with the swift acquisition of our 51st state and all of their natural assets will reimburse our taxpayers for their trouble.

More free and open trade. Stop subsidies to corporate farms. Reduce our national debt so that we can play hardball with China on trade and their currency manipulation. Re-open the borders so that the best and brightest will flock to our universities and perhaps stay to create businesses.

Unleash the innovative and creative power of the citizens of this country. Big government at any level is not the answer.

"The majority of residents in New Haven do not own property and pay no local taxes"
It's true that the majority of residents rent, but where do you think that rent money goes? It goes to the property owners who use that money for personal profit, property maintenance, and property taxes. Renters contribute to the tax base indirectly, and pay their fair share of what is owed, just like home owners.
"New Haven also happens to be the most federally-funded city in America over the last 50 years."
During urban renewal in the 50s and 60s, New Haven received more federal funding per capita than any other municipality in the nation, but where are you getting the impression that this remains true to this day? My guess is that you just made it up.

New Haven government in the urban renewal era did show that big government can do enormous damage when following bad planning and economic principles. However, big government following good planning principles can actually accomplish quite a lot of good. For examples, I suggest looking at the reconstruction of Piazza Della Repubblica in Florence, Italy, and the City Beautiful Movement in the US (specifically the Report of the New Haven Civic Improvement Commission by Cass Gilbert and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. from 1910). Even urban renewal had some good policies such as those that rehabilitated buildings in Wooster Square like the Court Street rowhouses even if the overall program was a failure.
I'm not suggesting that government fix markets so that jobs come to the US from China, quite the opposite actually. I am suggesting that the government create a level playing field by getting rid of free trade agreements, interstate trucking subsidies, highway subsidies, and tax loopholes for corporations that allow them to hide taxable assets in the Cayman Islands. Those subsidies and loopholes are what allow corporations to set up shop overseas and still sell goods to the largest consumer base in the world - the American middle class. Without those subsidies, it would become more viable to hire US workers.
However, I think it is unwise to imagine that free markets will somehow undo the damage of the last century. What you are advocating for is the destruction of a bridge, to allow people to get together themselves and rebuild it. That results in massive economic upheavals, depressions, and a serious cut to the standard of living. What I am proposing is to build a parallel bridge next to the existing bridge, switch traffic to the new bridge, then either demolish or let the old bridge collapse on its own. That maintains the current standard of living, does not disrupt the economy, and creates a better future. The new bridge (ie new social and economic paradigm) should be informed by good planning, rather than corporate interests, which were at the heart of failed government projects like NAFTA, and urban renewal.

OMG Johnathan, You're citing a government report that was published 101 years ago! The text could have been written by the "Bull Moose" party.

Free markets and free trade are oft used fallacies. The markets are always coerced and influenced by some power, either government or private interest.
Also, global neo-liberalism is a proven failed paradigm, which creates rapid unsustainable growth in developing nations while at the same time exploiting the countries people and natural resources. Sooner or later we'll return to smaller markets and smaller areas of trade. democratic cooperative government and cooperative economic models should be established on the local and state level. New Haven, with all of its potential, is a great place to begin the study and implementation of small cooperative industrial and agricultural collectives.