Neighbors Seek Pause On Coliseum Redo

Downtown and Hill neighbors slammed the redevelopment plans for the old Coliseum site — and committed to trying to get the Norwalk-based developer to pause the development process and be more transparent, include more affordable housing, and devise a more appealing design.

Neighbors offered those criticisms Tuesday and Wednesday night during back to back virtual community management team meetings. The Downtown-Wooster Square team met on Tuesday, and the Hill South team met on Wednesday.

Neighbors at both voiced their disapproval and disappointment with what they’ve heard so far from the Norwalk-based developer Spinnaker Real Estate Partners about their plans for the vacant lot that once held the Coliseum.

Spinnaker gave an update earlier this month about Phase 1A of the project. That phase would include a new seven story buildng at the corner of Orange and George Street. It would wrap a ground floor of shops and apartment amenities around a courtyard and underground parking. The higher levels are blocked out for 200 studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments.

Downtown and Hill South neighbors criticized Spinnaker during that meeting for presenting plans they deemed incomplete and inadequate for community review. Spinnaker plans on submitting a formal site plan for the first phase of the project to the City Plan department this week.

During Tuesday’s management team meeting, neighbors renewed their criticism of the project — and vowed to try to slow it down.

“I don’t love this project but what I don’t love more is the way the developer has been trying to interact with our community — or the lack of interaction, actually.” said Ian Dunn, a Downtown community management team executive board member.

“This is a major development that will anchor that corner of downtown for many decades,” Dunn said. ​“I do have some concerns about moving forward without making our voice very clearly heard.”

The two management teams pledged to submit a letter Thursday to Spinnaker, copying it to Mayor Justin Elicker and Economic Development Administrator Michael Piscitelli, asking them not to submit their application to the City Plan Commission.

Instead, they plan to ask Spinnaker to leave more time for public input, to answer outstanding questions, and to make the project more aligned with the goals of the community.

The appeal to Spinnaker, asking them to voluntarily delay the approval process, is one of the only options — if not the only one — that the community management teams have to make their voices and demands heard, said team members in a discussion during Tuesday night’s Downtown meeting.

Spinnaker needs site plan approval from the City Plan Commission before it can move forward with pulling building permits and starting construction, which they plan to commence in Spring 2021.

“Unless they’re willing to engage with us, it would be unwise for them to just go ahead and file it and see if they can run out the clock,” said Downtown/Wooster Square CMT executive board member Anstress Farwell during the meeting. ​“That’s exactly why it would be premature to file it.”

“A site of this importance, near a major rebuilding of highway, near the train stations, we really need a higher level of engagement and planning to get this right,” said Farwell. ​“We shouldn’t throw away an opportunity to do something that truly improves and transforms the city in ways that we know.”

A Spinnaker representative did not respond to requests for comment by the publication time of this article. Click here, here and here for stories about previous community meetings about the project led by Spinnaker over the past year.

“Let’s Not Make This A Gated Community”

During the Downtown/Wooster Square CMT’s Tuesday meeting, team chair Caroline Smith said about Spinnaker’s plan to develop the site, ​“Collectively, there’s a general consensus that the information presented was not adequate enough to make a fair and clear evaluation.”

“What could be understood about the plan and what was presented just did not seem to meet community goals for things like affordable housing, local hiring, architectural quality, integration and harmony with its urban setting, transportation improvements and other kinds of economic benefits,” she said.

The community management team members and alders of the affected neighborhoods expressed concerns that the development as it is currently planned will not include adequate affordable housing, that it will not be accessible to residents who want to move in, that it will not hire enough New Haveners to work on the project and that the ​“public spaces” of the site will only be reserved for those who live there.

Tony Kosloski, a member of the CMT executive board, criticized what he perceived to be Spinnaker’s primary motivations for development project. ​“It’s money running this thing,” he said. ​“It’s nothing to do with community. It’s nothing to do with aesthetics. It’s another deceitful operation by a real estate scam that has infected our city.”

“Let’s not make this a gated community, we have enough of that, let’s make this a community that comes together,” said Hill Alder Carmen Rodriguez. She expressed concern that the project, which sits at the border of the historically underserved Hill neighborhood and more upscale downtown area, will make no effort to connect the two regions of the city.

The project rests at the intersection of Orange Street and Oak Street Connector. The connector, a mile-long freeway section built in 1959, was ​“a huge blunder” that ​“cut the city in half” and divided the New Haven population, said Dunn. ​“And to try and weave it back together with a project that really, just as a token caters to people who used to live there and mostly will cater to Yale-affiliated folks, is, I think, just shameful.”

“I want to see developers come in that are invested in our communities and I don’t think that we saw that that day,” said Rodriguez.

Rodriguez, Smith and Farwell presented at a virtual meeting of the Hill South management team on Wednesday night. Team Chair Sarah McIver promised that her team would also sign on to such a letter urging the developer and the city to press pause on the project.

In the Development and Land Disposition Agreement (DLDA) between the city and Spinnaker, the developer is required to build a retail laneway, open to the public, between Orange and State streets, which would encourage passers-by, residents, and shoppers to traffic the area.

But this laneway would run parallel to the two neighborhoods, leading away from the streets into the Hill neighborhood. Rodriguez asked how the developer plans to connect the Hill to this downtown project when the retail laneway runs in the opposite direction.

“We all might have wanted a different laneway than what we have, but that is how the DLDA was constructed,” said Steve Fontana, the city’s deputy economic development director, after Tuesday’s meeting.

Limited By The Law

One challenge that makes it harder for the alders and neighbors to have their demands met is that the development of the site is governed by a seven-year-old contract called the Coliseum Redevelopment Development and Land Disposition Agreement (DLDA).

While it ensures the developer must provide some community benefits, such as allocating a portion of units as affordable housing and advertising jobs to New Haven residents, it also limits what the developer can — or must — do.

“There is not a mechanism in the DLDA to require the developer to do more than what we negotiated as a city with them, six, seven years ago,” explained Fontana.

“The City Plan Commission cannot, by law, address some of the concerns that were raised. In particular, they cannot, by law, address the affordability issue and the work force issue that were raised,” said Kevin McCarthy, vice-chair of the East Rock Community Management Team and a former legislative staffer in Hartford, during the Tuesday Downtown/Wooster Square CMT meeting.

“The Board of Alders can amend the zoning ordinance, they can put in place additional zoning requirements, they can put in other workforce issues, they can assign due process, but none of those changes will apply for this project. It’s a matter of state law,” he said.

The worry amongst alders and community management team members is that the developer will only do what is required in the DLDA and not more.

Given that the DLDA was written in 2013, the provisions within it for affordable housing, local employment on the project, and other key issues fall short of what some residents think it ought to be.

“It’s worth remembering that the DLDA is a very big and general document, and there’s many different ways that a developer could put together a project that fulfills the DLDA and comply with zoning,” said Farwell.

For example, the DLDA does not include any requirements that Spinnaker must hire or utilize a certain number of New Haven-based workers or businesses in the design and construction of the project.

It does however make provisions to connect New Haven residents to jobs resulting from the project, such as by requiring the developer to ​“negotiate an agreement with New Haven Works concerning employment opportunities directly associated with the project.” Farwell said that the developer did not present a clear contract with New Haven Works to show they were interested in ensuring local hiring during last Thursday’s meeting, and only said they were ​“in conversation” with New Haven Works.

It also requires Spinnaker to sponsor job fairs prior to the completion of each phase of development in order to connect the development’s tenants with New Haven residents seeking jobs.

The DLDA makes some provisions for affordable housing: At least 20 percent of the residential units in the complex have to be affordable to households making between 50 percent and 120 percent of area median income, as established by the DLDA. (For comparison, one of the ​“affordable” units — a two-bedroom apartment for families making making 60 percent of the area median income — would cost around $1,100 a month.)

But alders and community management team members worry that it is not enough.

“What we heard from that first phase is that maybe four apartments in that first phase [will be affordable units],” said Rodriguez. ​“We don’t know if some of the folks that want to be able to enjoy the build because they’ve grown up in this city [will] be able to.” 

Farwell said that the developer has been vague in response to these questions. In the letter, they ask the developer to clarify exactly how many affordable units will be provided in the property.

Fontana said that the city has shifted its priorities since the DLDA was written in 2013. ​“The DLDA was made in 2013. In general terms, I think that our community has gained an enhanced appreciation of the importance of affordable housing and deeply affordable housing and seeking to incorporate it in all our developments,” said Fontana. ​“That said, this agreement includes a requirement for 20 percent affordable housing, so they did foresee that need.”

“What Has To Get Started Has To Start”

Fontana told the Independent during a Wednesday afternoon phone call that is is imperative to start the process of approving the site plans and commencing construction.

“The goal is to get them to start, move forward, get the other steps in the planning process moving forward, securing a general contractor, securing their financing, securing a date to begin construction,” said Fontana. ​“What has to get started has to start. They’ve been looking at this now for over a year, they’ve had numerous conversations with the public about the features and goals of the development. It’s important now that we kick off the process.”

The Coliseum lot has experienced a long history of delays and abandoned development plans. For six years after Montreal-based developer LiveWorkLearnPlay bought the site and promised to build a $400-million mini-city, the lot sat untouched. They blamed the city for the delay, the city blamed them, and the plans fell through.

Fontana said that there still remains a risk of the site being abandoned once again. ​“One can’t predict for certain what’s going to happen with the larger global macroeconomy and of course it has an impact,” he said.

He said that there would be ​“plenty of opportunities” to accommodate what the alders and community management teams want, in particular during the construction of Phase 1A, and before the developer submits the site plans for Phase 1B and Phase 2.

“I’m thinking that we do want to facilitate an ongoing conversation about the site with the alders and with the CMTs,” he said. ​“My goal would be to set up that kind of process with the alders and the CMTs over the next few months.”

If the community management teams fail to convince Spinnaker to halt the site plan application submission process, the next possible platform where members of the public might be able to give feedback about the project will be at a potential public hearing before the City Plan Commission in September for the development