Historic Palladium Building Goes Upscale

by Thomas Breen | Sep 19, 2018 7:48 am

(33) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Housing, Downtown

The upper levels of the city’s first circulating library and first public high school are now office space and 10 luxury apartments. On Tuesday afternoon, dozens of New Haveners took a series of guided tours through the recently renovated Palladium Building at 135 Orange St., which is owned by Juan Salas-Romer and his real estate company, NHR Group. The fourth and fifth floors of the five-story, mid-19th century building serve as the corporate headquarters for NHR Group, which manages over 1,200 apartment units throughout New Haven and Fairfield County and will be adding 67 more units in the Elm City with the new “Heights on the River” project in Fair Haven Heights. The second and third floors of the historic building are now home to seven studios, two one-bedrooms, and one two-bedroom apartments, all with loft spaces. Lauren Lenox, a property manager with NHR, said that the monthly rental prices for the apartments range from $1,595 for the smallest studio to $3,200 for the two-bedroom. The second and third floors of the historic building are now home to seven studios, two one-bedrooms, and one two-bedroom apartments, all with loft spaces. Lauren Lenox, a property manager with NHR, said that the monthly rental prices for the apartments range from $1,595 for the smallest studio to $3,200 for the two-bedroom. She said that the first tenants will start moving into the finished apartments on the second floor on Nov. 1, and that the third-floor apartments, which are still under construction, should be finished and available for rent by the end of November. The ground floor of the building houses three retail outlets: Whole G Café, Tikkaway, and Devil’s Gear Bikeshop. “We’re a small building in terms of our boutique apartment-style community,” Lenox said while leading a tour of one of the second-floor studios. “We’re a small building in terms of our boutique apartment-style community,” Lenox said while leading a tour of one of the second-floor studios. She said that, from the apartments’ exposed brick wall sections to their high ceilings and tall windows and hardwood floors, the new units retain many of the architectural elements that distinguished the building dating back to its original construction in the mid-19th century. In an empty studio apartment on the second floor, local historian and architect In an empty studio apartment on the second floor, local historian and architect Colin Caplan introduced visitors to the history of the building, pointing up to a banner timeline with historic photos of the building itself and famous Americans associated with it. According to Caplan and a ground-floor historical panel written and researched by the New Haven Museum’s Jason Bischoff-Wurstle, the building was constructed in 1855 and opened on Oct. 13, 1856 as the home of the Young Men’s Institute, a private membership library that predated the city’s public library by three decades and exists to this day in a neighboring building on Chapel Street. Bischoff-Wurstle writes that the building was likely designed by New Haven architect Henry Austin, who also designed the City Hall building on Church Street, and features a brownish-red sandstone façade cut by the stone-cutter G.A. Shubert. Caplan pointed out that the Young Men’s Institute, which was founded in 1826 by young tradesmen looking to read, share, and talk about books among peers, invited to New Haven such eminent American scholars and politicians as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Frederick Douglass, and Henry Ward Beecher. “On the top floor,” Caplan said, “in 1859 was the first public high school in New Haven,” which would later move to another building on Chapel Street before taking on the name Hillhouse High School. “On the top floor,” Caplan said, “in 1859 was the first public high school in New Haven,” which would later move to another building on Chapel Street before taking on the name Hillhouse High School. After eight years under the ownership of the Home Insurance Company, Caplan said, the building became home in 1875 to the New Haven Palladium newspaper, an anti-slavery-tilting daily that was edited by Institute Library co-founder James Babcock and which occupied the building until 1910. Babcock, an early supporter of the Republican Party, was instrumental in bringing presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln to New Haven for a campaign stop in 1860. He said that Babcock hosted Lincoln at his home on Olive Street. In the New Haven Museum’s panel, Bischoff-Wurstle goes on to note that the building also served as an annex to the popular Shartenberg’s department store (located where the 360 State St. apartment complex is now) in the early 20th century, before suffering from a substantial fire in 1921 that damaged the upper three stories. The Palladium was acquired by the New Haven Redevelopment Agency in the 1950s, the panel reads, and was slated for demolition to make way for new retail stores and parking garages planned for up and down Chapel Street in the 1970s. But it dodged that fate thanks to preservationist outcry, and eventually was acquired in 1977 by Nicolas Merletti. Bischoff-Wurstle writes that a successful renovation of the historic building began in 1981, just before the creation of Pitkin Plaza in 1983.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: wendy1 on September 19, 2018 8:42am High rents for small apts. with no view. ($1300 plus util.—studio) but the location and staff are very nice and it’s a perfect home for bike-lovers. I’m glad the P. got rescued.

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 9:14am The Palladium is my one of my favorite buildings in New Haven, probably my favorite. There’s something about its classical simplicity that’s just really cool. That being said, $3,200 for a small two bedroom apartment! That’s insane. The median income for the area is about $66,000 per year, lower if you only include New Haven proper. Obviously these apartments are not for the median income folks. But, I am really hard pressed to understand why anyone would rent a two bedroom apartment for $3,200 per month (utilities and parking not included). Couldn’t you just buy a house with that money? Anyway,it’s a great building and it looks like an attractive rehab. But, the proletariat in me is balking at the price and the exclusivity (segregation) it promotes. I guess this is progress? Maybe we should ask Frederick Douglass.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 19, 2018 9:41am one-bedrooms, and one two-bedroom apartments, all with loft spaces. Lauren Lenox, a property manager with NHR, said that the monthly rental prices for the apartments range from $1,595 for the smallest studio to $3,200 for the two-bedroom.The ground floor of the building houses three retail outlets: Whole G Café, Tikkaway, and Devil’s Gear Bikeshop. It’s more about subtracting every single buck. Gentrification and the need for developers to maximize their profits it’s superficial sleaziness.

Derek Ridgers We are taking one step forward and two steps back as gentrification in some neighborhoods and continued deterioration in others leads to the removal of vitally needed lower-cost rental housing.

(Nicolas Retsinas) “Gentrifiers focus on aesthetics, not people. Because people, to them, are aesthetics.”

― Sarah Kendzior, In the twenty-first century, the visions of J.C. Nichols and Walt Disney have come full circle and joined. “Neighborhoods” are increasingly “developments,” corporate theme parks. But corporations aren’t interested in the messy ebb and flow of humanity. They want stability and predictable rates of return.That’s what our new landlords are thinking even if they are not saying it.

Tanner Colby, Ryan Harvey - Gentrification https://youtu.be/slChilGsRiU

posted by: NHPLEB on September 19, 2018 10:32am Although I think the rents are outrageous, I’d rather have the gentry than the unwashed masses like we have on our Green. Who would you rather have living next door to you? Spout your platitudes and class consciousness all you want but people are voting with their feet all over NH. I probably will have to do so as well in the near future.

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 11:12am Hey Pleb: There is a middle between the “gentry” and the “unwashed masses”, perhaps we could promote the idea of affordable housing for the working classes (all working classes) and encourage property owners, municipal leaders,etc. to work towards that goal. 3/5th’s quotes on gentrification are very well placed and speak to the larger issue at hand. You’re right, working people are leaving New Haven, they have been for a very time long time. But, the answer to that problem is not to ignore class struggles and inequities. Also, the unwashed masses are our neighbors and fellow citizens and deserve as much dignity and respect as anyone else that we share this world with.

posted by: NHPLEB on September 19, 2018 11:32am TO Atwater: I agree that all people deserve dignity and respect but so do I. There are some whose lifestyles I would not like to experience from close up and I would not like to live with them or near them. I also deserve to hope for a quiet, peaceful life and will not sacrifice that to help those who do not respect or honor my wishes as well. Maybe you could live with them; I’d rather not.

posted by: jim1 on September 19, 2018 12:18pm At those prices you could almost live in 360 state. But this is a nice old building that should be saved.

posted by: wendy1 on September 19, 2018 1:18pm Today I went for a tour and saw 2 studios I wouldn’t mind living in myself view or no view but I cant afford them and will stick to 360 where I pay $1700/mon.including utilities. I suggested to Lauren L. that the tenants get access to 360 gym, pool, and bike space to make the rents more worth it. AS far as tenants go, entitled rich can be just as piggy as the “unwashed masses” who by the way would be washed if they only had access to bathrooms. It is heartless to ignore or denigrate the “homeless”. Very few are criminals or dangerous. There are endless obstacles to finding a decent lifestyle anywhere in this country. Because of the wealth gap, ambition, education, and hard work wont necessarily get you anywhere but into heavy debt.

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 1:57pm Not that I view it as a negative thing but for those who term gentrification as displacement of lower earners (something that hasn’t been shown to be true) where is the gentrification here? Wasn’t this an all office building until now when it was changed to half residential?

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 2:30pm I think it is fairly obvious that large scale gentrification leads to displacement of the lower working classes from urban centers. See San Francisco, Oakland, New York and Austin for examples. But displacement is only one negative consequence of gentrification. Economic segregation is another, related, consequence. Now, whether or not one thinks that economic segregation is “good” or “bad” or perhaps a little of both, is up to that individual. But, increased economic inequality, emphasized by increased economic segregation, is one of the factors that will cause the eventual collapse the system, unless it is corrected. The Palladium’s rehab is great in regards for the preservation of a historic building. However, it is an example, a small one, of the increased investment in the fallacy that providing for the needs/desires of the wealthy will benefit the entire citizenry. It will not. It will create islands of wealth amongst the throngs of working-poor and homeless. But, I guess some are okay with that, just as long as they don’t have to see, hear or even smell the unwashed masses.

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 3:09pm ATWATER The Gentrification Myth http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html And don’t point out to me that rents are high in NHV..they’re high everywhere for the same reasons. Housing costs a lot to build and to keep up.

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 3:58pm Robn: That article, and others like it, seeks to describe a distinction without a difference. Perhaps the issue is with how we use the term gentrification. The article is correct in that it highlights the isolation of poverty. However, it demurs in calling this a product of Gentrification and defines it as a separate, unrelated issue. But, the issues are not unrelated. The article also confusingly cites gentrification as a symptom of the affordable housing issue. It states, “Gentrification isn’t the cause of these cities’ affordable housing problem. It’s a symptom.” But some would say (and I agree) that gentrification is an obvious cause of economic segregation. The issue of economic segregation is something which the article seems to agree with. The article states, “Worse, the media focus on gentrification has obscured problems that actually are serious: the increasing isolation of poor, minority neighborhoods and the startling spread of extreme poverty.” The article’s authors ignored the obvious, that gentrification perpetuates the isolation of the poor. This is a bad article, simply put. It defines gentrification as an isolated phenomena of urban development when it clearly is not. The issue is not just one of supply and demand. It is also one of wage stagnation, marginalization, new urbanism, i.e. economic segregation and elitism. Cities have faced rapid population shifts throughout history, but this most recent one is unique in that it includes only a small segment of the working classes and the wealthy elite. Left to fight over scraps, the lower working classes (most of us) are pushed to the boundaries to the cities or to the outer towns.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 19, 2018 5:04pm posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 3:09pm

ATWATER The Gentrification Myth

And don’t point out to me that rents are high in NHV..they’re high everywhere for the same reasons. Housing costs a lot to build and to keep up. Today we have “hyper-gentrification,” something far more insidious, and this is what concerns Moss most — the complicity between municipal government and big private money to reconfigure whole sections of a city, with dubious consequences, chief among them the ceding of space, goods and social currency from the ordinary classes to the ruling order. Gentrify This? The Dark Side of Gentrification Steve Mensing, Editor ♦Gentrification, sometimes hiding behind the pleasant term “urban renewal”, results when wealthier individuals purchase or rent property in low-income and working class communities and alter the neighborhood, often driving up property taxes and housing values. Gentrification increases the average area income and frequently decreases average family size. Poorer long-time residents (poor, elderly, working class, and minorities) are displaced due to their inability to afford increased property taxes, rising housing prices, and far higher rents brought on by gentrification. Warehouses, industrial buildings and homes previously divided into apartment dwellings are renovated and converted into residences, condos, and high-end shops. In driving up property tax evaluations, housing values, and rents, the inner city is morphed into a suburb within a city. The neighborhood’s social character changes, yet somewhere else in the city another blighted neighborhood grows poorer and more dangerous from folks being forced out of the gentrified neighborhood. The elderly, the poor, and minority working class folks can’t carry their previously owned homes and apartments with them. They take a major hit when gentrification moves in and they are forced out. https://rowanfreepress.com/2012/11/22/gentrify-this-the-dark-side-of-gentrification/

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 19, 2018 5:24pm Robn, gentrification is a complex phenomenon, as the article describes. And it is far from ubiquitous. But most of the data cited in the article stops in 2010. - a lot has happened in a lot of cities since then. For example, gentrification started in several neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Chicago (my home town) around that time. One of the things that 3/5ths notes is both true and important. In many non-gentrifying neighborhoods, the deterioration and removal of housing is raising rents and decreasing affordability.

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 6:05pm ATWATER,



“That article and others like it”? You mean those that cite credible studies on the subject? here’s my takeaway from this article and others like it… “One of the first people to explore this question in a sophisticated way was University of Washington economist Jacob Vigdor. In 2002, Vigdor examined what had happened in Boston between 1974 and 1997, a period of supposedly intense gentrification. But Vigdor found no evidence that poor people moved out of gentrifying neighborhoods at a higher than normal rate. In fact, rates of departure from gentrifying neighborhoods were actually lower. It wasn’t just Boston. In 2004, Columbia University economists Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi conducted a similar study of gentrification in New York City in the 1990s. They too found that low-income residents of “gentrifying” neighborhoods were less likely to move out of the neighborhood than low-income residents of neighborhoods that had none of the typical hallmarks of gentrification.”

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 6:08pm KM, Thanks for pointing that out. It’s the first time I’ve seen 3/5 suggest an understanding of the law of supply and demand.

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 8:09pm Robn: I was referring to articles that parse the word gentrification to mean only displacement. While displacement does occur due to gentrification, so does isolation and economic segregation. As one other commenter pointed out, gentrification is a term that encompasses a multi layered issue that involves more than just displacement. But displacement does occur due to the increase of rents and property taxes. Just anecdotally we can see this in neighborhoods like Wooster and parts of Dwight, etc. Displacement also occurs and continue to occur in San Francisco, New York and Austin. But, again, this is but one facet of genreification. I actually prefer to use the term economic segregation because it more aptly describes what is happening. The article you cited makes the same point. That’s the real issue. The working classes and the poor are being pushed out of many cities. In a cruel twist of irony most of the jobs that pay a living wage are relocating to a lot of these cities. This is where the supply issue comes in, but instead of working to correct inequities caused by the market we ignore the problem or explain it away as ’ not that bad’. Instead of controlling profiteering and pushing for control of municipal housing markets we leave it alone. So, an individual making 50- 60k is paying a big portion of their income towards housing. Compound that with higher food costs, fuel prices, healthcare, etc. I shouldn’t have to explain this, it seems like common sense. It’s not just an issue of displacement, it’s an issue of equality of access and opportunity and a more equitable distribution of our collective wealth.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 19, 2018 8:27pm Robn, thanks. But the studies you cite in response to Atwater are even more dated than the one covered in the Slate article. I don’t question their validity for the periods they cover. But housing markets can change dramatically over decades. BTW, I agree that what is happening at the Palladium is not gentrification, for the reasons you in your first post. Moreover, there are few low/moderate income households in the immediate vicinity, so there is little risk of indirect displacement.

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 9:15pm ATWATER, You don’t seem to have read the article I linked to because you’re saying it’s wrong but blending some of its main arguments into false conclusions. One of its principal points about the gentrification myth is that a lack of outsiders entering poor neighborhoods IS economic isolation.

“Black residents, particularly black youth, living in more diverse neighborhoods find significantly better jobs than peers with the same skill sets who live in less diverse neighborhoods.“

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 10:00pm Robn: I read the article, twice actually, once it originally was published and earlier when you cited it. You missed my point though, which was the article incorrectly defines gentrification as solely, or mainly, displacement. My argument is that gentrification is multifaceted and includes, or results in isolation of the working classes and poor. So, while the article correctly cites the problem of economic isolation it conveniently removes it from a definition of gentrification. Again, that has been my original criticism of the article. Another crticism of the slate article: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/gentrification-no-myth “Moreover, there are few low/moderate income households in the immediate vicinity, so there is little risk of indirect displacement.” The above highlights the problem. There is a dearth of low/moderate income families or individuals from the city center. As I stated before, whether or not one sees this as a problem is up to the individual. I do. Whether or not the Palladium or 360 state has directly displaced people is beside the point. However such developments do indirectly displace low and moderate earners by creating a zone of residences that are not affordable to low and moderate earners. So, in essence those people are displaced to other areas. Perhaps displaced is the incorrect word. Those people are segregated from the high earners. Thus we have economic segregation. Again, whether or not you see this as a problem is one of personal ethics and ideology. Again, I see it as a major problem.

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 10:23pm ATWATER, I guess I do understand it as a problem as you’re defining it. For instance I’d love to live in a NYC Central Park penthouse but can’t because I can’t afford it. I’ve never lived there there but can’t so I guess I’m displaced and that’s a big problem for me.

posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 10:53pm Robn: Nice try, but no. The issue isn’t the penthouse in Central Park. The problem is several hundred city blocks of apartments that are only affordable to a small segment of the population, or entire neighborhoods made unaffordable by rising rents (and property taxes)due to the other, more expensive apartments down the street. To act as if gentrification and economic segregation is a myth is to ignore blaring facts. Again, property “values” rise, wages do not or they don’t rise fast enough. High paying or decent paying jobs are limited to a smaller and smaller segment of the population, some are sourced overseas, etc., etc., You should understand the basic functions and mechanics of neoliberal economics, if you don’t you should read a book or two on the subject. Hopefully you will glean some understanding at the inherent inequities of the system and how disproportionate distribution of collective wealth creates economic segregation (which includes displacement). It’s too simple to say that it’s just too bad that some cannot afford a nice apartment downtown. If that were the only issue I wouldn’t care too much either. But the issue is systemic, complex and widespread. Not just in the micro sense, but in the macro sense, as entire areas of the nation are left desolate and irreparably damaged.

posted by: robn on September 19, 2018 11:10pm ATWATER, Downtown has about 10 blocks not occupied by university or commercial buildings. Where are the other 280 unaffordable blocks? And what percentage is that of the total number of blocks in NHV? The city was recently crowing about a few thousand new housing units coming online. If memory serves me correctly there are about 35,000 housing units in NHV so even if the new ones are all luxury, it’s less than 10% of the total that supposedly segregate non wealthy. And by law of supply and demand, those units suppress the cost of remaining units.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 20, 2018 9:27am posted by: Atwater on September 19, 2018 10:53pm

Robn: Nice try, but no. The issue isn’t the penthouse in Central Park. The problem is several hundred city blocks of apartments that are only affordable to a small segment of the population, or entire neighborhoods made unaffordable by rising rents (and property taxes)due to the other, more expensive apartments down the street. To act as if gentrification and economic segregation is a myth is to ignore blaring facts. Home Run.How true.Even in the book.Gentrify This? The Dark Side of Gentrification says the same thing.

Unchecked gentrification aimed at the “well-intentioned” uplifting of neighborhoods through government-spurred private real estate investment, deferred tax schemes, and financial incentives has dire economic effects for those living in the path of gentrification’s killdozer. In the face of deepening economic eviction and covert segregation, the poor, the elderly, minorities and the working class can only maintain their ability to dwell in their homes through political action.What is the outcome of this war on poor minorities and working class? Deepening economic segregation is advanced. The hard, cold fact is that for every gentrified neighborhood the displaced are forced to bed down elsewhere in harder circumstances. Consider the elderly living on their pensions and social security after economic eviction. When I move here in 1993.I knew people who live downtown.A friend of mine has a small apartment on orange st above a deil.He was paying 600,00 a month.The landlord force him out and now the rent is 1,300 month.Read the plan on how the city was going to push the people of Church Street South housing project. Part One.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 20, 2018 9:46am Part Two.

2012

A Nowhere Between Two Somewheres: TheChurch Street South Project and

Urban Renewal in New Haven

Emily Dominsk Mayor Lee had come before the CAC, a group of New Haven’s business heavyweights that supported his goal to rebuild the city, with a proposal to replace the tangled market with a new development that would

be “the showplace of twentieth century architecture.”! With these evocative

words, Mayor Lee introduced the Church Street South housing project to

the business leaders of New Haven, Connecticut. By emphasizing the blight of the removed market and potential of the new project, Lee portrayed the benefits of “slum clearance”: the city could clear the land that was a detriment to the city while building a new, prestigious development. He painted the housing development as not only an architectural credit for New Haven, but an economic boom as well. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=mssa_collections So you see the city knew from 2012 the they was going to push the people out and sell off Church Street South. The Residences at Ninth Square was just sold to new owners.I know people who live there who are on section 8.Take bets.They will be push out. There are four stages when it comes to gentrification.New Haven is in the second stage and by the end of the year it will be in the Third stage.

My bad.For those who say gentrification is a myth.Read this book. How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood Hardcover – March 7, 2017 https://www.amazon.com/How-Kill-City-Gentrification-Neighborhood-ebook/dp/B06XKSMZDP The Steady Destruction of America’s Cities Peter Moskowitz’s new book on gentrification outlines how local governments cede their power over residents’ lives to private interests.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/gentrification-moskowitz/519057/

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on September 20, 2018 10:01am Hi all, my two cents is that gentrification talk is misplaced when we talk about what is going on downtown — which will remain a place where all different people and incomes will continue to mingle freely. What we are seeing is an infilling of vacant or underutilized CBD real estate, resulting in a far safer, more vibrant environment. (And much needed tax revenues!) The critical dialogue shouldn’t be one of gentrification, because very few people are being displaced. Instead I call it the continued yuppification of Downtown, and the question is if everyone benefits from it. My belief is that while some what distasteful, it is a good thing, both for the tax dollars but also in helping the greater New Haven economy. If we want to encourage job growth and investment, having a clean, fun, trendy downtown is very important as a show-piece. My only real complaint is that no condo units are being built, and the neighborhood’s social fabric isn’t as strong as it would be if we had more ownership and permanent residents. (Like Wooster Square.) Maybe the City could do something to incentivize condominium development?

posted by: robn on September 20, 2018 10:41am 3/5, An inflation calculator can show you that $600 in 1993 is about $1100 now. Since $600 was pretty cheap rent even back then, it wouldn’t surprise me if the apt was in rough shape and renovated and therefore explains another $200 of rent/mo.

posted by: Atwater on September 20, 2018 11:06am Taxpayer: I partly agree with you. The ‘yuppyfication’ of downtown is distasteful, but I have to go further. To say that an increase in wealthy renters in a CBD will improve the city is somewhat of the same fallacy as saying lower taxes for the wealthy will benefit the working classes. You’re correct, gentrification in New Haven is less of a displacement, it’s more of an increased isolation. As threefifths pointed out, downtown used to have more of a mix of incomes, as did other neighborhoods (Wooster, East Rock, etc.). Creating a fun, clean and attractive downtown does not necessarily draw jobs and business to a city, again that is part of the same trickle down fallacy. And, there is nothing to say that a clean fun and attractive downtown cannot include a mix of income levels. As it appears certain segments of the city are very anti-affordable housing in the CBD and downtown area and city leaders are all too willing to extend tax credits and abatement to developers that are building, for the most part, high cost housing. So can’t one can justly conclude that it seems there is a concerted effort to segregate downtown and certain other neighborhoods? You’re right, this isn’t displacement per se, but it is gentrification as I understand it, which is the creation of socially and economical homogeneous urban centers that cater to a small portion of the upper working classes and wealthy elite. Again, maybe we should stop using the word gentrification altogether and just call it economic segregation. New Haven is unique in that the demand for housing seems to be fabricated out of thin air. Population growth is quite slow in the city and all indications seem like it will not see any meaningful increase in quite a long time. However, the city is experiencing what some might call a building boom. So, the bubble will burst at some point. Again, not sure how over-priced apartments (subsidized by public funds and credit) will fix that problem.

posted by: robn on September 20, 2018 12:23pm ATWATER, Economics; As much as I agree with you that Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics was a BS PR stunt, you’re wrong about this because we’re discussing the new presence of local expendable income, not macro-economics. There will be an economic effect of people with expendable income living close to NHV’s core. People moving into new apartments downtown will be paying property taxes via rent, they’ll be shopping at the grocery store around the corner which employs a lot of people, there will be handymen and other working in their buildings, they will eat lunch and dinner at local restaurants which employ many people. Segregation : Its nice that you’d like people to live wherever they want, but we don’t live in a Marxist society. You get to live where you can afford. And its ironic that “gentrification”, the thing that studies have shown to statistically bring opportunity to cash starved cities, is something you resist. Final point, you’re diversionary sidebars into neoliberal economics are not the subject of this article, aren’t under the control of the developer or you, or our city government; so please stay on point.

posted by: wendy1 on September 20, 2018 1:51pm Anyone living anywhere in New Haven including 360 and the P. will share common space with the homeless or vulnerable. This AM, a friend and I tried to assist a young woman hanging on to the steps of Elm City Coop, someone obviously in distress and in need of help…and pregnant. Folks young and old in trouble are all around us. Paying a higher rent wont exempt you from a view of the abyss.

posted by: Atwater on September 20, 2018 2:31pm Taxpayer: Economics: Your description of micro-level trickle down economics misses the mark. The macro becomes the micro, big economic issues create smaller, similar, economic issues. People paying higher rents and property taxes, buying groceries and eating at restaurants is not going to help a city’s economy. It will make some noticeable impact in regards to sales tax revenue and maybe tax revenue, but the latter is a bit unlikely due to numerous tax abatement and credit schemes created by the municipal and state government. If the assertion were correct then New Haven’s “building boom” should offset the massive budget deficit the city is facing Because all those people buying groceries and eating at restaurants. And all of the other people who work at the grocery stores and restaurants who make, maybe, $15.00 per hour, in a city that requires probably double that for a decent standard of living. Gentrification does not bring wealth to cities, at least not to New Haven, what it does is consolidates wealth into areas and creates massive demand for jobs that customarily pay well below the cost of living for that city/area. Which is why urban homelessness is on the rise. To ignore the overall policies that created this problem is ridiculous. Again, the macro becomes the micro. You’re right people should be able to live in places they can afford. The problem is less and less people can afford to live anywhere. But, they are still expected to toil and work for those who smugly elucidate on the value of wealth migration and promote the wonderful benefit of their largess, which allows the worker a nice position at Starbucks or Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods. Instead of focusing on equitable wealth distribution (sure, a Marxist idea, but also one held by Adam Smith, T. Jefferson, etc.) our governments cater to wealthy developers, tech robber barons and the medical industrial complex. While the middle classes just grovel for a seat at the table. It’s all connected.

posted by: robn on September 20, 2018 3:09pm ATWATER, (I think that last one was for me). On point, it’s a ten minute drive to multiple layers of surrounding NHV suburbs with about 350,000 housing units. Not being able to afford to live in the most valued part of downtown NHV is disappointing, but not segregation nor a hardship.