Dirt City

by Thomas Breen | Sep 27, 2019 2:14 pm

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

Posted to: Business/ Economic Development, Dixwell, Downtown, Newhallville, The Hill

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Brian McGrath Keep digging. Make more piles. Let’s get some population into this town so we can be a city again.

posted by: Put the blame where it belongs on September 27, 2019 3:58pm Didn’t this all take place under the Harp administration. Yes it most certainly did, convenient that this comes out after she decided not to run again. Freedom of the press is great now how about freedom of the people our first amendment right to not have our comments censored or not placed at all.

posted by: Esbey on September 27, 2019 3:59pm This story provides such a cool tour of progress in the city. If you like the environment, if you like lower taxes and if you like an active thriving city, this is all good news. I have been making the curmudgeon’s argument that we have not been in a housing boom, but rather a steady period of very moderate housing growth, with lots of further big plans always on the horizon, but often not quite getting going. Additions to the housing stock have rarely approached 1% on an annual basis, usually much less. I was not aware, however, of how many projects have actually moved out of the planning stage into construction. The Newhallville project is an exception, not surprisingly. No wonder I am hearing howls of upset from existing landlords who will be facing downward pressure on their rents.

posted by: anonymous on September 27, 2019 4:31pm Building new housing—a whole lot more of it than what is currently under construction—is the only realistic way to reduce displacement in New Haven. http://cityobservatory.org/the-end-of-the-housing-supply-debate-maybe/ Of course, this probably won’t happen, because the NIMBY concerns, fake historic preservation concerns (almost exclusively driven by selfish landlords and two-family property owners who want to preserve the rent increases that they are able to sock tenants with every year), and problems with our restrictive zoning code will keep many potential housing projects from getting built. Luckily, there is still some bus service to Waterbury and Meriden.

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on September 27, 2019 5:28pm @ Blame on — the NHI has covered the building boom every step of the way, and Bass & Co are not responsible for Harp having lost her Democratic base.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 27, 2019 6:02pm Esbey, some existing landlords will face downward pressure on rents. But the impact of the developments varies by neighborhood. Many of the folks moving into the developments would have, in their absence, stayed in or moved into neighborhoods like mine (East Rock). You now see “for rent” signs year-round in East Rock, something I had not seen in my previous 30 years here. This is probably keeping rents here in check. Conversely, I suspect that few of the tenants of the new developments are coming from Dixwell, Newhallville, the Hill, etc. The new developments are having a minimal effect on rents in these neighborhoods. (The Hill will nonetheless experience additional traffic as a result of the Salvatore developments.) In the long run, filtering may benefit these neighborhoods as well. But as J.M. Keynes said, “in the long run, we shall all be dead”. This is not an argument against the developments. But it does help explain why reactions to them vary so widely.

posted by: Esbey on September 27, 2019 6:18pm Kevin: I completely agree that the new developments place no direct downward pressure on the lower-rent part of the market. However, in the absence of these new buildings, developers like Pike would have an even greater incentive to buy up old buildings in poorer areas not-too-far from downtown (we have many of these) and convert them into more middle-class units. In the absence of the new downtown and vacant-lot developments, conversions of existing properties would be spreading much more quickly up Dixwell, into Dwight, past Wooster Square, around Science Park and so forth. All of this would be putting upward rent pressure onto poorer neighborhoods. Thus, while the development of new buildings is not driving rents *down* in poorer neighbors, it is sheltering them from the rent *increases* that would have otherwise resulted from increased conversion of existing properties. As anonymous argues, the new development decreases displacement from older units.

posted by: Jill_the_Pill on September 27, 2019 6:22pm Aw, I sincerely liked that parking structure. It was brut-iful.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on September 27, 2019 8:55pm Esbey, you may be right about the impact of the developments on Pike et al. But somehow I suspect that the residents of the “lower-rent” neighborhoods aren’t jazzed about the developments. BTW, where is Three Fifths? Put the blame…, you may notice there are links to earlier NHI stories for each of the developments. Several of the earlier stories ran during the run-up to the primary. Anonymous, I don’t think historic preservation concerns slowed any of these projects, most of which are going up on former parking lots. The same is true for the projects that have been approved but are not yet under construction, e.g., on the Coliseum site and the Spinnaker projects in Wooster Square. The PMC suits against the latter, while bogus, had nothing to do with preservation.

posted by: __quinnchionn__ on September 28, 2019 10:08am I wonder when high-rise buildings are going to make a comeback. You see a lot of buildings mostly between 3 and 6 stories high, but not too many buildings are taller in the city. New redevelopment is always a good thing for a city to look forward to, but in this case attracting more people to come to New Haven would be even more of a priority. I believe there needs to be a fine balance between there being good jobs, fun things for people to do and enjoy, good transportation, good schools, etc.. The goal should be to make New Haven the best city for people to live and work in this whole state.

posted by: Put the blame where it belongs on September 28, 2019 12:27pm @Averagetaxpayer

Did I say that is why she lost the election ? NO, but you assumed. Very typical view without reading what I said. I said this all happened under the Harp administration and that NHI never mentioned that. Historical Revisionist, NHI will print their own versions of stories to demean and be negatively influencing an election. Yes people didn’t come out to vote for her but in a rare thing in politics the city gets a second bite at the apple 🍎. I wonder how many would try to jump back to Harp if she won ? If she does win she better wake up and fast. All her cronies left her on the street as they ran over her with the bus. MESSAGE

posted by: NHNative on September 28, 2019 3:07pm Do people moving into these new apartments mainly come from within New Haven; are they older suburbanites adopting the urban lifestyle; young people moving here from out-of-state to take jobs in start-ups or Yale? Naturally it could be a mix of all of the above (or other people?). But at a time of slow growth or even population decline in Connecticut, it’s important to understand our strengths.

posted by: CityYankee on September 28, 2019 4:30pm For those of us who are small landlords , with 2-3 family houses which we often live inourselves, these developments will certainly provide competition and drive rents down. Now, does that mean that my broken down old home will be valued at less and my taxes can go down? My house is certainly no match for a shiny, modern, granite-countered luxury condo… If the assessments do go down, I can afford to stay and keep the lower rents and still maintain the house. Plus, I get to stay here; which is my wish. If not; I will be forced out of my own home, just like so many renters are being forced out . Any thoughts; fellow readers? What does the future hold for people like me?

posted by: alex on September 28, 2019 8:21pm CityYankee, Sounds like you’re in the market for a residential real estate appraiser—and maybe, an attorney. It is interesting that Mayor Harp isn’t even mentioned or given any credit for this boom!

posted by: Ben Trachten on September 28, 2019 8:45pm I don’t see any change on the horizon for owner occupied small landlords. If anything, rents will stay flat. The renters that want amenities that the newer properties offer have always had other options (the Taft, 360 state, etc). The people who want to be in a “neighborhood” will still choose the on-site landlord who treats them fairly and is responsive. And the economics of aging in place in the first floor of your three family just can’t be beat. In most neighborhoods, people might choose to displace themselves (sell) because the money is just so good. But that’s a choice. Taxes won’t go so high and rents so low, that owner occupied properties will be facing tax foreclosures. I don’t see it. High rise buildings have to have a steel skeleton as opposed to the 5 over 1 design aka the “building on stilts” or dreaded “podium” so hated by neighbors around the country. steel is expensive. And you have to bring in special skilled people to build your steel building. So the podium building is here to stay. When done right (don’t think Novella) they can be quite nice. the actual terms 5 over one or five over two I think relate to the INternational building codes classification of materials. First floor has to be noncombustible but upper stories can be wood. So cost is manageable with these buildings compared to steel and concrete. More building and more options and more people is a win for new haven. And this is all about our assets (meds and Eds) and the industries that support them. The people may be leaving other Connecticut cities and towns but I think new Haven is growing.

posted by: Pat Wallace on September 29, 2019 8:08am Climate change is at least as big a challenge for owners of older rental properties as the rental building boom. Does anyone know if landlords are stepping up to transform energy systems in historic properties? The technical and financial challenges are significant. This housing stock is important to our neighborhoods. This question deserves attention from policy makers. What requirements, incentives and technical assistance will get it done?

posted by: New Haven Urbanism City Yankee, There is some evidence that on residential blocks immediately adjacent to new multifamily construction like Novella and Corsair, the new buildings have absorbed some of the demand for rental apartments in the area. As a result, some owners of older rental units have had to keep rents steady or lower them in order to keep tenants or attract new ones to their vacant unit(s). At the same time, many of these same property owners saw their property taxes increase under the last property assessment a couple years ago. This puts many property owners in a tricky situation. Should they take on additional debt to renovate their units in the hopes that it will attract higher rents? Do they lower rents and just eat the tax increase, which in part funds the tax deferral program for new construction? Do they try to sell to a real estate investor for a premium, which may contribute to further tax assessment increases during the next assessment revaluation? I think some creative thinking is needed at City Hall to try to address this issue.

posted by: Ben Trachten on September 29, 2019 9:56am New Haven has “green” regulations in the site plan approval process. Stormwater, light and heat reflectivity must be addressed. I don’t know that anyone has been granted a waiver even though the regulations allow for a waiver. But these regulations only kick in when your project requires full site plan approval. For existing historic properties where the owner isn’t adding two or more rental units, there would be no full public approval of a site plan. These “green” regulations add thousands of dollars to the planning process, plus the additional cost to build what you show on your site plan. For a modest residential development that is required to contain one inch of rainfall over the entire site, on a typical small parcel, it could add $15000 to the cost. To deal with heat, additional materials could be similar in cost between pavers and roofing and paints. Lighting isn’t significantly more expensive. The green regulations certainly have a place. But they’re applied to a very broad (overly broad In my opinion) set of projects.

posted by: 1644 on September 29, 2019 2:54pm Pat Wallace: Climate change will affect only a handful of New Haven neighborhoods, notably in Morris Cove where many properties are in the flood plain. Few of these dwellings are rentals, but for those that are, flood insurance will run about $12k/year. As for general environmental degradation, it’s primary cause is the large and growing human population. It’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”, as Hardin said in his famous Science article. Decisions individuals make about child-bearing have far greater consequences than what light bulbs we use. Yet, those who claim to believe in science nonetheless proclaim a near religious belief that family size is a purely personal matter.

posted by: Pat Wallace on September 29, 2019 4:00pm Brick buildings with no insulation are not energy efficient, and thus are costly to heat and cool. Brick structures that cannot tolerate the weight of solar require significant structural modification. Getting approval for solar on the roof of a historic building can be challenging. These things cost a lot. It is not just the Cove that has challenges related to climate change.

posted by: Pat Wallace on September 29, 2019 4:08pm https://www.cttrust.org/greenconference. See conference announcement on this subject to b held at UConn Law School next January 24.

posted by: 1644 on September 29, 2019 5:49pm Pat: Global warming, for the last 10,000 years, more or less, has been causing rising sea levels. Morris Cove will be affected by this. Most of New Haven, however, will remain dry for the lifetimes of everyone living today. As the link you supply explains, maintaining old structures is energy efficient in that we don’t need to cause all the destruction that razing them or building new would cause, or the environmental harm that manufacturing solar panels would cause, as while as avoiding the danger that solar panels would cause when they become missiles in high winds. The way to slow environmental change is to minimize the human footprint, by maximizing density and controlling our population.