Demolish-Build Plan Bombs

“This is absolutely ridiculous, who you people are. This is unbelievable. We’re trying to make a significant investment in your area. You really want the buildings that are there to continue to be there the way like this? You’re happy with the status quo?”

Jared Hutter — CEO and co-founder of real estate firm Aptitude Development — said that to the East Rock Community Management Team at a combative meeting Monday night.

He got as good as he gave.

Hutter attended the meeting, along with Aptitude Vice President of New Development Zach Feldman, to seek neighborhood feedback on the firm’s quest for zoning relief to demolish two commercial buildings on Whitney Avenue and build a seven-story apartment complex.

Neighbors overwhelmingly opposed the plan, expressing concerns about the buildings’ historic value, aesthetic congruence, traffic congestion, and unit sizes.

Aptitude is an eight-year old real estate development firm based in northern New Jersey. It currently has a pending contract to purchase the property to build a new 150-unit apartment complex, a plan which would require the demolition of 97 to 107 Whitney Ave. and 63 – 65 Trumbull St. Approval of the sale hinges upon a ​“number of contingencies, one of which would be the zoning approval for the redevelopment of a residential building,” said Hutter.

The firm is seeking a variance to allow it to build seven stories and 80 feet high rather than the four stories and 45 feet allowed by law. (Click here to review the application the firm submitted to the city seeking the variance.) The firm is also seeking a special exception to allow for 29, rather than 135, parking spaces. (Click here to read that request, and here to read the application’s cover letter.)

A zoning hearing on the request is scheduled for April 12.

The two buildings proposed for demolition are a part of the Orange Street National Historic District.

Several audience members questioned the justification for demolishing houses with historic value.

“Well, we’re not proposing to destroy any historic homes,” Hutter claimed in response.

“There’s not a home that we’re looking to destroy. That paints us in a wrong picture, that we’re trying to displace people. We understand there’s a historic area there, but the building on Trumbull is not on the historic register. It’s not a landmark building.”

Alex Eginton, executive director of the New Haven Preservation Trust, said that 63 – 65 Trumbull constitutes a historic building, even though it is not individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, because it qualifies as a contributing structure to the Orange Street district. Therefore the building falls under the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for preservation as a cultural resource, he said.

“It will dwarf the historic building that the New Haven Museum is housed in across the street,” asserted one neighbor who identified herself as Debbie.

“Sure looks like a box to me,” said neighbor Lynn Street.

“We design projects that are really trying to fit the neighborhood, the characteristics of the neighborhood. We’ve never built the same project twice. … We’ve spent a lot of time studying the architecture of the area,” said Hutter.

“The facade detailing strikes me as ​‘hipster Brooklyn vernacular,’ which emulates so much of the new construction in New Haven,” said Mark Aronson. ​“I wonder if a more federal style design would be more appropriate for the neighborhood.”

Several individuals questioned whether the driveway to the building would add to traffic congestion on Whitney, which may see a lane reduction next year.

Hutter said that the firm is open to rearranging the model to adjust for these concerns, and that an ongoing traffic study ​“will really help dictate and guide the design of that.”

“You’ve shared that the cost of doing these elevations and proposals is significant. You’re contradicting yourself by having already submitted three sets of plans, none of which have full elevations; none of which have a traffic study, so I’m just a little bit confused by the substance of your remarks,” countered attendee R. Lee Stump.

Neighbors also expressed concerns about the apartments being marketed to students.

“We’ve been involved in student housing, which is how we ended up in some of these towns such as New Haven. But this is not a student housing project,” Huter replied. ​“Let me be clear about that. This definitely caters more towards the young professionals, multifamily that’s out there.”

“I feel like, to a large degree, that’s out of character with the housing that’s here, except for some of these really newer buildings, which I think is unsustainable and also contributing to a lot of the affordability issues that we’re having here too,” said one attendee.

“Those buildings are doing phenomenal, so I’m not sure why you think that’s unsustainable. It doesn’t necessarily appeal to everybody … I’m not saying you have to live there, but there are a lot of people that will want to live in this type of building,” said Hutter.

“Your combative attitude is garbage, dude,” wrote Siobhan Quinlan in the chat. Street asked if Aptitude could afford to do good work, since the firm stated it didn’t want to spend money to conduct more elevations.

“And to these comments, Lynn Street? I mean, who are you? You’re saying we can’t afford to do good work. I mean, come on. Look at you. Are you serious right now?” said Hutter.

“It is Dr. Lynn Street,” wrote R. Lee Stump.

“Are you serious right now?” Siobhan Quinlan said. ​“You’re here to get approval from this group, and you’re being rude to the people that are here.”

After Hutter’s increasingly heated response, management team Chair Elena Grewal stepped in.

“The goal here is to get input from the community, just to be clear. That is what we’re doing here. So Jared, I would encourage you to listen to the comments. We will, of course, be respectful and also clear,” Grewal said.

Click here to read about a similar interaction Hutter had with neighbors in Syracuse.

Later Monday eveninng, in the East Rock Community Management Team public Facebook group, Quinlan reflected: ​“I cannot express how strongly I feel that New Haven should NOT do business with that building team. The arrogance, lack of preparation, aggressive rudeness etc. was ASTOUNDING.”

And Kevin McCarthy wrote: 

Speaking only for myself, I thought the presentation was awful. I have seen lots of development presentations, before CMTs and city agencies. I have not seen a case where the developers were as poorly prepared.
New Haven needs more housing, market rate and subsidized. While I am not thrilled by its aesthetics, I would not object to a project similar to the Whitney Modern development on the northern edge of the neighborhood. 

At the end of the meeting, Hutter said: ​“Can we get a copy of all the questions? I don’t know how to save something. I actually don’t know how to access the chat.” 

“I think the design does look extremely uninspired,” Lynn Street commented. ​“And you may not like the building that’s there now, but any new development basically takes away the opportunity for something better. So there is potentially a loss if something is poorly done. That’s the way it’s going to be for decades, and we’ve certainly had plenty of that in New Haven. So, you know, I’m surprised that you’re surprised at our attitude.”