Yale Daily News

Updated: Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:16 a.m.

A A A

City warms to plans for Shartenberg tower

Staff Reporter
Published Monday, April 7, 2008

After a two-year redevelopment project set to begin next month, the $125-million apartment complex on Chapel and State streets may feature an unexpected surprise for its residents: wind turbines.

The once controversial Shartenberg Project — to be built on a 1.5 acre parking lot on the same block where a three-alarm fire caused $10 million in damages last December — will set a new standard for environmentally friendly and energy-efficient design, said architect Bruce Becker ARC ’85 SOM ’85. Becker’s firm Becker + Becker will break ground within 60 days and begin major construction...

#1 By DesignNewHaven.com 5:07a.m. on April 7, 2008

"Garvin pointed out the infrequent train service available at the State Street Station as a major obstacle."

Service at the newer station can easily be expanded. The State of CT is spending billions of dollars ordering new rail cars and extending rail service to Springfield, MA, which will turn the new station into a major hub. More frequent Metro North service will also be extended there in the near future. Even without service, the main train station is still just a 5 minute walk away.

#2 By anon 8:27a.m. on April 7, 2008

haha shart

#3 By Alum84 12:14p.m. on April 7, 2008

Well we can be sure no city residents will be living there at those prices. Affordable housing? Hardly. And where will the cars of 500 apartment residents park, and how much pollution will they put out? You've just negated ant green advantage.

#4 By (Anonymous) 4:43p.m. on April 7, 2008

how is the city "warm" to the building, if only one city official is quoted as saying positive things about it? no local residential sourcing? what kind of reporting is this?

#5 By John P 6:26p.m. on April 7, 2008

It's great that they want to make the tower green. However, the criteria used for determining how well the scheme works environmentally should be totally different (obviously) than the criteria used to evaluate how the project works from the standpoint of architecture and urban planning.

To #3: Better to have those cars in the city where they need to only drive short distances to get where they need to go (and residents can walk too!) as opposed to driving miles to go anywhere in the suburbs.

Sorry, but comments are disabled for this article.