Housing Prices

[Cotuit]

"Hello, this is Canada."

"Yes, this is the State of Arizona, can we just go ahead and buy half of the lakes in British Columbia? Thanks!"

Actually a pipeline from Alaska or BC to the southwest has been proposed. As has towing icebergs down from the Arctic, but there aren't too many of them left. I would imagine any of these schemes would result in a sharp rise in water bills (to say the least), might not boost the actual cost of a home in and of itself, but will sure add to the cost of living.

[brick]

Actually a pipeline from Alaska or BC to the southwest has been proposed. As has towing icebergs down from the Arctic, but there aren't too many of them left. I would imagine any of these schemes would result in a sharp rise in water bills (to say the least), might not boost the actual cost of a home in and of itself, but will sure add to the cost of living.

Oh I wasn't disagreeing at all with your premise, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek post. As scarcity increases, I'm guessing this will be a pretty hot issue in the coming years. A lot of Canucks are very much opposed to exportation of the water.

It's actually pretty amazing how many people live out there already.

[ArtInRuins]

Here's a quick list I've been putting together of the local projects and some of their costs... Im not gonna comment on the either way, I think people know where I stand.

Condos:

383 West Fountain

82 units from 600 - 1500 sq ft

136 - 450 k

Completion in April 2007

1266 Westminster Street

4 units

289 k

Completed

100 Amhearst Street

26 units

181 - 338 k

Completed by December 2006

304 Pearl Street

36 apartments

19 lofts for sale

181 - 338 k for sale units

Completed

100 Fountain Street

"the Kosmopolitan"

12 units

$500 - $1,000 k

Completed

110 WESTMINSTER

32 story, 360 foot tall tower

130 units

$500 - $2,500 k

Completion late 2007

Intercontinental Towers, parcel 2

19 story and 17 story - 235 and 213 feet tall

193 units

$300 - $1000 k

new Westin Tower

356 feet, or 31 stories

103 condos + 200 hotel rooms

price?

Jefferson Place

330 units

now for sale as condos

$195 - 450 k

Apartments:

Capitol Cove, parcel 6

255 units

$1700 - $2700 monthly

52 Valley Street, Calendar Mills

25 lofts

800 - 1400 monthly

(same as a mortgage payment on $180 k)

Completed by September 2006

166 Valley Street, Rising Sun Mills

135 units

795-1850 monthly

(same as a mortgage payment on $160 k)

Completed

Alice building, Westminster Street

38 units

$975 - $2250 monthly

Lerner/Wilkinson Building, Westminster Street

12 units

$1200 - $1800 monthly

Promenade/Brown and Sharpe/the Foundry

202 units

$1000 - $1900 monthly

Rau Fastner

22 "affordable" units

$498 monthly

47 market rate units

$850 - 1300 monthly

[Frankie811]

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20...rd.770f1f9.html

[CtownMikey]

has an affordable housing project ever been successful or even tried at as the same scale of 110?

maybe with a huge gift from a rich old man or something??

I am just curious if we could ever have height like that without the high cost to live there?

[Recchia]

has an affordable housing project ever been successful or even tried at as the same scale of 110?

maybe with a huge gift from a rich old man or something??

I am just curious if we could ever have height like that without the high cost to live there?

Yes, it's called housing projects of the 1960's and 70's. Places like Co-op City in the Bronx, huge high rises that were built for the poor. They were all disasters though and only concentrated poverty and created new slums by isolating the poor.

As far as some nice guy coming along and building a nice luxury tower as affordable, I'm not sure but I doubt it's happened.

[brick]

Say 110 were going to be low income housing. How do you choose who gets the penthouse? Do it like Hong Kong or Shanghai and have people waiting in line for 6 weeks at apartment openings and first come first served? After all there is a reason the penthouse units are going for four times what the regular units are going for. And of course, the premium apartments in those places don't go to the actual poor people, they go to party favorites.

Next step. Now you are a poor family living in the penthouse. Some rich guy comes up to you and says "hey you can have the bottom floor plus enough money to feed your family for two years if you let me move up there." And in time the whole place becomes full of rich guys paying near market value.

Now, while a market economy is not perfect and I can understand the desires of the "have-nots," I've yet to see a system where resources are distributed more fairly. However, I'm guessing that we don't really need a political discussion here.

Also - isn't Federal Hill manor a former low income housing high-rise?

[spanishboy]

Did anyone hear yesterday that Manny Ramirez is selling his condo in Boston for about 6 million!!!.. for that price, 110 seems cheap

[provid]

Did anyone hear yesterday that Manny Ramirez is selling his condo in Boston for about 6 million!!!.. for that price, 110 seems cheap

http://www.boston.com/realestate/galleries/ramirez/1.htm

[Airwaves]

Did anyone hear yesterday that Manny Ramirez is selling his condo in Boston for about 6 million!!!.. for that price, 110 seems cheap

The Boston housing market is falling through the floor. Prices for luxury condos are free-falling in the dowtown area and the majority of the new developments are dropping their prices (significantly) to compete with one another. Spend a few minutes online checking out prices for new luxury condos and you'll see they are no more expensive than Providence (of course there are exceptions like the Mandarin - but not the Ritz or Intercontinental or Atlier, etc....). Major overbuilding has caused the prices to drop so signigicantly in the last 6 months that it would be wise for people in RI to start looking in Boston for deals that come around once a decade. Kind of kills the concept for drawing people the Providence, huh?

[CtownMikey]

Yes, it's called housing projects of the 1960's and 70's. Places like Co-op City in the Bronx, huge high rises that were built for the poor. They were all disasters though and only concentrated poverty and created new slums by isolating the poor.

As far as some nice guy coming along and building a nice luxury tower as affordable, I'm not sure but I doubt it's happened.

I didn't mean to have something of 110's -luxury- be sold at cheap cheap prices.

I meant only heightwise.. the units and prices would be much smaller.. instead of 110's 100 or so units (i forget) make it like 500 units in that same sized building. Cheaper materials inside as well. The only thing I'd like to stay similar is the outside of course.

But like you guys said it hasnt worked in the past.

[Cotuit]

The problem with Public Housing highrises of the 60s and 70s wasn't that they were highrises per say. Rather it's the concentration of one socio-economic group and their problems in isolation from the rest of the community. Most high rise public housing projects were clustered together and often built in a Le Corbusierian Garden City type of isolation. In Manhattan you see crosstown streets cut off at the edge of some housing projects in effect creating a compound where the rest of the city is not allowed to move through and mingle with the residents of the project.

I don't see why an affordable high rise integrated into the cityscape the way OneTen is would have the same failure. The economics of building such a structure may prove prohibitive, though there are a lot of extraneous issues that are going into OneTen's price tag. There are plenty of clear lots, ready to build in the city which would have similar integration as OneTen. Land is too expensive right downtown to allow for affordable development on that scale, but a little further out and it is doable.

[Garris]

Yes, it's called housing projects of the 1960's and 70's. Places like Co-op City in the Bronx, huge high rises that were built for the poor. They were all disasters though and only concentrated poverty and created new slums by isolating the poor.

There was a report on NPR yesterday that blamed two key factors for contributing to the rioting that occured in France recently:

1 - Concentration of the poor and immigrants in the suburbs, an environment which they concluded is naturally isolating and secluded...

2 - Further concentration of the poor and immigrants in low cost high rise projects in those same suburbs...

I think the concept of "affordable high rises for the poor" has essentially been debunked at this point as another bad idea of the 60's and 70's. In places like Chicago and Baltimore, they're knocking those projects down and replacing them with mixed use, "neighborhood building" townhomes and SFH's...

Cotuit is right that the economics of building a lower cost, middle class tower is certainly possible, but likely not right in the CBD, but more in the Jewelry District or along the services roads of 95 (areas where the NIMBYs want to put more trees and open space).

Regarding Boston real estate, I've been watching prices there and, while dropping, they're still substantially higher than what is in Providence. I'm still finding that condos per sq foot are still running 2x to 3x the cost of what they go for in Providence (and I'm looking in a range larger than just the "luxury" downtown condos of 110 and Ritz ilk).

Regarding the bank building being demolished, I believe Jack Gold of the PPS said at a recent presentation that the bank building wasn't of tremendous historic or architectural significance and that it was clear that the layout and space no longer made it economically viable. He felt its replacement by 110 was more than worthwhile.

- Garris

[glassandsteel]

There are no rules that prevent an affordable high-rise from being possible and very succesful. The scenario painted of rich people buying these spots or renting these spots is true but irrelevant. That just shows how big the market for them would be. There aren't many people that would turn down an apartment with a gorgeous view for around the price they currently pay, even if it meant losing some square footage. It doesn't have to be an affordable-housing project (meaning, the negative conontation of the term), just affordable and open to whomever wants it. These projects also don't have to be an eyesore, or secluded, just available. We live in a society that can't afford housing yet shuns the idea of large-scale affordable buildings. Meanwhile I fantasize about bringing lower class folks like MYSELF, into the core of the city. There's a lot of money to be made in this market and everybody is busy filling the void of the higher-end units to even notice.

I'm just saying that it's very doable and it can be very positive for our city.

[brick]

There aren't many people that would turn down an apartment with a gorgeous view for around the price they currently pay,

You guys are still ignoring the factors of supply and demand. They are *not* irrelevant. The invisible hand of Adam Smith tells you that these projects are only worth it to developers when they are catering to the rich or when they are socially supported (e.g. low income housing). the reason the invisible hand tells you this is that you don't see these types of developments anywhere except the most dense urban areas like NYC and Tokyo. Providence does not have the density to support an "affordable" tower because if they build a tower, the people that will want to live in it are affluent. And therefore the developers will make more money making it for them.

Put it this way. Probably 15% of 110's building cost will be in the amenities, however those amenities will allow them to charge about 25 to 50% more per square foot than a similar set-up with smaller places. It does pay to cater to the luxury crowd if you have enough interest to do it.

And you still haven't answered my basic question. Say they have this tower and it is all 500 sq. ft. apartments. glassandsteel and 700 of his contemporaries all want to live on the top ten floors, but there are only 40 apartments available. How do you decide who gets those apartments if not by price? And if you use price, then how do you keep people from paying more than you can afford?

[ruchele]

Providence does not have the density to support an "affordable" tower because if they build a tower, the people that will want to live in it are affluent.

And you still haven't answered my basic question. Say they have this tower and it is all 500 sq. ft. apartments. glassandsteel and 700 of his contemporaries all want to live on the top ten floors, but there are only 40 apartments available. How do you decide who gets those apartments if not by price? And if you use price, then how do you keep people from paying more than you can afford?

You're right that a for-profit developer wouldn't take on such a project, because it simply wouldn't be as profitable as catering to higher incomes. That's why non-profit developers do this kind of work- they specialize in filling the gap between need and profitability and doing stuff no sane for-profit would touch. Subsidies from the government are what allow non-profits to take on projects like this, and deed restrictions and other legal mechanisms are used to make sure houses developed as "affordable" don't get sold to people with lots of cash. Price limits are set to be affordable to people only earning a certain amount of money, and only people in that income bracket are entitled to buy or rent.

HOWEVER, no non-profit would take on the kind of project you are proposing. No-one builds high-rise affordable housing any more, because we know it was a failed experiment. The government won't fund it, and no city would agree to have it built.

[CtownMikey]

when i say affordable, I mean something that an average middle class citizen can buy.. maybe 150k condos or apartments that are priced a bit cheaper that Westminsterlofts.

Is "affordable housing" usually aimed at welfare and lower class citizens??? I have no clue

[Baines]

when i say affordable, I mean something that an average middle class citizen can buy.. maybe 150k condos or apartments that are priced a bit cheaper that Westminsterlofts.

Is "affordable housing" usually aimed at welfare and lower class citizens??? I have no clue

While your point and question are valid it goes back to basic economics. Developers will in the end balance cost/benefit in terms of the cost/sq foot (the high brick/mortar/labor-in PVD is a natural barrier) and the price range that can be charged for the middle class buyer. That is the challenge in a nutshell.

On it's face it seems to me to be a great idea based on the concept of reaching more potential buyers BUT I assume that developers have assessed this option and determined the cost/benefit is not there.

I would love to see cities like PVD to fill the urban center with 20-40 floor 150-250K condos - imagine pushing out from Westminister down to the new Route 195 and west towards Route 95 and increasing tyhe Downcity resident pop by 1,000 people.

But who is the developer?

[DaveRPI]

You're right that a for-profit developer wouldn't take on such a project, because it simply wouldn't be as profitable as catering to higher incomes. That's why non-profit developers do this kind of work- they specialize in filling the gap between need and profitability and doing stuff no sane for-profit would touch. Subsidies from the government are what allow non-profits to take on projects like this, and deed restrictions and other legal mechanisms are used to make sure houses developed as "affordable" don't get sold to people with lots of cash. Price limits are set to be affordable to people only earning a certain amount of money, and only people in that income bracket are entitled to buy or rent.

HOWEVER, no non-profit would take on the kind of project you are proposing. No-one builds high-rise affordable housing any more, because we know it was a failed experiment. The government won't fund it, and no city would agree to have it built.

thats not true

i work for a FOR-PROFIT private firm who has specialized in building affordable housing

and there are many like us

affordable housing is very different from market rate which is very different from luxury or high end

there are MULTITUDES of companies making profits in each segment

you need to look at "return on investment"

understand that ordinary people make small investments in larger funds that create the opportunity to build all of these types of housing mostly when it provides a good return, and that should be a return over the long term because, after all, it is real estate

there is no demand for an affordable housing skyscraper in providence.... there is only people who want to live the luxury skyscraper lifestyle on the cheap

WORD...

peace, im outta here

[glassandsteel]

Perhaps I should have covered more ground in my earlier post but apparently I left some things unaccounted for, and I believe the sentence "There aren't many people that would turn down an apartment with a gorgeous view for around the price they currently pay..." was too vague to be taken the way I meant. Sorry.

With regard to the issue of who gets the "top ten floors", of course it's settled by price. I'm not a blind idealist. You CAN have expensive units in the same building. There aren't any rules except making sure the numbers work. That aside, you can build a high-rise apartment or condo building WITH affordable units AND expensive ones if you desire it. It can be as few as 20% of the units, I don't really care. I'm simply saying that it can be done. To say that city living within reasonable means is a failed experiment is to give up. And in rebutal to a few lines:

"You guys are still ignoring the factors of supply and demand."

-No, there is plenty of demand and less supply. That makes things more expensive.

"Providence does not have the density to support an "affordable" tower..."

-Providence is the sixth most densly populated city in the U.S.

"...because if they build a tower, the people that will want to live in it are affluent..."

-No, if they build a tower, people from all classes will want to live in it.

"...And therefore the developers will make more money making it for them."

-"And therefore" usually comes when the previous explaination supports the final statement. We know that there is more money to be made from affluent people. They have more money. I'm saying that a little in abundance, is a lot (god, I hate that saying though) and there are a lot of upper-middle, middle, and lower-middle class people to make some money on.

"And you still haven't answered my basic question."

-I wasn't aware of your basic question until after my post. Sorry.

To end this post (which I need to do because I'm going to bed):

Brick, a gorgeous view can be from the third floor. Please, in the future, if you think you've found holes in something I've posted then just point them out and build constructively off of them. To negate someone's post without offering any concrete counter-points or another solution to the problem isn't polite and it isn't productive. This is a real problem and to say that it can't be solved and leave it at that is to not really care about the problem, but merely the argument.

[TheBostonian]

-Providence is the sixth most densly populated city in the U.S.

I've never heard that. Can you link me to that info?

[CtownMikey]

O boy..

http://www.nlc.org/about_cities/cities_101/187.cfm

the top link has Providence ranking at 20th compared to Boston's 10th and I couldn't find another link for the life of me right now...

I'm sure other surveys will challenge that, but w/e

[TheBostonian]

Not on the list of densest cities in the 1990 census:

http://www.demographia.com/db-us90densdist.htm

#48 on list of densest municipalities over 50k in 2000 census:

http://www.demographia.com/db-2000city50kdens.htm

[brick]

thats not true

i work for a FOR-PROFIT private firm who has specialized in building affordable housing

and there are many like us

We're not talking about affordable housing. We're talking about whether it makes any sense to have a tower filled with "affordable housing." and if it did, develops like your company would be doing it. And in fact you say this later so I'm not even sure why you start your point off with such a contrarian attitude.

If a developer could make money selling 150K units in a high-rise, they would be breaking ground tomorrow. The implication being made here is somewhere between "all developers are stupid to not cater to middle income people" and "I'm being screwed by the man." Unfortunately in this case the latter is applicable, but "the man" is free market economics.

[brick]

I'm simply saying that it can be done. To say that city living within reasonable means is a failed experiment is to give up. And in rebutal to a few lines:

Right, but the overwhelming evidence is that it actually can't be done for as much profit in a lightly dense urban area like Providence. If it could, as I said, a developer would be breaking ground tomorrow. If the developers of 110 thought that the bottom 10 floors or whatever could be more affordable and still net them the profit they want then they would do it.

I'm pretty confident in my argument and for you to say I haven't even made one is quite frankly willful ignorance on your part. I really don't understand your last point since I did directly address what you were saying. I'll skip the line-by-line rebuttal.

Last I'm gonna say as we are way off track and quickly getting to the point where cotuit will feel the need to lock it down. PM me if you want to continue the discussion.