SouthEnd Midrise Projects

[Spartan]

On 10/5/2016 at 3:01 PM, InSouthPark said:

Based on the condition of the buildings, I would think a stiff wind from Matthew could level the place. What a dump. I understand low income housing is needed but these unit don't look like they were EVER maintained.  I shudder every time I get off Remont. 

 

On 10/5/2016 at 5:25 PM, 11 HouseBZ said:

So true of a statement. When I worked for a company contracted to renovate the units, I was in utter shock at the conditions inside. Floor boards that resembled mulch, water heaters falling through floors, being able to just pull down an entire outside wall with just hands, no hammers, Sawzall, anything. Fleas infested half the units. Bottom line it's almost third world in there. Low income is needed, but they deserve better than those conditions. Raze it.

 

Given the riot and protests, I feel like it's worth mentioning that the displacement associated with gentrification is one of the issues at the heart of the black community (I'm speaking from my experience in the planning/development industry - we hear it often). The buildings in Brookhill are not remarkable for any reason. They aren't even a very efficient use of the land. If they are that dilapidated then it's probably best that they be razed. That being said, this is essentially the same type of thought process that went on during the Urban Renewal program. As much as we all hate the outcomes of that program, the buildings that were razed were largely the same as this - dilapidated, poorly maintained, and in many cases back then they also lacked basic utilities like electricity or plumbing, and the physical issues were just compounded by the sanitation issues created by those conditions. If Urban Renewal has just upgraded the housing and not displaced large segments of the population with highways then we might not lament that process as much, or at all.

Anyway, the preservation (and not destruction) of the community needs to be at the heart of the discussion. There needs to be a way to help the people get better housing and remain in the same area. I think the City should use/target the redevelopment of this property as a model for how a place can be redeveloped and still maintain an economically and racially diverse population. They should require any redevelopment to maintain or slightly increase the current population capacity of the site in terms of affordable housing, and pile on whatever else to make it work economically. It's a huge site, so surely something can be worked out.

[southslider]

^Displacement of long-term, owner-occupied households would be a greater threat with gentrification. Brookhill being renter-occupied, its loss wouldn't be nearly as damaging to the historic sense of community.

Edited October 7, 2016 by southslider

[go_vertical]

Certainly nobody is advocating destruction of the community, just the sub-standard housing. I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to move if they don't want to. It is a large site so government subsidized housing could be built on a portion of the land if indeed the feds take it. Some of the property could be sold to a developer at an extremely low rate with the stipulation that a considerable portion of what they build be workforce housing. I'm thinking maybe 30% or so instead of the typical 10%-15% that is usually pushed. The government housing along with the workforce housing at a decent density would more than replace what would be lost with the razing of the current structures and provide housing for a vast majority of the residents that are there now thus resulting in minimal displacement.

What should be happening is the current owners of the property and buildings should be investigated and potentially labeled as slumlords for allowing people to live in such conditions. Some may disagree with this but I feel that a child growing up in such horrid conditions is very likely to perpetuate the behaviors that are plaguing the area. Children need a secure and safe home to go to. Without that their foundation for development is shaky at best.

[11 HouseBZ]

Spartan, I agree with your points. Absolutely replace it and keep the community in place. I'm not suggesting it be razed and disperse the community, replacing it with a higher income demographic. Just merely saying they (low income) deserve a better quality of life. One that they can take pride in.

I have a problem with people that take advantage of low income areas. Buying into it and putting very little back into it because it cuts their profit margin. I've worked in low income areas since high school and I see this happen every day. No reinvestment in an area allows deterioration to crumble a community. My hopes is for better (urban design wise) version of Brightwalk, Seigle Ave, Arbor Glen, Renaissance (Boulevard Homes) type redevelopment with retail. And while we're at it cross the street and redo Southside. While they aren't in as bad shape (literally, they're almost bullet proof), redesign the roads and building layouts to make better use if space and land. This whole area needs some love. 

6 minutes ago, go_vertical said:

What should be happening is the current owners of the property and buildings should be investigated and potentially labeled as slumlords for allowing people to live in such conditions. Some may disagree with this but I feel that a child growing up in such horrid conditions is very likely to perpetuate the behaviors that are plaguing the area. Children need a secure and safe home to go to. Without that their foundation for development is shaky at best.

Amen

[Niner National]

1 hour ago, 11 HouseBZ said:

Spartan, I agree with your points. Absolutely replace it and keep the community in place. I'm not suggesting it be razed and disperse the community, replacing it with a higher income demographic. Just merely saying they (low income) deserve a better quality of life. One that they can take pride in.

I have a problem with people that take advantage of low income areas. Buying into it and putting very little back into it because it cuts their profit margin. I've worked in low income areas since high school and I see this happen every day. No reinvestment in an area allows deterioration to crumble a community. My hopes is for better (urban design wise) version of Brightwalk, Seigle Ave, Arbor Glen, Renaissance (Boulevard Homes) type redevelopment with retail. And while we're at it cross the street and redo Southside. While they aren't in as bad shape (literally, they're almost bullet proof), redesign the roads and building layouts to make better use if space and land. This whole area needs some love. 

Amen

Living in a mixed income neighborhood that is predominately people making less than 30% of the AMI, I would argue that very few take pride in their community even when they have something nice.

I routinely see trash thrown all over the neighborhood, particularly where people just clean out their cars on the street. I have definitely seen drug deals go down. I've found crack pipes. I see trash bags just pile up 10 feet high outside of dumpsters. I see complete disregard for landscaping. 

Fortunately, the community has a staff that does a pretty good job negating all of this, but the people that live there treat it like crap. 

[QClifer]

@Niner National is absolutely correct. Build new low income housing there and it will be destroyed again. Very few of the tenants take care of the property.

[11 HouseBZ]

So then what's the solution? Just leave low income in the mess they're in? Don't invest in helping them out? Go_vertical made a good point of inserting change for the kids in this area could help end the perpetual circle of poverty. Maybe I added to what he said but still. In all seriousness though, what is the answer to this? 

[Norm2]

I believe the state passed a law not long ago that prevents cities from requiring a certain amount of units in a development to be low income housing. :-(

[Niner National]

17 hours ago, 11 HouseBZ said:

So then what's the solution? Just leave low income in the mess they're in? Don't invest in helping them out? Go_vertical made a good point of inserting change for the kids in this area could help end the perpetual circle of poverty. Maybe I added to what he said but still. In all seriousness though, what is the answer to this? 

I'd prefer to see all developments require a handful of low income options rather than have entire neighborhoods that have affordable / workforce housing.  If you're concentrating poor people together,  nothing ever changes...you just give them temporarily nicer looking housing.

Surround poor people with people that aren't poor, otherwise they'll just congregate together and stay exactly where they are in life. So much success is attained by who you know and if you only know other poor people with low skills and low education levels, how are your connections and relationships going to help you get ahead?

The problem though is successful people don't want to be around poor people, which I completely understand. After living around poor people for the last 4.5 years I can't say I want to live around them either.

[kermit]

18 hours ago, 11 HouseBZ said:

 In all seriousness though, what is the answer to this? 

1) better transit (to connect low-cost suburban housing to jobs). One or two buses an hour aint gonna cut it.
2) permit (and incentivize) smaller units
3) reduce development and retrofitting costs by eliminating parking requirements
4) permit accessory units in existing residential areas to a greater degree (I wanted to put one on a rental property but squarefootage requirements prevented it)
5) Encourage the development of non-traditional residential units (e.g. retrofitting vacant (non-residential) space, allowing non-traditional materials like intermodal containers etc.)
6) Streamline eviction process (this is tricky but necessary to get small investors more comfortable with renting to poor folks)
7) rethink some of the non-safety portions of building codes (such as requirements for insulation) to make reuse of existing buildings more cost effective

most of all:

7) Increased densities and land use mixing will make transit better, reduce some of the negative impacts associated with ghettoization and make it easier to connect people to jobs.
 

[asthasr]

The frustrating thing is that even well-connected, high density mixed use does not guarantee improvement. Take the case of Philadelphia. This area is a moderately priced but good neighborhood. It has frequent bus service, is very walkable, is near amenities, and is desirable: homes here range from about $350k on up. Five or six blocks away, you're in one of the worst parts of Philadelphia, surrounded by poverty and ruin. The built environment is nearly identical... and yet a house near that area can cost less than $50k. Literally, you could go in and buy a half block of houses for the price of one house five blocks away.

[kermit]

yea, nothing is going to guarantee improvement but it seems pretty clear based on evidence we already have that neither low-density nor ghettoization works. At least the high density strategy generates some nifty urbanization benefits as well as creating the potential of better socio-economic integration.

[KJHburg]

Financial education is needed for many lower income tenants that is my suggestion. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by KJHburg

[Matthew.Brendan]

Did you run background and credit checks? How much security deposit was required? We own several rentals around town (a handful of which would qualify as 'low income') and have had very good experience overall. Yes we've had to do the eviction dance (twice) in these 10+ years and had one tenant get 'creative' with redecoration on the way out, but it is up to you to find suitable tenants. That certainly does not mean renting to the first person to show up with cash in hand. We require a $50 app fee to cover background and credit check, and if those are satisfactory we meet you at your current home. That will immediately tell me all I need to know in regards to how you treat your surroundings. If that meeting goes well and a contract is desired then we require first, last and 1 month deposit up front. If that is a problem then that again tells me about your capacity to budget appropriately.

Being proactive in choosing your tenants will save you major headaches down the road. 

[ChessieCat]

On 8/26/2016 at 1:11 PM, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

I can tell you that the plan is still to pave paradise and put up a parking lot. Until Spectrum is ready to build apartments.

The paving of paradise is just about complete.  Pack your bags and leave tonite RDF21...

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ChessieCat said:

The paving of paradise is just about complete.  Pack your bags and leave tonite RDF21...

Its a damn crying shame.

[ChessieCat]

^Does Spectrum need a rezoning to built apartments here?  Have they filed any plans?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ChessieCat said:

^Does Spectrum need a rezoning to built apartments here?  Have they filed any plans?

They will need to rezone, once they have a finalized plan. Just to note... Spectrum owns 4/5 of everything from Winnifred to Tryon, Carson to Catherine. Thats quite an assemblage, so I wouldn't doubt it if we saw something a little more than just apartments. I'd guess we would get a mixed use development next development cycle.

[CLTProductions]

7 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

They will need to rezone, once they have a finalized plan. Just to note... Spectrum owns 4/5 of everything from Winnifred to Tryon, Carson to Catherine. Thats quite an assemblage, so I wouldn't doubt it if we saw something a little more than just apartments. I'd guess we would get a mixed use development next development cycle.

Correction here. Spectrum already rezoned most. It's actually a collection of LLCs that own the land pulling up to one entity that is not Spectrum. They did the rezoning obo. 

But yes the owners are 100% land banking and paying the bills with parking revenue until next cycle 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Jayvee

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jayvee said:

Correction here. Spectrum already rezoned most. It's actually a collection of LLCs that own the land pulling up to one entity that is not Spectrum. They did the rezoning obo. 

But yes the owners are 100% land banking and paying the bills with parking revenue until next cycle 

Spectrum only rezoned the Catherine Frontage, not the entire assemblage. 

[Prodev]

That was the only piece that needed rezoning. The rest was already TOD.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Prodev said:

That was the only piece that needed rezoning. The rest was already TOD.

I stand Corrected :-) Do you agree with the prospect of a larger mixed use development at a later date?

[Prodev]

Kee Court townhome plans were approved. The elevations are awful... It fits in with south end about as well as the townhomes down the street at Church & Bland, which if I'm not mistaken, were also built by Ryan. 

[ChessieCat]

4 hours ago, Prodev said:

Kee Court townhome plans were approved. The elevations are awful... It fits in with south end about as well as the townhomes down the street at Church & Bland, which if I'm not mistaken, were also built by Ryan. 

Renderings of Kee Court?  

On 10/14/2016 at 0:02 PM, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

I stand Corrected :-) Do you agree with the prospect of a larger mixed use development at a later date?

Spectrum has no plans for townhomes (in addition to apartments) at the 1220 S Tryon site do they?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Prodev said:

Kee Court townhome plans were approved. The elevations are awful... It fits in with south end about as well as the townhomes down the street at Church & Bland, which if I'm not mistaken, were also built by Ryan. 

 BARF!!!!