Poindexter Village Redevelopment - News & Updates
June 7, 2013 6:05 pm at 6:05 pm #407832
But tenants with Section 8 vouchers are more lucrative because the vouchers pay more than the 30% of the tenant income. In many areas vouchers actually pay higher than market rents.
Yes, in many cases they can accept the voucher at a higher amount than the reduced rent. Which is another reason why you want to put LIHTC project in more desirable areas.
The voucher amount is based off of the fair market rent set by HUD. In Franklin County it’s $601 for a one bedroom, $782 for a two bedroom and $1,008 for a three bedroom. So let’s say you build an LIHTC project in a crappy area where the rents are $450 for 1/1, $700 for a 2/2 and $900 for a 3/2. A renter comes in and needs a 2/2 and makes $27k. So the most you can charge them is $675. But with a section voucher you can charge $900. So basically your double dipping and paying over market rent to keep a low income household in a poor area.
Now build that same project downtown where a 2/2 rents for $1,200. So the most you could charge the renter is still $675 and with a section 8 voucher you can charge $900. So you’re still double dipping in two separate programs, but at least it’s serving an actual purpose.
So for the same amount of subsidy you’re putting a low income household in a better neighborhood where they are more likely to have a better quality of life and more opportunity to move up, instead of grouping low income residents together, creating unsustainable neighborhoods and less likely to break the cycle of poverty.June 7, 2013 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #407833
Here is an example of LIHTC projects done better:
You can see a train going through the middle of the picture. The 5 projects under construction below the train line are affordable housing. The 2 larger projects to the right are actually mixed use/income where not all the units are affordable and they have retail on the ground floor. The project under construction just above the train line in the middle is an upscale project with rents in the $2000 to $3000 range. It has a grocery store already open on the ground floor.
So you can see that 5 affordable buildings are well located. There are plenty of high paying jobs in the area which is why the rents are so high. But there are also many service sector workers needed. Instead of having the people who work these jobs drive in from way out the construction of affordable units allows many of these people who work in the area to actually live there as well. So work, grocery, shopping, etc. are all within walking distance and they can take the train to other parts of the city if needed.
These unit then basically help everyone. To the people paying market rents they now have the service sector people living in the same area thereby reducing traffic and parking demand. These people walk the streets making them more safe and adding demand for regular business like groceries, dry cleaners, CVS, etc.The lower income people benefit because they can spend less on transportation cost. They get quality housing and get to live in and interact with people that have more means, creating more opportunity. Neighborhoods have a mix of income allowing them to be stable. Instead of letting the low income neighborhoods going to crap for 50 year, coming in and gentrifying and pushing low income households to another neighborhood where they’ll be crap for 50 years, wash, repeat.
I think this is a good model for downtown. Lower income households would do a lot for the area. There are plenty of empty surface lots. Think of all the food places popping up downtown that we want to support or the janitors and secretaries. You’re not going to be able to work at a downtown restaurant and afford to stay at High Point or Annex on the river. Heck even a recent graduate making $30k would have a hard time renting downtown. Public transit should be super easy living downtown. They could easily get to Kroger in the BD or SN and the Hills (although that might be bit pricey). And the added people would fuel demand for a more grocery, dining and entertainment options. You’d have more people walking around downtown at night because they live there.
Considering the new developments I think you could easily do 5 projects of about 200 units each for a total of 1,000 units without burdening the area. I’d do a variety of them from 30% to 80% AMI so with an $67k AMI you’re talking about housholds making $14k to $53k. That way you’d have a good quality mix of tenants from a young professional making $30k to a family of 4 with two working parents making $25k each down to a single mother getting by on $20k a year.June 7, 2013 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm #407834
Poindexter Village demolition riles Columbus Compact chief
Jun 7, 2013, 2:20pm EDT
Brian R. Ball
Staff reporter – Business First
Word that the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority has started demolishing the shuttered Poindexter Village predictably hasn’t settled well with neighborhood redevelopment leader Jonathan Beard, who pushed for renovation of the 1940s-era public housing complex rather than redevelopment of the 26-acre site.
READ MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2013/06/poindexter-village-demolition-riles.htmlJune 11, 2013 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #407835
More demolition photos from a few days ago…June 17, 2013 5:13 am at 5:13 am #407836
Another demolition photo update. This first batch of buildings is 90% rubble now.June 18, 2013 1:00 pm at 1:00 pm #407837
Looks like CMHA got their tax credits (at the end of the article):June 28, 2013 11:47 am at 11:47 am #407838
The Expert Group appointed pursuant to the federally-required Section 106 Historic Review process (whose charge was to study preservation of the remaining 10 Poindexter Village buildings for the feasibility of rehabilitation by CMHA) issued its draft report to CMHA yesterday. While Randy Black of the City’s Historic Preservation Office coordinated the work, it is important to note that CMHA approved the members of this Expert Group — it was an agreed upon fair and unbiased group of development professionals experienced in old buildings.
The Expert Group report concurs in every respect with the analysis and positions advanced by the Poindexter Village History Advisory Committee and the Coalition for Responsible and Sustainable Development of the Near East Side.
This study validates that the approach taken by community advocates and supported by the Near East Area Commission in furtherance of the Near East Area Plan was accurate, reasonable, and appropriate.
The report was sent to CMHA yesterday morning in draft form, with the attachments to be sent after July 4th. CMHA will then issue a letter within 30 days, saying what it will do with the property.
Some excerpts from the report read as follows (all emphases added):
Rehabilitation for Modern Use
While the Expert Group advocates the preservation of Poindexter Village’s identity and history through retention and reuse of the Study Area buildings, we are aware of the need to appeal to a new generation of apartment tenants. The buildings, their setting and the individual residential units can and should be upgraded to meet the current needs and expectations of CMHA and its clients, allowing Poindexter Village to be a successful part of the housing portfolio that CMHA owns and operates in the neighborhood. All 10 of the buildings in Blocks V and IX of the Study Area can and should be retained and redeveloped into new apartment housing.[/u]
The financial resources associated with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Historic Tax Credit programs would cover the bulk of the expenses, and the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority would only need to cover about 20% of the costs from the agency’s resources. The cost to rehabilitate the units would be less than the cost to build new.[/u]
The Expert Group was in full agreement that rehabilitation of the Study Area buildings will not present any significant engineering or code-related challenges.[/u]
We also include allowances for replacement of failed framing members, reinforcement and stabilization of overstressed members and remediation of the concerns with crawlspace ventilation. While we acknowledge the need to address these deficiencies, we would be doing a disservice to Poindexter Village if we did not point out how many positives there are with the buildings.[/u] The quality of the original construction has largely withstood the test of time, hard use and weather in relatively good condition. The exterior masonry is quite sound and requires only selective repointing and repair. The framing is in good shape with the exception of some limited areas needing replacement or repair.
In general, the buildings are quite adaptable to floor plan changes.[/u] The existing floor framing relies upon a center bearing wall and exterior load bearing masonry walls. Because of the relatively shallow depth of the building it should be a relatively easy matter to head off the center wall to allow for the development of alternative floor plan arrangements, including more open and flexible floor plans that are desired today.[/u]
In summary, the Expert Group believes that there are valid reasons why the 10 Poindexter Village buildings in the Study Area can and should be rehabilitated as residential housing by CMHA.[/u] By doing so, the Housing Authority will preserve a significant part of African American history in Columbus; contribute to a sense of community and pride of place in the neighborhood; and provide an important visual and physical link between the historic neighborhood and planned developments. Reuse of these buildings has advantages over new construction because rehabilitation protects the value of previous investment in buildings and infrastructure; rehabilitation can be achieved for a cost that is lower than the replacement cost; and significant financial incentives exist for the renovation of historic buildings, reducing costs.[/u] Finally, this report confirms that a variety of architectural options exist for renovating the existing building footprints; that the rehabilitation can be designed to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; and that these buildings can be adapted into high quality, modern and marketable living space. Contemporary layouts and upgraded interior features will complement the historic exterior character and legacy presented by the original Poindexter buildings, adding market appeal with the added cache of being a part of a community that embraces its history while celebrating a renewed pride of place.[/u]
In rediscovering Poindexter, CMHA will not only reconnect the community with its proud history and pride of place, but the organization will provide a tangible example of a reasoned and diversified approach to neighborhood redevelopment. Redeveloping the Study Area should be seen not as an afterthought or a consolation, but as a centerpiece to the larger neighborhood revitalization.[/u] The new development adjacent to the Study area will benefit from its adjacency and association with the heritage and cultural legacy of Poindexter Village, while the Study Area will benefit from its association and adjacency with the energy and enthusiasm which are likely to accompany the construction of new infill development. Redevelopment of the Study Area is an opportunity to have the best of both redevelopment and new construction. Striking this balance also lowers the risks associated with urban planning by diversifying the approaches taken in pursuing the overall goal of improving housing and stabilizing neighborhoods.[/u]
Expert Group Members
Cathy D. Nelson
Columbus Landmarks Foundation
Mike Paplow, AIA
Feinknopf Macioce Schappa Architects
Vice President, Organizational Development
Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing
David A. Vottero, AIA
Director, Architectural Design
Schooley Caldwell Associates
Judith B. Williams
Historic Preservation Consultant
.June 28, 2013 4:40 pm at 4:40 pm #407839
I think it’s good they are recommending to retain some of the buildings. Hopefully there can be new housing along with restored older buildings and keep most folks happy.July 11, 2013 1:31 pm at 1:31 pm #407840
Urban Plan Finalized for Near East Side Redevelopment
Published on July 10, 2013 10:30 pm
The “Partners Achieving Community Transformation” (PACT) working group unveiled their finalized plan tonight for the redevelopment of the Near East Side of Columbus after a three-year process. The plan, known as “The Blueprint for Community Investment”, seeks to enhance the quality of life for the area by focusing on housing, workforce development, neighborhood assets, education, wellness, retail, greenspace and other factors.
READ MORE: https://www.columbusunderground.com/urban-plan-finalized-for-near-east-side-redevelopmentJuly 20, 2013 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #407841
Two Poindexter Village Buildings to be Preserved
Published on July 20, 2013 7:30 pm
By: Brent Warren
The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) has announced that they will preserve two of the original Poindexter Village buildings. CMHA has already demolished 25 of the 35 original structures, and had held off on deciding what to do with the 10 remaining buildings until after the release of findings from a panel of historic preservation experts. The panel recommended that all 10 buildings be rehabilitated.
In a press release, CMHA emphasized that saving the two buildings was a response to concerns expressed by the community.
READ MORE: https://www.columbusunderground.com/two-buildings-to-be-preserved-at-poindexter-site-workshops-scheduled-to-develop-plan-bw1July 29, 2013 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm #407842
The first section of buildings is completely leveled, and the buildings immediately south of them have been fenced off with demolition already underway. New photos at the link below:August 9, 2013 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #407843
Last-Ditch Effort Underway To Save Historic Columbus Buildings
Friday August 9, 2013 4:11 PM
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A real estate development company, focused on the rehabilitation and restoration of Ohio’s urban communities, is making an eleventh hour effort to save a group of 10 historic buildings on Columbus’ near east side. The buildings are part of the former Poindexter Village public-housing complex on North Champion Avenue.
READ MORE: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/08/09/columbus-poindexter-village-efforts-to-save-remaining-buildings.htmlAugust 10, 2013 1:24 am at 1:24 am #407844
So this group of developers basically wants to keep the last 10 to turn them into low-income housing. That’s really now what this area needs.August 19, 2013 2:38 am at 2:38 am #407845
An interesting semi-related read:August 20, 2013 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #407846
An interesting semi-related read:
From the linked article: “But there are still many hurdles before construction can begin. Chief among them is money. The city and the developers are counting on winning a $30-million federal grant, as well as millions of dollars available from the state.
If they don’t get those grants, the project would have to be scaled back significantly, said Douglas Guthrie, the head of the city’s housing authority.
The council vote also cleared the way for the grant applications to proceed. An $8-million grant was submitted to the state Wednesday morning; the federal Choice Neighborhoods grant application is due Sept. 10, and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is set to vote on awarding $5.7 million to extend Century Boulevard — a key part of the project — in late September.
U.S. Rep. Janice Hahn (D-San Pedro), who represents Watts and used to sit on the City Council, said she has already been lobbying for L.A.’s bid.
“There’s a lot of competing projects across the country that are all looking for federal dollars that seem to be getting scarcer by the day,” she said. “It will be a fight, but it’s worth fighting for…. We always looked at this as being not just better quality of life for the residents of Jordan Downs, but a chance for economic development throughout the region.”
This is one of the reasons why it makes little to no sense to turn your back on private investment dollars — which should be the primary goal of every redevelopment effort.
Poindexter Village was CMHA-owned public housing. Any redevelopment of those units would be a significant step up from what it was when CMHA operated it. Three sets of private developers have said that they could build first-rate, mixed income apartments there for less than the cost of a new build, and with no federal grants involved. But CMHA has said “no” to two, and the plan indicates it will say “no” on the third. CMHA/Columbus will be competing for the same Choice Neighborhood money as Watts — there will be no more than 4 awarded, with at least 41 eligible applicants. Maybe we’ll get it, maybe we won’t … but we sure are putting all our eggs in one basket. If the goal is to stimulate private investment, you certainly don’t do it by pushing away the private sector when it is telling you they can do a deal today. Pretty pictures are “pie in the sky” compared to experienced developers telling you they are ready to do a deal today. This is clearly a government-led approach to redevelopment. Good luck with that.
The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.