Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[Viperlord]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Salt Lake City development seems to be middle class challenged. Either the condos are too high in price or they just keep building low income apartments that bar out anyone looking to rent that makes over $38,000 a year. If we're so good at acquiring Federal grants for low income housing, why can't we use our energy and effort to secure a nice fat grant to relocate and rebuild our homeless shelter? And furthermore, can someone please describe to me how building low income housing in our city core will bring about a "renaissance" (mentioned in the article)? I'm pretty sure the beat generation living in Greenwich Village New York City in the 60's didn't live in new low income housing near a shopping center. It seems to me like real renaissances happen to worn down places like the avenues (were once upon a time) where people move into dilapidation and neglect and reverse it by virtue of their own work and vision. This article really bothered me.

New housing complex to serve low-income families


http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14051193

looks like providence place has a bit newer rendering

photo courtesy of wasatch partners.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Salt Lake City development seems to be middle class challenged. Either the condos are too high in price or they just keep building low income apartments that bar out anyone looking to rent that makes over $38,000 a year. If we're so good at acquiring Federal grants for low income housing, why can't we use our energy and effort to secure a nice fat grant to relocate and rebuild our homeless shelter? And furthermore, can someone please describe to me how building low income housing in our city core will bring about a "renaissance" (mentioned in the article)? I'm pretty sure the beat generation living in Greenwich Village New York City in the 60's didn't live in new low income housing near a shopping center. It seems to me like real renaissances happen to worn down places like the avenues (were once upon a time) where people move into dilapidation and neglect and reverse it by virtue of their own work and vision. This article really bothered me.

New housing complex to serve low-income families


http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14051193

Well, its not like the place is a homeless shelter or housing project. Under the income qualifications, my wife and I would have qualified to live there after we graduated from college and started working. The max. income for a family with one child is almost $40K, so there are a lot of people in the city that would be considered "poor enough" to live there. I think the name "low income housing" just sounds worse than it really is.

[Future Mayor]

I like the design but the sad thing about it is that within a year or two the inside will be dirty and stink. Has anyone been inside the hallways of the complex on N. Temple and I-15, it is absolutely disgusting. It is a low income complex and I'm sorry to say it but it has turned into a piece of shit, because a large percentage of the residents don't care what it looks like in the halls, imagine what the apartments look and smell like.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Well, its not like the place is a homeless shelter or housing project. Under the income qualifications, my wife and I would have qualified to live there after we graduated from college and started working. The max. income for a family with one child is almost $40K, so there are a lot of people in the city that would be considered "poor enough" to live there. I think the name "low income housing" just sounds worse than it really is.

It just never works out that way with 100% low income. Sorry. You can't bunch low income into one building and expect it to stay nice.

I'm more apt to go with Future Mayor on this one; you need to pepper new nice units with low income families to really upgrade their situation, but not send them all to one place and prevent others from mixing in.

If the government is going to require 100% low income units, the city should do a better job of keeping these projects on the outskirts, because they are just throw away projects.

It's not worth having downtown infill if you have to sell your soul. My guess is that these developers couldn't afford to finish the project in the current market so they sold out the city for Federal money to create a future blight.

[arkhitektor]

That can be said of just about any apartment complex. With good management things can be kept in good repair and its not inevitable that a complex will go to pot.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I like the design but the sad thing about it is that within a year or two the inside will be dirty and stink. Has anyone been inside the hallways of the complex on N. Temple and I-15, it is absolutely disgusting. It is a low income complex and I'm sorry to say it but it has turned into a piece of shit, because a large percentage of the residents don't care what it looks like in the halls, imagine what the apartments look and smell like.

The same thing happen with the apartments at the gateway. My wife and I look at those a few years back and they were awful. The hallway smelled and it just look trashy overall. Plus the units were tiny and the price was too high.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

That can be said of just about any apartment complex. With good management things can be kept in good repair and its not inevitable that a complex will go to pot.

So a question. Do you think, arkhitektor, that a manager will get paid more in a low income residence or a normal residence? Couple low rent prices with cheep developers panning out to Uncle Sam to subsidize their project when pondering this question.

Consider the following:

If you get paid much less to manage a place with more disrespectful tenants and you are a qualified intelligent human being that other apartments would like to have as a manager, would you go with a normal apartment complex or a low income complex?

The odds are stacked against these kinds of places. I'm not dead inside; I have compassion for human beings. But these kinds of projects, especially in a city core, are very misguided.

[Future Mayor]

Since I was a teenage I always thought the New Grand on 400 S and Main would be a really cool place to live. The location the charm of the building is great but it is 100% low income and even stepping in the lobby is disgusting. This one is truly low income not moderate income.

It's a tough balance, because there are those that would qualify, as "moderate income" like arkhitektor said he would, that would fit in perfectly fine in a mixed income building, and with good management it would remain nice, yet there becomes an issue with the low income residents. Can the truly low income residents be inter mingled with those residents paying market rate?

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Since I was a teenage I always thought the New Grand on 400 S and Main would be a really cool place to live. The location the charm of the building is great but it is 100% low income and even stepping in the lobby is disgusting. This one is truly low income not moderate income.

It's a tough balance, because there are those that would qualify, as "moderate income" like arkhitektor said he would, that would fit in perfectly fine in a mixed income building, and with good management it would remain nice, yet there becomes an issue with the low income residents. Can the truly low income residents be inter mingled with those residents paying market rate?

Future Mayor:
I volunteered in Nov/Dec to help our local housing authority out with a grant application to HUD. The focus of the grant, by HUD requirement, was to provided "mixed-income" housing for residents of our community: about two-thirds who do not need housing assistance, mixed in with about 1/3 who do. Apparently, mixed-income development have a pretty good track record around the country, which makes sense to me.

There are also programs in these mixed-income projects for people who need housing assistance to deposit a certain amount each month that is held in reserve by the Housing Authority. At the end of a period of 7-10 years, if the residents have kept their payments up, they accrue enough money for a down payment on the residence. I should have also added that the mixed income program also includes mixed use, with some buildings single-family, some multi-family, and a small portion commercial.

In addition, we had Habitat for Humanity as one of our major partners, who will build an additional 10 homes (out of the total of 172 units) that will be single family homes reserved for people of low incomes who meet the additional Habitat for Humanity requirements.

So the answer to you concern about whether low income residents can effectively be mixed with those of higher incomes in a mixed-use community seems to be a resounding yes all over the country.

Maybe other readers have different experiences, but from what I read in preparing this application, there seems little doubt about this issue anymore.

[arkhitektor]

Its a complex situation and things are pretty imbalanced right now in Salt Lake. It seems to me (as a former renter in DT SLC) that there are basically two types of housing: income controlled housing which many are not poor enough to qualify for and "market rate" housing which most are not wealthy enough to afford. Perhaps if there was less low income housing, the two price points would move naturally toward the middle and there would be a larger middle class population downtown. As things stand today, downtown seems to only be "affordable" if you are very rich and can afford to pay a lot for housing or very poor and qualify to live there on some type of subsidy.

My wife and I moved to the suburbs because we were caught in the middle and couldn't find anything in our price range downtown.
I could be wrong, but to me, all of the attempts at manipulating housing prices in the city to get the "right mix" of people living there have only made things worse.

[gemery]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Future Mayor:
I volunteered in Nov/Dec to help our local housing authority out with a grant application to HUD. The focus of the grant, by HUD requirement, was to provided "mixed-income" housing for residents of our community: about two-thirds who do not need housing assistance, mixed in with about 1/3 who do. Apparently, mixed-income development have a pretty good track record around the country, which makes sense to me.

There are also programs in these mixed-income projects for people who need housing assistance to deposit a certain amount each month that is held in reserve by the Housing Authority. At the end of a period of 7-10 years, if the residents have kept their payments up, they accrue enough money for a down payment on the residence. I should have also added that the mixed income program also includes mixed use, with some buildings single-family, some multi-family, and a small portion commercial.

In addition, we had Habitat for Humanity as one of our major partners, who will build an additional 10 homes (out of the total of 172 units) that will be single family homes reserved for people of low incomes who meet the additional Habitat for Humanity requirements.

So the answer to you concern about whether low income residents can effectively be mixed with those of higher incomes in a mixed-use community seems to be a resounding yes all over the country.

Maybe other readers have different experiences, but from what I read in preparing this application, there seems little doubt about this issue anymore.

That sounds like a great project. Question: what is HUD? I am excited to see the renderings when they come out (though, I'm sure that's still a long way off).

[arkhitektor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Its a complex situation and things are pretty imbalanced right now in Salt Lake. It seems to me (as a former renter in DT SLC) that there are basically two types of housing: income controlled housing which many are not poor enough to qualify for and "market rate" housing which most are not wealthy enough to afford.

Also, a lot of the housing downtown is for the elderly or disabled. When I was younger in college, I always wanted to live in one of the many cool, old apt buildings downtown built in the early 1900s, but almost all of them are reserved for the elderly and/or disabled.

I always thought someone ought to build a new facility for the elderly next to the South Jordan temple (since a lot of the old people who live downtown seem to live there in order to go to the Salt Lake temple) and free up some of those buildings downtown for younger people.

[farmerboy]

I have no doubt the specific instances mentioned are accurate. But a persons Socio-Economic Status does not determine their level of cleanliness. The reason more expensive places of residence are kept clean is because someone is paid to do so. Not because of the living habits of the occupants. In most cases it's the low-income folks that do the work of keeping expensive properties well maintained. I think the state of common spaces in these properties has far more to do with management than occupants.

[farmerboy]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I like the design but the sad thing about it is that within a year or two the inside will be dirty and stink. Has anyone been inside the hallways of the complex on N. Temple and I-15, it is absolutely disgusting. It is a low income complex and I'm sorry to say it but it has turned into a piece of shit, because a large percentage of the residents don't care what it looks like in the halls, imagine what the apartments look and smell like.

If the building is in disrepair and disgusting, isn't that the fault of the owner/manager vs. the the low-income residents?

[WeST]

Originally Posted by farmerboy

I have no doubt the specific instances mentioned are accurate. But a persons Socio-Economic Status does not determine their level of cleanliness. The reason more expensive places of residence are kept clean is because someone is paid to do so. Not because of the living habits of the occupants. In most cases it's the low-income folks that do the work of keeping expensive properties well maintained. I think the state of common spaces in these properties has far more to do with management than occupants.

This is a feel good statement, but largely baloney. To believe this you would have to ignore overwhelming evidence. I grew up in Rosepark and while slum lords no doubt contribute to the problem, it starts with the units being beat to hell time and time again. Then you have trouble getting good owners who are willing to put up with that crap. Further, you can only charge so much in a security deposit when people don't have the money. This cycle spirals down and down until you get a total slum. There was a apartment complex on North Temple that was seriously like a third world country and all the units I saw into, which was many, were filthy and trashed. No, in order to believe your statement I would have to ignore many experiences of my childhood.

[farmerboy]

Originally Posted by WeST

This is a feel good statement, but largely baloney. To believe this you would have to ignore overwhelming evidence. I grew up in Rosepark and while slum lords no doubt contribute to the problem, it starts with the units being beat to hell time and time again. Then you have trouble getting good owners who are willing to put up with that crap. Further, you can only charge so much in a security deposit when people don't have the money. This cycle spirals down and down until you get a total slum. There was a apartment complex on North Temple that was seriously like a third world country and all the units I saw into, which was many, were filthy and trashed. No, in order to believe your statement I would have to ignore many experiences of my childhood.

Why is this the fault of low-income persons? A wealthy individual can beat an apartment to hell just as easily as a low-income resident.

[T-Mac]

True, but generally it is the low-income that beat it all to hell. I grew up in Poplar Grove, on 600 S and 1400 W area. There are low-income apartments in that area as well and they are nasty. It is total filth. The people there could care less and that is the attitude that they have. Until you change that, this will always be the case.

[farmerboy]

I think buildings get beat to hell when they are not properly maintained regardless of who lives in them, or where they're located.

[Neuroguy]

There is a strong correlation with lower SES and care/maintenance, however, the link is not causation. That is, Farmerboy, you are correct low SES does not cause a person to live a more squalid lifestyle. However, they are strongly correlated. It is important to understand that there are many other variables that might explain this correlation. Individuals with severe mental illness often lack the adaptive functioning, cognitive capacities and organizational skills to manage their home let alone keep a job. Therefore, they often are poor (low SES) and live in squalor. Likewise, chronically depressed individuals often can't hold a job long enough to change their SES and anyone who knows depression also knows that those that suffer from it frequently fail to take care of themselves or their surroundings.

Finally, many low SES individuals are not "diagnostically" mentally ill, but lack the organizational skills, cognitive capacities or general background training in how to take care of their surroundings or personal matters, no surprise, they often are unable to rise above the chains of poverty. Therefore while SES doesn't cause one to live cleaner or take better care of their environment, it is likely the association is based upon another underlying variable that influences a person to be either clean/responsible and successful or irresponsible/squalor and poor.