One of the reasons that we don't do totally affordable housing projects is
the concentration of poverty. That's why the Hollman decision was handed
down. Plus basically as a city you want inclusionary housing. Folks of all
income levels living next to each other. That's why we have scattered site
housing. That's why the urban village has a range of prices from affordable
to upper end. The Met Council isn't funding any projects that aren't
inclusionary in nature
Plus these census tracts at Nicollet and Lake are probably impacted or
targeted census tracts that already have a concentration of poverty so you
can't put a project there that is all low-income or affordable
This project at Nicollet Lake will actually have some affordable
homeownership opportunities. Something Whittier wants because they have very
high rental and they want to stabilize that end of the neighborhood. Plus
we haven't done very well at providing home ownership opportunities that are
affordable and ultimately that's how most people accrue real wealth.
What I think is really important in all of these projects is that there is a
mix of affordability levels and that design is paramount. Good design not
only overcomes resistance to living next door to someone who is low-income
it insures that no one even knows. Plus we need to show through design how
good moderately dense mixed-used projects can be successful.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon kelland [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:31 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: affordable housing on greenway
>
> some thoughts on the greenway housing project:
>
> first and formost is the gentrification (or
> beltonization, as my wife says) of minneapolis. we
> have around 100 townhome units being sold for 95-250k.
> i think it is safe to assume that the market for
> these units is milktoast liberals who can enjoy the
> ethnic offerings of eat street (or even the proposed
> greenway level hispanic and asian markets).
>
> this project does not sit well with me. aside from
> whatever deal the city has made (will announce) with
> kmart and the tif package, setting this very white
> project down in the middle of a racially and
> ethnically diverse, primarily working class
> neighborhood, effectively inserts a "model" for these
> communities to buy-into, emulate, or impart the sense
> of not being welcome. imagine the owners in their
> $250,000 townhomes being plopped into the middle of
> that neighborhood as it is now...there are obviously
> more changes in store for the neighborhood before
> someone is willing to plop that kind of dough for a
> close-up view of kmart. this further worries me -
> what else is planned and not being discussed for the
> "(re)devlopment" of this neighborhood.
>
> the fact that devolpments like this cannot be fully
> committed to affordable housing is a major problem in
> this town, but i fear it is more than that, i fear it
> is the tell that this town has no real interest in
> affordable housing. (sure, there are folks who commit
> time and energy to affordable housing, but the fact
> that a marquee project such as this routinely occurs,
> and cannot commit itself fully to affordable housing
> is the real issue.)
>
> imagine a true affordable housing project - 100% of
> the units, and that project being developed on the
> shores of lake of the isles, smack dab in the middle
> of kenwood, tucked back in the comfortable southwest
> corner near 50th-france...it would never happen. but
> every time that a new and >20% project goes into
> development, it seems to aim at gentrifying a
> "blighted" neighborhood, and by doing so it pulls the
> welcome mat out from under the already disenfranchised
> communities which are not only essential components of
> the city's economic foundation, but real people
> treated as if they were merely problems to solve on
> the way to creating a better city.
>
> that said, the blueprint for the project looks pretty
> cool:)
>
> jon kelland
> bryant
>
>
> >
> http://www2.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=82840023
>
>
> The 400 housing units would be grouped on both sides
> of the greenway. About 300 rental units in four-story
> buildings would slope down to it. Many of the 100
> owner-occupied units would be in townhouses fronting
> it, some with walk-out access to its paths. The
> owner-occupied housing would sell within a range of
> $95,000 to $250,000, Dovolis said. He said the
> development would more than meet city requirements
> that 20 percent of rental units be affordable to
> low-income tenants.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
> http://experts.yahoo.com/
