More Low Income for Theatre District? (27. October 2006, 07:06 by Derek Young) ~ Not More Of the Same
According to the City Council’s agenda for November 14th, the Metropolitan Development Council is looking to create 42 new low income apartments at 730 Market Street.
Rec’d from Erik Bjornson:
In the last two months, Ryan Petty has given two presentations concerning the great advantages of mixed use housing in Tacoma as well as in other cities. Mr. Petty gave the first presentation before the entire city council during a study session and at least one more before the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce. Both presentations were extremely well received.
Every sitting Tacoma city council member has praised the mixed income housing presentation by Mr. Petty and expressed a preference for “integrated housing” in Tacoma. City Manager Anderson has also repeatedly expressed his goal to have “seamless housing.” Even the Salishan low income housing project in Tacoma has a mixed of low income and market rate housing…
The consistent message on Exit133 seems to be that folks aren’t opposed to low income housing. However, concentrations of low income housing are generally considered bad public policy…. so what’s going on here?
Link to the City Council Agenda
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
I have been pretty impressed with the work that has been done in Tacoma over the last year to support integrative housing in Tacoma and follow other cities who have done this.
Thus, the agenda seemed surprising. This spot was to be used for Art Lofts on Market
to create affordable homeownership for artists and diverse housing stock in the neighborhood.
Is anyone wondering why these “low income” housing providers have sooooo much money to spend on expensive downtown property?
For the price they pay for the downtown lot couldn’t they get a lot more outside of downtown?
I don’t know all of the details but I am sure the site is at premium price.
Also a FYI:
This site is 24,211 sqft .56 acres
Downtown Commercial Core Zoning (400Ft Height Limit)
And they only want to build 42 units?
Compare Jay Heights 1 block away
15,000 sqft of land
Same DCC zoning
99 condos planned on 20 stories
2 | Posted by Jake | Oct 27, 02:55 PM
The issue density is a good one and has been on a number of threads.
If they created the building with 150 to 200 units, they could still have the same number of low income housing units and increase density downtown at the same time. A “win-win” for everyone.
There was pretty strong support for the Art Lofts on Market mixed income project.
Yet, despite all of the vocal support of mixed income housing across the board, Tacoma still seems addicted to allowing 1960s modeled concentrated projects across the city where lower income are basically segregated in different areas and buildings.
As far as 730 Market Street goes, we are still trying to determine whether the residents, businesses, and owners with 400 feet were notified as required and then to take public input and work to accomdate the concerns in “good faith.”
Let’s hope something close to Art Lofts on Market as originally designed can still be salvaged.
Triangle Townhomes, Jay Heights and the Bridge are all market rate condos in the same neighborhood. Why is one 42 unit building for low-income residents cause for alarm? Maybe I missed the sign that reads: Downtown Tacoma – Upper Middle Class Only.
What exactly is the definition of low income? Is it synonymous with a specific type of behavior or lifestyle? Does an artist who works part-time waiting tables and brings home $14,000 a year qualify as low-income?
4 | Posted by DtownDweller | Oct 27, 04:40 PM
I’ve got a feeling why they’re not building more than 42 units, as stated on the website – parking. Not much else to say there. Parking requirements inflate the cost of the units and they take up lots of space on the ground.
Also, DtownDweller’s got a real point with regards to “who is low income” and who is “allowed” to live in downtown Tacoma.
My real beef with Downtown Tacoma is that there are plenty of opportunities for upper-middle income people to invest in downtown and to buy a home here. However, there seems to be no such opportunity for ownership housing for others, like first-time buyers, or recent college graduates, to make the same investment without securing a 50 year mortgage on a $400k townhome or a $700k penthouse. Young urban professionals are the people that Tacoma is supposed to be courting, but with housing costs the way they are, how does a $400k townhome downtown compare to a $250,000 single family home in the suburbs? There need to be more choices downtown if we want a more exciting, more diverse crowd of people to take residence here.
5 | Posted by Chris from Theater District | Oct 27, 07:03 PM
The consistent message on Exit133 seems to be that folks aren’t opposed to low income housing. However, concentrations of low income housing are generally considered bad public policy
I think that is accurate. We need to be smart in the design of low income housing so it can be successful.
Most cities are moving to a mixed income housing model. I think it makes sense instead of segregating low income in different areas or buildings.
One of the most comprehensive documents I found on the matter is a presentation by HUD Mixed-Income Housing and the HOME Program which states
“ Most housing professionals agree that concentrating assisted-housing for low- and very low-income Americans in dense, urban areas is not an effective use of scarce affordable housing resources.”
and
“Over the past decade, professionals in the affordable housing industry have turned increasingly to mixed-income housing as an alternative to traditional assisted-housing initiatives”
Some of the benefits of having mixed income:
Effective mixed income housing contributes to the long-term sustainability of affordable housing
...there is considerable research, based on older housing models, of the benefits of mixed-income communities. Much of this research is focused on how mixed income environments impact the education of children (page9)
In addition, there is ample research that provides evidence of the failure of concentrations of subsidized housing developement in low income neighborhoods (page 9)
Instead of “low-income” housing, why can’t we just build “affordable” housing? Kudos to the first developer who builds a project for the working class…
7 | Posted by morgan | Oct 27, 10:25 PM
This is the standard model for affordable housing:
Very low income—<30% of median income
Low income—30-50% of median income
Moderate income—50-80% of median income
Median income—80-120% of median income
Market rate—120%< of median income
Chicago’s infamous large housing projects have all been replaced by traditional urban townhouses and condos built at a similar scale and density as structures throughout the city. The new homes are marketed as mixed-income and have no trouble getting tenants from the CHA or with Section 8 vouchers. Despite the fact that the median income and market rate units are offered at lower prices than comparable units elsewhere in the city, those who can afford the units often balk.
One of the main reasons is the profound difference in lifestyles between low- and moderate-income tenants and median and market rate tenants. Many potential buyers are dissuaded from purchasing a home next door to “affordable housing” because of the generally accepted practices in low-income housing communities. Examples abound: trash being left in hallways, loud rap music blaring 24 hours a day, large numbers of visitors at all times of the day and night, unsupervised children, and the presence of characters supplying the chemically-dependent tend to make even the best intended mixed-income project undesirable to middle and upper class buyers.
9 | Posted by drizell | Oct 28, 12:40 AM
Why is one 42 unit building for low-income residents cause for alarm?
The issue to me is more of location. This particular area has four significant low income buildings in it including the Winthrop with nearly 200 units. Adding another one into the same area doesn’t do the city or the residents any favors. I’m in favor of affordable and low income housing, but I also believe it needs to be integrated and spread throughout the city.
It looks like the proposal has been reviewed by staff and removed from the city council agenda on 11/14/2006. I expect we will see something in the future at the address.
There appears to be some adjustment taking place in a changing downtown as there are more people living downtown and there is an active neighborhood council that needs to be notified and involved in decisionmaking similar to other neighborhoods. That should be the developers first place of contact (though individual notices are required as well).
Hopefully, they can work out a compatible mixed income housing facility as originally designed. Perhaps even (many) more units and additional investors.
Also, the proposal is in the core of the downtown and it is critical that it have have retail on the first floor as the other adjacent buildings have.
I was wondering if anyone has really driven through our city? With your eyes open? Ok if you see what I see are you wondering why we need more low income housing? I sure am. I know I might not be PC but come on, enough is enough. Why must Tacoma house every low income person in the Puget Sound?
Tacoma has more than its fair share of low income housing. We don’t need more. We need less.
12 | Posted by A Bit Less PC | Nov 1, 04:31 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
