Action Lofts in Uptown (Pittsburgh, Export: renting, insurance, mortgage)

[wpipkins]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

Keep in mind transit access is usually very important for low-income people, so having housing available in a fairly central location with bus lines nearby can be critical for getting to work, school, etc.

Bingo! Access to public transaportion is vital for the poor. There are no other options.

[pman]

Originally Posted by wpipkins

... Poor people, children in particular deserve modern fresh and updated housing. Action housing offers home ownership programs for future use.

eh, children don't need brand new places "or modern fresh homes." they grow up just fine in well maintained places of any age, more important is the quality of their parents, schools, and regional economy. the people who demolished old neighborhoods made the same arguments that the new projects were modern and fresh and would be good for poor people but as it turned out, they were wrong. that isn't a judgement of this particular project (though $400k oper unit is completely unjustifiable, the benefits to the poor are not that great)

[wpipkins]

Originally Posted by pman

eh, children don't need brand new places "or modern fresh homes." they grow up just fine in well maintained places of any age, more important is the quality of their parents, schools, and regional economy. the people who demolished old neighborhoods made the same arguments that the new projects were modern and fresh and would be good for poor people but as it turned out, they were wrong. that isn't a judgement of this particular project (though $400k oper unit is completely unjustifiable, the benefits to the poor are not that great)

That is your opinion. Lumping thousands of poor people in isolated projects was proven wrong. Scattered affordable and mixed income developments are alot better. Crawford Square is a good example of poor people living in clean, fresh, and new developments that are part of the urban fabric.

It was not the poor people who demolished those neighborhoods. Urban renewal / negro removal was proven wrong across the US. We do learn from past mistakes and this is a start.

[wpipkins]

Originally Posted by pman

eh, children don't need brand new places "or modern fresh homes." they grow up just fine in well maintained places of any age, more important is the quality of their parents, schools, and regional economy. the people who demolished old neighborhoods made the same arguments that the new projects were modern and fresh and would be good for poor people but as it turned out, they were wrong. that isn't a judgement of this particular project (though $400k oper unit is completely unjustifiable, the benefits to the poor are not that great)

If older well maintained homes were available, there would not be a need for new construction. Quality parents seek out greener pastures for their children. Believe it or not, this new development is a green pasture for some.

[pman]

Originally Posted by wpipkins

That is your opinion. Lumping thousands of poor people in isolated projects was proven wrong. Scattered affordable and mixed income developments are alot better. Crawford Square is a good example of poor people living in clean, fresh, and new developments that are part of the urban fabric.

It was not the poor people who demolished those neighborhoods. Urban renewal / negro removal was proven wrong across the US. We do learn from past mistakes and this is a start.

of course it's my opinion but it's no less valid than yours. "clean and fresh" is just a way to make it sound wonderful, as if older meant dirty and spoiled. that's an opinion and not a particularly valid one IMO. places are either clean or dirty based on maintenance. there are plenty of poor people that are living in older homes that keep them tidy contrary to your assertion and their kids are no worse off than the ones in crawford square.

[pman]

Originally Posted by wpipkins

If older well maintained homes were available, there would not be a need for new construction. Quality parents seek out greener pastures for their children. Believe it or not, this new development is a green pasture for some.

there are certainly homes available for less than $400k per unit

[wpipkins]

Originally Posted by pman

there are certainly homes available for less than $400k per unit

Where? If housing was available and within reach, Action housing would not be needed. I live in a well maintained older home with children. A older home is fine as long as its well maintained. Well maintained older homes in the city are within reach of the poor.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by wpipkins

Where? If housing was available and within reach, Action housing would not be needed. I live in a well maintained older home with children. A older home is fine as long as its well maintained. Well maintained older homes in the city are within reach of the poor.

I think pman is now referring to the Addison Terrace reconstruction. the Action Lofts are $250,000 per unit, which sounds high, but it's around the bottom end of SFH prices in Pittsburgh, so it's not incredible - particularly considering there may be special needs related to foster care.

FWIW, I think mixed-income housing is a bad idea. All studies I have seen show that you can help far more low-income people afford housing with the same number of dollars if all of the money went to Section 8 vouchers. It seems to me if you can use $400,000 to build one mixed-income unit, or provide rental assistance for 20 families, it's pretty clear which one is superior.

[pman]

that's correct, I was, in fact, talking about the addison terrace project. this project is a mixed bag, the cost is substantially lower, and I can understand the housing component for foster kids, but the other component (people who make too much for public housing) is, perhaps, a bit less understandable. no one ever seems to ask the question why it costs $250k to build a house. the more it costs to build a house, the greater the affordability "problem."
eschaton's point about how many vouchers can be bought is important, public housing agencies rarely, if ever, have quality construction.

One building will contain 23 units of housing for individuals who are gainfully employed but not making enough money to exceed Action's income limits and do not qualify for typical affordable housing. The other building will contain 24 units under Action's MyPlace program, which supplies housing for young adults, 18 to 22 years old, coming out of foster care.

Read more: Roundup: TriState IPO coming next week; Action-Housing to build $12M complex; more | TribLIVE
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by wpipkins

. The article states the the other project will be set aside for the gainfully employed. This will not be a welfare camp to say the least. Many of you probably dont realize the the beautifully restored apartment building across from the proposed site serves a similar purpose for battered and abused women. The transitional apartments have been there since the 90's and no complaints to date. Poor people, children in particular deserve modern fresh and updated housing. Action housing offers home ownership programs for future use.

The real question is, that if the government is going to engage in charitable activities like housing impoverished people of this country, shouldn't they get the best bang for the buck? If this was being done by a private charity instead, would the price tag of $250k on 5th Avenue or $400k in Addison Terrace impress donors to give?