Low Income housing on Civic Arena site? (Pittsburgh, Greensburg: sale, rentals)

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by trlstreet

I think 20% affordable housing is fair. Given the proximity to Grant St., there will be a high demand for mid-high end housing. If I were a Hill resident, I'd be more concerned with rising rents once lower Hill property starts becoming more valuable. I think there needs to be a plan in place to address the needs of current residents once the slow process of gentrification does begin, at least on the fringes.

"affordable" housing is a bit of an ambiguous term. All housing, all products are affordable to their customers, otherwise they wouldn't bother offering them for sale at the price.

$1200 or $2000 a month rent is certainly an affordable rent, in line with downtown rents, for folks seeking downtown apartments.

The question here isn't "affordable", but "affordable to low income families"- low income housing.

[pghdude28]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

Subsidizing a growing successful for profit organisation is an investment. Subsidizing a failing community is throwing tax money at the problem.

This I DISAGREE with as much as giving money to the lazy. What would be a better solution is changing our draconian tax laws so small businesses can thrive. Make it a place so the average man and woman can have a chance to open up their own business instead of some mega corporation or low income parasite.

[Uptown kid]

My guess is people from the now raised Reed Roberts Manor & Bentley Drive (Addison Terrace) Projects would probably relocate there./? Just a guess.

[crae09]

Soooooo, Bedford Dwellings, Crawford Square, & Elmor Square arent enough -____________-

[Uptown kid]

Recent Demolition:
Dinwiddie Street (mix of abandoned/crack houses and blighted section 8 rentals & non rentals)
Elmore Square Projects
Reed Roberts Manor
Bentley Drive

Recently Completed Reconstruction: Dinwiddie Street "Affordable Income" Townhomes.
Potentially in the process of being reconstructed: Reed Roberts & Addison Terrace.

Although if they do not rebuild Addison Terrace & Reed Roberts like they did Dinwiddie Street, my guess is that residents will be encouraged to use their section 8 vouchers and relocate to the new Mellon Arena space housing.
There are still 1000-2000 former residents of the Hill District who have been displaced from the Hill (due to the closing of Allequippa Terrace projects, Francis Street projects, etc) and now live in different city neighborhoods and suburbs with section 8 vouchers. So even if they rebuilt on the currently vacant Reed Roberts Place & Elmore Square/Bentley Drive, there would still be a demand for low income & affordable housing.
Oakhill Townhouse Apartments & Crawford Square Townhouse Apartments have a majority non-former project resident population of renters, including a decent number of lower middle class renters. With exception to the rough majority low income southern blocks of Burrows Street, Oakhill is very nice complex... While Crawford Square has always been "urban" but safe.

With all do respect, your comment seems a little snobby/arrogant. How would you feel if you were displaced from your community & forced to shift around from hostile section 8 community to hostile section 8 community. Don't these people who got displaced by the city have a right or should have a fair opportunity to return to the Hill? (which by the way is the true essential question behind this thread and all other Hill vs Mellon Arena housing questions).
I interpreted your post as: isn't the deed's done- why should they have more low income housing on the Hill... If I'm wrong I alpoligize in advance.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Uptown kid

With all do respect, your comment seems a little snobby/arrogant. How would you feel if you were displaced from your community & forced to shift around from hostile section 8 community to hostile section 8 community. Don't these people who got displaced by the city have a right or should have a fair opportunity to return to the Hill? (which by the way is the true essential question behind this thread and all other Hill vs Mellon Arena housing questions).
I interpreted your post as: isn't the deed's done- why should they have more low income housing on the Hill... If I'm wrong I alpoligize in advance.

I'm sure that at least some of the people who were displaced by the Civic Arena project were none too happy, but that was 55 years ago or so, so most of them are now deceased. A lot were working, not every resident who was displaced was subsidized housing recipient, or has has stayed as one since the late 1950's.

Plenty of other urban renewal projects have caused involuntary displacement as well. Over in Homestead, US Steel had a huge expansion of the mill in the 1940's and thousands of people were displaced. I've seen articles about how people really liked living the "Ward" which is on the current waterfront district. But those folks weren't given any special consideration, many years later after the mill was razed, to move into the new apartments now on the waterfront site.

Communities change over time, for better or for worse. Yes, the building of the arena stirred up a lot of change, but if it hadn't been built, the lower Hill of the 1950's wouldn't have continued the same until the current day

[szug-bot]

oh woe is the hill district, with its multi-million dollars of investment:

carnegie library,
YMCA,
scores of housing units, all subsidized.

this place was an utter dump 25 years ago. it is now quite pretty, and even attracting people who are paying outright to live there (imagine that).

if you are located between oakland and downtown, you can settle into a decent job and still be close to an evening education program, if you want to advance your future quality of life. sounds like some people there just have their hands out and have hijacked the whole process.

i was at that meeting with the Penguins last week. it was a nauseating debacle. it wouldnt matter if the developer representative stood on his head and performed magic tricks - the people there feel slighted that there would only be a proposed 20% affordable housing as opposed to 30%. 30%, it was explained, is not feasible from a funding aspect.

20% is more than you'd get with NO development at all. people just are hoping to get nice, new housing for cheap, at the public's expense.

meanwhile, the southern tier is trying to get pittance for their district. they cant even get a dangerous road improvement thats been on the table for 20 years.

[gg]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

oh woe is the hill district, with its multi-million dollars of investment:

carnegie library,
YMCA,
scores of housing units, all subsidized.

this place was an utter dump 25 years ago. it is now quite pretty, and even attracting people who are paying outright to live there (imagine that).

if you are located between oakland and downtown, you can settle into a decent job and still be close to an evening education program, if you want to advance your future quality of life. sounds like some people there just have their hands out and have hijacked the whole process.

i was at that meeting with the Penguins last week. it was a nauseating debacle. it wouldnt matter if the developer representative stood on his head and performed magic tricks - the people there feel slighted that there would only be a proposed 20% affordable housing as opposed to 30%. 30%, it was explained, is not feasible from a funding aspect.

20% is more than you'd get with NO development at all. people just are hoping to get nice, new housing for cheap, at the public's expense.

meanwhile, the southern tier is trying to get pittance for their district. they cant even get a dangerous road improvement thats been on the table for 20 years.

Well said.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

1. Why should politicians be allowed to extort money from businesses by threatening to change zoning restrictions under them?
2. The plan has not gone to the city for approval yet, the article clearly states that.
3. If Hill residents worked as hard earning an income, as they are in getting anything subsidized, there would be no need for subsidies.

Ok, now I'm confused. That land was initially part of the Hill District and the city decided to take it away from them and build the Civic Arena and now that it is gone YOU have an attitude because they want some of the land back for affordable housing that in ten years or so rents will be raised to unnaffordable status?

[simetime]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

oh woe is the hill district, with its multi-million dollars of investment:

carnegie library,
YMCA,
scores of housing units, all subsidized.

this place was an utter dump 25 years ago. it is now quite pretty, and even attracting people who are paying outright to live there (imagine that).

if you are located between oakland and downtown, you can settle into a decent job and still be close to an evening education program, if you want to advance your future quality of life. sounds like some people there just have their hands out and have hijacked the whole process.

i was at that meeting with the Penguins last week. it was a nauseating debacle. it wouldnt matter if the developer representative stood on his head and performed magic tricks - the people there feel slighted that there would only be a proposed 20% affordable housing as opposed to 30%. 30%, it was explained, is not feasible from a funding aspect.

20% is more than you'd get with NO development at all. people just are hoping to get nice, new housing for cheap, at the public's expense.

meanwhile, the southern tier is trying to get pittance for their district. they cant even get a dangerous road improvement thats been on the table for 20 years.

Actually the hill was quite vibrant until the riots and the destruction of the lower Hill. The location has always been worth something because of the location. I have land in the middle hill and I have been getting offers way before they built the new hockey rink. Have you tried to buy any property there as of late (before 1990)? As I have mentioned before it does not matter how much that they request for affordable housing because just like Crawford Square they will rise and will be filled with Duke students.