Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last time I failed to create a discussion and this thread was deleted (I feel it's a very worthy topic). However I know it will generate great interest. I am a strong advocate in restoring the lost urban fabric, creating mixed income/use housing, and dense living. This article provides an interesting look at an alternative plan for public housing.
Quote:
Give tenants rent vouchers to move to private market off-site locations, demolish the projects and erect new buildings where some project tenants can return to live among middle-class neighbors....
In New York City, the potential for an alternative model for redeveloping public housing has only fairly recently emerged. In the face of cuts in federal support for operations, the New York City Housing Authority announced plans to lease 14 sites within eight Manhattan projects for the development of privately built mixed-income housing. The sites, currently parking lots and playgrounds, are usually at the projects’ edges and face streets and avenues, leaving the majority of open spaces in the middle of the projects undisturbed.
[snip]
The idea is that such development would generate revenue that will help address NYCHA’s annual $57 to $67 million operating deficit as well as years of backlogged building repairs.
I thought this was more approriate for the NYC forum, but I suppose you want a different perspective from the urban planning forum. My take: the reduction in income segregation will do little to do transform public housing. From a budget perspective it could help. Right now the projects are a giant poverty cluster, concentrating much of the social ills of inner city poverty. Likely, it will create two different, social separated circles. More curious to know is, what's the market rate to live surrounded by public housing?
This already exists in parts of the East Village. You're never going to get millionaires and celebrities to live next to a project, but land values in Manhattan are so high that you can integrate them with middle class housing.
I used to live a couple of buildings from a small project on 11th Street. The architecture was integrated with the rest if the buildings so you didn't really notice it was a project. Being small (around six storeys) it was easier to maintain, didn't have an oppressive "institutional" feel and was less likely to over overrun by gangs, etc.
I don't know how much it helped the tenants, but it certainly helped the neighborhood.
This already exists in parts of the East Village. You're never going to get millionaires and celebrities to live next to a project, but land values in Manhattan are so high that you can integrate them with middle class housing.
I used to live a couple of buildings from a small project on 11th Street. The architecture was integrated with the rest if the buildings so you didn't really notice it was a project. Being small (around six storeys) it was easier to maintain, didn't have an oppressive "institutional" feel and was less likely to over overrun by gangs, etc.
I don't know how much it helped the tenants, but it certainly helped the neighborhood.
Actually Millionaires and celebrities are. Check out all of the development of extremely high end condos that surround the Chelsea Projects.
Actually Millionaires and celebrities are. Check out all of the development of extremely high end condos that surround the Chelsea Projects.
Those aren't that large, and don't make a long, isolating block like for example, the ones along the East River. The Chelsea projects feel rather out of place. It wishes you a happy Easter.
Those aren't that large, and don't make a long, isolating block like for example, the ones along the East River. The Chelsea projects feel rather out of place. It wishes you a happy Easter.
Not sure if you're talking about the Chelsea-Eliot houses or the Fulton houses, but the latter are indeed quite large, and surrounded by expensive condos and rental buildings.
I'm sure if you took down NYCHA high-rises you'd use explosives, but the wrecking ball is still used for some structures.
I don't think building mixed-income housing on the outskirts of projects is going to do anything to the projects themselves. The projects will still be a whole different world. There's no wall around them (just that little fence), but there might as well be.
I thought this was more approriate for the NYC forum, but I suppose you want a different perspective from the urban planning forum. My take: the reduction in income segregation will do little to do transform public housing. From a budget perspective it could help. Right now the projects are a giant poverty cluster, concentrating much of the social ills of inner city poverty. Likely, it will create two different, social separated circles. More curious to know is, what's the market rate to live surrounded by public housing?
Ideally, the city could slowly relocate residents from older, 50s era individual buildings into new mixed income construction (very possible if new construction has triple or more the units, and I say triple minimum to keep low income under a third). Renovate the existing building (if worth saving; some developments have interesting, innovative designs), and repopulate/rebuild in a mixed income fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
I'm sure if you took down NYCHA high-rises you'd use explosives, but the wrecking ball is still used for some structures.
I don't think building mixed-income housing on the outskirts of projects is going to do anything to the projects themselves. The projects will still be a whole different world. There's no wall around them (just that little fence), but there might as well be.
I think the wishful thinking is that by creating mixed income housing on the actual grounds, those grounds will be better maintained and safety should increase. Eliminating some of that isolationist feeling. These new buildings will also bring commercial spaces. So ground floor retail should create vibrancy too. Vibrant areas usually have lower violent crime incidents then dead space areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
