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.
Sounds great doesn't it? But, the article below tells us a few other things. Boulevard Homes is a public housing project built in 1969. Less than 50 years ago. How many of you are living in private housing built before 1969? How many of you have parents in housing that might be twice that old and still perfectly functional?
Quotes from an earlier article in 2010 when the project was envisioned and approved said that Boulevard Homes were obsolete and would cost millions to repair.
Sure, don't repair it at millions, rebuild it as many more millions. What the heck it's just tax dollars why worry?
Don't you think there should be more oversight with our money and our public buildings? We should be inspecting and requiring residents to maintain a certain level of cleanliness and tidiness with our property. Qualifying for public housing shouldn't begin and end with not having enough income therefore you can have public housing. There should be other qualification, such as exhibiting an ability and desire to maintain the dwelling for future generations of public housing recipients.
Too many people come to rely on the "hand out" rather than some sweat equity in the product.
43 YEARS AND IT'S ONLY SUITABLE FOR DEMOLITION? Who was living there? What sort of people trash a housing complex to the point of destruction in 43 years?
43 YEARS AND IT'S ONLY SUITABLE FOR DEMOLITION? Who was living there? What sort of people trash a housing complex to the point of destruction in 43 years?
I remember the LIVE OAK community behind the Burger King in South Park. That community had 32 units and they were all built in 1982. The community was torn down in 2007 to make way for a much nicer senior living development. Today, the city's first Whole Foods store stands at the front entrance to the new senior living development.
Personally, I don't really care who (or what) has trashed these outdated eyesores that we call apartments. I'm just glad that the city and county are doing something about it. No matter how you feel about the human beings who live in such places, they are human beings. Keep in mind that the children of these neighborhoods didn't choose what they were born into. Redevelopment of such areas is good for the residents, it's good for the city, and it's good for business.
FWIW OP, did you read that first link of yours? They're talking about building a K-8 new Charter School as well as linking roads to the CPCC campus out west. It sounds to me like CHA is trying to break the cycle of poverty through education and rec centers that target at-risk youth. Is THAT a bad thing? I don't think it is. I for one am glad that my tax dollars are going to this particular effort.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 09-24-2012 at 05:35 AM..
While I certainly agree with much of what you say, the underlying cause of this cycle is what we should be working on. The more complex integrated development of shopping and educational areas are certainly a well intentioned step. I think personal hygiene, common core principles of human interaction, respect and responsibility for property, etc. is where to place emphasis.
Your comment of "Personally, I don't really care who (or what) has trashed these outdated eyesores that we call apartments." might be a bit naive when looking at the scope of the issue. You must care or no change will be affected. These same people or their children are at stake in the new construction. We will continue the once ever three to five decade cycle. Those "eyesores" as you call them were quite efficient and well built at their inception.
Just check out the private housing along 7th street, Lucille Ave. etc. to see that old doesn't equate to decrepit and "eyesore" as you suggest.
It's the pattern we need to demolish, not the housing.
Again, Yes I agree the new Renaissance is a step forward in the process, but we need not forget the lessons learned here or we will continue to spend tax dollars on a recurring issue rather than fix the source of the problem.
In other words, gentrification without the displacement of the lesser income earners who are already there. Is this not what CHA is attempting to do with Boulevard Homes?
I'm waiting to see what the plans are for Southside Homes. That's the complex on the corner of South Tryon and Griffith Street. It was built in 1952. Though it's been remodeled quite a few times, I think those apartments must go. The residents deserve better and so does the city.
To be fair, apartment complexes are often not maintained like homes. There are many 1970s apartment complexes around town (especially in east side) that are eyesores. Absentee corporate ownership isn't so hot either, and after 40 years an apartment complex really can be ready for the bulldozers.
In other words, gentrification without the displacement of the lesser income earners who are already there. Is this not what CHA is attempting to do with Boulevard Homes?
I'm waiting to see what the plans are for Southside Homes. That's the complex on the corner of South Tryon and Griffith Street. It was built in 1952. Though it's been remodeled quite a few times, I think those apartments must go. The residents deserve better and so does the city.
You had me agreeing right to the last sentence.
I was always taught you earned better, not deserved better.
Too many people come to rely on the "hand out" rather than some sweat equity in the product.
43 YEARS AND IT'S ONLY SUITABLE FOR DEMOLITION? Who was living there? What sort of people trash a housing complex to the point of destruction in 43 years?
Poorly built apartment housing does not have that long a shelf life no matter how it's been treated. A lot of those old houses in Elizabeth and Dilworth were rat traps in the 1970s. Millions have been invested in renovating them.
Sounds great doesn't it? But, the article below tells us a few other things. Boulevard Homes is a public housing project built in 1969. Less than 50 years ago. How many of you are living in private housing built before 1969? How many of you have parents in housing that might be twice that old and still perfectly functional?
Quotes from an earlier article in 2010 when the project was envisioned and approved said that Boulevard Homes were obsolete and would cost millions to repair.
Sure, don't repair it at millions, rebuild it as many more millions. What the heck it's just tax dollars why worry?
Don't you think there should be more oversight with our money and our public buildings? We should be inspecting and requiring residents to maintain a certain level of cleanliness and tidiness with our property. Qualifying for public housing shouldn't begin and end with not having enough income therefore you can have public housing. There should be other qualification, such as exhibiting an ability and desire to maintain the dwelling for future generations of public housing recipients.
Too many people come to rely on the "hand out" rather than some sweat equity in the product.
43 YEARS AND IT'S ONLY SUITABLE FOR DEMOLITION? Who was living there? What sort of people trash a housing complex to the point of destruction in 43 years?
I recently posted about the city looking for ways to spend all this surplus money we have floating around, and was pooh-poohed with responses like "cities spend money" as if that made it acceptable to throw away millions of $$$. This looks like another example of what I was commenting on. It's not their money, and no one is ever held responsible for wasting it, so hey, let's throw away all we can.
The implication is that replacing the buildings will change the criminal element of the surrounding areas and the inhabitants. Somehow I don't see that happening. Time will tell.
The implication is that replacing the buildings will change the criminal element of the surrounding areas and the inhabitants. Somehow I don't see that happening. Time will tell.
CHA has begun a new program to help residents gain life skills, find employment that will pay a living wage, and get out of public housing. They've also gotten much tougher on crime & drug use in public housing, perpetrated by either residents or visitors. They didn't have these things in place when Boulevard Homes were built. It's not just the buildings they're changing.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Create an entire class of people who are are not only dependent upon the taxpayer to pay their upkeep, but do it so long they come to expect it, and the end result is what we see at Boulevard Homes. Crime and drugs. It happens at every public housing complex full of working age people who seemingly find it impossible to work, but have plenty of time to have kids and participate in crime and drugs.
The only part of this project that I could possibly approve of would be the part for the seniors and disabled. The rest, if they were forced to pay their own way, wouldn't have time to do drugs and crime. We don't need government to spend more taxpayer dollars to tell them they are entitled to this help. I'd say turn the rest of it into market housing.
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.
