Philadelphia 2035 (York, Ardmore, Columbia: construction loan, plumbers, electricians)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by cpomp

I don't get your drift? Are you saying I should feel bad because I am not down there helping???

Affordable housing would benefit those in the workforce (workforce housing), not those in poverty. Unless you have proof contradicting that, I stand by my statement.

First off, you might want to read that article I wrote about the Bloyd Street Capital boys, whose firm takes its name from the street around the corner from me where they bought 10 shells in various stages of collapse and turned them into housing the people already living on that street could easily afford - some of the residents called them to inquire about moving from their current houses into the new ones. (Median household income in my Census tract: $19,100/year. In my block group: about $150/year higher. The friend of mine who rents one of these houses makes more than that but less than I do; I think his income roughly splits the difference between the two figures. He moved up this way from the Gayborhood, making at least two of us on the blocks near me.)

One of the things I've learned from them and from some others working in this space: The only way we will get new affordable housing we can actually afford to build is to rehabilitate older, dilapidated homes. Otherwise, the alternative is the "filtering" process sociologists talked about in the 1950s: the former homes of the upper middle class and middle class become the homes of the lower middle class and the poor once the upper middle class and middle class move to newer, more fashionable housing.

Another thing I learned from the Bloyd Street Capital boys and a few others I've talked with who are in real estate development and related fields, including architecture: Also key to the equation is being willing to settle for enough profit. How much is "enough"? This may vary, but it's certainly less than the maximum profit that could be realized from building on a given plot of land.

[BK_PHL_DEL]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

First off, you might want to read that article I wrote about the Bloyd Street Capital boys, whose firm takes its name from the street around the corner from me where they bought 10 shells in various stages of collapse and turned them into housing the people already living on that street could easily afford - some of the residents called them to inquire about moving from their current houses into the new ones. (Median household income in my Census tract: $19,100/year. In my block group: about $150/year higher. The friend of mine who rents one of these houses makes more than that but less than I do; I think his income roughly splits the difference between the two figures. He moved up this way from the Gayborhood, making at least two of us on the blocks near me.)

One of the things I've learned from them and from some others working in this space: The only way we will get new affordable housing we can actually afford to build is to rehabilitate older, dilapidated homes. Otherwise, the alternative is the "filtering" process sociologists talked about in the 1950s: the former homes of the upper middle class and middle class become the homes of the lower middle class and the poor once the upper middle class and middle class move to newer, more fashionable housing.

Another thing I learned from the Bloyd Street Capital boys and a few others I've talked with who are in real estate development and related fields, including architecture: Also key to the equation is being willing to settle for enough profit. How much is "enough"? This may vary, but it's certainly less than the maximum profit that could be realized from building on a given plot of land.

I agree with the key to the equation: profit. What is the cost/benefit to the developer to rehab dilapidated homes? does it make economic sense for them to do that? At the end of the day, they are a business and they need to make profit to stay afloat. Rehabbing dilapidated homes probably does not yield an attractive enough profit, which is why we don't see it more. Exacerbating that is the low median income that these houses would be for - the income is so low that a reasonable rent is probably nowhere near what the developer or landlord would be looking for to justify their costs.

The low wage and income has to be attacked by emphasizing better education and better job opportunities. Higher income will make the math work for developers to do more rehabs and churn them into more affordable housing. More job growth, particularly in the service sector. A friendlier tax environment for businesses and for us would go a long way towards that.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

First off, you might want to read that article I wrote about the Bloyd Street Capital boys, whose firm takes its name from the street around the corner from me where they bought 10 shells in various stages of collapse and turned them into housing the people already living on that street could easily afford - some of the residents called them to inquire about moving from their current houses into the new ones. (Median household income in my Census tract: $19,100/year. In my block group: about $150/year higher. The friend of mine who rents one of these houses makes more than that but less than I do; I think his income roughly splits the difference between the two figures. He moved up this way from the Gayborhood, making at least two of us on the blocks near me.)

One of the things I've learned from them and from some others working in this space: The only way we will get new affordable housing we can actually afford to build is to rehabilitate older, dilapidated homes. Otherwise, the alternative is the "filtering" process sociologists talked about in the 1950s: the former homes of the upper middle class and middle class become the homes of the lower middle class and the poor once the upper middle class and middle class move to newer, more fashionable housing.

Another thing I learned from the Bloyd Street Capital boys and a few others I've talked with who are in real estate development and related fields, including architecture: Also key to the equation is being willing to settle for enough profit. How much is "enough"? This may vary, but it's certainly less than the maximum profit that could be realized from building on a given plot of land.

I did read it, good read, over 20,000 vacant structures throughout the city, there is the answer to affordable housing. Profit is another of worms..

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

New neighbor planned for Rodin Museum on Parkway: A 10-story condo building - Philly

Great! There's been a lot of going back and forth with this. Happy it's going to happen.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

I don't get your drift? Are you saying I should feel bad because I am not down there helping???

Affordable housing would benefit those in the workforce (workforce housing), not those in poverty. Unless you have proof contradicting that, I stand by my statement.

You are obviously doing what you need to enhance career. And that's good! You are happy where you are. Life is short. So go for it.

I'm saying Philadelphia needs people just like you. We need more folks like you. I wish you were here. There are lots but we need more in order to push out the dead wood. You know all about the deadwood.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by kyb01

Great! There's been a lot of going back and forth with this. Happy it's going to happen.

Yes, I love the rendering.

Originally Posted by kyb01

You are obviously doing what you need to enhance career. And that's good! You are happy where you are. Life is short. So go for it.

I'm saying Philadelphia needs people just like you. We need more folks like you. I wish you were here. There are lots but we need more in order to push out the dead wood. You know all about the deadwood.

Who knows I might be back one day. I have contemplated Chicago or Philadelphia in my long run career path, but who knows as of now.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by BK_PHL_DEL

I agree with the key to the equation: profit. What is the cost/benefit to the developer to rehab dilapidated homes? does it make economic sense for them to do that? At the end of the day, they are a business and they need to make profit to stay afloat. Rehabbing dilapidated homes probably does not yield an attractive enough profit, which is why we don't see it more. Exacerbating that is the low median income that these houses would be for - the income is so low that a reasonable rent is probably nowhere near what the developer or landlord would be looking for to justify their costs.

The low wage and income has to be attacked by emphasizing better education and better job opportunities. Higher income will make the math work for developers to do more rehabs and churn them into more affordable housing. More job growth, particularly in the service sector. A friendlier tax environment for businesses and for us would go a long way towards that.

I think, then, that you missed the central element of the duo's investment and operating philosophy.

They did make a profit on those 10 houses on Bloyd Street, and the rents cover their operating expenses with room to spare. I described their philosophy as making enough profit - IOW, they could have made more by doing something else but are satisfied with what they're raking in as it is, and that amount is enough to give them working capital to make more investments in dilapidated homes that they can rehab and sell or rent to those with lower incomes.

Where providing affordable housing becomes problematic from a profit perspective is when we insist on building it new from the ground up.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Yes, I love the rendering.



Who knows I might be back one day. I have contemplated Chicago or Philadelphia in my long run career path, but who knows as of now.

Chicago, seemingly, is still losing people. But the downtown core is terrific. The problem with being there is it's not like the BosWash corridor in that you would be leaving all of the things that are a train ride away. Plus the mid-west is very different.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by kyb01

Chicago, seemingly, is still losing people. But the downtown core is terrific. The problem with being there is it's not like the BosWash corridor in that you would be leaving all of the things that are a train ride away. Plus the mid-west is very different.

Chicago is a fantastic city (seems to be falling more under the radar than Philadelphia nowadays). The biggest minuses is the climate and the isolation.

OT but there is where my boyfriend is from, so big decisions over the next 1-2 years.

New York is my spirit lol, but so darn expensive, and I need a lot more time away from Philadelphia (minus visiting).

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Chicago is a fantastic city (seems to be falling more under the radar than Philadelphia nowadays). The biggest minuses is the climate and the isolation.

OT but there is where my boyfriend is from, so big decisions over the next 1-2 years.

New York is my spirit lol, but so darn expensive, and I need a lot more time away from Philadelphia (minus visiting).

I left the mid-Atlantic in my late 20s and am glad I did. I saw life through a different lens. I also appreciated just how great this area is - something I would not have realized had I stayed put.

You’re young. Enjoy yourself. Chicago is a fantastic city. If you end up there, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. And Philly isn’t going anywhere should you one day decide you want to return. I’ll just missed your posts on all that’s happening around here.