Action Lofts in Uptown (Pittsburgh, Penn: low income, for sale, rentals)

[pman]

ACTION-HOUSING TO BUILD $12M UPTOWN COMPLEX
A two-building, $12 million housing complex, called Uptown Lofts, will be built by Action-Housing Inc. in Pittsburgh's Uptown area starting in November and open a year later. 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. The buildings will be built on two vacant lots across from each other in the 2000 block of Fifth Avenue. Action received a $1.2 million low-income housing tax credit after being selected by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency for its first Innovation in Design Award. The buildings will be used to demonstrate two different energy systems

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

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by pman

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

47 units at a cost of $12 M calculates out to $250,000 per unit.

Seems like a high price tag for housing for poor people.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

47 units at a cost of $12 M calculates out to $250,000 per unit.

Seems like a high price tag for housing for poor people.

Didn't you see the article that the replacement of Addison Terrace is going to cost $400,000 per unit? This is comparably cheap.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Didn't you see the article that the replacement of Addison Terrace is going to cost $400,000 per unit? This is comparably cheap.

There has to be a large profit for this kind of contract, who do you have to know to get it?

My brother's new Ryan Home is 4 br and 2 1/2 baths and didn't cost that much.

[pman]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

47 units at a cost of $12 M calculates out to $250,000 per unit.

Seems like a high price tag for housing for poor people.

certainly seems like an ineffective way to spend money, it would be cheaper to offer down payment grants based on income (not dissimilar to college grants). I tend to agree that it's more about the construction contracts than housing people, helping poor people is big business whether it be a housing authority or some other contract.

[Hopes]

It would be more cost effective to give grants to buy inexpensive homes. Not just more cost effective, but also more socially effective. They would be homeowners, not forever reliant on future subsidized programs. And they wouldn't be grouped together like cattle. I have a friend who grew up in the projects. She jumped at an opportunity to move her children to an affluent suburb. She says she truly sees an opportunity to break the welfare cycle. Her children are exposed to enriching experiences she never new existed until she left the projects. She had no problem moving away from her support network. She has a new support network in her affluent community. Granted, not everyone has the social skills to forge a new support network, but it is a positive solution for people who have the skills and ambition to change their lives.

Helping the poor shouldn't be big business. Whatever happened to "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime?"

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by pman

certainly seems like an ineffective way to spend money, it would be cheaper to offer down payment grants based on income (not dissimilar to college grants). I tend to agree that it's more about the construction contracts than housing people, helping poor people is big business whether it be a housing authority or some other contract.

If it were about helping poor people we would be fixing up existing housing stock with grants and Habitat for Humanity style programs. Follow the money is all I have to say. It's not that I'm against the new construction per se because that's all that seems to be available in redevelopment, but if it were truly about helping people, being cost effective and good for the environment, we'd be doing it differently. Do you watch "The Rehab Addict"? Nicole Curtis is fanatic about saving old homes. If you read her Facebook page she is trying to get the city of Minneapolis to fix abandoned houses instead of razing them. Once again it all boils down to following the money. I'm glad that a national TV show has the bully pulpit and can raise awareness so that people stop assuming that an old house equals a house that isn't worth saving. It makes me sick that so many US cities have acres and acres of dilapidated houses, often beautiful old homes, and many, many poor and homeless people, yet we can't seem to fix the houses and offer them to people in need (again a Habitat for Humanity style program where people work in exchange for a free or reduced price for the home). How much does it cost us in lost property tax revenue and social services to keep up the status quo? Not to mention the history that is lost when we tear down these old homes. Never mind about the environmental impact of tearing down homes and disposing of the materials.

[ferraris]

The merits (or lack there of) to public & subsidized housing aside, it drives me nuts that these are so often put in such prime and central locations.

[selltheburgh]

I don't know the specifics of this particular project, though I could probably find out this week from one of the people involved, but often these types of deals are only subsidized for low income people for X number of years. Typically it is 7-12 years. Then they shift to market rate rentals or for sale units.

It brings an old abandoned building or a vacant lot back to life, ends up on the tax rolls again, and then later becomes market rate.

Also, the comment about giving money for a down payment is good, but not everybody is fit to be a homeowner. Somebody who doesn't have enough money for a down payment (2-4k) definitely doesn't have enough money to replace a broken furnace or a bad roof in the case of an emergency. This could give somebody a break for a year or two while they save for a down payment or for major repair after they buy an old house.

There is very little profit to be made building housing for average people. It is profitable for builders to build for low income people or for the wealthy, which is unfortunate. On the other hand, cookie cutter small homes were churned out after WWII because of the GI bill and those are some of Pittsburgh's least expensive housing stock these days.

Action has pretty well maintained properties from what I've seen, so they'll probably be good neighbors.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

The merits (or lack there of) to public & subsidized housing aside, it drives me nuts that these are so often put in such prime and central locations.

Its certainly a central location, but I'm not sure how "prime" it is- being adjacent to Jubilee Kitchen which attracts a large crowd of drifters and local individuals each day.

I guess it is a prime location for the impoverished people who will be living in the Uptown Lofts who might be in need of Jubilee's services as well.