Per usual, I walk to the end of my driveway pick up the Sunday paper, sit at the kitchen table, pull out the 4 sections that I will read and look for my favorite writers, including Mr Nemeth to see if he will ever write about the airport again. Still nothing.
Today he wrote about the WBDC, which I do not know much about other then there recent low income housing developnment at the former trade high school location by Winn Development. What concerns me, however, "downtown is the next frontier".
Considering their involvment with Winn, does this mean we can expect low income housing projects downtown? Just what we need another player in the Worcester's number 1 growth industry.
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
14 comments:
But they did mention selling the naming rights to the airport
http://www.telegram.com/article/20090531/NEWS/905310381/1116
Speaking of which .......whatever happened to the proposal to call it Boston/Worc Metro Airport..........or something like that.
We can rename streets Mary Scano Drive or Martin Luther king Blvd in no time..........but this airport name change was under consideration 2 to 3 years ago?
Again I will ask Bill, how do you feel about a project that requires you to make $33,000 or so to live there?
If I were a recent college graduate and I could live in a brand new gorgeous apartment within walking distance of Highland St, Worcester Art Museum, Ralph's and Armsby Abbey I would be pretty damn excited.
Gabe:
not sure what you are asking?
Is that the income maximum for a single person??
thanks
Bill
I'm saying that there is section 8 and then there is low to moderate income which I myself would have qualified for just 4 short years ago.
If we as people who like to make big stinks about things in this city gave these places proper respect as places someone making around 30 grand might want to live than maybe we could see this vibrant urban neighborhoods we seek instead of railing against every single type of government assisted housing as a bad thing.
I would have loved to have known this stuff existed back then instead of living in a drafty dilapitaded third floor walk up because I thought it was all I could afford.
These apartments are not for poor drug addled pajama people. Trust me when I say this is not the market they are going for. Whether or not they get the market they are going for though depends on us to pressure our representatives to do something, anything to give decent people a reason to want to live in these neighborhoods.
You would have to be a little nutty to want to live at Main and Madison right now. Water St and Lincoln Sq? Not so much. You can really make a case in those proposed buildings for true quality urban living with many neighborhood amenities.
What I am trying to say here is I was dead wrong about the Chevalier Furniture building and I did that neighborhood a disservice by railing against it like I did.
I hope the rest of you can think before you speak about the low income stuff because it is not 100% bad and depending on where it is located and how it's marketed some of it could be a good thing for the city and it's neighborhoods.
Gabe:
Low to mod income projects have their merits. I can see that arguement.
My point is that enought is enough. We are well above the threshold established by the State, why do we keep building them?
If Chevalier Furniture becomes a mecca for students or people like yourself who would have qualified 4 years ago, then it will be a good project for the Canal District.
History tells me that this does not happen.
Gabe, dont forget these are NO/Lo income meaning many who live in them have no income and to me, no income most often means people chillin' all day around the premises and ultimaltely causing problems. Dont forget it only takes 1 or 2 bad tenants to destroy an entire apt. block.
I am assuming here that you are single and in your mid 20's. I CAN ABSOLUTELY ASSURE YOU that when you have a family and/or when you are no longer low income that you will reside no where near any NO/Lo housing.
My bone of contention here in Worc is that we already have 40% more low income housing than the state mandated 10% minimum. Worc is currently at 13-14%. NO/Lo s/b built in other loclaes besides worc.
I am not sure what neighborhood amenties there are at Lincoln Sq, other than Athy's, WPI frats, and I-290 ramps, and a couple of museims, but at $30,000 income I tend to doubt those folks will be frequenting the musuems.
NO/LO's in or near the central city = no discretionary income = a dead downtown.
Once again... word verification is HOSINGU........almost the word housing..!!!!
Jahn:
I understand what Gabe is saying and that is what proponents of these projects say. It all sounds good on paper, but in reality it just does not happen that way.
Bill
I mean look at the marketing for the Burwick building. Does it look like they want pajama people living there? It is not their fault that the corner of Madison and Main is a shithole.
How do we know the city didn't sell them a bill of goods on what they were planning on doing with the rest of the neighborhood? Personally I am waiting to see who and what the first commercial tenants are on the first floor as that will speak volumes as to what their true intentions are.
No income development is one thing. Moderate income development is something else entirely and once again we have to lay all of this at the feet of poor city and neighborhood planning.
Bill you say you haven't seen it work yet but where has it happened in this city where someone might actually want to live?
Right now we have a possibility of two moderate income developments (Chevalier and Voke) that exist in neighborhoods with already existing amenities.
In other words, just like everything else in Worcester, feel free to say it doesn't work when someone fails doing it correctly. No one has done moderate income housing right yet, so there actually isn't any track record yet.
University Lofts seems to be a good deal. Went on the website. Looks like the tenants took a proactive role in their surroundings.
Hopefully the new tenants in the burwick building will do the same
University lofts are a great deal and it seems like they have a great, but small, core.
Comparing the owners of the condos in a non-subsidized project like University loft to tenants at the Hadley??
Don't understand your point.
Gabe:
Let me get this right. You are saying that we should not put low to moderate income housing in places like Main South, but we should put them in better neighborhoods with existing amenities.
Well Gabe, you will be getting what you are wishing for and then some. I see Chevalier and the Old Trade School as the first of many new low to mod income housing in better neighborhoods.
Bill
my point is that tenants make the dwelling regardless of subsidized, non-subsidized.
"Again I will ask Bill, how do you feel about a project that requires you to make $33,000 or so to live there?"
These deals are all ovah the city right now Gabriel.....not a swipe at you Gabriel but if you want to see the hoods change then buy a three deckah like I have and a few others have and fix it up...be a good landlord on a quality project, live in the house and contribute to the neighborhood.
Put your money where your typing fingahs are and buy a house, fix it up and move in! When you and others start doing this we will see change...
Post a Comment