From the TU this morning. So much demand, but no one willing to do anything other than Ron. Still waiting on 220 Riverside to break ground.
http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2012-09-17/story/more-renters-moving-downtown-jacksonville-hasnt-sparked-new
Yea it's a shame. Novare is replicating its newest apartment tower twice in Atlanta (one almost complete), in Raleigh, in Orlando (broken ground), in Austin (broken ground), and potentially more cities in the SE. It would be nice if they could look at Jax. Their rents are considered cheap for new high rise development and they have received incentives allowing them to drop rates to around $1.90-$2.25psf. Could Jax fill 200 1 BRs of between $1500-$2300 and 100 2 BRs of between $2200-$3000?
Wish the preservation story would kick off more and am excited for Chamblin's pioneering efforts. Usually an occupancy rate of 95% and rent growth of at least 3% is attractive to developers and lenders, but maybe history is what is holding Jax back? It took a while to get there and rents are still too low? Lenders underwrite deals with what is called "debt yield" nowadays, not loan to value or percent of cost. The debt yield allows them to value a project's conservative cash flows like investors might value the same project. This could be preventing many Jacksonville projects from starting.
Quote from: fsujax on September 18, 2012, 08:13:11 AM
From the TU this morning. So much demand, but no one willing to do anything other than Ron. Still waiting on 220 Riverside to break ground.
http://Jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2012-09-17/story/more-renters-moving-downtown-jacksonville-hasnt-sparked-new
So six more apartments are really going to help the future apartment renters fall in love with Downtown Jacksonville? ::)
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 08:30:56 AM
Yea it's a shame. Novare is replicating its newest apartment tower twice in Atlanta (one almost complete), in Raleigh, in Orlando (broken ground), in Austin (broken ground), and potentially more cities in the SE. It would be nice if they could look at Jax. Their rents are considered cheap for new high rise development and they have received incentives allowing them to drop rates to around $1.90-$2.25psf. Could Jax fill 200 1 BRs of between $1500-$2300 and 100 2 BRs of between $2200-$3000?
That isn't the type of rental housing DT needs. For $2,300 a month, people can buy a beautiful 2,500 square foot home in Springfield (practically downtown), lease out the extra bedrooms to friends, pay someone for lawn care, and pay the principal down $2,000+ a month on the money saved/rent charged (or pocket it). As long as there is relatively cheap (by $2,300 a month for a 1 bedroom standards) quality housing in San Marco, Riverside, Springfield, there isn't much of a need for luxury rental housing DT. And I SERIOUSLY doubt there are even enough people with that kind of money here. $2300 for a one bedroom apartment? In Jacksonville? With the cheap cost of land and numerous infill opportunities, if there were that type of money, we'd have developers from all over the country dying to build here.
One of the best things going on for Downtown, is the growing nightlife scene and interest the younger generations have taken in Downtown. We need adequate housing for those who work in the DT service/entertainment industry (waiters, bartenders, musicians, artists, etc) . These people are playing a large role in DT's comeback, certainly as much as Joe Everbank who works DT and leaves the minute the clock hits 5.
Our short sighted leaders have always craved sexy luxury housing on the river...but what we really need is housing that is affordable for college students, waiters, blue collar workers, struggling recent college grads, and the like. Basically the people who make a place vibrant. There are COUNTLESS opportunities to build affordable infill DT; from LaVilla, to the no mans land between DT and Springfield, and so on. And its not unrealistic to think that developers will still be able to make nice bank on the deals too. If I had the money, I'd have built it yesterday.
Joe Everbank! haha. I have noticed that many of the new Everbank employees are quite young. I am sure many of them wouldn't mind living downtown. Not sure any of them could afford or would even pay $2,300 a month for a little one bedroom apartment.
Quote from: fsujax on September 18, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
Joe Everbank! haha. I have noticed that many of the new Everbank employees are quite young. I am sure many of them wouldn't mind living downtown. Not sure any of them could afford or would even pay $2,300 a month for a little one bedroom apartment.
who in God's name would pay that much for an apartment anywhere in the South?
City place has affordable small units. I wonder how their occupancy is. I agree that if you build it they will come. The demand is there.
I agree. First of all- jobs would have to pay more in this area for those rents. Sorry, but it is true. And I don't see it as any different in places like Nashville either. Why would anyone pay $1,500-2,000 a month for a one room when you could pay less for a 2-3 rm near SJTC, Riverside, Springfield etc?
I am glad to see that the TU has written this piece though. I think lack of housing options DT for both Jose Dos Gatos and Joe Everbank are a big part of the lack of vibrancy DT.
I know a lot of people who live in lame places like Mandarin and the SS ( no offense to anyone, I grew up there) who really want to live DT, but just can't make it work or find something that suits them.
DT has a lot of issues and there aren't many easy solutions...but if there is one, Its housing, stupid.
You know I have been looking to move DT for a while, but I cannot find a place that matches the rooms for the price. I need a second room for a studio. It might be pretty cheap for 1 brm, but when you get to 2, the price jumps up significantly. Until I find this I am not ready to leave the SS for DT.
Options are an issue. Before buying my house, I searched high and low for somewhere to stay downtown... and it is NOT affordable. The only affordable options I found where in Springfield. Yes some may agrue that 1,800 a month is afforable or "just get a roommate", but the bottom line is you have to have affordable housing if you want people downtown. Thats really the bottom line. 220 Riverside will be a start.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 18, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
Options are an issue. Before buying my house, I searched high and low for somewhere to stay downtown... and it is NOT affordable. The only affordable options I found where in Springfield. Yes some may agrue that 1,800 a month is afforable or "just get a roommate", but the bottom line is you have to have affordable housing if you want people downtown. Thats really the bottom line. 220 Riverside will be a start.
When 220 is built won't several people who live downtown move to this new project. My problem with downtown is there really isn't much to do? Chamblins is open till 9:00pm on Wednesday's only and even if they stayed open every night of the week that would get boring fast. The landing needs a major redo and that's not going to happen anytime soon. And across the river on the southbank the condos have a better view and it feels more relaxed. I feel 220 is going to hurt the downtown apartments being built unless it becomes a lot more active.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on September 18, 2012, 09:52:09 AM
I agree. First of all- jobs would have to pay more in this area for those rents. Sorry, but it is true. And I don't see it as any different in places like Nashville either. Why would anyone pay $1,500-2,000 a month for a one room when you could pay less for a 2-3 rm near SJTC, Riverside, Springfield etc?
This is my whole point. You need those rents bare minimum to make new high rise infill work. You can chop off 20-30% to make decent hybrid/mid-rise work. An expensive rehab is going to require decently high rents, too, maybe not as high. Look at rentals downtown...aside from the rare repositioning such as City Place Apts, most infill and rehabbed buildings downtown command the highest rents in the city...out of necessity. Though none are as high as really required, hence the notable struggles of almost every development downtown and the huge incentives required for each one.
Land in Jax is CHEAP. Already highlighted this before. Novare paid $11-12MM for its tiny one acre or so parcel for its Skyhouse project in Atlanta, which is literally "off the beaten path". Land in Charlotte and Raleigh in CBD/infill areas has also gotten pretty expensive, but in the grand scheme of things land is but a fraction of construction costs.
Unless you can deal with literally crappy stick projects with surface parking and minimal design elements, of course no retail, you're going to have to meet demand for pricier projects.
Quote from: fsquid on September 18, 2012, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: fsujax on September 18, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
Joe Everbank! haha. I have noticed that many of the new Everbank employees are quite young. I am sure many of them wouldn't mind living downtown. Not sure any of them could afford or would even pay $2,300 a month for a little one bedroom apartment.
who in God's name would pay that much for an apartment anywhere in the South?
Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh (all infill developments going up - 2,000 units or so - are underwritten at $1.60-$1.90++psf and built at $150K+++/door), Nashville, Austin (most expensive in TX, more expensive than Atlanta), Miami (most expensive in the south obviously), I have to guess Tampa and Orlando. And might I remind you that in larger cities like Boston and SF $2,300 will put you in a 250-300 SF studio in the worst part of the city with no AC, no elevator, no parking, leaky faucets and questionable neighbors. :D
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 10:42:45 AM
This is my whole point. You need those rents bare minimum to make new high rise infill work. You can chop off 20-30% to make decent hybrid/mid-rise work. An expensive rehab is going to require decently high rents, too, maybe not as high. Look at rentals downtown...aside from the rare repositioning such as City Place Apts, most infill and rehabbed buildings downtown command the highest rents in the city...out of necessity. Though none are as high as really required, hence the notable struggles of almost every development downtown and the huge incentives required for each one.
I agree that those are the type of numbers to make high rise infill housing work. However, I think Jax has so many parking lots that it would be better off with low rise mix of 2-4 story infill in areas like Brooklyn, LaVilla and the Cathedral District. You can still pack in some decent market rate density with low rise development. DC, New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are great examples of this.
I'm another person who wanted to stay in Jax's urban core when I moved to town. However, I couldn't find the building product I wanted (a townhouse/rowhouse) at the price point I was willing to pay for the environment being asked of me to reside in. The Parks were the only thing around and they were pretty much filled at the time. In addition, I didn't like the idea of paying more for a smaller space and still being subjected to using the car for reverse commutes to access services that should be within walking distance.
The other problem is that rehabs in Jax are probably more expensive than they need to be because we let the buildings fall into such disrepair that it doesn't matter how much they cost up front, you essentially have to rebuild it completely just to make it safe enough for certificate of occupancy. If the buildings were at least partially kept up over the years then we'd have so many opportunities for relatively cheap urban housing.
And townhouses would be great, though I'd rather see that level of density in Brooklyn, Springfield, and Riverside-Avondale than DT/Lavilla. Well I guess anything would be better than a dirt lot :) Dirt in Lavilla/DT is more expensive than around the SJTC, so to put a hybrid rental community up DT/Lavilla with a concealed deck garage (and of course our favored ground level retail) will probably require rents at least to the level the new projects around SJTC that aren't "uber-luxurious" are commanding, which is to say a good $1,200-$1,800 for 1BRs and $1,700-$2,100 for 2 BRs (I think if I remember correctly). Still on the highest end for Jacksonville, but these rents are standard in just about every other growing southern city (in the suburbs I might add) so Jax should be able to satisfy a market there.
Villas at St. Johns is probably the best comp. About as expensive as the Strand, faux stucco stick construction of lowest quality, concealed deck garage, no street level retail. Just look up those rents and ask yourself if you think there is a market for that to be replicated in the city.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 10:50:55 AM
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 10:42:45 AM
This is my whole point. You need those rents bare minimum to make new high rise infill work. You can chop off 20-30% to make decent hybrid/mid-rise work. An expensive rehab is going to require decently high rents, too, maybe not as high. Look at rentals downtown...aside from the rare repositioning such as City Place Apts, most infill and rehabbed buildings downtown command the highest rents in the city...out of necessity. Though none are as high as really required, hence the notable struggles of almost every development downtown and the huge incentives required for each one.
I agree that those are the type of numbers to make high rise infill housing work. However, I think Jax has so many parking lots that it would be better off with low rise mix of 2-4 story infill in areas like Brooklyn, LaVilla and the Cathedral District. You can still pack in some decent market rate density with low rise development. DC, New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are great examples of this.
Yea, that is the point I thought I made to Simms. I was saying we should focus DT housing efforts on low and mid-rise housing. That is the easiest and most realistic way to build housing for the types of people that most want to live downtown right now, many of whom are and will be contributing to a DT comeback.
Next time I go to Tally, I'll try and snap some shots of some of the 3-5 story urban rental housing that is being built near DT/FSU/FAMU. The land was probably more expensive than it is here and the price points are still relatively affordable. Oh and some of the buildings are actually fairly well designed.
One of the big issues relating to DT housing is that many of the organizations who are involved in DT redevelopment, don't focus ANY attention on the areas where affordable housing could be built. DVI, for instance only focuses on the CBD area, where you couldn't build anything affordable even if you got a Paradoresque hookup.
Yes City Place is affordable downtown housing. Last time I posted that I was ridiculed. Fact remains, those places
are cheap and you can trick them out if you want to. Nice views as well. They are selling between $20,000 and $50,000 right now. How cheap does it have to be?
Another alternative is Springfield. Amazing values over there. Just go look! I just put a nicely renovated home under contract over the weekend: 4 bed 2 baths 2200 sq ft literally adjacent to Klutho Park on Silver St, for well under $100,000. Needs less than $10,000 of repair (all WDO) and the buyer is getting Neighborhood Lift $$ from Wells Fargo.
^Affordability and housing stock diversity are major reasons why I'm a fan of establishing a starter fixed transit line tying urban core neighborhoods together. For a minor investment (compared to subsidizing every private sector residential project in the Northbank), you enable small scale and market rate residential infill and redevelopment to take place in multiple communities with different residential supply, while strengthening downtown's economic atmosphere for infill transit oriented development.
Not everyone who desires urban living wants to live in a condo, a high rise building, rent or get raped monthly with some crazy lease or mortgage rate. Not everyone with kids wants to stay in the burbs either, so urban living does appeal to more than fresh out of school young professionals and empty nesters. I'm one who would be fine living in a townhouse in a spot like LaVilla or even New Springfield, if there were fixed transit allowing me to enjoy not having to use a vehicle to get to everything. I'd even consider restoring an existing residence myself in a spot like Brentwood or Durkeeville if they provided the perks of city living. There's great value in those neighborhoods, they just lack the amenities/perks of urban living necessary to attract market rate conomic redevelopment.
Quote from: CityLife on September 18, 2012, 11:12:17 AM
Next time I go to Tally, I'll try and snap some shots of some of the 3-5 story urban rental housing that is being built near DT/FSU/FAMU. The land was probably more expensive than it is here and the price points are still relatively affordable. Oh and some of the buildings are actually fairly well designed.
One of the big issues relating to DT housing is that many of the organizations who are involved in DT redevelopment, don't focus ANY attention on the areas where affordable housing could be built. DVI, for instance only focuses on the CDB area, where you couldn't build anything affordable even if you got a Paradoresque hookup.
It's been a few years since I've been to Tallahassee and Gainesville but they have several examples of low rise urban housing that Jacksonville lacks. Here are a few images:
Tallahassee
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7722-p1160549.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7721-p1160552.JPG)
Gainesville
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7491-p1150745.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7481-p1150762.JPG)
I do question the ability to put City Place Apts affordability in Jacksonville without something like City Place available in the first place (limited existing opportunities) or very creative public financing incentives such as TIF.
Also, while I am a big fan of affordable housing (I work on a mixed-use project that used $5MM TIF in another city to allow for a certain percentage of our condo units to sell at locally affordable price points) and I have seen the benefits of affordable housing in general, I hope we're not expecting it to look like anything other than affordable housing. Think stick construction, no or little street level retail, minimal design features, etc. Most developers won't mix it in with higher end product unless forced, and I don't think Jax is that progressive yet but fill me in if I'm wrong.
What are the tools Jacksonville has in place to incentivize or even force afforable housing? I don't think the city is quite in position to force it, but maybe that's what is scaring away all the development! Proformas are probably scary close enough as it is on new deals in the city considering what I would guess is a higher cost of capital given the market and lower starting rents and price points.
Outside of affordable rental units, your typical infill mid-rise development is going to be more expensive than the average product in Jacksonville as there isn't a lot of mid-rise/hybrid product around the market. A deck garage alone will pump up rental rates. Concrete construction for anything in the 5-10 floor range will really pump up rates. Adding retail can complicate the project, increase the cost of debt in various ways and thus pump up rates. Lots of factors.
All of the above look better than most any new construction in Jax metro, but I'm not foaming at the mouth to see those things go in DT or Lavilla. Maybe 1-2 to start off with and then hope for something better. I see those kinds of projects as true neighborhood infill around the CBD area, not in the CBD area. I guess beggars can't be choosers though!
FYI the 2nd pic is what I totally envision for Springfield and parts of Riverside. Loves it.
Jax's best tool is the mobility plan's mobility fee and fee credit adjustments, which provide significant financial incentives to the private sector for higher density infill development and TOD. Unfortunately, that incentive is rendered totally ineffective by the mobility fee moratorium.
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 12:04:59 PM
FYI the 2nd pic is what I totally envision for Springfield and parts of Riverside. Loves it.
I like it too. That's my old college professor's project. With Riverside and Springfield being historic districts, that type of infill would never fly in those neighborhoods. However, it is possible for neighborhoods like Brooklyn and the Cathedral District.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 12:05:25 PM
Jax's best tool is the mobility plan's mobility fee and fee credit adjustments, which provide significant financial incentives to the private sector for higher density infill development and TOD. Unfortunately, that incentive is rendered totally ineffective by the mobility fee moratorium.
Biggest thing holding Jacksonville back right now?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 12:07:00 PM
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 12:04:59 PM
FYI the 2nd pic is what I totally envision for Springfield and parts of Riverside. Loves it.
I like it too. That's my old college professor's project. With Riverside and Springfield being historic districts, that type of infill would never fly in those neighborhoods. However, it is possible for neighborhoods like Brooklyn and the Cathedral District.
We can start somewhere. Again, historic district has served its purpose or in some cases done the opposite in Jax. Get rid of them. There are larger, more historic suburbs in the NE that are not even official historic districts that make Avondale and even Springfield seem like modern day suburbs. The best neighborhoods are either REALLY historic, dense and walkable, like brownstone neighborhoods in parts of Manhattan, or they are old streetcar suburbs that have married quaint history with contemporary design and infill (many parts of Atlanta). Even the oldest parts of Manhattan and Boston are marrying the most striking modern day design with the 19th and 18th century brownstones and warehouses. Interesting Places 101.
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 12:10:21 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 12:05:25 PM
Jax's best tool is the mobility plan's mobility fee and fee credit adjustments, which provide significant financial incentives to the private sector for higher density infill development and TOD. Unfortunately, that incentive is rendered totally ineffective by the mobility fee moratorium.
Biggest thing holding Jacksonville back right now?
I really believe so. There's nothing else in place that remotely encourages and funds the creation of the type of atmosphere most on these forums tend desire in an urban community. We can talk about the need for official historic districts but all that is, is talk. That's not the official process to get to a desired point. The mobility plan and fee are already approved by the state and city council. Now its just a matter of letting it do what it was intended to do.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 10:50:55 AM
I didn't like the idea of paying more for a smaller space and still being subjected to using the car for reverse commutes to access services that should be within walking distance.
Lake makes a key point. In most cities, people are willing to pay a premium to live downtown because they can make up all or most of the difference by not having to have a car. They can walk or take public transit to most, if not all the necessities of life. You just can't do that in downtown Jacksonville.
Quote from: finehoe on September 18, 2012, 01:09:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 10:50:55 AM
I didn't like the idea of paying more for a smaller space and still being subjected to using the car for reverse commutes to access services that should be within walking distance.
Lake makes a key point. In most cities, people are willing to pay a premium to live downtown because they can make up all or most of the difference by not having to have a car. They can walk or take public transit to most, if not all the necessities of life. You just can't do that in downtown Jacksonville.
"You just can't do that in downtown Jacksonville." Ding! Ding! Ding! If I lived in Atlanta Ga I wouldn't nor could I afford to live in Downtown Atlanta. But I can live in Sandy Springs or Chamblee and take Marta into Downtown Atlanta or the Airport and several other places and still live in suburban. Jacksonville lacks this and until a system like Marta is built, or the streetcars come back downtown Jacksonville will never be any better then it is now. :(
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 12:02:53 PM
What are the tools Jacksonville has in place to incentivize or even force afforable housing? I don't think the city is quite in position to force it, but maybe that's what is scaring away all the development! Proformas are probably scary close enough as it is on new deals in the city considering what I would guess is a higher cost of capital given the market and lower starting rents and price points.
Well, as you can see from the TU article, 220 Riverside got a 20 year tax abatement, which equals a 4.9 million dollar incentive. I'd say that is quite enticing...Additionally, the city could create a TIF district in a specific area designated for workforce/affordable housing and use that money to subsidize/facilitate desired residential development in that area. Or the city could actually carry through with the Hogan's Creek Greenway plans and create a top notch urban park near downtown, which would be a huge driver of infill housing. Or it could do a better job recruiting out of town developers and educating the Sleimans of the world. Or our Mayor could ACTUALLY put his money where his mouth is and form a Public/Private Partnership to develop housing DT. After all, the city does own half of the vacant land downtown. Or the city could put in streetcar or other fixed transit, which would spur significant housing development. I could go on and on about the countless things Jacksonville can do to make downtown more attractive to developers...all while getting a good ROI over the long term.
I'll also add that I was not in any way advocating forcing affordable housing. Simply doing things to facilitate housing development and let the market dictate what gets built. I don't have facts and figures, but I'm fairly confident the market would dictate stuff that is comparable to what Lake posted (thanks btw) and not high end stuff. The real question is does DVI, JEDC/DIA, the Mayor's office have that info? If not, they aren't doing their jobs.
On a recent visit to Nashville, I toured several historic districts and each one had not only their historic homes, but also comtemporary townhouse/rowhouse and multi-story construction mixed in. Some of the new buildings were somewhat 'replica' in design details, but just as many were instead quite modern. It made for an interesting mixture, that no doubt provides offerings that appeal to just about everyone.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 12:07:00 PM
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 12:04:59 PM
FYI the 2nd pic is what I totally envision for Springfield and parts of Riverside. Loves it.
I like it too. That's my old college professor's project. With Riverside and Springfield being historic districts, that type of infill would never fly in those neighborhoods. However, it is possible for neighborhoods like Brooklyn and the Cathedral District.
I don't know about that. They are very "Kluthoesque/Frank Lloyd Wright-ish." Similar to the Klutho Apartments on Main Street, really. I think they'd be approved in Springfield.
I had a devil of a time trying to get a modern design similar to those approved by the Historic Commission and SPAR design review committee for the 6th St loft project in 2005/6. I agree that such projects can fit into historic districts but from personal experience, its hard to get a COA for them locally. Just look at what Chew went through in Five Points and MM now. Klutho would probably roll over in his grave if he knew we prefer making modern buildings look like historic replicas instead of designing for our present environment and times.
Don't try that in riverside/avondale! The noise and parking issues would just be too much to bear.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 02:14:20 PM
I had a devil of a time trying to get a modern design similar to those approved by the Historic Commission and SPAR design review committee for the 6th St loft project in 2005/6. I agree that such projects can fit into historic districts but from personal experience, its hard to get a COA for them locally. Just look at what Chew went through in Five Points and MM now. Klutho would probably roll over in his grave if he knew we prefer making modern buildings look like historic replicas instead of designing for our present environment and times.
True, it seems worse than pulling teeth around here. Go to some forward thinking historic areas though and they prove it can work if done right, and provide another great asset to the neighborhood.
You can definitely get away with some modern takes on design in Springfield. All you have to do is look at the house Content Design had approved a year or so ago (which hasn't been built yet due to financing issues). It was Klutho inspired, but also quite modern.
http://www.contentdg.com/walnut-house-certificate-of-appropriateness-application-and-ikea/
Given the state of the economy and lack of development in Springfield, I think it would be pretty easy to have something even more modern than Content Design's work approved. Certainly moreso than what Lake encountered back when the market was on the uptick.
But really, a lot of the best opportunities for dense infill are right outside the historic district boundaries.
You all do raise some interesting points regarding the historic districts and new development. I'm all for preserving our historic housing stock...but do love quality urban design. Like you, I also think modern design and historic design can blend in, and I think in many cases actually accentuates the historic design.
SRG houses look great now, but will they hold up for 20 years? Do developers have to pay so much to make their designs look "historic" that they skimp in other areas? Do the regs scare off developers or just people that want to build a modern home in an urban setting? I know that Jason Fisher at Content Design really had a tough time making the above designed house cost effective, while meeting the regs.
That would definitely be an interesting discussion regarding the overlay and its future. Heck given the city's funding issues, we may not even have any Historic Planners left in a few years. At which point, I don't know that the overlays could even be enforced.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on September 18, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
Options are an issue. Before buying my house, I searched high and low for somewhere to stay downtown... and it is NOT affordable. The only affordable options I found where in Springfield. Yes some may agrue that 1,800 a month is afforable or "just get a roommate", but the bottom line is you have to have affordable housing if you want people downtown. Thats really the bottom line. 220 Riverside will be a start.
sorry...but 220 won't be "affordable"....that said, the Parks @ Cathedral have many townhomes that have been available for rent....with prices of around $1000 for the 2 bedroom units and $1200 for the 3 bedroom units...all are 1500+ square feet)
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2012, 02:14:20 PM
I had a devil of a time trying to get a modern design similar to those approved by the Historic Commission and SPAR design review committee for the 6th St loft project in 2005/6. I agree that such projects can fit into historic districts but from personal experience, its hard to get a COA for them locally. Just look at what Chew went through in Five Points and MM now. Klutho would probably roll over in his grave if he knew we prefer making modern buildings look like historic replicas instead of designing for our present environment and times.
I think SPAR, specifically Louise DeSpain, was the root cause of a lot of that. although, you know better than I. That is not to throw stones at her. The 'purists' have a right to their opinion. But it seemed the city was unwilling to go against SPAR/DeSpain's wishes. Maybe that has changed somewhat since she left?!?
BTW, Lake, I am still labeling my Nashville pictures, which I will add to the same CD with my OKC ones.
^^^Agreed. 220 will be far from affordable. "Affordable" is a measure of many things, factoring in COL, market rents, etc etc. 220 Riverside will likely be one of the top 5 if not top 3 most expensive apartment communities in the metro.
The one-off tax abatement is a start, but isn't part of a formal public financing process or program. Having a formal program where developers can apply for grants or abatements through the program by meeting specific guidelines would probably give the market better/more clear direction.
Quote from: simms3 on September 18, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
The one-off tax abatement is a start, but isn't part of a formal public financing process or program. Having a formal program where developers can apply for grants or abatements through the program by meeting specific guidelines would probably give the market better/more clear direction.
Agreed. The new DIA needs to devise a comprehensive downtown housing strategy and create policies and programs that will help achieve goals. A housing district TIF, tax abatements, rehab program, low/no interest financing program, and QOL improvements are starts. I'd hope that whatever staffers they have that are getting paid 6 figures, can make it happen.