This would be Vestcor's 4th infill affordable/workforce housing project in the area. This one is significant because it's on the west side of Park Street.
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/192318_standard.jpeg)
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-cawton-report-vestcor-planning-project-in-brooklyn
Great news! Looks like it's mostly empty lots now?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 16, 2018, 01:57:05 PM
This would be Vestcor's 4th infill affordable/workforce housing project in the area. This one is significant because it's on the west side of Park Street.
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/192318_standard.jpeg)
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-cawton-report-vestcor-planning-project-in-brooklyn
The article mentioned the Vista Brooklyn tower... is that still happening? The article said it was projected to break ground in 2019 but haven't heard much more about lately.
^Per Aundra Wallace, they're still working on capital.
Still sounds like it's more a matter of when than if.
I didn't see anything about Vista Brooklyn tower in the article. What is that?
There's a blurb about midway through the article:
QuoteIf the authority chooses Vestcor's project, it will be up to the state to approve.
The project is the latest residential complex introduced in Brooklyn and the first since Bristol Development Group and NAI Hallmark announced their 10-story Vista Brooklyn residential tower in 2017.
Vista is expected to break ground by 2019.
I'm still don't like the idea of income segregated housing. The City needs to work with market-rate developers to set aside a percentage of their units for workforce housing. Or tell Vestcore that 25% of their housing can't have income restrictions.
Quote from: Kerry on August 19, 2018, 04:48:37 PM
I'm still don't like the idea of income segregated housing. The City needs to work with market-rate developers to set aside a percentage of their units for workforce housing. Or tell Vestcore that 25% of their housing can't have income restrictions.
That's more or less what this one is, I believe.
Aren't 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside income restricted? Either you make enough to afford them or you won't be approved to live in them. Also, the Vestcor projects are being made feasible through a federal program that incentives the construction of affordable housing. The city has no real say over changing the parameters of that program's requirements.
From the article:
QuoteMoore said about half the estimated 136 units will be affordable for those earning at or below $29,400 annually, or 60 percent of the average median income.
Other units would be reserved for individuals making 80 to 140 percent of the average, capped at $69,600.
For Lofts at Jefferson Station, I remember reading that the City Council had approved 3.4 million in local incentives, on top of federal financing arrangements Vestcor had secured for the development. If the city is resource constrained, I do question whether local incentives on top of federal incentives already secured, is really necessary.
The majority of LaVilla units built by Vestcor so far have been classified as affordable housing, with Lofts at Jefferson Station having a segment of units classified as "workforce." I believe this latest Brooklyn proposal will include a somewhat higher proportion of workforce housing.
Having said all of that, as long as the properties remain well-maintained, I tend to think having bodies downtown is a good thing, but I prefer the housing be "affordable-workforce," and the bodies be people who work.
I figure someone has to work in all these bars, retail stores, markets, restaurants, hotels, etc. that everyone wants to see open in downtown. Those workers won't be able to afford luxury apartment rental rates and condo prices. Overall, given the struggle in some cities in regards to out-of-control housing prices, I think accommodating Vestcor's affordable housing projects into the downtown development mix is one of the better things the DIA has done recently.
Quote from: Dolph1975 on August 16, 2018, 03:24:21 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 16, 2018, 01:57:05 PM
This would be Vestcor's 4th infill affordable/workforce housing project in the area. This one is significant because it's on the west side of Park Street.
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/192318_standard.jpeg)
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-cawton-report-vestcor-planning-project-in-brooklyn
The article mentioned the Vista Brooklyn tower... is that still happening? The article said it was projected to break ground in 2019 but haven't heard much more about lately.
Yeah it's been two years since the announcement of the Brooklyn Tower; is it still on tap? On the drawing board? Planned/Proposed?
Quote from: Kerry on August 19, 2018, 04:48:37 PM
I'm still don't like the idea of income segregated housing. The City needs to work with market-rate developers to set aside a percentage of their units for workforce housing. Or tell Vestcore that 25% of their housing can't have income restrictions.
KUDO's Kerry; I agree. There's people, like me, that are retired and want to move back to Jax, that make over those restrictive income amounts that would like to rent or even own in the areas close to downtown and can't because of THAT red tape. They need to take your recommendations with a boulder of salt.
Vestcor's four small projects don't make up the majority of the housing units under construction in downtown. Khan, Rummell and other developers will provide people with ample opportunity to pay to stay in the urban core.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 19, 2018, 06:05:23 PM
I figure someone has to work in all these bars, retail stores, markets, restaurants, hotels, etc. that everyone wants to see open in downtown. Those workers won't be able to afford luxury apartment rental rates and condo prices. Overall, given the struggle in some cities in regards to out-of-control housing prices, I think accommodating Vestcor's affordable housing projects into the downtown development mix is one of the better things the DIA has done recently.
To add to this... the core's 'affordable housing' stock was brazenly and unapologetically torn down (LaVilla in the 90's and Brooklyn throughout the 80's and 90's) decades ago. Vestcor's affordable/workforce housing multifamily developments are the first of their kind that can actually help re-populate the urban core with housing stock suitable for a variety of income levels... which was a critical lynchpin during downtown's boom years.
The reason cities like Seattle, San Francisco, etc are requiring developers to set aside a portion of their market rate developments for affordable housing... is because 98% of their multifamily new starts are 100% market rate rentals- meaning people not earning well above the area's median income are being squeezed out of the cities they want to live in. There are real affordability issues at play in those cities. The Starbucks barista working at the Twitter headquarters in SoMa is likely living well north of I-580 in Oakland, and likely rooming with three other people in a 2 bedroom apartment... and probably waiting tables at night to help pay for the rent.
Of the seven multifamily developments that have broken ground on the Southbank and Northbank since 2014, all but two have been a dedicated affordable housing project or have had a portion of their units dedicated to workforce housing.
Frankly, the DIA and Vestcor deserve praise in these efforts.
QuoteOr tell Vestcore that 25% of their housing can't have income restrictions.
Under that scenario, Vestcor would not qualify for the federal subsidy programs that allow them to build these projects. Affordable housing isn't necessarily affordable to build. Federal and State subsidies are needed to fill in the financial gaps that allow these projects to come to market.
The problem in urban cores is the middle market never has anywhere to go. There are projects like Vestcor's that fill the affordable niche to some degree and the high priced places are built by the market. The people that make between $50-100K don't have many options especially once an area starts to heat up.
I don't know if that's Vesctor's problem but anyone bringing home $50 to $100k a year in Jax shouldn't worry about being priced out here.
Relying on government subsidies for maintenance has never worked. Not for roads, not for bridges, not for waste water treatment plants, and sure not for housing. I know these aren't low income housing but the fact is maintenance costs the same be it workforce housing or luxury housing and if these properties can't generate their own maintence income all we are doing is having the private sector build the same failed public housing that has failed repeatedly.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 20, 2018, 11:51:33 AM
I don't know if that's Vesctor's problem but anyone bringing home $50 to $100k a year in Jax shouldn't worry about being priced out here.
The city as a whole sure. But there isn't much in the DT area that serves that price range. In cities where the DT urban core is even further along, such a person would be completed priced out of the market.
Assuming the individual's rent isn't exceeding 25% of their monthly gross income, that puts this rent range anywhere from $1,042 to $2,083 per month. Someone at 50k may find it difficult for luxury living but at $100k, you can afford most of what DT Jax has to offer. At $50k, you're better off searching for missing middle housing, which will put you in the surrounding neighborhoods or in Vestcor's workforce housing category.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 20, 2018, 10:25:50 AM
The problem in urban cores is the middle market never has anywhere to go. There are projects like Vestcor's that fill the affordable niche to some degree and the high priced places are built by the market. The people that make between $50-100K don't have many options especially once an area starts to heat up.
Huh? Kid in my office making like $40k lives in the Carling. Doesn't seem to be an issue for finding housing DT if you make $50-100k. In fact I bet anyone in that income bracket could get something anywhere DT.
Vestcor is a pioneer in Brooklyn and I anticipate market rate apartments coming next with perhaps a mixed use element. Now if we can get the city to issue rfp's for all their dormant properties we will really see some movement.
If you earn $50k you make too much to live any of Vestcor's properties.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 19, 2018, 05:20:19 PM
Aren't 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside income restricted? Either you make enough to afford them or you won't be approved to live in them. Also, the Vestcor projects are being made feasible through a federal program that incentives the construction of affordable housing. The city has no real say over changing the parameters of that program's requirements.
If it was up to me 10% of 220 Riverside would be set aside for workforce housing also. I don't know how other cities are doing it but they are.
Quote from: Kerry on August 20, 2018, 09:51:02 PM
If you earn $50k you make too much to live any of Vestcor's properties.
The cap at Vestcor's proposed Brooklyn project is $69k. I believe the Lofts at Jefferson Station also include a percentage of workforce housing units. You can also earn $50k and stay at the Carling and 11 East. The only two projects where the cap is well below $50k is Lofts at LaVilla and Lofts at Monroe.
Quote from: Kerry on August 20, 2018, 09:57:43 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 19, 2018, 05:20:19 PM
Aren't 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside income restricted? Either you make enough to afford them or you won't be approved to live in them. Also, the Vestcor projects are being made feasible through a federal program that incentives the construction of affordable housing. The city has no real say over changing the parameters of that program's requirements.
If it was up to me 10% of 220 Riverside would be set aside for workforce housing also. I don't know how other cities are doing it but they are.
Jax has been doing it too recently. In addition to Vestcor's latest two developments, the project behind Tidbits also includes a percentage of workforce housing units.
Quote from: Kerry on August 20, 2018, 09:57:43 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 19, 2018, 05:20:19 PM
Aren't 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside income restricted? Either you make enough to afford them or you won't be approved to live in them. Also, the Vestcor projects are being made feasible through a federal program that incentives the construction of affordable housing. The city has no real say over changing the parameters of that program's requirements.
If it was up to me 10% of 220 Riverside would be set aside for workforce housing also. I don't know how other cities are doing it but they are.
If the developer was required to do that, then your rent inside 220 Riverside would likely increase by 30-35%. I can't see how those apartments would be desirable at that price point.
I think people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how expensive it has gotten to build multifamily developments in today's market. Just a few years ago, construction costs locally of $225-$250/square foot would have been considered high. It's not uncommon now to see construction costs locally eclipsing $300/square foot. An ever-tightening labor market along with rising costs of construction materials (particularly exacerbated by Trump's tariffs on Candadian lumber) has made affordable housing extremely unaffordable to build. Carving out a portion of a market-rate apartment building to include workforce housing without subsidies would simply not work. In a city like San Francisco, the developer can make it work because they can easily increase the rents across the entire project to make up for the lost rent from the workforce units as elasticity of housing prices are so out of whack... however recent new starts in places like Houston and Seattle are starting to struggle to lease up their buildings. Housing affordability issues are really starting to rear an ugly head, and a day of reckoning is coming soon.
Quote from: fieldafm on August 21, 2018, 08:19:47 AM
Quote from: Kerry on August 20, 2018, 09:57:43 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 19, 2018, 05:20:19 PM
Aren't 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside income restricted? Either you make enough to afford them or you won't be approved to live in them. Also, the Vestcor projects are being made feasible through a federal program that incentives the construction of affordable housing. The city has no real say over changing the parameters of that program's requirements.
If it was up to me 10% of 220 Riverside would be set aside for workforce housing also. I don't know how other cities are doing it but they are.
If the developer was required to do that, then your rent inside 220 Riverside would likely increase by 30-35%. I can't see how those apartments would be desirable at that price point.
I think people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how expensive it has gotten to build multifamily developments in today's market. Just a few years ago, construction costs locally of $225-$250/square foot would have been considered high. It's not uncommon now to see construction costs locally eclipsing $300/square foot. An ever-tightening labor market along with rising costs of construction materials (particularly exacerbated by Trump's tariffs on Candadian lumber) has made affordable housing extremely unaffordable to build. Carving out a portion of a market-rate apartment building to include workforce housing without subsidies would simply not work. In a city like San Francisco, the developer can make it work because they can easily increase the rents across the entire project to make up for the lost rent from the workforce units as elasticity of housing prices are so out of whack... however recent new starts in places like Houston and Seattle are starting to struggle to lease up their buildings. Housing affordability issues are really starting to rear an ugly head, and a day of reckoning is coming soon.
Vestcor doesn't really need a pat on the back for doing these developments. The Federal Tax credits make these projects well worth the efforts. Additionally, it seems that Vestcor is winning most of the competitive 9% credits (any developer can get 4% LIHTC for building affordable units) from the Florida Housing Finance Corp for our area. Some believe that the FHFC process is rigged, and Vestcor's recent wins will fuel that chatter. Regardless they are good projects for our city.
Major cities like NY and DC have Inclusionary Zoning programs, which are zoning laws that require any new development or major rehab to set aside a % of units for affordable tenants. These affordable housing programs help augment Federal efforts without cost to taxpayers. This doesn't solve the dearth of affordable housing in those cities, but it is a good piece to solving the entire puzzle.
Mike - why are these new starts struggling to lease up? Bad proforma from the developers? If the rent is "too damn high" for anyone to afford why would they build it?
"The cap at Vestcor's proposed Brooklyn project is $69k. I believe the Lofts at Jefferson Station also include a percentage of workforce housing units. You can also earn $50k and stay at the Carling and 11 East. The only two projects where the cap is well below $50k is Lofts at LaVilla and Lofts at Monroe."
Are they asking for your tax returns with each application? How are they verifying your income?
Also, $300 per square foot to build multi family? Does that include the cost of the real estate? It must. A very experienced local builder I spoke with recently said he can build a nice single family home for $80 per square foot. HIS COSTS. How can multi family be so much more expensive, don't economies of scale kick in at some point?
My comments were more related to purchase rather than rental. That said, someone making $50k is spending about 1/3 of their take home pay on rent if it is 1,000 a month which is where most or all of the DT units start at, if I understand correctly.
Quote from: MusicMan on August 21, 2018, 09:21:22 AM
"The cap at Vestcor's proposed Brooklyn project is $69k. I believe the Lofts at Jefferson Station also include a percentage of workforce housing units. You can also earn $50k and stay at the Carling and 11 East. The only two projects where the cap is well below $50k is Lofts at LaVilla and Lofts at Monroe."
Are they asking for your tax returns with each application? How are they verifying your income?
I don't know the details but I'm sure they verify income some way. There are quite a few complexes like this all over town, including the Southside.
QuoteAlso, $300 per square foot to build multi family? Does that include the cost of the real estate? It must. A very experienced local builder I spoke with recently said he can build a nice single family home for $80 per square foot. HIS COSTS. How can multi family be so much more expensive, don't economies of scale kick in at some point?
A frame single family home would not need elevators, parking garages, parking lots, etc. These are examples of items that would increase square footage costs.
Quote from: MusicMan on August 21, 2018, 09:21:22 AM
"The cap at Vestcor's proposed Brooklyn project is $69k. I believe the Lofts at Jefferson Station also include a percentage of workforce housing units. You can also earn $50k and stay at the Carling and 11 East. The only two projects where the cap is well below $50k is Lofts at LaVilla and Lofts at Monroe."
Are they asking for your tax returns with each application? How are they verifying your income?
LIHTC aka Tax Credit properties do move-in and annual income certifications similar to the HUD Programs such as Section 8 or the Housing Choice Voucher program. Tenants must provide specific documentation to prove eligibility. The income cap depends on the number of eligible household members in a unit. Here are the income limits for Florida: http://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/developers-and-property-managers/compliance/limits/2018-ship-income-rent-limits-3-30-18-eff-4-1-18.pdf?sfvrsn=71f1347b_2
The State agencies that are responsible for allocating the credits are also responsible for oversight of the programs. Annual audits are done at the properties to ensure compliance. If owners are found with tenants out of compliance they lose the tax credits on the entire building that is out of compliance and don't get to recoup them. Tax credit deals can be very complex with Syndicators and Underwriters in addition to owners with skin in the game and all counting on a specific amount of credits.
Here's some dry reading if you want to know more about LIHTC details. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/IRC_42.pdf
Quote from: Gators312 on August 21, 2018, 08:51:31 AM
Vestcor doesn't really need a pat on the back for doing these developments. The Federal Tax credits make these projects well worth the efforts. Additionally, it seems that Vestcor is winning most of the competitive 9% credits (any developer can get 4% LIHTC for building affordable units) from the Florida Housing Finance Corp for our area. Some believe that the FHFC process is rigged, and Vestcor's recent wins will fuel that chatter. Regardless they are good projects for our city.
True, Vestcor is a company that is driven to enter into profitable transactions... and their decision to dive into the affordable housing market has been a profitable one. My perspective really centers around the fact that Vestcor is the only developer of note that is building new affordable/workforce housing in Jacksonville's urban core. This is a welcome and necessary addition to the core, so I'm very glad they are investing here instead of any number of Florida cities.
I have a slightly different view on FHFC. I think Jacksonville has gotten the short end of the stick for many years.... its nice that we (and in particular the urban core neighborhoods) are finally getting our fair share. I think Vestcor recognizes that, and this is the impetus to their new starts in LaVilla and (soon) Brooklyn.
I'm frankly disappointed that Jacksonville has largely missed out on the urban multifamily boom that has swept the country.... for a second time in recent memory (first with condos from 2001-2008 and now with apartments from 2010-present). I'm very glad to see Vestcor's investment in the core. It's also disheartening that there haven't been more market-rate units that have come online in the core since 2010. Most of the projects being proposed now are pie-in-the-sky and have likely missed the market.
QuoteMajor cities like NY and DC have Inclusionary Zoning programs, which are zoning laws that require any new development or major rehab to set aside a % of units for affordable tenants. These affordable housing programs help augment Federal efforts without cost to taxpayers. This doesn't solve the dearth of affordable housing in those cities, but it is a good piece to solving the entire puzzle.
Little bit of an apples to oranges comparison, I think. Places like NYC, San Francisco and DC have thick books of Code that quite simply restrict growth... so much so that there are self-created scarcity issues in markets like that. Frankly, inclusionary zoning is a Band-Aid to much larger supply problems. With the barriers these places have in place... the chickens are finally coming home to roost- and from a macro level that's sad as there are real class segregation and generational wealth transfer issues at play. Fortunately, we have abundant land and nothing really restricting density on that scale (for instance, a neighborhood like Georgetown restricts Floor Area Ratios so much that you can only build a certain type of product... and you can't yield many units from that product)... therefore we don't have the much broader affordability and supply issues that say the Petworth neighborhood (which is one of the better ones in terms of the type of housing stock found) in DC grapples with.
QuoteMike - why are these new starts struggling to lease up? Bad proforma from the developers? If the rent is "too damn high" for anyone to afford why would they build it?
That's a good question, and something to really start paying attention to (the smart ones should have paid attention two years ago). In general, multifamily has gotten into bubble territory. This is a nice chart that shows multifamily construction skyrocketing to pre-recession levels... while single family construction has clearly lagged behind. You don't need to be an economist to look at that and see a problematic trend.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/apartment-list/image/upload/c_scale,w_754/v1523320794/fig1_line_chart_dlksa4.png)
This is not true for every metro, but in cities like Seattle... its a supply/demand issue. There have been more multifamily units built in the last 7 years than in the previous 50 years combined (specifically talking about Seattle). And those are mostly all market-rate rentals in expensive neighbourhoods. Construction, permitting and acquisition costs as they are... these units need rental rates geared towards households earning well above the metro's median income range. At a certain point, there is an oversupply in that portion of the marketplace.
I'll probably have an article up on Moderncities.com breaking down supply/demand by MSA next week. It's pretty interesting (at least to nerds like me).
Institutional money and equity partners have been funnelling money into this segment of the housing market steadily since 2010 (particularly where population growth has been high in places like Houston, Seattle, Denver, San Diego, etc). Can't fault developers for wanting to go for the easy money. We are seeing so many deals with miniscule cap rates nowadays... that obviously should sound alarm bells. When the returns dry up (and they are beginning to do so), the money will flow elsewhere... chasing healthy returns (personally, I think the middle of the market is woefully under-represented now.. and whoever starts to eat up market share their is going to make some nice cash for themselves).
^^ Excellent commentary. I can attest that the phenomenon you describe is not just limited to our biggest cities either. So do you think the middle market is profitable just not as profitable as high-end, and therefore will get more product soon? I fear the high-end will dry up soon with nothing filling the void.
Well stated, Mike!
In the very near future I hope to pitch to a well established developer a proposal for a 150 unit apartment complex on a gorgeous parcel a few blocks from Murray Hill/Edgewood Ave business district.
This will be market rate rentals with some luxuries (pool, tennis...) and the first of it's kind serving Murray Hill (that I am aware of). The location is also close to King Street entertainment district... (so in reality it also serves Riverside-Avondale)...
Any thoughts out there about demand for this, or am I just dreaming....??
Quote from: MusicMan on August 22, 2018, 12:30:17 PM
In the very near future I hope to pitch to a well established developer a proposal for a 150 unit apartment complex on a gorgeous parcel a few blocks from Murray Hill/Edgewood Ave business district.
This will be market rate rentals with some luxuries (pool, tennis...) and the first of it's kind serving Murray Hill (that I am aware of). The location is also close to King Street entertainment district... (so in reality it also serves Riverside-Avondale)...
Any thoughts out there about demand for this, or am I just dreaming....??
I think there would be. I live in Murray Hill and anytime I walk by the sprawling Bank of America property, I envision something like that on it.
Is it for sale? That's not where I am looking but I would check it out if offered up.
It might be in the near future.
I'm a bank of America customer and live nearby. A couple weeks ago I got a letter from BOA stating that they'll be closing the Edgewood branch in June 2019.
Quote from: Live_Oak on August 22, 2018, 02:09:09 PM
It might be in the near future.
I'm a bank of America customer and live nearby. A couple weeks ago I got a letter from BOA stating that they'll be closing the Edgewood branch in June 2019.
I have spoken with people in the neighborhood saying the same thing. I assume that is an old Barnett Bank space. It's a waste of real estate in it's current use. There is rarely anybody there. And I don't think the drive thru is functioning, except for the ATM.
Off topic, but I do think there's a real estate strategy around former bank buildings. I can see a lot of vacancies in the next decade. They're generally in prime locations too.
Agreed! This is very similar to the Centerstate Bank issue on King Street.