Highrise apartment in Charlotte. Is it feasible?

[crispin]

In what way could there be affordable rent? Government subsidized?

I've heard some kind of talk about redeveloping Edwin Towers. Either there or elsewhere, maybe you could see public housing high-rises in Uptown. The need for more affordable housing issue is real and growing. The inner ring neighborhoods are some of the only areas where you can live and work without a car -- and they all keep getting more expensive. I shudder every time I hear talk about the Salvation Army selling its apartments in Fourth Ward for redevelopment. I want my community to have a mix of incomes. I don't want to live in a world of luxury towers and beautiful people exclusively.

Perhaps the bigger question is, why would a developer build lower priced units, when there is so much demand right now? ... corporations have legal obligations to maximize shareholder value, not provide options for the middle-class.

It also seems to me that property values in Uptown are incredibly inflated. Clearly there is not demand for all of the parking lots at present prices, but the owners hold them off the market, waiting for the great day when someone wants to build a high-end high-rise. In the best case, which has been the case so far, this process has unfolded verrrry slowwwllly. But the banks are producing about as much economic horsepower as they ever will. Who else is going to use all that land?

Also, it may not be the job of companies to house the middle class (or the any class) but it is the job of municipalities. I wish this city would take Uptown seriously as a neighborhood, and zone it for present growth, rather than treating it as a long-term project that involves the creation of a New York-like island in a sea of Atlanta. Maybe they should slap some height restrictions on more of Uptown, and see if they can't find developers to build some apartments people could afford.

First indications are that apartment prices in Uptown and other desireable locales will be rising dramatically in the next couple of months.

The combination of those rising prices, and all the empty parking lots, is exactly my point.

[crispin]

I believe NC prohibits this use in our constitution.....though the city IS trying to figure out a way to take Hunter Wrecker (on N. Davidson) and flip it to a developer.

N.C. law lists the purposes for which the government can seize land. Economic development isn't on the list.

N.C. Senator Marc Basnight plans to introduce a bill this GA short session that would make the prohibition explicit, satisfying concerns raised in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last summer.

To me, that seems like making it really, really illegal when it's already against the law, but whatever.

Bottom line, Atlrvr, You're absolutely right.

[UptownGrrl]

Also, it may not be the job of companies to house the middle class (or the any class) but it is the job of municipalities.

Really?

[crispin]

Really?

To put it longer, it's the job of municipalities to create and maintain the circumstances in which people of all classes can find adequate housing.

[atlrvr]

Hmmmm. I see where this thread is going, and my views on this topic seem to be pretty unpopular, so I'll shy away from what I really think.

In regards to Public Housing highrises.....this is what the prescribed method was in the 1960s....it turned out pretty poorly in general. Too much concentrated poverty.

As far as Edwin towers, some public housing may get replaced on site, but the CHA is seeing increasing demand and decreasing funding. Their current strategy is to liquidate their most valuable assets, and use the proceeds to fund public housing in mixed-income communities. The Live Oak redevlopment is a perfect example of this. The CHA makes several million off the sale of the land, the developer gets a tax credit for providing low-income housing for the replacement units on site in their new development, and the CHA has a lot of free cash left over to manage these units and invest in future public housing units.

While all of this is really nifty stuff, there is no benefit to the middle class renter. But hey, we can always try out communism, I hear that works pretty well.....oops, I promised I wouldn't do that.

[crispin]

Hmmmm. I see where this thread is going, and my views on this topic seem to be pretty unpopular, so I'll shy away from what I really think.

In regards to Public Housing highrises.....this is what the prescribed method was in the 1960s....it turned out pretty poorly in general. Too much concentrated poverty.

As far as Edwin towers, some public housing may get replaced on site, but the CHA is seeing increasing demand and decreasing funding. Their current strategy is to liquidate their most valuable assets, and use the proceeds to fund public housing in mixed-income communities. The Live Oak redevlopment is a perfect example of this. The CHA makes several million off the sell of the land, gets a tax credit for providing low-income housing for the replacement units in their new development, and the CHA has a lot of free cash left over to manage these units and invest in future public housing units.

While all of this is really nifty stuff, there is no benefit to the middle class renter. But hey, we can always try out communism, I hear that works pretty well.....oops, I promised I wouldn't do that.

And here I sat thinking zoning was a way of protecting suburbia against communism...

At any rate, they're separate points:

1. Uptown needs more housing for poor people. Probably the government will have to build it.

2. Uptown needs more housing for the middle class. Demand is being artificially constrained by the expectation of future demand for high-end product. Government could force land onto the market.

[UptownGrrl]

1. Uptown needs more housing for poor people. Probably the government will have to build it.

2. Uptown needs more housing for the middle class. Demand is being artificially constrained by the expectation of future demand for high-end product. Government could force land onto the market.

The ideology of income redistribution and erosion of personal property rights aside, what is your rationale and support for your conclusion? You mentioned in an earlier post about uptown being the only part of town where a car isn't needed, so do you see it mostly as a transportation/accessibility to work issue? Do you consider lower cost housing near transit access to be a solution?

I'm just trying to figure out if you're talking about an inherent right that should trascend market forces, or if you are making more of a "wouldn't it be great if..." argument?

[dubone]

My question is, why would we prefer as a city to have a lot of REIT-managed apartment developments downtown, where the entire machine is engineered to maximize profits for the REIT at the expense of the tenant?

Look at it this way, there is a significant amount of condominium development because of the tax benefits of owning. That means there will be a lot of condominiums that may eventually or immediately be available to rent from a regular person. That means tenant-land lord relationships are much more equalized and down to earth. Instead of arguing against a corporate machine to get a break on your rent or to be 2 days late because your cat had to have heart surgery, the situation is handled in a more sociable, regular way with a conversation with the owner of your unit.

Also, there are many cases where rents are charged based on a break even point with the mortgage costs by the condominium owner, or possibly even a little less. That is because of the owner is willing to take the risk that the unit will appreciate in value, or are accepting of the tax implications of that arrangement. I think renters, developers, condo owner/investors, and the city benefit from that system. That is the system that is currently in place uptown.

As for the poor, there are already federal, state, and local funds that have created quite a large number subsidized units within and in walking distance of the CBD.

[crispin]

The ideology of income redistribution and erosion of personal property rights aside, what is your rationale and support for your conclusion? You mentioned in an earlier post about uptown being the only part of town where a car isn't needed, so do you see it mostly as a transportation/accessibility to work issue? Do you consider lower cost housing near transit access to be a solution?

I'm just trying to figure out if you're talking about an inherent right that should trascend market forces, or if you are making more of a "wouldn't it be great if..." argument?

I'm assuming we all agree the government should impinge to some degree on private income and property rights ("taxation" and "land use regulation", respectively). If I'm wrong in that assumption, please let me know. My intention is just to discuss the appropriate amount of intervention.

I'm also assuming the following facts: The number of Uptown apartments is declining. The average price of an Uptown condominium is increasing. Both trends seem likely to continue.

Why is this bad?

I believe, as you suggest, that lower-income people benefit from living in interior neigborhoods (not exclusively Uptown) because they can reach jobs and shopping at a lower transportation cost.

I also believe neighborhoods characterized by socio-economic diversity raise the quality of life for all residents relative to other residential patterns (what atlrvr calls "too much concentrated poverty.")

Realizing these goals requires limited intervention in the marketplace, such as building public housing or offering larger incentives for the inclusion of affordable housing components in planned developments.

Separately, it seems to me that it

[ElricSeven]

And here I sat thinking zoning was a way of protecting suburbia against communism...

At any rate, they're separate points:

1. Uptown needs more housing for poor people. Probably the government will have to build it.

2. Uptown needs more housing for the middle class. Demand is being artificially constrained by the expectation of future demand for high-end product. Government could force land onto the market.

Dude there's nothing artificial about the demand to live in Uptown. People love the convenience and the nightlife and are willing to pay for it. That drives the value of the land up, because its development potential is increased. This is the free market system at work.

Also, where is it written that everyone gets to choose where they can live? There's nothing in any consitution, state or federal, that guarantees housing for anyone. The statement that "Uptown needs more housing for poor people" is based on what?

Are you sure you live in the U.S.?

[crispin]

Dude there's nothing artificial about the demand to live in Uptown. People love the convenience and the nightlife and are willing to pay for it. That drives the value of the land up, because its development potential is increased. This is the free market system at work.

Also, where is it written that everyone gets to choose where they can live? There's nothing in any consitution, state or federal, that guarantees housing for anyone. The statement that "Uptown needs more housing for poor people" is based on what?

Are you sure you live in the U.S.?

Uptown Charlotte is "the free market system at work" ?

The free market created Ballantyne.

Uptown Charlotte is a confection created by aggressive urban renewal, generous government incentives, significant government development -- and a massive parallel effort by our two giant banks largely driven by a massive sense of noblesse oblige.

(And if one more person implies I'm a French communist...

[ElricSeven]

Separately, it seems to me that it

[ElricSeven]

Uptown Charlotte is "the free market system at work" ?

The free market created Ballantyne.

Uptown Charlotte is a confection created by aggressive urban renewal, generous government incentives, significant government development -- and a massive parallel effort by our two giant banks largely driven by a massive sense of noblesse oblige.

(And if one more person implies I'm a French communist...

There's a difference between providing basic services and setting market prices to distribute free or reduced price housing to the middle class. The latter entails heavily tampering with the market forces. Public takings for economic development fall into this latter category. Public takings should be done on as limited a basis as possible and viewed with jaundiced eye to avoid depriving people of their basic property rights. Otherwise the government becomes the effective owner or controller of all private property, i.e., a communist government.

[crispin]

There's a difference between providing basic services and setting market prices to distribute free or reduced price housing to the middle class. The latter entails heavily tampering with the market forces. Public takings for economic development fall into this latter category. Public takings should be done on as limited a basis as possible and viewed with jaundiced eye to avoid depriving people of their basic property rights. Otherwise the government becomes the effective owner or controller of all private property, i.e., a communist government.

Some countries do include a right to housing in their constitutions; you're right that the U.S. doesn't, and I'm not aware of any states that do. It does, however, number among our county's goals:

"Mecklenburg County will be the place of choice in the region for people to live because we will have affordable housing opportunities throughout the county for residents from all economic backgrounds."

At any rate, there are two points:

1. The government should create reduced-price housing for lower-income families.

2. The government should create land use policies that allow development of adequate housing for middle-class families. But please, no discounts for the middle class.

Finally, to you and atlrvr, there's a lot of room between capitalism and communism.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

At any rate, there are two points:

1. The government should create reduced-price housing for lower-income families.

2. The government should create land use policies that allow development of adequate housing for middle-class families. But please, no discounts for the middle class.

Why does it have to be uptown?

I don't understand the desire for poor people uptown, middle-class yes, but not the poor.

[ElricSeven]

Some countries do include a right to housing in their constitutions; you're right that the U.S. doesn't, and I'm not aware of any states that do. It does, however, number among our county's goals:

"Mecklenburg County will be the place of choice in the region for people to live because we will have affordable housing opportunities throughout the county for residents from all economic backgrounds."

At any rate, there are two points:

1. The government should create reduced-price housing for lower-income families.

2. The government should create land use policies that allow development of adequate housing for middle-class families. But please, no discounts for the middle class.

Finally, to you and atlrvr, there's a lot of room between capitalism and communism.

Although optimistic and a great goal, economic realities dictate that 1. should be a very, very small number of people and 2., really, already exists. Housing here is already dirt cheap compared to most other cities in the Eastern U.S. that have any kind of an employment base.

I would suggest reading an article in the recent Economist that points out that our poor have more wealth than the upper middle class of most of the world's countries. Our economic engine has raised the vast majority of ships, we should be loathe to tinker too much with it for fear of destroying its benefits. There's too much friction in the government redistribution of wealth, it should be done in very limited amounts only for the very needy. Those should be very few indeed. Redistribution of a dollar by the government usually costs three dollars in adminstration and lost incentive for output.

Alas, class envy drives the majority of the demand for government handouts. Human weakness drives everyone to want what's just out of reach and it is unfair if they don't get it.

[turbocraig]

Well, you may get your wish after all. This just posted on CLT.com:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/14001599.htm

There's no indication of anything specific, just the mention that this company's focus will include apartments downtown.

[UptownGrrl]

Realizing these goals requires limited intervention in the marketplace, such as building public housing or offering larger incentives for the inclusion of affordable housing components in planned developments.

It's my sense that this is already happening. Perhaps not under a public housing subsidized rental model, but a more successful mixed income ownership-based model. We've seen what a great success First Ward has been. The same is planned for the Renwick, as a public/private partnership, correct? Wilmore Walk is another recent development that offered units to those below certain income caps. The Char-Meck development policies do offer incentives to build mixed income projects, particularly, close to transit opportunities.

Most people you'll meet on this board are fans of mixed-income development and diverse, interesting neighborhoods. I just don't think it needs to go so far as the government artifically forcing private landowners to minimize their profit opportunities, or demonstrating poor stewardship of tax dollars with unnecessary subsidies for what the market has determined is a comparatively expensive place to live.

[monsoon]

N.C. law lists the purposes for which the government can seize land. Economic development isn't on the list.

N.C. Senator Marc Basnight plans to introduce a bill this GA short session that would make the prohibition explicit, satisfying concerns raised in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last summer.

To me, that seems like making it really, really illegal when it's already against the law, but whatever.

Bottom line, Atlrvr, You're absolutely right.

Actually all the city has to do is to declare the area blighted and they can take the property under current NC Law. There is no definition on what blight means.

More here.

[crispin]

Actually all the city has to do is to declare the area blighted and they can take the property under current NC Law. There is no definition on what blight means.

More here.

Yeah, the Locke Foundation says it's possible. The League of Municipalities says it's not. And that makes sense, since the Locke Foundation completely distrusts government, and the League of Municipalities is the government.

But when BB&T announced it wouldn't make loans for that kind of project, the company said specifically that its decision wouldn't affect North Carolina because such projects already were impossible here. And they don't have a skin in the game.

At any rate, Basnight is going to pass a law making it really, really illegal.

(By the way, this is the definition of what blight means, from N.C. G.S. 160A-503:

(2) "Blighted area" shall mean an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements (or which is predominantly residential in character), and which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs the sound growth of the community, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare; provided, no area shall be considered a blighted area nor subject to the power of eminent domain, within the meaning of this Article, unless it is determined by the planning commission that at least two thirds of the number of buildings within the area are of the character described in this subdivision and substantially contribute to the conditions making such area a blighted area; provided that if the power of eminent domain shall be exercised under the provisions of this Article, the property owner or owners or persons having an interest in property shall be entitled to be represented by counsel of their own selection and their reasonable counsel fees fixed by the court, taxed as a part of the costs and paid by the petitioners.)

[crispin]

It's my sense that this is already happening. Perhaps not under a public housing subsidized rental model, but a more successful mixed income ownership-based model. We've seen what a great success First Ward has been. The same is planned for the Renwick, as a public/private partnership, correct? Wilmore Walk is another recent development that offered units to those below certain income caps. The Char-Meck development policies do offer incentives to build mixed income projects, particularly, close to transit opportunities.

Most people you'll meet on this board are fans of mixed-income development and diverse, interesting neighborhoods. I just don't think it needs to go so far as the government artifically forcing private landowners to minimize their profit opportunities, or demonstrating poor stewardship of tax dollars with unnecessary subsidies for what the market has determined is a comparatively expensive place to live.

I appreciate your perspective, and I share your interest in diverse, interesting neighborhoods. I wish I also shared your optimism. What I see in Charlotte, as in many other cities, is the increased disclocation of poor residents to progressively more distant subdivisions as the core becomes wealthy again.

The examples you cite are good examples, but as atlrvr noted earlier, the incentives often aren't enough to make mixed-income development worth the trouble. And at the same time, we have a public housing authority that funds itself by selling projects in wealthy areas and building new ones in poor areas.

Gentrification is a good and natural process. Careful planning can sand its edges. The government forces private landowners to minimize their profits every single day. That's the nature of a zoning code. I'm just suggesting that the current rules controlling uptown development maybe should be tweaked.

[cinco]

Alas, class envy drives the majority of the demand for government handouts. Human weakness drives everyone to want what's just out of reach and it is unfair if they don't get it.

i agree. however does class envy play a part in the fact that a large number of our richest corporations and citizens are constantly tweaking, lobbying, and loop holeing the system - to save themselves millions? to me, whether it's a welfare handout or a "scoundrel" manipulation... they are one and the same.

i do have problems with the "me, me, and me" attitude that exsists in all classes. while, ideally i would love to see a mix of classes in uptown... i realize that isn't likely without some capitalistic/democratic values becoming whitewashed. its just, that i have to ponder the differences of a handout that the city might give to a corporation in order to lure them uptown as opposed to the government creating a publc housing project uptown. while one might have a big economic impact, the other might have a positive socio impact.

[lupitachica]

does class envy play a part in the fact that a large number of our richest corporations and citizens are constantly tweaking, lobbying, and loop holeing the system - to save themselves millions? to me, whether it's a welfare handout or a "scoundrel" manipulation... they are one and the same.

Excellent point.

[ElricSeven]

i agree. however does class envy play a part in the fact that a large number of our richest corporations and citizens are constantly tweaking, lobbying, and loop holeing the system - to save themselves millions? to me, whether it's a welfare handout or a "scoundrel" manipulation... they are one and the same.

i do have problems with the "me, me, and me" attitude that exsists in all classes. while, ideally i would love to see a mix of classes in uptown... i realize that isn't likely without some capitalistic/democratic values becoming whitewashed. its just, that i have to ponder the differences of a handout that the city might give to a corporation in order to lure them uptown as opposed to the government creating a publc housing project uptown. while one might have a big economic impact, the other might have a positive socio impact.

So you're in favor of those same decision makers making even more decisions about the distribution of wealth? My argument is the less involved the government, the better. And yes, that includes stonewalling corporate handouts also. Of course they do these things and we still vote for them.

[crispin]

So you're in favor of those same decision makers making even more decisions about the distribution of wealth? My argument is the less involved the government, the better. And yes, that includes stonewalling corporate handouts also. Of course they do these things and we still vote for them.

Ah, the redistribution of wealth -- as if all your wealth had come into your hands solely through your own efforts. The question of wealth distribution does not begin at the moment you're holding all of your wealth and deciding how to distribute it. Government, lest we forgot, also played a crucial role in distributing wealth to you. Which is awfully philosophical for a discussion about highrise apartments, and a long way of saying yes, I hope society keeps on treating wealth redistribution as a valid topic for discussion.