St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 2-Under Construction)

[BeagleAccountant]

On the docket for the November 9th ARB meeting is a recommendation to City Planning for this development on Block 18, which is between the bus transit center and the McDonalds - that is due to be demolished. In the first photo (labeled St Pauls Blvd), you can see where they plan to move the McDonalds to. There are more renderings at the following link. 

http://norfolkcityva.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1490&Inline=True

Edited November 5, 2020 by BeagleAccountant
Grammar

[urbanlife]

Looks like a good urban development. I like that it has retail on all three street sides of the building, this will really help with turning that area into an active urban district in the future.

[zeppelin14]

I saw this on the news the other day and surprised it wasn't posted here. Homes are starting to be torn down at SPQ (finally).

 

https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/norfolk/demolition-begins-at-tidewater-gardens-for-st-pauls-redevelopment/

[Norfolk757Kid]

The saga continues...what ya'll think is going on? Is the lawsuit gaining more traction in court than the city originally thought?

https://www-pilotonline-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-norfolk-city-refuses-interviews-st-pauls-20210201-wy3tl3lmtbeuxjay42dgm7wljy-story.html?outputType=amp

[vdogg]

20 hours ago, Norfolk757Kid said:

The saga continues...what ya'll think is going on? Is the lawsuit gaining more traction in court than the city originally thought?

https://www-pilotonline-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-norfolk-city-refuses-interviews-st-pauls-20210201-wy3tl3lmtbeuxjay42dgm7wljy-story.html?outputType=amp

I saw this article last week and deliberately didn't post it. There's nothing going on any different than before, this is just the pilot trying to create controversy where there is none so they can generate clicks, ignore it.   Telling employees not to talk to media about a pending lawsuit is standard for any business or government entity, it has no bearing on whether the lawsuit itself does or does not have merit.

[vdogg]

The Willis building is going to be redeveloped. Nothing concrete just yet.

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/three-hampton-roads-revitalization-projects-receive-1m-from-state/

Willis Building, Norfolk, $250,000. The EDA is reviewing development proposals, which include the renovation of the building for retail and office space, potentially for the city of Norfolk’s Department of Human Services, as well as for affordable housing. 

https://www.commercialcafe.com/commercial-property/us/va/norfolk/the-willis-building/

[BFG]

That makes a nice gateway into the SPQ, in my opinion. Fill in as many gaps in that end of Church St. as you can. 

Curious to see what happens with the post office site too. 

[EJ_LEWIS]

BET with Soledad Obrien spotlighted the redevelopment of the Tidewater Gardens Public Housing Project.   Two things stood out I think the documentary was overly harsh on NRHA and the city.   The city has held numerous community charrettes and has asked residents what would they like to see in SPQ.  I think the Documentary really put the spot light on the poor messaging coming from NRHA and the city.   Soledad Obrien called NRHA, the director of People First and the Mayor.  Only the Mayor was contacted and he was easily tripped up by Soledad Obrien's question about how can you guarantee that all current Tidewater Garden's can return when they are building less affordable units in SPQ then what there is now.  The City has got to work on their communications with the press.  Its simply unacceptable to stop talking with the press about this massive redevelopment project.  Although I understand the need to remain silent while the development is in litigation, there is no excuse for the city to completely ignore media inquiries.  Norfolk has to do better! Here is a link to the program: https://www.bet.com/video/disrupt-and-dismantle/season-1/full-episodes/episode-105-displacement-in-the-mermaid-city.html

[baobabs727]

I need a subscription to watch this???

[EJ_LEWIS]

Yes you need to have a cable package that includes BET.  You can also sign up for BET and cancel once you see the show.  

[EJ_LEWIS]

Here is Soledad O'brien talking about the BET Documentary about the demolition of Tidewater Gardens and the SPQ revitalization.  She starts out talking about how Norfolk is a beautiful growing city, but there is the other side of redevelopment and that is the displacement of current residents in Public Housing.  

 

[mistermetaj]

I haven't watched the video, so I don't know what position they are taking. However, the title is "...Disrupt & Dismantle The Gentrification of Urban Communities"

This is why I have little to no faith that anything of significance will happen in Norfolk. St Paul's isn't an "urban community". It isn't a thriving or working class historically black neighborhood where a bunch of yuppies are moving in to their old apartment building and causing rent to shoot up (a la West Harlem). This is public housing. If these activists and the city aren't willing to distinguish between rundown public housing and true historically black neighborhoods, then this project is as good as dead IMO.

[vdogg]

The people complaining must want nothing to change. As stated above, this was not a once vibrant and historically black community. It is and always has been public housing. It’s concentrated poverty, which is the death knell for any neighborhood. The complaint seems to be that not every single resident can come back. I’m sorry, but if you keep the exact same people in the exact same place what have you really accomplished except, perhaps, updating the housing stock? The concentrated poverty is still there, the reasons for that poverty are still there, and jobs will not magically appear for folks who may not have a high school diploma/Ged/vocational degree/etc. I don’t know what the answer to this problem is but I do know that simply giving the area a face lift and doing the exact same thing ain’t it. Mixed income is the way to go. Expungement of criminals records for minor offenses is the way to go. Scholarships to technical and trade schools would provide huge benefits. Provide people with a pathway toward upward mobility. Let’s solve the underlying issues first. 

[BFG]

That clip was one-sided and accusatory, and I’m a fan of Soledad O’Brien. I don’t wanna see a repeat of East Ghent or what we’ve seen in DC and NY. But as someone mentioned above, the city has been very transparent with the charettes, and they’ve already opened income-based apartments. I hate to see our town singled out nationally for doing something other cities have done, but have gone about it in a positive way. 

[metalman]

I came across this video on YouTube.  He talks about the Norfolk news story and SPQ a bit but also focuses on a commercial that was in between segments marketed for the target audience, asking if it was appropriate or a marketing tactic.

I thought it was interesting.

 

[EJ_LEWIS]

My late Daddy's dental practice use to be on Fenchurch St. next door to the church I grew up in St. John's AME so I am somewhat familiar with Tidewater Gardens.  Quite a few of my father's patients lived in Tidewater Gardens.  My Father frequently would provide Dental services for free to the residents.  Quite a few had jobs with the city or private employers and had insurance.  Its false to say every resident in public housing does not have a skill or job.  The problem resides with low wages to low to afford market rate housing.  TG is the only home many of them have ever known.  Yes I commend the city for being somewhat transparent with the residents, but now that demolition has started some have come to realize that the vouchers are insufficient and they are not receiving the level of support of People First as the city promised.  The Ghost of East Ghent reared its head again.  Norfolk has a dark history of moving its black residents out in favor of better off white residents.  No wonder the Tidewater Gardens residents are skeptical of the cities motives.  Also this not talking to the media about this project because of litigation makes it look like the city is hiding something.  Terrible that NRHA and People First did not return Soledad's call.  This time around Norfolk needs to ensure and follow through with helping the residence move back in and if they desire to move somewhere else the city needs to do everything in their power to assist them in moving into safe affordable housing elsewhere.  SPQ is a exciting project but it needs to be implemented properly and honestly.  

[baobabs727]

Keeping people locked away in these antiquated and sometimes dangerous concrete boxes is cruel and unusual.  We have witnessed 60 or more years of the pubic housing experiment, an abject failure time and again, all across the US, as study after study have shown that mixed income is the aspirational way to lift all economic boats and to simultaneously reduce crime and drug use in densely populated, low-income African American communities. For the better part of three decades, SOME of the resistance to moving toward a mixed-income neighborhood replacement model, i.e., moving more upwardly mobile folks into the urban mix via the addition of market-rate rentals and deeded single family/townhome/condo (whatever the particular mix may be here, I’m not sure), seems to be rooted in some type of perverse plantation preservation mentality. The government, of course, being the plantation owner.  The advocates for rebuilding public housing in lieu of something like what’s going on here—or at  least those who seem reflexively opposed to what they would falsely term “gentrification,” are both white and African American—progressives all.  Well, I’m here to tell you that there’s nothing “progressive” about what they are espousing.  

Edited March 25, 2021 by baobabs727

[BFG]

I’d like to revisit this in five years, and see who from Tidewater Gardens was able to stay, then ask about their quality of life in 2026 compared to the last few years. 

Same for anyone who moved into the new mixed-use apartments off Charlotte St. 

[Arctic_Tern]

14 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Keeping people locked away in these antiquated and sometimes dangerous concrete boxes is cruel and unusual.  We have witnessed 60 or more years of the pubic housing experiment, an abject failure time and again, all across the US, as study after study have shown that mixed income is the aspirational way to lift all economic boats and to simultaneously reduce crime and drug use in densely populated, low-income African American communities. For the better part of three decades, SOME of the resistance to moving toward a mixed-income neighborhood replacement model, i.e., moving more upwardly mobile folks into the urban mix via the addition of market-rate rentals and deeded single family/townhome/condo (whatever the particular mix may be here, I’m not sure), seems to be rooted in some type of perverse plantation preservation mentality. The government, of course, being the plantation owner.  The advocates for rebuilding public housing in lieu of something like what’s going on here—or at  least those who seem reflexively opposed to what they would falsely term “gentrification,” are both white and African American—progressives all.  Well, I’m here to tell you that there’s nothing “progressive” about what they are espousing.  

This is a bad take, in my opinion. You're pulling a couple of different issues together to throw up a straw-man progressive that I don't think really exists. The issue with public housing is not that public housing is inherently bad, it is that it is not supported or utilized correctly. Public housing, especially in Norfolk, is under funded, concentrated, and segregated. Why aren't the public housing communities better integrated into the fabric of the city, and why don't they receive better services? Why has it taken 60 years for Tidewater Gardens to be replaced? Why aren't there already new units for the current residents to move into? Like seriously, it's not like there's a dearth of demand for public housing, it's almost impossible to get on the waiting list there are so many that need it. Why didn't the city build more public housing, move the current residents there, and then redevelop St. Pauls to add more public housing stock for the city? They would have been able to avoid a lot of their current criticisms if they took that route.

I would also say that private led Section 8 housing is not the end-all-be-all solution that will fix all of our problems. Private apartment complexes are there to make a buck, and that clashes with public housing since most that need it don't have a ton of money. It is a useful tool in the public housing belt, but cities need to be careful in how they utilize and regulate private section 8 housing or else the residents are actually going to be in a much worse situation. Right now in Richmond they're having issues because Leasers have way too much control. They are able to jack up rents on poorly maintained properties with the threat of eviction if residents don't comply, and they face little if any repercussions whatsoever.  And the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority has shown very little desire to help.

And to be clear, yes gentrification is something that we need to be careful of. It forces out longtime residents and breaks up communities. And, as we all enough of urban development enthusiasts to frequent this site, we should be much more concerned with the development and protection of communities rather than ignore their potential erosion.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Arctic_Tern
clarification

[baobabs727]

4 hours ago, Arctic_Tern said:

This is a bad take, in my opinion. You're pulling a couple of different issues together to throw up a straw-man progressive that I don't think really exists. The issue with public housing is not that public housing is inherently bad, it is that it is not supported or utilized correctly. Public housing, especially in Norfolk, is under funded, concentrated, and segregated. Why aren't the public housing communities better integrated into the fabric of the city, and why don't they receive better services? Why has it taken 60 years for Tidewater Gardens to be replaced? Why aren't there already new units for the current residents to move into? Like seriously, it's not like there's a dearth of demand for public housing, it's almost impossible to get on the waiting list there are so many that need it. Why didn't the city build more public housing, move the current residents there, and then redevelop St. Pauls to add more public housing stock for the city? They would have been able to avoid a lot of their current criticisms if they took that route.

I would also say that private led Section 8 housing is not the end-all-be-all solution that will fix all of our problems. Private apartment complexes are there to make a buck, and that clashes with public housing since most that need it don't have a ton of money. It is a useful tool in the public housing belt, but cities need to be careful in how they utilize and regulate private section 8 housing or else the residents are actually going to be in a much worse situation. Right now in Richmond they're having issues because Leasers have way too much control. They are able to jack up rents on poorly maintained properties with the threat of eviction if residents don't comply, and they face little if any repercussions whatsoever.  And the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority has shown very little desire to help.

And to be clear, yes gentrification is something that we need to be careful of. It forces out longtime residents and breaks up communities. And, as we all enough of urban development enthusiasts to frequent this site, we should be much more concerned with the development and protection of communities rather than ignore their potential erosion.

Could not disagree more strongly with every fiber of my being, and I believe that yours is the “bad take” ...and patently on the wrong side of history. With respect, it sounds very much like an answer that came straight out of a university lecture or a sociology or Marxian economics textbook. Certainly, the private sector is not entirely altruistic, nor is it a panacea factory, but let there be no doubt that the cruelest master soul-sucker in all of human history is a nameless, faceless government bureaucrat. The great war on poverty, a feckless progressive fantasy which brought us these Gulag style housing encampments, has failed the masses.  And miserably so. Time to try something  new. Time to inject a little private economy capitalism into the human housing solution equation. For never has there been an economic system that has lifted more people out of poverty than free-market capitalism. Mixed-income, mixed use, private ownership of property:  onward and upward.

———p.s.......———

“The issue with public housing is not that public housing is inherently bad, it is that it is not supported or utilized correctly” .....sounds all very familiar to me.  

For it’s pretty much the same tired and demonstrably fallacious argument as “The issue with communism is not that communism  is inherently bad, it is that it has not been implemented correctly.” 

Edited March 25, 2021 by baobabs727

[BFG]

1 hour ago, NFKjeff said:

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I think the city’s efforts in Broad Creek have been mostly positive. I believe the housing stock has been greatly improved, while the overall makeup of the neighborhood has been maintained. There have also been some improvements such as a new library, and school. The Kroc Center was also built, although not paid for by the city, they did do much work to attract such a highly regarded facility to the neighborhood.

Broad Creek is probably the best example of rebuilding done right (I refuse to use the G-word), IMO. Although I'm sure the city wanted a more integrated neighborhood, from what I've seen they successfully created a middle-class Black neighborhood. Hopefully SPQ brings more diversity, both racially and economically, and put these debates to rest.

Kudos everyone for not letting this devolve to name-calling. I wish more Internet debates could be as civil as the ones here.

[mistermetaj]

6 hours ago, Arctic_Tern said:

This is a bad take, in my opinion. You're pulling a couple of different issues together to throw up a straw-man progressive that I don't think really exists. The issue with public housing is not that public housing is inherently bad, it is that it is not supported or utilized correctly. Public housing, especially in Norfolk, is under funded, concentrated, and segregated. Why aren't the public housing communities better integrated into the fabric of the city, and why don't they receive better services? Why has it taken 60 years for Tidewater Gardens to be replaced? Why aren't there already new units for the current residents to move into? Like seriously, it's not like there's a dearth of demand for public housing, it's almost impossible to get on the waiting list there are so many that need it. Why didn't the city build more public housing, move the current residents there, and then redevelop St. Pauls to add more public housing stock for the city? They would have been able to avoid a lot of their current criticisms if they took that route.

I would also say that private led Section 8 housing is not the end-all-be-all solution that will fix all of our problems. Private apartment complexes are there to make a buck, and that clashes with public housing since most that need it don't have a ton of money. It is a useful tool in the public housing belt, but cities need to be careful in how they utilize and regulate private section 8 housing or else the residents are actually going to be in a much worse situation. Right now in Richmond they're having issues because Leasers have way too much control. They are able to jack up rents on poorly maintained properties with the threat of eviction if residents don't comply, and they face little if any repercussions whatsoever.  And the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority has shown very little desire to help.

And to be clear, yes gentrification is something that we need to be careful of. It forces out longtime residents and breaks up communities. And, as we all enough of urban development enthusiasts to frequent this site, we should be much more concerned with the development and protection of communities rather than ignore their potential erosion.

The intent of public housing was to be more akin to a halfway house, not a lifetime or multi-generational dwelling. The fact it has become a way of life to the point you refer to it as a community in need of protection shows the depth of the failure of public housing. 

To your point of gentrification (not related to public housing per se), where do you draw the line between owner rights and non-owners or "community" rights?

 

[Arctic_Tern]

4 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Could not disagree more strongly with every fiber of my being, and I believe that yours is the “bad take” ...and patently on the wrong side of history. With respect, it sounds very much like an answer that came straight out of a university lecture or a sociology or Marxian economics textbook. Certainly, the private sector is not entirely altruistic, nor is it a panacea factory, but let there be no doubt that the cruelest master soul-sucker in all of human history is a nameless, faceless government bureaucrat. The great war on poverty, a feckless progressive fantasy which brought us these Gulag style housing encampments, has failed the masses.  And miserably so. Time to try something  new. Time to inject a little private economy capitalism into the human housing solution equation. For never has there been an economic system that has lifted more people out of poverty than free-market capitalism. Mixed-income, mixed use, private ownership of property:  onward and upward.

———p.s.......———

“The issue with public housing is not that public housing is inherently bad, it is that it is not supported or utilized correctly” .....sounds all very familiar to me.  

For it’s pretty much the same tired and demonstrably fallacious argument as “The issue with communism is not that communism  is inherently bad, it is that it has not been implemented correctly.” 

You seem to want to argue more about communism/capitalism than have a good faith argument about how to best serve the underprivileged in our society. Which, neat, but the issue is a lot more complex than just saying "let laissez-faire capitalism do all the work".  Creating communities and delivering services that work, especially for those that cannot afford to buy solutions, requires careful planning and years long foresight. This isn't about capitalism, it's about planning. (Weird seeing how we're on an urban planning message  board right?)

Private companies are not some big evil boogeyman, but they are around to do exactly one thing: make money. There is nothing that a company will do if it does not in some way make them more money. So when we cities are planning about how to help people who do not have money to give, they need to be wary of how they can be taken advantage of or else they end up in a situation where they pay more money to put their citizens in a worse situation than if they had just built the damn housing themselves.

[Arctic_Tern]

1 hour ago, mistermetaj said:

The intent of public housing was to be more akin to a halfway house, not a lifetime or multi-generational dwelling. The fact it has become a way of life to the point you refer to it as a community in need of protection shows the depth of the failure of public housing. 

To your point of gentrification (not related to public housing per se), where do you draw the line between owner rights and non-owners or "community" rights?

 

I would say it is less a failure of public housing, and more a failure of the society. How is it the housings fault if the people living there are prevented from moving upward?

So the thing is about gentrification is that there is no one *line*.  It is an incredibly grey issue.  I think we can all agree it's awful when people are forced out of their homes not for any fault of their own.

[baobabs727]

16 hours ago, Arctic_Tern said:

You seem to want to argue more about communism/capitalism than have a good faith argument about how to best serve the underprivileged in our society. Which, neat, but the issue is a lot more complex than just saying "let laissez-faire capitalism do all the work".  Creating communities and delivering services that work, especially for those that cannot afford to buy solutions, requires careful planning and years long foresight. This isn't about capitalism, it's about planning. (Weird seeing how we're on an urban planning message  board right?)

Private companies are not some big evil boogeyman, but they are around to do exactly one thing: make money. There is nothing that a company will do if it does not in some way make them more money. So when we cities are planning about how to help people who do not have money to give, they need to be wary of how they can be taken advantage of or else they end up in a situation where they pay more money to put their citizens in a worse situation than if they had just built the damn housing themselves.

The difference between us is that you do not acknowledge the abject failure—on every level—of government-planned low-income housing (more like warehousing) over the past 60+ years.  Both in concept and in actual/practical form. I suspect this is rooted in your genuine belief and faith in our government to find solutions to complex socio-economic, socio-cultural problems...and in your distrust of and disdain for private enterprise, and yes, capitalism.  If only we worked smarter, cared more, spent more public dollars and executed better, then public housing would be a rousing success. Right?  
 

Edited March 26, 2021 by baobabs727