What does downtown Norfolk need?

[brikkman]

What pisses me off is that if you are poor you get to live downtown, but if you work hard and don't make a lot of money u can' t afford to live down there. Why is it if you don't want to work u are going to be rewarded by living downtown. What happened to being rewarded for hard work? This is why this country is falling apart.

[mistermetaj]

What pisses me off is that if you are poor you get to live downtown, but if you work hard and don't make a lot of money u can' t afford to live down there. Why is it if you don't want to work u are going to be rewarded by living downtown. What happened to being rewarded for hard work? This is why this country is falling apart.

[skylinefan]

It's the welfare attitude of this country. (speaking of welfare, there's a public policy needing massive reform on the local and federal level)

As for everyone else talking about incorporating low income and public housing, I will say again areas like DC, Portland, probably any other city you name as examples of having low income and public housing mixed in with the rest of the city are ALREADY ESTABLISHED.

Norfolk IS HAVING A HARD TIME ATTRACTING RESIDENTS AND IS NOT ESTABLISHED ENOUGH to where incorporating low income housing will work. There are not enough well off and middle class residents to support such a thing, and it will completely hinder the city's development east.

Everyone says "lets put a retail place here, lets have a restaurant here, lets have a community garden here..." yet who is going to utilize these? The residents of Tidewater Gardens? No retail store or restaurant will cater to them.

Right now Norfolk needs AFFORDABLE (meaning people PAY but not outrageous prices, lower middle and middle class wages) housing for middle class workers so business who EMPLOY middle class worker will move there as well. Making an area that will be 40-50% low income or publich housing will make the area a dead zone.

I am not trying to argue against having public housing downtown some day, but right now Norfolk is just not established enough with a resident base to support it.

Maye in 20 years Norfolk can have its version of hte Pearl District, but right now it barely even has 5000 residents DT total, if even that, with no prospects of that drastically changing in the near future.

[skylinefan]

Yeah, I am going to have to agree with you on that one. The way we discuss it, we get away from its true purpose and if we look at its true purpose, public housing does not belong in DT. So I would have to agree with you.

In regards to the bowling alley in p-town, ummm, until it

[varider]

I'm sticking to my belief that a mix of low income and middle class housing is the best way to go for St. Paul's Quadrant... What's so wrong with being around poor people! Don't you think their are CEO's in NYC haggled by homeless every single day.. I was thinking, an I'm not sure if this is feasible but what if the city allowed the current residents of Tidewater Gardens to stay in the newer, urban, dense apartments as long as they keep it clean, stay out of trouble, and if physically able, keep a job.. One strike and your out.

Oh, and I was looking at the St. Pauls plan and I can't believe they asked the current residents what type of housing they would prefer! The leading answer was single family with a front and back yard! DUH! If your poor, live in a congested subsidized housing project with a lot of crime don't you think you would love the dream of having your own place with a nice lawn!

[skylinefan]

I'm sticking to my belief that a mix of low income and middle class housing is the best way to go for St. Paul's Quadrant... What's so wrong with being around poor people! Don't you think their are CEO's in NYC haggled by homeless every single day.. I was thinking, an I'm not sure if this is feasible but what if the city allowed the current residents of Tidewater Gardens to stay in the newer, urban, dense apartments as long as they keep it clean, stay out of trouble, and if physically able, keep a job.. One strike and your out.

Oh, and I was looking at the St. Pauls plan and I can't believe they asked the current residents what type of housing they would prefer! The leading answer was single family with a front and back yard! DUH! If your poor, live in a congested subsidized housing project with a lot of crime don't you think you would love the dream of having your own place with a nice lawn!

[Brent]

The fact that the city needs to find room to expand is testament to the fact that public housing is not hurting downtown Norfolk.

The public housing is currently downtown because downtown was a craphole when they built it. Its inhumane to shuffle people to the crappy side of town when the side of town in which they currently reside becomes desirable. It limits their opportunities (they could work at a new national retailer and get off of the public dole). You can't keep moving the dependant population to parts of town with no services, work, access to grocery stores or any thing in which to take pride then beotch about how they aren't contributing. I'm sure that the local businesses appreciate their business. Food stamps or cash

[urbanlife]

It's the welfare attitude of this country. (speaking of welfare, there's a public policy needing massive reform on the local and federal level)

As for everyone else talking about incorporating low income and public housing, I will say again areas like DC, Portland, probably any other city you name as examples of having low income and public housing mixed in with the rest of the city are ALREADY ESTABLISHED.

Norfolk IS HAVING A HARD TIME ATTRACTING RESIDENTS AND IS NOT ESTABLISHED ENOUGH to where incorporating low income housing will work. There are not enough well off and middle class residents to support such a thing, and it will completely hinder the city's development east.

Everyone says "lets put a retail place here, lets have a restaurant here, lets have a community garden here..." yet who is going to utilize these? The residents of Tidewater Gardens? No retail store or restaurant will cater to them.

Right now Norfolk needs AFFORDABLE (meaning people PAY but not outrageous prices, lower middle and middle class wages) housing for middle class workers so business who EMPLOY middle class worker will move there as well. Making an area that will be 40-50% low income or publich housing will make the area a dead zone.

I am not trying to argue against having public housing downtown some day, but right now Norfolk is just not established enough with a resident base to support it.

Maye in 20 years Norfolk can have its version of hte Pearl District, but right now it barely even has 5000 residents DT total, if even that, with no prospects of that drastically changing in the near future.

[mikeas]

I'm my opinion "Public housing" should not be provided downtown. The city should work with developers to build "Affordable housing" with no maximum income limits but minimum owner occupancy rules. If I had money right now I'd be building some non-luxury apartments in or near downtown...

[varider]

Do you guys think that St. Paul's Quadrant will be better than Downtown is currently? In terms of office space, population, retail, ect.? It really doesn't matter to me whether subsidized housing is offered, all I want is so true retail! Best Buy's, Dick's Sporting, Target, Ect.!

[rusthebuss]

I'm sticking to my belief that a mix of low income and middle class housing is the best way to go for St. Paul's Quadrant... What's so wrong with being around poor people! Don't you think their are CEO's in NYC haggled by homeless every single day.. I was thinking, an I'm not sure if this is feasible but what if the city allowed the current residents of Tidewater Gardens to stay in the newer, urban, dense apartments as long as they keep it clean, stay out of trouble, and if physically able, keep a job.. One strike and your out.

Oh, and I was looking at the St. Pauls plan and I can't believe they asked the current residents what type of housing they would prefer! The leading answer was single family with a front and back yard! DUH! If your poor, live in a congested subsidized housing project with a lot of crime don't you think you would love the dream of having your own place with a nice lawn!

[brikkman]

I'm sticking to my belief that a mix of low income and middle class housing is the best way to go for St. Paul's Quadrant... What's so wrong with being around poor people! Don't you think their are CEO's in NYC haggled by homeless every single day.. I was thinking, an I'm not sure if this is feasible but what if the city allowed the current residents of Tidewater Gardens to stay in the newer, urban, dense apartments as long as they keep it clean, stay out of trouble, and if physically able, keep a job.. One strike and your out.

Oh, and I was looking at the St. Pauls plan and I can't believe they asked the current residents what type of housing they would prefer! The leading answer was single family with a front and back yard! DUH! If your poor, live in a congested subsidized housing project with a lot of crime don't you think you would love the dream of having your own place with a nice lawn!

[skylinefan]

No one hates the poor. I can't hate something that I was but being downtown should be a reward for you accomplishments. My whole point of the matter was that people such as firefighters and other blue collar people don't get the chance that people that are on govt assistance get such as getting places in DT. Its not fair that people that work very hard can't afford to live there is what my point is. Also, another point i was trying to make is that you aren't rewarded for hard work anymore in this country, its all about trying to find the easiest way through with the least bit of effort and the country is paying for it now.

[mlsimons]

opps

[mlsimons]

That is just not true, Portland even has public housing downtown.

[mistermetaj]

"not established enough" that is a total copout. What do you consider well established? 20 years ago Portland had quite the dirty little downtown...the Pearl District was nothing more than a chunk of wasted land downtown. Every city has to start somewhere and technically, Norfolk is much older that Portland, so it would be considered more established.

It is hard to make an argument that suggest displacing poor people because we dont want them around us...I would ask you, where should they go?

The important thing is to dilute heavily populated poor areas, by doing that creates much more vibrant neighborhoods.

And I would have to agree with Brent, it sometimes is hard to see the possibilities of areas when you live within a city because all you can see is how much better other cities are...when in actuality, nothing is permanent within a city and can always be changed. The idea is smart growth with future development doesnt require massive displacement, it just requires better handling of different classes of people.

[mistermetaj]

Do you guys think that St. Paul's Quadrant will be better than Downtown is currently? In terms of office space, population, retail, ect.? It really doesn't matter to me whether subsidized housing is offered, all I want is so true retail! Best Buy's, Dick's Sporting, Target, Ect.!

[Padman]

Short answer: many more jobs, especially good professional jobs. Downtown has many amenities but needs some more purchasing power. Office towers offer the kind of compact work setting that any typical downtown thrives on. In turn, the workers and their families support the retail and other community services and assets, and they need residential options nearby. Some people may not like office towers, but they make sound, economic sense in the right location. They are not necessarily expressions of ego.

There have been some good ideas expressed in this thread. Although the subject of spatial allocation of the poor makes for good discussion, I'm not sure that we have the resources now to address that issue very well. But we can try to bring more economic activity downtown and create more jobs for the lower income residents.

P.S. I'd like to see a better open space plan, some continuous bikeways and a lot more green infrastructure.

[urbanlife]

If this is so wrong, how come it doesn't make sense to so many people. Public housing can be provided in mixed-use, mixed-income developments somewhere else along the rail line...maybe up by broad creek, or Ingleside. But public housing does not belong downtown. They are not able to provide the land with its highest and best use. I know that plenty of cities do choose to incorporate the poor, and some successfully. But just because it is possible does not mean it should be done downtown. Allow me to explain...

The possibilities and the potential for the property is too unique, its a shame that Norfolk continues to allow housing projects to destroy the perception of the city to those who may be intolerant of the poor (which is the majority by the way). This perception cost Norfolk a lot in terms of money and disinvestment. St. Paul's quadrant, along with the land N. of Brambleton should be the natural routes for the expansion of downtown.

We can talk for hours about how so many people will be displaced from Tidewater Gardens, some after decades in the same units. But the reality is that this is supposed to be temporary housing, and that the residents are not owners, and in fact are costing the city money both directly and indirectly. There is absolutely nothing socially, or ethically wrong with displacing them.

Now it may be nice, after the built environment is established, to fill in the cracks with scattered public housing through the housing voucher system. But to steer new development away from the natural highest and best use market forces in order to fulfill some sort of welfare agenda, it ends up limiting the possibilities of downtown and its expansion opportunities.

One reason the possibilities at Tidewater Gardens are so unique, is this will be the land surrounding the future "union station" or whatever they will call it...where High speed rail, commuter rail and the light rail will converge. The equivalent of Waterloo station in London, Union station in DC, Penn station in NY. This means that this will one day be the most valuable real estate among commercial office space, along with all other forms of uses. I expect one day the interstate will be wrapped in development, much like how Boston's turnpike is wrapped and covered by highrises as you head into the Big dig around Copely. This should be on the forefront of the city council and the long-range planner's brains!

[urbanlife]

Well, for starters, look at the population of DT which is less than or just about 5000 and look at the income level. Once those reach numbers of any significance, then I'll call Norfolk established. Norfolk can barely support a sub par retail market and sub par restaurant market. It technically cannot even be called the center of this metro considering most of the metro wealth and population resides in a different city. What we've seen from Norfolk thus far is a lot of filler to a once completely destroyed downtown. We have not seen it take the leap you are suggesting like Portland did or like Charlotte has done recently into being well established cities. It's just not there yet. To suggest an area that will double downtown with 40 percent low income or whatever the numbers are is going to miraculously bring the DT into the 21st century with brand new offices and retail store fronts makes not sense.

[mistermetaj]

The poor are not prisoners, they should never "lose their right." Plus, they live in a horrible housing project, how can one say that is a prominent area...that is like saying Red Hook in Brooklyn is a prominent area, thus it should kick out the poor so the area could be better. You cant just "kick out" the poor, they still need to go somewhere and they still need to be apart of the city. Cities like Forth Worth, Tx are having an issue with low income housing being so far out with poor transit service, that it is increasing their homelessness.

[urbanlife]

Well, Red Hook is anything but a prominent location. However, the east side of Midtown Manhattan is a prominent location. Now given, my quality of living in Long Island City (just across the river from Manhattan) is much better than the low income housing, however, there is no denying that they live in a much more desireable location compared to the amenities they have access to vs. what I do. If you think that is alright, I can't change your opinion on it I guess, but the difference is I earned where I am, and they are given something better than me as per location.

[Sky06]

What pisses me off is that if you are poor you get to live downtown, but if you work hard and don't make a lot of money u can' t afford to live down there. Why is it if you don't want to work u are going to be rewarded by living downtown. What happened to being rewarded for hard work? This is why this country is falling apart.

[CaveMaN]

Because until 5 or 10 years ago, no one wanted to live in a city's downtown. They all rushed off to the suburbs, to escape traffic, noise, crime, lines, living pit to pit. Now look at America's suburbs. And now people are seeing the conveniences of not having to drive, not having just 1 or 2 places to eat, etc.

[varider]

I think suburban sprawl will be reversed with St. Paul's Quadrant and Virginia Beach Town Center.. Hampton Roads is going to become quite an amazing area if you think about it.. Every city will eventually have it's urban center with the majority of activity.. Some cities with more than one activity center.. It'd be awesome to see the move from suburban housing developments to the city centers. It is already happening in Virginia Beach and a little in Norfolk (likely to increase in the coming years).. Suffolk has Harbour View.. Chesapeake has Greenbrier.. The peninsula has Oyster Point.. It's pretty cool if you look at it that way.. Guess that's why we have the most jobs centered in the CBD in the country..