Hey, there! Log in / Register
New East Boston apartment building would be aimed at people who can't afford market-rate rents
By adamg on Thu, 01/08/2015 - 10:51am
The East Boston Community Development Corp. is proposing a 32-unit apartment building at 191 Paris St. for people who might otherwise be priced out of the neighborhood.
In a filing this week with the BRA, the CDC proposes to replace an old school with a new building with 28 units set aside for people earning no more than 60% of the median local income - and 4 for people earning no more than 30% of the median local income.
The four-story Paris Village "will create affordable family housing that will allow families to continue to live in the community they enjoy," as well as "revitalize an abandoned and blighted former school site," the CDC says in its filing.
The CDC would use part of the land, which also includes a parking lot, for a 21-space parking lot and would set aside another piece of the parcel for future use.
Complete filing (17.8M PDF).
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Perfect
This seems like a perfect proposal. That old schoolyard is no benefit to the community and this new housing sounds like just what should go there. Build it!
I guess you have to go negative
I knew that everyone in the world would find a reason to dislike this, but I still think it's just the right kind of development in the right place at the right time.
The old Salesians boys and
The old Salesians boys and girls club, too bad the archdiosis had to sell the property to pay off church abuse victims, kids who live in that area have no where to go for after school activities, especially kids from low income families who's parents cannot afford the daily bus fair up the orient heights salesians , that's the case for kids in my neighborhood, It would have been great if a non profit like Zumix would occupy the property.
Ha, Geez... don't you think Eastie has enough housing for the low income..
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
What is this city coming too? Where's the market rate stuff? I'm only half kidding here. You need regular market rate housing too, not just "luxury" or "affordable".
Don't worry
There's plenty of market-rate housing coming online over the next few years in East Boston - it's the new South Boston. Also, "affordable" is not the same as "low income." We're talking about social workers, DPW workers, paraprofessionals and the like - you know, the very people that make the city run but who find it increasingly hard to afford to live here.
Eastie residents
Better hope Eastie does not become the new Southie. As we all know Southie is the new West End.
Affordable housing on Sumner
Affordable housing on Sumner street in east boston the building with the view of boston ,facing the water, 80% of the units are occupied by families who work for the state.
Wondering something
A few years ago I was involved with a boy through the Big Brother program. He was in foster homes throughout and at least two of those were some kind of affordable housing. He lived with an Aunt who had a bigger apartment than I do in a beautiful apartment. Later he lived with an older woman who had a nice two bedroom in a garden style apartment. Both used the foster revenue to supplement their income.
Meantime, there is a serious shortage of market rate housing (perhaps slowly being addressed per Adam's point above) and we are building closets and calling them Innovation Housing or something.
While a civilized society should provide housing for the less fortunate, why are we providing so much space. If 350 sf per person (at $$2500 a month!) is sufficient for our entrepreneurs who are reshaping our economy - it should also be sufficient for those who need subsidized housing as long as it's reasonably maintained. How about we build thousands of micro apartments in less expensive neighborhoods and make those available for subsidized housing and let the other 70% of us live in decent, though perhaps not luxurious, market rate housing. If we freed up 20% of market housing this way - plus same for college students - I would think market forces would dramatically push down the cost of other housing.
Granted - the conspiracy theorist in me tells me the powers that be have this all designed to maximize their personal interests...
Reshaping our economy...
...right along with the all but invisible non-entrepreneurs make our society move, and who pretty much get the shaft.
Innovation units are
Innovation units are generally thought to be a short term housing option - most people would probably rent for a year or two. A great option for young workers who would rather be close to work and entertainment than establishing themselves in a neighborhood.
Affordable housing is intended for people who work in the community and want to live and set down roots there.
Need space for kids
A geek has smaller toys than young kids. Notebooks, iPads, smart phone, flat screen tv all take up less space than playpens, cribs, stroller, changing table, high chair, bouncy chair, countless toys, books, perhaps a piano or other musical instruments, and 4 seasons of sporting and recreational gear. Space needs that drive parents to suburbs and space needs that drives them to buy SUVs to haul around kids and their stuff.
So, while studio and one bedroom apartments may be small, beyond that, more space is needed. Low income should mean less ability to fill up space with stuff, but kids change the equation.
Minimum Requirements
If you have foster kids, want to adopt, or are in a number of affordable housing programs, you are required to have more space and rooms for the kids.
So, while people like my niece and her two kids live in a large 1 bedroom, if they were on any sort of housing assistance they would be required to have at least two, if not three.
I knew a woman who was transitioning from homelessness, and even she didn't know why the rules required her to find a 2 bedroom apartment for her and her daughter. In her mind, a one bedroom should have been fine for the two of them. (once they were off aid and on their own, that's exactly what they did to save money for a house).
I get that
And again - to the poster above - I'm not talking affordable - this is about subsidized and perhaps college dorm/mini apts.
Each person can have 350 or so sf - so if you have a kid - you get 700 sf - maybe a BR for the parents. If you have two kids - you get 1000 sf. But you don't get 800-1000 sf for a single mom whose kids have moved out.
Moving people around?
Much in agreement here. Its often kids that get people into financial trouble and needing assistance!
While it would be more efficient to reevaluate space needs for tenants on housing assistance as often as property taxes are reassessed, the unfortunate truth is that people don't like being moved about, especially to smaller quarters. I'm sure there is lots of wasted space held by legacy occupants that could go to families on waiting lists
If you can't afford housing,
If you can't afford housing, why are you having kids? /ducks
Not that simple
Some people have kids, then a parent dies or their fortunes go south.
You know all those abused women who are lectured about how they should just leave their abuser and take their kids? Yeah, them too.
Others have children appear in their lives - take in their siblings or grandchildren or nieces/nephews. That's a service to the state, really - much cheaper to support those folks rather than put those kids in state care.
I have a couple of friends who, in their late teens, took over parenting their younger relatives and needed support for that (in one case, they were all orphaned ala Senator Lindsay Graham). It is really more common than you might think, particularly for people living on the economic margins.
And, of course, we should be supporting foster parents who live in the neighborhoods where the kids might have family who can't take them in but still should stay connected to them.
Sorry if these things are often far more complicated than you would like them to be.
"Sorry if these things are
"Sorry if these things are often far more complicated than you would like them to be."
And I'm sorry if you took a sarcastic remark and decided to put together quite the missive on it. I'm well aware that there is complexity to life, and not everyone is riding along one big linear path together. I hope I haven't ever come off as some Randian objectivist in my time here. /showers
S'alright
Yeah, I wasn't sure how serious you were, so I offered up some reasons people end up in public housing with kids. If nothing else, because I've seen some people here insist that is somehow possible to know that you will be able to support a family for 20 years at the time you have the kids ...
No worries.
So much for a perfectly good
So much for a perfectly good neighborhood school building from being used for its original purpose. =(
Perfectly good?
For 1915 maybe.
The problems with these older schools are legendary - they are small, they have no cafeterias or gyms, they are not "perfectly good" for students with disabilities, they cost enormous amounts to heat, the pipes may not even deliver drinkable water, etc.
Retrofitting them is cost-prohibitive, and they still would be inadequate even so.
My older son started his elementary education in such a building. Water was not drinkable (lead), heat was iffy and couldn't be fixed due to asbestos issues, restrooms were inadequate, kids with disabilities had to be carried up and down stairs, there was no cafeteria so kids with severe allergies could not be accommodated (food in the rooms), etc.
Thankfully, this was only while they had shut two schools on bigger lots to build bigger modern schools.
Yes
Yes it is possible to retrofit a school.. at a cost.
My high school in New Hampshire is one of the oldest operating high schools in the nation that still uses the same building it was started in 1868. Of course it's been added onto at least 5 times. The original 1868 building is unrecognizable because it is now the center part of the front building. A front was added in 1912 which is what people see today out front.
Over the years it was added onto in 1912, 1929, 1949, 1964, 1975, and 1992. From end to end the school is 5 stories high and about a 1/4 of a mile long (yes walking from Room 220 at the rear to the library can take up to 10 minutes!). Each wing is unique because its very dated ot the era when it was built. Like the 1929 wing has hard wood floors, and you can see where the desks were screwed into the floor.
During the 1992 remodel much of the school was updated. Mostly to convert the heating system to forced hot water. And better windows were added. At a cost of a cool 3 Million.
About 2 years ago, the city was faced to remodel the school again to meet new guidelines and to upgrade the heating (and added COOLING systems) to the school. The HS was entirely remodeled from top to bottom. Most classrooms were gutted, resized, and more technology added. This cost the city 7.2 million (and rising).
But its a beautiful school now. So high tech. But has probably one of the best HVAC systems around. Along with a very up to date retrofitted school.
SO yes it can be done at a cost. But generally, yes, its not feasible to do so.
You also might ask why are they wasting $ on a retrofitting a school that in sections is well over 150 years old. The town, its citizens, and the alumni association (which is one of the nation's oldest and active associations), fight it every time its brought up. I don't understand why, its an awful layout and the town would be better served by taking the land next to the 1960s era Junior High and building a new High School. But that never happens. Oh well. I guess they like their taxes going up *shrug*
Anyhow..
Apartment conversion bad also
When schools are converted into multiple housing units, energy efficiency often plummets. One central gas heating and hot water system often goes to individual electric heating. Tenants pay a fortune for energy, especially with large window and brick areas losing heat to the outside. Just wait until your Nstar electric bill for January comes with double the generation charge.
If the school conversion uses electricity, it won't be so affordable for tenants.
Does affordable housing mean
Does affordable housing mean working middle class in this case?
HUD Income Limits
This property will likely be based on 60% HUD median income limits
1 person - 39,660
2 persons - 45,360
3 persons - 51,000
I'd consider this on the lower end for working middle class in Boston, but kids count as "persons".
The 30% median income thresholds are VERY low... take a look for yourself: http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/pdfs/HUD_Income_Levels_Rent_Limits.pdf
Nope
The cap is 60% of median income, which would be $39,660 for a single person, with 100% being $65,850.(http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/pdfs/HUD_Income_Levels_Rent_Limits.pdf)
If you follow the 30% rule for rent, and apply it to net income, $55k (87.5% of median income) before taxes leaves you at $1,030/mo for rent, assuming 25% comes out of each check for taxes, insurance, etc.. 1k CAN get you something decent in Boston if you're living alone and look hard enough, but it's still a stretch.
With 1 roommate or s/o that can afford to split evenly, you could find a decent place for $750-$900 per depending on pickiness, whether you need 1 or 2 beds, etc.
So basically, any working middle class person that wants to live alone and makes 61%-87% of median income is probably SoL. Anyone with roommates could be ok at 40k, which sits JUST above the threshold (61% ish), but that's assuming you find a place for $1500 total between 2 people. Realistically, anyone in the roommate situation is probably SoL at 61% to 70% of median income. With an s/o, a one bedroom probably isn't an issue at these rates.
If you have kids, the numbers MAY work, but I'll let someone else crunch them.
The problem is, all of these new "luxury" units are eventually going to drive market rate for "regular" units up.
So again, nope.
Maths.
or down
Too much stock, not enough renters = lower renting price.
Better to have a renter in there paying something than an empty unit.
The problem is, all of these
Only if there aren't enough of them.
Economics's.
How so?
My argument here is that since the ONLY thing we seem to be getting more of are these types of units, or now units for people under the threshold, the demand for what little housing the working middle class CAN afford will eventually beat out supply, causing prices to increase.
Unless the bubble pops on these lux units sooner than expected, we get some major wage hikes, or enough of us who have the ability to say screw it and up and leave.
These things are a drop in a bucket
and nowhere near enough to cover need or demand. These will end up going to people with inside connections.
Parking
But again you have 32 units and only 21 parking spaces. East Boston neighborhoods cannot absorb that many more cars in their area.
realistic rate housing
I'm all for realistic rate housing, I have friends who are social workers who don't make much it would be great for them to have more access to housing closer to the city. I'm also all for low income housing provided that the purpose is not to keep people there with no incentive for becoming more successful financially. I know of people who fall into this category too, they work hard but the minute they get a raise the rent get jacked up so that they can't save money. There must be a middle ground somewhere.
It's not popular but I don't support housing projects where there's a sense of entitlement among people, I used to know people who come from this environment. Ideally a city should have a large population of people who are in the middle, teachers, social workers, mixed in with some Tom Bradys and very low income people.
Well said!
Very good points JJ.
That part of Paris street
That part of Paris street always looked and seemed scummy for years..
Maybe this development will spruce up the area.
It will be neat if they added a convinience store to the development, There are a lack of convinience stores in that area.
How much did the East Boston CDC pay for the land??
Check out the history on the
Check out the history on the Ebcdc .
Check out what they own and who they sold to over the years, for example they sold a 3 family dwelling to a politically connected individual for $0 back in 1987 in East Boston.This is the reality folks, exciting as it may be with this new development, the first ones in line are the politically connected, been like that for years, screwing the people who really need a place to live.
Suffokcountyregistryofdeeds.com
1987
A lot has changed since then. Anything more recent?
More Low Income Housing for Eastie (We have enough projects)
60% is the maximum to qualify with 4 going for less than 30% threshold. So they may as well say that they will be adding and most likely bringing 32 low income poverty stricken families to eastie from other parts of Boston, since there is no way to ensure that these housing units go to current Eastie residents that may be priced out, further burdening our schools, extremely low number of police and fire workers when compared to the number of people and crime that we have in this neighborhood.
These housing units are not for the working class but rather to get more people that have had too many kids or have taken it upon themselves to force there way in to being able to stay in one of the worlds most well known and expensive cities. Boston is expensive as it should be. How can good ole fool Marty Walsh claim to want to attract businesses and entrepreneurs while at the same time making the place affordable when by increasing these business interest and demand could only go up as I hope it would continue to do so
This is a project that will bring with it more crime into an area that is already filled with its fair share of machete attacks (yes someone actually used a damn machete as if they were living in the damn jungle) and stray bullets and assaults on women.
If they want 30% low income aka "affordable" wink wink then fine but to bring 100% projects here is ridiculous. How about these organizations build such crap in the North End, Back bay or beacon hill. Lets see how it would fly over there.