In two public meetings last week, EYA unveiled preliminary information about the proposed redevelopment of the James Bland public housing complex. However, many details (including the architectural design) remain to be worked out before the project is submitted to Planning & Zoning staff for review some time in late May or early June.
At this stage, EYA proposes 134 public housing units and approximately 266 market rate units. At a ratio of two market units to every public housing unit, EYA and ARHA believe this to be an ideal mix.
Bland currently has a total of 194 public housing units, and with redevelopment 60 units will be off-sited. One-third of the current public housing units will be off-sited, in comparison to Chatham Square where 48% of the units were dispersed. Some 44 of Bland's units will go to to the redeveloped Glebe Park project in Arlandria while the City has pledged to identify and purchase land for the remaining 16 units. Housing Director Mildrilyn Davis confirmed under tough questioning that these 16 units will not be transplanted elsewhere in the Braddock Road Metro area but will go to another place in the City.
The proposed community will consist of single-family townhomes, multi-family homes built to resemble townhomes, and traditional multi-family buildings with both market rate and public housing units. Heights will vary from 3.5 to 4 stories, rising to the highest point at the west side of the site.
Public housing units will be scattered throughout the site rather than concentrated in any one spot, and as at Chatham Square and other stops on the recent public housing tour homes, the Bland site will be designed so that a bystander will be unable to identify which units are subsidized and which are market rate.
The Bland project occupies 8.5 acres and is therefore approximately twice the size of the old Berg (Chatham Square), which was 4.17 acres. Densities in the townhouse section of the Bland site will be similar to Chatham Square at approximately 36 units per acre but will rise to 55 to 60 units per acre at the multi-family building sites.
While we are getting more density than Old Town did a few years ago, it must be kept in mind that Chatham Square was funded with a HOPE VI grant. Those monies can be used not only for more resident counseling and outreach services, but to acquire land elsewhere for dispersed units. Although another round of HOPE VI grants are coming up, EYA and ARHA are developing the Bland site plan without expectation of Federal subsidies -- hence the density.
EYA staff presented generic looking designs at the April 23 and 24 meetings, as the building styles and detailing have not yet been settled. We are told that the site will include diverse architectural styles but we were also assured the project will be submitted to the Parker-Gray BAR for review and approval.
Given the depth of the block between N. Alfred and Columbus Streets, EYA proposes creating a new public street behind the privately owned homes on N. Columbus Street. There will be townhomes built facing the new interior road, which will be landscaped and feature on-street parking on one side. Addressing the concerns of some residents, EYA spokesmen also suggested the possibility of building the homeowners on N. Columbus fences that will increase the sense of separation and distance from the new construction. Townhouses will also flank Wythe, Madison, Montgomery and First Streets.
Currently, the multi-family buildings are sited on the east side of N. Patrick Street at the edge of the Bland property. Gone is the "solid wall" design for N. Patrick Street which some of us saw at the Hope VI meetings last fall. There is now a proposal to punctuate the facade of the multi-family units with setbacks and green space.
Although the townhomes will have small lawns, it appears there will be less public green space in the future than is currently featured at Bland, and those open spaces are currently slated to be clustered at the northwest quadrant of the property, with none in the sections facing Parker-Gray and the Inner City.
Because of project economics, EYA has stated there will not be underground parking as there was at Chatham Square. This is disappointing, but readers will remember that we were told repeatedly in the Braddock Road Metro planning process that building underground parking is costly. Since the Bland redevelopment must not only pay for itself but bootstrap the Glebe Park redevelopment in Arlandria, it appears this is where ARHA and EYA will economize.
Townhome owners will have off-site ground-level parking but the multi-family structures will wrap around four-story garages that we are told will be designed to be invisible from the street.
ARHA units in the multi-family buildings will be mixed with market-rate units on the first and second floors. Addressing ARHA's oft-stated concerns about elevators, EYA is proposing that residents (including those with disabilities) will be able to access their units directly from ground level or by going up a single flight of stairs. There will be no long, shared corridors, which create maintenance issues for ARHA (and, the Growler suspects, raise safety concerns as well). Market-rate unit owners on the top two floors will be able to access their units from the garage and shared corridors.
EYA is proposing a full complement of parking for the market rate units, undoubtedly to make them more competitive. But the developer will also be making a request for parking reduction for the public housing units, based on surveys and other City data that show fewer of these residents own cars and need parking.
Questions have already been raised on this blog about the parking garages and safety. Growler must remind readers that Chatham Square features shared garages, but these were the source of some lifestyle conflict between residents. Other issues that remain to be addressed include whether residents will be eligible for on-street parking permits and what the potential impact on the Parker-Gray neighborhood would be.
Finally, there was a presentation on ARHA and EYA's efforts to reach out to public housing residents about the upcoming redevelopment. We were told that residents love the neighborhood, with its access to transportation and shopping, and most wish to return after redevelopment. They are, we told, looking forward to better quarters with such amenities as washers, dryers, dishwashers, garbage disposals and more closet space.
Time will tell, but to the Growler it appears there is no strong backlash developing among ARHA residents against the Bland redevelopment. Interestingly, at these recent meetings we didn't see much of the non-ARHA citizens who in the past have tried to organize and rally residents. Could this be a good sign?
In summary, the Bland redevelopment project appears to be slowly jelling but there are still many critical issues that we in Parker-Gray need to ponder. Is off-siting 30% of public housing residents acceptable or are neighbors prepared to push for the higher level that was achieved at Chatham Square. Is the density too much, and if so is there any way ARHA and EYA can bring the proposed density down while still meeting their critical financial objectives? Can open space be more evenly distributed through the site, and what recreational activities will Bland as well as the new Charles Houston Center offer to keep children and teens occupied and out of trouble?
Finally, this note: EYA has been invited to make a presentation at the ICCA's upcoming May 14 meeting. If you were unable to attend last week's meetings, put this date on your calendar and come prepared with comments, concerns, and suggestions.
20 comments:
Where did the City come up with the 16 number? Why not offsite 26? Or 6? What's so magic about the 16 units?
Growler -
What's the currently-planned timeline for constructing all of this alleged fabulousness?
No only were we told that underground parking is expensive during the endless Braddock Metro process, more importantly, the Plan also specifically REJECTED above ground parking as not appropriate and "prohibited" it.
Hence the need for the blind side known as the Braddock East Plan.
Buuuuuut now (across the street) where ARHA and others hell bent on retaining resolution 830 have to do the Bland redevelopment on the cheap, above ground parking is perfectly OK. Its just Parker Gray.
I wish I had it in me to calculate how few ARHA units would have to be moved from Bland to fund the undergrounding of the parking garage, thereby creating lots more room at grade for those open spaces/amenities we've been hearing about for years. At $17,000 extra to underground each spot and $250,000 (or whatever) per ARHA unit thats about 15 underground spots per ARHA unit dispersed. And we're getting 134 ARHA units back as it stand now...
Clearly, demanding a dispersal rate equal to that which Chatham Square got (just under 50%) would easily do the underground parking trick.
But really we all know that the Braddock East process is a Resolution 830 funding mechanism. Nothing more. And taxpayers should just get out of Mayor Bling and ARHA's way.
Remembering that the redevelopment of James Bland is linked with Glebe Park (whose site plan has already been approved by Planning Commission and City Council), Glebe Park will be under construction from November 2008 to December 2010, while Bland will begin a year later in November 2009and conclude in November 2014. Bland will be done in stages, and current residents will be moved to Glebe Park as the units there are completed.
"What's the currently-planned timeline for constructing all of this alleged fabulousness?"
The EYA slides from April 23rd show a late 2009 start date and an estimated 2014 timeframe for completion.
I hope the housing market rebounds so I can sell in 2010 or 2011.... right when the construction is in full swing and before any of the real problems start.
"Why not offsite 26? Or 6? What's so magic about the 16 units?
"
good question...its like the question "what is so magical about 1150 units must be preserved"
"And taxpayers should just get out of Mayor Bling and ARHA's way."
So are you recommending that we give up? I definitely think more offsiting is needed and while I have not researched it I agree the Braddock Plan rejects ground level parking. Mayor Bling needs to feel our anger especially when he moves as he did with the Braddock Plan to bring outsiders in to argue our lifestyle. We all know the metro was federally funded and therefore owned by all American taxpayers. We assume he will find a comparable method for telling us that we are Johnny Come Latelys. Gag me with a spoon!
ARHA and EYA act like their hands are tied, as the City "requires" that public housing units be replaced one for one.
Why are we all acting like there are no options? There are: (1) abolish/amend Resolution 830; or (2) the City can cough up some of its own $$ to offsite more than 16 units if they insist on continued slavish devotion to 830.
Why should PG accept concentrated public housing, as well as a total disregard of the Braddock Plan and the PG historic guidelines? NO ABOVE GROUND PARKING GARAGE. If the City wants to keep all of those putlic housing units in the City, it should pay to move them offsite from Bland so that the guidelines can be properly observed.
So instead of 194 units, the same area has to support 400 units. How much did the City pay consultants to steer the Braddock East folks towards that conclusion? City workers who claim to be underpaid should be furious. And shame, shame on every single City Council member for agreeing to re-ghetto-ization.
It's just lipstick on the pork - er, pig.
Reading these comments, the Growler can't resist asking some of you disgruntled readers where you were last week. You had an opportunity to attend two public meetings to express concerns about the Bland redevelopment -- both of which were publicized on this blog -- but were nowhere to be found.
Whining on this blog is no substitute for political action, like speaking at the (very) occasional public meeting or circulating a petition, as in times gone by.
So explain why none of you hotheads have been surfacing in public ...
"So instead of 194 units, the same area has to support 400 units. How much did the City pay consultants to steer the Braddock East folks towards that conclusion? City workers who claim to be underpaid should be furious."
I don't claim to be underpaid, I'm telling you I'm underpaid. Other then City Council not caring about us being the lowest paid in No Va, please explain to me what you think I'm supposed to be furious about in the reference above?
KoK
I am a new resident of PG (rented here for two years and have owned for less than one), and from the previous posts/comments it seems as though it doesn't matter how I feel if I were to go to these meetings. Has any substantive change happened (concerning these plans for the development of public housing) due to the input from citizens/owners in PG?
Also, are there any examples of places in Alexandria where the citizens have enacted or were strongly involved in the removal/dispersal of a large amount of public housing? If so, how did the public get it to happen? Was it from yelling loudly enough or through other channels?
I just do not want to know that it could make a difference if I were to go and speak.
Yes, there have been cases where citizen pressure made a difference. Once again, Chatham Square is the model. Old Town Civic and its residents pressed hard for the redevelopment of the notorious "Berg" and it ultimately happened.
You don't have to break new ground -- just stand there and insist that the City continue to follow the example of Chatham Square and (1) off-site a larger percentage of public housing per the City's own Fair Share policy; and (2) other features of Chatham Square, including underground rather than structured (i.e., garage) parking.
Yes, there have been cases where citizen pressure made a difference. Once again, Chatham Square is the model. Old Town Civic and its residents pressed hard for the redevelopment of the notorious "Berg" and it ultimately happened.
You don't have to break new ground -- just stand there and insist that the City continue to follow the example of Chatham Square and (1) off-site a larger percentage of public housing per the City's own Fair Share policy; and (2) other features of Chatham Square, including underground rather than structured (i.e., garage) parking.
KoK, in case you haven't seen the references on this blog or in the Gazette Packet, the City's Planning & Zoning Department spent one million dollars ($1,000,000) on the Braddock Road Small Area Plan study. Much of that was just busy work for consultants -- the citizen charrettes in 2005 under Eileen Fogarty came up with many of the same conclusions regarding height, transitions and open space. The City chose deliberately to waste taxpayer money in this fashion, and will probably squander more on the Braddock East process. (Last Thursday's meeting on Braddock East was mostly a tedious recap of the previous day's meeting on Bland.)
"I don't claim to be underpaid, I'm telling you I'm underpaid."
Ho-hum. Snooze. Yawn. Add in your percs and you're doing just fine. If other jurisdictions are better paid maybe it's because they work more creatively and efficiently.
I guess for me the participation thing is just a cost-benefit analysis.
For the past five years, I've been sending emails to City Council asking for a deconcentration in public housing, calling the police to bitch about crime on ARHA property which spills out into my neighborhood, etc. During the last special election, I attended two debates and asked the candidates their positions on concentrated public housing. I've signed petitions and attended hours and hours worth of charrettes, etc. And for what? None of my concerns were addressed in the Braddock Road plan. Now you're asking me to attend meetings on the Braddock East plan. Why? So the City can do what they want anyway, then crow about how they reached their conclusions with citizen input? Forget it.
I'll post here and send a few more emails, but I'm done otherwise. It's clear to me that the cost of spending hours in ridiculous meetings is not worth the result. They're going to do what they want anyway. They don't need any more input from me - each and every member of the City Council and the P&Z staff already knows exactly how I feel about what should be done at Bland and the other ARHA properties.
"the City's Planning & Zoning Department spent one million dollars ($1,000,000) on the Braddock Road Small Area Plan study. Much of that was just busy work for consultants --"
KoK, in addition to the above, you might also see some new hires in Planning & Zoning. What the city spends so foolishly comes out of our pockets and your low wages. If you folks threw up a picket line I wouldn't cross it!
"Ho-hum. Snooze. Yawn. Add in your percs and you're doing just fine."
Perc's? Nice I'm so glad I have sooo many perc's. And I'm sure you know exactly just how fine my family and I are doing mr./ms. anonymous.
It's nice how people care about those that actually keep this city up and running. You sir/madam should be enraged that our taxes are so high and that some of our newer city employees can actually qualify for ARHA housing. Don't bother responding to me, I won't waste time arguing with someone who thinks they know what it's like in another's situation.
Growler wrote:
"the City's Planning & Zoning Department spent one million dollars ($1,000,000) on the Braddock Road Small Area Plan study".
Thanks you for this information. I must have overlooked that in a previous posting.
"What the city spends so foolishly comes out of our pockets and your low wages. If you folks threw up a picket line I wouldn't cross it!"
Thank you.
KoK
"Ho-hum. Snooze. Yawn. Add in your percs and you're doing just fine. If other jurisdictions are better paid maybe it's because they work more creatively and efficiently."
I understand the bitterness here folks against city officials, but lets not take it out on the ones that actually keep this city running. The above comments are quite insensitive.
Post a Comment