RECENT COMMENTS
More on the Cedar Street project
The big topic at Wednesday’s Union Hill Civic Association meeting will be the developer presentation on the a proposal for the Jefferson Townhomes:
The developer’s plan is to tear down the present units on the south side of Cedar Street which were built in the 1960s. […] Very few improvements have been done to the units over the years. Most have fuses rather than circuit breakers, original kitchens, baths, doors, plumbing, flooring and HVAC systems. […] The developer proposes to build a five story 111 unit building with under building parking.
The Union Hill Civic Association will meet on Wednesday at 7PM at the Church Hill Photography Studio. Get up to speed before you come out to the meeting: here are the documents that have ben collected on this so far (PDF).
to me, this project represents the 21st century equivalent of an 18th century slave ship. the greed this developer exhibits is disgusting.
I’m so puzzled by this proposed development.
There are currently 28 townhouse-style apartments currently standing on this location: all look to be occupied.
Now, this developer wants 4 times the number of apartments on the site. That’s an amazing jump in the population density at this location. Not to mention this is on a steeply graded side street, with only one way in and out, for 111 (or more) cars? Where once there were 28?
More importantly, we have so many vacant buildings (including small apartment buildings along Venable St) and empty lots ready for in-fill here in Union Hill.
Why can’t the VHDA make funds easily available for rehab/infill throughout the neighborhood, instead of pouring all this money into a new high-rise on a cliff at the edge of the community?
As I understand it, Section 8 housing works best for everyone involved when the homes/housing units are individually dispersed throughout a community. Why would the VHDA allow this proposed concentration of Sec8 to exist on the edge of the neighborhood?
This project is a throw-back to the failed low-income hi-rise housing projects of the 60’s & 70’s. Why, o why would the city leadership and the residents of this neighborhood allow the VHDA to fund such a project?
Awesome! I was just thinking earlier today, there’s less and less places in church hill to buy crack – we need some new projects! This will fit in nicely in Union Hill.
Something tells me these places will be nothing like projects, simply because they will be priced out of the range of the old low income residents. First of all these are townhouses with covered parking. Second, there is a fitness center in the plans. That doesn’t sound like low income housing to me. Now, the real question is who will actually live there.
like most things, the devil is in the details. download the developer’s PDFs and you’ll learn:
1. On the “Cedar St summary.pdf” titled Low Income Housing Tax-Credit Application, see pg 1, Item A: “Percentage of rental units designated low-income.” the applicant (developer) has typed “100%”.
2. From the “General Summary of Cedar St.pdf” there will be 22 1 Bedroom Units 670 sqft, rent $510/mo;
64 2 Bedroom Units – avg. 850 sqft, $625-640/month; 25 3 Bedroom Units, avg. 1085 sqft (972-1175) Rent $725-800/mo.
3. Developer’s site plan calls these “garden apartments”. They are NOT town homes, with separate entrances to the street/sidewalk but dorm-style apartments none of which are ground level, because they start on the 2nd floor.
Reading this, I am reminded of what someone just told me during a phone converstion – that it is easy enough to post on this site, but it takes more to show up to support your position. The Oakwood Heights court case is in circuit court this Tuesday. I assume that my post regarding that will show up shortly (I just posted it so it is “in moderationa”) so please refer to that, thanks.
Can someone point me to where they’re finding the claim that these are “Section 8” units? I’ve scanned through all of the documents so far, and don’t see it mentioned anywhere. As I recall, low-income housing doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to get the “projects” built next door; there are a variety of programs with varying income threshold levels for what is labeled “low income.” Nevertheless, I think it’s important for the developer to disclose more details on this particular subject so all of this ongoing speculation can be quelled.
Additionally, from a personal standpoint, it’d be great to see some mixed use applied to this development. The site is really topographically constrained, though, so I don’t think there are many other opportunities to fit in other uses unless the number of units is reduced.
Also, #2 Elaine, it appears there are two points of ingress/egress to the site. Traffic could potentially flow onto Mosby St. or go south and take Cedar St. to Marshall. I’m not a traffic engineer, though, so maybe this could still be a traffic issue.
The plans call for all granite counter tops, free high speed cable and Direct TV. That’s pretty nice for low-income.
What specifically is section 8 anyway? Is it government subsidized housing? Can someone explain in more detail?
If this is government subsidized housing, why is tax money being spent to provide granite counters, high speed cable, and free Direct TV?
From conversations with the developers and their representatives, all units will be available for Section 8 voucher holders, however, the project managers have no way of gauging the percentage of future Section 8 residents versus residents who simply fall beneath the income eligibility cap.
From what I have read, the cap will be at 60% of Area Median Income or $43,920.
The site plan above shows only one way in, and one way out, via Cedar St. The builder needs the Mosby Street side for the proposed 5-story structure.
Currently in Richmond, competing rental apartment communities in this rent range are no taller than 3 stories. Many of these developments also accept Sec8 vouchers/are 100% low income (lowinc defined as hh-inc no more than 60% of the area avg). None of those developments are 5 stories tall.
It’s the density of units available exclusively to low-income residents that’s the problem. If the developer were to build small single family or two family homes on Union Hill vacant lots, for low income residents/Sec8, that would be more beneficial to the residents and the community as a whole.
The current 28 units that would be demolished at Jefferson Townhomes are already Sec8/low-inc only.
It’s just a bad idea to quadruple the density at this site, even if only on a fourth of the units remain Sec8 while the remaining units are available exclusively to renters who meet the low-income standard.
As proposed, the Cedar Apts are a high-density clustering of low-income households. A model that has proven to be a failure in the US.
The $43,920 max hh income is for a family of four. Which is based on 2009 figures. This will likely go down in 2010 due to the recession.
Two-person HH’s are currently pegged at $35,160, three-person hh’s $39,590 and one-person hh’s are $30,720.
I cannot imagine how such a high density development would fit into Union Hill. FIVE stories? Come on!
For those who ask why there is not redevelopment of the small vacant buildings and lots, the answer is two-fold. First, many renovators/small investors are out of cash, and the government and banks are certainly not doing anything to help. Second, many of the existing slum owners are unwilling to sell. The city is very very slow on selling tax-delinquent properties that are legally eligible.
Do we know what their current plans are for the larger parcel of land south of Cedar near Jefferson Park? They originally planned a high rise for that location as well.
What is it about Richmond that causes its management to think that we HAVE to put low income housing in every historic neighborhood? I’m pretty sure that New Orleans doesn’t feel compelled to put Section 8 in the French Quarter. Nor do Savannah or Charleston try to jam low income apartments into their historic areas. Housing projects in Boston’s Beacon Hill? I don’t think so.
The East End is Richmond’s Beacon Hill. It not only contains the oldest neighborhoods and historic hot spots like St. Johns, but also sports some of the best views of the city skyline. This is el primo real estate. Who has decided that it’s smart to use THIS area of Richmond for high density / low income apartments???
Let’s get with the program, folks!
If this issue matters to you (and it should), then plan to attend tonight’s meeting. The City has indicated it will take the recommendation of the neighbors assembled tonight!
If you sit at home, don’t waste your time complaining on this site tomorrow.