New York City Plans to Topple Public Housing Towers

New York Times ^ | 2/5/10

[NativeNewYorker]

Philadelphia tore down 21. Chicago leveled 79. Baltimore took down 21 as well, and when six of them came down in one day in 1995, it threw a parade.

Since the 1990s, public housing high-rise buildings have come tumbling down by the dozens across the country as cities replaced them with smaller suburban-style homes that did not carry the stigma of looming urban despair and poverty.

[Between the Lines]

Doesn't small suburban style homes take up valuable property that can be used for income tax paying property?

This plan falls under the Hope VI program. All of the houses will be taxable property owned by individuals and private companies. They usually build rowhouses and sell them to individuals, setting aside a certain percentage for rent or sale to low income families.

They have done this with several housing projects in Charlotte. Now there are very nice family friendly neighborhoods where rich, middle class and poor all live next door to each other is well constructed rowhouses.

Hope VI is a capitalist solution to rid us of the problem of blighted public housing projects.

[usurper]

If you didn’t pay your rent you didn’t stay much longer than two months.

I have a friend who fixes up old homes and rents them out. He says he loves the section 8 people because the government now sends the rent checks directly to him. The renters can’t be late because they never see the money.

[fieldmarshaldj]

*ping*

[Venturer]

If this guy is onto this and is making money you can bet there are others.

[cquiggy]

Ilene Popkin, the agency’s assistant deputy general manager for development, said it would cost $481,000 to renovate each of the 269 apartments. Demolishing the structures and building 361 new units would cost $381,700 per unit.

If they simply let the previous tenants move back in they can finish demolishing the buildings in no time.

Another alternative which might be cheaper would be to let illegal aliens move in. They would paint the buildings red, green, pink, blue, orange, and yellow. And while they might not look so great they would at least do the work at their own expense. The previous dwellers aka lifetime welfare recipients have only served to destroy everything given to them by our tax dollars. If this plan works we could start a new trade program with Mexico. We could trade three welfare recipients for every one hard working young Mexican who wants to come here and live the American dream.

[Clemenza]

The reason NYC didn't tear down it's high rise projects as other cities have done is due to the fact that 1. There is no private sector "low rent" category in NYC, even in the Bronx, 2. Only a few landlords in far out neighborhoods (ie Canarsie, Baychester) accept Section 8, as they can usually charge more in the private market than what the government offers 3. In NYC, 35-40% of project dwellers are "chonics" ie spend their lifetime on the dole, as opposed to 90%(!) among Chicago project dwellers. and 4. Many of the folks who live in the projects are elderly, don't want to move, and VOTE.

NYC is the only place I can think of in the US where you have people paying $3,000K plus a month for a studio two blocks away from the projects (see the west 100s, the Lincoln Center area, Chelsea, etc.). If said folks were to be relocated to "low rent" areas, it would have to be in Pennsylvania or Troy.

[Clemenza]

Much of the housing in the South Bronx that was burned down in the 1970s was either rehabbed or replaced with these "townhouse" style communities. You still have some rather large PJs along the Deegan, but I suspect they will go bye-bye. soon.

You tend to see alot of section 8 these days in much of the north Bronx (Van Nest, Baychester, Wakefield, etc.) as many of the old homeowners die off and are replaced by renters.

[rmlew]

Co-op city is lower middle class and blue collar working.

[NativeNewYorker]

Heck, you can pay big bucks and have a view OF the projects.