Downtown Residences Nixed

[Subdude]

Project in southern part of downtown quashed

By NANCY SARNOFF

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Oct. 24, 2009, 4:50PM

A group of downtown property owners and residents has helped scuttle a proposal to build a mulitfamily complex with low-income units on the southern end of downtown.

After running into resistance from the group — recently formed to help steer development in the southwest quadrant of downtown — Stephan Fairfield of Covenant Neighborhoods pulled out of a deal to buy a half-block on Main at Leeland. He was planning a mixed-use real estate development with a supportive housing component on the site.

Supportive housing is a step up from a single-room occupancy building. It offers more services, and the living units are larger.

“We've canceled it. There's no project at this point,” said Fairfield, who was asked to come up with proposals from board members of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County.

While supportive of low-income housing, the downtown group, which calls itself CBD Vision, said the proposed location wasn't the right place for such a project.

Full story..

It strikes me as kind of silly that CBD Vision resisted this. After all, a lot of the blocks in the southern part of downtown have been sitting vacant for decades. Low-income housing might not be glamorous, but it beats block after block of surface lots.

[musicman]

It strikes me as kind of silly that CBD Vision resisted this.

Not sure whether it is/was related to covenant house but that projects seems to be run differently than say the other sro places near minute maid.

[totheskies]

NIMBYs. They just don't want it there, yet they fail to offer suggestions for a better location. The homeless people aren't going to leave downtown any time soon, so I think this development is a good idea. Plus with more street level retail, it potentially benefits everyone.

[Subdude]

NIMBYs. They just don't want it there, yet they fail to offer suggestions for a better location.

The article mentions they suggested a site on Main close to University of Houston.

[jdbaker]

There is a lot missing from the article. The project was predominantly a supportive housing facility. The proposed development was made up almost exclusively of 350 square foot apartments. The proposed market rate rent would have been approximately $700 per month for those who were not receiving some type of assistance. Furthermore, the project did not include any parking for the residents. The only office space was for the developer's personal offices. The only proposed retail was an "internet cafe" to serve the residents. As for the "market rate" portion of the tenants, the developer thought that police officers, fireman, and teachers would be the likely demographic to live in 350 square foot apartments, without cars, while paying $700 per month rent, and sharing the building with those "who were formerly homeless."

[LTAWACS]

The article mentions they suggested a site on Main close to University of Houston.

That's just as bad... Why would they want to locate homeless and those down-on-their-luck to a university? Naw... I dont think the crime rates against those students would spike... not at all.

Perhaps a better place would be away from the city.

NIMBYs. They just don't want it there, yet they fail to offer suggestions for a better location. The homeless people aren't going to leave downtown any time soon, so I think this development is a good idea. Plus with more street level retail, it potentially benefits everyone.

Sorry to burst your bubble but things of this nature are never a benefit.

There is a lot missing from the article. The project was predominantly a supportive housing facility. The proposed development was made up almost exclusively of 350 square foot apartments. The proposed market rate rent would have been approximately $700 per month for those who were not receiving some type of assistance. Furthermore, the project did not include any parking for the residents. The only office space was for the developer's personal offices. The only proposed retail was an "internet cafe" to serve the residents. As for the "market rate" portion of the tenants, the developer thought that police officers, fireman, and teachers would be the likely demographic to live in 350 square foot apartments, without cars, while paying $700 per month rent, and sharing the building with those "who were formerly homeless."

I knew there would be a lot of missing info from this.

[kylejack]

That's just as bad... Why would they want to locate homeless and those down-on-their-luck to a university? Naw... I dont think the crime rates against those students would spike... not at all.

The homeless already live next to UH-D. Check out the abandoned buildings next to the parking lot and you'll see them.

[KinkaidAlum]

Terrible news. This project is MUCH needed and it would have been an ideal location. Seems as if our downtown leaders want downtown filled with people who don't want the homeless around. Well, there's already places for those type of folks (The Woodlands Waterway, SugarLand Town Square, etc...)

[Subdude]

I think the south downtown location made a lot of sense. They were looking for something on the rail line, an obvious benefit for the residents, and there is very little other residential in that area. It's not like developers are queuing up to build skyscrapers there, so might as well put the land to some use.

[AtticaFlinch]

Terrible news. This project is MUCH needed and it would have been an ideal location. Seems as if our downtown leaders want downtown filled with people who don't want the homeless around. Well, there's already places for those type of folks (The Woodlands Waterway, SugarLand Town Square, etc...)

Only people in the 'burbs should be able to walk around without being accosted by schizophrenics and drug addicts?

There are better places for this than Downtown. There are already shelters in Midtown and the Second Ward.

Edit: And Downtown.

[samagon]

Only people in the 'burbs should be able to walk around without being accosted by schizophrenics and drug addicts?

There are better places for this than Downtown. There are already shelters in Midtown and the Second Ward.

Edit: And Downtown.

Not to mention, walking around without having to smell stale piss and heaps of trash strewn about.

[kylejack]

Only people in the 'burbs should be able to walk around without being accosted by schizophrenics and drug addicts?

There are better places for this than Downtown. There are already shelters in Midtown and the Second Ward.

Edit: And Downtown.

Downtown is centralized and has the best access to transit options. This is an important factor if you're trying to get people back on their feet and self-sufficient again. I live and walk downtown every day and have been asked for money but have never been accosted. A simple 'No' has always been sufficient to deter the people who ask me for money.

[AtticaFlinch]

Downtown is centralized and has the best access to transit options. This is an important factor if you're trying to get people back on their feet and self-sufficient again. I live and walk downtown every day and have been asked for money but have never been accosted. A simple 'No' has always been sufficient to deter the people who ask me for money.

I've read somewhere once, perhaps even here on HAIF, that the geographical center of our metro area was actually closer to the Galleria. Considering that, and considering once the rail is built through there the transit options will be nearly on par with Downtown, and considering there's greater access to non-skilled employment in that area, and also considering the land is cheaper there than Downtown, wouldn't it make much more sense to locate this facility there?

[kylejack]

I've read somewhere once, perhaps even here on HAIF, that the geographical center of our metro area was actually closer to the Galleria. Considering that, and considering once the rail is built through there the transit options will be nearly on par with Downtown, and considering there's greater access to non-skilled employment in that area, and also considering the land is cheaper there than Downtown, wouldn't it make much more sense to locate this facility there?

Actually, there is a shortage of unskilled laborers in downtown that make it difficult to staff tunnel eateries, as one example. Just because Metro should make a bundle of routes converge in the Galleria doesn't mean they're gonna. Even the transit centers don't provide nearly the options downtown has.

[ricco67]

Well, I'm just hoping that developers would make something for working families that don't mind living in downtown or "inside the loop".

Particularly those that are on the verge of being Empty Nesters.

[jdbaker]

It's not like developers are queuing up to build skyscrapers there, so might as well put the land to some use.

Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. It may take five to ten years but this is where the next phase in downtown growth is headed.

[LTAWACS]

The homeless already live next to UH-D. Check out the abandoned buildings next to the parking lot and you'll see them.

Sounds like they need to be... "relocated"...

[LTAWACS]

Seems as if our downtown leaders want downtown filled with people who don't want the homeless around. Well, there's already places for those type of folks (The Woodlands Waterway, SugarLand Town Square, etc...)

Wrong. I would dare say that most - if not all - people do not want homeless people near their neighborhood. I know I dont. And no, I dont live in those far away places you mentioned. I live close to downtown... and I dont want to encourage homeless to hang around anymore than they already are.

Only people in the 'burbs should be able to walk around without being accosted by schizophrenics and drug addicts?

There are better places for this than Downtown. There are already shelters in Midtown and the Second Ward.

Edit: And Downtown.

Perhaps a better place for this would be near the churches that bring food to them from all the way out in Katy. I think this should be built in katy.

[kylejack]

Sounds like they need to be... "relocated"...

Or given a reason to invest in their community, like a safe place to rest their head.

[LTAWACS]

Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. It may take five to ten years but this is where the next phase in downtown growth is headed.

Sounds like good news to me.

Or given a reason to invest in their community, like a safe place to rest their head.

That's a very optimistic view. However, for what other reasons would a homeless person invest in their community? And to what extent? Given that most likely have mental issues.... how much or how long do you think that would last?

[AtticaFlinch]

Or given a reason to invest in their community, like a safe place to rest their head.

http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/homelessness/

People who are homeless frequently have health problems:

• <LI class=regular>Thirty-eight percent report alcohol use problems. <LI class=regular>Twenty-six percent report other drug use problems. <LI class=regular>Thirty-nine percent report some form of mental health problem, and 20 to 25 percent meet criteria for serious mental illnesses. <LI class=regular>Sixty-six percent report substance use and/or mental health problems. <LI class=regular>Three percent report having HIV/AIDS. <LI class=regular>Twenty-six percent report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted diseases.
• Forty-six percent report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer.

People who are homeless also share other common characteristics:

• <LI class=regular>Twenty-three percent are veterans (compared to 13 percent of the general population). <LI class=regular>Twenty-five percent were physically or sexually abused as children. <LI class=regular>Twenty-seven percent were in foster care or institutions as children. <LI class=regular>Twenty-one percent were homeless as children.
• Fifty-four percent were incarcerated at some point in their lives.

This isn't really a problem that'll be solved by giving them a pillow, a mattress and rail access to a food preparation job in the tunnel. People are often homeless for reasons other than they simply cannot afford rent somewhere or are too lazy or apathetic to get a job. Most homeless (according to this citation above - 2/3) have a mental health issue or a drug addiction. Until the underlying route causes of what's made them homeless is addressed, no amount of free or inexpensive beds will fix their plight or make them active in their community. And not only that, "low income" people won't willingly share a wall with a constantly rotating retinue of homeless neighbors for $700 per month for only 300 square feet. The developers' notions were pie-in-the-sky at best.

[Subdude]

Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. It may take five to ten years but this is where the next phase in downtown growth is headed.

How do you know this? As I said, many of these lots have been sitting vacant for decades, like since the 1960s. Should new development like this be stopped on the off chance someone might want to build something else on the same spot?

[jdbaker]

How do you know this? As I said, many of these lots have been sitting vacant for decades, like since the 1960s. Should new development like this be stopped on the off chance someone might want to build something else on the same spot?

Check the ownership of those blocks. Nearly all of the blocks in the surrounding area are owned by sophisticated investors. They are not vacant by neglect. Those blocks are strategically vacant until the next boom comes along. In fact, a number of assemblages have taken place in recent years. And yes, small scale development that is inconsistent with and detrimental to large scale future development should be put off.

[KinkaidAlum]

Wow, such compassion on this board.

Maybe there'd be less piss-smell if we had MORE housing options for the poor. Downtown also makes perfect sense because it is the transportation hub of the city and also provides easy access to most governmental services.

Additionally, housing like the one proposed generally tend to be VERY strict. This wouldn't be a crazy drug-filled magnet but rather a place for transition for people who are down on their luck. Most would be very surprised to learn how many people are one paycheck away from the street.

[LTAWACS]

Wow, such compassion on this board.

Maybe there'd be less piss-smell if we had MORE housing options for the poor. Downtown also makes perfect sense because it is the transportation hub of the city and also provides easy access to most governmental services.

Additionally, housing like the one proposed generally tend to be VERY strict. This wouldn't be a crazy drug-filled magnet but rather a place for transition for people who are down on their luck. Most would be very surprised to learn how many people are one paycheck away from the street.

Compassion has nothing to do with it. I'll leave that to the churches from Katy that like to drive all the way to downtown from way out there to deliver sack lunches and preach to the homeless.

It seems this has more to do with economics and the like.

[Subdude]

NIMBYs. They just don't want it there, yet they fail to offer suggestions for a better location. The homeless people aren't going to leave downtown any time soon, so I think this development is a good idea. Plus with more street level retail, it potentially benefits everyone.

The same point holds true as wrt the Ashby proposed high-rise. Without some sort of zoning ordinance to give a public voice to land use, unpopular projects such as this or Ashby are going to be subject to death by informal NIMBY-ism.

Speaking of which, where is the pro-Ashby crowd demanding that the developers be allowed to build this without interference?

[kylejack]

The same point holds true as wrt the Ashby proposed high-rise. Without some sort of zoning ordinance to give a public voice to land use, unpopular projects such as this or Ashby are going to be subject to death by informal NIMBY-ism.

Speaking of which, where is the pro-Ashby crowd demanding that the developers be allowed to build this without interference?

<------ Right here.

They should be allowed to build it without interference.

[AtticaFlinch]

Wow, such compassion on this board.

Maybe there'd be less piss-smell if we had MORE housing options for the poor. Downtown also makes perfect sense because it is the transportation hub of the city and also provides easy access to most governmental services.

Additionally, housing like the one proposed generally tend to be VERY strict. This wouldn't be a crazy drug-filled magnet but rather a place for transition for people who are down on their luck. Most would be very surprised to learn how many people are one paycheck away from the street.

True, to an extent. But again, the numbers don't lie. 2/3 of homeless people aren't just down-on-their-luck types. Two-thirds have mental illnesses and/or drug addictions. Most homeless people are not the types you want hanging around your family. Homelessness in real life is nothing like how it's portrayed in movies. They aren't loveable scamps who'll help you get an A on your term paper. Many of them aren't dangerous, and I don't want to imply that, but there are enough who are unstable to make their fixed neighborhood presence disconcerting. Besides, repairing homelessness isn't a problem that can be solved by simply plopping down more housing. If it was that easy, I'm pretty sure the situation would have resolved itself already.

[kylejack]

True, to an extent. But again, the numbers don't lie. 2/3 of homeless people aren't just down-on-their-luck types. Two-thirds have mental illnesses and/or drug addictions.

You seem to be saying that someone down on their luck can't develop a substance abuse problem to cope.

[AtticaFlinch]

<------ Right here.

They should be allowed to build it without interference.

Me too. I agree with kylejack on this one.

Although, when I first moved back to Houston two years ago, I was impressed by the not-so-subtle grassroots campaign put on by the community. I was more impressed by their fervor than their message, but still... that level of organization to protest anything would have been difficult to coordinate.