Just a point of clarification and perhaps illumination re: Andrew Toler's post this morning:
"You may ask yourself why would Thetford even want to do that? Would the town have to become property managers if we build housing? The short answer is that communities around the country who do not take an active hand in shaping their housing needs often end up with extremely bad situations. You tend to get housing units that either look like large slummy Projects, or else you get "affordable housing units" similar the the one sitting vacant on the edge of Norwich on Rte 5. That property was billed initially as affordable housing, was built, and ended up being offered at 3/4 of a million dollars per unit. The price has now dropped to about $400,000, and as far as I know, still sits empty. I would not like to see either extreme happen in Thetford."
- - - - -
First of all, the "Norwich Gateway" townhouses were never billed as affordable housing at any time in their acquisition or development. They were built by Simpson Development to showcase Simpson's ability to develop up-market properties and the design values they pursued were always targeted at the higher-end market. There were discussions in town government to acquire the property for affordable housing, but there was never consensus to get it done.
There is an implicit yet profound misapprehension in grouping the Norwich Gateway project together with "slummy Projects."
On the one hand, "slummy Projects" reflect the effort to strictly limit design and construction costs to attain affordability. It is a sad but fundamental fact that new housing at its most basic is still very expensive. "Affordability" necessarily pushes the envelope on those costs. Do not imagine for a moment that anything like the Norwich Gateway townhouses can be made "affordable" without massive, sustained subsidies to offset development expense.
On the other hand, "slummy Projects" are often the result of deep town, state and federal government involvement in the development of such housing. Other than the public purse and policy priorities, government, at every level, is poorly suited to housing development. Good development, like good work in almost any field, is the result of individual talent and focus. Representative government is a forum for grievances and collective responses to common problems. It cannot sustain either an individual vision or focus because it was not created for that purpose. Recognize the limits of town government and you can increase your chances of a good outcome. Decide on your policy goals (affordable, senior, mixed housing, mixed-use, etc.); identify your broad design requirements (not slummy, consistent with character of the area, etc.); recognize that your acquisition/initial development costs are minimal due to the generosity of the donor. Then decide on a process to get the property into the hands of a developer who you feel confident can fulfill your broad policy/design values with a realistic business plan. Let them bear the risk/responsibility for the project, but most importantly, let them do their work. The more you allow yourselves to revisit your choices and the longer the town remains involved in the development once a plan has been established, the greater the ultimate cost and the more the ultimate design will reflect a least common denominator of citizens' dislikes.
A more appropriate Norwich example of the risks of town government involvement might be the bandstand controversy -- a cautionary tale of handing design and project leadership to committees.
I have a great affection for the mill site and respect Mr. Toler's expressed goals. I hope the Thetford community can make a wise decision on its role in redevelopment of this site -- providing the vision, but leaving the specifics to a developer and, most importantly, respecting the necessary limits that entails. Best of luck.
Watt Alexander
"You may ask yourself why would Thetford even want to do that? Would the town have to become property managers if we build housing? The short answer is that communities around the country who do not take an active hand in shaping their housing needs often end up with extremely bad situations. You tend to get housing units that either look like large slummy Projects, or else you get "affordable housing units" similar the the one sitting vacant on the edge of Norwich on Rte 5. That property was billed initially as affordable housing, was built, and ended up being offered at 3/4 of a million dollars per unit. The price has now dropped to about $400,000, and as far as I know, still sits empty. I would not like to see either extreme happen in Thetford."
- - - - -
First of all, the "Norwich Gateway" townhouses were never billed as affordable housing at any time in their acquisition or development. They were built by Simpson Development to showcase Simpson's ability to develop up-market properties and the design values they pursued were always targeted at the higher-end market. There were discussions in town government to acquire the property for affordable housing, but there was never consensus to get it done.
There is an implicit yet profound misapprehension in grouping the Norwich Gateway project together with "slummy Projects."
On the one hand, "slummy Projects" reflect the effort to strictly limit design and construction costs to attain affordability. It is a sad but fundamental fact that new housing at its most basic is still very expensive. "Affordability" necessarily pushes the envelope on those costs. Do not imagine for a moment that anything like the Norwich Gateway townhouses can be made "affordable" without massive, sustained subsidies to offset development expense.
On the other hand, "slummy Projects" are often the result of deep town, state and federal government involvement in the development of such housing. Other than the public purse and policy priorities, government, at every level, is poorly suited to housing development. Good development, like good work in almost any field, is the result of individual talent and focus. Representative government is a forum for grievances and collective responses to common problems. It cannot sustain either an individual vision or focus because it was not created for that purpose. Recognize the limits of town government and you can increase your chances of a good outcome. Decide on your policy goals (affordable, senior, mixed housing, mixed-use, etc.); identify your broad design requirements (not slummy, consistent with character of the area, etc.); recognize that your acquisition/initial development costs are minimal due to the generosity of the donor. Then decide on a process to get the property into the hands of a developer who you feel confident can fulfill your broad policy/design values with a realistic business plan. Let them bear the risk/responsibility for the project, but most importantly, let them do their work. The more you allow yourselves to revisit your choices and the longer the town remains involved in the development once a plan has been established, the greater the ultimate cost and the more the ultimate design will reflect a least common denominator of citizens' dislikes.
A more appropriate Norwich example of the risks of town government involvement might be the bandstand controversy -- a cautionary tale of handing design and project leadership to committees.
I have a great affection for the mill site and respect Mr. Toler's expressed goals. I hope the Thetford community can make a wise decision on its role in redevelopment of this site -- providing the vision, but leaving the specifics to a developer and, most importantly, respecting the necessary limits that entails. Best of luck.
Watt Alexander
No comments:
Post a Comment