Grand and Gravois Mixed Use Rehab

ImprovSTL · PostMar 30, 2013#12013-03-30T15:48+00:00

Pretty excited about this:

The low income thing is the only drag but this is such a cool area of Gravois that really could use some work.

It seems that there are so many up and coming neighborhoods around here but the commercial areas lag behind the residential rehabs and investment.

onecity · PostMar 30, 2013#22013-03-30T15:58+00:00

That intersection should be market rate. Facepalm.

stlhistory · PostMar 30, 2013#32013-03-30T16:43+00:00

Yes it's a cool intersection and it's high-profile, but...

55% of the 1,900 households in that census tract earn under $30K a year, and median household income is about $25K. Median rent is $787, and across the street in the other census tract it's $620. Median home price in the tract is $86K, which means that 59% of mortgages in the tract consume more than 30% of a household income. Sounds like a good place for low income housing. Many of the folks who live there are already low income.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 30, 2013#42013-03-30T20:47+00:00

Extremely awesome.

onecity · PostMar 30, 2013#52013-03-30T21:41+00:00

55% of the 1,900 households in that census tract earn under $30K a year, and median household income is about $25K. Median rent is $787, and across the street in the other census tract it's $620. Median home price in the tract is $86K, which means that 59% of mortgages in the tract consume more than 30% of a household income. Sounds like a good place for low income housing. Many of the folks who live there are already low income.

Has no one learned what happens when you concentrate poverty? Why on earth, when you have the option to gentrify - especially in light of all the awesomeness that is South Grand - would you go for low income housing in an area that already has too much poverty???!??!?!?!? This part of the city needs people with higher incomes, not more people with lower incomes. STL in general needs large, uninterrupted areas of middle class and higher incomes simply for the tax base and the investment those residents can afford to make in their property, and this definitely does not move the needle that direction.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 30, 2013#62013-03-30T21:50+00:00

^ This looks like the same kind of LIHTC award as the Arcade (although it may not necessarily be focused on artists) and I wouldn't be surprised to see a market-rate component.

Hopefully they'll get some decent commercial in there as well.

wabash · PostMar 31, 2013#72013-03-31T15:27+00:00

^^

onecity wrote:Has no one learned what happens when you concentrate poverty? Why on earth, when you have the option to gentrify - especially in light of all the awesomeness that is South Grand - would you go for low income housing in an area that already has too much poverty???!??!?!?!? This part of the city needs people with higher incomes, not more people with lower incomes.... this definitely does not move the needle that direction.

I'm not convinced there is the "option to gentrify". If St. Louis grows higher income residents it's going to happen in places like the Central West End, Lafayette Square, Skinker-Debaliviere, and Downtown. Gentrification is occurring in these places and Shaw, Soulard, Benton Park, Tower Grove South, The Grove.... but I don't think it's reached Gravois Park yet. If the developer could turn this into $200,000 condos or market rate apartments they would. But absent that option, it's best to invest in and preserve these buildings rather than let them sit empty and deteriorate further.

Also, what do you mean by this? "Has no one learned what happens when you concentrate poverty?" Can you clarify? The Lower East Side & East Village of New York used to have extremely dense poverty. Lincoln Park & Wicker Park in Chicago used to have dense poverty. U Street and H Street NE in Washington had dense poverty, the Tenderloin District in San Francisco has dense poverty.... Benton Park West, Gravois Park, and Marine Villa have dense poverty. Is that a bad thing? If people who are struggling to make ends meet don't live there, who will? I'd rather see cell phone shops, hair salons, chop suey, storefront churches and mini-markets along Chippewa, Meramec, and South Broadway than nothing at all (ie Page, MLK, and St. Louis Ave.)

stlhistory · PostMar 31, 2013#82013-03-31T20:50+00:00

^Yes. I don't like that the discussions on rehabs and new construction, when they involve subsidized housing, tend to be viewed in a more negative light. When you refer to the awesomeness of South Grand, I tend to think about the diversity that makes it so. When we build market rate, we have to be inclusive of the people who live in the area, too.

I think it might be easier to get financing to do market rate plus subsidized than all market rate, too. That tract had 1,800 housing units in 2010 that were occupied, and more than 600 vacant units. Subsidized housing is easy to fill with tenants.

rawest1 · PostApr 01, 2013#92013-04-01T00:13+00:00

wabash wrote:^^
onecity wrote:Has no one learned what happens when you concentrate poverty? Why on earth, when you have the option to gentrify - especially in light of all the awesomeness that is South Grand - would you go for low income housing in an area that already has too much poverty???!??!?!?!? This part of the city needs people with higher incomes, not more people with lower incomes.... this definitely does not move the needle that direction.

Also, what do you mean by this? "Has no one learned what happens when you concentrate poverty?" Can you clarify?

I could be wrong, but I thought it was pretty obvious he's referring to like what happened in North St. Louis County.

Not saying I agree, necessarily, but I assume that's what he meant.

onecity · PostApr 01, 2013#102013-04-01T03:34+00:00

North County seems like aging suburbs and white flight. I'm not sure how that relates to this. Also not very familiar with that area beyond what's visible on 270.

Here, you have a section of the city (Gravois Park) with much higher crime rates than the immediately surrounding neighborhoods, and if you look at an income map and a crime map, you might as well be looking at the same map. The census tracts surrounding Gravois Park have all seen mild to precipitous declines in household income per the 2010 census, and while there are a lot of crimes in Gravois Park and a couple of the surrounding neighborhoods anecdotally it sounds like those areas have seen spikes in violent crime in the past decade or so. Knowing this, it seems like a really bad idea to introduce more low income housing to an area that is already low or declining income, particularly at such a visible intersection which due to its proximity to the increasingly nice and fun S Grand area, could be a useful way to attract more urban pioneers to anchor a key intersection that will help expand that resurgence southward.

rawest1 · PostApr 01, 2013#112013-04-01T16:24+00:00

onecity wrote:North County seems like aging suburbs and white flight. I'm not sure how that relates to this.

Well it's not like the "white flight" was occurring for no reason. I could be wrong but I don't think that the "white flight" occurred until the high concentration of government-subsidized housing went up in that area, and with it, the inevitable massive crime spike. It's my understanding that one Spanish Lake documentary that's supposed to be released sometime this decade will address that.

The same thing happened in parts of the Memphis metro area. And all over.

"Crime did not rise in every city where housing projects came down. In cities where it did, many factors contributed: unemployment, gangs, rapid gentrification that dislocated tens of thousands of poor people not living in the projects. Still, researchers around the country are seeing the same basic pattern: projects coming down in inner cities and crime pushing outward, in many cases destabilizing cities or their surrounding areas. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ry/306872/

onecity · PostApr 01, 2013#122013-04-01T16:32+00:00

^ I remember that article. My takeaway was "duh." Since rather than distributing the displaced poor across the region, they were still left clustered.

When you refer to the awesomeness of South Grand, I tend to think about the diversity that makes it so. When we build market rate, we have to be inclusive of the people who live in the area, too.

^ Diversity is great, but don't let embrace of diversity lead to romanticizing poverty or especially large clumps of poverty. As citizens, we have an obligation to engineer our society to an ideal state. That is the essence of public schools and universities, the national parks system, funding for the arts, and the Corps of Engineers, and it extends to the economic composition of our cities at the street or neighborhood level. Which is to say we can have evenly distributed poverty, but it must be at a manageable level so that the resources of society/the city are not overwhelmed and can actually make a difference.

gone corporate · PostApr 01, 2013#132013-04-01T18:03+00:00

Consider its neighboring institutions, regional demographics beyond economics, and the long-term visage of this area...

This development would be perfect for new immigrants to the US, especially those arriving under harsh circumstances like what was experienced with the Balkan Migration of Bosnians in the 1990s. Refugees, after all, don't usually have much for investment income. Plus, most any immigrants would add to the multinational demographics of the area, from residents to businesses (restaurants & markets). As well, they would be proximate to the International Institute.

Now, I don't know if this is being set up for immigrant peoples. But, if so, then this is perfect low income housing.

Q: Does the Lawrence Group normally do low income housing?

Presbyterian · PostApr 01, 2013#142013-04-01T18:26+00:00

^Not a lot of it. They have done some small low-income projects in St. Louis and perhaps some larger ones outside St. Louis, but I wouldn't call it their specialty.

roger wyoming II · PostApr 01, 2013#152013-04-01T19:25+00:00

Presbyterian wrote:^Not a lot of it. They have done some small low-income projects in St. Louis and perhaps some larger ones outside St. Louis, but I wouldn't call it their specialty.

But that is not to say that this won't be a well-managed property. Can't see how this would be anything but a positive for the neighborhood. It may take years, but I look forward to the day when we can just explode the fast-food joints and gas station on the northern corners and build to the scale across the street... then we'll really be cooking!

gone corporate · PostApr 01, 2013#162013-04-01T20:11+00:00

Addendum: The reason I brought up the Lawrence Group not normally building low income housing developments is specifically because I do not think this property is being built as a standard low income housing development. Rather, I would think that there is some grander purpose behind this building and its development. Hence, my thoughts on new immigrant housing here.

Presbyterian · PostApr 01, 2013#172013-04-01T20:25+00:00

^Agreed.

And remember that a requirement for LIHTC funding is that the building must target a specific population--such as the elderly, immigrants, the mentally ill, artists, etc. I haven't seen Lawrence Group's application, so I don't know what population group they will target. But this promises to be a well designed and well managed project.

nickfindley · PostApr 04, 2013#182013-04-04T17:47+00:00

I'll take low income over no income any day.

Am I wrong to read this as a certain number of units will be slightly less expensive based on income qualifications? That sounds pretty mixed income to me. But I could be way off base.

And could having nicer units available for the same price in the same neighborhood put pressure on slumlords nearby to improve their properties or clear out for someone who will? I'm hopeful that this and other modest improvements nearby might be a catalyst to make this a stable but still very affordable area.

Presbyterian · PostApr 04, 2013#192013-04-04T18:33+00:00

^Rents will be $468 - $529 for studio and one bedroom units. That is on the low side for what promise to be nice units.

MattnSTL · PostApr 12, 2013#202013-04-12T17:38+00:00

Presbyterian wrote:^Agreed.

And remember that a requirement for LIHTC funding is that the building must target a specific population--such as the elderly, immigrants, the mentally ill, artists, etc. I haven't seen Lawrence Group's application, so I don't know what population group they will target. But this promises to be a well designed and well managed project.

That's actually not correct. LIHTC is often targeted towards a certain group by a developer, such as the often seen senior housing, and recently artists, but LIHTC is usually not targeted to any particular sub-population. The two LIHTC project my employer co-developed and co-own are not targeted. All you have to do is meet the income qualifications and pass standard tenant screening, and you are eligible for a unit.

Presbyterian · PostApr 12, 2013#212013-04-12T18:46+00:00

^You may be right. It may also be that a development's official "target population" is defined exclusively in economic terms. I believe priority is given to projects with enhanced services for specific subpopulations.

nickfindley · PostJul 07, 2014#222014-07-07T18:23+00:00

New storefronts in the Lutz Building facing Grand. New windows all around. Apartments for lease banner up. Still some major interior work in progress in the corner storefront.

dbInSouthCity · PostJul 20, 2014#232014-07-20T14:33+00:00

the main building has a banner that says now leasing, 1 bed room and studio...the store fronts on the ground level still look like crap imo. the black above the store fronts is wood paint black...i have no idea why anyone ever thought that looked good...

erina · PostJul 21, 2014#242014-07-21T17:57+00:00

Anyone know who the tenants are going to be? If it ends up to be a tax prep, beauty supply, and payday loan place, then the rehab was a waste. We need nice things.

roger wyoming II · PostJul 21, 2014#252014-07-21T18:04+00:00

^ I agree that would be a disappointment on the retail side of things, but the overall project would still be a success and nice step forward.