Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,975
- Reaction score
- 2,300
Villa Victoria tower south end (right side of picture)
High Rise Public Housing In Boston
- Thread starter Hubman
- Start date
Villa Victoria tower south end (right side of picture)
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
That is 'out of scale for the neighborhood.'
Villa Victoria tower south end (right side of picture)
Is Villa Victoria actually public housing though? I thought it was non-profit section 8.
It is privately owned. It gets rental subsidy under HUD Section 236, not Section 8. From a layperson's or tenant's perspective, not a huge difference between the two subsidy programs.
I am pretty certain the construction (of low-rises) and rehab (of high-rise) was supported by low income housing tax credits. So the owner entity (or entities if it's in phases) would be for-profit by definition, to pass the credits through to the LIHTC investors. The general partner of the owners is a non-profit, Inquilinos Boricuas en Acción, so it's right to say it's controlled by a non-profit, if not precisely correct to say it's owned by a non-profit.
Fair enough - I guess my examples aren't that far off base then, either.
426 of 501 of Clarendon Hill tower's units are affordable. They are commonly mistaken for housing projects because of their, boring, identical high rise design and because of the confusion between them and the nearby housing project Clarendon Hill Apts.
As a South End resident, it's notable from the crime blotter how much more crime originates from the Villa Victoria tower as opposed to the smaller low income housing blocks scattered throughout (eg Methunion Manor). A tangential connection to low income housing
ah, got it. thanks for the info
I think its more a concentration/density of poverty that happens in the building - projects don't work, but mixed incoming housing seems to be OK. Just like a full luxury tower - except then the wealthy just become more separated from normal life
I also believe that low income developments have always been looked down upon, high rise or not. Mixed income communities work, low income ones do not. Low income developments are ghettos built by the goverment.
And i'm flattered by my description of Trump's penthouse being used as your signature!
It seems like many high-rises were torn down while low rises were left or "modernized".
And about the signature, yes, your quote is a perfect description of Trump's idea of good architecture.
millerm277
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 544
Hard to effectively police and you're concentrating quality of life issues.
I would imagine other old people aren't very likely to rob you in the windowless hallway of your apartment building, and aren't likely to be up at 3AM holding a loud party either.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Chronic disinvestment & underfunding by city, state & federal governments leads the buildings to become decrepit, especially the elevators & other various mechanical systems.
Lawrence O'Donnell has been at the forefront of documenting the challenges public housing tower residents face with great segments about NYC housing (NYCHA), especially during the election.
Lawrence tours "The Hidden City:" http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/exclusive-lawrence-tours-the-hidden-city-665617475875
Interview with resident & NYC D15 Councilman Richie Torres: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/candidates-challenged-to-visit-public-housing-665617475961
(Tragic story of a person who died on a stretcher in an elevator that got stuck. Elevators in public housing towers are really among the worst problems.)
Also from when Hillary visited public housing: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/clinton-visits-public-housing-after-our-report-667231299600
Last edited:
A close friend worked at the DC Housing Authority and NYCHA for several years. His thoughts on this question were:
1) Inability to kick out criminal tenants makes it very hard to keep projects safe. Much of this is due to public housing, despite long waiting lists, not having the normal ability to evict unsavory tenants.
2) The Brooke Amendment - this limited rent to 1/3 of income and banned kicking tenants out for nonpayment of rent if they were too poor to pay. This is the key the lack of maintenance. Remember that many public housing recipients make money in the gray economy and their income doesn't appear on tax forms. This lowers their rent substantially. Once a project is built, the maintenance could be covered by low rents ~ several hundred dollars a month for a couple bedrooms. This would make the projects self sustaining once built. After the late 60s and the Brooke Amendment, this became impossible. In an alternate reality, public housing is well maintained from the working poor paying needed rents.
3) The late 60s - early 90s crime wave + disinvestment + flight of urban industrial jobs. Public housing even well into the 70s was quite stable in many cities. Points 1 and 2 made the system unstable for the long haul once buffetted by external factors.
1) Inability to kick out criminal tenants makes it very hard to keep projects safe. Much of this is due to public housing, despite long waiting lists, not having the normal ability to evict unsavory tenants.
2) The Brooke Amendment - this limited rent to 1/3 of income and banned kicking tenants out for nonpayment of rent if they were too poor to pay. This is the key the lack of maintenance. Remember that many public housing recipients make money in the gray economy and their income doesn't appear on tax forms. This lowers their rent substantially. Once a project is built, the maintenance could be covered by low rents ~ several hundred dollars a month for a couple bedrooms. This would make the projects self sustaining once built. After the late 60s and the Brooke Amendment, this became impossible. In an alternate reality, public housing is well maintained from the working poor paying needed rents.
3) The late 60s - early 90s crime wave + disinvestment + flight of urban industrial jobs. Public housing even well into the 70s was quite stable in many cities. Points 1 and 2 made the system unstable for the long haul once buffetted by external factors.
It seems like the issue with towers is that they have a lot of interior public space that can't be self-patrolled, whereas with low-rise buildings (assuming apartments all have entrances from the outside, rather than interior hallways), the public space is outside, meaning that people looking to cause trouble can't easily hide. With hallways, elevators, and stairwells, it's easy to be cornered with no way out, and in a place where no one can see you.
Brad Plaid
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 1,557
Bad as the disinvestment was that's too easy a scapegoat. Ultimately it's people who created the public housing pathology not the buildings.