Tai Tung Village Expansion | 288 Harrison Avenue | Chinatown

HarvardP said:
I'm rarely in this camp, but shouldn't this be double the height to make a dent in demand?
Click to expand...
Should be much higher, but it is a 100% affordable development. The local non-profit behind this expansion (CCBA) could only amass funding for the 5 over 1 type expansion.

No one in this neighborhood would have objected to more height here. But at 100% affordable, there is only so much money available.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Should be much higher, but it is a 100% affordable development. The local non-profit behind this expansion (CCBA) could only amass funding for the 5 over 1 type expansion.

No one in this neighborhood would have objected to more height here. But at 100% affordable, there is only so much money availablA
Click to expand...
Appreciate the explanation, thanks.
 
shmessy said:
Although too short, it's definitely an upgrade over the empty parking lot it replaces.
www.google.com

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com

Next door the 252-262 Harrison Ave 3-story landscraper needs to be demolished and replaced too.
www.google.com

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
The 252-262 Harrison Landscaper is the step-down accommodation to the row house neighborhood across the street. It could probably be higher, though. It is also part of the Tai Tung Village complex.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The 252-262 Harrison Landscaper is the step-down accommodation to the row house neighborhood across the street. It could probably be higher, though. It is also part of the Tai Tung Village complex.
Click to expand...
Losing the Chinatown Cafe would also be pretty unpopular.
 
Hei La Moon was similarly displaced from the 125 Lincoln St. garage (which, disappointingly, has yet to begin demolition, much less construction) and my understanding of the neighborhood consensus is the new location is an improvement. I agree that Chinatown Cafe is beloved and hopefully it can be easily relocated nearby to better digs (with e.g. modern kitchen ventilation) to facilitate redevelopment of this suboptimal low-rise.
 
shmessy said:
The business can move to another location.

Please take one more look at this unfortunate concrete bunker: The city cannot do better?

www.google.com

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
Actually the city has a really hard time building 100% affordable housing, which this is (plus some badly needed ground floor neighborhood retail). Please point to the plentiful replacement funding sources available to rebuild this housing in a larger format, remaining as 100% affordable?
 
JeffDowntown said:
....Please point to the plentiful replacement funding sources available to rebuild this housing in a larger format, remaining as 100% affordable?
Click to expand...

This last piece has always been a sticking point for me. Why does something need to remain 100% affordable, as long as it fully replaces (or even increases) the existing number of affordable units? Are only very specific groups of people in very specific income bands, they themselves essentially "lottery winners" out of a much larger group, the ones struggling with the current housing/rental markets? Wouldn't more overall housing combined with more affordable housing help everybody, and make wholesale improvements more cost-feasible?
 
JeffDowntown said:
Actually the city has a really hard time building 100% affordable housing, which this is (plus some badly needed ground floor neighborhood retail). Please point to the plentiful replacement funding sources available to rebuild this housing in a larger format, remaining as 100% affordable?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and as far as just finding new spots to open... that can be extremely difficult, especially if the business has been established for a long time and potentially has a sweet deal on their current rent/space. Even if they were guaranteed a spot in the new construction, being closed for a year or more can easily be a death blow to a restaurant. Plus all the other long time businesses there that are part of the community (which Tai Tung is a pretty close nit community), potentially destroying that to add another floor or two for the building seems... pointless, especially given all of the empty parking lots scattered around Chinatown already.
 
DZH22 said:
This last piece has always been a sticking point for me. Why does something need to remain 100% affordable, as long as it fully replaces (or even increases) the existing number of affordable units? Are only very specific groups of people in very specific income bands, they themselves essentially "lottery winners" out of a much larger group, the ones struggling with the current housing/rental markets? Wouldn't more overall housing combined with more affordable housing help everybody, and make wholesale improvements more cost-feasible?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Let's take a look at this beauty:

1721251426519.png

I would generously estimate 48 units (possibly 24-36) in this low concrete bunker. Why not allow a developer to build a tower to build a 30 story tower with 300 units, 20% of which are affordable? 60 affordable units is better than the 48 current.

Plus, it doesn't segregate these people as if it's a leper colony.....AND they get to live in a much nicer building instead of something that looks like a penitentiary.

Win-Win-Win.
 
shmessy said:
Exactly.

Let's take a look at this beauty:

View attachment 52756
I would generously estimate 48 units (possibly 24-36) in this low concrete bunker. Why not allow a developer to build a tower to build a 30 story tower with 300 units, 20% of which are affordable? 60 affordable units is better than the 48 current.

Plus, it doesn't segregate these people as if it's a leper colony.....AND they get to live in a much nicer building instead of something that looks like a penitentiary.

Win-Win-Win.
Click to expand...
Because the project is owned by a non-profit, CCBA, dedicated to 100% affordable. Go talk to them (if you speak Cantonese or Mandarin).

Not dissing your proposal, just pointing out facts.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Because the project is owned by a non-profit, CCBA, dedicated to 100% affordable. Go talk to them (if you speak Cantonese or Mandarin).

Not dissing your proposal, just pointing out facts.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight:

CCBA would refuse to receive a shit-ton of money from a private developer who would then turn around and build on that site 12 MORE affordable units than what CCBA has there now for the community?????

Talk about biting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Why would they want to refuse that??????? It would result in 25% MORE affordable units (in much nicer apartments) AND CCBA could take the monetary windfall and invest in another housing project.

Am I missing something here?
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
So let me get this straight:

CCBA would refuse to receive a shit-ton of money from a private developer who would then turn around and build on that site 12 MORE affordable units than what CCBA has there now for the community?????

Talk about biting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Why would they want to refuse that??????? It would result in 25% MORE affordable units (in much nicer apartments) AND CCBA could take the monetary windfall and invest in another housing project.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Not really missing something. CCBA just can't get past the old school days of affordable housing development with massive federal funds. They have also sat on the C-Mart site (public trust land under their stewardship) on Washington Street, other side of the Turnpike, for decades, trying for a 100% affordable vision.

To be fair to CCBA, their concept of affordable is a much lower % of AMI than is typical in the market rate/affordable partnership model developments. They are trying to provide housing that works for the new Asian immigrant community (part of their philanthropic mission).

ACDC or POUA are much more amenable to market/affordable partnership developments. Given the current tax-incentive-based financing realities, they pull off about one each per decade.
 
Last edited:
As of 10/12.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6806.JPG
    IMG_6806.JPG
    4.6 MB · Views: 87
  • IMG_6807.JPG
    IMG_6807.JPG
    6 MB · Views: 87
  • IMG_6809.JPG
    IMG_6809.JPG
    5.9 MB · Views: 83
  • IMG_6813.JPG
    IMG_6813.JPG
    5.6 MB · Views: 90
  • IMG_6814.JPG
    IMG_6814.JPG
    4.6 MB · Views: 91
  • IMG_6815.JPG
    IMG_6815.JPG
    5.1 MB · Views: 104
  • IMG_6825.JPG
    IMG_6825.JPG
    5.5 MB · Views: 103
  • IMG_6832.JPG
    IMG_6832.JPG
    5.5 MB · Views: 104
  • IMG_6834.JPG
    IMG_6834.JPG
    4.6 MB · Views: 83
  • IMG_6811.jpg
    IMG_6811.jpg
    5.1 MB · Views: 91
Peeeeee yew! Cheap and paper thin. As bad as it gets. And the weird window misalignment brings it from bad to worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top