The Affordable Housing Thread

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,963
Reaction score
1,585
Looking good
Developers add modern touches to affordable homes


(Josh Reynolds Photo for The Boston Globe)
The Hyde-Blakemore Condominiums, developed for lower income families, have many modern details, including a flying-V roofline that channels rain to a garden below.

Globe Correspondent / August 3, 2008
A mong the humble brick and vinyl suburban-style houses along Hyde Park Avenue in Roslindale, the Hyde-Blakemore Condominiums stand out.

There are the mahogany-louvered fences, the solar panels, and the flying-V roof line on the main building, which besides looking cool, channels rainwater into a landscaped rock garden.

Such modern flourishes are rare in a city that cleaves to architectural convention, but they are especially striking considering that Hyde-Blakemore was built for lower-income families. The newly completed buildings defy the tacky stereotype of government-subsidized housing, and for the architects and developers behind a new crop of affordable projects, this is the whole idea.

"People come in and see wood floors instead of carpet, granite countertops instead of Formica, and it casts the whole project in a different light," said architect Matthew Littell, a principal with Utile, a Boston firm that has made its mark with ultra-modern residential buildings, most notably in South Boston. "It's a lot of bang for the buck."

Indeed. A two-bedroom unit at Hyde-Blakemore is priced at $167,000 and a three-bedroom is $247,000. Each unit cost $328,000 to build, with $1.8 million of the project's $4.2 million budget coming from city and state affordable housing funds. The condos are available to households making less than the median annual income, $74,000 for a family of three.

Utile worked with the nonprofit developer Urban Edge on the project, which is about a half-mile south of Forest Hills and consists of 13 units in two duplexes and a three-story building.

Utile is also collaborating with Urban Edge on the residential portion of the Jackson Square complex in Jamaica Plain, and the firm is working with Chelsea Neighborhood Developers on a 48-unit affordable apartment complex, part of the city's massive Box District redevelopment plan.

Littell said Hyde-Blakemore represents a new stage in the evolution of affordable housing.

"Starting in the 1980s, after the big brick public housing model became invalid, these woodframe Easter egg-colored villages began appearing," he said. "Gradually they became more in synch with the adjacent neighborhood. What we're seeing now is a much better second generation of that."

It's not just in the Boston area that affordable housing is getting sexier. Last year, actor Brad Pitt commissioned a national competition to come up with model low-cost homes for New Orleans's hurricane-ravaged Lower Ninth Ward.

Glossy design journals regularly feature affordable projects, and affordable housing design is one of the awards bestowed annually by the American Institute of Architects.

High-quality materials and design, however, serve a more practical purpose in projects like Hyde-Blakemore. In a city where half the residents can't afford the average market-rate unit, low-cost housing developers must compete for buyers.

"There are still a lot of homeownership units floating around in the city, so we're trying to do the best we can to attract buyers," Littell said.

So far, the strategy seems to be paying off. Four of Hyde-Blakemore's 13 units are under agreement and prospective buyers showed up at the first open house last month in large numbers. Given that the foreclosure crisis has constricted financing both for lower-income buyers and affordable projects in the pipeline, Urban Edge is cautiously optimistic.

Photo gallery Inside the Hyde-Blakemore condos
"We're demonstrating that if you do a development that has all the benefits, including location, buyers are able to recognize these distinguishing elements," said Mossik Hacobian, the president of Urban Edge. "It's not like the units are all being snapped up in a week, but so far they're moving quickly."

Clyde Freeman, who attended the open house last month with his wife and three children, was impressed. "It's a lot more than you would expect. There's a lot of nice touches that make for comfortable living," he said. And proving the real estate maxim, Freeman said a key selling point was the Roslindale location, preferable to the rougher neighborhoods where many affordable units are located.

The modern look and modest scale of projects like Hyde-Blakemore are meant not only to appeal to buyers, but neighbors wary of density and declining property values.

"In every building we do, there is always a lot of community planning, talking to neighbors about what they want to see," said Jen Faigel, community development director for the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation.

The nonprofit recently built 13 homes at scattered sites throughout Jamaica Plain that are notable for their vernacular styles and modern color palettes. The houses were designed by The Narrow Gate, a firm that is responsible for a significant portion of the new generation of affordable buildings in the Boston area, including the large mixed-use Dudley Village project.

City and state officials have also played a role in raising affordable building standards, mandating the use of high-grade materials that are durable.

Evelyn Friedman, Boston's chief of housing and neighborhood development, said the focus on design was part of a concerted strategy to alter public perceptions of affordable housing. "Ten to 15 years ago, people worried that affordable housing was going to reduce property values and not look as good," she said. "Because of the way they look and the quality of the product," this is no longer the case.

A natural nexus is also emerging between affordable housing and green building, given the long-term cost and health benefits for homeowners and tenants. The city recently launched the Green Affordable Housing Program, requiring larger projects to meet national environmental standards and promoting green building elements through a $2 million grant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.

Now that home prices are falling, nonprofit developers and city officials say affordable units, whose resale value is restricted, need to be all the more attractive to compete with lower-end market rate properties.

Friedman says the new generation of affordable housing can stand toe-to-toe with the market. "A buyer [in the 80 to 120 percent median income category] could stretch and may be able to purchase an unrestricted property, but they're not going to get a new green unit with landscaping, and chances are they'll have to do a lot of rehab work," she said.

Link

Here are some shots from inside the house.
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

*Sigh* This is what Silvetti's disciples are up to now?

The pretty finishes are a result of being cheap elsewhere, in about 10 years these buildings will be falling down.

Trusting CDC's and an ethically challenged firm, hellbent on making a name and profit without regard for the long term consequences, to create anything other than a pretty picture for the press is a grave error in judgment. There's a significant pool of talent at work here which is unfortunately associating itself with unsavory characters. I feel bad for the future residents whom will inherit the headaches and for the designers who will eventually have to deal the damage to their professional reputations.
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

I don't understand -- what is 'unsavory' or 'ethically challenged' about Urban Edge?
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

^^Am I missing something here? Where were they cheap? Are you saying Utile is evil or the neighborhood committees? You are levying some heavy criticism here, and I don't quite get it.... is this from another post [or posts] that I've missed?
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

*Sigh* This is what Silvetti's disciples are up to now?

The pretty finishes are a result of being cheap elsewhere, in about 10 years these buildings will be falling down.

Trusting CDC's and an ethically challenged firm, hellbent on making a name and profit without regard for the long term consequences, to create anything other than a pretty picture for the press is a grave error in judgment. There's a significant pool of talent at work here which is unfortunately associating itself with unsavory characters. I feel bad for the future residents whom will inherit the headaches and for the designers who will eventually have to deal the damage to their professional reputations.

If you're going to call a firm unethical, you should at least provide some evidence or reasons for your characterization. I'm not arguing with you on your characterization, it's just that you haven't given any facts.
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

Urban Edge=Good, but as usual some members have an agenda (political aspirations) which hurts their overall mission.

Utile=Bad, lots of back-room deals, questionable hiring and book keeping practices, questionable association between public 'research' and private development, questionable association between staff and teaching positions at various universities, wrangling of consultants, occasional outright theft of intellectual property, use of public and private funds or other resources that aren't theirs to further their business, positioning friends to write favorable publicity, etc.

Not that other firms don't engage in such things to a lesser degree, however there are lines which shouldn't be crossed and they have been.

Utile a great deal of design talent and experience from previous firms, but their leadership has stupidly attempted to put ethics aside to attempt to become the next big design firm in Boston. Its like an olympian, whom already would win gold, using steroids to try to win even more medals in a year. They have a tendency to whore themselves out to developers and compromise design for dollar values. They also stubbornly never compromise a 'modern' aesthetic (unless the developer demands, but not listen the community groups) to the point of antagonizing entire neighborhoods.This causes them to repeat the same mistakes when value engineering calls for changes. It's a little ego trip that hurts the final consumers of the architecture. What should be a great firm is going to tarnish itself when the inevitable lawsuits crop up.

/I'm semi-retired (no longer associated with any firm, otherwise I wouldn't say anything because its grounds for getting yourself FIRED) and hear lots of bitching at various events about everyone and everything. My wife also works for Hale and Dorr and has had to advise developers on occasion when their architects are being shady.

In general architects in practice don't critique the operation of firms, only their works. It's the same code of silence that law enforcement, lawyers, and doctors have to cover collective ass..... and I've often found it to be a shameful disservice to clients..
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

Urban Edge=Good, but as usual some members have an agenda (political aspirations) which hurts their overall mission.

Utile=Bad, lots of back-room deals, questionable hiring and book keeping practices, questionable association between public 'research' and private development, questionable association between staff and teaching positions at various universities, wrangling of consultants, occasional outright theft of intellectual property, use of public and private funds or other resources that aren't theirs to further their business, positioning friends to write favorable publicity, etc.

Not that other firms don't engage in such things to a lesser degree, however there are lines which shouldn't be crossed and they have been.

Utile a great deal of design talent and experience from previous firms, but their leadership has stupidly attempted to put ethics aside to attempt to become the next big design firm in Boston. Its like an olympian, whom already would win gold, using steroids to try to win even more medals in a year. They have a tendency to whore themselves out to developers and compromise design for dollar values. They also stubbornly never compromise a 'modern' aesthetic (unless the developer demands, but not listen the community groups) to the point of antagonizing entire neighborhoods.This causes them to repeat the same mistakes when value engineering calls for changes. It's a little ego trip that hurts the final consumers of the architecture. What should be a great firm is going to tarnish itself when the inevitable lawsuits crop up.

/I'm semi-retired (no longer associated with any firm, otherwise I wouldn't say anything because its grounds for getting yourself FIRED) and hear lots of bitching at various events about everyone and everything. My wife also works for Hale and Dorr and has had to advise developers on occasion when their architects are being shady.

In general architects in practice don't critique the operation of firms, only their works. It's the same code of silence that law enforcement, lawyers, and doctors have to cover collective ass..... and I've often found it to be a shameful disservice to clients..

Thank you for the elaboration.
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

questionable association between staff and teaching positions at various universities

well, merely listing a series of things as "questionable" isn't really elaborating... are you saying that they--gasp--hire their students? Get their staff teaching positions?

Sorry but without specifics this just sounds like second-hand gossip and sour grapes.

They also stubbornly never compromise a 'modern' aesthetic (unless the developer demands, but not listen the community groups) to the point of antagonizing entire neighborhoods.

Can you name me one architect whose work is respected and studied that has practiced this? What designer sacrifices his mode of working, his visual language, for a neighborhood concern? There are certain things that a public process works out, that improves design, and surely the visual quality of a project is one of those, but within certain limits. We should no sooner hire a modernist and ask him for doric columns and gabled roofs than we ask Stern to design something like the Beijing stadium.
 
Last edited:
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

Get their staff teaching positions as part of their hiring packages such that institutions are essentially paying half their staff's pay isn't quite ethical.

Note to job candidates: When someone interviews you, DON'T GO TELLING WHAT EVERY OTHER COMPANY HAS OFFERED, especially if it seems crooked.

Using those resources (funds & students) to conduct research at said institutions purposefully to benefit your company isn't so kosher either. Borrowing other faculties' and students' ideas and showing them to clients, or quite obviously using those ideas as a starting point without hiring the originator of the idea, is quite objectionable. So is conducting design studios or assigning projects which are essentially schematic design or free ideas to clients. Using these connections to get free publicity in publications and getting other staff, faculty, friends, on every magazine, school, etc. to write favorable opinions on your work is pretty cheesy as well.

"Can you name me one architect whose work is respected and studied that has practiced this? What designer sacrifices his mode of working, his visual language, for a neighborhood concern?"

There's a difference between having an identity and being sensitive to context and sledgehammering your style into a project to make a mark on the neighborhood. Being able to say something is different from the neighborhood is one thing. Having it look and feel like a UFO has landed and aliens are going to come out and eat your kids is another.
 
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

"Using those resources (funds & students) to conduct research at said institutions purposefully to benefit your company isn't so kosher either. Borrowing other faculties' and students' ideas and showing them to clients, or quite obviously using those ideas as a starting point without hiring the originator of the idea, is quite objectionable. So is conducting design studios or assigning projects which are essentially schematic design or free ideas to clients. Using these connections to get free publicity in publications and getting other staff, faculty, friends, on every magazine, school, etc. to write favorable opinions on your work is pretty cheesy as well."

So every small firm that is tied to academia operates in a similar manner. The faculty salary subsidizes the pay of employees - appropriate when teaching takes upwards of 10 hours a week and you're away from the office for that amount of time. Studio instructors often structure projects around issues and themes that their firm is working on at the moment. I don't see how investigation of certain issues through a studio class, so long as it is directly tied to the pedagogy of the institution and the learning goals of particular studio creates ethical issues. Ideas developed through collaboration of student and instructor often shed light on the problem - whether it's something that may work, or, more often, something that doesn't. If ideas are 'carbon copied' then that's an issue, and there have been cases brought by students who feel their ideas have been taken - but is that the case here? It seems to me that this is more of a learning laboratory with real-world applications - which is actually nice for a design school program. If the fruits of academic research/work bear information that is useful in practice, useful to clients, and useful in showing that combining academic efforts and professional practice create well thought-out solutions to real world problems, I don't see the conflict - especially if practitioners are up front about their involvement in academia and that research on these topics have been conducted by students and then adapted to whatever project is at hand.

Your accusation of 'whoring' also seems a bit severe: what firm - especially those trying to establish themselves in the commercial market place who has private developers as clients, doesn't ultimately have to compromise to make things work? Stern, SOM, KPF, Diller/Scofidio, whomever, compromises all the time to realize a project. This is the eternal dialog/conflict between patron (economy) and designer (and now the 'public' and 'public agencies') that characterize the practice in general.

Issues of style are exactly that - issues of style - and do not seem decent fodder for ad hominem attacks. Deficiencies in construction are usually about a combination of cost savings imposed by budget, building codes, contractors, and designers. Unless you have proof, directly attributing them to the design firm on any one project seems unfair.

Full disclosure: I work at Utile. I look forward to healthy and constructive discussion on any of these topics.
 
Last edited:
Re: Looking Good (Attractive Affordable Housing)

RiseRise I honestly don't feel like cluing your boss in on how many people he has irked. I'm pretty much retired and don't feel like getting dragged into other peoples' petty litigious bouts. Ask him a few questions about the subject. When he gets defensive, or changes the subject, you'll know all you need to know for your own good.

From a personal standpoint, right now it might seem prudent to defend your employer; however it is very important to the rest of your career to understand what you should or shouldn't be involved in. A reputation, deserved or not, will follow you based on the perceptions of where you worked, what you did or didn't do, and what happened.
 
Re: The Clarendon

$550 a month? Really? How do I apply so I can live off-campus there?

This is why "affordable" housing is a joke in this city that does more harm than good. Every other unit in the development is getting upcharged to subsidize a ridiculously low rent for the "affordable" unit. In condos every unit price gets pushed higher so that a few lucky bastards can get a dirt cheap price. So nice of the city to actively work to INFLATE the majority of prices in order to subsidize a tiny minority.
 
Re: The Clarendon

^^Of course the city can deflate the price by building legitimate affordable housing by creating modular apartments. They'll be commieblocks and they'll be ugly but it will flood the market and lower the price. New York City has multiple ones for years and no one seem to complain about them. Besides, there's not enough people who can afford these upscale condos so why not try to accomodate in the area needed.

img_43873.jpg


5562701688_56135e4310_b.jpg


There's already a few of these in Longwood.
 
Re: The Clarendon

Well in my opinion Mission Park is a little bit nicer than these...but I agree.
 
Re: The Clarendon

The city doesn't need to build a damn thing. It's not the city's job to build housing, it's developers' jobs. If zoning, permitting, and design review wasn't a giant clusterfuck there would be significant middle and lower class housing developments in neighborhoods where the economics made sense.
 
Re: The Clarendon

If developers had control they'd pack these people into the smallest livable spaces in the drabbest cheapest buildings possible. We tried this once, it was called the Guilded Age. It didn't work out well.
 
Re: The Clarendon

The city doesn't need to build a damn thing. It's not the city's job to build housing, it's developers' jobs. If zoning, permitting, and design review wasn't a giant clusterfuck there would be significant middle and lower class housing developments in neighborhoods where the economics made sense.

I agree but developers would never do so without incentives. Lower class housing obviously does not maximize profit. As much as laissez-faire is valued in the states, it's inefficient. Without government intervention, only the rich will live in the city.
 
Re: The Clarendon

The city doesn't need to build a damn thing. It's not the city's job to build housing, it's developers' jobs. If zoning, permitting, and design review wasn't a giant clusterfuck there would be significant middle and lower class housing developments in neighborhoods where the economics made sense.

I agree. Our zoning is designed to encourage luxury highrises downtown, and suburban sprawl in the outer neighborhoods.

If developers had control they'd pack these people into the smallest livable spaces in the drabbest cheapest buildings possible. We tried this once, it was called the Guilded Age. It didn't work out well.
I think it's possible to strike a healthy medium. We don't need to eliminate zoning altogether to make development of lower and middle income housing desirable. We could raise height limits outside downtown areas to allow for more 5 and 6 story buildings, for example. We can eliminate per unit parking requirements, etc. Changing zoning to make development easier does not mean we are encouraging a new round of tenement construction.
 
Re: The Clarendon

5562701688_56135e4310_b.jpg

There's already a few of these in Longwood.

All of these "commie blocks" in this picture are market rate and very very nice. Those towers on the right? I live there. We have a duplex townhouse, it's SICK!

Granted they weren't built as market rate but in a hot market and good location landlords will cash in.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Clarendon

I meant the smaller ones lined along the river but I guess you include the ones on the right. Of course Boston doesn't need that many.
 

Back
Top