BAYLOR: Downtown upsurge causes conjoined heartburn
Accordingly, the riverfront redevelopment district is an incentive for entrepreneurial food, drink and entertainment purveyors to come downtown and do their bit to reuse the city center in precisely the way it was intended. We’re now seeing the result take shape. It’s an organic, local, homegrown restaurant and bar quarter, one made possible largely without the far more expensive expedient of paying the Cordish Company to import cookie-cutter chains ...
... New Albany’s most prominent of nattering and negativistic nabobs ... whisper that there are too many restaurants, bars and entertainment venues downtown, and that the new businesses are bound to fail, but what Dan Coffey, Steve Price and their squalid platoon of acolytes really are saying is that since they, themselves, cannot fathom success, then no one else should be permitted to rise above their self-imposed limitations, either. To justify their doomsday pessimism, we all must fail just as profoundly as them.
New Albany is a state of mind … but whose? Since 2004, we’ve been observing the contemporary scene in this slowly awakening old river town. If it’s true that a pre-digital stopped clock is right twice a day, when will New Albany learn to tell time?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Today's Tribune column: "Downtown upsurge causes conjoined heartburn."
Evening News columnist Debbie Harbeson offers a neat bookend today: Maintaining misguided laws not the answer for alcohol licenses. I have a few "right on" thoughts about her piece, which can be read here.
Some time ago, you had posted on your blog a list of signs that downtown was coming back to life, in that you had listed it hard to find a parking space along with other things.
ReplyDeleteMost of those are coming true. And I would rather have a downtown area that you have park and walk a bit to get to a restaurant or bar or shop, than to have your pick of any one of hundreds of parking spots to get to one restaurant or one shop.
Again, I congratulate and thank the business owners, worker, and patrons for turning the tide on downtown NA!
Well done today.
ReplyDeleteExcellent job Roger. I got to witness first hand the New Urbanism you mention while working @ Clay & Main St.'s in Louisville. When the housing projects were replaced with new mixed use housing, new food, drink, and art moved into the neighborhood. There was a certain buzz in the air. The Friday Trolley Hops began bursting at the seams and foot traffic increased.
ReplyDeleteI see and can feel the same happening in downtown NA now only it is a cooler, more wide spread kind of vibe. I guess I'm biased since I grew up here, bought my first pair of Levi's at the Fair Store and watched "Blazing Saddles" in the Grand Theater. Thank you and your progressive minded friends for help making it happen.
Well done, Daniel S, too. Nice follow-ups in today's articles. Good Tribune day.
ReplyDeleteWell done, Daniel S, too. Nice follow-ups in today's articles.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading today's articles, those were my first thought too.
We've had a number of inconsistent statements from a number of local political leaders. The Tribune has the most value to me when I understand the story, not just reading a transcript of who said what. Today's stories were a good start; they helped me understand more about what's going on than did past stories. There are many, many areas where both council members AND members of the administration should be asked to clarify and elaborate on previous statements.
Strangely enough, I agree with both Jeff and Dan.
ReplyDeleteWhy thank you. Appreciate you reading.
ReplyDeleteDon't let it go to your head.
ReplyDeleteHoosier, don't be mad because we haven't had a chance to convert the stories into audio cassette format yet. You'll get your opportunity to divulge them in a week or so.
ReplyDeleteBy The Way, David, what happened to thos epoor people when, "When the housing projects were replaced with new mixed use housing"?
ReplyDeleteAre they still around? Do they read about New Urbanism?
jon faith said...
ReplyDeleteBy The Way, David, what happened to thos epoor people when, "When the housing projects were replaced with new mixed use housing"?
Are they still around? Do they read about New Urbanism? 6:48 PM
Jon,
I honestly don't know. I am very non-political and my comment was more toward how cool it is to see what is happening in downtown NA. I do get the feeling I'm being baited here.
I am pretty keen on pop culture questions though.
Peace.
..what happened to thos epoor people when, "When the housing projects were replaced with new mixed use housing"?
ReplyDeleteMany, Many mixed use developments today include mixed income residential. It's a growing trend. In most parts of the country, new high rise construction does not necessarily mean high income only.
"I do get the feeling I'm being baited here."
ReplyDeleteAnd that feeling is justified. Jon's been here baiting for years and years. In fact, he's so good at it that he has been voted NAC's Master Baiter of the Year every year since inception.
HA HA
Thanks for the alley-oop assist, Dave. I slammed it home.
ReplyDeleteMixed income neighborhoods is a goal of New Urbanism. I don’t know how many poor people read about urban planning. I am pretty sure a lot of them prefer mixed income neighborhoods over ghettos.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dan Chandler:
ReplyDeleteI am sure the impoversihed everywhere appreciate your stewardship and your patronizxing affectation that you, indeed, know what's best for them. Especially as the relocation endeavor has been sterile and all are privy to the wonders of mixed-use.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of what you saying. You seem to think that most of us aren't. I don't think that is true but perhaps we do lose sight of the other "side" at times.
Your ideas, please?
I'm pretty sure the government-ghetto model was also a "we know what's best" solution.
ReplyDeleteConcentrated poverty is a lose-lose for everyone, and I don't think it is patronizing to discuss mixed-income housing development just because one isn't poor.
Dan has expertise in real estate and development issues, and I want to read what he has to say. Saying he has "patronizing affection" wasn't a fair comment, as he was responding tongue-in-cheek to an earlier post.
I appreciate the pushes for context, Mark and Brandon, and especially eh impetus to look to Dan's comment from 9:54 a.m. My question lingers in the guise that what happens to those who don't find residence in the mixed-use areas? It isn't as if those efforts in Smoketown and Clarksdale have kept a majority there in the neighborhood, or am I mistaken?
ReplyDeleteI spoke to Roger this afternoon and we agreed that the "little people" don't want the impoverished next door either. There may be a predilection against diffeirng hues as well, but that isn't the issue here. We push people out of public housing in an area adjacent to a bubble of opportunity i.e. East market (in Louisville) we gladly affix the term Progress to such, and I am not arguing with the literal aspect of such.
This isn't tantamount to anything I have witnessed nor am aware of towards any downtown NA issues, that saida measure of of slef-regulation should prove prudent in any appraisal.
Brandon, please highlight the use of irony in Dan's postings, my stout intake is a likely suspect.
I am sure the impoversihed everywhere appreciate your stewardship and your patronizxing affectation that you, indeed, know what's best for them.
ReplyDeleteJon, I was very careful with my wording. I wrote that "lot of them prefer mixed income neighborhoods over ghettos." I don't presume to know what all low income people prefer. Do you think no low income person prefers mixed income over ghettos?
The nation is full of examples, good and bad, of how to replace concentrated slums with something different, and hopefully better. Louisville need not be the only example.
I will note that if you live in New Albany, it's pretty hard NOT to live in a mixed income neighborhood. It's one of the things I like about this city.
ReplyDeleteSmoketown and Clarksdale both used federal HOPE VI grants. HOPE VI began in 1992 as a New Urbanist way to replace barrack-style “projects” with New Urbanist, mixed-use, mixed income neighborhoods. At its inception, HOPE VI required one-to-one replacement of low-income units. However, this one-to-one requirement was repealed by Congress in 1998.
ReplyDeleteWhile HOPE VI is still on the books, Congress has not funded it in several years. Therefore, if new low income housing happens in New Albany, it likely will be from a funding source other than HOPE VI. New Albany has never applied for HOPE VI and I doubt we’ll ever get the chance.
Today, except for specialty programs aimed at assisted living, etc., Congress mainly looks to the Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credit for affordable housing development. As part of the stimulus package, Indiana’s annual LIHTC allotment for 2009 is triple what is normally allotted in other years. Under LIHTC, developers only receive credits for those units set side for families making no more than 60% or 50% (depending on their particular application) of the area median income. LIHTC has been used in New Albany at St. Edwards Court, various old-house-to-4-plex conversions along E. Spring, and some apartments by IUS.
I’d like to see the problem of replacing New Albany’s barrack-style “projects,” unit-for-unit, with something less concentrated. Unfortunately, no one locally is pushing for good LIHTC development, or any LIHTC development, at all. LIHTC housing can take just about any form you want. They’ve been used on a LEED certified high-rise in San Diego. They’ve been used on scattered site developments in Louisville by groups like New Directions and The Housing Partnership.
Since there’s so much LIHTC money floating around this year, and since Indiana Housing has said that this year they are giving preference to historic rehabilitation in their LIHTC allocations, I’m disappointed that no one (to my knowledge) is putting together a LIHTC application for New Albany. To get sufficient economies of scale, you need at least 24 units to do a LIHTC project. With combined LIHTC and Historic Tax Credits, a developer would need to put virtually no money into a deal; they only would have to show sufficient financial strength to backstop the deal if something unexpected happened.
A New Albany project could be 30 new units at the Moser Tannery, it could be 24 rehabbed shotguns scattered around town, or it could be six 4-plexes. When you take LIHTC, HUD watches the property very closely for 15 to 30 years (again, depending on the project). It’s much better rental housing that one typically finds in New Albany; all HUD guidelines for construction, lead paint, etc., must be met. Groups like New Directions and Housing Partnership consult on putting these applications together. Someone just has to roll up their sleeves and make it happen.
As a side note, in our New Markets Tax Credit application, which is aimed at mixed-use development, I specified that we would set aside 20% of new housing units for those making no more than 60% of the area median income. Therefore, if we receive the NMTCs, and all the credits are used on new development along the Main St., you’ll see new affordable housing in places where there is no affordable housing today.
thank you. I found that rather informative.
ReplyDeleteThat how I read 11:15pm response to 6:48pm, but that's the problem with trying to read context and motive into blog posts. In the end, good discussion.
ReplyDeleteThat's how I read the 11:15am response to the 6:48pm post, but this all highlights the need to give the benefit of the doubt when trying to read motive and inflection into blog posts. I know Dan, which is why I knew he didn't intend to patronize.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, good discussion.
As mayor, I am supposed to look after the maintenance of the rural
ReplyDeleteroads; as a poet, I like them better neglected - Jules Renard