Comments
Ristray t1_iz18s4n wrote
Whoever gets a place there is going to be so lucky, there's like 6 bus lines that all go past there.
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz1agef wrote
>The development would be just more than half a mile away from Kennedy Plaza, 0.2 miles from the bus stop in front of the Providence Public Library and a few hundred feet from the bus stops on West Franklin and Westminster streets, which are served by Bus Lines 17, 18, 19 and 31, Shaw said. The development would also be about a mile from the train station.
Ristray t1_iz2myg5 wrote
Not sure why they're leaving out 27 & 28 on Broadway. Those are still damn close for the average person to walk to in about 5 minutes.
D-camchow t1_iz18h9d wrote
Looks good. Decent density, hopefully they go for the plan with less parking and keep the promise to get those trees up. Hope this goes through! Washington around that area is so depressing.
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz14ioe wrote
Current plans (linked in article) call for more parking, which the developer needs to submit an application to RI Housing by January, but future plans would reduce the amount of parking involved.
Nice area too: Bayberry, Slow Rhode, Moniker, Beer on Earth, Y Noodle & Bar, the new Y Shabu Shabu, the ice cream place.
Didn't make it into the article: Building can be so dense/tall only because it's affordable. Market rate building wouldn't have been allowed that density.
Link is in the article, but here's what 60% of AMI looks like:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22060608-fy-22-hud-income-limits#document/p1/a2115177
OctoberRust13 t1_iz1blxa wrote
in 2022, what does "Affordable" mean to you guys?
​
I'd say:
​
Studio: $800/mo
​
1BR: $1000/mo
​
2BR: $1300/mo
​
3BR: $1500/mo
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz1d3sr wrote
It's tied to being house burdened (30% of income on rent) at 60% AMI, although utilities factor into it too.
Here's a spreadsheet that breaks down wage/hour, /month, /year, and what 30% is per year/month.
Second tab has what 60% AMI is, what 30% is/month.
AMI table:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22060608-fy-22-hud-income-limits#document/p1/a2115177
aKnowing t1_iz1kx6v wrote
I’d say that’s adorable if those prices include any utilities. I’d consider those fair prices for sure but affordable should range 1-200 less up to the prices you suggest
412gage t1_iz3cu44 wrote
It depends. I'm from PA and work in affordable housing. Sometimes the developer will foot the entire utility bill but, most of the time it's the tenant paying into what's called a utility allowance which is a fixed amount.
The total of the tenant-paid rent and utility allowance has to fall under HUD's limits on the specific rents in a certain area.
[deleted] t1_iz1nwef wrote
[deleted]
Educational_Leg36 t1_iz1zk2h wrote
Cut that all by half
Jmac3366 t1_iz3jf1q wrote
Not the 90s anymore lol can’t get an apt for 400$ in providence
Educational_Leg36 t1_iz3jkot wrote
Yes but the question was "what's affordable to you guys?"
Don't know why I'm getting down voted when that's what I can afford lol
bigavz t1_iz2grwo wrote
Move to Kentucky
Educational_Leg36 t1_iz38s2h wrote
What wrong with cheaper rent?
Tortankum t1_iz2adg6 wrote
A couple working minimum wage jobs makes 4k a month and the 2br is prettt much exactly 1/3. Seems reasonable.
HistorianOk142 t1_iz1xtnp wrote
Why is everything they build that’s supposedly ‘affordable’ for anyone making under 60-70% AMI? I mean why can’t they build these affordable units for people making slightly over that? Seems like the poorest part of the market is being served and the high end of the market is being served but, when it comes to affordable for middle class that is NOT being served and or looked at and considered! Why??? Makes no sense.
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz208ej wrote
Superman building will have rents for those in the 80-120% AMI range. But also, that's being protested because it serves the upper echelons.
I can't find any stories where I've quoted state officials recently, but the state uses the term "workforce housing" to refer to 80-120% AMI.
This development in Warwick is in the 80% range.
bpear t1_iz3e9qb wrote
What you are talking about is called workforce housing. A lot of new developments in Providence do have that. It's for those who make 120% of the median income or less (around $83k annually)
The New Paragon Mill development has that for example and they start at $1350 for a one bedroom.
The new building by trader Joe's has them as well. $1600 for a 1 bedroom if you qualify.
Westminster lofts has some workforce units. They had a 1000sq foot unit posted recently for $1710 right downtown.
This building as well https://www.uptonpvd.com/
It's worth emailing any of the new buildings to see if they have workforce housing. I emailed emblem125 (new building downtown) to check and they are offering them too.
Locksmith-Pitiful t1_iz2ivba wrote
Waiting for everyone to come out to voice against this because "muh parking", "it'll attract homeless and poor people", and "this is horrible for business."
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz73lta wrote
you're probably going to be waiting a while.
Locksmith-Pitiful t1_iz76nk1 wrote
Na... I'll go to any community meeting and there will be a ton of NIMBYs.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz7986u wrote
who's gonna complain about this? the highway?
Locksmith-Pitiful t1_iz79lcj wrote
You'd be surprised by Providence and Rhode Island residents. The ones against this shit are often the loudest and show up in droves.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz1f9no wrote
is the dude still living in the winnebago in the back corner of that lot?
Dr-Stink-Stank t1_iz25yqi wrote
Like, Lebowski?
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz279s8 wrote
i never really got what was going on. Just noticed a dude (or more people) in a winnebago that seemed to have set up shop in the back corner of that lot.
huron9000 t1_iz1ez9z wrote
Any renderings?
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz1kzos wrote
huron9000 t1_iz2esdb wrote
Thanks
SonOfBaldy t1_iz1xlmw wrote
Hasn't this been a co sideration for a while? I thought I heard about this a couple years ago?
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz5orx0 wrote
Everything I heard/was told was, this is new. First hearing before planning is next week I believe and this was the first public meeting of any kind.
logicalsuicidee t1_iz4qnvq wrote
Nice
the_falconator t1_iz63bzo wrote
Hopefully it doesn't turn out like advent apartments next door but I'm not optimistic.
tbsynaptic t1_iz4y2ta wrote
This place will turn into a drug and gang infested shit hole within months.
I feel bad for those visiting Federal Hill for a good time and are victimized by whatever dwells in this place.
Tortankum t1_iz1o1fn wrote
What does it mean to build new “affordable” housing? Does it mean it’s poorly built and looks like shit without modern appliances or something?
Because anything newly built in this area will not be affordable when it’s competing against 80 year old tenement houses.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz1orcm wrote
It means it is subsidized and owned by the government with rents capped at a certain amount well below market value.
Nothing about the statement assumes the quality/aesthetics/appliances have to be poor. It's kind of odd you would even assume that.
cowperthwaite OP t1_iz37vct wrote
It's not owned by the government. It's subsidized through grants and low-interest financing, and the units will be deed restricted for 30 years as affordable.
However: Dude (tortankum) should have read the article. It's not behind a paywall. No reason not to.
412gage t1_iz3d83n wrote
I think many people hear the term "affordable housing" without knowing what it means so they draw conclusions. Projects funded through the LIHTC program, in my state at least, are being built to very good quality for the tenants. Of course, it depends on the developers and the Agency processing the applications.
Tortankum t1_iz1sf5w wrote
Because I didn’t know the rent was capped. Because if it wasn’t, there’s no shot these would be affordable as you acknowledged.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz247h3 wrote
I would've gone off the link, the other comments, or maybe the use of the extremely common and specific phrase "affordable housing" which usually applies to income-based properties that are specifically subsidized by government.
Tortankum t1_iz29a91 wrote
Ty for being extremely condescending. The link does not mention government mandated rent caps, and the phrase “affordable housing” does not automatically mean there are rent caps.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_iz2b61w wrote
Affordable housing is pretty specific term that wasn't invented today.
Like, why would they be asking RI Housing for approval and funding if that wasn't a factor? Very specific rents are cited and a spreadsheet of qualified income ranges
Tortankum t1_iz2bbon wrote
Thank you for continuing to be extremely condescending.
boop-snoot-boogie t1_iz154nt wrote
Yes - build literally anything on top of surface parking lots, especially affordable housing.