Suburbanization, flight from crime, racism and other factors cost the city thousands of residents since the 1950s, but more was at play downtown. Ironically, the 52-story Terminal Tower was part of the Cleveland Union Terminal project that displaced 20,000 people from a corner of Public Square in the 1920s. Other city renewal and beautification efforts displaced more people. By the 1980s, downtown population dwindled to 9,000.

That's when the idea of boosting population to revitalize downtown took hold, first to occupy empty warehouse buildings and later to replace obsolete office space. A handful of people had taken up residence in The Bradley Building in the 1970s to make it the first residential loft between New York and Chicago. In 1987, an affiliate of Independence-based Dalad Group installed 30 suites in The Hat Factory, 1235 W. Sixth St., to take renovations to a grander scale.

However, turning visions of downtown living into reality took creating a track record.

Bob Rains, a partner with the Carney family in downtown apartment concern Landmark Management, recalled the difficulties in 1992 when it undertook its first rehab project, converting three buildings into the Grand Arcade, at 408 W. St. Clair Ave., which is now condominiums.

"No one wanted to make the loan for the project," Rains said. "No one wanted to buy the equity for the federal historic tax credits."

Breakthroughs came from several quarters, such as the carpenters union pension fund, and redirecting funds from unused federal Urban Development Action Grants helped finance pioneering projects.

Patience paid off.

"Once we had 200 units downtown, it took off," Rains said.

Go here to see the original:
Crain's Cleveland Look Back: Apartment boom was decades in the making - Crain's Cleveland Business

Love Philly? Sign up for the free Billy Penn email newsletter to get everything you need to know about Philadelphia, every day.

Critics of the proposed Sixers arena on the waterfront have been vocal from the moment the Inquirer broke news about the potential project near Penns Landing on the Delaware River.

Philadelphians from seemingly every corner of the city have expressed concerns that range from issues with awarding public subsidies to the teams billionaire owners to complaints over a potential influx of traffic along a stretch thats just starting to become walkable after years of effort.

While often controversial, downtown sports arenas are on the rise across the country. Some 45 U.S. cities have seen new stadium construction or major renovation since the turn of the millennium, per a 2016 Brookings Institution study, with a total cost of $28 billion.

Results have been mixed. Government officials and sports franchises tout economic benefits that dont always deliver. Public financing of professional sports stadiums which made up half the money spent in the Brookings study and is already contentious looks even more precarious at a time when city budgets have been capsized by the coronavirus.

The 76ers have been courting state and local officials for some time, but the deal is far from set in stone, as the team is one of four bidders in the running for the parcel. A decision is reportedly coming by the end of September from the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation, the quasi-public entity that oversees the district.

One thing that makes the Sixers proposal stand out is its price tag: $4 billion.

That would make it one of the most expensive NBA arena projects in the nation by a lot. Over the past two decades, this kind of venture has been financed anywhere from $200k at the low end to over $1 billion.

These widely fluctuating costs are largely due to varying scope. Its become increasingly common for stadium construction to also include mixed-use buildings, often packaged as part of a larger entertainment district.

The Sixers proposal is of that ilk. Beyond retail and commercial offerings in apartment buildings erected near the prospective arena, the teams ownership suggests building a new public school and new homes for the Independence Seaport Museum and African American History Museum. As Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron noted, franchise owners Josh Harris and David Blitzers company is vying for development rights for a mile-long stretch of the Delaware waterfront.

The stadium as its own neighborhood creator is an idea thats been floated in Philadelphia before. In other cities, its actually been executed so we can look to those projects as examples of what might or might not pan out should the 76ers get approved.

Heres a partial list of other NBA basketball teams that have recently built stadiums downtown, including the cost, the financing, the public outcry, and the economic impact of the projects.

Name: Chase Stadium

Year opened: 2019

Owner: Golden State Warriors

Construction cost: $500 million

Financing: Privately financed. Chase Bank paid $300 million for a 20-year lease on naming rights to the stadium.

Neighborhood style: On the bay waterfront, near Oracle Park and a hospital complex in the Mission.

Commentary: The stadium construction was met with sizable opposition from community and neighborhood groups, who noted it would also come with a hotel and luxury condos. Opponents depicted it as a traffic nightmare that would also destroy the waterfront view, altering the fabric of surrounding residential neighborhoods. As will likely happen with the Sixers proposal, critics said the project was being pushed by two billionaires, neither of whom lives here, according to SF Gate.

Economic impact: As the stadiums owners, the Warriors made $2 billion in ticket sales before the arena even opened, which includes concert ticket revenue.

Name: Little Caesars Arena

Year opened: 2017

Owner: Detroits Downtown Development Authority, which leases it to a combined NHL-NBA franchise parent company. The Pistons began playing here the 2017-8 season.

Construction cost: Projected at $862 million for the entire district ($932 million adjusted for inflation); eventually exceeded $1.2 billion.

Financing: Nearly 60% funded by tax dollars

Neighborhood style: A 50-block area known as the District Detroit, which includes mixed-use retail and residential.

Commentary: The public financing of the project sparked public outrage, including a lawsuit that sought to block the construction from using school property tax dollars without voter approval. Moving the Pistons also signalled the first time all four of Detroits major league sports teams would play close to the downtown, the Detroit News reported.

Economic impact: The construction phase employed some 12,500 people. Urban planners, government officials and business stakeholders said the stadium generated over $1.5 billion in new economic investment in its first year.

Name: Golden 1 Center

Owner: City of Sacramento

Year opened: 2016

Construction cost: $558 million

Financing: Kings owners financed roughly half of the cost of the project, while the Sacramento City Council approved municipal bonds to cover the rest, with some additional economic stimulus grants filling in the gaps.

Neighborhood style: Downtown grid area along the Sacramento River, mostly commercial and government buildings prior to the stadium.

Commentary: Concerns around the rising construction costs over two years of construction came up frequently. The final cost was roughly $50 million more than first projected.

Economic impact: Three years after it broke ground, the Downtown Sacramento Partnership reported a 38% increase in jobs in the citys downtown area, as well as dozens of new retailers and other businesses, according to the New York Times.

Name: Barclays Center

Owner: New York State, via an umbrella organization

Year opened: 2012

Construction cost: Over $1 billion

Financing: More than half from tax-exempt bonds, as the building was to be publicly owned. Barclays Bank also paid $200 million for naming rights.

Neighborhood style: Part of a 17-building retail and residential project called Pacific Park in Prospect Heights thats directly adjacent to downtown Brooklyn.

Commentary: Some Brooklyn residents made careers out of their opposition to the stadium construction, news reports quipped at the time. Most controversially, the city used eminent domain to condemn, seize and acquire privately owned property for the project.

Economic impact: The stadium did not turn out to be an immediate financial success as its stakeholders predicted. Barclays continued to lose money in the first three years of its operation. The pandemic has stymied any potential reversal of that trend, but even so, the complex lost less money in the first half of 2020 than the year prior.

Name: Spectrum Center

Owner: City of Charlotte

Year opened: 2005

Construction cost: $260 million ($340 million with inflation)

Financing: All publicly funded

Neighborhood style: The First Ward of the financial district (here called Uptown) was once relatively barren, but these days is full of entertainment and some historic renovation.

Commentary: The former Charlotte Coliseum was only 13 years old when the city of Charlotte pitched a new stadium for the basketball team. In 2001, the city put a $342 million spending package on the ballot for voters to decide and despite poll support, voters rejected those early plans. Opponents cited concerns about living wages in the city at the time, arguing the citys priorities were out of place.

Economic impact: Boosters noted the stadium also hosted major basketball events that brought in hundreds of millions in estimated economic impact.

Name: American Airlines Center

Owner: City of Dallas

Year opened: 2001

Construction cost: $420 million ($606 million with inflation)

Financing: Taxpayers approved two new taxes to fund the stadium a hotel tax and a rental car tax. The Mavericks and the Dallas Stars, which shared the stadium, agreed to pick up the rest.

Neighborhood style: Promises of revitalization in the planned Victory Park district lagged despite stadium construction, but two decades later there are signs of things picking up.

Commentary: In the late 1990s, Dallas City Hall feuded over the use of tax dollars to fund the Mavs new home. The brawl divided along familiar lines: Opponents said the city shouldnt front the money for a development that would directly benefit the teams billionaire owners, who were threatening to take both the team out of the city. City lawmakers narrowly approved $140 million in bonds to finance the stadium, which were backed by the hotel room and rental car levies.

Economic impact: Dallas paid off much of the bond debt by 2011, earlier than expected, the Dallas Morning News reported.

Name: State Farm Arena, formerly the Phillips Arena

Year opened: 1999

Owner: Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority

Construction cost: $328 million adjusted for inflation, plus nearly $200 million for renovations in recent years.

Financing: The city funded about 90% of the stadium costs through bonds and a $2.50 rental car tax to help finance construction.

Neighborhood style: In the middle of Centennial Park District, built around the 1996 Olympics, next to downtown offices (including CNN) and attractions like the aquarium and Coca-Cola Museum.

Commentary: The project was a replacement for Atlantas 70s-era arena, the Omni Coliseum. The rental tax projected to raise $1 billion over 30 years was challenged in court after being implemented in 2000.

Economic impact: Twenty years after its construction, the rental tax was also used to bankroll major renovations to the area. That arrangement could now hurt the citys bond rating as car rentals plummet during the pandemic.

Name: Capital One Arena

Year opened: 1997

Owner: Monumental Sports & Entertainment

Construction cost: $260 million ($436 million with inflation)

Financing: Construction was privately financed, but the D.C. government gave the team plenty of perks, including a property tax exemption, $70 million worth of below-market rent for the land and millions more in low-interest municipal loans for renovations.

Neighborhood style: Between Chinatown and Penn Quarter, a buzzy retail area full of bars and entertainment.

Commentary: Originally called the Verizon Center, the new arena brought the Wizards back into the city from their home court USAir Arena in the D.C. suburbs.

Economic impact: The Downtown D.C., a business improvement district, said there billions in new real estate investment came to the Chinatown area near the stadium in the years after it opened. However, the organization noted this redevelopment would have happened without the stadium anyway, but the Verizon Center accelerated the redevelopment of surrounding areas by seven to 10 years.

Name: AmericanAirlines Arena

Year opened: 1999

Owner: Miami-Dade County

Construction cost: $213 million ($337 million with inflation)

Financing: This is one of the more unique arrangements in big city stadium construction because the Miami Heat privately financed the construction. How? Because the city gave them $38 million in land for free, with a promised $6.5 million in annual subsidies.

Neighborhood style: Along the bay waterfront in one of the few really walkable, tourist attraction-filled areas of non-South Beach downtown.

Commentary: The city also orchestrated a profit-sharing agreement with the Heat, but it wasnt until 2013 that the stadium went into the black. Even then, the city only saw a sliver of money, while the team kept asking for higher tax breaks.

Economic impact: It took years to find profitability, but the stadiums boosters tout billions in economic churn for the city. American Airlines moved to end its naming rights contract with the city last year, but its still called that until a new sponsor can be courted and government-approved.

Name: Bankers Life Fieldhouse

Year opened: 1999

Owner: City of Indianapolis

Construction cost: $183 million ($283 million with inflation)

Financing: About a quarter from public funding and the rest a mix of private funding sources

Neighborhood style: In the heart of the downtown business district, with residential buildings now popping up.

Economic impact: As in other cities, the Fieldhouse has proven a popular event venue in Indianapolis. Research commissioned by the Pacers showed the stadium drew $370 million in combined revenue in 2018. Last year, the city agreed to spend an additional $365 million to renovate the aging facility. The Pacers would kick in $65 million, and the city would not propose any new taxes on residents, according to the Business Journal.

Name: Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse

Year opened: 1994

Owner: Gateway Economic Development Corp, a quasi-governmental entity that leases the stadium to Cavs ownership

Construction cost: $100 million ($192 million adjusted for inflation)

Financing: The Gateway complex was largely funded by an alcohol and tobacco tax narrowly approved by voters in 1990

Neighborhood style: Part of a larger entertainment district called the Gateway Sports and Entertainment Complex, which also Indians ballpark Progressive Field

Commentary: Backers said the complex could draw an additional 2 million people to downtown Cleveland each year, according to the New York Times, and boost its potential to host conventions. That was enough to finally sell the public on the project; an earlier, similar proposal had failed to gain support for nearly a decade.

Economic impact: A 1999 study found the area surrounding the stadium complex did see substantial physical redevelopment, with a variety of other buildings and projects constructed.

Read more from the original source:
Would a Sixers arena work on the Philly waterfront? Here's how other cities fared - Billy Penn

Fill in the Gaps: Infill Architecture in Urban Residual Spaces

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Whatsapp

Mail

Or

In all cities around the world, there are some forms of residual space, forgotten pieces of the urban fabric, remnants of overlapping layers of past development. This land whose conditions make it unsuitable for most types of conventional construction might be a fertile ground for architectural invention. Assigning a new value to vacant corner lots, dead-end alleys and strangely shaped plots opens up a new field of opportunities for inward urban development, expanding available living space and increasing amenities in densely populated cities. The following explores the potential for experiment and urban activation held by urban leftover space.

Infill architecture usually refers to the re-dedication of undeveloped land to new construction, and it circumscribes a variety of scales, approaches and typologies. Viewed by some as a means to counteract the urban sprawl, making use of existing infrastructure and by others as a decrease in potential public space and possible overloading of urban services, infill architecture is a debatable and nuanced topic. However, for a variety of reasons, from densifying urban centres to restoring coherence to the urban fabric, the underlying potential of residual urban spaces is a subject of great interest. In light of the rising urban population and high value of land in cities, it is worth examining different ideas, urban initiatives and projects that could paint a comprehensive picture of the infill architecture phenomenon.

It seems fitting to start the discussion on infill architecture by mentioning the Japanese creativity and lack of inhibition when it comes to making the most out of a hyper-condensed urban environment. Projects such the Love House by Takeshi Hosaka Architects, the House in Nada by FujiwaraMuro Architects, or Hideyuki Nakayama Architecture's O House are just a few examples of a distinct architecture that carefully maximizes the potential of every inch of space.

The appeal of small houses in Japan is the result of a mixture of local conditions, such as property prices, high taxes and most of all, land scarcity. In these particular circumstances, experimenting with presumably unbuildable spaces extends beyond residential projects, as is the case of SO&CO's multi-storey retail and office building in Ginza. Atelier Bow-Wow calls these spatial typologies Pet Architecture, as they denote a certain playfulness in inhabiting leftover urban areas. The studio's 'Pet Architecture guide book', through its catalogue of highly pragmatic and inventive micro-projects, creates an exciting overview of the possibilities held by residual urban spaces, in Tokyo and elsewhere.

Rising urban density and high land prices are incentives for the use of non-conventional sites in cities all around the world. The architectural phenomenon dubbed skinny house is the most common type of contemporary infill, with projects occupying narrow strips of land, usually between buildings. The spatial typology is not a new one, having precedents in medieval European cities. However, the unconventional contemporary projects resulted from these site constraints rendered the phenomenon widely popular in recent years. Filling the gap between two buildings in a historic urban fabric, Gwendolyn Huisman's and Marijn Boterman's SkinnySCAR illustrates the common traits of skinny houses: the soft division of different living spaces, incorporating additional functions to the stairwell, as well as carefully curating natural light.

If the skinny house is the consequence of a very narrow plot, some of the most interesting infill projects creatively make use of more unexpected urban residual spaces. Dutch practice Kuhne&Co's studio on Boomgaardstraat in Rotterdam was built on a narrow strip of land and floats on stilts over a parking lot. The 54-metre-long volume is only five metres deep and contains office space, a workshop and the architects' dwelling. Another one of Kuhne&Co's designs, an apartment and office space, hovers above the entrance to a delivery yard, with the ground level plot just big enough to host a concrete volume containing the entrance and a staircase.

On numerous occasions, the infrastructure projects of the past century caused urban rifts and created discontinuities in the urban fabric in the shape of odd leftover spaces. The apartment building XS House designed by ISA sits on one of these residual spaces resulted from the development of Vine Street Expressway in Philadelphia. Through its compact layout and clever use of split level apartments, the project reclaims a residual space formerly used as a parking lot, adding urban density and patching the urban fabric.

Looking at the subject from a broader perspective, it is worth reviewing how the idea of reclaiming residual spaces fits into urban policy. In 2012, Rotterdam's municipality initiated a program called Klein&Fijn (translating to Small& Beautiful), tasking Studio Hartzema with the charting of all the empty residual plots in the city centre that could host new developments. The research unveiled hundreds of sites that could accommodate small-scale projects, with the potential to enrich the urban structure of Rotterdam by 3 million square meters. Consequently, the municipality of Rotterdam developed a special permitting process for this kind of designs, and architectuur maken's house project is a result of this policy.

With few exceptions, leftover sites are used predominantly for residential projects, that is if they receive permission to be developed at all. Broadening both the array of reclaimed residual urban spaces, as well as the architectural programs that can occupy them, requires more flexible and dynamic urban planning. The subject of infill architecture has many nuances, but in all its abundance of shapes and sizes, the phenomenon represents a re-economization of urban spaces and is worth considering as a strategy for inward development.

This article is part of the ArchDaily Topic: Tiny. Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and projects. Learn more about our monthly topics here. As always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us.

See the rest here:
Fill in the Gaps: Infill Architecture in Urban Residual Spaces - ArchDaily

04 September 2020

Holman Webb

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Two new laws have been passed to restore public confidence inthe NSW building industry and to stop 'dodgy' builders anddevelopers.

The laws are part of the reforms promised by the NSW governmentin order to improve the quality of construction and provide betterprotections for consumers against non-compliance within thebuilding sector.

The recently appointed NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler OAM will lead theimplementation of the new laws, and will focus on theinvestigation and audit strategies.

NSW Government Fair Trading states on its website that thisAct:

The key reforms in the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020, as passedby Parliament, are:

The duty of care provisions in the Act started on 10 June2020.

The majority of the remaining reforms in the Act will start on 1July 2021, as regulations need to be developed to support theiroperation. Fair Trading state that these regulations will bedeveloped throughout 2020 and will be subject to publicconsultation.

NSW Government Fair Trading states on its website that thisAct:

These obligations apply to Class 2 buildings, and buildingsincluding a Class 2 component. These are typically multi-storey,multi-unit apartment buildings.

The key reforms in the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and EnforcementPowers) Act 2020, include:

From 1 September 2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Real Estate and Construction from Australia

Here is the original post:
New South Wales building industry reforms - Real Estate and Construction - Australia - Mondaq News Alerts

Calum Weaver with 2101 Normandy Drive, Miami Beach, 3555 Northwest 83rd Avenue, Doral, 1442 Northeast Miami Court, Miami, and 937 Southwest Fifth Street, Miami (Credit: Google Maps)

Multifamily sales declined 50 percent during the first half of the year, according to a mid-year report and forecast by Cushman & Wakefield.

Total sales volume for 2020 could also fall by half, compared to last year, as the economic effects of Covid-19 linger, the report shows.

Ninety-one multifamily projects sold in South Florida during the first six months of the year for a total of $1 billion in sales. Most of the activity was for buildings less than $20 million.That $1 billion in total sales is a 50 percent decrease year over year.

Most of the sales were in Broward County, which saw a total of $443 million from 39 apartment deals. Deals averaged $152,064 a unit or $228 a square foot. Volume was down 27 percent from 2019s first half.

Among the three South Florida counties, Palm Beach saw the largest decrease in sales volume in the first half of the year compared to the same period of 2019. Sales totaled $180 million across 15 deals, a 58 percent drop.

Miami-Dade multifamily deals fell 20 percent, year-over-year, to $382 million.

The region experienced some milestones, according to Cushman & Wakefields report, authored by Callum Weaver. Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties surpassed $200,000 a unit in sales for the first time. And Broward and Palm Beach saw record sales per square foot: $250 for Palm Beach and $228 for Broward.

Sales in Miami-Dade included investor Marc Shulmans May sale of an apartment building in Miami Beachs Normandy Isles to a family office from France for $9.25 million.

In March, The Related Group, Shoma Group and PGIM Real Estate Investors sold The Flats Apartments at CityPlace Doral for $100 million.

That same month, BrickOne Group, led by Costantino Cicchelli, Frank Rodriguez Melo and Stefano Garofoli, paid $6.1 million for the 30-unit building at 1442 Northeast Miami Court in Miamis Arts & Entertainment District and the 18-unit building at 937 Southwest Fifth Street in Miamis Little Havana.

Rents

South Florida multifamily rents held through July, despite local unemployment reaching 11.3 percent, or 320,000 people, according to the report. All three counties saw higher rents in 2020s first half compared to the same period last year.

However, quarter-over-quarter, asking rents decreased in all three counties. Palm Beach County saw the largest quarterly drop at 1.7 percent in the second quarter, reaching $1,589. Thats the highest countywide asking rent in South Florida. Miami-Dade had the lowest with $1,519.

Among submarkets, Coral Gables had the largest decrease in asking rent, 4.6 percent, reaching $1,988, or $2.35 a square foot.

Quarter-over-quarter, Miramar had the highest uptick in asking rent of 3.2 percent in the second quarter, reaching $1,326, or $1.48 a square foot. The lowest rent in South Florida is in Belle Glade, with an asking rent of $715, or 90 cents a square foot.

Deliveries and vacancies

South Florida saw the delivery of 7,500 new multifamily units during 2020s first half. In the second quarter, most of the new deliveries were in Fort Lauderdale with 1,836 units, followed by the Doral area with 1,297.

Newly delivered apartment units pushed vacancy rates in the first half of the year to 5.5 percent, up from 4.9 percent during 2019s first half, according to the report.

Broward and Miami-Dade saw record high vacancy rates in 2020s second quarter. Browards hit 6.5 percent, coming off the first quarters record low of 5 percent. Fort Lauderdale had the highest rate in the county. The Miramar area showed the lowest in the county.

Miami-Dade hit 5.2 percent. The highest vacancy rate in the county was in Coral Gables and the lowest in Westchester.

Palm Beachs vacancy rate reached 7 percent, with the highest rate in Belle Glade at 21 percent and the lowest in outlying Palm Beach County at 3.4 percent.

Another 7,500 units are scheduled for delivery later this year on par with Berkadias pre-Covid 2020 forecast from February. That should continue to lead to higher vacancies, most notably among class A buildings and in urban markets, according to Cushman & Wakefield.

A record 28,000 units are under construction overall in South Florida, with most of the units in Miami-Dade County about 14,000 units across 63 apartment buildings. By submarket, most of the construction is in Miamis Brickell area, with 7,228 units under construction. Its followed by Fort Lauderdale, with about 5,000 units under construction.

In January, Magellan Development Group launched preleasing for its latest Midtown Miami apartment building, adding nearly 450 rentals to the market.

That same month, leasing began for Park-Line Miami in Overtown, part of the mixed-use development that is home to MiamiCentral.

In June, Alluvion Las Olas began accepting applications for pre-leasing at the 380-unit, 43-story luxury high-rise on the New River.

See the original post here:
South Florida multifamily sales fell 50% in first half of year: report - The Real Deal

The affordable apartment at 2003 Aldrich Ave. was demolished Sept. 1 by a developer that acquired the building after being sued for damaging it. Randolph Street Realty Capital plans to build a 47-unit market-rate apartment on the site. Photo by Rachel Usher

Randolph Street Realty Capital has demolished a Lowry Hill East apartment building that it was sued for damaging. The building, razed on Sept. 1, held 25 affordable units until 2018 when it was badly cracked in a botched construction job and residents were forced to vacate, some ending up in homeless shelters.

Chicago-based Randolph Street acquired the building, at 2003 Aldrich Ave., in March after settling the lawsuit. The firm, which never publicly disclosed the cost of repairing the building, now has plans to construct a 47-unit market-rate apartment on the site.

The demolition is a disappointment for neighbors and affordable housing activists who had been mobilizing to save the building.

A crowd of about 100 protesters marched from Mueller Park to the four-story brick building on the corner of Franklin & Lyndale on Aug. 20, holding big yellow signs reading, Welcome to Lowry Hill East Neighborhood! Home of Naturally Occurring Profitable Housing!

Alicia Gibson, board president of the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association (LHENA), asked the crowd to demand a change in Randolph Streets plans and to demand that the city devise an alternate strategy for preserving affordable housing at 2003 Aldrich Ave.

They keep telling us these shenanigans are legal, she said. They need to fix that loophole now. If people can come in and damage affordable housing, buy it from their own malfeasance, tear it down and put in market-rate and higher housing, then that should terrify anyone in this city who cares about housing justice.

Council President Lisa Bender, who represents the area, has said the situation is unbelievably frustrating but that the city cannot deny a wrecking permit on subjective grounds.

Activist Toussaint Morrison, a co-organizer of the rally, said the city was allowing gentrification.

We could have bought this right here, cleaned it up and made it for the people. This could have housed people! he said. You are turning away brown, Black, poor neglected people willingly.

Wedge resident Nick Sanford said he lives in a similar century-old brick building to 2003 Aldrich. I think they should be preserved, he said.

The march, led by the groups On Site Public Media and Communities United Against Police Brutality, also stopped outside Benders home in Lowry Hill East, with protesters criticizing Bender for not being responsive to constituents and not doing enough to reign in the Minneapolis Police Department before George Floyd was killed.

The Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association has vowed to oppose any development project on the 2003 Aldrich site that doesnt include at least 25 apartment units affordable to people making less than 50% of the area median income. In addition, the organization is requesting a review by the city attorney to ensure proper changes are made to prevent this from ever happening again. The organization has published a call to action on its website.

Read the original post:
Cracked affordable apartment demolished in the Wedge - Southwest Journal

An apartment builder that has developed projects in central Dallas is making the jump to the north side of U.S. Highway 380 in Denton County.

Developer ZOM Living plans to build a 378-unit rental community near the corner of U.S. 380 and FM1385 in Aubrey.

The rental community will be just west of the Windsong Ranch community and is near where the PGA of America is building its headquarters and golf courses.

Called Mezzo, the apartment project is being built by ZOM in partnership with Civitas Capital Group. The first units are set to open in the third quarter of 2021.

Our Mezzo site is convenient to an expanding array of retail and entertainment venues, excellent schools, and the highest concentration of suburban corporate employers in the state of Texas, Jason Haun, ZOMs Development vice president, said in a statement. With Mezzo, we will bring a new level of quality, unit features and amenities to this growing submarket north of Dallas.

Synovus Bank financed construction, and Stanford Construction is the general contractor. The architect for the project is JHP.

Mezzo is the latest in a series of apartment projects in the U.S. 380 corridor west of the Dallas North Tollway. That area is seeing widespread residential and retail growth.

Based in Orlando, Fla., ZOM has done multiple projects in North Texas. It is building a 41-story high-rise in downtown Dallas Arts District that will open starting later this year. ZOM also just completed a 376-unit rental community in McKinney.

We are excited to break ground on our seventh project in the Dallas market and 12th project overall in Texas, Greg West, ZOMs chief executive officer, said in a statement.

See original here:
New apartments are in the works on U.S. 380 in Denton County - The Dallas Morning News

NEW YORK, June 18, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --CIT Group Inc.(NYSE: CIT) today announced that its Real Estate Financebusiness provided a $35.9 million senior secured loan for construction of a new 183-unit apartment building in Stamford, Connecticut.

The project, a joint venture between Fields Grade Development and Alpine Residential, is located on Canal Street in Stamford, within walking distance of several large employers. The site is also a short distance from the Metro North railway, providing easy access to Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan and other stops along the New York-Connecticut rail corridor.

"This financing helps advance our plan to construct an attractive multifamily residential building with ground-floor retail space and other associated amenities in a premier Stamford location," said Rob Caulfield of Fields Grade Development. "We appreciated CIT's agility and expertise in developing the right financing package while overcoming the challenges of doing business during the COVID-19 pandemic."

"We're excited to contribute to the realization of this top-quality residential project in a highly desirable area," said William Rosato of Alpine Residential. "We are pleased to collaborate with Fields Grade Development and CIT in moving this project forward to a successful completion."

"This project is a great fit for our portfolio of projects in major metropolitan areas," said Chris Niederpruem, managing director and group head for CIT's Real Estate Finance business. "We are pleased to open a relationship with Fields Development and Alpine Residential in supporting this project, which we are confident will be an attractive residential property for the long term."

CIT's Real Estate Financebusiness, part of the Commercial Financedivision, originates and underwrites senior secured real estate transactions. With deep market expertise, underwriting experience and industry relationships, the group provides financing for single properties, property portfolios and loan portfolios.

About CIT CIT is a leading national bank focused on empowering businesses and personal savers with the financial agility to navigate their goals. CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT) is a financial holding company with over a century of experience and operates a principal bank subsidiary, CIT Bank, N.A. (Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender). The company's commercial banking segment includes commercial financing, community association banking, middle market banking, equipment and vendor financing, factoring, railcar financing, treasury and payments services, and capital markets and asset management. CIT's consumer banking segment includes a national direct bank and regional branch network. Discover more at cit.com/about.

MEDIA RELATIONS:John M. Moran212-461-5507[emailprotected]

SOURCE CIT Group Inc.

http://www.cit.com

Read the original here:
CIT Provides $35.9 Million in Financing for Construction of Apartment Building - PRNewswire

People in a west-endneighbourhood will get a chance tonight to express their opinion ona controversialbuilding project that will bring 44 people experiencing homelessness and low-income individuals to the community.

At issue is the future of a vacant lot near Dundas Street West and DovercourtRoad where the Toronto Police Service 14 Division station once stood, on Harrison Street.

Local residents say they'd been led to believe13 single-family homes were slated for the lot. But that plan was scuttled earlier this month when council voted to fast-track the construction ofa modular 44-unitbuilding instead.

Scheduled to be ready for September, the building is to be reserved for people experiencinghomelessness and will also provide affordable housing for people with low incomes.

City staff say the COVID-19 pandemic, which has hit homeless shelters especially hard, spurred the decision to fast-track the project. So far, 610 COVID-19 cases have been linked to city shelters.

Staff will hold the second of two virtual town-hall meetings Wednesday evening from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. so people in the neighbourhood can provide their feedback.

"As COVID hit us, we wanted to expedite our response to homelessness, and a quicker delivery of housing," said Abi Bond, executive director of the city's housing secretariat.

"Because we hadn't reached a conclusion on this site and because the location is so good, we decided to shift gears and look at a different kind of housing delivery on this particular site."

But the speed with which the city shifted gears on the site plan has angered some in the community.

Michael Smele said the suggestion that single-family dwellings would be built on the site "fit in really well. It's a very family [oriented]community lots of schools nearby, lots of daycares."

He said the current project is happening too quickly and without proper consultation a concern shared by neighbour Gustavo Jabbaz.

"On June 2 we got this pamphlet saying the plans have changed;we're going to put in a site for homeless people," he said.

"No consultation, no questions, no nothing."

The city held the firstvirtual town-hall meetingslast week, but not everyone who wanted to speak was heard, according to Smele, who sat in on the meeting.

Story continues

As of Tuesdayafternoon, a petition asking the city to rethink the plan to build a modular apartment building had close to 400 signatures.

Not everyone in the neighbourhood is against the planned use of the site, though.

Resident Shay Zeyad told CBC Toronto: "I think it's a great idea." As someone who has a home, she said, "I don't have the privilege to talk about other people who don't."

Both Bond and Coun. Ana Bailo, who represents the area and also chairs the city's planning and housing committee, denied that the plan to house 13 families on the site was ever carved in stone.

"In April,council came to realize that we needed a better response to the homelessness issue that was in front of us," Bailosaid.

"We have 8,000 people who are sleeping either on the street or in our shelters and we think that providing housing with dignity and trying to respond to the pandemic with more permanent solutions is a good way to move forward."

And Bailo acknowledged the city is moving ahead unusually quickly.

"There is no question that it is moving fast, but we've asked the city to do unprecedented things: We've asked businesses to close their doors for months, we've asked people to stay home," she said.

"We've had to respond to this pandemic in unprecedented ways."

Both Bailo and Bond said neighbours will still have a chance to offer their input. But according to Bond, that input will be limited to things like the height of the building, and the density of the development.

"We've been trying to be clear with the community that no one gets to choose their neighbours," Bond said.

"So this isn't a consultation about who is moving in. This is a consultation about the project itself."

More here:
Fast-tracked plan to build apartments for people experiencing homelessness gets push-back from neighbours - Yahoo News Canada

Busy with her career and friends, weekend travel and walking the lakes, Aditi Jariwala didnt need much from an apartment just a place to sleep, shower and hang her clothes before she dashed out again.

Im a minimalist. I dont want a lot of space because I dont have a lot of junk, said Jariwala, 24. Keeping things clean with no clutter gives me a clearer mind.

When Minnesotas stay-at-home order was issued, instead of taking the bus downtown for her job in banking, Jariwala joined the legions of workers who left the office to labor at home.

For her, theres no spare bedroom, den or basement alcove. Jariwalas apartment totals 374 square feet.

I moved my monitors on my table so I use it like a desk. If I have a call, I sit on my plushy armchair, she said. Now I eat at my coffee table.

Jariwala lives on the fourth floor at Tula, a two-year-old building in Uptown Minneapolis, where her rent runs $1,250 a month, plus $100 for utilities and internet. Shes among the scores of tenants of a new style of teeny-tiny apartments that have popped up like so many miniature mushrooms.

Often called micro units, they are downsized studio apartments located in upscale buildings in desirable, walkable neighborhoods Uptown, Dinkytown, North Loop, Northeast and along the Green Line in St. Paul. Tenants augment their own tight quarters through common spaces like snazzy co-working spaces, fitness centers, party rooms, dog runs and rooftop gardens where they can socialize, relax and work.

Generally speaking, we see that all of the newer apartment units have gotten smaller the one- and two-bedrooms as well as the studios, said Brent Wittenberg, vice president of the Twin Cities office of Marquette Advisors, which tracks trends in market rate apartment inventory in the Twin Cities region.

Theres no exact definition for micro units, but as a rule of thumb, they are apartments that measure 500 square feet or smaller and are classified as studio units.

Marquette Advisors found that while 7.5% of the 200,000 apartments in the seven-country metro region are studios, the share of one-room units is shooting up. Their research compiled in the first quarter of 2020 noted a 33% hike in the number of new studios over the past five years.

The micro units started in Minneapolis and now theyre branching out. Were starting to see units under 500 square feet coming to the suburbs, too, Wittenberg said.

Smallest of the small

The smallest of the small apartments arrived about a decade ago in the U.S. cities long known for high density and soaring rental costs. Sometimes whittled down to a mere 220 square feet, early micro units gained traction among renters in Seattle, San Francisco, New York and Boston.

As housing availability tightened nationwide, micro units became a popular alternative in most other metro areas. The reduced-size dwellings are currently being studied as one solution for housing the growing number of homeless people.

In the Twin Cities, the shrunken spaces appeal to single professionals 40 and younger.

Small apartments fit with the millennial mind-set, which is all about maximizing the experiential components of life. Its not things that define you; its your experiences, said Lisa Walden, a workplace and generational consultant with Minneapolis-based Good Co.

Micro units buck the baby boomer idea that homes give you status. Millennials dont want to be tied down like that, she said.

Walden, 34, a millennial herself, thinks the green aspects of a small footprint also appeal to younger tenants.

From an environmental standpoint, using less is appealing, from the construction materials to cost of their utility bills.

Cramped or efficient?

One persons cramped and claustrophobic is another persons compact and efficient.

Micro units are the Swiss Army knife of apartments, cleverly designed to maximize a floor plans every square inch with floor-to-ceiling or oversized windows and higher ceilings that give an illusion of space. Even furnishings pivot; some dwellings of 350 to 450 square feet have hideaway Murphy beds and convertible tables that fold up to add to living space.

Balconies were considered impractical in the Twin Cities because of the weather but we started adding them. Everyone wants that indoor/outdoor element to extend their space, put out their herb pots, said developer Curt Gunsbury, whose business, Solhem Companies, has in the past decade developed more than a dozen Twin Cities apartment buildings featuring micro units.

He builds his micro units with walk-in closets, full bathrooms code requires them to be accessible, meaning large enough to accommodate a wheelchair and a kitchen equipped with a stove, refrigerator and dishwasher.

Large dining room space is no longer valued; young people dont want them. They work on their computers so theyre looking for a place to perch, he said. TVs used to drive the space but because flat screens are shallower, you can shrink 2 feet from the living area.

During the pandemic, the Solhem buildings added rules and guidelines to keep the much-prized community spaces open for tenants and spare them from cabin fever.

In the era of social distancing, groups were forbidden from gathering in common areas. Furniture in lounges, lobbies and libraries was rearranged to discourage the very coziness the areas once promoted. The distance between exercise machines in building gyms was widened. Cleaning crews come in more frequently, armed with hospital-grade disinfectants.

Not scared away

Theres little doubt that the many restrictions brought on by the pandemic will linger. The course of the coronavirus has proven unpredictable, and some public health officials warn that a second curve is coming and may disrupt workplace routines again later this year.

But the risk of a rebound doesnt seem to be scaring renters away from their pint-sized urban apartments.

Its not going away. Were still bullish on the micro trend and city living, said Wittenberg. After 9/11, a great exodus to the suburbs was predicted. The reverse happened.

With five new apartment buildings now under construction or on the drawing board, Gunsbury has not backed away from the number of micro units that will be included in the mix of rental options, along with one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments. He admits he is slightly surprised that so few of his tenants have opted out of the micro units since the shutdown.

Weve had more people extend leases than we expected. Not a single one has said theyre leaving because the place feels too small, he said. Typically, tenants transition because theyre ready to buy a house or they have a job transfer. Right now, people who have jobs are sticking with them.

But Aditi Jariwala will be moving from her 374-square-foot unit when her lease is up later this summer. Shes decided to bide her time and move back to her family home in a St. Paul suburb.

In the old world before the pandemic I would have renewed. But the rent was going up, and it didnt make sense to sign on at a higher price for the Uptown life without all the bars and restaurants and shopping, she sighed.

Maybe it would be fun to try a different neighborhood when things get back to normal. But I still wont want a big place.

Kevyn Burger is a Minneapolis freelance writer and broadcaster.

Go here to read the rest:
Twin Cities micro apartments put to the test during the pandemic - Minneapolis Star Tribune