Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
My main concerns about any development are whether or not it will increase property value for the surrounding area, will it revitalize major streets nearby, and will it bring density to places that should have more density?
Unfortunately the answer to these questions are: slightly, slightly, and yes - but not necessarily the kind of desirable people for that prominent area of town.
Take for example the mid-rise building on Canal Street that's for elderly housing. While it's nice in concept, those 2 blocks will essentially not contribute anything to the urban fabric. Other than the handful of employees, people in assisted living centers do not walk around the neighborhood and spend money. Even worse, the 10 blocks of subsidized housing for low income/poverty level people, in denser numbers, living near the French Quarter/downtown, many of whom are unemployed or unemployable, is not exactly screaming revitalization. It screams more of the same to me, or perhaps even worse, as this project will be bigger than before.
Sorry to be so pessimistic.
|
I hope you and others realize that this is just any development, this is a redevelopment of public housing so your priorities are completely divorced with the purpose of this project.
While your slightly slightly etc benchmark may be important to you it's beyond irrelevant and I would argue ludicrous.
While you may believe the conversion of an abandoned and blighted tower to a fully occupied and crime free senior living facility I can assure you that it's return to commerce in any capacity is a big win for Canal Street, the DDD and the citizens of NOLA who will now enjoy the increased tax revenue in the city coffers.
I do take issue - and I hope others will as well - with the following statement as it is completely devoid of fact:
"Even worse, the 10 blocks of subsidized housing for low income/poverty level people, in denser numbers, living near the French Quarter/downtown, many of whom are unemployed or unemployable, is not exactly screaming revitalization. It screams more of the same to me, or perhaps even worse, as this project will be bigger than before."
First, only ONE THIRD if this development will be available for "poverty level people". Another third will be available to those dreaded lower income people such as firefighters, police, teachers, students, food service industry employees aka "affordable housing". The final third will be market rate.
Second, density is a GOOD thing in mixed income housing because this model has - time and time again - has proven successful in providing a pathway out of poverty.
Third, Iberville (along with the other four projects) had an employment rate of ABOVE 90%.
Fourth, define "revitalization" because I do not think it means what you think it does.
Fifth, to say this is more or the same is laughable. To suggest its even worse is reveals a level of ignorance that is simply astounding.
A bigger mixed income development translates to an increase of opportunities within the city for those in poverty to join the middle class. The fact you would be opposed to that I believe says far more about you than this project.