Sunrise Trailer Court: A Model of Community Participation through Redevelopment without Displacement

Sunrise Trailer Court: A Model of Community Participation through Redevelopment without Displacement with Habitat for Humanity

Jessica Elliott

ARCH 4238

Participation in Diverse Communities Sara Caples

November 20, 2015

Elliott 1

Sunrise Trailer Court has a sense of community that was harbored over the

more than 30 years of its existence in Charlottesville’s southeast boundary, part of a larger network of trailer park communities and consisting of a population that was beginning to realize the hardships of increasing gentrification and the inability to

control the larger forces affecting their lives. With aging trailers that could no longer withstand the process of relocation in a city where an alternative affordable sites

were non-existent, the threat by developer HT Ferron to evict Sunrise residents in

2004 generated fear amongst these families for the complete lack of control over the life they had known and their imminent placelessness with the redevelopment of

Sunrise to market-rate housing that was unattainable to them. Over the course of

more than 10 years, the original community, though visibly drastically different, still thrives today with many of the families of the original Sunrise Trailer Court

beginning a new lifestyle on the same land with a new housing typology, support system, and the addition of new families to become a part of their evolving

community. The community participation processes attempted by Habitat for

Humanity of Greater Charlottesville not only prevented the relocation of a majority of families in Sunrise, but also is becoming well known for its careful consideration

of existing community structures and inclusionary redevelopment to build upon the palimpsest of the community’s specific and unique culture with a forward thinking model of development. Though the challenges of Habitat for Humanity’s ambitious goal to redevelop Sunrise without resident displacement proved to be demanding, the effects on the past and future residents, the neighborhood, and the city of Charlottesville as a whole demonstrate that their processes of community

engagement are worthy of continued exploration and refinement for further

Elliott 2

application in trailer park communities and beyond.

In 2004, the residents of Sunrise Trailer Court receive a 120-day eviction

notice as their home, a 2.3 acre plot of land and decades of memories, are put under contract. In a community meeting, the developer’s architect presents a design that would wipe out the existing trailers, and with them, the families who were rooted there in the community. 1 With the lack of affordable housing, ever-increasing

income equality, and higher costs of living in Charlottesville, the families of Sunrise would have nowhere to go but outside of the city center. In the realization of their

impending displacement residents like Marion Dudley, a resident of Sunrise for over 25 years, replaced fear with fight: “I think I scared the living bloomers off that poor

architect,” she said with an air of amusement.” 2 With the clear dissatisfaction of the community, the developer’s plan was withdrawn and the property was sold to

Habitat for Humanity, who had little high-density development experience but was

determined to affordably redevelop the site with its existing residents and the aspiration to create a new housing typology for a diverse, mixed-income and multigenerational community:

“We are very excited to be part of the solution to break the cycle of generational poverty. We saw Sunrise as a moral and ethical imperative. There was a contract on the land from

another developer, who was going to do what developers do, the problem is that there

1

William R. Morrish, Susanne Schindler, and Katie Swenson, Growing Urban Habitats: Seeking a New Housing Development Model (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009), 20.

2 Ingles, Laura “Extreme Makeover: Habitat for Humanity Turns Trailer Parks into Town Centers,” CVille, August 7, 2012, accessed September 20, 2015. www.c-ville.com.

Elliott 3

wasn’t any place for the residents there to go. And we just couldn’t let that happen. We had no idea how we were going to do it, but we knew we had to do it.” 3 –Dan

With the age and circumstances of the existing families in Sunrise and the market

realities, the promise to provide housing for every family proved to be challenging: “Most Sunrise residents are seniors unwilling to enter mortgages so late in life, so

Habitat offered other options. Those eligible could apply to be a partner family and

own a home, or residents could choose to rent an apartment in the new complex, the “promise keeper.” If a family chose to leave Sunrise, Habitat offered assistance in the cost of moving a trailer and finding a new home.” 4

Habitat for Humanity in partnership with the Charlottesville Community

Design Center, led by Katie Swenson and Jim Kovack, launched a competition to

explore tangible designs that would aspire to answer the challenge of attaining a mixed-income community under the real world conditions of Sunrise and its

residents. With a grant of $235,000 from AARP Foundation in 2011, the competition hoped to yield a manifestation of the goals and ideas to change the course of

intergenerational poverty, beginning with the Sunrise community. 5 Many factors of

Habitat for Humanity’s direction of the project, including the competition, would

generate progressive ideas and methods of designing for diverse communities, but

would also create a complicated and lengthy process through which Sunrise would exist within, continuing to today. Sunrise was Habitat for Humanity’s first large

scale, higher-density project, and Charlottesville Community Design Center’s first 3

“Habitat for Humanity: Sunrise,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, Charlottesville, VA: Amoeba Films, September 20, 2011.

4 Ingles, “Extreme Makeover: Habitat for Humanity Turns Trailer Parks into Town Centers,” C-Ville.

5 Morrish, Growing Urban Habitats: Seeking a New Housing Development Model, 20.

Elliott 4

project. The competition and overall project was not only experiencing the attempt

to address the desires of both partners and the community that they vowed to serve, but also the views and complications due to the involvement of AARP Foundation, competition sponsors including Piedmont Housing Alliance, the Blue Moon Fund,

and the University of Virginia's School of Architecture, the city of Charlottesville and other public forces, and the realities of financially supporting the project through the current market conditions. Additionally, the competition, “Urban Habitats,”

asked for entries to equally consider formal design with the social, economic, and

environmental considerations, limitations, and aspirations of each of these players

in their proposals for Sunrise. These relationships and questions of ownership and responsibility shift throughout the process of the entire timeline of Sunrise’s

redevelopment, but all parties continuously assert that the decision to involve, gain the trust of, and support without displacement, the original residents of Sunrise:

“In the beginning it was terrifying for everybody because we weren’t sure if we were going to have a place to live. But it didn’t take long before Habitat told us the facts and smoothed out our ruffled feathers and let us know that we were going to be taken care of.” 6 -Marion Dudley, Sunrise Resident.

Through brainstorming sessions, on-site community events, and public visioning

processes from the beginning of the process assisted in formalizing the inclusion of the community throughout the process, but also yielded the requirements for the competition:

1. Design a vibrant, attractive urban neighborhood

2. Generate a culturally and climatically responsive architecture 6

“Habitat for Humanity: Sunrise,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville.

Elliott 5

3. Implement a sustainable continuum, from site development to energy-efficient unit operation

4. Create a community that integrates mixed-income and mixed-use principles

5. Design a diverse range of market-rate housing and commercial space using compact floor plans

6. Develop and utilize economical, innovative building technologies. 7

This continuity of trust and ownership of the Sunrise residents was carried through

the Urban Habitats competition with the inclusion of Marion Dudley, the newly selfappointed “Mayor of Sunrise,” as a judge for the selection of the winning proposals.

Listening to the voices of her neighbors, Marion assumed the responsibility of

helping to decide the future of the community. The full jury for the competition

included Habitat for Humanity and Charlottesville Community Design Center board members, resident Marion Dudley, internationally renowned architects, and city

government officials who “understood that the vision for Sunrise went beyond the physical qualities of the site. The real issue was how design would engage the

needs, desires, and history of the community.” 8 Despite the many voices in the

decision, Marion Dudley played an integral role in the choice of “Double Wide, Triple High,” a proposal by Susanne Schindler and Christopher Genter as the first place

finalist in the competition because according to Marion, “this one said ‘home’ to me.

It’s more like our own home that we have now than any of the other entries.” 9

Of the 164 total entries, “Double Wide Triple High” was the first of 3 finalists

due to the judges’ opinions that this entry effectively maintained the character by 7

Morrish, Growing Urban Habitats: Seeking a New Housing Development Model, 31.

Ibid, 23.

9 Ibid, 163.

8

Elliott 6

identifying the armatures of the existing community, the familiar proportions of

living spaces, and the relationships of interior and exterior space, while reinforcing the composition of the site through two complementary housing typologies that successfully answered each goal set out by the competition’s design brief. The

architects chose to address the desire for preservation of history primarily through the retention and strengthening of the community’s main street for its function of not only a mode of travel, but also as a significant social space for the residents: “While the architecture itself draws from a modern vocabulary for house and

garden, the plan uses an architectural vocabulary of primarily detached housing

with front porches and private outdoor space, which is familiar to the community, while increasing the density to accommodate more residents and increase

affordability.” 10 The first typology, the “Double Wide” answered the competition’s request for a condominium building with affordable units and accessible units,

while focusing on the strategic organization of units as they are coupled with their

own type of outdoor space. The configuration of first floor efficiency accessible units that open up to the community green spaces, the second and third floor units with private garden spaces, and the penthouses with rooftop spaces. The second

typology, the “Triple High” was the concept for the new Habitat partner homes as

well as the market rate homes to be sold, consisting of thinner footprints similar to

those of the previous trailer homes stacked to provide ventilation. Each consisted of CMU construction for cost efficiency and encouraged the use of public

transportation through the trade off of parking with green spaces. Genter Shindler’s 10

Ibid, 167.

Elliott 7

design was sensitive to the culture of the entire city and made an attempt to remain contextual through the reinterpretation of Charlottesville’s architectural aesthetic: “because Charlottesville has a strong vulture of porches and gardens, our agenda

was to develop a set of straightforward, easily buildable housing types whose rules of aggregation would shape defined public and private landscape spaces.” The

proposal contained in total 8 Double Wide condominium buildings consisting of 12

accessible units, 16 two-bedrooms, 15 three-bedrooms, and 8 two-story penthouses, 18 Triple High Habitat houses, and a 2-story community and commercial building. 11 Following the competition, Habitat for Humanity separated from their

partnership with the Charlottesville Community Design Center, while adding the architects of the top two finalist teams to move towards a finalized design that

would be implemented at Sunrise. Additionally, Habitat for Humanity of Greater

Charlottesville changed leadership to current Executive Director Dan Rosensweig, although he has proven to retain the core values of Sunrise’s redevelopment and

future of community revitalization through the prevention of the displacement of residents. With complications due to market constraints discovered in a market

study conducted following the competition, the size and composition of the Sunrise plan faced the challenges of adapting to the financial needs while attempting to

maintain the promised affordability. Genter Schindler remained involved to work on the projects refinement following the competition stating that “while the site plan

and housing types have both radically changed from our competition proposal, the logic of the initial scheme - particularly in the flexibility of types, and the use and 11

Ibid, 243.

Elliott 8

shaping of outdoor spaces for each unit – remains consistent.” 12 The typology

shifted away from the single lot, single house ideology towards the combination of units in different configurations, but was further edited as financing and time

continued to strain the project. The final constructed design features two 4-story

apartments with a community center, as well as 15 duplex houses, and remains incomplete as of today. The design was simplified to blend further into the

neighborhood, to expedite and simplify construction techniques, and to lower costs with the construction carried out by Habitat volunteers. With the changes in

involvement and leadership, it is difficult to determine how the design completed by Steve Von Storch Architects was altered so drastically, but in a phone call with Katie

Swenson she admits that while the built design “absolutely did not look like we

thought it might,” the real impact goes beyond the formal architectural design and aesthetic: “From my vantage point I wish more of the winning design had lasted,

without being critical of the [new] design because I don’t know it well.” She argued

that the competition did a lot of things very successfully, but expressed hope for the future of the community and Habitat for Humanity’s future applications: “The

process is what we are trying to replicate. I am proud of that process,” and stressed that it has to be a mixture of what’s good, what works, and what lasts.

As phase 1 completed in 2012, the 9 of 16 original Sunrise families moved

into their new and familiar homes, with projections to finish the second phase in

2013. Katie Swenson recalls visiting a thrilled Marion Dudley in her new apartment: “Something that makes me feel good is the deep and real process that really 12

Ibid, 245.

Elliott 9

mattered; the ethos and authentic resident engagement” that was continued by Habitat throughout the entire process. Throughout the final design planning,

construction, and moving into the regular rhythm of Sunrise’s community activation Habitat for Humanity strived to ensure “that there were opportunities for those

existing residents and the new residents to get together, get to know each other, so

it wasn’t just plopping people in, it was building the relationships that are critical to have a good neighborhood.” 13 Habitat for Humanity’s program is designed around the philosophy of being a partner, but not a savior to the community; In order to

qualify to purchase a Habitat home, a buyer must work “sweat equity” as a volunteer helping to build other houses. This sense of ownership and involvement at each

stage of the building process has proven to be greatly appreciated and empowering for the future residents: As Marion Dudley recalled, “watching the construction

going on was absolutely fascinating. We felt like we were part of it and we got to meet so many interesting volunteers and people came to help, we were like one

huge family.” 14 It was with the help of this family that Marion was able to move from

her aging trailer to a new affordable apartment 500’ from her old trailer.

With results that transformed a community, Sunrise attracted the attention

of surrounding trailer parks who would soon face the same challenges: “We were approached by the owner of Southwood in 2007 who liked our promise of nondisplacement to the residents at Sunrise. It’s important to understand that if

Southwood weren’t redeveloped by Habitat, it would be redeveloped by somebody else and 350 trailers, 1500 people who are the poorest of the poor in this 13 14

“Habitat for Humanity: Sunrise,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville.

Ibid.

Elliott 10

community who are housed would be displaced.” 15 The idea of proliferating the

concept of the redevelopment of low-income communities without displacement

remained at the forefront. There had been a significant amount of challenges that affected the design at Sunrise, and the time spent on redevelopment was much

lengthier than they had expected. But in a phone conversation with Rush Otis, the

former property manager of Southwood for Habitat for Humanity, current Director of Land Development and Special Projects, and architecture school graduate, she argues that this time has been well spent in the gradual on the ground processes with the community that were critical in gaining the trust of the residents and

creating something through redevelopment that truly fits the needs and desires of the larger community. She mentions that while there was no template, having

consistent and constant communication allowed them to learn what they had done well and where there was still room for growth. Citing the expansion of the

community advancement team at Southwood from 1 person to 5, and the realization that if they wanted “to do this the right way, it has to be a slower process,” they

began to consider how these projects could challenge the “success” of 30% resident retention and the 80/20 mixed-income ratio for similar developments. As Dan

Rosensweig discussed during his 2015 talk at TEDx Charlottesville, these processes do lead to better design, recalling a project for a community garden that failed

shortly after completion in one community. After the creation the garden, Habitat for Humanity realized that residents were not interested in utilizing it; he recalls

how “we made assumptions about what they needed and didn’t even ask.” But when 15

Ibid.

Elliott 11

asked what they wanted for their community, they were eager to help design, build, and enjoy the new community element that they helped to create. When Dan asked

the community “What are you prepared to do to make your dreams come true?” the community responded with “Everything.” and this realization in building upon the

resident engagement reinforced Habitat for Humanity’s goal to be a partner for the community to assist them in achieving their own goals, a process that allows for

these redeveloped communities to be built on the strengths, dreams, and sweat in

order to “create places that are as bold as America itself: mixed-income, mixed-race,

mixed-age, diverse communities.” 16 That consideration and devotion to fully

understanding a complex and diverse community before assisting them to achieve their dreams has become a part of the Sunrise housing typology, inseparable from the design: “What we hope to do is to essentially create a model that can be

replicated here or Des Moines or Albuquerque or Dubuque, wherever there is a trailer park with the same kind of threat to its existence.” 17

While the final constructed design was altered significantly from the initial

proposal from the competition, and the process has been ongoing for over 10 years, remaining incomplete as of today, the impact on the original Sunrise residents and the larger community has proved to be immense. In response to the owner of

Southwood asking for Habitat for Humanity to redevelop their larger 100 acre site as they did Sunrise, Dan Rosensweig realizes the importance of assisting the least fortunate in Charlottesville:

16 “TEDx Charlottesville: Dan Rosensweig [Video Recording].” TEDx Charlottesville: What If? November 13, 2015.

17 “Habitat for Humanity: Sunrise,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville.

Elliott 12

“The need in this community is huge. There are so many families that work here and would like to live here but can’t afford to. There are more than 1,100 in the city of Charlottesville

alone that are either on the waiting list to get into public housing which is supposed to be the last resort or are waiting to get a housing choice voucher so they can upgrade in perhaps

even a minor way into a reasonable place to live. That’s 1,100 families in a city of 35,000, and that’s unacceptable.” 18

One of the most important considerations of the redevelopment of trailer parks

according to Rush Otis, is that the flat, underdeveloped land is very attractive to developers due to the lack of land rights held by the residents and the thirdgeneration owners who are no longer interested in managing a trailer park

community; the consideration of phasing and how to strategically move trailers to allow for construction without deeply interfering with the community’s wellbeing

and helping to restore it through millions of dollars of deferred maintenance. While it could potentially be measured in the overall success of retention of the original families, which was promised from the project’s onset, the success is somewhat immeasurable except in the overall large scale effects on the community and its cohesion and prosperity:

Councilor Dave Norris said the city has enthusiastically supported Habitat for Humanity, financially and otherwise, for years, and he is excited to see a new

opportunity for working class families to own homes in Sunrise. “We had some

citizens that were going to lose their homes, and Habitat gave them the opportunity to stay in their neighborhood, in higher quality housing that they could afford,” Norris said. “That’s pretty rare.” 19

18 19

Ibid.

Ingles, “Extreme Makeover: Habitat for Humanity Turns Trailer Parks into Town Centers,” C-Ville.

Elliott 13

Even further the effects of Sunrise have been exponentially verifiable in the lives of

the original Sunrise residents: As in the eyes of Marion Dudley, “My experience with Habitat has been absolutely wonderful. They’re the best people in the world. They care about you, they are up front and honest, and I just adore them.” 20 But despite the profound appreciation for their assistance from Habitat for Humanity, the

realities of change and reintegration into an unfamiliar home despite its familiar

situation remains a question, and how design can effectively address financing and offer solutions for affordable housing which remains unresolved in the case of Sunrise:

Though she is grateful for her new apartment, Marion Dudley said the transition has not been an easy one. After over 30 years in Sunrise she developed an attachment to her trailer, and now she can stand on her porch and watch as Habitat volunteers deconstruct her old home to save parts for reuse in Southwood. But despite the

emotions surrounding her trailer, Dudley loves her new home and said the only

complaint so far has been low water pressure in her shower, which Habitat fixed

immediately. Now every morning she enjoys her coffee while sitting on the porch,

overlooking miles of mountains and endless Virginia sky. Leaning against the railing and gazing out over the neighborhood, Dudley smiled. “The view’s better from up

here,” she said. 21

20 21

“Habitat for Humanity: Sunrise,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville.

Morrish, Growing Urban Habitats: Seeking a New Housing Development Model, 16.

Elliott 14 Figures

Figure: 1 “Aerial Photograph of 2000, Showing Sunrise Trailer Court between Industrial Uses, Small Homes, and Trailers,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure: 2 “Sunrise at Sunrise,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 15

Figure 3: “Sunrise residents dance at a barbeque,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 4: “Sunrise Front Porch,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 16

Figure 5: “Sunrise Main Street,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 6: “Sunrise Trailer,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 17

Figure 7: “Overlay of Competition Program in Square Feet,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 8: “Site Plan,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 18

Figure 9: “Triple High Housing Typology,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 10: “Triple High Floor Plans,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 19

Figure 11: “Double Wide Housing Typology,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 12: “Double Wide Floor Plans,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 20

Figure 13: “Workshop and Final Presentation Hosted by Charlottesville Community Design Center,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 14: “Revised Site Plan Presented in February 2007,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 21

Figure 15: “Site Axonometric for the Revised Plan,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 16: “Site Sections for the Revised Plan,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 22

Figure 17: “Possibilities for Joining Two Single-Family Homes,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 18: “Section,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 23

Figure 19: “Ground Floor Plan,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Figure 20: “Second and Third Floor Plan,” Morrish, William R, Growing Urban Habitats, (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009).

Elliott 24

Figure 21: “Green Street Rendering,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, 2012.

Figure 22: “Sunrise Park in Construction,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, 2012.

Elliott 25

Figure 23: “Sunrise Park Aerial Rendering,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, 2012.

Figure 24: “Sunrise Park Final Site Plan,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, 2012.

Elliott 26

Figure 25: “Sunrise Park Project Aerial,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, 2012.

Figure 26: “Sunrise Park Ribbon Cutting,” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, 2012.

Elliott 27

Figure 27: “Sunrise Park Changes from 2008-2012: 1403 Midland,” Google Maps, 2012.

Figure 28: “Sunrise Park Changes from 2008-2012: 1418 Carlton,” Google Maps, 2012.

Elliott 28

Figure 29: “Sunrise Park Changes from 2008-2012: 1402 Carlton,” Google Maps, 2012.

Figure 30: “Sunrise Park Changes from 2008-2012: 1435 Midland,” Google Maps, 2012.

Elliott 29

Figure 31: “TEDx Charlottesville: Dan Rosensweig,” TEDx Charlottesville: What If. November 13, 2015.

Bibliography

Elliott 30

Baggett, Jerome P. Habitat for Humanity: Building Private Homes, Building Public Religion. Philidelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.

Bell, Bryan, and Katie Wakeford. Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism. New York: Bellerophon Publications, 2008.

Benfield, Kaid. “Rethinking the Trailer Park as Affordable Urban Housing.” National Resources Defense Council Switchboard, February 16, 2009. Accessed September 20, 2015. http://switchboard.nrdc.org.

Dill, Kevin, and Collins, Mechelle (Producers). (2006). Unsung Stories: Millard and Linda Fuller [Video Recording]. Nashville: Country Music Television.

Ellin, Nan. Good Urbanism: Six Steps to Creating Prosperous Places. Salt Lake City: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2013.

Giri, Ananta Kumar. Building in the Margins of Shacks: the Vision and Projects of Habitat for Humanity. Telangana: Orient Black Swan, 2002.

“Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville.” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, Charlottesville, VA: Habitat for Humanity, October 15, 2013.

Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville. “Sunrise.” Accessed September 20, 2015. www.cvillehabitat.org/sunrise.

Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville. “Sunrise Neighborhood Center.”

Accessed September 20, 2015. www.cvillehabitat.org/sunrise-community-center.

“Habitat for Humanity: Sunrise.” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, Charlottesville, VA: Amoeba Films, September 20, 2011.

Ingles, Laura. “Extreme Makeover: Habitat for Humanity Turns Trailer Parks into Town Centers.” C-Ville, August 7, 2012. Accessed September 20, 2015. www.cville.com.

Killos, Lydia, and Saphira Baker. “From Mobile Home Park to Mixed Income Community: A Guide and Case Study.” AARP Foundation. Accessed September 20, 2015. www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/.

Kulpinski, Dan. “In Charlottesville, a New Model for Intergenerational, Affordable Housing.” AARP Foundation. Accessed September 20, 2015. www.aarp.org/aarpfoundation/.

Elliott 31

Marsh, Charles. “My Kingdom for a House?” City and Congregation Work Group of the Project on Lived Theology, 2012. Accessed September 20, 2015. www.livedtheology.org.

Martin, Jen. “The Sun (and Multigenerational Housing) Continues to Rise in Charlottesville, VA.” AARP Foundation Housing Impact Team, October 17, 2012.

Accessed September 20, 2015. www.blog.aarp.org.

Morrish, William R., Susanne Schindler, and Katie Swenson. Growing Urban Habitats: Seeking a New Housing Development Model. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2009.

“Official Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville Sunrise Park Plan.” NBC 29, Charlottesville, VA: NBC, February 1, 2012.

Reckford, Jonathan T. M. Creating a Habitat for Humanity: No Hands But Yours.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Richards, William. “Prone to Please: Habitat Picks Green Affordability.” The Hook, July 21, 2005. Accessed September 20, 2015. www.readthehook.com.

“TEDx Charlottesville: Dan Rosensweig [Video Recording].” TEDx Charlottesville: What If? November 13, 2015.

Rosensweig, Dan. “Sunrise Park – A Planned Unit Development.” Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville. Accessed September 20, 2015. www.charlottesville.org.

Wheeler, Brian, and Lacey Naff. “Habitat Releases Economic Impact Study as it Prepares to Redevelop Southwood.” Charlottesville Tomorrow, March 3, 2015.

Accessed September 20, 2015. www.cvilletomorrow.org.