Choice Neighborhoods DC

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO : WASHINGTON, D..C.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF DESIGN

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS SPRING 2010 STUDIO

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

WASHINGTON, DC

MAT ABRAMSKY LUCY CORBETT JOHN CURRAN ANNA ELLIS

SUSANNE FOGT PAUL SHABSIS SHARA D. TAYLOR DANAE TILGHMAN

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING SPRING STUDIO 2010

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

03.

foreword The following report is a component of the Affordability Housing Policy Studio at the University of Pennsylvania’s Master of City Planning program. The impetus for this academic investigation is the emergence of a new federal housing program, the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Since 1993 large-scale redevelopment efforts of public housing were completed under Hope VI, a program that has features similar to the new legislation. Whereas both programs encourage mixed income communities, Choice Neighborhoods broadens its scope beyond site-specific issues to neighborhood-level intervention. Although this new policy has not been formally introduced, Choice Neighborhoods has received support of the Obama Administration and numerous affordable housing advocate groups.

A team of eight students undertook this project, which involved developing a proposal for the Washington DC Housing Authority that outlines the redevelopment of two aging properties in Southeast DC: Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments. This report will provide analysis of the project area at the neighborhood and site level, as well as recommendations for redevelopment based on anticipated Choice Neighborhoods Initiative criteria.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO

SPRING 2010

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

04.

TABLE OF

CONTENTS 1 2 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT OVERVIEW Legacy of HOPE VI Choice Neighborhoods Related Programs Problem Statement National Vision

SITE ANALYSIS Site Description Demographic Profile Existing Conditions Site Analysis: Potomac-Hopkins Resident Perspectives Synthesis: Opportunities & Constraints

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

05.

4 5 6 7

CORE ISSUES Income Mix & Housing Resident Relocation Building Demolition vs. Rehabilitation Financial Feasibility: Funding Sources Services & Community Management Open Space & Public Amenities Physical & Social Integration Alignment with Other Planning Efforts

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS Project Goal Vision: Potomac Gardens & Hopkins Apartments Services Needs & Recommendations Relocation Recommendations Financial Recommendations

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Schematic Plans ALTERNATIVE 1: The Stitch ALTERNATIVE 2: The Catalyst Building & Block Typologies Relocation Strategy

APPENDIX

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO

SPRING 2010

6

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

07.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY Introduction Recommendations Scenario I Scenario II

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

1 CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

08.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY “ Home. It is the foundation upon which all of us build our lives, raise our children and plan for our futures. It's the building block with which we forge neighborhoods and put down roots...home is an essential source of stability - for our families, our communities and our country. If a century of housing policy has taught us anything, it's that if there isn't equal access to safe, affordable housing, there isn't equal opportunity. And if sixteen years of HOPE VI has taught us anything, it's that building communities in a more integrated and inclusive way isn't separate from advancing social and economic justice and the promise of America - it's absolutely essential to it.”

- Shaun Donovan, Secretary for Housing and Urban Development

INTRODUCTION This report was prepared for the Washington, DC Housing Authority (DCHA) and contains the findings and recommendations from the Affordable Housing Policy Studio at the University of Pennsylvania’s Master of City Planning program. In anticipation of the Obama Administration’s Choice Neighborhoods Initiative – a new federal housing policy that seeks the full-scale transformation of severely distressed low-income neighborhoods – a team of eight graduate students was tasked with developing a proposal for the redevelopment of two properties in Southeast DC. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) introduced draft legislation for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI)

to Congress in the spring of 2010. CNI seeks to build upon the existing HOPE VI Program’s efforts to redevelop aging public housing developments into thriving mixedincome communities. Broadening its scope beyond a sole focus on housing, Choice Neighborhoods places strong emphasis on strengthening distressed communities as a whole by incorporating high quality schools, transportation, access to amenities, and crime reduction strategies. Through partnerships with other Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Transportation, Education and Justice, Choice Neighborhoods aims to leverage innovative ideas and funding for a new model of holistic neighborhood redevelopment.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments are two public housing properties owned by the DC Housing Authority.

Located in Southeast DC, the two developments are made up of 21 separate buildings with varying typologies.

PICTURE

RIGHT: Inner Courtyard at Potomac Gardens site Photo taken by: A. Ellis

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9

Panorama of residential street in Capitol Hill, Southeast Washington, DC

Several of these aging public housing developments still exist in the District of Columbia and have been identified by the DCHA as candidates for future redevelopment.

After discussions between PennDesign studio instructors and DCHA staff, the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments were recommended as an area for further study and analysis by the project team. Analysis of the site – through census and DCHA data, meetings with residents, design methods, and conversations with service providers – revealed many physical and social barriers, as well as many areas of opportunity.

The project team identified eight core issue areas that are not unique to Potomac Gardens and Hopkins, but occur at aging public housing sites in cities across the country. These core issues include mixed income housing and resident interaction; resident relocation; building demolition versus rehabilitation; financial feasibility and funding sources for redevelopment; services and community management; open space and public amenities; physical and social integration; and alignment with other planning efforts. This report outlines these core issues and explains how they manifest themselves at Potomac-Hopkins and inform the project team’s recommendations.

10

RECOMMENDATIONS The project team developed two design alternatives that act as the physical drivers of this report’s key recommendations. The first design strives to achieve seamless integration of public and affordable housing units into the surrounding neighborhood, by re-stitching streets, building configurations, and architectural character into the existing neighborhood.

The second design places a strong emphasis on the public realm by increasing public and open spaces that connect the Potomac Gardens site to the Hopkins sites. It creates unique places within the neighborhood that simultaneously increase livability and density. This report contains site plans and building typologies to assist the DCHA with their consideration of Potomac Gardens and Hopkins redevelopment. Multiple designs are included in order to present a range of housing options and neighborhood design approaches.

Service recommendations are built around the concepts of guaranteeing a right to return policy for original residents, a buildfirst occupied development process and a community management service program.

In accordance with Choice Neighborhoods

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SOURCE: Google Street View: www.maps.google.com

priorities, service recommendations also advocate for the addition of an early childhood education program and comprehensive adult education and job training opportunities.

The community management program is centered on engaging residents through trust and capacity building activities, and involving them in all aspects of the redevelopment process including design, relocation, construction and ongoing management. This approach focuses on increasing the degree of resident responsibility over time, as well as creating jobs and skill building opportunities.

Community management helps residents develop a sense of pride and ownership in their housing, resulting in improved physical and social oversight from residents.

Lastly, this report contains a financial feasibility and funding analysis of the proposed site redevelopments. The project team reviewed available funding streams for public and affordable housing development and provided a detailed budget of project costs, as well as recommendations for appropriate additional funding sources.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

PROBLEM STATEMENT Despite being located in the thriving Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, DC, in close proximity to transit, job centers, and commercial and human services, Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments have been deteriorating for decades.

Constructed between 1957 and 1968 under a now outdated model of public housing design, the buildings are conspicuous and isolated from the neighborhood context. Potomac-Hopkins residents are both physically and socially detached from their neighbors, the majority of whom enjoy much higher levels of education, income and overall stability.

Cycles of poverty have prevented many PotomacHopkins residents from accessing economic opportunities that could provide a platform for them to move up and out of public housing.

This proposal attempts to re-imagine the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites from both a physical and social standpoint, to improve the aforementioned conditions, and to lay the foundation for a healthy, productive, and well-balanced community for all current and future residents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

11

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

12.

N

0

140

280 ft

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SCENARIO 1: THE STITCH

SECURE the residential character of capitol hill Capitol Hill has a strong architectural history that, even today, adds vibrancy to its streets. The stark aesthetic contrast of Potomac-Hopkins disturbs the neighborhood’s continuity and causes social division. By focusing on native typologies, this scenario seeks to lessen the visual disconnect between the sites and the adjacent properties.

UNITE disparate social & neighborhood fabrics Analysis of the study area revealed a lack of social cohesion between residents and neighbors, as well as among those on-site. Scenario 1 focuses on providing residents with a sense of personal ownership and appropriate services that will foster a sense of community. New communal spaces will allow for increased interaction among all community members.

RESTORE ecology at neighborhood level The Potomac-Hopkins site is in short supply of public green space.

Currently, most open spaces are paved surfaces with minimal landscaping or aesthetic appeal. Scenario 1 replaces these hardscapes with a greenway system that runs vertically through the site and provides a much needed amenity for the neighborhood.

SECTION: Inner Courtyard space at Potomac Gardens CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

13

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

14.

N

0

140

280 ft

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SCENARIO 2: THE CATALYST

REINFORCE & RECONSTRUCT the idea of place Potomac Avenue, a major diagonal thoroughfare, runs through the Potomac-Hopkins site. Interrupted by Southeast Freeway, the avenue no longer serves its original function under the L’Enfant plan to connect destinations. By reconfiguring the terminus of the road into a neighborhood park, this plan restores Potomac Avenue to its original purpose, while also providing an amenity for Capitol Hill.

SUPPORT urban character & appropriate density Scenario 2 attempts to push the envelope and bring more urban density to this residential area. The site’s present superblock configuration leads to inefficient land use. Higher densities are concentrated in the middle of the site to preserve the character of adjacent residences while allowing for a wider range of housing typologies and diversity of residents.

ELEVATE the public realm & natural systems Currently, public spaces on Potomac-Hopkins are enclosed in tall, black fences that isolate the site from the surrounding neighborhood. Open spaces are not only insular, but also nonfunctional, with little ecological benefit. This plan looks to transform the site with a landscape system that allows residents and neighbors to engage in passive and active recreation.

SECTION: Neighborhood Park space on Eye Street CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

15

16

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

17.

PROJECT

OVERVIEW Legacy of HOPE VI Choice Neighborhoods Related Programs Problem Statement National Vision

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

2

PROJECT OVERVIEW

17

View from interior courtyard of Potomac Gardens Apartments in Washington, DC Photo: A. Ellis UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

2

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

19.

PROJECT

OVERVIEW LEGACY OF HOPE VI Established in 1993 as an effort to combat the poverty and crime that plagued many public housing developments, the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI program offered local housing authorities the opportunity to demolish or rehabilitate their worst sites. In many cities, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, these locations included poorly designed, high density towers that made it difficult to monitor the activities of residents and visitors. Compounding these problems were inadequate maintenance budgets that did not cover the costs of routine upkeep, as well as high concentrations of extreme poverty. Public schools and other community institutions in the surrounding neighborhoods also failed to meet the basic needs of residents. Although little conclusive evidence exists regarding the impact of HOPE VI on residents’ quality of life, there have been many lessons learned over the course of its lifetime.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO

Perhaps the most tangible benefits of HOPE VI redevelopments can be found in the surrounding communities, where real estate values have shown increases after distressed public housing projects were removed (Goetz, 2010). As a result, developers have been able to attract people of varying income levels, with the hope that they will bring stability to neighborhoods struggling with poverty (Cisneros & Engdahl, 2009). Conversely, existing residents who are affected by the redevelopment efforts may have the option to move to another public housing complex or accept a housing voucher that allows them access to housing in less povertystricken areas. Nevertheless, many residents end up moving to places that have similar racial compositions and crime levels as their original communities. This may be due to a sense of familiarity created by the social networks they have developed over time and/or lack of options in better neighborhoods due to barriers such as SPRING 2010

1960s

1980s

1990s

2000s

concentration of extreme poverty

years of neglect

de-concentration of poverty

mixed income housing

dilapidated buildings

high crime rates

demolition of aged properties

entrenched drug culture

introduction of HOPE VI

holistic redevelopment

Timeline of eras in affordable housing.

SOURCES: see Appendix for credits

high rents, bad credit histories, discriminatory rental practices, etc. (Goetz, 2010; Bennett, Smith, & Wright, 2006).

By contracting with private firms to oversee day-to-day operations at HOPE VI sites, many housing authorities have lessened the burden of routine upkeep, allowing for more efficient management and timely maintenance under the program. There has also been an effort to design buildings and open spaces that make it easier to monitor on-site activities in an attempt to discourage less than desirable behavior (Schwartz, 2006).

Despite its many triumphs, HOPE VI has not escaped the pitfalls that come with uprooting people from their homes. Due to their efforts to reduce density on some sites, multiple housing authorities have torn down more units than they have built, leaving a significant number of residents without housing. Additionally, the long redevelopment process has discouraged many people from returning to the site, while others choose not to move back after they have settled into their relocation units. Strict background screenings often create barriers for residents with criminal histories or bad credit

20

who wish to return (Schwartz, 2006). Many people who accept housing vouchers move to areas similar to their original neighborhood, with high poverty and crime rates, which often perpetuates the cycle of government dependency that HOPE VI purports to break.

Some residents have difficulty adjusting to living in the private market because of their lack of experience with household budgeting and monthly bill payments (Cisneros & Engdahl, 2009).

While HOPE VI developments have greatly improved the physical design of public housing, the new sites ultimately serve a completely different population than that which lived at the site prior to the redevelopment. This leaves the root causes of extreme poverty and criminal behavior to be merely shifted to another deteriorating housing authority site elsewhere in the city. Even if the new buildings provide adequate shelter, they alone cannot fix engrained attitudes caused by years of living in poverty. Therefore, Choice Neighborhoods seeks to incorporate more effective supportive service programs that will provide residents with opportunities to improve their current situations.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

21.

HOPE VI PROGRAM SUCCESSES & FAILURES

SUCCESSES · Increased property values in surrounding neighborhoods · Rehabilitated or better designed buildings · More efficient on-site management

FAILURES

ELLEN WILSON HOMES

· Resident relocation and permanent displacement · Strict background screenings required to return · Lack of budgetary experience among voucher holders · Long construction period · Differing value systems among mixedincome residents

ARTHUR CAPPER HOMES

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

TOP: Various HOPE VI developments ABOVE: Notable (DCHA) HOPE VI redevelopment projects SOURCES: see Appendix for credits PROJECT OVERVIEW

21

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS While official legislation has yet to be released, the draft legislation, as well as recent hearings before Congress, have provided a solid outline of the principle elements contained within the Obama Administration’s Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI). Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CNI seeks to expand upon the successes of HUD’s HOPE VI program, which changed the face of public housing from decaying high-rise developments characterized by high crime rates and concentrated poverty to attractive, low-rise mixed-income communities. In comments made before Congress in March 2010, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan stated the three main criteria that applicants will be required to meet in order to be considered for CNI grants:

•• Severely Distressed Public Housing: Housing that requires demolition, major rehabilitation, is vacant or is contributing factor to the decline of the surrounding area •• Concentrated Poverty: This criterion may be measured in a number of ways, including high crime rates, lack of quality education opportunities, blight, abandonment, etc.

•• Potential for Long-term Viability: The site must have some strong neighborhood assets that can be leveraged, in conjunction with the redevelopment, to support the economic health and stability of the neighborhood. Assets might include close proximity to public transit, business centers, quality schools, and low-poverty neighborhoods (Building Neighborhoods, http://unca-acf.org).

22

Unlike HOPE VI, however, CNI will focus not only on housing redevelopment, but on community redevelopment more broadly – with particular emphasis on ensuring that quality education, transportation and crime reduction accompany new housing units. Through coordination by the newly created White House Office of Urban Affairs, HUD has been collaborating with the Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation and Health and Human Services to ensure that parallel programs at these agencies are aligned, and can be leveraged toward CNI’s far-reaching scope (Choice Neighborhoods Budget, FY2011). Summaries of these supporting initiatives are outlined below, and should be considered in any Choice Neighborhoods proposal submitted by DCHA. Congress has authorized $65 million for CNI in 2010; this amount will fund a CNI demonstration site. The administration has requested $250 million in its 2011 budget, which is expected to be allocated to five to seven developments, providing $35-$50 million per site (Choice Neighborhoods Budget, FY2011).

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

View of K Street, Southeast Washington, DC

SOURCE: Google Street View: www.maps.google.com

Support of Current CNI Legislation As the CNI legislation makes its way through Congress, affordable housing advocate groups have expressed their support for several aspects of the program. Specific language, such as provisions requiring one-for-one hard unit replacement, the right to return for current residents, and the coordination between federal agencies, have all received praise.

Criticisms of Current CNI Legislation There have also been negative reactions to the draft legislation. One of the strongest criticisms is the lack of a designated role and funding allocations solely for housing authorities.

Public housing units are not required to be included in CNI transformation plans, and other federally subsidized units and private units are made eligible for redevelopment. By opening up eligibility to additional types of housing developers, housing authorities are concerned that funds needed to address their remaining inventories of distressed units may be reduced.

Another criticism leveled against CNI is that the eligibility requirement for funding is too restrictive and many neighborhoods may not CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

qualify. The current proposal states that CNI will only fund projects in neighborhoods of extreme poverty, where the poverty rate exceeds 40 percent. This excludes 60 percent of public housing sites from being considered for CNI. There is also concern that the CNI requirement of “proximity to educational institutions, medical centers, central business districts, major employers, and effective transportation alternatives” may be targeting neighborhoods where redevelopment is already taking place or likely to take place in the private market.

Some believe the language guaranteeing the right to return needs to be strengthened; CNI guarantees a right to return if the displaced resident is “lease compliant” but does not define the term. Instead, it is suggested that displaced residents should be guaranteed a right of return if they have not been validly terminated before relocation. Finally, the legislation’s language addressing replacement units using Project Based Vouchers is not clearly defined (Ramirez, CEO of NAHRO, 2010).

PROJECT OVERVIEW

23

RELATED PROGRAMS The following programs and services contain elements that support Choice Neighborhood goals and are currently being administered by federal and local agencies. DCHA should consider the ways in which it could partner with, or otherwise leverage, these programs in order to be considered a more attractive Choice Neighborhoods applicant.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Promise Neighborhoods Modeled after the highly successful Harlem Children’s Zone, the Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods Initiative will pair rigorous K-12 education with a full network of support services for both children and their parents.

Examples of these services include early childhood education, after school activities, parenting classes, financial counseling, and college counseling. HUD is particularly interested in funding proposals that feature Choice Neighborhoods in coordination with Promise Neighborhoods to maximize the resources, assets and energy in chosen neighborhoods.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Livable Communities Program The DOT has requested $527 million in FY2011 for their Livable Communities Program, which supports “initiatives that increase transportation choice and integrate housing and land use into transportation decisions.” Funds will support place based investments in low-income communities to improve access to jobs, lessen commutes and increase planning and project development capacity of local communities.

This funding will be coordinated with HUD and the EPA through a newly created Office of Livable Communities, housed in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. In addition to leading investment focused on livable communities, the office will develop performance measures to assess how federal investments impact livability, provide grants and technical assistance that go toward furthering livability and sustainability goals at the local, regional and state levels (FY 2011 DOT Budget highlights).

24

Promise Neighborhoods is modeled closely after the Harlem Children’s Zone model. Shown above: Geoffry Canada, founder of the Harlem Children’s Zone, talking with eager scholars.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation This new program is a partnership between the Department of Justice and HUD, with $40 million requested for FY2011. The program supports communities in reducing crime through collaborative, community-based and evidence-based approaches that also strengthen neighborhood revitalization efforts (Building Neighborhoods, 2010).

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI) The JOLI program is to create new jobs to be filled by low-income individuals. JOLI grants will be administered by non-profits to create jobs through business plans and the provision of technical and/or financial assistance to private employers in the community. The ultimate goal of the JOLI program is economic self-sufficiency for the targeted populations. HHS has requested $2,225,000 for the program in FY 2011 and expects to fund 8 awards at a maximum amount of $317,857.

Adolescent Family Life Care Demonstration Grant These grants are for public or private nonprofit organizations or agencies to demonstrate effective means of strengthening families by providing an array of services that help prevent

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

21.

repeat pregnancy and enhance the well being of pregnant or parenting adolescent mothers, their children, fathers of their children, husbands and/or male partners with whom they are in a long-term relationship. HHS has requested $2,400,000 in FY 2011, which is expected to fund six awards.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Senior Community Service Employment Program This community service and work-based training program promotes pathways to economic self-sufficiency for low-income individuals aged 55 and older. The program provides part-time, paid work experience/ training as Senior Aides in public and private nonprofit organizations. The program is already being operated with District residents through the DC Department of Employment Services; participants work an average of 20 hours a week and are paid $7.55 an hour (minimum wage).

LOCAL PROGRAMS & SERVICE CENTERS The Educare Center, Ward 7 In anticipation of the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative local education advocates in the District’s 7th Ward have partnered with national education foundations and the to build an early childhood education center in Southeast’s Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhood.

The Educare Center, sponsored largely by the Buffett Early Childhood Education Fund which has 9 other Educare centers across the country, will serve 175 infants, toddlers and preschoolers. The facility will be located adjacent to Neval Thomas Elementary School and feature high staff-to-child ratios and Head Start programming. The Center will be operated by a newly formed local non-profit organization. The project has also received support from America’s Promise Alliance and the Urban Institute, which is coordinating the center’s evaluation plan.

DC Developing Families Center Currently, in Washington DC a unique and innovative holistic early childhood development program is gaining traction in the northwest

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

section of the city. The DC Developing Families Center is a collaboration between three DC based non-profits – the Family Health and Birth Center, Healthy Babies Project, and United Planning Organizations. Together they offer medical and educational services for low-income women and their families, a model similar to the nationally recognized Harlem Children’s Zone. The Family and Health and Birth Center provide pre- and post-natal, gynecological, and primary health care to women and their families. The Healthy Babies project provides a community based support system for pregnant and parenting women in the District, with services such as home visits, childbirth and health education classes, parenting classes, and family planning counseling. The United Planning Organization operates an early childhood center serving infants and toddlers ages six weeks to five years old.

DCHA Southwest Family Enhancement Center This new facility, located in Ward 6, opened in 2008 to DCHA residents and others from District. With an annual grant of $850,000 from Department of Employment Services (DOES), the center houses the Transitional Employment Program (TEP), which provides job training, basic computer skills, GED prep and other “wrap around” services.

Green DMV Founded in 2007 by two local entrepreneurs, Green DMV is a non-profit organization that promotes community development in lowincome communities through sustainability initiatives. Using a three pronged approach targeted at businesses, schools and communities, Green DMV facilitates education and training to help develop green businesses practices, increase green spaces in communities, and train lowincome workers to enter “green collar” jobs.

DC OFFICE OF AGING PROGRAMS SeniorWorks II Older Workers Employment and Training Program

PROJECT OVERVIEW

25

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

26..

View of Potomac Gardens Apartments

Photo: A. Ellis

PROBLEM STATEMENT POTOMAC-HOPKINS Despite being located in the thriving Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington DC, in close proximity to transit, job centers, and commercial and human services, Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments have been deteriorating for decades. Constructed between 1957 and 1968, under a now outdated model of public housing design, the buildings are conspicuous and isolated from the neighborhood context.

Potomac-Hopkins residents are both physically and socially detached from their neighbors, the majority of whom enjoy much higher levels of

26

education, income and overall stability. Cycles of poverty have prevented many Potomac-Hopkins residents from accessing economic opportunities that could provide a platform for them to move up and out of public housing.

This proposal attempts to re-imagine the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites from both a physical and social standpoint, to improve the aforementioned conditions, and to lay the foundation for a healthy, productive, and well-balanced community for all current and future residents.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

NATIONAL VISION FOR CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS Choice Neighborhoods will transform existing public housing developments into economically diverse communities that serve as platforms for residents to lead independent, productive lives. Expanding upon the ambitions of previous efforts, Choice Neighborhoods will focus on 1) connectivity and accessibility, 2) integrative physical design, 3) upward mobility for residents, and 4) appropriate and effective supportive services. Choice Neighborhoods will be anchored by the seamless integration of housing into the social and physical fabric of the surrounding neighborhood to build emotionally, economically and aesthetically healthy communities.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Defined by strong connections to job centers, transportation hubs, educational institutions, green spaces, and supportive services, Choice Neighborhoods will strengthen social and economic opportunities for all residents of the neighborhood. Site designs and services will strive to establish citizen empowerment and community pride from all neighborhood residents and stakeholders. Resident input will be a critical component throughout every Choice Neighborhoods community, from their initial inception to ongoing operation.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

27

28

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

29.

SITE

ANALYSIS Site Description Demographic Profile Existing Conditions Site Analysis Resident Perspectives Synthesis: Opportunities & Constraints

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

3 SITE ANALYSIS

29

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONALABOVE: PLANNING Aerial map of study area in Southeast DC.

3

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

31.

SITE

ANALYSIS SITE DESCRIPTION The Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments are located in Southeast Washington, DC on two sites south of the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and 12th Street, SE and north of the Southeast-Southwest Freeway. These sites sit in close proximity to the Anacostia River.

surrounding neighborhood also contains three schools, and a large mixed-use grocery and retail development (Jenkins Row). Retail and commercial options are located predominantly along Pennsylvania Avenue and at Jenkins Row along Potomac Avenue.

Currently, the DCHA operates Potomac Gardens and Hopkins as separate sites. Potomac Gardens contains two senior-disabled buildings and the rest family housing, while Hopkins Apartments are studios, two, and three bedroom family apartments. As noted previously, Potomac Gardens and Hopkins are located just south of Pennsylvania Avenue, a major thoroughfare that connects this site to the Capitol Building, the National Mall and downtown DC. A blue and orange Metro line is walking distance from the sites, along with several bus lines.

The largest physical barrier is the SoutheastSouthwest Freeway, which is directly south of both sites and physically separates the sites from the Anacostia River and the recently redeveloped Nationals Stadium area south of the Freeway. In addition to these features, the

The surrounding neighborhood is residential, with a consistent brick two and three story row home character. Neighborhood streets are walkable, with sidewalks, crosswalks, and mature street trees. Despite the prevalence of street trees, a nearby ballfield at Tyler Elementary, and landscaping around residences, there is a lack of open public green space in the immediate vicinity. The nearest city park is Watkins Recreation Center, located two blocks north of Potomac Gardens at Catherine R. Watkins Elementary School. Both the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites have basketball hoops and play spaces for children, though these are basic and appeal primarily to the youngest children. The city recently completed a skate-park adjacent to the Western Hopkins site.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

SITE ANALYSIS

31

32

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

SITE ANALYSIS

33

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

34.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REGIONAL ANALYSIS: Washington, DC metro area The District of Columbia was established as the nation’s capital in 1790. The city occupies 64 square miles of land between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and the states of Maryland and Virginia. The District is in a Metro region of 5.3 million residents and contains a city population of close to 600,000. DC’s population is dominated by three racial groups: African American (53 percent), whites (36 percent) and Hispanics (8 percent). While the federal government is largest employer in the city and the region, Washington, DC has a dynamic and diverse economy, which includes telecommunications, technology, international business, law, and tourism. This growing employment center is dominated by white-collar jobs, and has resulted in an area median income of $102,700 – one of the highest in the nation.

AFFORDABILITY CRISIS Like many other major American cities, the high median income and scarcity of land have resulted in a crisis in housing affordability. The Fair Market Rent (FMR) (a measure used by HUD to determine market rents in a given locality) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,288. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities – without paying more than 30% of income on housing – a household must earn $4,293 monthly or $51,520 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into a single employee hourly wage of $24.77.

In the District of Columbia, a minimum wage worker earns an hourly wage of $7.55. In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner must work 131 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Alternatively, a household must include 3.3 minimum wage earners working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two-bedroom FMR affordable.

Washington, DC aligns closely with national trends, with two-thirds owner-occupied and one-third renter-occupied housing units. Of the

34

ABOVE: Various landmarks in Washington, DC. See Appendix for credits.

owner-occupied housing units, nearly 40 percent spend over 30 percent of household income on monthly mortgage costs. Of the home-owning cohort, 40 percent spend over 30 percent of their household income on monthly housing costs (mortgage, utilities, etc.). Renters face an even greater affordability gap, with 47 percent of households spending greater than 30 percent of their monthly income on rent. The median gross rent in Washington, D.C. is $1,253, with nearly a third of the population paying over $1,500 per month on rent.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

WASHINGTON, DC FAST FACTS

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION Racial distribution in Washington, DC is divided.

Though pockets of diversity exist throughout the city, the West side of the city is predominantly White and the East side is predominantly nonWhite, with Blacks making up the largest portion.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

•

Washington, DC Metro Region: 5.3 million people

•

District of Columbia: Approximately 600,000 people

•

Largest racial groups: African American (53%), White (36%), Hispanics (8%)

•

Regional Area Median Income (AMI): $102,700

AREA MEDIAN INCOME Income levels in the District are also unevenly distributed. The Northwest side of the city makes typically at or above Area Median Income (AMI), while the East side of the city typically falls below AMI, with Capitol Hill as an exception.

SITE ANALYSIS

35

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

CT 70

STUDY AREA ANALYSIS: Capitol Hill neighborhood With a prime location next to the Capitol Building, the Capitol Hill neighborhood is one of the most prestigious and residential neighborhoods in Washington, DC. Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments are located in the Southeast section of the neighborhood.

In order to understand the characteristics and conditions of Potomac-Hopkins neighborhood and its residents, the project team collected and analyzed a number of quantitative and qualitative data. For purposes of comparison, the project team defined a “study area” and a more immediate neighborhood boundary (referred to below as “Tract 71”). These geographic areas were determined by site research, as well as discussions with DCHA staff. The study area was defined as Census tracts 68.02, 68.04, 69, 70, 71, 72. The neighborhood was defined as Census Tract 71, in which both Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments are contained.

CT 72

Population and Housing In 2009, Washington, DC had a population just under 600,000 people and 260,000 households.

The study area contained close to 14,000 residents in 5,400 households. Combined, both sites contain approximately 1,000 residents in 500 units.

On average, the city’s population has grown two percent every five years, while the study area has grown slightly faster at 2.5 percent. In contrast, Tract 71 continued to grow less than one percent every five years. Household size was about 2.5 persons per household in both Tract 71 and the study area, which was only slightly higher than the city’s statistic of 2.3 persons per household.

36

Age and Race

fell into the 25-64 age bracket. This high proportion of young people was largely due to the high number of children between the ages of 10-19 that live at Potomac-Hopkins, making up 25 percent of the resident population. This same cohort made up only 10 percent of the population in Tract 71. Senior populations (65+) were equally represented in the study area and Census Tract 71.

As of 2009 there was almost no difference in the age composition between the city and the study area. Both the city and the study area had about 60 percent of the population between the ages of 25 and 64, and around a third of their populations was under 25. However, the numbers are reversed in Tract 71. While about half the population was made up of people under 25, only one-third

While the DCHA does not keep records regarding the race of the their residents, the population at Potomac-Hopkins is nearly all African American. At the Tract 71 level, 80 percent of the population was African American, while whites made up about 10 percent and Asians five percent.

At the study area level, the proportion of

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CT 69

CT 71

public housing site

neighborhood boundary

census tract boundary

N whites increased to around 30 percent while the African American population dropped to approximately 65 percent. At the city level, whites represented 35 percent of the population, and African Americans made up just over 50 percent. These figures indicate that in 2009 Tract 71 was significantly more racially segregated than the study area and the city as a whole.

Income As previously mentioned, the Washington, DC metro area has one the highest median incomes in the country, which in 2009 was $102,700. In 2009, both the city and study area had median incomes at around half the metro area’s median ($54,000 and $53,000, respectively). Tract 71 and the housing sites CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

have incomes that are drastically lower than both the city and region. At around 65 percent of the city’s median, Tract 71 had a median income of $35,000, and Potomac-Hopkins had a median income of slightly above $10,000, or 20 percent of the city’s median income.

Compared to the regional median income, the disparity becomes even more acute, with Tract 71 representing 34 percent of the regional income and the sites only representing 10 percent. In a city where two-bedroom rents are $1,288 a month, the households in Tract 71 and Potomac-Hopkins cannot afford a FMR unit. In order to pay only 30 percent of their income in rent, current households in Tract 71 should pay up to $869 a month (which is a $400 difference from the FMR) and households at PotomacHopkins should pay up to $268, which is a $1,000 difference from FMR. SITE ANALYSIS

37

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

38.

38

EXISTING CONDITIONS

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

RIGHT: Exterior conditions at Potomac Gardens & Hopkins Aparmtents Photos: A. Ellis, J. Curran

PHOTOS

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

SITE ANALYSIS

39

SITE ANALYSIS POTOMAC-HOPKINS

After conducting a needs assessment for the study area surrounding Potomac Gardens and Hopkins, and meeting with DCHA, the project team identified four key points of site analysis: Site Accessibility, Physical Design, Housing Choice, and Resident Services.

Site Accessibility Site accessibility problems stem primarily from the fencing that surrounds all of the DCHA buildings in the neighborhood. On the Potomac Gardens block, which is the largest area of the two sites, the fence limits access points to the site and forces entry and exit to occur at odd locations. The fence is eight feet tall and curved outward towards the sidewalk, creating a visual and psychological barrier. Despite comments from the residents and DCHA that the fence is perceived as a positive feature, this fence creates a clear line of demarcation and separation, and portrays a hostile message to both the residents and the surrounding neighbors. These issues inhibit physical and social integration.

potentially move into the site. This includes families, singles, seniors, young couples, and disabled residents.

Resident Services Resident services are an important component of life at Potomac Gardens and Hopkins. The site currently partners with 10 service providers, in addition to the Boy’s and Girl’s Club, which is located on the first floor of the 1130 Hopkins building. The site provides space to many of these services in the bottom of the 1212 building in an area informally dubbed “Community Row.” However, after conversations with DCHA, a review of the data provided by DCHA, and a visit to the site, in which residents were informally interviewed, the project team identified additional service needs for Potomac Gardens and Hopkins: ••

Spaces that are better designed to accommodate existing programs

••

Stronger link to on-the-job training opportunities that are connected to actual positions

••

Increased services for drug and violence prevention and rehabilitation

••

Resident leadership and empowerment programs

••

Stronger partnerships with neighborhood schools, and greater emphasis on youth and adult education programs

••

A need for continuity of service programs and providers

••

Services targeted specifically at seniors and disabled populations

Physical Design and Building Conditions The physical design of the site was the second core issue identified by the project team. With larger scale buildings, set at odd arrangements on the site, the result is a substantial amount of unassigned space within the interior of the Potomac Gardens block. Very few buildings address the street in the current building configuration, and there is an inefficient use of space for the level of density on the site. Lastly, the site architecture is in stark contrast to the surrounding neighborhood.

Building conditions on the site are deteriorating and the need for rehabilitation appears too costly when compared to the benefits of site redesign and reconfiguration.

Housing Choice Currently on the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites there are one, two, and three bedroom apartment-style units in large apartment buildings.

The current apartment-only options limit the types of households that can live on site or that would

40

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

PACE

Sides of buildings are addressing the street Configuration of buildings has led to many dark, shaded areas

Open space corridors dominated by paved surfaces Green spaces are arbitrary and not functional

BUILDING CONFIGURATION

Largest green areas are cut off by the fences Landscape seen as remnants of land, not as a system

Recreational amenities hidden in the center of the site

BUILDING CONFIGURATION

OPEN SPACE

X

Fence creates a mental and physical barrier for site No continuous movement throughout the site Parking lots serves as major access points Walkways terminate at fence, creating potentially unsafe spaces One major entrance located on G street at the senior building

MOVEMENT & CIRCULATION CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

ACCESS & CIRCULATION SITE ADJACENCIES SITE ANALYSIS

41

RESIDENT PERSPECTIVES DCHA and HUD have emphasized the importance of ensuring that current public housing residents are involved throughout the process of any site redevelopment process. Critics of past redevelopments and HOPE VI projects, in particular, have argued that this requirement has resulted in many token meetings, where residents’ opinions are recorded but rarely borne out in the final development. One way residents have often been involved in the process is in setting the screening criteria that determines which public housing residents can return to the new housing.

DCHA staff members stated that the residents typically establish more stringent criteria than the housing authority would require. This practice often becomes problematic when residents return to the site because friends and family members who do not meet the new criteria are prohibited from visiting/living in the new units.

Four members of the project team had the opportunity to spend a day at both Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments conducting interviews with residents, touring the properties, and meeting with the Faithworks service coordinators. The purpose of the interviews was to become more familiar with the service and design needs and desires of the residents. The meetings provided incredible insight for the project team into the daily lives of Potomac-Hopkins residents – the things they like and dislike about their housing, the barriers they face in finding quality education, jobs and healthcare, and the daily challenges of dealing with drugs, gangs and systemic poverty.

All of the residents who spoke voiced a concern for losing their housing in the event of a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI redevelopment. Many are aware of the very low rates of return of public housing residents to HOPE VI developments.

Several stated their fears bad credit ratings keeping them from being able to return, despite being longtime residents with otherwise clean records.

42

The following issues came up repeatedly in the conversations with residents, and should be carefully considered in any redevelopment proposal when planning for both resident services and site design.

••

Territory – Strong feelings of territoriality exist among current Potomac-Hopkins residents. Often adults or children of one building will not use a common area, recreation room or playground located near another building because they do not feel welcome there, or closer residents have claimed the space as their own. There is often very little interaction between residents in the same building, and even less between the two sites. A site plan should consider how to provide common spaces for services and recreation that are centrally located, inviting and accessible to residents throughout the site and neighborhood.

••

Drugs – Both sites, Potomac Gardens in particular, have long histories as centers of drug culture in the District. The buying, selling and using of drugs are deeply entrenched issues that affect residents of all ages. Most residents know one or more former residents, friends or family members who have been killed, injured or incarcerated due to drug-related crimes at Potomac-Hopkins. Many of the disabled residents are handicapped due to drugrelated shootings. Residents cited current design features – such as the placement of common benches and picnic tables – being taken over by drug dealers who use them to sell their wares.

••

Disabled and Senior Residents – Currently senior residents and disabled residents live together in two Potomac Gardens buildings. Residents repeatedly commented that this was a problematic

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

living arrangement. Many of the disabled residents are young – often their disabilities are the result of drug related shootings – and are intimidating to older residents.

The needs and habits of the two groups are often very different. Moreover, there is also a wide array of conditions among disabled residents ranging from physical impairments to mental disabilities to dual diagnoses – making their service needs specific and varied.

••

••

Resident Demographic Change Over Time– Many of the residents are long-time residents of Potomac-Hopkins. Some moved in when the buildings first opened in 1968. Many noted that the population and culture of the sites had changed over time, from one where residents took pride in their housing, where more community activities were offered and more people worked, to one with higher concentrations of poverty, drugs and crime. This shift in the demographics of public housing residents has occurred at PHA sites across the country (Committee on National Urban Policy, 1990). Among the Potomac-Hopkins residents the project talked to this shift has resulted in two groups – a minority of long-time residents who represent the “old values”, have pride in the housing and appear more invested in the success of their community, and the newer residents, who are typically younger, have more troubled backgrounds, criminal records, etc.

Need for GED Preparation and Job Training – Because many of the residents have not completed high school, there

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

is a great need for GED courses on or near the site. This seems to be one of the biggest hindrances to entry into the workforce. There is also a need to provide job training for people who want to secure employment, as well as continuing education for those who have found jobs, but lack the resources to pursue opportunities that could lead to career growth. Placing such services near the site would make it easier to attract participants because they would not have to incur transportation costs or travel far from home.

••

Need for Enhanced Youth Programs at the Boys and Girls Club – In August 2009, Urban Bridge Builders, a neighborhood nonprofit who was instrumental in bringing a new playground to Hopkins Apartments, conducted a market survey on the use of services at the Boys and Girls Club. Results showed that over half of the residents at Hopkins are between the ages of 5-18, however only one quarter of them use the Boys and Girls Club. Frequent reasons given for the lack of use were a lack of knowledge about the center, inconvenient hours, inappropriate programs for children, and competing after school programs. Youth respondents reported that the programs they would most like to see are sports and fitness programs, tutoring and homework help, and mentoring programs. Realigning the Boys and Girls Club programming with the desires of the youth residents, along with improved outreach and marketing, would make the center more attractive and enhance participation rates.

SITE ANALYSIS

43

depressed real estate values in adjacent neighborhoods

OPPS & CONSTRAINT

limited access points and on-site circulation

disconnected block character and architectural style

OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS After reviewing the preliminary site analysis, the project team identified a set of opportunities and constraints, focused around physical design and social service issues.

CONSTRAINTS Physical. As previously discussed, the fencing and limited access points are constraints for both sites. In addition, the block design and architectural character also create a disjointed relationship between the sites and the surrounding neighborhood. The SoutheastSouthwest Freeway is another large constraint that discourages travel between adjacent

44

neighborhoods, and also negatively impacts the design of spaces on either side of the freeway.

Social. Many social constraints also exist on the site. As mentioned, the Potomac-Hopkins residents face severe affordability challenges given the high AMI throughout the Washington, DC metropolitan area and unabated housing demand for living on Capitol Hill. PotomacHopkins residents currently make less than 15% of AMI and are surrounded by high wealth residents, many of whom typically hold governmental positions. This structure has resulted in a sometimes strained relationship between residents and adjacent neighbors. In

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

connection to transit M

metro

TS MAP

increased connection to Pennsylvania Avenue

enhanced partnerships between sites and services

addition, the continuous demand for housing and the small number of vacancies in the neighborhood surrounding Potomac-Hopkins limits the flexibility of the DCHA to set up an onsite relocation program, which is the preferred approach to site redevelopment.

OPPORTUNITIES Physical. Many physical opportunities for the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites exist. The first opportunity lies in the redesign of both the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites to allow for seamless integration of the housing units into the surrounding neighborhood.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

This will involve a reconfiguration of buildings, most successfully accomplished through the construction of entirely new units on both sites to achieve the greatest parity with the neighborhood’s building character. A second opportunity lies in the potential to increase connections between the two sites through a redesign of the street grid and open space. Increased open space and public realm are badly needed in the neighborhood. A third area of opportunity that can be leveraged from a Choice Neighborhoods redevelopment is the enhancement of on and off-site services, both through improved physical location and their ability to meet resident needs. Additional opportunities involve inclusion of innovative stormwater and energy efficiency designs that could tap into Department of Energy funds. Lastly, there are opportunities to strengthen connections between nearby transit, the Pennsylvania Avenue retail corridor, and the housing sites. These could include public-private partnerships to develop retail and commercial space suited to a mixedincome community.

Social. Social opportunities for the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites exist through increased connections with surrounding schools, such as Tyler Elementary School, Friendship Public Charter School, and Cesar Chavez Public Charter School.

Potential partnerships may also be realized with other schools in the area, particularly those with struggling performance indicators, by creating programs that are mutually beneficial to the public housing population and participating schools.

These programs could provide prime opportunities to incorporate Department of Education Promise Neighborhood funding in a Choice Neighborhoods proposal. The proximity of these sites to downtown DC’s job center and to several transit stops also has the potential to attract Department of Transportation dollars. Lastly, a major opportunity lies in the ability to involve residents in the redevelopment process and the dialogue shaping the evolution of this neighborhood. If handled well, a resident involvement process can be a tremendous opportunity to improve social interactions between current residents and their neighbors and also to increase future resident investment in their community.

SITE ANALYSIS

45

46

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

47.

CORE

ISSUES Income Mix & Housing Resident Relocation Building Demolition vs. Rehabilitation Financial Feasibility: Funding Sources Services & Community Management Open Space & Public Amenities Physical & Social Integration Alignment with Planning Efforts

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

4 CORE ISSUES

47

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

48.

4 CORE

ISSUES

In order to create practical final recommendations, the project team sought to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges facing the DC Housing Authority and Potomac-Hopkins residents, as well as other stakeholders who work on-site or in the surrounding community.

Through independent research and discussions with DCHA, residents, and service providers, the project team determined eight core issues that should be taken into consideration throughout the redevelopment process. These include: income mix and housing, resident relocation, demolition

versus rehabilitation, financial feasibility, services and community management, open space and public amenities, physical and social integration, and alignment with other planning efforts.

Although many of these issues can be found at public housing sites across the country, the project team looked specifically at how they manifest at Potomac-Hopkins. Thus, the core issues presented here form the crux for the service and design recommendations discussed in Section 5.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

49.

ISSUE 1:

INCOME MIX & HOUSING Creating communities with a range of income levels is not a new idea. In its original design, public housing was intended to serve working poor in the bottom third of the income scale. There are also many naturally occurring mixed income neighborhoods all across the country.

Advocates of mixed-income communities claim that a number of benefits result from having economically diverse populations live near one another. Among the most commonly benefits cited are:

1) To de-concentrate the isolation and (widely debated) “culture of poverty” behaviors experienced by many public housing residents, particularly those living in older, aging public housing sites with concentrated poverty.

2) The role model effect, in which families, particularly children, are able to observe the positive results of adults who participate in activities such as full-time work, parenting, and homeownership.

3) Increased access to opportunities and social

networks – jobs, education, professional contacts – for low-income residents, which can be achieved by interacting with better-connected moderate and upper-income neighbors.

4) A greater level of public services and amenities that

can be achieved by higher income populations who are typically able to demand greater political attention and navigate the necessary bureaucratic systems. Higher income residents may also be able attract greater private investment in the community.

Evaluations of mixed-income communities in achieving these purported benefits have been very limited, and the results that have been reported are mixed. The following cases illustrate some of the positive results as well as the challenges of mixed-income housing.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

49

INCOME MIX & HOUSING CASE STUDIES

CENTENNIAL PLACE, ATLANTA, GA

Centennial Place in Atlanta, GA sits on the former site of Techwood Homes, the first public housing development in the United States.

Built in 1936, Techwood Homes was the first public housing development in the country. In 1993, the project was awarded a $42 million HOPE VI grant from HUD to redevelop as a mixed income community. The new development was renamed Centennial Place and redevelopment intended to revitalize the deteriorated community, while also eradicating the deeply held sense of isolation felt by public housing residents. The income mix set aside 40 percent of units for residents making less than 60 percent of AMI, 20 percent of units making between 50 and 60 percent of AMI, and another 40 percent of units at market rate.

The design incorporated historic preservation of one prominent building in the center of the development.

Key Elements

•

Extensive resident participation from a very early stage in the project, including a legally binding Further Assurances Agreement, which guaranteed certain elements such as relocation, priorities for return, and site design, and resolved many of the current residents fears of displacement.

•

Particular attention was given to housing design and amenities to make them competitive in the market. Nonhousing elements included retail and a neighborhood school to ensure that a transformation of the neighborhood – not just the housing site – could occur, and to attract market rate households to the area.

Challenges

•

Attracting residents, both market rate and low-income, to live in the preserved building proved difficult. Tenants preferred the new construction units, and eventually the historic building was converted into office space.

Results Centennial has won several awards for both its planning concept and site design. Centennial Place Elementary is the second highest performing school in the Atlanta school system despite its lowincome student population. Students there also out perform national average (Glover, 2010). In addition to the school, a YMCA, bank and library were all incorporated into the plan. One study, conducted by the Brookings Institute, reported that property values in the surrounding neighborhood had increased after the redevelopment.

50

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

LAKE PARC PLACE, CHICAGO, IL Lake Parc Place represented the Chicago Housing Authority’s (CHA) earliest attempt to create a mixed income community. Originally part of a group of CHA’s most troubled properties, the two 15-story towers were rehabilitated in 1991 and turned over to two private management companies to carry out the new mixed-income experiment. Unlike Centennial Place, Lake Parc Place mixed only low and moderate income residents, and did not include market rate units.

This decision was made because stakeholders believed the building could not attract market rate renters due to its long history as a poorly managed complex. In addition, all of Lake Parc’s residents were African American, which some believe may have resulted in greater interaction between income groups.

Lake Parc Place in Chicago, IL represents one of the earliest attempts to provide housing to mixedincome residents in a public development.

Key Elements

•

Income groups were mixed on every floor throughout the buildings to ensure that true mixing would occur.

•

The income mix was chosen deliberately with the goal of interaction. Unlike many other mixed income developments where moderate and market rate residents are often singles or couples without children, many of the moderate income residents at Lake Parc had children, and many had lived in public housing at some point in the past.

Challenges

•

CHA eventually took the buildings back from the private management group and were less stringent about refilling units vacated by the moderate income residents. Overtime the building became reoccupied by nearly all low-income tenants.

Results A resident survey taken about one year after Lake Parc opened indicated that the mixed income model was having significant positive effects for residents and the neighborhood. Lake Parc had much lower rates of crime and graffiti than other CHA sites. The low-income residents reported feeling much safer than their previous public housing situations (though moderate income residents reported no change). Both low and moderate income residents had similar levels of interaction and friendship among with other residents, with slightly higher levels reported among the low-income tenants. However, interaction across income groups was not directly measured so it is unclear how much mixing actually occurred.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

51

LESSONS FOR POTOMAC-HOPKINS Studies tracking the outcomes of mixed income development have concluded that the primary benefits include improved physical design and neighborhood safety. Making income “invisible” and integrating low-income units all throughout development is critical to avoiding incomebased clustering. This can sometimes be challenging when programming units, as lowincome tenants often have more children or family members living with them than higher income tenants, and building configurations are frequently separated by family size.

In nearly all cases, evidence of social interaction between income groups is has been limited.

Strong management and strict enforcement of rules were cited as essential elements to maintaining order and physical upkeep at the buildings. In most cases this involved rigorous tenant screening processes. Some study results have indicated that the particular levels of income matter in the degree of interaction and neighboring that is achieved, and populations with similar income levels are more likely to interact and relate with one another.

ISSUE 2:

RESIDENT RELOCATION Relocation and the potential for residents to return to public housing sites after site rehabilitation, are perhaps some of the most challenging and controversial elements of public housing authority (PHA) redevelopments, such as those that have occurred under HOPE VI and are proposed under CNI. One of the biggest criticisms of HOPE VI has been the large-scale displacement of public housing families in favor of households with higher incomes. As of September 30, 2008, of the 72,265 families displaced by HOPE VI, only 17,382 had returned to the revitalized HOPE VI communities, which is a return rate of 24% (Kingsley, 2009). This rate is much lower in HOPE VI developments that have been completed in the District of Columbia.

Typically when HOPE VI redevelopments have occurred in DC, the site’s current residents are offered the option to take a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), which can be used to rent a unit on the private market, or to relocate to another public housing site in the District. Very

52

few residents are granted the right to return to the same site after it has been redeveloped. This is usually because they cannot meet the more stringent screening criteria at the new site and/ or because they do not meet the income level required by the housing authority to keep the development financially solvent.

The majority of residents who are being relocated opt to take a voucher and seek their own unit in the private market. These HCVs (formerly known as Section 8 tenant based vouchers) allow residents to pay 30 percent of their income toward rent, while the voucher makes up the difference between that amount and the regionally determined “fair market rent.” While the voucher program has resulted in positive outcomes for some residents – allowing them to relocate in neighborhoods of lower poverty and greater services than they had at their PHA site – many residents end up in neighborhoods with conditions that are equal or worse than their previous home. For

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Previous HOPE VI efforts by DCHA, such as Wheeler Creek (left) in Southeast DC, have resulted in the displacement of thousands of public housing residents.

residents who choose to move to another PHA site, they often find themselves among other residents who have been screened out of new developments or the private market, thereby creating even greater concentrations of poverty and social service needs than the original sites.

One-for-One Replacement In the past, the majority of HOPE VI projects replaced approximately half of all demolished public housing units with new public housing units (Congressional Budget Office, 2008). Under the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008, one-for-one replacement became mandatory, achieved either through public housing or project-based rental assistance.

Despite this replacement requirement, a number of loopholes have allowed housing authorities to meet the obligation without creating new “hard units”. In Washington, DC, the housing authority has redeveloped several of its HOPE VI sites at lower densities than previously existed and counted HCVs as replacement units. The result has been new sites that predominately serve new, and higher income populations, and leave the original residents to find new housing in DC’s extremely tight and unaffordable marketplace.

One of the leading factors driving the low rates of return of original residents is the to desire

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

of policymakers to deconcentrate the poverty found on public housing sites by mixing incomes in communities. The HOPE VI program is based on this premise, and its sites are designed so that public housing residents are interspersed among other low and moderate-income, and market rate renters or homeowners. HUD has promoted this mixed-income housing strategy for a variety of reasons, principally for the purported spin-off effects for low-income residents of high quality services and amenities, social and professional networks, and role modeling effects that are associated with higher income residents. In addition, HOPE VI’s emphasis on high quality housing design, including making subsidized units indecipherable from market rate units, is intended to reduce the stigma of public housing.

A second factor that has influenced the return rate of original residents is the high costs of housing redevelopment. These costs demand diverse funding streams in order to supplement the HUD awards. In HOPE VI projects this funding has typically been achieved through Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units and market rate units, which generate higher rents than public housing units. LIHTC’s finance units for households making up to 50 or 60 percent of area median income (depending on the type of credit received). Market rate units are advertised to achieve the highest price possible, attracting renters and buyers making 100 percent of AMI or above.

CORE ISSUES

53

In response to heavy criticism of the displacement of public housing residents in HOPE VI redevelopments, the CNI draft legislation has put a large emphasis on onefor-one replacement of public housing units.

Specifically, the draft legislation calls for:

•• 100 percent replacement of all units that are demolished, through on-site and offsite units (replacement bedrooms must adequately serve returning tenants and tenants on waitlist)

•• The location of replacement units must

be within the neighborhood being revitalized or within 25 miles of original project site. Off-site units must:

•• Provide access to “economic

opportunities and public transportation and be accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, health facilities and services”

•• Not be located in areas of minority concentration or extreme poverty

•• Up to half of the public housing

units may be replaced using tenant-based vouchers where there is an adequate supply of affordable rental housing in lowpoverty areas

Right to Return As currently written, the CNI legislation guarantees the right to return to on-site or offsite replacement housing for residents who are lease compliant at the time of departure, and throughout the relocation period. The bill states that preference to occupy (on-site or off-site units) will be given to returning tenants before those on waiting lists or the general public.

Screening Criteria In the majority of the District’s HOPE VI developments, DCHA has allowed current original residents to create the screening criteria

54

for the residents who will qualify for the new housing. This has frequently resulted in very stringent rules that disqualify many of the original residents.

Lessons for Potomac-Hopkins The low historic return rates for original residents of DCHA’s HOPE VI developments are troubling to current residents Potomac-Hopkins.

Additionally, the sites’ location in a desirable and relatively affluent area of Capitol Hill make prospects for finding nearby affordable replacement housing (through a HCV voucher) unlikely. Potomac-Hopkins residents and service providers have proposed an alternate relocation strategy for the site: a “build first” occupied redevelopment, that would allow current residents who desire to remain at the site the option to do so, as long as they are lease compliant and willing to withstand the inconveniences of temporary relocation and ongoing construction.

If assumed, this strategy would be a bold departure from past HOPE VI developments that have vacated sites in order to demolish buildings and build anew. While a build first, on-site relocation process presents a number of challenges, it represents a commitment to building for the current residents rather than a new population. This model is being proposed as a part of the larger Community Management Program in which residents would participate in the relocation and redevelopment process by providing input in the design process, training and job opportunities and managing the properties upon their completion. The strategy provides opportunities for skill building and employment, as well as a sense of pride and ownership in their new housing.

If undertaken, this strategy will require a significant investment of vision, time and funding on the part of project stakeholders, but is regarded as an innovative alternative that will allow a CNI redevelopment to benefit the original public housing residents, instead of a largely new population.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

ISSUE 3:

BUILDING DEMOLITION VS. REHABILITATION Overview The project team faced a decision between demolition and partial rehabilitation of the existing buildings of Potomac-Hopkins.

Rehabilitation is often the preferred method of redevelopment if the existing buildings are in a suitable condition for repair and if the cost to rehab is lower than demolition and new construction. However, rehabilitation is more unpredictable and often more difficult to carry out. Given the goals of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, the challenges involved in renovating the current buildings to become more aligned with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and uncertainty about the marketability of rehabbed units to non-public housing residents, the project team to ultimately decided for full demolition.

In Context to Project Site The rehabilitation of Potomac-Hopkins was not feasible because of building age, condition and construction method. Most of the buildings are outdated and largely dilapidated; Hopkins Apartments were built in 1957 and Potomac Gardens in 1968. While the three high-rise buildings at the northern end of Potomac Gardens are quality masonry construction, the rest of the buildings at both sites are wood constructed and have exceeded their life expectancy. The layout of Potomac Gardens is inefficient and does not allow for functional open space. “Spot” rehabilitations of the masonry buildings was the only feasible alternative to full demolition, but the project team believes that the costs of the technical expertise to repair those buildings would exceed the cost of demolition, and would still largely fail to address other site design issues, such as open space, circulation and orientation to the street.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

One of the most debated topics in public housing redevelopment is demolition versus rehabilitation. The towers (above right) are being torn down, while the row houses are being rehabilitated (above left) at Cabrini-Green in Chicago.

Best Practices: Deconstruction The concept of demolition has recently evolved from expedient destruction and disposal of a building to the re-use, recycling and waste management of a site. HUD encourages “deconstruction,” or selectively dismantling or removing materials from buildings before or instead of some elements of demolition.

Deconstruction can be a link to job training and economic development efforts; small businesses can handle the salvaged materials from the deconstruction process and reuse them in new projects. The process is both environmentally sensitive and economically sensible in that it diverts valuable resources from crowded landfills into profitable uses.

CORE ISSUES

55

ISSUE 4:

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY: FUNDING SOURCES The project team considered a variety of funding sources for this report and these are briefly outlined below.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) 2009 DC Allocation: $18,179,591 The Community Development Block Grant program was established in 1974 to provide communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. CDBG funds are for activities that benefit low and moderate-income persons.

The activities must benefit low and moderateincome persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available. The program aims to “ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010).

The amount each jurisdiction is granted each year is determined using a formula comprised of several measures of community need, including the extent of poverty, population, housing overcrowding, age of housing, and population growth lag in relationship to other metropolitan areas. Washington, DC was allocated $18,179,591 in 2009.

HOME 2009 DC Allocation: $9,322,221 HOME funds are the largest Federal block grant to state and local governments and are designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. Each year the Federal government allocates

56

approximately $2 billion among the states and hundreds of localities nationwide. HOME funds can be used to provide home purchase or rehabilitation financing assistance to eligible homeowners and new homebuyers; build or rehabilitate housing for rent or ownership; or for “other reasonable and necessary expenses related to the development of non-luxury housing,” including site acquisition or improvement, demolition of dilapidated housing to make way for HOME-assisted development, and payment of relocation expenses (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010).

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is a source of financing allotted for the economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities rehabilitation, construction or installation for the benefit of low- to moderateincome persons, or to aid in the prevention of slums. The program allows local governments to transform a small portion of their CDBG funds into federally guaranteed loans large enough to pursue physical and economic revitalization projects that can renew entire neighborhoods. It is essentially the City’s pledge of a future stream of CDBG funding for up to 20 years. Section 108 is potentially a good, available source of funding for the HOPE VI infrastructure needs.

For instance, a pledge of 20 percent of the City’s CDBG entitlement for ten years would provide approximately $6 million in funding for the HOPE VI program.

Section 108 allows significant capital to be raised for projects of substantial size such as neighborhood revitalization. Activities eligible for Section 108 financing include:

•• Economic development activities eligible under CDBG;

•• Rehabilitation of publicly owned real property;

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

•• Housing rehabilitation eligible under CDBG;

•• Construction, reconstruction, or

installation of public facilities (including street, sidewalk, and other site improvements);

•• Related relocation, clearance, and site improvements;

•• In limited circumstances, housing

construction as part of community economic development, Housing Development Grant, or Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Grant programs.

Recovery Zone/Build America Bonds Build America Bonds were created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to provide much-needed funding for state and local governments at lower borrowing costs to pursue necessary capital projects including governmental housing projects. The bonds, which allow a new direct federal payment subsidy, are taxable bonds issues by state and local governments that will give them access to the conventional corporate debt markets.

The U.S. Treasury Department will make a direct payment to the state or local governmental issuer in an amount equal to 35 percent of the interest payment on the Build America Bonds.

Consequently, local governments will have lower net borrowing costs and are able to reach more sources of borrowing than with more traditional tax-exempt or tax credit bonds. Washington DC would be able to issue a Build America Bond at a 10 percent taxable interest rate, and the Treasury Department would make a direct payment to the government of 3.5 percent of that interest, and the net borrowing cost would thus be only 6.5 percent (ustreas.gov). At the time of this publication, a U.S. Treasury 30-year bond is at 4.66 percent (Bloomberg.com, 2010).

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Similarly, the creation of the Recovery Zone Bond program designated $25 billion in bonds targeted for areas particularly affected by job loss and in need of economic development projects such as public infrastructure development. A sum of $10 billion is allocated for Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and $15 billion for Recovery Zone Facility Bonds. The economic development bond is a type of Build America Bond that allows state and local governments to obtain lower borrowing costs through a new direct federal payment subsidy for 45 percent of the interest. This is used to finance a broad range of qualified economic development projects such as job training and educational programs.

Facility bonds are a type of traditional tax-exempt private activity bond that may be used by private businesses in locally designated recovery zones to finance a broad range of depreciable capital projects.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Capital Improvement Plan is a short-range plan that covers the capital budget and capital programs developed by the City. Funding for a project can be included in the program and funded, as a budget item over multiple years, through the CIP. Such a program allows for a systemic evaluation of all potential projects at the same time and the ability to stabilize debt and consolidate projects to reduce borrowing costs.

The DC Water and Sewer Authority currently relies on a ten-year $3.2 billion CIP, which vendors and contractors might use to identify future business opportunities.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Tax Increment Financing is essentially a commitment of future increases in tax revenues within a designated area to raise capital for economic development activities within that designated area. If the project area is not in an already designated TIF district, funding from TIF

CORE ISSUES

57

Other DCHA HOPE VI developments, such as Hanson Ridge (left), have utilized funds from the District’s Capital Improvement Program and HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program.

might be challenging as it would likely require one to be created (the TIF area must meet certain requirements for designation, which typically relate to blight). TIFs are commonly used in distressed neighborhoods targeted for redevelopment, but they are not relevant sources of revenue given the relatively high property values in the project site.

Project-Based Section 8 (Housing Choice Vouchers) Section 8 is not a direct source of funding, but if a project has an agreement with a housing authority to enter into a Housing Assistant Payment (HAP) contract for project-based Section 8 units, the expected income from the project-based units can be used as security for a loan. The project-based voucher is assigned to a unit as opposed to the tenant. The cost of tenant-paid rent and utilities is 30 percent of household income, and the remainder of the rent payments is paid to the landlord by HAP.

58

Moving to Work (MTW) Moving to Work is a demonstration program for public housing authorities that provides them the opportunity to design and test innovative, locally designed strategies that use Federal dollars more efficiently, help residents find employment and become self-sufficient, and increase housing choices for low-income families. The DCHA signed a MTW agreement in 2003 known as “Creative Living Solutions” which aims to achieve the following objectives:

•• Develop enhanced housing opportunities •• Sustain quality property management •• Achieve effective customer support services

•• Organize efficient business-like operating systems

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

ISSUE 5:

SERVICES &COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT In September 2009, with a “Community Builder” grant from the Department of Justice U.S. Dream Academy, DC-based nonprofit service coordinator Faithworks began working at the Potomac and Hopkins sites.

The $215,000 grant provided funding for an 11-month period, which allowed Faithworks to bring a coalition of service providers to Potomac-Hopkins, and also act as a service coordinator and fiscal agent at the sites.

In this role they are facilitating relations with DCHA, the Resident Councils, the City Councilmember’s office and working with youth and adults from both properties and throughout the community.

Faithworks’ model is based around a community management approach, which seeks to empower and build capacity in residents to ultimately operate and manage their own housing. Faithworks’ Director Robert Boulter has extensive experience with community management through previous positions with local affordable housing provider, Jubilee Housing, and national community development organization, Enterprise Community Partners, both of whom are pioneers of the community management model. Much of Faithworks’ efforts since their arrival at PotomacHopkins has evolved around building the trust of residents through regular meetings with small groups of residents. From an examination of monthly progress reports, Faithworks reports making slow, but hopeful, progress through their community management model with an extremely high-poverty, difficult to serve population.

One prescient example of this progress occurred this fall when staff from Sasha Bruce Youthwork and Peaceoholics—two of the sites’ regular service providers— and Faithworks conducted a successful

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

intervention with neighborhood gangs after a serious stabbing incident at one of the nearby high schools. This type of focused and coordinated service model has not been provided in the past.

Faithworks has also created several stipended positions for residents who have shown an interest in organizing activities or working at the sites. For example, one female Hopkins resident receives a stipend to organize programs for residents and children in one of the Hopkins community rooms. Two other male residents receive stipends for performing maintenance work around the sites. These are examples of some beginning steps of a community management program.

On-site Services The majority of on-site services are housed in several ground floor apartments in the 1212 building at Potomac Gardens. This hub of services, known as “Community Row”, is intended provide an array of easily accessible services for Potomac adults, children and youth. Additional service providers visit both sites on a weekly basis to conduct programs and services for residents.

A complete listing of onsite service providers and weekly programs are described below: Community Row Services Little Lights Urban Ministries Little Lights occupies two apartments in Community Row and serves elementary and middle school children through a combination of academic and faith-based programs. Offerings include tutoring, life skills activities, weekly boys and girls nights, and trips. They also employ teen interns.

CORE ISSUES

59

Capitol Hill Group Ministries

Faith Temple Church

Capitol Hill Group Ministries (CHGM) is a coalition of churches that provide an array of social services to Potomac-Hopkins residents, as well as other residents of Ward 6. With onsite social workers CHGM provides intensive case management, rental assistance, in-home support, and referral services. The group was instrumental in organizing the planning and financing of the new playground at Hopkins.

Faith Temple Church has a long history of involvement in the Potomac-Hopkins community. They are currently planning to transform one of the vacant Potomac apartments into a recording studio for youth.

Georgetown Medical Clinic With an office located onsite, the Georgetown Medical Clinic provides free primary care treatment for residents of both sites.

Total Family Care

Sasha Bruce Youthwork (SBY) is a very successful organization with over 30 years of experience in helping at-risk youth in Washington, DC. SBY holds small groups for young men and women, and parenting groups, three days per week at one of the Hopkins’ community spaces.

Total Family Care (TFC) provides a variety of services for children and families, including family advocacy and legal assistance, fatherhood and parenting program, and dropin services. TFC uses the recreation center in Potomac Garden’s 700 building for their summer youth programs.

Peaceoholics – Like Sasha Bruce, Peaceoholics has a strong track record in reaching atrisk youth through outreach, prevention, intervention and re-entry programs for youth involved in the juvenile detention system.

Peaceoholics holds weekly “Saving Our Sisters” and “Brothers Helping Brothers” programs in the community room of the Hopkins 1430 L Street building.

Digital Connectors

Gaps in Service

Digital Connectors is a program offered by One Economy, a national non-profit dedicated to bringing broadband internet and technology training to low-income communities. Digital Connectors provides onsite classes for two age groups (ages 14-18 and ages 19-21) twice a week.

As evidenced by the extensive offerings of onsite services, there are many ongoing efforts aimed at addressing Potomac-Hopkins residents’ wide range of age and issue specific needs. Yet there are some gaps in service provision that remain unfilled or that could be enhanced. These gaps are discussed below; recommendations to address these issues are contained in the following chapter.

The Boys and Girls Club Located on the ground floor of one of the Hopkins buildings, the Boys and Girls Club provides homework assistance and recreational activities for children in grades K-12.

Weekly Programs/Service Providers that come to Potomac-Hopkins Boxing Weekly boxing classes for elementary and middle school children are held in the recreational center in Potomac Garden’s 700 building.

60

Sasha Bruce Youthwork

Early Childhood Education In conversations with Potomac-Hopkins residents and services providers, the project team noticed a lack for services focused on early childhood development in the area.

Numerous studies have shown that a child’s earliest experiences and environments are the most critical for their brain’s development, laying the foundation for the rest of their life. By the time children reach elementary school their ability to think, problem solve, interact with others, and learn is predicated

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

on skills they developed between birth and the age of three. Studies show a strong correlation between children’s cognitive skills before they enter kindergarten and their achievement in elementary school and even high school. Thus the early years of an infant’s development are a critical time of opportunity or vulnerability. A child’s development can be greatly compromised by such influences such as toxins, extreme poverty, malnutrition, substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, community or family violence or poor quality childcare.

Fortunately, early intervention programs improve the outcomes for the youngest and most vulnerable children. Economic analysis demonstrates that for every dollar invested in early childhood program savings between $4 and $17 can be expected due to improved educational attainment, improved workforce, and a raise in earnings (Lurie-Hurvits, 2009).

Adult Education and Job Training The very low employment rate among residents at Potomac-Hopkins prohibits many people from achieving economic stability, accessing opportunities and increasing self-sufficiency. Chief among the obstacles to finding steady employment is low educational attainment. After talking to residents, it became clear that GED courses are needed on site to engage the hardest to reach populations. For residents who are able to gain steady employment, they often find themselves stagnant in low-level jobs without opportunities for upward mobility.

Senior and Disabled Residents Senior and disabled residents share two of the high-rise buildings at the north end of Potomac Gardens. This situation is not ideal for a number of reasons. First, many of the disabled residents are young adults whose lifestyles and service needs are very different from the senior residents. In some cases senior disabled residents live in fear of the younger disabled residents and their friends,

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

which often results in them rarely leaving their apartments.

Additionally, the disabled residents fall into several categories – physically disabled, mentally disabled and residents with dual diagnoses.

The needs of these three divergent populations require different and specialized services.

Residents with mental health disabilities often require greater case management and psychiatric services than the general population. It is essential that these services be effective and accessible to mentally disabled residents if they are sharing buildings and facilities at the site.

Residents with physical disabilities do not necessarily require special social services but do require physical amenities in their units and buildings that enable them to use the facilities.

Additional services that some of the handicapped residents might need are assistance with housework and cooking.

Senior Services Targeted services for senior residents is another area in need of enhancement. Currently many Potomac-Hopkins seniors receive services through a DCHA sponsored program that provides daily in-home aids for help with tasks such as housekeeping, medications, and companionship. The program acts as a mechanism to support seniors as well as employ DCHA residents. Despite DCHA’s intent to benefit two resident populations through this program, many seniors report problems with the services. Seniors reported feeling intimidated and neglected by their home aids; there have also been reports of elder abuse by aids in severe cases.

Senior residents also expressed a strong desire for more on and offsite activities, such as trips to sites around the District.

Challenges to Service Provision Because many Potomac-Hopkins residents face multiple and overlapping barriers, such as entrenched poverty, low educational attainment,

CORE ISSUES

61

Potomac-Hopkins residents face numerous challenges in overcoming generations of poverty and governmentassisted living.

mental and physical disabilities, a number of challenges exist for service providers in effectively reaching a greater number of residents.

••

••

62

Turf: As previously mentioned, there are strong feelings of territoriality between and among the buildings and common spaces at both sites.

In many cases, these long-held feelings have prevented residents from seeking out services located at sites/buildings that they feel are not within their territory, even when they may be only a block away or at the building next door. The result has been very little mixing of residents from the two sites in service programs, like Peaceoholics “Brothers” and “Sisters” sessions.

Access/Transportation: Due to the barriers listed above, as well as financial constraints, many PotomacHopkins residents at this point are unlikely to access services that are located offsite. Services that are currently missing from the offerings, such as adult basic education and job training/apprentice opportunities should be brought to or near the site if possible.

••

Mental Barriers/Intimidation for Re-entry: Returning to the workforce or school after an extended absence may intimidate some individuals. Consequently, they may shy away from the services that can help them obtain new skills that they could use on a job or in a classroom.

By addressing these self-confidence challenges, residents may become more comfortable accessing available services.

Faithworks’ community management service approach, particularly its focus on individual and small group support sessions, attempts to resolve these types of issues.

••

Poor Health/Disabilities: Researchers have found that many public housing residents suffer from physical ailments that limit their mobility (Cisneros & Engdahl, 2009).

Not only do poor health conditions make it difficult to walk long distances or stand for hours at a time, it detracts from a person’s overall quality of life. As a result, these individuals may not possess the bodily strength to complete a full day’s work or sit in an hour-long class.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

ISSUE 6:

OPEN SPACE & PUBLIC AMENITIES Public parks and open spaces are vital parts of any healthy, livable and desirable neighborhood.

Many aging public housing developments across the country were constructed with insular designs that literally fence off residents from the surrounding area. Open space on public housing sites often lacks landscaping, trees, or natural elements for residents to enjoy. On-site open areas are frequently paved or oddly configured, creating unassigned spaces in which residents feel unsafe, typically because the purpose of the space is unclear.

Numerous studies demonstrate the critical importance of parks and landscaped open spaces for neighborhood success, and call for a shift in thinking – away from parks as amenities and towards the idea of parks as necessities. A 2006 white paper by the Trust for Public Land notes the desperate need in American cities for parks, especially in inner city and lowincome neighborhoods. While the PotomacHopkins sites are not situated in a low-income neighborhood, the area does lack park and open space immediately adjacent to the sites, and the existing site configuration of Potomac Gardens provides no green space and little incentive to seek it out elsewhere in the neighborhood.

The Trust for Public Land white paper outlines the many benefits of parks and open spaces in city neighborhoods, including improved public health through greater access to recreation opportunities, stress relief from interactions with the natural world, and access to democratized spaces, where theoretically people of all income levels and backgrounds can interact (Sherer, 2006). Not only have parks, trees, and open spaces been proven to increase the value of neighborhood residential properties (Wachter, 2006), links also exist between well-designed public spaces and a reduction of crime and juvenile delinquency (Sherer, 2006). These spaces can often take the form of community gardens, which studies link to increased resident investment in the community, opportunities

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

for stewardship, and increased opportunities for youth education about the natural world.

Parks are also highly valued as play spaces for children and seniors, where important learning and socialization experiences take place for kids, and stimulating social opportunities can take place for older adults. Scholar Elijah Anderson notes in his yet-to-be published book, The Cosmopolitan Canopy, that well-designed parks and public spaces allow for social interaction between groups from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds where they experience the democratizing of truly public space. On public housing sites this is a rare situation, as most site designs create an insular feeling of separation from the surrounding area. A report by the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois-Chicago found that in a study of public housing sites, the levels of vegetation in common spaces predicted the formation of social ties, and that levels of vegetation correlated to residents sense of safety and enjoyment (Sherer, 2006).

On the Potomac-Hopkins sites, as discussed in earlier chapters, there is a severe lack of vegetation and landscaped areas. Open spaces on the Potomac Gardens site consist of paved concrete courtyards, with a few basketball hoops and very little space for seniors to congregate outdoors. Older children that are no longer attracted to swing sets and see-saws congregate in clusters throughout the courtyard.

Conversations with many residents revealed that instead of redeveloping green space on site, the residents need more incentives to go off site and take advantage of park and open space resources in the neighborhood, which could potentially increase interactions between Potomac-Hopkins residents and their neighbors. Given the lack of available park and recreation spaces in the immediate area (and the large freeway barrier cutting off access to the Anacostia Waterfront) this is an important core issue that is addressed in both design alternatives.

CORE ISSUES

63

ISSUE 7:

PHYSICAL & SOCIAL INTEGRATION Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, federally funded urban renewal projects demolished much of the inexpensive inner city housing that housed low-income minority populations to make way for new business districts. For many of the displaced populations, replacement public housing was constructed in segregated neighborhoods where racial and income concentrations were exacerbated. Many of these new public housing buildings did not blend into the neighborhoods in which they were placed, instead they stood out as densely packed mid to high-rise concrete structures in otherwise low density areas.

In the 1980s, most central city housing projects were located in high poverty African American neighborhoods where racial and economic isolation was further intensified by Federal policies that targeted housing subsidies to the very poorest populations. These housing projects were continually underfunded, leaving a backlog of repairs and deteriorating conditions for the residents. Essentially, public housing became the housing of last resort, and the neighborhoods around them suffered from disinvestment and abandonment, generally leaving the neighborhoods with few necessary amenities like retail stores, financial institutions, and hospitals.

By the 1990s, public housing was regarded as one of the most visible failures of national social welfare system, in part due to its egregious physical and social segregation. In 1992, Congress enacted the HOPE VI program with the goal of deconcentrating poverty. Since its inception, six billion dollars in HOPE VI funding has been devoted to revitalizing and replacing

64

dilapidated structures with mixed-income communities and improving social services.

Under the Obama administration, HOPE VI is to be replaced with the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which also focuses on redevelopment of distressed low-income housing through mixed income communities, but further encourages housing providers to link housing interventions with broader neighborhood improvements.

Currently, Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments face barriers of both physical and social isolation reminiscent of the outdated public housing models described above.

Among the most noticeable physical barriers that separate the housing projects from the neighborhood are the fences that surround the project sites. With inward facing buildings that do not address the street, Potomac Gardens housing contrasts greatly from the two and three story row homes that comprise the majority of the housing stock in the surrounding neighborhood.

Potomac-Hopkins residents are also severely economically disadvantaged, with the average household earning about 20 percent of the income of residents of the neighborhood. The majority of the crime in the area also occurs at the two sites, further contributing to a negative stigma associated with Potomac-Hopkins.

As DCHA considers redevelopment options for Potomac-Hopkins it will be essential to resolve the physical and social barriers presented by the design and demographic imbalances with the surrounding neighborhood. The following case studies describe two successful examples of repairing fragmented social and physical fabrics at aging public housing sites through redevelopment.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CASE STUDIES IN PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION

City West - Cincinnati, OH

Columbia Villa - Portland, OR

Bordering downtown Cincinnati, two massive public housing projects known as Lincoln Homes and Laurel Court transformed Cincinnati’s West End between 1937 and 1943.

With a total of 2,000 units, the projects were built without regard for neighborhood context.

The buildings feature small units, common hallways and interior courtyards that are typical of public housing of their era but had become outdated under current standards. In 1999 the Cincinnati Housing Authority was awarded a HOPE VI grant to redevelop the sites.

The Housing Authority of Portland, Oregon (HAP) owned an isolated and distressed 82-acre public housing site in Portsmouth, one of Portland’s most ethnically diverse neighborhoods. In 2007, using a HOPE VI award, HAP replaced 462 rental units with 854 rental and for sale units. The effort transformed the area into a mixed income community serving low-income renters and market rate owners without losing the ethnic diversity that characterized the area.

Throughout the development process the 28 member Community Advisory Committee conducted workshops and collected resident input for the new development, which includes community college classrooms, a new Boys and Girls Club, the Rosa Parks Elementary School, and significant open space.

The new plan reintroduced the tree lined street grid to the area and eliminated the isolated inward facing superblock of the two housing projects. The housing design was adopted from the nearby Dayton Historic District, which stakeholders agreed was a “good neighborhood”. The new design included buildings with close street frontages and parking placed in the rear of the housing. Civic and retail spaces were added for livability.

Cramped apartments were converted into townhomes with separate entrances and garages on private alleyways. Architectural details from the neighborhood were deliberately incorporated into the design, such as brick facades, elaborate cornices, and stone stills and lintels. The redevelopment resulted in increased property values, a mix of low, middle, and highincome residents, and a reduction in crime.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

As part of the CSS plan HAP also provided a construction trade apprenticeship program, computer technology programs, jobs and housing programs, and access to digital technology through a $1.1 million grant from One Economy. Due to the success of the development, community leaders persuaded the city to extend the urban renewal boundaries further into the Portsmouth neighborhood to help revitalize the struggling main commercial corridor. Many credit the development for bringing jobs, investment, and value back to the neighborhood while creating opportunities for low-income families.

CORE ISSUES

65

ISSUE 8:

ALIGNMENT WITH PLANNING EFFORTS Washington, DC Office of Planning Comprehensive Plan The Home Rule Act requires the District of Columbia government to develop a Comprehensive Plan to provide overall guidance for future planning and development of the city. Originally adopted in 1984 / 1985, the comprehensive plan is periodically updated and most recently revised in 2006 to reflect changing goals for future development and redevelopment.

The Housing Element in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision lists five objectives for housing policy in the District of Columbia: 1) ensuring housing affordability; 2) fostering housing production; 3) conserving existing housing stock; 4) promoting home ownership; and 5) providing housing for residents with special needs. The city recognizes the interconnection of housing and other planning efforts, such as land use, transportation, and service provision and approaches housing policy from that standpoint, which fits well with the intention of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. The city comprehensive plan also acknowledges a dramatic rise in housing values in the last decade and describes the city as being in a “crisis of affordability”, with limited “move-up” options for the lowest income tiers.

The city comprehensive plan states several goals for the Capitol Hill District, which is the district that includes the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites. These goals include the following specific recommendations for Potomac-Hopkins:

•• Rehabilitation of the public housing project itself

•• One-for-one replacement (within the

•• Homeownership opportunities for public housing residents

•• Rehabilitation of Potomac Gardens as a

mixed-income community that includes equivalent number of affordable units

•• Improved parks and recreation facilities through Capitol Hill

•• Improvements along the Pennsylvania

Avenue corridor, which is also a major focus of the Capitol Hill Area Plan within the Comprehensive Plan

•• Revitalization of the Potomac Avenue Metro station and the surrounding commercial spaces

In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the DC Office of Planning recently released an initiative called “Healthy By Design”, which is a multi-faceted program that includes goals such as increasing walkability, increased access to parks and open spaces, and development of community gardens in lower income areas of the city.

Pennsylvania Avenue SE Corridor Land Development Plan The Pennsylvania Avenue SE Corridor Land Development Plan was finalized by the city in 2008, and notes several planning goals and redevelopment recommendations that involve the Potomac-Hopkins sites. Through illustrative maps this plan notes the limited amount of parks and open space immediately adjacent to the Potomac-Hopkins sites. The plan notes the open space at the intersection of K Street and Potomac Avenue as a recreation area, however the project team believes that this site does not qualify as an acceptable recreation space, as it consists solely paved surfaces, trees, and benches.

community) of all redeveloped units

66

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Capitol Hill Transportation Study The Pennsylvania Avenue SE Corridor Land Development Plan cites recommendations within the Capitol Hill Transportation Study, which propose improvements at the Potomac Avenue Metro station and for the development of a traffic circle at the intersection of Potomac Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. These recommendations were made partially in anticipation of the Jenkins Row development.

At this time, the Metro station improvements have been completed, however the traffic circle proposal remains under consideration.

Anacostia Waterfront Initiative The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative was put into motion in 2000 as a major city initiative to transform and redevelop the Anacostia Waterfront, from the Maryland border to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac rivers. This initiative contains five themes:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Restore: A Clean and Active River Connect: Eliminating Barriers & Gain- ing Access Play: A Great Riverfront Park System Celebrate: Cultural Destinations of Distinct Character Live: Building Strong Waterfront Neighborhoods

From top: Washington, DC flag; DC Department of Transportation logo; Anacostia Waterfront Initiative logo

This initiative directly relates to identified needs for increased open space and public realm in the Potomac-Hopkins neighborhood, particularly the themes that call for increased access and linkages of neighborhoods to the waterfront.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

67

68

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

69.

SITE

RECOMMENDATIONS Project Goals Vision: Potomac Gardens & Hopkins Service Needs & Recommendations Relocation Recommendations Finance Recommendations

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

5

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

69

5 SITE

RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT GOALS After completing the analysis phase, the project team established the following four goals to address on-site activities at Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments: 1. Connectivity and Accessibility: To establish a site plan that promotes connectivity, integrating residents and neighbors with both on-site and off-site amenities 2. Integrating Physical Design: To create a built environment that responds to the needs of on-site residents and fits seamlessly within the surrounding urban fabric 3. Residential Mobility: To support the aspirations and efforts of site residents to greater levels of employment, achievement and self-sufficiency

70

4. Appropriate and Effective Services: To ensure that the development provides the necessary social services and amenities in support of diverse on-site demographics, helping residents to overcome challenges to their own selfsufficiency

VISION STATEMENT

POTOMAC GARDENS & HOPKINS Under Choice Neighborhoods, Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments will provide a safe, attractive site that is fully integrated into the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Serving families, senior citizens, and disabled residents in a mixedincome community, the redevelopment will partner with community stakeholders to empower residents and put them on a path to upward economic mobility.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Community Row located in the 1200 block of Potomac Gardens (pictured).

Residents would like to see more services related to job training, adult education, and senior citizens. They also acknowledge the need for more youth-oriented programs.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

71

SERVICE NEEDS & RECOMMENDATIONS Given the diverse population and service needs at Potomac-Hopkins, the project team recommends the implementation of a multi-pronged service plan, to be carried out during the redevelopment and remain in place once the site is complete. Services must be tailored to current residents’ needs, and service providers should be both experienced and passionate about assisting difficult to serve, very low-income populations.

To meet the needs of Potomac-Hopkins diverse resident population, the project team believes both on-site and off-site services are necessary. Residents and service providers reported the need for on-site services for residents who currently experience low mobility, are less prepared to enter the work force, or are disabled. Other services, such as early education programs and job training are more appropriate at nearby off-site locations where they can be incorporated into facilities like schools and job sites. As residents build capacity – for example, moving through a GED program to job training or apprenticeship – they will move from on-site to off-site service centers.

Having residents travel to off-site locations also emulates habits similar to those that will be needed when they enter the workforce.

This integrated model corresponds to Choice Neighborhoods goals to provide a continuum of services in the neighborhood aimed at helping residents build self-sufficiency.

NON-PROFIT SERVICE COORDINATOR The project team recommends that current service coordinator Faithworks continue to facilitate services through the previously described community management approach. Faithworks’ philosophy is based on providing a continuity of services and bringing in experienced providers who understand the complex barriers facing public housing residents. In their limited time at Potomac-Hopkins, Faithworks has been successful in earning the trust of, and

72

building community among, many of the site’s residents. Faithworks’ Executive Director Robert Boulter has extensive experience working with low-income communities, like Potomac-Hopkins, in large-scale phased occupied rehabilitations.

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT Faithworks’ community management program helps residents build capacity to manage and maintain their own housing. Residents gradually increase responsibility over time as they gain the trust of one another and receive the training necessary to operate the property. Community management is also a mechanism for residents to obtain quality employment opportunities.

Some of the areas in which residents can become employed include construction, maintenance, security, community organizing and administration. The community management approach helps residents develop a sense of pride and ownership in their housing, resulting in improved physical and social oversight from residents. The community management model undoubtedly requires a greater long-term investment of vision, time, and funding, but the project team believes it will ultimately lead to better outcomes for residents and the broader neighborhood than a traditional, less intensive, human services model.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB The Boys and Girls Club is located in the 1000 building of Hopkins Apartments. In 2008, the city announced that the club was going to be shut down due to poor performance and low membership. Neighborhood residents and organizations rallied around the club and were successful in implementing improvements and keeping it open for a trial period. The club provides programs for 5 to 12-year-olds and teenagers, including homework hour with a focus on reading and math, financial literacy, Chess Junior, art activities, sports and character/leadership building programs.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

When closure was being threatened, the neighborhood based non-profit Urban Bridge Builders conducted a neighborhood survey and evaluation of the program’s offerings and service needs.

Key findings from the survey included a desire for improved space with quiet study spaces for older students, access to recreational areas and a large interest in programs for adults, most notably in the areas of job training and computer skills.

These findings were considered in the project team’s service recommendations and space planning and are discussed in more detail in the “Location of On-site Services” section below.

SENIOR AND DISABLED RESIDENTS The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 required all new buildings to be handicapped accessible; new handicapped accessible units will be included in the PotomacHopkins redevelopment. Off-site senior outings to museums, theater productions, and other cultrual events around the city should be considered. Although the project team would suggest separating mentally and physically disabled residents because of service needs, this action is not permitted by law.

ON-SITE SERVICES We recommend the following current providers continue to serve residents on-site (see Section 4 for a description of these services): ••

Little Lights Urban Ministries

••

Capitol Hill Group Ministries

DCHA resident receives medical care.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

••

Sasha Bruce

••

Peaceoholics

••

Digital Connectors

••

The Boys and Girls Club

••

Total Family Care

The recommendation to return these service providers was made based on conversations with DCHA, Potomac-Hopkins residents and Faithworks staff. The project team found that these providers offer a diverse and effective scope of services. Maintaining them on-site will also ensure continuity of services between providers and residents, some of whom have long-term relationships. A number of proposals have been submitted for grants to increase resident services opportunities for the next three years at both properties. Residents of both properties would be employed and Faithworks could play a coordinating role if these grants are received.

The project team further recommends that a comprehensive Adult Education Curriculum be added to on-site offerings. These services are described in detail below.

Adult Education In order to reach a larger portion of the residents who need adult education, the project team recommends that adult basic education and GED courses be offered on-site. On-site services eliminate the need for residents to travel far for these programs and enable them to attend classes with their neighbors, who may provide moral support for their endeavors. The Academy of Hope, located in Northeast DC, provides adult educational services that address a range of competency levels, which include adult basic education (ABE), general education development (GED), external diploma program (EDP), and Pathways to Success.

(Academy of Hope, 2010). DCHA should consider partnering with the Academy to adapt these programs to the specific needs of Potomac-Hopkins residents. The project team recommends that an adult education model include courses like those described below:

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

73

must succeed in the diagnostic and assessment phases. In the diagnostic phase, participants are evaluated on their basic skills in reading, writing, and math. In the next phase, participants perform a series of real-life tasks as an advisor assesses 65 specific competencies in their actions.

Pathways to Success

Shreveport, LA public housing residents take GED test preparation courses as part of the CSS programs offered by the Housing Authority of the City of Shreveport.

Adult Basic Education For adults whose educational proficiency is below a 10th grade level, basic education may be the first step for them to pursue more advanced learning. People who perform at this level need instruction in fundamental reading, writing, and mathematics. This training provides the foundation toward obtaining a GED credential. Without these basic skills, they risk the chance of never being able to achieve gainful employment.

General Education Development For residents who would like to complete the requirements for General Education Development (GED), preparatory classes could be held on-site to attract residents who may find it difficult to travel. Obtaining a GED opens doors to greater employment opportunities, as many businesses require at least a high school education for hiring eligibility.

External Diploma Program (EDP) As a national program, EDP gives people who are at least 25 years old the opportunity to show their high school level competency by translating their personal experiences into a high school diploma.

This program offers more flexibility for adults who have other responsibilities that limit the amount of time they are able to commit to the program.

In order to complete the program, individuals

74

For persons over the age of 18, Pathways to Success offers the chance to improve academic and job skills to ease the transition into college or the workforce. Students can choose either the workforce pathway or the college pathway. Within the short-term workforce training, students do not need to have a high school diploma or GED, but they are expected to gain competency in five areas: computer skills, job skills, academic skills, a career-specific supplementary course, and portfolio preparation.

Those who are interested in a long-term program may opt for the college pathway, which prepares them for high wage careers by receiving a college degree or advanced certification and training.

Participants should have a high school diploma or GED upon entering the program and gain competency in computer skills, professional development, college readiness, academic skills, and portfolio preparation.

LOCATION OF ON-SITE SERVICES See Section 6 for discussion of on-site service locations for each proposed design alternative.

OFF-SITE SERVICES Early Childhood Education Due to the high priority placed on early childhood education in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, and the current lack of these services at Potomac-Hopkins, the project team recommends that these services be added to the overall service plan. With the support of several high profile foundations, the construction of a comprehensive early childhood education was recently announced in the Southeast’s Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhood in anticipation of the Department of Education’s

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Promise Neighborhoods (See Section 2: Related Federal and Local Programs). The project team recommends that a similar model be reproduced near the PotomacHopkins site.

Another successful local provider of comprehensive early childhood education and family services is the DC Developing Families Center. The Center is a collaboration of three non-profit providers, Family Health and Birth Center, Healthy Babies Project and Nation’s Capitol Child and Family Development. They are currently providing services to Carver Terrace and Trinidad/ Ivy City, low-income housing communities in Northwest DC, where there has been significant statistical documentation on the decrease in childbirth disparities in the area (Family Health and Birth Center, 2010).

A third potential partner for this new program is Urban Bridge Builders (UBB), one of the organizations that played a key role in bringing the new playground to Hopkins Apartments. UBB is in the process of developing a New/Expectant Parents Program, which would provide physical, emotional and spiritual parental mentoring and counseling. UBB is looking for four to 12 parents to serve as the first cohort of the program.

In a survey conducted by UBB, Hopkins residents indicated their interest in carpentry, plumbing, and electrical training (Urban Bridge Builders, 2010). Apprenticeship programs to develop skills in these areas would allow participants to ease into employment while earning income.

Faithworks has already recruited one such program, Get it Right Home Improvement, a home improvement contractor, to train and supervise older youth in construction skills.

This effort has grown into a DCHA affiliated training course. Faithworks is in the process of implementing another resident training program focused on site-based community improvement projects, including building a community garden and youth recording studio. Similar efforts for Potomac-Hopkins youth are being planned through DC’s Summer Youth Employment program. Additional employment opportunities for residents will become available if the community management program is continued throughout the redevelopment process.

Due the nature of job training programs, many of these activities would take place off-site, possibly on the job or at a training facility. Hosting these trainings off-site normalizes the routine of leaving home each day, thus easing the transition from unemployment to a regular working schedule.

Job Training

AUXILIARY SERVICES

The high percentage of unemployed or underemployed residents at Potomac-Hopkins hinders the earning potential of these individuals. Without proper skills training, residents may not be able to find long-term, steady employment that will enable them to improve their economic standing. For people who have already received their high school diploma or GED, job training may create a much needed link to living wage employment that could allow them to become less reliant on government assistance.

In addition to providing educational opportunities and job training, residents voiced the need for continuing education that could help employees advance in their fields. Tenants who have been able to secure employment often remain at a disadvantage due to the lack of additional education within their positions.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Many workers also need assistance with covering transportation costs and finding affordable workforce clothing. As a way to offset the cost of public transit, DCHA could collaborate with WMATA to

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

75

offer discounted fares to public housing residents traveling to and from work; discounts are already available to senior citizens and the disabled. Dress for Success, a local non-profit that promotes economic independence for low-income women, offers complimentary business suits to those who have a pending interview, and they can receive a second suit once a job has been secured.

Because a large percentage of residents at public housing residents are single mothers, securing childcare is critical to maintaining steady job training and employment. Facilitating an on-site childcare option, or informing residents of accessible childcare options, can remove some of the barriers faced by single mothers searching for quality daycare.

For residents struggling with health and mobility limitations, receiving the proper assistance could be the first step in breaking barriers to employment. Common ailments may include asthma, arthritis, hypertension, and/or depression. Although obesity is a major concern for many residents, it usually occurs as a result of the aforementioned conditions (United States Congress, 2007).

On-site service providers who specialize in physical therapy and psychological counseling could help residents learn to overcome their physical and mental challenges with the ultimate goal of securing steady employment or pursuing educational opportunities.

LOCATION OF OFF-SITE SERVICES Early Childhood Education The project team recommends these services would be best located at a nearby off-site facility such as a neighborhood school or health clinic due to the overlapping objectives of these types of institutions. Possible locations include Tyler Elementary School and the Unity Health Care clinic at DC General Hos-

76

pital, which already provides a DC Title X Family Planning program and is located about one mile from Potomac-Hopkins at 1900 Massachusetts Avenue, SE. Job Training There are several job training centers in the District that can be utilized by PotomacHopkins residents seeking employment. These include So Others Might Eat (SOME) Center for Employment Training and Jubilee Jobs.

Additionally, DCHA seeks to strengthen its own workforce development program at the Greenleaf Family Resource Center. Each of these houses unique programs that may appeal to residents at Potomac-Hopkins.

The SOME Center for Employment Training offers three courses of study that aim to connect participants to living wage, high-growth fields: Business & Customer Relations Associate, Medical Administrative Assistant, and Building Maintenance Service Technician. Students can expect to spend approximately six months in their respective programs; however, times may vary due to the self-paced nature of the classes.

In 2009, 87 percent of people who completed the program found jobs upon graduation. They earned an average of $12.06 an hour, and 80 percent of the jobs provided them with full benefits. Trainings take place at the Solomon G. Brown Center in the Anacostia section of Southeast DC – only 1.5 miles from PotomacHopkins (So Others Might Eat, 2010).

At Jubilee Jobs, located in Northwest DC, participants are paired with career counselors who assist them throughout the job search process until they secure employment. Interested persons must attend one of the weekly orientations before deciding whether or not to commit to the program. Those who choose to stay work with counselors to evaluate their specific job skills and personal circumstances.

They also receive interview and résumé preparation, as well as post-interview feedback

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Early childhood education plays a pivotal role in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

from counselors. After participants find jobs, Jubilee continues to work with them on job retention efforts and measures their progress.

The next step for successful participants is to become Achievers. This means they earn at least $8.00 an hour, have employer-sponsored medical insurance, use community resources to further their employment and give back to the community (Jubilee Jobs, 2010).

Currently, DCHA is attempting to strengthen its in-house workforce training efforts at the Greenleaf Family Resource Center in Southwest DC. On-site service provider Faithworks is working with DCHA to create a job training curriculum for PotomacHopkins residents that would prepare them for the programs held at Greenleaf. Through this process, participants from PotomacHopkins would have greater opportunities to link with other high-quality employment opportunities.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CURRENT EVALUATION METHODS In March 2009, Howard University released its independent report “Second Intermediate Evaluation of the Community Supportive Services Program at Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg Dwellings in the District of Columbia.” As mandated

by HOPE VI legislation, the study examines the status of existing programs at the redeveloped site compared to the baseline study conducted in 2007. Through interviews with service organizations, case managers, and residents, researchers assessed participation rates among persons referred to programs, the mixture of available services, and tenants’ unaddressed needs. More specifically, they covered topics related to case management, employment status, adult education, transportation, childcare, substance abuse counseling, lease maintenance, homeownership preparation and entrepreneurship interests.

Although the Howard University study captures the quantitative aspects of the current services, it lacks effective qualitative measurements. While figures can reflect the number of people who are involved in specific activities, they do not show how well those programs address residents’ needs. As new programs are developed, it is SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

77

Potomac-Hopkins residents indicate they would like more job training opportunities.

imperative to track how well these services perform from their launch. Service providers should solicit feedback from residents on an ongoing basis and conduct full individual surveys at the six-month and one-year marks.

It is critical to take an in-depth and regular look at the impact of supportive services so that providers can make adjustments sooner if they realize that current methods are not working. Examples of sample qualitative evaluation questions can be found in the the Appendix.

BUDGET Given the absence of specific language regarding the CSS funding allocation for Choice Neighborhoods in the draft legislation, the project team based its budgeting assumptions on the guidelines outlined 2009 HOPE VI NOFA. HOPE VI allows housing authorities to use up to 15 percent of the grant for resident services. However, housing authorities are required to supply matching funds for any amount between five and 15 percent of this budget.

78

The project team drafted a five-year services budget based on existing services and proposed new services estimated at an annual budget of $2,645,000, of which $2,430,000 represents new proposed services and $215,000 of current services. This figure does not include $50,000 of donated services. Assuming that the annual $215,000 will continue to be secured from outside sources, the remaining services amount to $12,150,000 for five years ($2,430,000 x 5).

Assuming a CNI award of $35 million, 15 percent of this figure equals $5,250,000, or $1,050,000 per year. This requires DCHA to secure an additional $1,380,000 per year from outside sources, such as city and state funds and foundations.

The five-year services operating budget and potential funding sources for proposed new services can be found in the Appendix.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

RELOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following relocation phasing plan has been devised to minimize disturbance to residents on-site. In particular the plan looks to minimize the number of households that need to move more than once. See relocation strategy diagram in Section 6 for more details.

FLEXIBILITY THROUGH MANAGED VACANCY According to information provided by the DCHA, Potomac-Hopkins are composed of 500 affordable housing units, of which 450 are presently occupied. Further, DCHA staff indicate that annual turnover is approximately six to seven percent of occupied units. It is recommended that the DCHA refrain from re-renting units during the year leading up to the redevelopment’s anticipated start date. In so doing, the 500-unit site will house approximately 423 households once redevelopment commences.

BUILD FIRST – ACQUIRING AND BUILDING AT THE SALVATION ARMY SITE The keystone to the relocation plan is the acquisition of the Salvation Army site at the corner of 12th and G streets, SE. It is believed that this site can be acquired for approximately $1.3 million based on the assessed property value from tax records. Both scenarios, outlined in the Design Alternatives (Section 6), locate 10 townhomes, consisting of a total 30 units

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

on this site. The intention is to relocate residents currently living at the three Hopkins buildings at the southwest corner of the 12th and K streets (currently two and three-bedroom units) into these new units, as well as any vacancies in the Potomac Gardens buildings. Once vacated these buildings can then be demolished in order to develop the highest density properties included in the design plans. Once built these buildings will allow much more flexibility for the relocation of the remainder of existing residents.

PRIMARY CONCERN OF PHASING – TAX CREDIT FINANCE The relocation plan is designed to incorporate the phasing necessary to maximize subsidy for the overall redevelopment plan. In particular, the DC Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) restricts projectby-project contributions to $1 million in nine percent competitive tax credits annually (for a $10 million, 10-year award). In order to maximize the equity available from this source, the plan will incorporate four phases, one per year for four years. By selecting specific properties, and moving quickly through the relocation plan, the plan can include approximately $40 million in nine percent tax credits, yielding approximately $35.1 million in cash equity. The remaining properties that include affordable units in each phase shall incorporate non-competitive four percent credits. Specific details regarding the amount and phasing of the tax credit financing are contained in the financial pro formas on the enclosed CD.

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

79

CASE STUDY IN RESIDENT RELOCATION HAYES VALLEY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA Before its HOPE VI redevelopment in 1995, Hayes Valley in San Francisco, CA experienced similar problems to the ones found at Potomac-Hopkins. Plagued by an entrenched drug culture and frequent violence, Hayes Valley became known as “Death Valley.” It also contained a mixture of young professionals and working class residents, mirroring the economic demographics of the area surrounding Potomac-Hopkins. Additionally, like Washington, DC, which has seen real estate prices rise tremendously over the last decade, San Francisco has long been considered one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. These conditions have made the search for affordable housing extremely difficult in both cities.

As part of the redevelopment efforts, the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) wanted to better integrate the site into the neighborhood. They accomplished this by creating three- to four-story townhouses that face the street with private entrances. Much like Potomac-Hopkins, the former structures spread across multiple blocks, which gave them an overwhelming presence in the neighborhood. During the reconstruction phase, 60 percent of Hayes Valley residents were relocated to other public housing sites, and the remaining 40 percent opted to use Section 8 vouchers in the private market.

SFHA consulted with housing specialists to assist residents seeking private housing. They also appointed six tenant advocates who acted as liaisons between the residents and the housing authority throughout the moving process.

SFHA estimates that 35 percent of original residents returned to the redeveloped site, but a 2002 study conducted by Abt Associates, Inc. and the Urban Institute found a

80

Between 35 percent and 44 percent of the original residents returned to Hayes Valley in San Francisco, CA after the completion of its HOPE VI redevelopment.

higher number – 44 percent – came back. They cite the high cost of San Francisco housing as one of the primary reasons for the high rate of return. They also credit the resident management organization with adopting a re-entry screening policy that allowed many of the original tenants to return. Under this policy, residents with drug offenses and substance abuse problems could move back as long as they had not been in trouble within the last two and a half years. Those who chose to return did so under the condition they would enroll in the Family Self-Sufficiency program and passed criminal background and credit checks.

Seventy percent of original Hayes Valley residents indicate they are “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their new accommodations.

However, even though physical conditions improved for residents, many of the working-age tenants still find it difficult to maintain full-time employment. Just over 30 percent of them work full-time, and 20 percent work part-time. Voucher holders are the most likely to be employed at 41 percent, while Hayes Valley returnees report only a 28 percent full-time employment rate.

In the year prior to the Abt study, 43 percent of respondents received welfare benefits. Eighty-five percent earned incomes below 30 percent of the area median income (Buron, et al. 2002).

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

FINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS UNIT MIX

The project team was confronted with the challenge of providing on-site units for each household currently residing at Potomac Gardens and Hopkins. This challenge was an important, yet formidable one. The team focused on providing on-site units for current residents rather than providing one-for-one replacement of all 500 public housing authority (PHA) units. The rationales behind this are: ••

The primary concern for unit replacement in redevelopment is avoiding the dislocation of the community by relegating community members off-site

••

The intention of Choice Neighborhoods is to provide mixed-income communities, thereby reducing the concentration of poverty. It was clear early in our analysis that well-designed increases in on-site density would not be sufficient to provide a realistic balance and keep all 500 PHA/ACC subsidized units on-site

To arrive at an appropriate figure for the number of units required to provide an on-site unit for each existing household, several factors were considered: ••

The site is currently home to just 450 households, per the rent roll provided by the DCHA. These are the households upon which we focused our efforts.

••

The DCHA indicated that turnover is between six and seven percent annually.

••

The DCHA estimated the likelihood that, if offered outright, 40 percent of on-site resident households would prefer to accept a Section 8 voucher than remain on-site. That said, the project team understood that the DCHA sought to discourage this behavior and so it is estimated that just 20 percent of those offered a voucher would accept once educated about this value and the plan for the development.

In order to evaluate unit mix, two unit mix scenarios were used – one in which 450 PHA units were provided, and another in which 360 PHA units were provided, which equates to 80 percent of on-site resident households. These scenarios were evaluated for both design scenarios to assess financing and development challenges.

The design scenarios provide for unit mixes that incorporate one, two, and three-bedroom units at average unit sizes of 700, 900, and 1,200 square feet, respectively, conforming to the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and various other policy restrictions. The unit mix of occupied PHA units was then evaluated, and the rent roll was reviewed to identify over-housing and under-housing.

The analysis identified the need for 166 one-bedroom units, 143 two-bedroom units, and 141 three-bedroom units to accommodate the 450 presently occupied units. The project team believes that this mix of PHA units is balanced, and not only reflects the present need, but the need in the neighborhood going forward for affordable housing units. The project team chose to maintain the same ratio of unit sizes, and uniformly adjust the figure downward by 20 percent for use in the 360-unit scenario, yielding 135 one-bedroom units, 113 two-bedroom units, and 112 threebedroom units.

Summary Table 1: PHA Unit Mix

Unit Mixes 360 PHA Units 450 PHA Units

2-BR 113 143

3-BR 112 141

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

81

Next, the project team sought to devise a unit mix that would cater to an optimal mix of incomes, considering the aforementioned constraint of a minimum of 360 or 450 PHA units. Market research showed that the neighborhood was adequately providing market-rate rental and homeownership opportunities, which were accessible to those earning approximately 55 percent of Washington’s Area Median Income (AMI). The units at the project site were providing housing to those earning between 0-10 percent of AMI as well, and those are slated to be replaced. As such, the project team targeted financing models that would achieve the following goals: ••

Maintain 360-450 PHA units

••

Provide housing to those earning between 10-55 percent of AMI

••

Improve the social situation on-site and integrate the site effectively within the neighborhood surrounding it

To accomplish this, the project team recommends the use of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) financing, market rate units, and Project-Based Section 8 financing.

Summary Table 2: Overall Unit Mix Scenario 1 360 PHA Units 450 PHA Units Scenario 2 360 PHA Units 450 PHA Units

%

LIHTC Units

%

Market Rate Units

%

Total

57.4% 71.9%

153 88

24.4% 14.1%

114 88

18.2% 14.1%

627 626

54.0% 68.0%

181 121

27.1% 18.3%

126 91

18.9% 13.7%

667 662

LIHTC Units Due to Washington’s high AMI of $102,700, LIHTC units, which target affordability to those households earning 45-60 percent of AMI, provide a significant solution to lack of workforce housing on site.

Civil servants and many government workers that live nearby fit within this range. Providing LIHTCfinanced units enables the project to attract an important link in the mixed-income affordability chain, while using significant available subsidy to do so. Ultimately, the PHA unit constraint limited the number of LIHTC units that could be provided. Though one-third of the development would be ideal, under a 360 PHA unit scenario, 24 percent and 27 percent were achieved in the two different design scenarios. The figure dropped to just 14 percent in a 450 PHA units scenario.

Market-Rate Units Although the neighborhood surrounding the project site has attracted many market-rate owners and tenants, the project team felt it was important to incorporate a segment of market rate units on-site as well. This decision communicates the importance of true mixed-income, and it achieves an important goal of placing residents on-site that are more like the those living in the immediately adjacent blocks.

The project team believes that this will make the site more inviting to neighbors, improve neighboring property values (to help gain support for the project), and effectively work to integrate the site within the neighborhood in a way that has been lacking since its original development. Though the conventional target for such units would be one-third of the development, due to the PHA unit constraint, and the degree of available market-rate units in the immediate vicinity, the project team targeted 18-19 percent of units in a 360 PHA unit scenario, and 14 percent in a 450 PHA unit scenario.

It should be noted that this is where the project team believes the 450 PHA unit scenario fails, as it is unlikely that market rate tenants will be satisfied living in such a minority within the project.

82

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Project-Based Section 8 Units The remaining affordability gap between 10 percent and 45 percent of AMI remained the greatest challenge. Though the DCHA indicated that this was consistently a problem, and one that was rarely rectified, the best possible solution identified was the use of Project-Based Section 8 funding for approximately 25 percent of the PHA units. Indeed, this is likely a more long-term solution to a current problem, as current residents of the project site will initially occupy these units, but this funding source provides greater future flexibility with respect to affordability limits. As turnover occurs, it is recommended that the DCHA rent these units to households that fall within this gap. There are two primary reasons for this: ••

These households are typically underserved in the District.

••

Closing the affordability gap also means closing a social cleavage on-site. The existence of such future tenants on site has the potential to improve the acceptance of tax credit tenants toward PHA tenants, and vice-versa, as discussed briefly in the core issues section of this report.

No Homeownership Included The project team elected not to include homeownership units, be they market rate or affordable, primarily for social and political reasons. First, it is widely recognized that the immediately surrounding neighborhood attracts market-rate homeowners in a significant way. As such, the project team was concerned that the development of market-rate homeownership units would be distasteful to the existing residents – potentially viewed as a needless usurpation of community property. Further, the project team considered the existing challenges between neighbors and site residents. As it is recommended that the DCHA been seen unequivocal in its encouraging existing residents to stay at the project site, the

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

project team was concerned market rate home ownership units would be a tough sell in the market where such concerns regarding the site population are rampant. By contrast, tenants are more likely to ‘take a chance’ on the product offering up front as they have the ability to vacate their units in a short period of time if they are dissatisfied.

Once the project team concluded that marketrate homeownership should be avoided, the inclusion of affordable homeownership became more problematic as it would serve to further reduce the number of market rate and LIHTC units on the site, due to inherent density constraints. It was felt that maintaining the appropriate number of PHA units, while smoothing out the mixed-income scale was more important than providing a few affordable homeownership units, particularly when they had been recently established at the DCHA’s nearby Capper site.

FINANCING RECOMMENDATIONS Primary Funding Sources Choice Neighborhoods The primary goal of this redevelopment plan was to maximize the use of Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) grants, anticipated later in 2010.

HUD Budgets and releases seem to indicate that grant amounts will provide between $35 million and $50 million in gross funding, but that significant leverage is sought. While leveraging non-housing related funding sources seems to be a primary way to qualify for the grant, it is important to understand that non-housing funds are exactly that – funds to be spent on neighborhood improvement costs other than housing. As such, leverage alone does not increase the available funding required for housing. That said, the efficient use of mixed finance, and the employment of a mixed-income strategy has enabled the project team to leverage a $35 million (anticipated) grant greater than four to one (4.4 to 1 and 4.9 to 1). This is also a testament to the efficiency of the recommended designs as they minimize costs to dense affordable housing.

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

83

Tax Credits The project team recommends that LIHTC credits be used to the greatest extent possible. Recent changes to the program, particularly the appreciation of nine percent credits, have made this a flexible and invaluable program for such a development. Further, over 80 percent of the program qualifies as housing affordable to those earning less than 60 percent of the AMI, and thereby qualifying for tax credits. The project’s size is significant, though, and as discussed in the phasing plan, phasing is very important to maximizing access to nine percent competitive credits. Nevertheless, wide use of four percent credits over the $10 million cap per phase is expected to provide over $26 million in additional cash equity financing upon syndication.

HOME Funds & Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) A central component to both design scenarios is the development of green space and improvements in integration and connectivity throughout the site. The project team believes that Washington, DC CDBG funding can go a long way to providing support for these improvement and to making this redevelopment a success. In addition to CDBG funding, the city can help by providing a HOME allocation as well. The project team foresees $4 million in combined CDBG/HOME funding being allocated over the life of the project, and dispersed across the phases.

Taxable and Tax-Exempt Debt The high market rental rates available in the neighborhood, the attractive fair market rents dictated

by HUD for use in project-based Section 8 units, and the correspondingly high LIHTC rent limits will provide the redeveloped site with significant positive cash flow for those units. This provides the site with a unique opportunity to safely carry significant debt. Indeed, 28-29 percent of the Total Development Cost shall be financed with taxable and tax-exempt bonds provided by the private market and the DC Housing Finance Agency. Taxable bonds will be used to finance those units that incorporate nine percent tax credits. Taxable bonds are presently for 30 years at 5.17 percent interest.

Tax-exempt bonds will cover the rest of the debt load. These DCHFA bonds carry a 4.56 percent interest rate with a term maximum of 40 years, and a minimum debt service coverage ratio of 1.2.

Summary Table 3: Sources of Funds

Market Rate Unit Debt LIHTC Unit Debt Project-Based Section 8 Unit Debt Choice Neighborhoods Grant Combined HOME/CDBG Funds DCHA Capital Fund Allocation Deferred Development Fees Market Rate Unit Investor Equity 9% Tax Credit Equity 4% Tax Credit Equity Total

Scenario 1-360 $17,910,825 $15,179,150 $11,795,693 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $5,156,244 $3,871,046 $4,934,891 $35,100,000 $26,579,218 $154,277,069

Scenario 1-450 $13,941,910 $8,679,250 $15,341,003 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $13,351,670 $2,828,506 $3,885,480 $35,100,000 $28,429,413 $155,307,231

Â

84

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Scenario 2-360 $19,221,189 $17,991,814 $11,486,383 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $10,850,187 $5,954,644 $6,755,955 $35,100,000 $30,930,163 $172,040,336

Scenario 2-450 $14,009,954 $11,665,059 $14,574,453 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $21,150,828 $3,876,282 $4,714,821 $35,100,000 $33,124,001 $171,965,399

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

Market Rate Units

In order to evaluate the fiscal balance of the project, a general financing model was crafted. The model considered the individual financing of each unit type by subsidy, and then rolled up to an overarching sources and uses statement and general pro forma.

It is important to note that while these unit types were evaluated separately, they are intermixed in each of the properties to be developed, and so in reality, some cross subsidy does occur. This is ultimately taken into consideration in the rolled up sources and uses statement. The primary assumptions of this model are as follows:

Market rate units are financed with taxable bonds and investor/developer equity. The relative difficulty to develop in this area is made clear through a rather low 6.0-6.4 percent implied ingoing cap rate – indicating that costs of development should yield just 6.0-6.4 percent in Net Operating Income in the first year (stabilized).

Nevertheless, the social and design goals of the property help to justify the development of these units to the developer.

Construction Costs To most accurately obtain development cost projections, construction cost per square foot were obtained from RSMeans CostWorks. The primary typologies used in the development were three-story walk up, and midrise (four to six stories). Hard costs, including a 10 percent contingency were estimated at $124 and $128 per square foot, respectively. Soft costs were calculated using estimated input based on comparable affordable housing developments, which provided a weighted average soft cost per square foot of $57, also including a 10 percent contingency. This figure was applied to both typologies. Finally, a $25 per square foot charge was levied per gross square foot for site work and associated infrastructure costs. At an average unit size of just over 1,000 square feet, this equates to approximately $25,000 per unit .

These costs seem reasonable in comparison to other DCHA projects of similar magnitude.

Capitol Gateway, a HOPE VI project in Northeast DC completed in 2008, featured 761 units of a variety of typologies. Total project cost was estimated at $157.1 million, or an average of approximately $206,000 per unit. The project team has estimated a higher per unit cost for the redevelopment at over $240,000, depending on the scenario.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Incorporated within the evaluation of the market rate units is approximately 3,657 square feet of retail space to be located at 12th and K streets, in Southeast. This piece of property has been conservatively underwritten, including a 30 percent vacancy rate, at just $12 per square foot in the first year. Such conservatism has been incorporated because of the odd space provided.

LIHTC Units LIHTC units have been exclusively underwritten using debt (approximately 45-47 percent depending on the scenario), LIHTC credits (both nine percent and four percent), and a deferred development fee of between $1.8 million and $3.6 million, depending on the design scenario.

This deferred development fee is expected to take between 5-10 years to recoup through excess cash-flow. This financing structure supports units affordable to those making 60 percent of AMI, assuming that the average rents realized are actually 10 percent lower than the limit itself. The result is 153 to 181 affordable units that incorporate between $18.5 million and $21 million in LIHTC subsidy.

Project-Based Section 8 Units Due to attractive fair market rents, project-based Section 8 financed units are quite easy to finance at the site. The ongoing cash stream available from the Section 8 voucher enables 60-64 percent leverage on cost for these units, coupled with $10-10.5 million in combined tax credits, these units can actually support more financing than they require to build, necessitating no deferred

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

85

developer fees. The primary limiter in building more of these units is the availability of project-based section 8 vouchers, which have been limited to 82-84 units (depending on the design scenario), or approximately 25 percent of the PHA unit-count.

Given the 450 currently occupied PHA units, the 360-unit PHA model will require the distribution of 90 Section 8 vouchers for relocation in addition to the projected 82-84 project-based Section 8 vouchers dependent upon design scenario. The DCHA will have to negotiate these measures.

Annual Contributions Contract Units (ACC) This portion of the PHA units comprises the single largest group of units – 276-278 units in total. These units command $33 million to $34 million in combined value of LIHTC credits. For simplicity, 85 percent of the $35 million Choice Neighborhoods grant has been applied to this component of the development (the remaining 15 percent has been earmarked for Community and Supportive Services purposes). Upon including CDBG funding to this group of units as well (ostensibly to cover their share of infrastructure costs), these units generate between $5.7 million and $9 million in excess financing – depending on the design scenario.

REVIEW MODEL PHASE The project team demonstrated the practicality of the redevelopment by devising a sample phase transaction. The project team was unable to determine the unit dispersion within the as-built buildings, so a specific phasing analysis was not possible. That notwithstanding, the project team aimed to give an understanding of what a model phase might resemble, and did so by encompassing 56 units in two buildings at proportional mixes to the whole development plan, utilizing the aforementioned financing sources. Total development cost for the phase is estimated at $14.8 million. It is worth noting that the per square foot cost is slightly higher for this phase compared to the rest of

86

the model because it includes the entirety of the acquisition costs of the existing Salvation Army site.

Based on the Stitch alternative, this model phase of four buildings labeled “A” and “B” used the pro forma to identify the debt service potential for each property, with all of the assumptions holding constant from the original model.

This phase was devised to maximize the use of nine percent tax credits worth $8.75 million, and coupled that source with taxable bonds.

The properties can support $5.5 million in debt. The project team broke out the eligible basis calculations to show in detail how debt and tax credits could be supported, because they apply on a building-by-building basis.

No DCHA capital allocation funding would be required in this transaction as the addition of Choice Neighborhoods Grant and HOME/CDBG funding proportionate to the percentage of all units in the plan that shall be developed in this transaction, potentially generates $2.5 million in excess funding. It is anticipated that the DCHA would couple a nine percent tax credit phase such as this with a four percent tax credit deal of a few other buildings during each true phase of construction during the five-year spending term anticipated from Choice Neighborhoods, in order to achieve the necessary number of units in this time span, and maximize the available subsidy.

Sources and Uses – Rolled Up When the sources and uses statements, and pro forma statements, for each type of unit is rolled up into a single overall development sources and uses statement, the potential for this development plan is as follows.

THE “STITCH” ALTERNATIVE The Stitch alternative would be a $154 million development, incorporating 627 units overall.

Average unit costs would be approximately $220,000 on a weighted average basis, net of acquisition costs, for a total cost of $228 per gross square foot. To finance such a development, all of the aforementioned sources would be used, and would require the DCHA to contribute just $5.1 million in capital allocations over five years, and negotiate $3.87 million in deferred development

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

fees. The development would leverage over $60 million cash from nine percent and four percent tax credits, and 29 percent of the development would be financed by debt.

If the DCHA chose to maintain 450 PHA units, leverage would drop to 24 percent, tax credit financing would need to increase (particularly four percent credits) overall to $62 million in cash, and the cost to the DCHA in capital allocation would increase to $13.3 million.

THE “CATALYST” ALTERNATIVE The Catalyst alternative would generate additional density, placing 667 units on site at a total cost of $172 million, or approximately $223,000 per unit on a weighted average basis, net of acquisition costs.

Such a development would command $66 million in combined tax credits, and support 28 percent leverage. The total costs to the DCHA capital allocation fund would be approximately $10.8 million, assuming $6 million in deferred developers fees could be negotiated. As a result, scenario two would have to be justified by its unique design, the number of PHA units created in this scenario would be the same (360). However, this scenario does, perhaps, do a better job of reducing the concentration of poverty on-site, for the additional cost.

A version of the Catalyst alternative, which includes 450 PHA units, seems unreasonably expensive.

To finance this project, the DCHA would need to allocate more than $21 million dollars to complete.

Leverage on this project is quite low at 23 percent on aggregate. While the additional 40 units provided in this alternative make the 450 PHA units comparatively less expensive, this option still seems untenable considering the additional cost.

Summary Table 4: Total Sources and Uses of Funds

Scenario 1-360

Scenario 1-450

Scenario 2-360

Scenario 2-450

Sources of Funds Market Rate Unit Debt LIHTC Unit Debt Project-Based Section 8 Unit Debt Choice Neighborhoods Grant Combined HOME/CDBG Funds DCHA Capital Fund Allocation Deferred Development Fees Market Rate Unit Investor Equity 9% Tax Credit Equity 4% Tax Credit Equity Total Sources

$17,910,825 $15,179,150 $11,795,693 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $5,156,244 $3,871,046 $4,934,891 $35,100,000 $26,579,218 $154,277,069

$13,941,910 $8,679,250 $15,341,003 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $13,351,670 $2,828,506 $3,885,480 $35,100,000 $28,429,413 $155,307,231

$19,221,189 $17,991,814 $11,486,383 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $10,850,187 $5,954,644 $6,755,955 $35,100,000 $30,930,163 $172,040,336

$14,009,954 $11,665,059 $14,574,453 $29,750,000 $4,000,000 $21,150,828 $3,876,282 $4,714,821 $35,100,000 $33,124,001 $171,965,399

Uses of Funds Acquisitions Hard Costs Soft Costs Developer's Fee (9% HC+SC) Total Uses

$2,260,000 $101,003,673 $38,461,528 $12,551,868 $154,277,069

$2,260,000 $101,735,599 $38,674,704 $12,636,927 $155,307,231

$2,980,000 $113,432,526 $41,668,700 $13,959,110 $172,040,336

$2,980,000 $113,379,067 $41,653,409 $13,952,923 $171,965,399

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

87

88

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

89.

DESIGN

ALTERNATIVES Schematic Plans ALTERNATIVE 1: The Stitch ALTERNATIVE 2: The Catalyst Block & Building Typologies

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

6 CORE ISSUES

89

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

90.

6

DESIGN

ALTERNATIVES Section 6 outlines the design alternatives recommended by the project team for the redevelopment of Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments. This section begins with an overview of the three initial schematic plans that the project team presented to DCHA at the mid-point of the semester. Next, the section details the two final alternatives developed by the project team after extensive feedback from DCHA and Faithworks (the on-site non-profit services coordinator) and tenant representatives. The last part of this section provides diagrams of block typologies, a preferred townhouse building typology and relocation strategy.

Early in this process, the project team synthesized the first portion of the site analysis (found in Section 3) into three separate

alternatives. These alternatives were presented to DCHA. Using feedback from DCHA, Faithworks, and tenant leaders, the project team further analyzed the physical and social conditions of the Potomac-Hopkins site and developed a list of eight core issues. These core issues (detailed in Section 4) formed the basis of the project team’s service, finance and design recommendations.

The design recommendations described in this section provide two vantage points on the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI). Without a concrete understanding of the pending CNI legislation, the project team believes these two perspectives on how CNI can be applied to the physical redevelopment of Potomac-Hopkins provides DCHA with a larger set of tools and greater flexibility for addressing this site.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

91.

SCHEMATIC PLANS Three initial design alternatives were constructed after reviewing the needs assessment and identifying four key analysis points (Site Accessibility, Physical Design, Housing Choice, and Resident Services). These design alternatives focus on addressing specific elements of those key analysis points.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

91

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: SITE ACCESSIBILITY

92

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SCHEME 1:

SERVICE HUB

This design scheme looks closely at housing choice and available space for resident services and seeks to capitalize on existing nearby services and amenities. These services and amenities include area schools, open spaces, transit stops and routes, and other community features, such as Eastern Market and religious institutions.

Space for two established on-site service centers on the Potomac Gardens and 1200 block Hopkins sites. These service centers are envisioned as ground floor spaces for social service programming with residential uses on the above floors.

The scheme also extends K Street from 12th Street to 11th Street to connect through the Hopkins service center and provides 805,461 square feet of residential and service space, which is 31.4 percent more than currently exists.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

93

94

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SCHEME 2: CONNECTED PUBLIC SPACE This design scheme seeks to connect the existing fragmented public spaces, to increase connections to off-site public space resources, and to increase available public and green spaces for all neighborhood residents.

Scheme 2 calls for rehabilitation of three of the upper Potomac Gardens buildings, with new faรงades and interior designs.

Public open space is increased by way of a green corridor that runs through the site and connects to a larger public green space on the lower site.

This scheme calls for the closure of Potomac Avenue between 12th and 13th streets and higher density residential at the Hopkins 1200 block, which provides 941,436 square feet of residential and service space -- 41.3 percent more than currently exists.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

95

96

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SCHEME 3:

BLOCK & ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER Recognizing the stark contrast of the existing building design with the surrounding neighborhood, this scheme maximizes seamless integration of architectural and block character. In this alternative, building character and block structure are designed to blend into the neighborhood so that public and low-income housing is indistinguishable from surrounding residential properties.

Scheme 3 is an all demolition scenario in which the row home/ townhouse typology is repeated throughout the site. This scheme emphasizes seamless integration with the surrounding neighborhood.

Scheme 3 also calls for higher density development at the Hopkins 1200 block, which includes services on the first floor. It also provides 858,726 square feet of residential and service space, which is 35.4 percent more than currently exists.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

97

98

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SCENARIO ANALYSIS: CRITIQUE & FEEDBACK

After meeting with DCHA to present the initial design alternatives, the project team came away with many points to incorporate into the next series of site designs. Initial reactions to the site design from DCHA included concerns over the location and level of density, circulation of through streets, design of “unassigned spaces,” individual resident access to units, availability of parking and overall unit mix. DCHA and Faithworks also expressed concerns over location of on-site services and the difficulties of housing seniors and disabled residents in the same buildings.

While the project team’s meetings with tenant representatives did not include feedback on specific site plans, much of the content of those conversations revolved around site design issues. Tenants echoed the concern over “unassigned” open spaces on-site, the lack of spaces for seniors to congregate outside, territorial issues around public space, and the difficult mix of seniors and disabled residents.

In addition, residents expressed concern over the current physical design of the site, such as inward facing buildings with architectural character and quality that contrasts with the surrounding neighborhood.

Scheme 1: In Scheme 1, DCHA raised concern over the on-site service center located at the top of the Potomac Gardens block, and posed several questions about the placement of clustered higher density buildings at the north end and central interior part of that block.

DCHA responded positively to the row houses framing the exterior of the Potomac Gardens block and the design’s attempt to “hide” density on the interior of the site.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Scheme 2: At the outset of this project, DCHA challenged the project team to consider a partial demolition scenario. Scheme 2 leaves all three Potomac Gardens high rises intact with the suggestion of façade treatments and building rehabilitation. Though this was suggested by DCHA, there was concern over the transition in building scale between the northern portion of the Potomac Gardens block (with the high rise buildings) and the middle and lower portions of the block, which is all three-story row houses in Scheme 2. DCHA also raised questions about the feasibility and practicality of the large, high density building on the western Hopkins site (at the intersection of 12th and K streets, SE).

Scheme 3: Despite their charge to produce a partial demolition scenario, DCHA responded favorably to Scheme 3, the all-demolition scenario in the initial set of design alternatives.

This scheme provided the greatest physical integration into the surrounding community and mirrored results in previous design studies of the Potomac-Hopkins site. The DCHA did not prefer the closure of Potomac Avenue and the scale of the large single building at the intersection of 12th and K streets, SE. In developing the final two alternatives, the project team synthesized this feedback with additional core issues analysis (as discussed in Section 4) and produced two design alternatives.

CORE ISSUES

99

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

100.

100

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

ALTERNATIVE I: THE STITCH

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

101

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

102.

UNIT MIX 627 Units Total 513-539 Affordable Units 46.2 Units/Acre 1-bedroom units: 249 2-bedroom units: 221 3-bedroom units: 157

ALTERNATIVE I: THE STITCH Alternative I: The Stitch draws on the idea of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) as a tool for stitching together a public housing site and the surrounding community. In this perspective on CNI, a public housing site is “the last stitch” in a desirable and high functioning neighborhood.

The idea of “the Stitch” for Potomac-Hopkins is to integrate the Potomac Gardens block through a re-orientation of buildings and streets and to redevelop buildings with architectural character that reflects the local vernacular and surrounding neighborhood.

102

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

DESIGN PRINCIPLES: SECURE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF CAPITOL HILL UNITE DISPARATE SOCIAL & NEIGHBORHOOD FABRICS RESTORE ECOLOGY AT NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL The idea of the Stitch is built around three guiding design principles. First, the Stitch seeks to secure the residential character of Capitol Hill by mending the divergent architectural character of the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites. This is achieved through the construction of row houses and new through streets that mirror the size and scale of surrounding blocks. The second guiding design principle for the Stitch seeks to unite disparate social and neighborhood fabrics. Currently, the Potomac-Hopkins sites are a series of concentrated public housing apartment buildings surrounded by a tall fence. This principle for the Stitch is achieved by designing a place where individual public

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

housing or low income housing tax credit units are indistinguishable from their neighbors. This principle seeks to take down the fence and incorporate Potomac Gardens and Hopkins into the neighborhood in order to mitigate visual and psychological separation that currently exists. Lastly, the Stitch seeks to restore ecological integrity at the neighborhood level. The Stitch demonstrates this idea through the incorporation of additional green spaces, the use of permeable pavements, stormwater runoff designs, sidewalk swales and increased street tree planting in front of all new development.

CORE ISSUES

103

PLACE QUALITIES

SERVICE LOCATIONS

The Stitch creates important new place qualities for the existing Potomac-Hopkins sites. Through redesign of the buildings and physical site configuration and addition of open spaces areas and through streets, the Stitch provides residents with small open spaces behind their units and access to new public space in the neighborhood. The addition of these spaces directly addresses issues of territorialism on both the Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites. The Stitch also increases place qualities through the redevelopment of buildings such that the design mirrors the surrounding area. This is an important aspect of decreasing the stigma associated with public housing and dissolving perceived boundary lines within the neighborhood. Continuous small pockets of landscaping and an intact tree canopy also play an important role in the place qualities of the Stitch.

Both design alternatives propose a combination of housing types that include single-family row homes, multi-family townhomes, and larger apartment buildings (mid- and high-rise). All apartment buildings include a ground floor multi-purpose room for shared use by residents.

The following descriptions outline the location of community and service spaces for each alternative:

104

The Stitch Alternative This alternative is largely characterized by multifamily townhomes that match the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Four larger apartment buildings are scattered throughout the southern end of the site. Due to this building configuration, the majority of service and recreational space in the Stitch will be located on the ground floor of building 1. This 16,900 square foot space will feature a large community room, a kitchen, bathrooms, and eight spaces for on-site service providers. See floor plan (right) for details.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

1

2

3

4

The Boys and Girls Club will occupy the ground floor of building 3, with of a total area of 6,000 square feet. The club is located next to ample park space and the skate park, which will support the Boys and Girls Club’s programming of sports and other recreational activities. The currently offered boxing classes and planned recording studio will also be located in that building. The close location of these two service centers enables adults to access services in building 1, while their children participate in youth programs at the Boys and Girls Club.

Elevator/ Stairs Office

Office

Office

Boys and Girls Club

WC

WC

Office/Flex Space

Community Room Kitchen

WC

Office

Elevator

WC Office

Office

Recreational Flex Space Office

BUILDING 1 CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Recreational Flex Space/Recording Studio

BUILDING 3 CORE ISSUES

105

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

106.

106

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

ALTERNATIVE 2: THE CATALYST

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

107

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

108.

UNIT MIX 667 Units Total 541-574 Affordable Units 49.2 Units/Acre 1-bedroom units: 285 2-bedroom units: 217 3-bedroom units: 165

Gil haleris ce nium talatis, quam ta nonsulicae cotem, cescem, terficiendam auratum enteataline abisquas lariviuspere nondum dem inam porbita ora omaxim invo, ut publis prarei senatquere tur ubisum num ut nonsu es? Ihilicae terniri deperiisspionst odiena, Alternative II: The Catalyst the project team’s inc ori consus ocatquam Romnicupios et second perspective on the Choice Neighboraudessulicam et antemeneris stantem sentus hoods Initiative (CNI). This alternative envisions is nihi, fue cutem duce CNIrebeferbit? as a tool inTum which redevelopment of a public ficeps, suli est con tuis, simultorae inulisque housing site transforms the neighborhood.

In this no. cut aperrarem quastilibunu confin tam perspective on CNI, a public housing site acts as niuretr aeditam. quostanforce tioccis a catalyst, exerting aBatilicae transformative on the iacerni hilibulienat atus At vivehen atuderfese surrounding community. The idea of “the Catafurbisse, Cupimmo ensulici lyst” for Potomac-Hopkins is totantercero create a unique essum, ses convert erfessedit?

Satua vissa series of places throughout the Potomac Gardens reternum, Catum in dis consus consumoftreortil block and a large increase in and variety open

Gil haleris ce nium talatis, quam ta nonsulicae cotem, cescem, terficiendam auratum enteataline abisquas lariviuspere nondum dem inam porbita ora omaxim invo, ut publis prarei senatquere tur ubisum num ut nonsu es? Ihilicae terniri deperi spionst odiena, inc ori consus ocatquam Romnicupios et audessulicam et antemeneris stantem sentus rebeferbit? Tum is nihi, fue cutem duce ficeps, suli est con tuis, simultorae inulisque no. cut aperrarem quastilibunu confin tam niuretr aeditam. Batilicae quostan tioccis iacerni hilibulienat atus At vivehen atuderfese furbisse, Cupimmo ensulici tantercero essum, ses convert erfessedit? Satua vissa reternum, Catum in dis consus consum treortil

ALTERNATIVE II: THE CATALYST

public spaces.

108

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

DESIGN PRINCIPLES: REINFORCE & RECONSTRUCT THE IDEA OF PLACE SUPPORT URBAN CHARACTER & APPROPRIATE DENSITY ELEVATE THE PUBLIC REALM & NATURAL SYSTEMS

Like the Stitch, design recommendations for the Catalyst are guided by a set of design principles. First, this design alternative seeks to reinforce and reconstruct the idea of place within the Potomac-Hopkins neighborhood.

Washington, DC is a city of unique places and neighborhoods, and this design envisions the Potomac-Hopkins sites as one of those unique places and neighborhoods.

The second principle is that the Catalyst will support urban character and appropriate density. Currently, the building styles and physical design of the Potomac-Hopkins sites are not related to the surrounding area. This configuration impedes further compatible

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

density, and the Catalyst addresses this issue by including a mix of townhomes and larger scale apartment buildings. Lastly, the Catalyst will elevate the public realm and natural systems of this area, through the inclusion of distinct and varied park spaces, ecologically appropriate landscaping elements and stormwater management techniques. The Potomac-Hopkins neighborhood currently lacks adequate public green space for passive and active recreation, and the open space made available to PotomacHopkins residents is concrete, devoid of vegetation and fenced into the interior of the sites. The Catalyst provides a gradient of public space by incorporating a variety of passive and active recreation spaces into the design.

CORE ISSUES

109

PLACE QUALITIES The Catalyst alternative is designed around the idea of place-making and reflects this idea in the myriad details built into this design.

First, the decision to bend the road through the Potomac-Gardens block creates a series of vistas and small stopping points throughout the block. The green median gradually increases in width, creating a passive open space that leads into an active green space at Potomac Avenue.

Here, Potomac Avenue is closed, yet maintains the linear form intended in the L’Enfant Plan.

The Catalyst envisions this space as a recessed, wide and active lawn that allows for a variety of activity. The park area is surrounded by plaza space and bookended by an open plaza space on the northeast end and a kiosk structure at the southwest end. From there, the green space leads

110

into the recreation area located at the Hopkins sites. In this alternative, the southeast terminus of Potomac Avenue is framed by a higher density apartment building, which also contains on-site services. This scenario creates active and passive places throughout the sites and new open spaces that are available to the surrounding community.

On the Potomac Gardens block, the Catalyst creates a distinct character that is currently missing in the neighborhood. Townhomes and taller apartment buildings are mixed together and set at angles to each other in order to create visual interest and to frame smaller spaces throughout the block. Compared to the Stitch, the Catalyst creates a wider variety of experiences for residents and visitors alike.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

SERVICE LOCATIONS

1 2

3

4 5

WC

Kitchen

WC

WC Office

Community Room

Office

Office

Office

BUILDING 1 The Catalyst Alternative The Catalyst alternative features more large apartment buildings than the Stitch, including the two prominent buildings at the northern end of the site. Services will be distributed across the site in this alternative. Seven thousand square feet of service space will be located on the ground floor of building 1. On the southern end of the site, building 4 will contain the new Boys and Girls Club (6,000 square feet) and an additional 4,000 square feet of on-site service space, which will also house a designated area for boxing classes and the recording studio. Â Like the Stitch, this location is ideal for its close proximity to the adjacent open space, skate park and basketball courts. See floor plans (above and to the right) for details.

Office

Recreational Flex Space/Recording Studio Office

Recreational Flex Space Elevator

WC

WC Boys and Girls Club

BUILDING 4 CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

111

Exterior Stairs to Second and Third Floor Apartments

Stairs to Third Floor Apartments

Stairs to Third Floor Apartments

2-Bedroom Apartments

2-Bedroom Apartment 862 Sqft

2-Bedroom Apartment 862 Sqft

1- and 3-Bedroom Apartments

3-Bedroom Apartment 1,041 Sqft

1-Bedroom Apartment 686 Sqft

MONTREAL STYLE TOWNHOMES

BUILDING TYPOLOGY In considering a new model for apartment style living at Potomac-Hopkins that might better respond to the context of the surrounding neighborhood, the first thought for many is the townhome, one or two apartments per floor. However, it might become an unsafe environment with so many families sharing a single stair, or expensive if every time one member of one of the families loses a key and DCHA has to change the locks and provide new keys to all households involved. Above all else, the ability to have your own door can potentially instill residents with a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility within the community.

At the core of this model is the interior and exterior circulation system that allows each family

112

to have their own front door and stair. As seen in the three floor plans below, the first floor apartments have their own doors off of the street. One can access the second and third floors by the exterior stair with the second floor apartments having doors that come off of that second floor landing. The third floor households gain access to their own apartments through the two doors in the middle of the second floor landing.

As seen in the two floor plans to the right, each floor of these townhomes has the potential to be either two 2-bedroom units of between 790sqft and 862sqft or a 3- unit of between 980sqft and 1,041sqft and a 1-bedroom unit of between 618sqft and 686sqft. The ability to mix and match within the larger townhome gives DCHA the ability to cater their buildings to the types of households they would like to provide for without jeopardizing the architectural character of the historic Capitol Hill neighborhood.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

BLOCK TYPOLOGY: The Stitch These diagrams show block typologies for the two design alternatives. The block typology for The Stitch shows the uniform townhome building type that is integral to this alternative. This diagram explains the dimensions of alleyways, landscaping, setback, sidewalk width and building width. It also shows the relationship of the block

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

to the central landscaped median. The central alley allows for vehicular travel and one parking space for each building. This block structure also allows residents to have opportunities for gardening and private green spaces.

CORE ISSUES

113

Alley width: 25’

Landscaping setback: 5-10’’

Apartment building width: 65’

Townhouse width: 18-20’ Landscaped median

Sidewalk width: 12’

Alley

BLOCK TYPOLOGY: The Catalyst The block typology for The Catalyst alternative demonstrates the spatial relationship between the townhome buildings and the larger apartment buildings, the frontage of the larger apartment building onto the

114

angular landscaped median, and the network of alleyways on the block. This diagram shows how the buildings address the street and create a strong street wall, and a series of interstitial spaces throughout the block.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

RELOCATION SCHEME Scenarios 1 & 2 Buildings of residents to relocation Purchase and Demo Salvation Army Building Resident Movement into vacancies in Potomac Gardens First Phase of Building - Build First

RELOCATION STRATEGY

As discussed in the Relocation Recommendations in Section 5, the relocation plan will be based on a build-first strategy, which necessitates the acquisition and demolition of the Salvation Army building at the corner of 12th and G streets. This area will allow for 30 units of new housing. Residents currently living in the three Hopkins buildings at the southwest corner of 12th and K streets will be relocated to these new units, as well as vacant units at Potomac Gardens and eastern Hopkins buildings.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

CORE ISSUES

115

A116 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

116.

appendix CONTEXT MAPS Schools & Organizations Neighborhood Services Demographic Information Market Overview Sample Qualitative Evaluation Questions 5-year CSS Budget & Funding Sources References & Image Credits Acknowledgements

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO

SPRING 2010

schools & organizations

P OTO M AC G A R D E N S & H O P K I N S

A118 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l

charter school

public housing site

public school military

religious organizations neighborhood boundary

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

10 minute walk

5 minute walk

charter school public school

human services child care services

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

neighborhood SERVICES P O T O M AC G A R D E N S & H O P K I N S

APPENDIX

A119

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Population Area

2000

2009

2014

Census Tract 68.02 Census Tract 68.04 Census Tract 69 Census Tract 70 Census Tract 71 Census Tract 72

2,029 2,640 1,805 2,142 2,780 1,853

2,231 2,677 2,003 2,110 2,811 2,044

2,325 2,696 2,087 2,111 2,832 2,162

Potomac Gardens Hopkins Apartments Total

n/a n/a n/a

624 408 1,032

n/a n/a n/a

Study Area

13,249

13,876

14,213

Race by Percentages Race Census Tract 71 White African American Asian Other Total Hispanic Source: Policy Map

Washington, DC 572,059 591,721 604,029 Sources: Policy Map; Washington, DC Housing Authority

Study Area

City

11% 80% 4% 5% 100%

30% 65% 2% 4% 100%

36% 53% 3% 7% 100%

3%

3%

8%

Income Area

2000

Census Tract 68.02 Census Tract 68.04 Census Tract 69 Census Tract 70 Census Tract 71 Census Tract 72

$39,097 $31,000 $51,438 $67,109 $25,022 $8,089

$54,769 $38,750 $74,177 $90,878 $35,172 $12,784

$63,077 $45,000 $85,363 $102,500 $40,096 $14,394

n/a n/a n/a

$9,286 $13,975 $10,740

n/a n/a n/a

$38,579

$53,382

$60,536

Potomac Gardens Hopkins Apartments Average Study Area

2009

2014 Households Area

Washington, DC $40,127 $54,704 $62,281 Sources: Policy Map; Washington, DC Housing Authority

2014

Census Tract 68.02 Census Tract 68.04 Census Tract 69 Census Tract 70 Census Tract 71 Census Tract 72

921 180 929 1,044 1,081 859

942 246 1,065 1,056 1,120 962

990 282 1,117 1,066 1,138 1,026

Potomac Gardens* Hopkins Apartments* Total

n/a n/a n/a

345 155 500

n/a n/a n/a

Study Area

5,014

5,391

5,619

Hopkins

0-4 3% 5-9 8% 10-14 13% 15-19 14% 20-24 11% 25-34 11% 35-44 7% 45-54 13% 55-64 9% 65-74 6% 75-84 3% 85+ 1% Sources: Policy Map; Washington,

2009

Washington, DC 248,590 260,749 Sources: Policy Map; Washington, DC Housing Authority

Age by Percentages Age Range Potomac

2000

Tract 71

Study Area

n/a 10% n/a 9% n/a 9% n/a 8% n/a 8% n/a 14% n/a 14% n/a 13% n/a 8% n/a 5% n/a 2% n/a 1% DC Housing Authority

A120 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

6% 5% 5% 7% 9% 19% 17% 14% 9% 5% 3% 1%

City 6% 5% 5% 7% 8% 18% 15% 13% 11% 6% 4% 2%

267,772

MARKET OVERVIEW Fundamentals in the Washington D.C. metro area apartment market continue to soften due to the on-going recession, but remain one of the best performing metropolitan divisions in the US in 2009.

The average monthly absorption for new apartment communities was 15 units per month over the quarter. The average rental rate for both class A and B apartments was $1,484 per month, a dollar less than the previous year’s average. Over all product types, vacancy is 4.3%, up from 3.6% the previous year, second only to New York City. (Cushman & Wakefield Marketbeat: D.C. Multifamily Report 2Q09) Cushman & Wakefield forecast that due to the amount of federal spending in the region, the DC metro area will be one of the first metro apartment markets to emerge from the current recessionary period. A selection of apartments in the surrounding neighborhood are listed below: Apartments by Size and Rent in SE Washington, DC 215 C Street, SE 1 BR 1 bath 420 sf from $1420 909 at Capitol Yards—909 New Jersey Avenue, SE studio 534 sf from $1,725 1 BR 828 sf from $2070 2 BR 1107 sf from $2645 Axiom at Capitol Gardens100 Eye Street, SE 1 BR 1 Bath 770 sq ft. from $2075 Jefferson at Capitol Yards—70 Eye Street, SE studio 1 bath 529 sf from $1,580; 608 sf for $1830 1 BR 1 bath 744 sf for $1,995 2 BR 2 baths 977 sf for $2625 Naylor Gardens --2725 30th Street, SE 1 BR 530 sf for $765 1 BR730 sf from $870 2 BR 1 bath, 840 sf from $950 The Overlook at Oxon Run—3700 9th Street, SE Affordable housing communities for families and seniors. 1 and 2 BR plans with rents starting at $900.

Townhomes On Capitol Hill 637 Ellen Wilson Place, SE 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units for rent.

Rent ranges from $928 up to $1725. Floor area listed range from 572 and 1250 sf.

Terrace Manor Apartments. 3347 23rd Street, SE 1 BR 1 Bath 520 sf from $700 2 BR 1 bath 620 sf from $800 3 BR 2 bath 1020 sf from $1020 Vantage and The Parks 601 Edgewood Street, NE 1-4 bedroom units starting at $698 for 451 sf, up to 4 BR 1,177 sf for $1325 2 BR for $1304 Averages in zip code 20003 1 BR 1 Bath-- smallest unit average $1,199 Average size of smallest unit: 541 square feet. $26.60 psf/year 2 BR, average size 856 sf; $1,410

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

APPENDIX

A121

SAMPLE QUALITATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS Education ••

How do residents view the role of education in their lives?

••

Have they taken steps to expand their knowledge base beyond the programs offered by DCHA?

••

Do residents know how to leverage their knowledge into improved job opportunities or more advanced education?

Employment ••

Do residents report general satisfaction with their employment status?

••

Do residents think they have the appropriate skills to progress in their respective professions?

••

Do the job training programs prepare them with the necessary skills to secure employment?

Health ••

How do residents feel physically on a day-to-day basis?

••

Do residents report decreases in preventative diseases, such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.?

••

Do residents take proactive steps toward maintaining their health (i.e. preventative care, regular exercise, healthy food choices, etc.)?

••

Do they understand the link between healthy choices now and their long-term health?

Substance Abuse Counseling ••

Has substance abuse counseling helped participants reach sobriety? What could be done to strengthen the program, if anything?

••

What types of continuing support would residents like to receive for their addictions?

••

How many drug counseling recipients report sobriety? How many months have they been sober?

••

Have any of them experienced a relapse within the last six months? A year?

Social Interaction ••

Do residents feel safe in their homes? In common areas? Within the neighborhood?

••

Has there been less violence among children under age 18?

••

Do residents feel isolated on their sites?

••

How do DCHA residents describe their relationships with non-DCHA residents?

A122 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

APPENDIX

A123

Current Level

$ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 21,000 $ 19,000 $ 215,000

$ 40,000 ‐

n/a n/a n/a

‐

$ 215,000 $ 255,000

$ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 21,000 $ 19,000 $ 215,000

$ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 21,000 $ 19,000 $ 215,000

Year 3 $ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 21,000 $ 19,000 $ 215,000

Year 4 $ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 21,000 $ 19,000 $ 215,000

$ 2,430,000 $ 2,645,000 $ 2,695,000

$ 2,430,000 $ 2,430,000 $ 2,645,000 $ 2,645,000 $ 2,695,000 $ 2,695,000

$ 2,645,000 $ 2,695,000

$ 2,430,000

$ 100,000 $ 100,000

$ 100,000 $ 100,000

$ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000

$ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

Year 2

Year 1

Year 5

$ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 21,000 $ 19,000 $ 215,000

$ 40,000 $ 10,000

$ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 30,000

$ 100,000

$ 2,430,000

$ 2,645,000 $ 2,695,000

Budget Notes 1. $215,000 is the amount of Faithworks' current Dream Academy grant. $70,000 of the Direct Services budget is allocated for Peaceoholics services.

2. The project team estimates an additional $10,000 in donated services will be secured in addition to the $40,000 Fatherhood Grant.

3. This figure is based on DC Developing Families Center 2008 operating budget 4. This figure is based on the new DC Educare Center's projected operating budget 5. This figure is based on providing supplemental funding for offsite job training programs (stipends, transportation, etc.)

6. Evaluation is a required component of HOPE VI development, it is anticipated to be the same under CNI; this is an estimated figure.

5‐Year Services Operating Budget

Faithworks Direct Services Coalition Building Resident Stipends Overhead Total1

Donated Services Total Family Care Fatherhood Grant Other Donated Services2

New Programs Adult Education 3 Early Childhood Education4 Job Training5

CSS Evaluation6

Total Services Total Services w/Donated Services

5-YEAR COMMUNITY & SUPPORTIVE SERVICES BUDGET

POTENTIAL CSS FUNDING SOURCES JOB TRAINING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Comcast Foundation—http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/inthecommunity/foundation/comcastfoundation.html Commercial Real Estate Women—www.crewdc.org Corina Higginson Trust—www.corinahigginsontrust.org Davis Construction—www.davisconstruction.com DC Department of Employment Services—www.does.dc.gov DC Office of Planning and Economic Development—www.dcbiz.dc.gov Hattie M. Strong Foundation—www.hmstrongfoundation.org Herb Block Foundation—www.herbblockfoundation.org Jones Foundation—www.thejonesfoundation.com Jovid Foundation— www.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/jovid/ MARPAT Foundation—www.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/marpat/ Microsoft Unlimited Potential—www.microsoft.com/unlimitedpotential/default.mspx Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation—www.cafritzfoundation.org Office of the State Superintendent of Education—www.osse.dc.gov PNC Bank—www.pnc.com Rapoport Foundation—www.rapoportfdn.org The Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundation —www.meyerfoundation.org The Fowler Foundation—www.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/fowler/about.html The Moriah Fund—www.moriahfund.org United Way of the National Capital Area—www.unitedwaynca.org Verizon Foundation—www.foundation.verizon.com

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION National Programs • • • • • • • • • •

America’s Promise Alliance—www.americaspromise.org Healthy Start Program—www.healthystartassoc.org Office of Head Start—www.acf.hhs.gov The Annie E Casey Foundation—www.aecf.org The Buffett Early Childhood Fund—www.buffettearlychildhoodfund.org The Cafritz Foundation—www.cafritzfoundation.org The Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundation—www.meyerfoundation.org The Philip Graham Fund—www.plgrahamfund.org The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—www.rwjf.org W.K. Kellogg Foundation—www.wkkf.org

Local Programs • • • •

City Interests—www.cityinterests.com DC Department of Health—www.dchealth.dc.gov DC Department of Housing and Community Development—www.dhcd.dc.gov Office of Early Childhood, DC Department of Human Services—www.acf.hhs.gov

A124 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

REFERENCES Academy of Hope http://www.aohdc.org/ProgramsServices/AdultEducationPrograms/tabid/76/Default.aspx Bennett, L., Smith, J. L., & Wright, P. A. (Eds.). (2006). Where Are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Building Neighborhoods website, “Administration Outlines Choice Neighborhoods Proposal”. http://unca-acf.org/?cat=4 Buron, L., Popkin, S., Levy, D., Harris, L., & Khadduria, J. (2002). The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study: A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents from Eight Sites. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public Housing Investments. Washington, DC: Abt Associates Inc. and Urban Institute.

Choice Neighborhoods Budget, FY2011. Up to 10 percent of these funds may be set aside for planning grants, up to 5 percent may be set aside for program evaluation and technical assistance.

Cisneros, H. G., & Engdahl, L. (Eds.). (2009). From Despair to Hope: Hope VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Committee on National Urban Policy, National Research Council. Inner City Poverty in the United States. p. 225. National Academy Press. Washington. D.C. 1990.

Family Health and Birth Center. (n.d.). About Us Family Health and Birth Center. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from Family Health and Birth Center: http://www.yourfhbc.org/about.html (added by Paul) Glover, R. Making a Case for Mixed Use, Mixed-Income Communities to Address America’s Affordable Housing Needs Goetz, E. G. (2010). Better Neighborhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation Outcomes in HOPE VI. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research , 12 (1).

Jubilee Jobs (http://jubileejobs.org/what-we-do/success-stories) Lurie-Hurvits, E. (2009, February). Making the case for a comprehensive infant and todler policy agenda. Early Experience Matters , 1-7.

Other potential collaborating agencies include Commerce, Agriculture, Energy (Choice Neighborhoods Budget, FY2011) Ramirez, S., CEO of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), Statement Before the Committee of Financial Services, March 17, 2010.

Schwartz, A. F. (2006). Housing Policy in the United States. New York: Routledge.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

APPENDIX

A125

Sherer, Paul. The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space. The Trust for Public Land, 2006.

So Others Might Eat: http://www.some.org/services_recovery_employment.html United States Congress. (2007, June 21). Testimony of Susan Popkin, Urban Institute, prepared for the hearing on HOPE VI Reauthorization.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/offices/ cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/ United States Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights Urban Bridge Builder Power Point Presentation Wachter, Susan and Kevin Gillen. Public Investment Strategies: How They Matter for Neighborhoods in Philadelphia – Identification and Analysis. The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania, October 2006.

PHOTO CREDITS Arthur Capper: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hamelbuilders.com/images/Harlem Children’s Zone: http://danielgaryhill.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hcz-kids-andcanada-2.jpg Brown Baby Reads online: www.brownbabyreads.com Centennial Place: http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/09/55/11/ slideshow_1115595_evtechwood_HS02.JPG Chicago demolition: www.limits.com City West: www.citywestohio.com Coalition for the Homeless: www.coalitionforthehomeless.org Columbia Villa: www.mayersarch.com Department of Health and Human Services: http://theamericano.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/health-human-services.gif Department of Labor logo: http://www.slcc.edu/academicadvising/careeradvising/US-DeptOfLabor.png Department of Justice seal: http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID14309/ images/091211173940US_DeptOfJustice_Seal.png Housing Authority of the City of Shreveport: www.shvhousauth.com Lake Parc Place: www.flickr.com San Francisco Housing Authority: www.sfha.org

A126 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l

DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the following people for their support and guidance throughout this project.

STUDIO INSTRUCTORS

John Kromer, Faculty & Senior Consultant, UPenn Fels Institute of Government Gil Rosenthal, Principal , Wallace, Roberts & Todd Design Olusegun Obasanjo, Director, Duvernay + Brooks, LLC

DC HOUSING AUTHORITY STAFF

Adrianne Todman, Interim Director, Washington DC Housing Authority Laurie Putscher, Director of Office of Operations, Washington DC Housing Authority Janice Burgess, Director of Office of Planning & Development, Washington DC Housing Authority

FAITHWORKS, INC. STAFF Robert Boulter, President Keith Fleury, Faithworks

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF DESIGN FACULTY AND STAFF

John Landis, City & Regional Planning Department Chair, University of Pennsylvania Michael Larice, Associate Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning Fernando Micale, Principal, Wallace, Roberts & Todd Design Laura Wolf-Powers, Associate Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning Kate Daniel, PennPlanning Roslynne Carter, PennPlanning

PROJECT TEAM

Mat Abramsky, Public/Private Development Lucy Corbett, Community & Economic Development, Public/Private Development John Curran, Public/Private Development Anna Ellis, Public/Private Development Susanne Fogt, Land Use/Transportation/Environmental Planning Paul Shabsis, Community & Economic Development Shara D. Taylor, Community & Economic Development Danae Tilghman, Urban Design

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO

SPRING 2010

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING