You may have noticed the fencing around the final set of 2-story Allen Wilson Terrace buildings along Commerce Drive and West Trinity Place.
Decatur Planning Director Amanda Thompson confirms that the Decatur Housing Authority will demolish these units. City Manager Peggy Merriss says the demolition will occur after Phase III occupancy along Electric Ave is completed and noted that after the demolition “the DHA will market the land as a private housing development opportunity”.
This is in-line with the previous published plans for the development, which noted the eventual demolition of these final older units and “developing market rate housing along that side of the site”. With the occupancy of Phase III, the DHA has replaced the original 288 units at Allen Wilson Terrace on a smaller parcel of land, and notes on its website, “An important part of that [plan] is the use of approximately one-third of the site, the north end, for a potential condo development of approximately 150 units, some of which would be life cycle units. The proceeds from the sale of this land will help fund the building of the new public housing units.”
It is truly nice to live in a community which cares enough about its most vulnerable residents that they have replaced the units they tore down and welcome them back with open arms. Such a complete and total contrast from the way Atlanta managed its HOPE VI redevelopment properties.
I have often heard arguments that it is better to provide low income families subsidies to live in traditional housing (I assume regular market rate apartments) and integrate more completely with the community rather than building “projects” to keep these families concentrated into a single area/set of buildings.
I honestly don’t know anything about city planning and this sort of strategy, but does anyone here know the benefits/shortcomings of each approach? Why did Decatur chose to rebuild low income housing as opposed to selling all this land and providing vouchers for “traditional” housing?
Check out the comments to the 3/6 post on the Avondale station development for the exact discussion you are looking for.
My sense is that the “project” approach destroyed existing neighborhoods, small businesses, community and church support, and networks of friends and families. The “integrate into the community” approach did the same by scattering folks to wherever they could find cheap enough housing, often under landlords that were a lot less scrupulous and attentive than good public housing management (and of course there was some bad management too). Not surprisingly, a mixed, more nuanced approach has evolved between these two extremes. My concern is that there still is not enough focus on building neighborhood and community. Good neighborhood and community support has value that is hard to quantitate. Unfortunately, there’s funding limitations. The political and social will to fund effective low income housing is not great right now. But the need for good low-income, affordable, and middle-class income housing will not go away as long as salaries in our economy range from low to high.
Don’t know what’s going right and wrong with DHA planning and building given financial limitations. But I know that my children and I have had some fine, fine friends and neighbors who live or have lived in DHA housing and I don’t want to see them leave.
The problem with original public housing was that it Balkanized its residents from the rest of their community – there were no jobs, services, retail, etc. nearby. Modern public housing is trending toward making sure that jobs, services and amenities are available. Fortunately for Decatur, our public housing is within easy proximity to all of those things and makes it far easier for low-income citizens to be a part of the community.
Wait. Am I reading this correctly? Lower income people are being squeezed into a smaller space than they had. And then market value homes are being built on the space that’s created by moving the lower income people into that smaller space? Or are the new living spaces somehow as big or bigger than the old ones?
I’m missing something here.
The new apts are WAY nicer than what they replaced. I am not sure about square footage but individual apts appear to be about same size as the old ones. I think the way they positioned the buildings plus adding the 4 story for seniors created smaller footprint.
Specifically, lower income people are being provided new, more nicely appointed homes to live in, which were paid for in part by the market rate housing that will be built at the corner.
It would make more sense if they redeveloped this property again as low income and sold Gateway. It would generate more income and be more cohesive as a matter of urban planning. It would also fully fund redeveloping the Oakhurst property DHA is tearing down – which would essentially match the net units lost from selling Gateway.
It does seem like Gateway is a bit disconnected. On the other hand, my understanding is that Gateway offered housing that was more affordable than subsidized. A lot of folks with steady, long-term jobs live there. Wonder if that feature could be kept.
What do residents of DHA housing think? Are any of you reading this thread? I’d love to know your opinions, perspectives, concerns. Sure hope they were considered in current and future DHA planning.
I think the main problem is that it’s much, much more than a “bit disconnected.” I would venture to guess that a great majority of current Decatur residents don’t even have a clue that Gateway is even there unless they take Marta on any kind of regular basis because that’s the only way you ever see it. The only entrance is hidden off of Trinity and it’s not connected in any meaningful way to “downtown.” Unless there is some way to rectify this (i.e., the proposed street cut-throughs to Ponce), the plan for that property really just perpetuates the historical “two Decaturs” segregation stigma, IMHO.
The planning for Gateway is completely lacking. It should contain all of these principles. Quality, affordable housing for the current residents. A through street to connect the grid and improve walking from Beacon Hill to Ponce. The highest density achievable to increase the demand for small local businesses in downtown. (Andres Duanny: “Density makes the doughnuts fresher.”) Density will also improve the tax base.
I agree with you and JT. However,the resident perspective may have additional points we’re not considering. DHA may or may not have considered them, considering funding limitations. One feature of Gateway has been that it’s a terrific place to bike, skateboard, scooter because it has enclosed cul-de-sac streets with no through traffic. But no playground which is ridiculous for a place with so many children. So connectivity needs to also consider safety for a complex with a high density of children. I imagine this is totally do-able if there is the will, the know-how, and the funding to do so.
I’m sure Cabrini Green, Pruitt-Igoe and even Techwood Homes had some really killer spots to do some rad skateboarding there. Thank goodness that was not used as a justification to keep them around.
Not trying to justify Techwoodness, just trying to make sure we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. The whole unintended consequences thing. Residents could best advise where good ideas and good intentions aren’t considering all the angles. Connectivity should be possible without sacrificing play safety and neighborhood cohesiveness if it’s done right. The devil is in the details.
Not sure if it’s feasible, but it would be nice to connect Atlanta Ave through the property and to Ponce. It goes under the MARTA bridge, but maybe some kind of freaky, modified roundabout or what they have at McClendon Ave & Howard Circle in Lake Claire.
The issue of connectivity between Gateway and Ponce was a thread here several weeks ago when DHA asked for (and got) a rezoning variance so they can build more apartments to house some seniors displaced from the terrace tear-down. As I recall, a connection to Ponce, be it pedestrian or vehicular, is part of the city’s 2010 Strategic Plan but there is a lack of funding to help make it a reality. Too bad there can’t be some sort of creative arrangement to help incentivize one of the property owners along Ponce to accommodate such a connection.
There was no variance. Just the rezoning (to a more predictable and urban designation, incidentally). The project’s design, for all its present flaws, allows for either path or street connection in the future, should the will or the property emerge to make it possible.
It may “allow” for it , but makes the connection essentially a nothing-burger for the city. The project should be designed around a connection to Ponce – it shouldn’t be an afterthought. And wouldn’t Peavine Creek benefit from a public park instead of a gated off private park for only a few hundred to enjoy?
I was just correcting a few of the details. Certainly no disagreement. That’s why I specifically called out the plans flaws.
My bad…for some reason I thought it was a variance. Thx for the correction.
Clarification please: Gateway is? And which Oakhurst property are you referring to?
Go to the DHA Housing Authority website, click on Housing, then on Assisted Housing (which is distinct from Public Housing). Gateway is a long-standing, big housing complex with 88 units and lots of children. It’s near, but not contiguous with Allen Wilson Terrace, diagnonally across W. Trinity from the old police station parking lot. It’s set back away from Trinity on a cul de sac so is not very noticeable. Its elementary school students used to attend Westchester when Allen Wilson Terrace students attended Clairemont and Swanton Hill students attended Winnona Park. When Westchester closed, Gateway students attended Clairemont. Now is it Glennwood? You probably know Gateway families but don’t realize it.
Gateway is the DHA apts across Trinity from the police station that is now a construction site. DHA has two properties in Oakhurst. Spring point near 5th Ave school and Oakview near the village
Gateway is also being redeveloped. I saw a plan for it at the meeting two months ago. I wish more could be done to “out” the Peavine Creek, particularly where it goes along the Marley off of Ponce on the backside of Gateway. It would make a great green space leading up to Ponce de Leon.
As a Section 8 landlord in DeKalb county, I can say that I am a big fan of the program. The standards for landlords to qualify are stringent and demanding, and there is a waitlist so tenants are responsible and don’t want to be kicked off. People are integrated into the community at large.
As for Gateway, that property is tough. It should probably be a park. Gateway could be relocated to the new Marta parking lot project. It is a shame that the residents are fenced in like a compound bordered by a Mart rail and the dumpsters from the Ponce businesses.
Thanks for the perspective as a Section 8 landlord. I guess my opinion is shaped by stories that have come out about tenants from places like Techwood Homes being relocated to Clayton County and floundering there. I’m not positive that the landlord standards are equally enforced across the Metro Area.
Being integrated into the community sounds good as long as it doesn’t mean getting lost in the system or losing community and networks. Community associations have a voice that individual renters do not.
A move of Gateway to a MARTA development could be great. What would be lost is the proximity to Ebster’s resources, Beacon Hill services, the Rec Center, library, walkability to Downtown (roundabout as the walk is) and the schools.
All of the things you’ve named are such wonderful assets! As for MARTA, the residents’ proximity to a station is better than just about any other neighborhood’s– two signalized crosswalks away to the Decatur Station and bus terminal. Fingers crossed that the Callaway development will also end up serving the neighborhood well. Could be it’s going to end up being the best place to live in Decatur!