Housing

[Bill Pote]

Important Links
Housing - Draft Recommendations (Full Report)
Additional Resource - CityWide Development Corporation MidPark Development Recommendations
Additional Resource - Downtown Dayton Partnership Strategic Reuse Project

GDDP Committee Draft Recommendations - Summary
1.  Rank each potential housing site using criteria developed by the Greater Downtown Plan Housing Committee to better understand wich projects are more likely to have the highest success rate based on predetermined qualifiers.
2.  Revisit “in‐progress projects” that have stalled for various reasons and find creative solutions on how to get them completed.
3.  Create and finance a Pre‐Development Fund and an Equity Fund to assist in the overall development and gap financing of housing projects in Greater Downtown.
4.  Develop a site assembly and land banking strategy to obtain properties determined prime for successful redevelopment.
5.  Begin speculative pre‐development work on housing sites that demonstrate the most potential for success.
6.  Create a list of leading local, regional, and national developers that have experience in urban housing projects.
7.  Build upon the Downtown Dayton Partnership’s efforts through the Strategic Reuse Project focusing on buildings that rank high based on the Site Evaluation 8.  Criteria and work to develop cost estimates and development strategies to turn those projects into a reality.
9.  Incorporate the Citywide Development Neighborhood Development Strategic Planning Groups recommendations for MidPark, an area between The University of Dayton and Miami Valley Hospital. This neighborhood is a critical piece of the puzzle that will serve as an improved gateway while creating a livable district that will help fill Dayton’s market gaps in both the housing and office/retail market. The location of MidPark not only serves as a visual gateway, but its proximity to many successful projects makes it a promising location for future development.
10.  Develop strategies to bring a grocery store/food coop to the Greater Downtown area. Explore the potential of transitioning the Greyhound bus station to a grocery store with related services like dry cleaners, deli and other related services needed by residents.


See full detailed plan for specific recommendations for each item listed above, list of working partners and a list of potential funding sources.

[Jeffery]

At first glance the Midpark recommendations look good.

But, looking closer, the recommendations read like old-school urban renewal from the 1960s.  The planning area is divided up into functional zones and will undergo wholesale demolition, streets are vacated, and the property is replatted into larger parcels.   This is made explicit for that little neighborhood between Burns and US 35,and it’s implied that this will happened to the remaining residential areas between Main and Warren, south of MVH.

The risk is that the area  between Warren and Patterson will develop as a set of stand-alone office buildings surrounded by parking and landscaping, similar to the supposedly New Urbanist redevelopment at Hills & Dales.

There is an opportunity to do something a bit different here, since a future streetcar route will traverse the area.  This would imply higher density housing and mixed use (housing/office/retail) buildings, but using & rationalizing the existing street grid (or even adding streets).  The model would be some of the infill in the Gateway Quarter in OTR, or perhaps the Pearl District in Portland (which projected the downtown Portland street grid onto a vacant brownfield site).  The discussion of Warren Street implies a mixed use concept, but this could also apply to Main Street and the areas between Main and Warren, as well.

For the area between Burns and US 35:  the idea of demolishing an entire an entire neighborhood and replacing it with a suburban development model of patio homes is quite retro. Havn't we done this already as public housing?   Instead,  a treatment using a mix of context-sensitive infill and existing housing, retaining the existing somewhat picturesque angled street pattern would conserve and enhance the fine-grained and intimate character of a 19th century neighborhood.

Sometimes this plan seems like two contradictory concepts.  There are gestures to preserving the historic urban fabric (mentions of preserving Buckeye Street houses and properties on Warren) vs. a conventional quasi-suburban “zoned” urban renewal approach.

The Cliburn Manor site could be a real urbanistic disaster if not done right, as it’s a transition between the older parts of South Park and Warren Street.  Putting in a medical office complex could lead to something out-of-scale with the neighboring residential area. Or the urban form would be that of a generic medical office building similar to the ones already near MVH. 

A lot of what I’ve said is really about urban design.  My bias is toward preserving as much as possible of the historic city.  Preserving the remaining houses and street. but also improving the character by perhaps adding more streets and lanes, and encouraging higher density mixed use construction on vacant lots fronting the busy streets and on vacant land away from existing housing blocks (like the area around Benhams).  For existing residential streets (like Vine Street and old Brown Street) restoration and smaller scale infill things. Small can be two flats and doubles and maybe a double with a granny flat over a garage in back. So population density could be increased while the residential scale maintained.

The key thing, though, is to make this area populated and busy enough, and dense enough, to where a streetcar would be a viable transportation option, as an alternative to short-haul trips.  And the more population there is the more viable neighborhood retail becomes.

[tgasper]

Jeffrey - great input.  The Housing Committee mostly has come to the conclusion that we need a variety of housing options - rental and purchase, at various price points.  I attended all but the first meeting and recall no discussion about "the idea of demolishing an entire neighborhood and replacing it with a suburban development model of patio homes is quite retro."   However, empty nesters are indeed looking for single floor options, not all want to go into a condo.  In fact, I spoke with a couple from Springboro today who are quite interested in the co-housing concept, which is something else to take a good look at.

Mostly we will take a wait and see approach to see how the rest of the plan shapes up and what priorities rise to the top.  There are so many options for re-use of existing buildings (thanks to the Dayton AIA for their 10 building designs), that it doesn't make sense to zero in on specific projects until we know if we'll get the street car system or where the place making and entertainment options land. 

[Jeffery]

About that retro comment.

The narrative says the “…proposed concept is a complete demolition….re-plot and rebuild.  For this reason all land must be acquired and held by a single entity in order to be a viable and attractive site for a developer.”.  For some reason the drafter of this plan want to spare Buckeye Street.  But the intention is clear.

Then there is the following passage under the “Improve Infrastructure” heading”:

”This is an opportunity to have a clean slate to…reconfigure the streets to  alter the flow I amd out of the area in a manner that better suits the style and design of the new neighborhood”.

The recommendation goes on to say that the city lacks low maintenance patio homes and will lose out to suburbia if they don’t start building the product., and the intention is to “…offer a single story highly efficient home…”.  So its clear they want to model this after suburban housing.

What’s retro is that this is a 1960’s-era approach to urban renewal.  It is the wholesale demolition of a neighborhood, reconfiguration of the street system, and then offering it as one parcel to a single developer.  It was the model for replacing the old Haymarket with the Dayton Towers.

The difference is that instead of a high-rise and townhouse mix (the original plan for Dayton Towers) this proposal puts in patio homes, a low density suburban housing type. 

The effect will be similar to the Dayton Towers, creating a little suburban enclave between Warren and presumably that park at the end of Burns (I figure they will demo Morton Street, too).   

Nowadays there are concepts of new urbanism and contextual infill and conservation of older housing, fitting new development into an existing street system.   So this proposed treatment seems dated when considering whats current elsewhere.

[MattSauer]

The recommendation goes on to say that the city lacks low maintenance patio homes and will lose out to suburbia if they don’t start building the product., and the intention is to “…offer a single story highly efficient home…”.  So its clear they want to model this after suburban housing.

I think this is a case where you acknowledge that downtown can't be all things to all people.  I started to propose that patio homes could work in parts of South Park as infill cottages.  But the expectations would need to be quite different from a suburban model.  The lot sizes would dictate smaller homes, closer together, and the garage might be attached but with an alley entrance, etc.  It wouldn't be SpringMeade.  As more amenities crop up downtown, perhaps seniors will start to see condos in a different light.

[Kate Ervin]

Here is an e-mail I got from the couple interested in cohousing, thought I'd put it up for discussion. www.cohousing.org for more info.

Hello Kate,
   I attended the Greater Downtown Dayton Plan session this morning and talked to Sandy at the Housing Station.
She suggested I contact you with the idea of co-housing for downtown.  My husband and I have been very interested
in this concept for quite a few years and would love to see it happen in Dayton.  It seems like it would fit in with
urban living and the housing ideas you have proposed to date.
   Are you aware of this type of housing/living?  We would like to opportunity to talk to you sometime to share with
you our ideas etc.

[metromark]

Here's a link on cohousing which some might find helpful.

[metromark]

Any plans on developing the old fairgrounds? I saw one reference to it in the economic development draft, but that was it. Seems like too valuable a property to ignore.

[Jeffery]

But the expectations would need to be quite different from a suburban model....

One of the expectations would be around crime and safety.

One way to address this is to develop the patio home community as a gated community.  There'nt aren't that many in the Dayton area, and having physical security would make an inner-city site like this more marketable.  It could be done via  a mix of landscaped berms and fencing like that nice fence around the MVH parking lot off Main.

[David Esrati]

I read through this "plan" that's full of typo's and pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams- and wondered where the fundamental business justification is for this development. Every night I hear the Mayor and Nan talking about an over-abundance of housing, with not enough people to fill them in the city.
It seems the urge to build on the nine acre site is driving them to want to do more of the exact same "urban development" we had in the sixties like Jeffery says.
I don't see how the context or characteristics of this new development will provide more bang for your buck than you can get in Lincoln Park in Kettering- which also has the Fraze, good schools and a great parks and recs program.

Why should our tax dollars be going to such a specific area? How does this help people in other parts of Dayton who want to keep the value in their homes?
I would say spend the $10 mill + on public safety- or recreation- and give the land to the developer who has the highest and best use plan- with a TIFF funding the needed infrastructure improvements. Trying to get too involved- including playing god over what stays and goes- is not the role of Government.
If MVH wants to encourage employees to live in the area- and walk to work, cutting their parking problems- etc- offer a walk to work tax credit- and the same deal.
How much effort has gone into this is questionable- both in return for investment, and misused and misguided city responsibilities.
I still don't buy that the site couldn't support a Kroger- without even adding other parcels.
The best thing in this plan is removing the name Warren Street. A $1000 improvement to the area that makes sense.
All the overpasses need better lighting- that isn't rocket science.
As to "patio homes" - we built some single story infill in Rehabarama 1 that were quite popular- corner of Adams and Alberta- why not more of those in South Park? Also- the row houses on Hickory- could be plopped into the bottom of Oak where we already have a large gap.
If this is the best thinking we have, we're in trouble.
If retail was really an option- don't you think the Miller Valentine building at Stewart and Brown would have filled quicker?
The block from Lincoln to the highway including Marvin Gardens is about to get a Gagnetization- it'll be fine.
The other apartments along Warren could be nice- take a look at what the Gospel Mission did at the corner of Burns and Warren.
We don't have the demand for what they are proposing. There have to be better uses of our money-
and, until they've properly taken care of the mess they made over at Wayne and Wyoming- it would be irresponsible to continue.
Sorry for the length. Lots of thoughts.

[Tony]

Please tell me you are being ironic by criticizing the "typo's"

[Jeffery]

Daytom mon amour:  Thanks for the memories:

[Bill Pote]

I should remind all that these are still in fact "draft" recommendations and are in no way whatsoever to be imminent.  That is the purpose of putting them on this forum - for intelligent analysis, discussion and discourse.

Jeffery - your initial response was especially valuable and is the type of critical analysis that this entire plan deserves.  Your points are well taken and could very well have an impact on any final recommendations - which will in turn still be subject to funding and feasibility analysis in the next phase.  I don't mean to discount those posts that came after but Jeffery's was exceptional.

I'll also add that while I am involved with the GDDP efforts, I am reading most of this stuff for the first time just like the rest of you.  I'm sure there are things that I don't agree with - complete demolition of neighborhoods would definitely be included in that list.

Keep up the debate - this is good stuff.

[David Esrati]

BTW- Kate's mention of Co-housing is the smartest thing I've seen- for differentiation. But- I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would call it Commie Housing or some such.
Unless there is some kind of true differentiation - I don't see the point- it's better off a green field for now.

[MattSauer]

One way to address this is to develop the patio home community as a gated community.

We wouldn't want Dayton to become Lagos or anything (or would we?), but gates could be a draw.  

Esrati's first point is well-taken.  How do we (or the GDDP) address the oversupply issue?  I think I saw an MVRPC projection in one of their reports showing a big drop in regional population density (looking out 20-30 years).  If that's the situation, there's going to need to be more than just the availability of banked land to drive housing development.