01/18/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e 4. That the rehabilitation of suitable units proceed as indicated in the submitted plan titled "Broadway Center--A Multiple-Unit Residential Restoration Project", and cited in the public benefits mentioned above. e Joel Schwartz, 1312 Mill Street, questioned the pUblic benefit issue. He felt it should not be confused with the goal of increasing the supply of housing in the downtown area. He questioned what was an appropriate public benefit for housing. He felt it should be under- stood to be rel ated to the qual i ty of the housi ng development. He felt there was more to increasing population density in the central city than merely providing space for persons to find shelter. The only way the development of additional downtown housing can add to the / vitality of both the city and downtown would be if that downtown housing is attractive and desirabl~ enough that people will choose to live there. He felt the greatest public benefit that could accrue is the creation of living situations in the heart of the city that are desirable in them- selves as places to live, places that live, not mere waystations on the way to the South Hills. He noted housing was a finite resource of the city and that housing will not be created in sufficient amounts without private enterprise. He said the tax exemption program represents a step in making the housing a real resource for the city and diminishes the need for housing on the periphery. However, he emphasized the need for quality of housing, noting the city would receive no public benefit unless the housing was desirable and a place where people would want to stay. He described the proposed design for the apartments and said he felt they would not be desirable places to live. He suggested row houses which would have exposure on both sides, with interior park space designed and underground parking space. He continued the design of the proposed development is wrong and would not be comfortable nor desirable. He felt, also, the city deserved more than a laundromat as a public benefit. Betty Niven spoke to the public benefit issue. She said the pUblic benefit that is not mentioned is the one of providing this housing for the community. One of the reasons the ordinance had been drafted was a result of economic study that showed this area should be deve- loped as a high-density area, but no one would develop it unless they could make the housing marketable. The tax exemption was created for that purpose. She said Mr. Schwartz had described a very nice design, but noted underground parking was very costly because of the high water table. Also, she said with a different design, higher rents would result. Council should look at the project in light of what is financially feasible, the rent that has to be charged given the prices of land development. Secondly, she noted the project is including 24 two-bedroom units which will encourage family living in the area. Third, she said the very fact of the project being located in a mixed- use zone requires some design constraints. For instance, parking must not be visible from the street, and the planting strip must be landscaped. She felt that this project and development provided several public benefits. She noted the Joint Housing Committee had been instrumental e 1/18/78--5 32..