.2! ‘l. .‘l 1- ll‘l "u C + i“ ; 4 U \kt te PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE JAN 2 1 2 1 5108 KimmVAchms/CIRC/Dateoue indd L_-,_“wr_w _WE~ WV,___VMA_M_V _] .. PLARBPAPER l Hbsley, Sherika S. 2007. HOPE VI AND INNER CITY NEW URBANISM LANSING PUBLIC HOUSING CASE STUDY Sherika S Mosley Plan B Submitted to Dr. June Manning—Thomas in consideration for a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Degree Michigan State University ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DR. THOMAS FOR BEING PATIENT AND GUIDING ME THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RESEARCHING AND WRITING THIS PAPER. EBLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4 PUBLIC HOUSING ....................................................................................... 5 What is Public Housing? ................................................................................................. 5 History of Public Housing .............................................................................................. 6 HOPE VI ......................................................................................................... 8 History of HOPE VI ....................................................................................................... 8 HOPE VI Application ................................................................................................... 10 Characteristics of HOPE VI developments .................................................................. 11 New Urbanism and HOPE VI ....................................................................................... 14 LANSING, MI .............................................................................................. 16 Lansing profile .............................................................................................................. 16 History of Lansing Public Housing .............................................................................. 17 Public housing in Lansing ............................................................................................. 20 Characteristics of Lansing Public Housing ................................................................... 22 OBSERVATIONS/ ANALYSIS .................................................................. 24 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 3 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. p ........................................... 33 APPENDIX A : HOPE VI APPLICATION CHECKLIST ......................... 35 APPENDIX B: GARY, INDIANA SELF-SUFFICENCY PROGRAM ..... 39 APPENDIX C: CENSUS TRACTS MAP ................................................... 41 APPENDIX D: LANSING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ............... 42 APPENDIX E: CENSUS NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION ............... 43 APPENDIX F: MEASUABLE OUTCOMES .............................................. 44 TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................. 45 TABLE OF IMAGES ................................................................................... 46 INTRODUCTION One of the great debates regarding housing policy and social welfare is how to best serve the housing needs of low-income families. Large portions of America’s population are living in a worst-case needs housing situation. Worst-case needs refer to unassisted renters with income below 50 percent of the local area median income that pay more than half of their income to housing. As of 1999, “4.9 million households still have worst—case needs for rental assistance.”' To reduce this high amount of worst-case needs the government uses housing subsidy programs. Approximately five percent of United States population lives in some type of government sponsored housing. “...Around 6 million renter households, roughly 15 million people, live in housing subsidized by federal, state or local government.”2 Public housing is one of the methods which the government has used to deal with the housing crisis. The federal government public housing policy over the years sometimes has been ineffective and detrimental in dealing with the problems of the poor. One program, which was introduced in the 1990’s, was proposed to be the correction of previous public policies. Housing Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) was created to deal with the worst public housing developments around the United States. The objective of this paper is to assess the three Lansing Public Housing (LPH) program design characteristics according to HOPE VI inner-city new urbanism design criteria. In order to do this I will be creating a design matrix and looking at specific inner city new urbanism principles and assigning them to Lansing Public Housing. I will lU.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2001). A Report on worst case needs in 1999: New opportunity amid continuing challenges. Washington, DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2 Hacket, F (2005). The Crisis in America's Housing Crisis: Confronting Myths and Promoting a Balanced Housing Policy. Center for Community Change, Retrieved September 2005, from http://www.cepr.net/publications/housing_book_2005_0l .pdf be comparing Lansing Public Housing to the inner city new urbanism at the characteristics of the HOPE VI program and see if Lansing Public Housing (LPH) matches these characteristics. PUBLIC HOUSING What is Public Housing? Public housing or project based housing assistance programs has the entire housing unit subsidized through the government. This type of subsidy, sometimes called deep, covers the difference between an affordable, income - based rent paid by a household and the actual rent of the unit. There are two types of project-based assistance. One is subsidized housing administrated through public housing authorities and the other is subsidized housing in the private market. Financing for public housing initially was a joint venture between federal government and Public Housing Authorities (PHA). “Originally, the federal government was committed to pay the capital cost (buying land and building the units), and PHAs were expected to cover operating cost from their tenants’ rental payments on a pay as you go basis.”3 Throughout the years the financing has been through changes. “In 1975, HUD established a formula approach (the Performance Funding System) to estimate operating subsidies to a given PHA on a PHA wide- average basis, a project basis. Thus, the estimate does not reflect the operating subsidy needs of a given development. Second, the federal government has expanded its original role to assume responsibility for paying for the moderation. . .and other PHA cost. . .”“ These changes in financing have made PHAs more dependent on the federal government. If the housing authorities want to make modification of a unit or add something to it they would 3 Quercia, R (1997).The Challenges Facing Public Housing Authorities in a Brave New World. Housing Policy Debate. 8, (3). 41bid have to go through the federal government for its funding instead of having money to spend as needed. The other form of project-based assistance is through the private market subsidies. “Project-based assistance was provided through the federal government subsidy of the mortgage, ”5 rental assistance or a combination of the two. These programs were created to encourage private developers to build apartments, which are affordable to low and medium income residents. Currently public housing has been on the decline. According to a report by the National Housing Trust, “the number of project-based unit subsidy programs has declined from 1.7 million units in 1995 to 1.4 million in 2003.”6 This decline has been for numerous reasons. Some of the reasons are owners’ decisions not to renew contracts and HUD termination of contracts. History of Public Housing Public housing has changed throughout its history. The government got involved in public housing with the Housing Act of 1937, which established the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). This act set in place funding for large multi-family housing projects. The government saw public housing as a way to boost the economy during the depression. After WWH public housing served as temporary housing for returning military and for middle-income families. The Housing Act of 1949 was a landmark in housing policy. It was the first housing act to declare the goal of “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American.”7 5 National Low Income Housing Coalition, (March 2007). Project Based Rental Assistance. Advocates Guide to Housing and Community Development Policy, Retrieved March l,2007, from http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?articIe_id=2797&id=46 Policy studies review 6 National Housing Trust, (2004). Changes to project based multifamily units in HUD '5 Inventory between I 995- 2003. Washington, DC: National Housing Trust. 7 us Housing Act 1949 This act provided funds to localities for slum clearance, FHA mortgage insurance authorization, expansion of public housing, and the improvement of rural housing. It also changed the focus and the demographics of public housing families by limiting public housing to low-income residents. Early in the 1950’s emphasis was on clearing of public housing units instead of production of units. “In 1950...on1y 32,000 public housing units were started nationally.”8 Although there was a slow start housing production increased over the years. By 1955 “there were a cumulative total of approximately 350,000 housing units subsidized by the federal government under public housing.”9 The 1954 Public Housing Act expanded on the 1949 Public Housing Act and “broadened urban renewal reform from mere demolition and new construction to encompass housing rehabilitation and prevention of neighborhood decline.”IO Public housing changed during the 19605. During this time private market subsidies developed. “Project based assistance was provided through the federal government subsidy of the mortgage, rental assistance or a combination of the two.”” These programs were created to encourage private developers to build apartments, which are affordable to low- and medium- income residents. There were two types of subsidies provided by the federal government to private developers. The National Housing Act of 1961 established Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rates mortgage insurance program. Under the Housing Act of 1968 the Section 236 program combined FHA mortgage insurance private loan with an interest rate subsidy to lower 8 Federal Housing Policy and Preservation 9 . Ibtd '0 US Housing Act 1949 '1 National Low Income Housing Coalition, (March 2007). Project Based Rental Assistance. Advocates Guide to Housing and Community Development Policy, Retrieved March 1,2007, from http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=2797&id=46 Policy studies review interest rate of the mortgage to one percent. Approximately 600,000 housing units were built with this subsidy. The amount of rent housing residents were to pay was determined with the Brooks amendments, which were passed between the years of 1969-1971. The amount was 25 percent of household income. The Brooks amendments also restricted the definition of income and set maximum rent. In the 19805 the amount of income residents were to pay was raised to 30 percent, which is still the current rate. In the 19903 a new innovative program was created to correct some of the previous policy problems in public housing. HOPE VI was designed as a tool in the revitalization and transformation of public housing. “HOPE VI is comprehensive, addressing the multiple challenges facing distressed communities and their residents, including unemployment, education and crime.”'2 HOPE VI History of HOPE VI In 1989 the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing was established and charged with “proposing a National Plan of Action to eradicate severely distressed public housing by the year 2000.”'3 Three areas were identified to address in the revitalization of public housing: physical improvements, management improvements, and social and community services. The Commission concluded “that roughly 86,000 of the 1.3 million public housing units nationwide qualified as severely distressed and a new comprehensive approach would be '2 Cumo, Andrew (1999). HOPE VI: Building communities transforming lives. Washington, DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing in Lansing, Mason, Jackson & Kane, INC Architects, Lansing, MI l3Abt Associates. (1996). An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. required to address the range of problems existing at these developments.”14 In response to these recommendations Congress created the “Urban Revitalization Demonstration program (URD) that is better known as HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere)”IS HOPE VI started in 1992 with an ambitious plan to “replace severely distressed public housing projects, occupied exclusively by poor families, with designed mixed income housing and provide housing vouchers to enable some of the original residents to rent apartments in the private market.” Initially PHAs, which were applying for the HOPE VI grants, were limited to propose plans that covered up to 500 units in three areas. This restriction was removed after the first round of grants awards was implemented in FY 1993. “Grants were capped at $50 million, and at least 80 percent of the HOPE VI funds were to be spent on physical improvements in the development(s).”l7 There were four basic options for physical revitalization: rehabilitation, reconfiguration, demolition with some sort of replacement housing, and development of additional low-income and market-rate housing. Applications were evaluated “on the extent of revitalization need, the potential impact of plan, the capabilities of the applicant, the extent of resident involvement, the extent of involvement of local public and private entities, and the quality of the proposed social and community service components.”18 There are three objectives of HOPE VI‘9 1) to improve the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing through the demolition, rehabilitation, '4 Popkin, S et al, (May 2004). A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Urban Institute, Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41 1002_HOPEVl.pdf '5 Blair, E, & Fitzgerald, J .M. (2005). Hedonic Estimation and Policy Significance of the Impact of HOPE VI on neighborhood Property Values. Review of Policy Research. 22, 771 -789. '6 Popskin, S (May 2004). A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Urban Institute, Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/4l 1002_HOPEVl.pdf '7 Abt Associates. (1996). An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. . I8 - Ibtd '9 Popkin, S et al, (May 2004). A Decade of Hope V1: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Urban Institute, Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadchDF/4l l002_HOPEVl.pdf 9 reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete projects, 2) to revitalize sites on which public housing projects are located and contribute to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood and, 3) to provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low-income families; and to build sustainable communities. According to a report by Popkin et a1, “since 1992, HUD has awarded 446 HOPE VI grants in 166 cities. To date, 63,100 units have been demolished and another 20,300 units are slated for redevelopment. As of the end of 2002, 15 of 165 funded HOPE VI programs were ”20 fully complete. HOPE VI Application2| The application to be deemed a HOPE VI development and become eligible for funds is a long process. It involves research, planning, and gathering the community input. Any PHA which has severely distressed public housing units in its inventory is eligible for HOPE VI. There must be documentation of at least one severe distress which was set by The National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. The identified measures are:22 Families living in distress; Incidence of serious crime; Management difficulties; Physical deterioration! uninhabitable conditions. Other requirements are budget issues, sustainability, residents’ consultation, and cost analysis. HOPE VI applicants were evaluated in six categories:23 0 Extent of revitalization need (0-30 points); 0 Potential Impact of the plan (0-30 points); 2" Ibid 2' Appendix C 22 Abt Associates. (1996). An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI (Vol. 1). Washington. DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 23 Ibid Capabilities of the applicant (0-20 points); Extent of residents involvement (0-15 points); Extent of involvement of local public and private entities (0- 10 points); and Community service component (0-15 points). Characteristics of HOPE VI developments HOPE VI attempts to revitalize and improve three major areas in public housing which are management, social and community services, and physical design. Management Prior to HOPE VI housing developments were highly regulated, with rules governing everything from admissions to modernization. HOPE VI deregulated public housing giving individual PHAs more control. “HUD streamlined and simplified the rules governing nearly every aspect of public housing management, eliminating dozens of handbooks and guidelines in the process.”24 PHAs were allowed to create individual screening criteria for residents as well as emphasize lease compliance. Social and Community Services One of the major changes which HOPE VI brought to public housing was the emphasis on social and community programs. This new emphasis was laid out in HUD Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA): Physical urban revitalization cannot be sustained without a revitalization of the sprit of the people of the community such that the people begin to view themselves as collective owners of the community. A sense of collective ownership of the community engenders not only concern for people who live in the community but 24 Popkin, S et al (May 2004). A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Urban Institute, Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/4l 1002_HOPEVl.pdf also caring for and pride in the physical structure in the community. Through community service, the sense of collective ownership of the community can be developed, thereby revitalizing the spirit of the people of the community. Thus, beyond the bricks and mortar of the physical structures, community services can be the glue that holds an urban revitalization program together, sustains it, and nourishes it. 2" HOPE VI developments establish a variety of social and community services for their existing residents as well as their future residents to fulfill this requirement of HOPE VI. Community services are defined as “services that public housing residents provide voluntarily”26 An example is volunteer activities with community organizations and newsletters, and recreational centers. Social programs are “provided social services agencies and nonprofit groups to help residents become more self-sufficient.”27 There are five broad principles in terms of HOPE VI and community and social services:28 1. DJ Services to help residents make progress towards self-sufficiency. PHAs are obligated to provide a range of services designed to help HOPE VI residents make effective progress towards self-sufficiency. Services should help residents secure and sustain employment. . .. In addition, however, service to help residents build their life skills more broadly will also be needed.... Services designed to address the needs of individual families. It is essential that service provisions in HOPE VI take place under a Case Management approach — one in which an experienced case manager assesses the needs and circumstances of each family holistically and makes referrals to an appropriate range of service providers based on the priorities these individual assessments suggest. Linkage to relocation with informed choices. Where relocation is involved, case managers and relocation specialists must work closely together to assure that there are no disruptions in the housing counseling. 2" US. Department of Housing and Urban Development,(2000) Notice of Funding Availability FY 2000 :3 GAO Public Housing, (1997). Status of the HOPE VI Demonstration Program. General Accounting Office. Ibid 28 US Department of Housing and Urban Development, (2000, February 18). Community and Supportive services for original residents: General guidance for the HOPE VI program [Draft]. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from US. Department of Housing and Urban Development Web site: http://www.hud. gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/css/cssguidance2- l 8-00c.pd f l2 4. Community Building. A community building approach - in which residents work together to provide mutual support, achieve common ends, and build joint capacity -- is a central feature in HOPE VI. 5. Management monitoring and evaluation. Management reporting is essential to motivating good performance by all participants in the community and supportive services system. HOPE VI developments meet these principles in various ways which would be most beneficial to their residents and community. An example of a HOPE VI development uses of these principles is Gary, IN. To fulfill the social aspects of the HOPE VI program, the Gary Housing Authority (GHA) created the HOPE VI Community and Social Services Supportive Program (CSSP). The goal of this program “is to impact the lives of the former Duneland Village public housing residents through self-sufficiency programs and to provide them with an integrated system of services that is designed to address their economic, social, and supportive service needs.”29 GHA’s self-sufficiency goal of its public housing resident comes in four different programs. The four programs are Case Management, Adult and Youth Employment Initiatives, Education Initiatives, Transportation Benefits and Special Programs.30 Physical/ Design Improvements Many of the nation’s public housing developments prior to HOPE VI were suffering from poor design flaws such as “construction on super blocks, poorly designed buildings for housing families, small units, and a high number of units per acre.”3' Many public housing developments 29 Gary Indian Housing Authority, Community and Supportive Services. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from HOPE VI: Gary Housing Authority Web site: http://www.garyhopevi.org/community.asp 30 Appendix B 3' Abt Associates. (1996). An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development. l3 were high-rise buildings disconnected from the surrounding communities. “Residents are virtually walled off from the surrounding community. ...”-‘3 To correct these design flaws many HOPE VI project sites are using the principles of new urbanism to design neighborhoods in traditional designs with mixed income housing blending into the surrounding communities. “Most redevelopments have added streets that reconnect the former public housing site to the city’s existing street grid making the site a continuation of the community instead if isolating it.”33 “New Urbanist design principles corporated into the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD’s) community design guidelines for Homeownership Zones and represent a key element of the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI program’s effort to transform severely distressed public housing projects into more diverse, mixed-use neighborhoods.”34 New Urbanism and HOPE VI “New Urbanism is a movement in architecture and planning that advocates design-based strategies based on “traditional” urban forms to help arrest suburban sprawl and inner-city decline and to build and to rebuild neighborhoods, towns, and cities.”35 HUD has incorporated the New Urbanism design principles to revitalize distressed public housing developments. “New Urbanist design principles corporated into the HUD’s community design guidelines for Homeownership Zones and represent a key element of the HOPE VI program’s effort to transform severely distressed public housing projects into more diverse, mixed-use 32 Cumo, Andrew (1999). HOPE VI: Building communities transforming lives. Washington, DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing in Lansing, Mason, Jackson & Kane, INC Architects, Lansing, MI Ibid 34 Bohl, C. New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate Vol 11 issue 4 35 Bohl, C. New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate Vol 1 1 issue 4 l4 neighborhoods.”36 HUD in conjunction with the Congress of New Urbanism created fourteen design principles to be used in the inner city redevelopment which are being tested in HOPE VI developments. The principles are: 1. Citizen and Community Involvement: Engage residents, neighbors, civic leaders, politicians, bureaucrats, developers, and local institutions, throughout the process of designing change for neighborhoods. 2. Economic Opportunity: The design of neighborhood development should accommodate management techniques and scales of construction that can be contacted to local and minority businesses. 3. Diversity: Provide a broad range of housing types and price levels to bring people of diverse ages, races, and incomes into daily interaction-strengthening the personal and civic bonds essential to an authentic community. 4. Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods are compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed use with many activities of daily life available within walking distance. New development should help repair existing neighborhoods or create new ones and should not take the form of an isolated “project”. 5. Infill Development: Reclaim and repair blighted and abandoned areas within existing neighborhoods by using infill development strategically to conserve economic investment and social fabric. 6. Mixed Use: Promote the creation of mixed use neighborhoods that support the functions of daily life: employment, recreation, retail, and civic and educational institutions. 7. City-wide and Regional Connections: Neighborhoods should be connected to regional patterns of transportation and land use, to open space, and to natural systems. 8. Streets: The primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design is the physical definition of streets and public spaces as places of shared use. Neighborhoods should have an interconnected network of streets and public open spaces. 9. Public Opgn Space: The interconnected network of streets and public open space should provide opportunities for recreation and appropriate setting for civic buildings 10. Safety and Civic Engagement: The relationship of buildings and streets should enable neighborhoods to create safe and stable neighborhoods by providing “eyes on the street” and should encourage interaction and community identity. Provide a clear definition of public and private realm through block and street design that responds to local traditions. ll. Dwelling as Mirror of Self; Recognize the dwellings as the basic element of a neighborhood and as the key to self-esteem and community pride. This includes the clear definition of outdoor space for each dwelling. 12. Accessibility: Buildings should be designed to be accessible and visit able while respecting the traditional urban fabric. 13. Local Architectural Character: The image and character of new development should respond to the best traditions of residential and mixed use architecture in the area. 36Bohl, C. New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate Vol 1 1 issue 4 15 14. Design Codes: The economic health and harmonious evolution of neighborhoods can be improved through graphic urban design codes that serve as predictable guides for change. Deitrick and Ellis’ New Urbanism in the Inner City article looks at applications of New Urbanist design using inner-city neighborhoods of Crawford Roberts, South Oakland, South Side Flats, and Manchester in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as case studies. According to Deitrick and Ellis community involvement and planning are essential for the success of the New Urbanist designs in the inner-city redevelopment. “Strong community planning processes and resident involvement should precede and form the foundation of a project’s design.”37 Respect of the urban fabric is important in the design. Although some design of the neighborhood may not be sensible today the neighborhood still can hold to traditional design. An example from Deitrick and Ellis is Crawford Square. The traditional design of row houses is not sensible today. “Instead, Crawford Square is a mix of single-family homes, attached homes, and rental units. It is a distinctly urban design, with the units close up on the street, porches and stoops, narrow streets... that evoke Pittsburgh’s architectural past.”38 Taming the automobile, a pedestrian oriented environment, and clearly defined public and private space is important to new urbanism in the inner-city according the article. LANSING, MI Lansing profile For this case study I will be using Lansing, MI. In order to get a clear overview of the city I will be using the State of Michigan as a comparable. Lansing is the fourth largest city in Michigan with a population of 118,920. Between 1990 and 2000 population in this city decreased seven percent which represents approximately 37 Deitrick, S. and Ellis C. (2004) New Urbanism in the Inner City. Journal of the American Planning Association , Vol 70 issue 4 33 Ibid 8,400 residents. While Lansing population decreased, the State of Michigan increased seven percent during this same time period. Although the population decreased in Lansing, the median income rose $8,400 between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 the median income was $26,398 to $34,833 in 2000. Lansing households living below poverty level decreased between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 nineteen percent of households were living below the poverty level. In 2000 approximately seventeen percent of Lansing residents lived below the poverty level. Poverty level is calculated at fifty percent or more under the city median income. Thirty-four percent of Lansing residents received some type of government income. Government incomes encompass social security income, supplemental security income, and public assistance. The percentage did not change between 1990 and 2000. This is percent is in line with the state of Michigan which also has thirty-four percent of residents living below poverty level. History of Lansing Public Housing The beginning 1960’s Public housing in Lansing developed in the 1960’s to deal with three problems 1) lack of affordable adequate housing for residents, 2) growing population , 3) and the need to provide housing for displaced residents due to development around the city. According to the Housing Needs report published by the City of Lansing Housing Committee in June of 1965 “The 1960 census shows Lansing with 35,468 housing units of which 4168 or 11.8% were deteriorating, and 593 or 1.7% were dilapidated. It also showed 2,647 units of 7.9% were overcrowded.” 3" The majority of families living in these poor conditions were low income minority families. 39 . . _ . . . . . . . Lansmg Housmg Commussron (1965).Houszng Needs. Lansrng. MI: Lansmg Housrng Committee 17 “According to the 1960 census, about 7.5 million of the 13 million families or individuals in sub- standard housing had annual incomes of less than $3,000.”40 Three thousand dollars was considered median income during this time period. The population of Lansing residents also increased during the 1960s while housing production didn’t keep up with the influx of families. “During the years 1960 to 1965 approximately 1,200 families per year have been added to the city. Only an average of 550 dwellings units has been erected each year.”“ According to the Housing in Lansing report, during this five year period 6,000 families moved into Lansing while the city provided less than half new housing units. As families were increasing in Lansing, housing was being demolished. Between the years of 1961 to 1965 a total of 502 dwellings were demolished.42 During the 1960’s Lansing was suffering from a housing shortage due to various new projects leaving many families displaced. “... [H]undreds of residents displaced by highway construction, Urban renewal projects, the Capitol Development Program, and Oldsmobile expansion.”43 In a 1965 study conducted for the Planning Department of the City of Lansing, between 1961 and 1965 approximately 502 housing units were displaced. This number includes code enforcement and private demolition. It was estimated that between 1965 and 1970 when major development was scheduled to occur approximately 1603 housing units would be displaced. The construction of I-496 running through Lansing displaced the largest number (604) of families. I-496 was approved for construction by Lansing City Council in 1961. Approximately two years before the land was purchased. for the highway a citizen group and a church group, 4o - Ibld 4' Housing ln Lansing, Mason, Jackson & Kane, INC Architects, Lansing, MI 42 - Ibld. 43 League of Women Voters, (1966). Housing in the Lansing area: report I966. Lansing. MI: The League of Women Voters. 18 which merged into the Greater Lansing Coordinating Council on Human Rights, urged the City Council to take action to determine if there was a need for public housing. In July of 1965 Lansing Human Relations Committee was formed. This Committee conducted a survey of the families being displaced. It was initially decided that Lansing was to build public housing in four areas of the city, La Roy Froh on REO Rd, East Jolly Rd, Mt. Vernon on Waverly Rd, and Hildebrandt on Turner Rd. The development on Jolly Rd. was not built because of residents’ disapproval. This disapproval lead to a court battle between residents and the city which eventually led to this development plan being abandoned. The first development to be built was La Roy Froh on REO Rd. This public housing development was two-story developments built by local developers and designed to match similar surrounding housing. 19703-Present From the 19703 to the present LHC faced a number of ups and downs. During the 19703 LHC suffered from internal fighting, poor management which led to deterioration and heightening crime and housing audits from the Lansing City Housing and HUD. During this time LHC built approximately three new complexes. During the 19803 LHC continued to suffer poor management issues. In 1987 Lansing public housing complexes went without insurance because it was “too expensive” LHC also continued to be cited and audited by HUD for failing to comply with regulations in regards to following up with residents and maintaining accurate records. LHC was also cited for not keeping with HUD rental standards. “Seventy-nine percent of the rental units inspected did not meet standards.”44 In 1988 the then director of the LHC Walter Norris, Jr. quit leaving a vacancy. Chris Stuchell the current director took his place and changes were made at LHC. Throughout the 19903 and 20003 there was a focus on the social aspect of public 44 Nichols, Sue (1989, 7 28). HUD: Agency shows gain. Lansing State Journal ‘I 9 housing with LHC creation of computer centers at the three major complexes. LHC received an Innovation in Local Government award in 1993 from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government for the three computer centers. Management also grew stricter ensuring that HUD guidelines were followed. The Lansing Housing Commission generally fares well on HUD inspections. “Since 2000, it has scored between 80 and 90 on a scale of 100. A score of 60 or below triggers an investigation.”45 Public housing in Lansing Currently there are approximately 834 public housing units in Lansing, this includes “apartments, townhouses, and scattered sites homes—all located in City of Lansing.”46 The budget for public housing is $300,000 per year with half budget going for the upkeep of the units. The apartment rent is based upon the fair market rent values determined by HUD. The amount paid by residents is dependent upon 30 percent of the household adjusted income. For example, a two-bedroom apartment will have a starting rent of $645 and will decrease as the income is adjusting to the lowest zero dollars. For this report I will be analyzing the characteristics three largest housing developments Mt. Vernon, Hildabrandt, and La Roy Froh homes. To create a profile of these housing developments and the surrounding neighborhoods I used block level census data information“: Information was used for the entire neighborhood and not just the specific housing development because this information was not available due to constant changes in incomes and also privacy laws. I compared the data to the city of Lansing. 45 Cochran, G (2006, May 23). When a project isn't a project. City Pulse 46 Lansing Housing Commission, (2007). Programs. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from Lansing Housing Commission Web site: http://www.lanshc.org/pub1ic_h0using.html 47 Appendix C 20 Table 1: Development Locations Development Address Census Tract Block Group Mt. Vernon 3338 N. Waverly Rd 33.01 2 Hildabrandt 3122 N. Turner Rd 32 2 La Roy Froh 2400 REO Rd 36.02 2 Table 2: Lansing Public Housing Data Area Median Difference % below % with public % of % not in Income poverty assistance Unemployed48 the labor level (PA, SSI, SS) force City of $34,833 17% 34% 6% 20% Lansing Mt. Vernon $29,545 -$5,288 24% 34% 10% 24% Hildabrandt $31,964 -$2,869 20% 57% 5% 29% La Roy $33,196 -$l,637 18% 39% 7% 20% Froh Source: 2000 US. Census Bureau Census Tract tape 3: universe households All three housing developments have a difference of less than six thousand dollars in regards to median income between the City of Lansing and the neighborhoods. Table 1 show that La Roy Froh neighborhood has the least amount difference between the city and neighborhood with a difference of less than two thousand dollars. Hildabrandt has the next closest amount in median household income to the City of Lansing with a difference of less than three thousand dollars. Mt. Vernon housing development has the largest income gap with a little over five thousand dollars difference between the median income of city and the housing development neighborhood. One possible reason for this difference may be that Mt. Vernon has an unemployment rate larger then City of Lansing. Ten percent of Mt. Vernon civilian workforce is unemployed, as compared to six percent of Lansing civilian workforce. La Roy Froh has 48 Based on 2000 Census Data of Civilian workers over the age of 16 in the labor force. 21 unemployment slightly larger than Lansing with seven percent. Hildabrandt unemployment level is lower than the city and the other housing developments with five percent unemployment rate. It must also be stated that although only five percent of the population is unemployed, twenty nine;percent of the residents are not in the labor force. This includes those who are not actively looking for work, students, and retires. This number is higher than the City of Lansing and the other housing developments. Seventeen percent of Lansing households live below the poverty level. The neighborhoods in which Lansing housing developments are located rates has a slightly higher rates between eighteen-percent and twenty-four percents. Mt. Vernon neighborhood has the highest rate of household below poverty level with twenty-four percent. Although this neighborhood has the largest percent of households below poverty level, it has the same percent of household on public assistance as the City of Lansing, thirty four percent which is the lowest of all developments. La Roy Froh has the second lowest with thirty seven percent. Hildabrandt has the largest percent of households with public assistance income. As previously stated this Hildabrandt has the lowest unemployment rate and largest amount of residents not in the labor force. This could account for the high amount of households receiving public assistance. Characteristics of Lansing Public Housing Management There is strict management in place at LHC to ensure that LPH benefits those who are in need of housing. This management starts with a screening process, which involves a detailed background check, if it found that the applicant has a criminal record, the application is rejected. Once a person becomes a resident they must follow rules and regulations of LHC. A major regulation is that residents must not engage in criminal activity. If residents are found in violation of this rule they can be kicked out of the housing developments. Another aspect of management is ensuring that the resident follows rules and reports any income or other changes which may affect their housing situation. Social and Community services LPH has approximately four different social programs and activities which serve its resident. One of the first programs which were created was the computer learning program. This program is located in the community center which is in all three of the large public housing complexes. These computer centers provide after school activities such as “computerized educational activates and games....”‘9 These activities are available for youths ages eight to eighteen. The computer center also offers adult computer and skills classes. As previously mentioned LHC received an Innovation in Local Government award in 1993 from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government for the three computer centers. In addition to the computer center other activities take place in the community center. “The computers are located in the community centers, where the Literacy Coalition hosts after- school reading programs, the city’s Parks and Recreation Department puts on intramural sports programs and a children’s summer lunch program is hosted.” The community centers also serve as a meeting point for the residents for field trips and special events. 49 Lansing Housing Commission, (2007). Programs. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from Lansing Housing Commission Web site: httpzllwww.lanshc.org/public_housing.html Lansing housing commission also administers a homeownership program. This program allows for public housing or Section 8 participants to become self-sufficient and a homeowner. This program works as follows: . Existing vacant single-family houses are identified and acquired by local non-profit . LHC provides rehab funds . The renovated house is then sold to a qualified pubic housing or Section 8 participant According to the LHC website they have sold eight houses under this program. Other programs which LHC offers a self-sufficiency program for their residents which participate in section 8 voucher program. mace LPH came after the initial wave of high rise public housing. At this time many older developments were deteriorating over time from neglect and poor planning. By the 19603 when LHC was given the task to build housing, they concisely made the effort to incorporate design features from the surrounding neighborhood. They hired developers to construct townhouse which were similar to other housing which were being developed in Lansing. “The Reo Road Turn key project will feature an attractive townhouse complex, similar to the many which already have been constructed by Smokler on Pleasant Grove Road and sold to families.”50 The units range from one to five bedrooms. OBSERVATIONS/ ANALYSIS The objective of this paper was to assess the three Lansing Public Housing (LPH) program design characteristic according HOPE VI new urbanism inner-city design criteria. My research has found that the Lansing Public Housing development matches the majority of studied design criteria. In this paper I assessed four different new urbanism principles. Below are the 50 Moles, Lloyd (1967, Aug 8). Low income housingjobs to start Monday. Lansing State Journal. 24 principles which I chose to evaluate and the measurable outcomes I used to asses the design criteria. Measurable Outcomes“ Diversity was chosen to be evaluated because having diversity in housing is essential to creating a mix of residents in the housing environment. According to the Center of New Urbanism “Diversity provides a broad range of housing types and price levels to bring diverse ages, races, and income into daily interaction—strengthening the personal and civic bonds ”’2. My evaluation of diversity in the housing developments essential to an authentic community ranged from low to high. Low was assessed as being a development with the majority of housing (seventy-five percent of more) being one housing type. This percent was chosen because it shows that over one-third of the housing units are of one housing type and lack diversity. The next level in my evaluation is medium. Development which was given the medium rating has a mixture of housing types with on still being the majority. The final rating of diversity evaluation is high. To receive a high rating the housing development must have an overall mixture of housing types, with no one being over fifty-percent of housing type. The next principles which were evaluated were mixed-use/and neighborhood. For this evaluation I combined two principles into one category. This was done because of the similarity of the two principles. Mixed —use principle “promote the creation of mixed use neighborhoods ” 53 that support the functions of daily life , while neighborhood principle states “neighborhoods are compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed use with many activities of daily life available within walking 5' Appendix F 52Center of New Urbanism (2001) Principles for inner city neighborhood design. Washington DC. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 53 . ‘ Ibid distance”. The activities of daily life which I used in the evaluation were employment, recreation, retail, and civic and educational institutions. These were chosen because they are activities that many families and individuals use daily. Ratings of these principles go from low to high. Developments rated low have one or fewer functions of daily life within walking distance. Medium rating was given to developments which has two or three functions of daily life. Developments which have more than three functions of daily life were given the high rating. The next principle evaluated was local architectural and character. This was chosen to be evaluated because it is important that housing developments blend into the surrounding community. The outcome for this principle was measured with a yes or no. A development was giving a yes rating if it matches the local architectural and character of surrounding developments. A development was giving a no rating if it does not match the other development it surrounds. The final principle which was evaluated was open space. Open space is important to allow for recreational space for the residents to gather and spend time together. This principle was evaluated with a yes and no. A development was given a yes rating if it has open available for residents. A no was given if there is no space available for gathering. Table 3: Design Matrix "O 8 a B ,C: 1— Q) g; s a s 5 <3 fi 713 :2 8 13 an 9 g .00 '23 LE (:3 c: .. -~ 5 8 8 a: 8, Q 2 z a < o 0 Mt. Vernon Med Low Yes Yes Hildabrandt Med Med No Yes La Roy Froh Med Med Yes Yes 5“ Ibid Mt. Vernon, Hildebrandt, and La Roy Froh housing developments provide a moderate selection of diversity in their housing types. There are two types of housing in these developments. Housing types are double floor townhouses and single floor apartments. Approximately seventy percent of the housing in Mt. Vernon and Hildebrandt is in the townhouse structure. La Roy Froh is larger mixture of the two housing types. There are approximately sixty percent townhouse structures and forty percent apartment type housing. Imae l: Hildebrandt A artment Buildin_s ~v~94 a,‘—‘~ _ . ”‘0 f .- , . _..‘=..u.. 2‘ ; , ~ 1 I V “.','_‘:"'. _ .'.-.g.--. - ‘- ‘r ‘ A. - _‘_’ . I . '-. ~ .» ‘. »: lg 5% ‘t— .-vv -- ' ,.. 3t, m ‘ -'—”~ {2 . s-'.-:-:‘<.r-..i:z::. 3,.» a“ w. . '1. 1' z“ . _,°' Y; .'"" ‘ -' ' "f f'?’ ' '. ----.-_ .‘J In” s v . .‘ ' -‘. .- _ - . . '. we.‘__‘*’fI-— 'lf' 1 . .-.. , _ . _ -‘.-.:'-.t - ..: ,,,. . . . x ,. -.. .. .. .-, . . . v ‘--Q -.'.' . _‘ . . _ .. ‘ ”a“; .‘F : 4:". .‘na -. -- -- ,, . 7 f X s “a: ‘ "F- ' ' ’ _ . . . .11 ‘3‘; .. II... *AR‘a-S;Y‘_.';_ " 'T ’; ..3 P ~ 1‘ ~.....\......'.'-::‘ .. 3.». ~- ‘ ~. Ima_e 2: Mt. Vernon Townhouses . . : v’l'4I'p...y'.-x:'s’m 5"_:‘§.. . 27 lma - e 3: La Rov Froh Townhouses and A artments All of the housing developments are located away from many of daily life functions. They are all located in areas which are highly residential and industrial areas. Daily necessitates such employment, retail, and civic actives can be accessed only by use of transportation systems such as automobiles, buses, bikes, etc. Hildebrandt and La Roy Froh have educational institutional in walking distance. St. Therese School is located down the road from Hildebrandt. Pleasant View Magnet School is located directly across the street from La Roy Froh development. Hildebrandt also has a small convenience store across the street for the developments which serves the need of its residents. All the developments meet the recreational needs of its residents. All three developments have community centers which allow the residents to meet and gather to entertain. In addition to the community centers all the developments have basketball courts, playgrounds, and open for fields for recreational activities. Image 4: St. Theresa School 28 [mac 5: Pleasant View Mar et School lma ~ e 6: Convenience Store Across from Hildebrandt Matching the public housing development design and character with the local architectural character is important because it allows for the resident not to be segregated from the community. This is an important aspect of inner-city design. Mt. Vernon and La Roy Froh matches the local architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood. Adjacent to Mt. Vernon is the Coronado Gardens Cooperative. This cooperative development is built similar to Mt. Vernon Housing development. They are both built in a brick townhouse design. Layouts of the developments are also similar with housing on the outer edge and recreational activities located in the center. La Roy Froh housing development is surrounded by brick townhouse communities which are similar in style and character of La Roy Froh. Hildebrandt does not match the local architectural character. The surrounding neighborhoods consist of single family dwellings, as opposed to the multi-family dwellings of Hildebrandt. 29 Ima e 9: Sin le familv homes surroundin Hildebrandt o- -t' rm. a" ~ *-" " _- — g ;.‘ ‘_ « 9': "act-#75; I". ';".‘:Wzvn.~ - .1_v~.w-_-.s v--~ All of the public housing developments provide open space for recreational use in numerous ways. Hildebrandt, Mt. Vernon and La Roy Froh all provide recreational space in the form of a basketball court, playground equipment, and sitting/ picnic areas for community gatherings. In addition to these which were listed, La Roy Froh has an open field area which is equipped with barbecue grills for community use. 30 lma - e 10 Picnic and basketball court in Mt. Vernon Park 15:4; . n.- \ I U‘\' .>‘ 4 0‘, 't- " .'. 3; 1 {.74 . "f 1', k ._ ff": . ',¥:maffilégt ‘ \ .4' '1" “f1" ' ”‘0' ' ' "“ " I' . 3”???”MWaJ-‘L‘: CONCLUSION HOPE VI and the inner—city new urbanism movement attempts to rebuild urban communities. In 2000 HUD and Congress for New Urbanism collaborated to release Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design: HOPE VI and the New Urbanism. This report introduced 3] HUD’S new philosophy “that giving people a roof over their heads in no longer enough”. “HUD now aims to boost community pride—and even revitalize distressed areas—through the provision of high quality for everyone”5". Through these collaboration fourteen principles of inner-city new urbanism was created which focuses their attention on solutions to neighborhoods affected by blight, urban renewal, and years of neglect. For this paper I took four of the fourteen principles and using a design matrix I compared then to Lansing Public Housing. According to my research Mt. Vernon and La Roy Froh developments matches all four principles of inner city new urbanism which are diversity, mixed-use/ neighborhood, open space, and local architecture. Hildebrandt is the only development which doesn’t match all the inner-city new urbanism principles which was studied. Hildebrandt doesn’t match the local architecture. Further research needs to be gathered to conclusively say that Lansing Public Housing is an example of an inner city new urbanism development. This report only looked at specific principles of inner-city new urbanism when comparing them to LPH. Future research needs to look at all fourteen principles and comparing them to LPH. 55 Center of New Urbanism (200]) Principles for inner city neighborhood design. Washington DC. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 56 . Ibid BIBLIOGRAPHY Abt Associates. (1996). A Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Blair, E, & Fitzgerald, J .M. (2005). Hedonic Estimation and Policy Significance of the Impact of HOPE VI on neighborhood Property Values. Review of Policy Research. 22, 771-789. Bohl, C. (2000) New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate Vol 11 issue 4 Center of New Urbanism (2001) Principles for inner city neighborhood design. Washington DC: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cottrell, L (1969). Relocation study, community renewal program. Lansing, MI: Community Service Council. Cumo, Andrew (1999). HOPE VI: Building communities transforming lives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing in Lansing, Mason, Jackson & Kane, INC Architects, Lansing, MI Deitrick, S. & Ellis C. (2004) New Urbanism in the Inner City. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 70 issue 4 GAO Public Housing, (1997). Status of the HOPE VI Demonstration Program. General Accounting Office. Gary Indian Housing Authority, Community and Supportive Services. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from HOPE VI: Gary Housing Authority Web site: http://www.garyhopevi.org/community.asp Hacket, F (2005). The Crisis in America's Housing Crisis: Confronting Myths and Promoting a Balanced Housing Policy. Center for Community Change, Retrieved September 2005, from httpzllwww.cepr.net/publications/housing_book__2005_01 .pdf Lansing Housing Commission (1965).Housing Needs. Lansing, MI: Lansing Housing Committee Lansing Housing Commission, (2007). Programs. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from Lansing Housing Commission Web site: http://www.lanshe.org/public_housing.html League of Women Voters, (1966). Housing in the Lansing area: report 1966. Lansing, MI: The League of Women Voters. Listokin,D.(l99l )Federal Housing Policy and Preservation: Historical Evolution, Patterns, and Implications. Housing Policy Debate Vol 2, issue 2 Mason, Jackson, and Kane, INC (1966?) Housing In Lansing. Mason, Jackson & Kane, INC Architects, Lansing, MI Moles, Lloyd (1967). Low income housing jobs to start Monday. Lansing State Journal. , Aug 8. National Housing Trust, (2004). Changes to project based multifamily units in HUD's Inventory between 1995-2003. Washington, DC: National Housing Trust. 33 National Low Income Housing Coalition, (March 2007). Project Based Rental Assistance. Advocates Guide to Housing and Community Development Policy, Retrieved March 1,2007, from http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=2797&id=46 Policy studies review Nichols, Sue (1989, 7 28). HUD: Agency shows gain. Lansing State Journal Popkin, S et a] (2004). A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Urban Institute, Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411002_HOPEVl.pdf Quercia, R (1997).The Challenges Facing Public Housing Authorities in a Brave New World. Housing Policy Debate. 8, (3). US Department of Housing and Urban Development, (2000). Community and Supportive services for original residents: General guidance for the HOPE VI program [Draft]. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Web site: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/css/cssguidance2-18-OOC.pdf US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2001). A Report on worst case needs in 1999: New opportunity amid continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,(2000) Notice of Funding Availability. 34 APPENDIX A : HOPE v1 APPLICATION CHECKLIsl HOPE VI Revitalization U.S. Department of Housing one Approval No. 2577-0208 Application Checklist and Urban Development (em. 3131/2007) Office of Public and Indian Housing The public reporting burden for this collection of information for the HOPE VI Revitalization Program is estimated to average fifteen minutes, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed. and completing and reviewing the collection of information and preparing the application package for submission to HUD. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions to reduce this burden, to the Reports Management Officer, Paperwork Reduction Project, to the Office of Information Technology, US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-3600. When providing comments. please refer to OMB Approval No. 2577-0208. HUD may not conduct and sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of infomiation unless the collection displays a valid control number. The information submitted in response to the Notice of Funding Availability for the HOPE Vl Program is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Public Law IOl-235. approved December I5, I989. 42 U.S.C. 3545). FIEVITALIZATION APPLICATION CHECKLIST/T ABLE OF CONTENTS l. Acknowledgment of Application Receipt (HUD-2993) 2. Application for Federal Assistance (HUD—424) NARRATIVE EXHIBITS Page Number Exhibit A: SUMMARY INFORMATION A] Executive Summary A.2 Physical Plan A.3 Hazard Reduction A.4 Demolition A.5 Disposition A.6 Site Improvements A.7 Site Conditions A.8 Separability A.9 Proximity Exhibit B: CAPACITY B.l Obligation of Capital Funds (MTW only) 8.2 Development Capacity of Developer B.3 DeveIOpment Capacity of Applicant B.4 Capacity of Existing HOPE VI Revitalization Grantees B.5 CSS Program Capacity 36 Property Management Capacity B.7 PHA Plan Exhibit C: NEED C.1 Severe Physical Distress C.2 Impact on the Surrounding Neighborhood C.3 Obligation of Capital Funds (MTW only) C.4 Previously-Funded Sites C.5 Need for Affordable Housing in the Community Exhibit D: RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT D.1 Resident and Community Involvement NARRATIVE EXHIBITS Exhibit E: COMMUNITY AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES E.l Community and Supportive Services E.2 Endowment Trust Exhibit F: RELOCATION F.l Housing Choice Voucher Needs F.2 Relocation Plan Exhibit G: FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY G.l Accessibility G.2 Universal Design G.3 Fair Housing 36 Page Number G.4 Exhibit H: H] H2 H3 Exhibit I: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Section 3 MIXED INCOME COMMUNITIES On Site Housing Unit Mix Off Site Housing Homeownership Housing OVERALL QUALITY OF PLAN Appropriateness of Proposal Appropriateness and Feasibility of the Plan Neighborhood Impact and Sustainability of the Plan Design Evaluation ATTACHMENTS Application Data Form: Cover Sheet 9955:199wa? NARRATIVE EXHIBITS 10: 11: 12: l3: I4: 15: 16: I7: 18: 19: 20: Application Data Form: Application Data Form: Application Data Form: Application Data Form: Application Data Form: Application Data Form: HOPE VI Budget Form Existing Units, Occupancy, Vacancy Relocation, Income, and Non-Dwelling Structures Proposed Unit Mix Post-Revitalization Units, Accessibility, Concentration Self-Sufficiency Sources and Uses TDC/Grant Limitations Worksheet Extraordinary Site Costs Certification Cost Certification City Map Developer Certification Property Management Certification Program Schedule Certification of Severe Physical Distress Photographs of the Severely Distressed Housing Neighborhood Conditions Physical Development Resources CSS Resources 37 Page Number ATTACHMENTS 21 22: 23: 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29: 30: 31: 32: 33: 34: 35: 36: 37: 38: Anticipatory Resources Collateral Resources Resident Training and Public Meeting Certification Commitments with CSS Providers HOPE VI Revitalization Relocation Plan Certification Certification of Completed Relocation Documentation of Site Control for Off-Site Public Housing Documentation of Site Control, Environmental, & Neighborhood Standards Preliminary Market Assessment Letter Certification of Zoning Approval Project Readiness Certification Current Site Plan Photographs of Architecture in the Surrounding Community Conceptual Site Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Evaluation Commitment Letter(s) HOPE VI Revitalization Application Certifications Standard Forms and Certifications 0 Applicant Assurances and Certifications (HUD~424-B) 0 Standard Form LLL, as applicable, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” 0 HUD-2880, “Applicant/Recipient Disclosure/Update Report 0 HUD—52515, “Funding Application, Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance Rental Certificate Program, Rental Voucher Program,” as applicable 38 APPENDIX B: GARY, INDIANA SELF -SUFFICEN CY PROGRAM Community and Supportive Services The goal of Gary Housing Authority's (GHA) HOPE VI Community and Supportive Services Program (CSSP) is to impact the lives of the former Duneland Village public housing residents through self-sufficiency programs and to provide them with an integrated system of services that is designed to address their economic, social, and supportive service needs. HOPE VI Management Committee The CSSP is the catalyst for GHA's HOPE VI self- sufficiency programs. The CSSP is charged with providing professional and knowledgeable leadership that is committed to empowering GHA's HOPE VI residents in achieving economic self—sufficiency through the Section 3 Adult and Youth Employment Initiatives, Education Initiatives, Job Training, Earned Income Disregard, and Case Management. The CSSP is a component of the GHA's HOPE VI strategic vision for "family revitalization." Through the CSSP services, collaborations, and partnerships, GHA's HOPE VI program works not only to engage residents in self-sufficiency initiatives, but also help tear down the walls of isolation and dysfunction that for decades have characterized and challenged most public housing residents. >> GHA's HOPE VI Self-Sufficiency Programs GHA's CSSP has five major programs charged with advancing its mission. They are: Case provide comprehensive job training programs and temporary job placement linkages designed specifically to help prepare adult residents for more permanent job opportunities. The pre-apprenticeship program is a special program funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development designed specifically to assist eligible public housing residents with entry into the construction and building trades industry. Another special program is GHA's Miracle Village program which provides easily accessible substance abuse treatment services for eligible public housing residents. The earned income disregard benefit allows for rapid escalation toward self-sufficiency by allowing eligible HOPE VI residents a vehicle through which to accumulate resources needed to finance their self—sufficiency efforts (i.e. transportation, etc.). '- 'I - i " b" ~"3‘~1. HOPE VI Resident, Sherrie Montgomery at work CSSP as full-time clerk in GHA Application Dept. The CSSP Educational Program offers Adult Education programs and opportunities to GHA adult residents in GED, continuing education classes and college degree programs. Through a HOPE VI funded educational adviser located on-site at Ivy Tech College, HOPE VI residents get the individual attention they need to facilitate the accomplishment of their educational goals. The CSSP transportation benefits, provides transportation assistance to residents without transportation to get to and from HOPE VI resident meetings, HOPE VI programs, and other CSSP services. 39 Management, Adult and Youth Employment Initiatives, Education Initiatives, Transportation Benefits and Special Programs. Case management is the key and most important continuous service provided to all HOPE VI residents. The HOPE VI case managers provide residents with rapid response assistance and services designed to move them towards their self-sufficiency goals. The Section 3 employment programs provide jobs and economic opportunities for the former Duneland Village HOPE VI residents. The summer youth employment program for HOPE VI youth works to support anti-drug and crime prevention, by offering all work eligible youth between the ages of 14 and 21, valuable work experience that will prepare them for the workplace. Adult job opportunities offered through the HOPE VI Section 3 Adult Paid Work Experience Program, The funding for these programs and services are provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the State of Indiana Department of Workforce Development, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 40 APPENDIX C: CENSUS TRACTS MAI: HILDABRANDT ' 1 WUMW —, 3122 tum 1’ 48,06- 3113 , 'adleonl: - It are") 00.1101 3 ~—*— I MT. VERNON [alum 3330 N WAV LY no 409061“ 1 .' l l 010101 R ‘, , , ‘ .. l, g j 'l q , mq l‘ , / 9‘ ‘ ‘ “I ‘ 2. 2i . -4, , _. sm . i . ' —. 'L ' ' no i $04 ' it ' g“ 1" . p #1.}, mrfi,glesm-mc.. I, , n i ll «'1‘ . I. ll mafia-3r i -Or--nt.n.-l¢.lar 1” ,n «ea-9' _--- .m" ’ l l . - E mad-I- AV- - “Mb. lnghan‘o 5' ”one -, _ _ ___'_ 2.4 Rec) n Futons-2’1? I' 1 , l! I.” ‘ it ESRI‘In , . w A ‘ Source: U.S. Census Bureau 4] APPENDIX D: LANSING'DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION L 2000 _ 9,938,444 118.920 __— __— __— 42 APPENDIX E: CENSUS NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION Mt. Vernon Hildabrandt La Ro Froh — 138083 2927 1325 2862 $ 34,833 $ 29,545 $ 31,964 $ 33,196 InLabor Force 61,676.00 1,222.00 491.00 1,160.00 Employed 57,754.00 1,102.00 466.00 1,074.00 Un Emolo ed 3,925.00 120.00 25.00 86.00 Total 1 17,807.00 2,602.00 1,364.00 2,646.00 Below 19,866 628 275 471 Households Households w/ assistance 43 APPENDIX F: MEASUABLE OUTCOMES Diversity: Low: majority of one housing type 75% or more Medium: some mix of housing types but still one in majority 50-74% of one housing type High: Complete mix of housing, less than 50% of one type Mixed-Use/ Neighborhood: daily life within walking distance (employment, recreation, retail, and civic and educational institutions in walking distance) Low: 1 or less function of daily life Med: 2 and 3 function of daily life High: between 3 or more function of daily life Local Architectural Character: Yes: Developments matches the design and architectural of surrounding neighborhood No: Developments do not match the design and architectural design of the surrounding neighborhood. Open Space Yes: Open space is provided for recreational uses No: There is no open space provided for recreational uses 44 TABLE OF FIGURES Table 1: Development Locations .................................................................................................. 21 Table 2: Lansing Public Housing Data ......................................................................................... 21 Table 3: Design Matrix ................................................................................................................. 26 45 TABLE OF IMAGES Image 1: Hildebrandt Apartment Buildings .................................................................................. 27 Image 2: Mt. Vernon Townhouses ................................................................................................ 27 Image 3: La Roy Froh Townhouses and Apartments ................................................................... 28 Image 4: St. Theresa School ......................................................................................................... 28 Image 5: Pleasant View Magnet School ....................................................................................... 29 Image 6: Convenience Store Across from Hildebrandt ................................................................ 29 Image 7 Coronado Gardens Cooperative ...................................................................................... 30 Image 8 Townhouse Community Surrounding La Roy Froh ....................................................... 30 Image 9: Single family homes surrounding Hildebrandt .............................................................. 30 Image 10 Picnic and basketball court in Mt. Vernon Park ........................................................... 31 Image 11 Playground area at Hildebrandt .................................................................................... 31 Image 12 Barbecue Area at La Roy Froh ..................................................................................... 31 46 RSI llll llllllllll’llllllllll 1293 02956 4774