FINAL.BOOK.Choice.Neighborhoods.DC

8/7/2019 FINAL.BOOK.Choice.Neighborhoods.DC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/finalbookchoiceneighborhoodsdc 1/129

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOSPRING 2010 STDEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

C H OI C E N E I G H B OR H OOD S S T U D I O : WA S H I N G T ON , D ..C .

U N I V E R S I T Y OF P E N N S Y L V A N I A S C

H OOL OF D E S I G N









UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING

Site Description

Demographic Profle

Existing Conditions

Site Analysis: Potomac-Hopkins

Resident Perspectives

Synthesis: Opportunities & Constraints

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

04.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT OVERVIEW

SITE ANALYSIS

Legacy of HOPE VI

Choice Neighborhoods

Related ProgramsProblem Statement

National Vision



CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

Schematic Plans

ALTERNATIVE 1: The Stitch

ALTERNATIVE 2: The Catalyst

Building & Block Typologies

Relocation Strategy

Income Mix & Housing

Resident Relocation

Building Demolition vs. Rehabilitation

Financial Feasibility: Funding Sources

Services & Community Management

Open Space & Public Amenities

Physical & Social Integration

Alignment with Other Planning Efforts

Project Goal

Vision: Potomac Gardens & Hopkins Apartments

Services Needs & Recommendations

Relocation Recommendations

Financial Recommendations

APPENDIX

CORE ISSUES

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES


05.



UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING6



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010


07.

Introduction

Recommendations

Scenario I

Scenario II

SUMMARYEXECUTIVE




1CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

08.

SUMMARYEXECUTIVE

- Shaun Donovan, Secretary or Housing and Urban Development

“ Home. It is the oundation upon which all o us build our lives, raise our children and plan

or our utures. It's the building block with which we orge neighborhoods and put down

roots...home is an essential source o stability - or our amilies, our communities and our

country. I a century o housing policy has taught us anything, it's that i there isn't equal

access to sae, afordable housing, there isn't equal opportunity. And i sixteen years o

HOPE VI has taught us anything, it's that building communities in a more integrated and

inclusive way isn't separate rom advancing social and economic justice and the promise o

America - it's absolutely essential to it.”

INTRODUCTIONThis report was prepared or the Washington,

DC Housing Authority (DCHA) and contains

the ndings and recommendations rom

the Aordable Housing Policy Studio at the

University o Pennsylvania’s Master o City

Planning program. In anticipation o the Obama

Administration’s Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

– a new ederal housing policy that seeks the

ull-scale transormation o severely distressedlow-income neighborhoods – a team o eight

graduate students was tasked with developing

a proposal or the redevelopment o two

properties in Southeast DC.

The Department o Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) introduced drat legislation

or the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI)

to Congress in the spring o 2010. CNI

seeks to build upon the existing HOPE VI

Program’s eorts to redevelop aging public

housing developments into thriving mixed-

income communities. Broadening its scope

beyond a sole ocus on housing, Choice

Neighborhoods places strong emphasis on

strengthening distressed communities as a

whole by incorporating high quality schools,transportation, access to amenities, and crime

reduction strategies. Through partnerships

with other Federal agencies, such as the

Departments o Transportation, Education

and Justice, Choice Neighborhoods aims

to leverage innovative ideas and unding

or a new model o holistic neighborhood

redevelopment.




PICTURE

RIGHT: Inner Courtyard at

Potomac Gardens site

Photo taken by: A. Ellis

Potomac Gardens and

Hopkins Apartments

are two public housing

properties owned by the

DC Housing Authority.

Located in Southeast DC,

the two developments

are made up o 21

separate buildings with

varying typologies.




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

RECOMMENDATIONSSeveral o these aging public housing

developments still exist in the District o

Columbia and have been identied by the

DCHA as candidates or uture redevelopment.

Ater discussions between PennDesign studio

instructors and DCHA sta, the Potomac Gardens

and Hopkins Apartments were recommended

as an area or urther study and analysis by the

project team. Analysis o the site – through

census and DCHA data, meetings with residents,design methods, and conversations with service

providers – revealed many physical and social

barriers, as well as many areas o opportunity.

The project team identied eight core issue

areas that are not unique to Potomac Gardens

and Hopkins, but occur at aging public housing

sites in cities across the country. These core

issues include mixed income housing and

resident interaction; resident relocation;

building demolition versus rehabilitation;

nancial easibility and unding sources or

redevelopment; services and community

management; open space and public amenities;

physical and social integration; and alignment

with other planning eorts. This report outlines

these core issues and explains how they maniest

themselves at Potomac-Hopkins and inorm the

project team’s recommendations.

The project team developed two design

alternatives that act as the physical drivers o

this report’s key recommendations. The rst

design strives to achieve seamless integration

o public and aordable housing units into the

surrounding neighborhood, by re-stitching

streets, building congurations, and architectural

character into the existing neighborhood.

The second design places a strong emphasis on

the public realm by increasing public and open

spaces that connect the Potomac Gardens site to

the Hopkins sites. It creates unique places within

the neighborhood that simultaneously increase

livability and density. This report contains site

plans and building typologies to assist the DCHA

with their consideration o Potomac Gardens and

Hopkins redevelopment. Multiple designs are

included in order to present a range o housing

options and neighborhood design approaches.

Service recommendations are built around

the concepts o guaranteeing a right to

return policy or original residents, a build-

rst occupied development process and a

community management service program.

In accordance with Choice Neighborhoods




PROBLEM STATEMENT

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

priorities, service recommendations also

advocate or the addition o an early childhood

education program and comprehensive adult

education and job training opportunities.

The community management program is

centered on engaging residents through trust

and capacity building activities, and involving

them in all aspects o the redevelopmentprocess including design, relocation,

construction and ongoing management. This

approach ocuses on increasing the degree

o resident responsibility over time, as well as

creating jobs and skill building opportunities.

Community management helps residents

develop a sense o pride and ownership in

their housing, resulting in improved physical

and social oversight rom residents.

Lastly, this report contains a nancial easibility

and unding analysis o the proposed site

redevelopments. The project team reviewed

available unding streams or public and

aordable housing development and provided

a detailed budget o project costs, as well as

recommendations or appropriate additional

unding sources.

Despite being located in the thriving Capitol

Hill neighborhood of Washington, DC, in close

proximity to transit, job centers, and commercial

and human services, Potomac Gardens and Hopkins

Apartments have been deteriorating for decades.Constructed between 1957 and 1968 under a now

outdated model of public housing design, the

buildings are conspicuous and isolated from the

neighborhood context. Potomac-Hopkins residents

are both physically and socially detached from their

neighbors, the majority of whom enjoy much higher

levels of education, income and overall stability.

Cycles of poverty have prevented many Potomac-

Hopkins residents from accessing economic

opportunities that could provide a platform for them

to move up and out of public housing.

This proposal attempts to re-imagine the Potomac

Gardens and Hopkins sites from both a physical and

social standpoint, to improve the aforementioned

conditions, and to lay the foundation for a healthy,

productive, and well-balanced community for all

current and future residents.





12.

N

280 ft0 140







14.

N

280 ft0 140




SCENARIO 2: THE CATALYST

SUPPORT urban character & appropriate densityScenario 2 attempts to push the envelope and bring more urban density

to this residential area. The site’s present superblock conguration leads

to inefcient land use. Higher densities are concentrated in the middle o

the site to preserve the character o adjacent residences while allowing

or a wider range o housing typologies and diversity o residents.

ELEVATE the public realm & natural systems

Currently, public spaces on Potomac-Hopkins are enclosed in tall, black

ences that isolate the site rom the surrounding neighborhood. Open

spaces are not only insular, but also nonunctional, with little ecological

benet. This plan looks to transorm the site with a landscape system

that allows residents and neighbors to engage in passive and active

recreation.

REINFORCE & RECONSTRUCT the idea of place

Potomac Avenue, a major diagonal thoroughare, runs through the

Potomac-Hopkins site. Interrupted by Southeast Freeway, the avenueno longer serves its original unction under the L’Enant plan to

connect destinations. By reconguring the terminus o the road into a

neighborhood park, this plan restores Potomac Avenue to its original

purpose, while also providing an amenity or Capitol Hill.

SECTION: Neighborhood Park space on Eye Street






PROJECT OVERVIEW 17CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010


17.

Legacy o HOPE VIChoice Neighborhoods

Related ProgramsProblem Statement

National Vision

OVERVIEWPROJECT




View rom interiorcourtyard o Potomac

Gardens Apartments

in Washington, DC

Photo: A. Ellis




2CHOICE. NEIGHBORHOODS

19.

OVERVIEWPROJECT

LEGACY OF HOPE VI

Established in 1993 as an eort to combat thepoverty and crime that plagued many publichousing developments, the HOPE (HousingOpportunities or People Everywhere) VIprogram oered local housing authorities theopportunity to demolish or rehabilitate theirworst sites. In many cities, such as Chicago andPhiladelphia, these locations included poorlydesigned, high density towers that made itdicult to monitor the activities o residents andvisitors. Compounding these problems wereinadequate maintenance budgets that did notcover the costs o routine upkeep, as well ashigh concentrations o extreme poverty. Publicschools and other community institutions in thesurrounding neighborhoods also ailed to meetthe basic needs o residents. Although littleconclusive evidence exists regarding the impacto HOPE VI on residents’ quality o lie, there havebeen many lessons learned over the course o itslietime.

Perhaps the most tangible benefts o HOPE VIredevelopments can be ound in the surroundingcommunities, where real estate values haveshown increases ater distressed public housingprojects were removed (Goetz, 2010). As aresult, developers have been able to attractpeople o varying income levels, with the hopethat they will bring stability to neighborhoodsstruggling with poverty (Cisneros & Engdahl,2009). Conversely, existing residents who areaected by the redevelopment eorts may havethe option to move to another public housingcomplex or accept a housing voucher thatallows them access to housing in less poverty-stricken areas. Nevertheless, many residentsend up moving to places that have similar racialcompositions and crime levels as their originalcommunities. This may be due to a sense o amiliarity created by the social networks theyhave developed over time and/or lack o optionsin better neighborhoods due to barriers such as




1960s

concentration o extreme poverty

dilapidated buildings

1980s

years o neglect

high crime rates

entrenched drug culture

1990s

de-concentration o poverty

demolition o aged properties

introduction o HOPE VI

2000s

mixed income housing

holistic redevelopment

Timeline o eras in aordable housing.SOURCES: see Appendix for credits

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

By contracting with private frms to overseeday-to-day operations at HOPE VI sites, manyhousing authorities have lessened the burden

o routine upkeep, allowing or more ecientmanagement and timely maintenance underthe program. There has also been an eort todesign buildings and open spaces that make iteasier to monitor on-site activities in an attemptto discourage less than desirable behavior(Schwartz, 2006).

Despite its many triumphs, HOPE VI has notescaped the pitalls that come with uprootingpeople rom their homes. Due to their eorts toreduce density on some sites, multiple housing

authorities have torn down more units thanthey have built, leaving a signifcant numbero residents without housing. Additionally, thelong redevelopment process has discouragedmany people rom returning to the site, whileothers choose not to move back ater theyhave settled into their relocation units. Strictbackground screenings oten create barriers orresidents with criminal histories or bad credit

who wish to return (Schwartz, 2006). Manypeople who accept housing vouchers move toareas similar to their original neighborhood,with high poverty and crime rates, whichoten perpetuates the cycle o governmentdependency that HOPE VI purports to break.Some residents have diculty adjusting to

living in the private market because o theirlack o experience with household budgetingand monthly bill payments (Cisneros & Engdahl,2009).

While HOPE VI developments have greatlyimproved the physical design o public housing,the new sites ultimately serve a completelydierent population than that which livedat the site prior to the redevelopment. Thisleaves the root causes o extreme povertyand criminal behavior to be merely shited to

another deteriorating housing authority siteelsewhere in the city. Even i the new buildingsprovide adequate shelter, they alone cannot fxengrained attitudes caused by years o livingin poverty. Thereore, Choice Neighborhoodsseeks to incorporate more eective supportiveservice programs that will provide residentswith opportunities to improve their currentsituations.




ARTHUR CAPPER HOMES

TOP: Various HOPE VI developments

ABOVE: Notable (DCHA) HOPE VIredevelopment projects

SOURCES: see Appendix or credits

HOPE VI PROGRAMSUCCESSES & FAILURES


21.

ELLEN WILSON HOMES

SUCCESSES

Increased property values insurrounding neighborhoods

Rehabilitated or better designedbuildings

More ecient on-site management

Resident relocation and permanentdisplacement

Strict background screenings required to

return

Lack o budgetary experience amongvoucher holders

Long construction period

Diering value systems among mixed-income residents

FAILURES




CHOICE

NEIGHBORHOODS

While ocial legislation has yet to be released,the drat legislation, as well as recent hearingsbeore Congress, have provided a solidoutline o the principle elements containedwithin the Obama Administration’s ChoiceNeighborhoods Initiative (CNI). Administeredby the Department o Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), CNI seeks to expandupon the successes o HUD’s HOPE VI program,which changed the ace o public housing romdecaying high-rise developments characterizedby high crime rates and concentratedpoverty to attractive, low-rise mixed-incomecommunities. In comments made beoreCongress in March 2010, HUD Secretary ShaunDonovan stated the three main criteria thatapplicants will be required to meet in order tobe considered or CNI grants:

• Severely Distressed Public Housing: Housing that requires demolition,major rehabilitation, is vacant or is

contributing actor to the decline o thesurrounding area

• Concentrated Poverty: This criterionmay be measured in a number o ways,including high crime rates, lack o quality education opportunities, blight,abandonment, etc.

• Potential or Long-term Viability:The site must have some strongneighborhood assets that can beleveraged, in conjunction with theredevelopment, to support theeconomic health and stability o theneighborhood. Assets might includeclose proximity to public transit,business centers, quality schools, andlow-poverty neighborhoods (BuildingNeighborhoods, http://unca-ac.org).

Unlike HOPE VI, however, CNI will ocus notonly on housing redevelopment, but oncommunity redevelopment more broadly– with particular emphasis on ensuringthat quality education, transportationand crime reduction accompany new

housing units. Through coordination bythe newly created White House Oce o Urban Aairs, HUD has been collaboratingwith the Departments o Education, Labor,Transportation and Health and HumanServices to ensure that parallel programsat these agencies are aligned, and canbe leveraged toward CNI’s ar-reachingscope (Choice Neighborhoods Budget,FY2011). Summaries o these supportinginitiatives are outlined below, and should beconsidered in any Choice Neighborhoods

proposal submitted by DCHA. Congresshas authorized $65 million or CNI in 2010;this amount will und a CNI demonstrationsite. The administration has requested$250 million in its 2011 budget, which isexpected to be allocated to fve to sevendevelopments, providing $35-$50 millionper site (Choice Neighborhoods Budget,FY2011).




Support of Current CNI Legislation

As the CNI legislation makes its way throughCongress, aordable housing advocate groupshave expressed their support or several aspectso the program. Specifc language, such as

provisions requiring one-or-one hard unitreplacement, the right to return or currentresidents, and the coordination between ederalagencies, have all received praise.

Criticisms of Current CNI Legislation

There have also been negative reactions to thedrat legislation. One o the strongest criticismsis the lack o a designated role and undingallocations solely or housing authorities.Public housing units are not required to be

included in CNI transormation plans, and otherederally subsidized units and private units aremade eligible or redevelopment. By openingup eligibility to additional types o housingdevelopers, housing authorities are concernedthat unds needed to address their remaininginventories o distressed units may be reduced.Another criticism leveled against CNI is thatthe eligibility requirement or unding is toorestrictive and many neighborhoods may not

qualiy. The current proposal states that CNIwill only und projects in neighborhoodso extreme poverty, where the povertyrate exceeds 40 percent. This excludes 60

percent o public housing sites rom beingconsidered or CNI. There is also concernthat the CNI requirement o “proximity toeducational institutions, medical centers,central business districts, major employers,and eective transportation alternatives”may be targeting neighborhoods whereredevelopment is already taking place orlikely to take place in the private market.Some believe the language guaranteeingthe right to return needs to be strengthened;CNI guarantees a right to return i the

displaced resident is “lease compliant”but does not defne the term. Instead, it issuggested that displaced residents shouldbe guaranteed a right o return i theyhave not been validly terminated beorerelocation. Finally, the legislation’s languageaddressing replacement units using ProjectBased Vouchers is not clearly defned(Ramirez, CEO o NAHRO, 2010).

View of K Street, Southeast Washington, DC SOURCE: Google Street View: www.maps.google.com




RELATED PROGRAMS

The ollowing programs and services containelements that support Choice Neighborhood goalsand are currently being administered by ederaland local agencies. DCHA should consider theways in which it could partner with, or otherwiseleverage, these programs in order to be considereda more attractive Choice Neighborhoods applicant.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Promise Neighborhoods

Modeled ater the highly successul HarlemChildren’s Zone, the Department o Education’sPromise Neighborhoods Initiative will pair rigorousK-12 education with a ull network o support

services or both children and their parents.Examples o these services include early childhoodeducation, ater school activities, parenting classes,fnancial counseling, and college counseling. HUDis particularly interested in unding proposals thateature Choice Neighborhoods in coordination withPromise Neighborhoods to maximize the resources,assets and energy in chosen neighborhoods.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Livable Communities Program

The DOT has requested $527 million in FY2011or their Livable Communities Program, whichsupports “initiatives that increase transportationchoice and integrate housing and land use intotransportation decisions.” Funds will support placebased investments in low-income communitiesto improve access to jobs, lessen commutes andincrease planning and project developmentcapacity o local communities.

This unding will be coordinated with HUD andthe EPA through a newly created Oce o Livable

Communities, housed in the Oce o the Secretaryo Transportation. In addition to leading investmentocused on livable communities, the oce willdevelop perormance measures to assess howederal investments impact livability, providegrants and technical assistance that go towardurthering livability and sustainability goals at thelocal, regional and state levels (FY 2011 DOT Budgethighlights).

Promise Neighborhoods is modeled closely ater the HarlemChildren’s Zone model. Shown above: Geory Canada, ounder

o the Harlem Children’s Zone, talking with eager scholars.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation

This new program is a partnership betweenthe Department o Justice and HUD, with $40million requested or FY2011. The programsupports communities in reducing crimethrough collaborative, community-based andevidence-based approaches that also strengthenneighborhood revitalization eorts (BuildingNeighborhoods, 2010).

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)

The JOLI program is to create new jobs to beflled by low-income individuals. JOLI grants willbe administered by non-profts to create jobsthrough business plans and the provision o technical and/or fnancial assistance to privateemployers in the community. The ultimate goalo the JOLI program is economic sel-suciencyor the targeted populations. HHS has requested$2,225,000 or the program in FY 2011 andexpects to und 8 awards at a maximum amounto $317,857.

Adolescent Family Life Care Demonstration Grant

These grants are or public or private nonproftorganizations or agencies to demonstrateeective means o strengthening amilies byproviding an array o services that help prevent





21.

repeat pregnancy and enhance the wellbeing o pregnant or parenting adolescentmothers, their children, athers o their children,husbands and/or male partners with whomthey are in a long-term relationship. HHS has

requested $2,400,000 in FY 2011, which isexpected to und six awards.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Senior Community Service Employment Program

This community service and work-basedtraining program promotes pathways toeconomic sel-suciency or low-incomeindividuals aged 55 and older. The programprovides part-time, paid work experience/training as Senior Aides in public and private

nonproft organizations. The program is alreadybeing operated with District residents throughthe DC Department o Employment Services;participants work an average o 20 hours a week and are paid $7.55 an hour (minimum wage).

LOCAL PROGRAMS & SERVICE CENTERS

The Educare Center, Ward 7

In anticipation o the Promise NeighborhoodsInitiative local education advocates in theDistrict’s 7th Ward have partnered withnational education oundations and the tobuild an early childhood education center inSoutheast’s Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhood.The Educare Center, sponsored largely bythe Buett Early Childhood Education Fundwhich has 9 other Educare centers across thecountry, will serve 175 inants, toddlers and pre-schoolers. The acility will be located adjacentto Neval Thomas Elementary School andeature high sta-to-child ratios and Head Startprogramming. The Center will be operated by anewly ormed local non-proft organization. The

project has also received support rom America’sPromise Alliance and the Urban Institute, whichis coordinating the center’s evaluation plan.

DC Developing Families Center

Currently, in Washington DC a unique andinnovative holistic early childhood developmentprogram is gaining traction in the northwest

section o the city. The DC Developing FamiliesCenter is a collaboration between three DC basednon-profts – the Family Health and Birth Center,Healthy Babies Project, and United PlanningOrganizations. Together they oer medical and

educational services or low-income women andtheir amilies, a model similar to the nationallyrecognized Harlem Children’s Zone. The Familyand Health and Birth Center provide pre- andpost-natal, gynecological, and primary healthcare to women and their amilies. The HealthyBabies project provides a community basedsupport system or pregnant and parentingwomen in the District, with services such ashome visits, childbirth and health educationclasses, parenting classes, and amily planningcounseling. The United Planning Organization

operates an early childhood center servinginants and toddlers ages six weeks to fve yearsold.

DCHA Southwest Family Enhancement Center

This new acility, located in Ward 6, openedin 2008 to DCHA residents and others romDistrict. With an annual grant o $850,000 romDepartment o Employment Services (DOES),the center houses the Transitional EmploymentProgram (TEP), which provides job training,basic computer skills, GED prep and other “wrap

around” services.

Green DMV

Founded in 2007 by two local entrepreneurs,Green DMV is a non-proft organization thatpromotes community development in low-income communities through sustainabilityinitiatives. Using a three pronged approachtargeted at businesses, schools and communities,Green DMV acilitates education and training tohelp develop green businesses practices, increase

green spaces in communities, and train low-income workers to enter “green collar” jobs.

DC OFFICE OF AGING PROGRAMS

SeniorWorks IIOlder Workers Employment and Training Program




PROBLEM STATEMENT POTOMAC-HOPKINS

Despite being located in the thriving CapitolHill neighborhood o Washington DC, in closeproximity to transit, job centers, and commercialand human services, Potomac Gardens andHopkins Apartments have been deterioratingor decades. Constructed between 1957 and1968, under a now outdated model o publichousing design, the buildings are conspicuousand isolated rom the neighborhood context.Potomac-Hopkins residents are both physicallyand socially detached rom their neighbors, themajority o whom enjoy much higher levels o

education, income and overall stability. Cycles o poverty have prevented many Potomac-Hopkinsresidents rom accessing economic opportunitiesthat could provide a platorm or them to move upand out o public housing.

This proposal attempts to re-imagine the PotomacGardens and Hopkins sites rom both a physical andsocial standpoint, to improve the aorementionedconditions, and to lay the oundation or a healthy,productive, and well-balanced community or allcurrent and uture residents.

View of Potomac Gardens Apartments Photo: A. Ellis


26..




NATIONAL VISION FOR CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Choice Neighborhoods will transorm existingpublic housing developments into economicallydiverse communities that serve as platormsor residents to lead independent, productive

lives. Expanding upon the ambitions o previouseorts, Choice Neighborhoods will ocus on1) connectivity and accessibility, 2) integrativephysical design, 3) upward mobility or residents,and 4) appropriate and eective supportiveservices. Choice Neighborhoods will be anchoredby the seamless integration o housing into thesocial and physical abric o the surroundingneighborhood to build emotionally, economicallyand aesthetically healthy communities.

Defned by strong connections to job centers,transportation hubs, educational institutions,green spaces, and supportive services, ChoiceNeighborhoods will strengthen social and

economic opportunities or all residents o the neighborhood. Site designs and serviceswill strive to establish citizen empowermentand community pride rom all neighborhoodresidents and stakeholders. Resident input willbe a critical component throughout every ChoiceNeighborhoods community, rom their initialinception to ongoing operation.






SITE ANALYSIS 29CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010


29.

Site DescriptionDemographic Prole

Existing ConditionsSite Analysis

Resident PerspectivesSynthesis: Opportunities & Constraints

ANALYSIS

SITE



UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNINGABOVE: Aerial map of study

area in Southeast DC.




3


31.

ANALYSIS

SITE

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Potomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartmentsare located in Southeast Washington, DC on twosites south o the intersection o Pennsylvania

Avenue and 12th Street, SE and north o theSoutheast-Southwest Freeway. These sites sit inclose proximity to the Anacostia River.

Currently, the DCHA operates Potomac Gardensand Hopkins as separate sites. Potomac Gardenscontains two senior-disabled buildings and therest amily housing, while Hopkins Apartmentsare studios, two, and three bedroom amilyapartments. As noted previously, PotomacGardens and Hopkins are located just south o Pennsylvania Avenue, a major thoroughare

that connects this site to the Capitol Building,the National Mall and downtown DC. A blueand orange Metro line is walking distancerom the sites, along with several bus lines.The largest physical barrier is the Southeast-Southwest Freeway, which is directly south o both sites and physically separates the sitesrom the Anacostia River and the recentlyredeveloped Nationals Stadium area south o the Freeway. In addition to these eatures, the

surrounding neighborhood also contains threeschools, and a large mixed-use grocery andretail development (Jenkins Row). Retail and

commercial options are located predominantlyalong Pennsylvania Avenue and at Jenkins Rowalong Potomac Avenue.

The surrounding neighborhood is residential,with a consistent brick two and three storyrow home character. Neighborhood streetsare walkable, with sidewalks, crosswalks,and mature street trees. Despite theprevalence o street trees, a nearby balleldat Tyler Elementary, and landscaping aroundresidences, there is a lack o open public green

space in the immediate vicinity. The nearestcity park is Watkins Recreation Center, locatedtwo blocks north o Potomac Gardens atCatherine R. Watkins Elementary School. Boththe Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites havebasketball hoops and play spaces or children,though these are basic and appeal primarilyto the youngest children. The city recentlycompleted a skate-park adjacent to the WesternHopkins site.










DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

REGIONAL ANALYSIS: Washington, DC metro area


34.

ABOVE: Various landmarks in Washington, D

See Appendix for cred

The District o Columbia was established as thenation’s capital in 1790. The city occupies 64square miles o land between the Potomac andAnacostia Rivers and the states o Maryland andVirginia. The District is in a Metro region o 5.3million residents and contains a city populationo close to 600,000. DC’s population is dominatedby three racial groups: Arican American (53percent), whites (36 percent) and Hispanics(8 percent). While the ederal government islargest employer in the city and the region,

Washington, DC has a dynamic and diverseeconomy, which includes telecommunications,technology, international business, law, andtourism. This growing employment center isdominated by white-collar jobs, and has resultedin an area median income o $102,700 – one o the highest in the nation.

AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

Like many other major American cities, thehigh median income and scarcity o land haveresulted in a crisis in housing aordability. The

Fair Market Rent (FMR) (a measure used by HUDto determine market rents in a given locality) ora two-bedroom apartment is $1,288. In orderto aord this level o rent and utilities – withoutpaying more than 30% o income on housing – ahousehold must earn $4,293 monthly or $51,520annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52weeks per year, this level o income translatesinto a single employee hourly wage o $24.77.

In the District o Columbia, a minimum wageworker earns an hourly wage o $7.55. In order

to aord the FMR or a two-bedroom apartment,a minimum wage earner must work 131 hoursper week, 52 weeks per year. Alternatively, ahousehold must include 3.3 minimum wageearners working 40 hours per week year-round inorder to make the two-bedroom FMR aordable.

Washington, DC aligns closely with nationaltrends, with two-thirds owner-occupied andone-third renter-occupied housing units. O the

owner-occupied housing units, nearly 40 percentspend over 30 percent o household income onmonthly mortgage costs. O the home-owning

cohort, 40 percent spend over 30 percent o their household income on monthly housingcosts (mortgage, utilities, etc.). Renters ace aneven greater aordability gap, with 47 percent o households spending greater than 30 percent o their monthly income on rent. The median grossrent in Washington, D.C. is $1,253, with nearly athird o the population paying over $1,500 permonth on rent.




WASHINGTON, DCFAST FACTS

Racial distribution in Washington, DC is divided.

Though pockets o diversity exist throughout thecity, the West side o the city is predominantly

White and the East side is predominantly non-White, with Blacks making up the largest portion.

Income levels in the District are also unevenly

distributed. The Northwest side o the city makestypically at or above Area Median Income (AMI),

while the East side o the city typically alls belowAMI, with Capitol Hill as an exception.

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION AREA MEDIAN INCOME

• Washington, DC Metro Region: 5.3million people

• District o Columbia: Approximately

600,000 people

• Largest racial groups: Arican

American (53%), White (36%),

Hispanics (8%)

• Regional Area Median Income (AMI):

$102,700




DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

ell into the 25-64 age bracket. This highproportion o young people was largely dueto the high number o children between theages o 10-19 that live at Potomac-Hopkins,making up 25 percent o the residentpopulation. This same cohort made uponly 10 percent o the population in Tract71. Senior populations (65+) were equallyrepresented in the study area and Census

Tract 71.

While the DCHA does not keep recordsregarding the race o the their residents,the population at Potomac-Hopkins isnearly all Arican American. At the Tract71 level, 80 percent o the population wasArican American, while whites made upabout 10 percent and Asians ve percent.At the study area level, the proportion o

With a prime location next to the Capitol Building,the Capitol Hill neighborhood is one o the mostprestigious and residential neighborhoods inWashington, DC. Potomac Gardens and HopkinsApartments are located in the Southeast section o the neighborhood.

In order to understand the characteristics andconditions o Potomac-Hopkins neighborhoodand its residents, the project team collectedand analyzed a number o quantitative andqualitative data. For purposes o comparison, theproject team dened a “study area” and a moreimmediate neighborhood boundary (reerred to

below as “Tract 71”). These geographic areas weredetermined by site research, as well as discussionswith DCHA sta. The study area was denedas Census tracts 68.02, 68.04, 69, 70, 71, 72. Theneighborhood was dened as Census Tract 71,in which both Potomac Gardens and HopkinsApartments are contained.

Population and Housing

In 2009, Washington, DC had a population justunder 600,000 people and 260,000 households.

The study area contained close to 14,000 residentsin 5,400 households. Combined, both sitescontain approximately 1,000 residents in 500 units.On average, the city’s population has grown twopercent every ve years, while the study area hasgrown slightly aster at 2.5 percent. In contrast,Tract 71 continued to grow less than one percentevery ve years. Household size was about 2.5persons per household in both Tract 71 and thestudy area, which was only slightly higher than thecity’s statistic o 2.3 persons per household.

Age and Race

As o 2009 there was almost no dierence in theage composition between the city and the studyarea. Both the city and the study area had about60 percent o the population between the ages o 25 and 64, and around a third o their populationswas under 25. However, the numbers are reversedin Tract 71. While about hal the population wasmade up o people under 25, only one-third

STUDY AREA ANALYSIS: Capitol Hill neighborhood




public housing site neighborhood boundary census tract boundary

N

whites increased to around 30 percent whilethe Arican American population droppedto approximately 65 percent. At the citylevel, whites represented 35 percent o thepopulation, and Arican Americans made upjust over 50 percent. These gures indicate thatin 2009 Tract 71 was signicantly more raciallysegregated than the study area and the city asa whole.

Income

As previously mentioned, the Washington,DC metro area has one the highest medianincomes in the country, which in 2009 was$102,700. In 2009, both the city and studyarea had median incomes at around hal themetro area’s median ($54,000 and $53,000,respectively). Tract 71 and the housing sites

have incomes that are drastically lower thanboth the city and region. At around 65 percento the city’s median, Tract 71 had a medianincome o $35,000, and Potomac-Hopkins hada median income o slightly above $10,000,or 20 percent o the city’s median income.Compared to the regional median income, thedisparity becomes even more acute, with Tract71 representing 34 percent o the regional

income and the sites only representing 10percent. In a city where two-bedroom rents are$1,288 a month, the households in Tract 71 andPotomac-Hopkins cannot aord a FMR unit. Inorder to pay only 30 percent o their income inrent, current households in Tract 71 should payup to $869 a month (which is a $400 dierencerom the FMR) and households at Potomac-Hopkins should pay up to $268, which is a$1,000 dierence rom FMR.



UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING38 EXISTING CONDITIONS


38.

RIGHT: Exterior conditions at Potomac

Gardens & Hopkins Aparmtents

Photos: A. Ellis, J. Curran




PHOTOS




SITE ANALYSIS

POTOMAC-HOPKINSAter conducting a needs assessment or thestudy area surrounding Potomac Gardens andHopkins, and meeting with DCHA, the projectteam identied our key points o site analysis: SiteAccessibility, Physical Design, Housing Choice, andResident Services.

Site Accessibility

Site accessibility problems stem primarily rom theencing that surrounds all o the DCHA buildings inthe neighborhood. On the Potomac Gardens block,which is the largest area o the two sites, the encelimits access points to the site and orces entry and

exit to occur at odd locations. The ence is eighteet tall and curved outward towards the sidewalk,creating a visual and psychological barrier. Despitecomments rom the residents and DCHA that theence is perceived as a positive eature, this encecreates a clear line o demarcation and separation,and portrays a hostile message to both theresidents and the surrounding neighbors. Theseissues inhibit physical and social integration.

Physical Design and Building Conditions

The physical design o the site was the second coreissue identied by the project team. With largerscale buildings, set at odd arrangements on the site,the result is a substantial amount o unassignedspace within the interior o the Potomac Gardensblock. Very ew buildings address the street inthe current building conguration, and there isan inecient use o space or the level o densityon the site. Lastly, the site architecture is in stark contrast to the surrounding neighborhood.Building conditions on the site are deterioratingand the need or rehabilitation appears too costlywhen compared to the benets o site redesign andreconguration.

Housing Choice

Currently on the Potomac Gardens and Hopkinssites there are one, two, and three bedroomapartment-style units in large apartment buildings.The current apartment-only options limit the typeso households that can live on site or that would

potentially move into the site. This includes amilies,singles, seniors, young couples, and disabledresidents.

Resident Services

Resident services are an important componento lie at Potomac Gardens and Hopkins. The sitecurrently partners with 10 service providers, inaddition to the Boy’s and Girl’s Club, which islocated on the rst foor o the 1130 Hopkinsbuilding. The site provides space to many o theseservices in the bottom o the 1212 building inan area inormally dubbed “Community Row.”

However, ater conversations with DCHA, a reviewo the data provided by DCHA, and a visit to thesite, in which residents were inormally interviewed,the project team identied additional service needsor Potomac Gardens and Hopkins:

• Spaces that are better designed toaccommodate existing programs

• Stronger link to on-the-job trainingopportunities that are connected to actualpositions

• Increased services or drug and violenceprevention and rehabilitation

• Resident leadership and empowermentprograms

• Stronger partnerships with neighborhoodschools, and greater emphasis on youthand adult education programs

• A need or continuity o service programsand providers

• Services targeted specically at seniors anddisabled populations




Sides of buildings are addressing the street

Conguration of buildings has led to many dark, shaded areas

No continuous movement throughout the site

Parking lots serves as major access points

Walkways terminate at fence, creating potentially unsafe spaces

One major entrance located on G street at the senior building

Fence creates a mental and physical barrier for site

BUILDING CONFIGURATION

ACCESS & CIRCULATION




RESIDENT PERSPECTIVES

DCHA and HUD have emphasized the importanceo ensuring that current public housingresidents are involved throughout the processo any site redevelopment process. Critics o past redevelopments and HOPE VI projects, inparticular, have argued that this requirement hasresulted in many token meetings, where residents’opinions are recorded but rarely borne out in thenal development. One way residents have otenbeen involved in the process is in setting thescreening criteria that determines which publichousing residents can return to the new housing.

DCHA sta members stated that the residentstypically establish more stringent criteria than thehousing authority would require. This practiceoten becomes problematic when residents returnto the site because riends and amily memberswho do not meet the new criteria are prohibitedrom visiting/living in the new units.

Four members o the project team had theopportunity to spend a day at both PotomacGardens and Hopkins Apartments conductinginterviews with residents, touring the properties,

and meeting with the Faithworks servicecoordinators. The purpose o the interviews was tobecome more amiliar with the service and designneeds and desires o the residents. The meetingsprovided incredible insight or the project teaminto the daily lives o Potomac-Hopkins residents– the things they like and dislike about theirhousing, the barriers they ace in nding qualityeducation, jobs and healthcare, and the dailychallenges o dealing with drugs, gangs andsystemic poverty.

All o the residents who spoke voiced a concernor losing their housing in the event o a ChoiceNeighborhoods or HOPE VI redevelopment. Manyare aware o the very low rates o return o publichousing residents to HOPE VI developments.Several stated their ears bad credit ratingskeeping them rom being able to return, despitebeing longtime residents with otherwise cleanrecords.

The ollowing issues came up repeatedly inthe conversations with residents, and shouldbe careully considered in any redevelopmentproposal when planning or both resident servicesand site design.

• Territory – Strong eelings o territorialityexist among current Potomac-Hopkinsresidents. Oten adults or children o onebuilding will not use a common area,recreation room or playground locatednear another building because they do

not eel welcome there, or closer residentshave claimed the space as their own. Thereis oten very little interaction betweenresidents in the same building, and evenless between the two sites. A site planshould consider how to provide commonspaces or services and recreation that arecentrally located, inviting and accessibleto residents throughout the site andneighborhood.

• Drugs – Both sites, Potomac Gardens in

particular, have long histories as centerso drug culture in the District. The buying,selling and using o drugs are deeplyentrenched issues that aect residentso all ages. Most residents know one ormore ormer residents, riends or amilymembers who have been killed, injured orincarcerated due to drug-related crimes atPotomac-Hopkins. Many o the disabledresidents are handicapped due to drug-related shootings. Residents cited currentdesign eatures – such as the placement o

common benches and picnic tables – beingtaken over by drug dealers who use themto sell their wares.

• Disabled and Senior Residents – Currentlysenior residents and disabled residentslive together in two Potomac Gardensbuildings. Residents repeatedlycommented that this was a problematic




living arrangement. Many o the disabledresidents are young – oten their disabilitiesare the result o drug related shootings– and are intimidating to older residents.The needs and habits o the two groupsare oten very dierent. Moreover, there

is also a wide array o conditions amongdisabled residents ranging rom physicalimpairments to mental disabilities to dualdiagnoses – making their service needsspecic and varied.

• Resident Demographic Change Over Time–Many o the residents are long-timeresidents o Potomac-Hopkins. Somemoved in when the buildings rst openedin 1968. Many noted that the populationand culture o the sites had changed over

time, rom one where residents took pridein their housing, where more communityactivities were oered and more peopleworked, to one with higher concentrationso poverty, drugs and crime. This shitin the demographics o public housingresidents has occurred at PHA sites acrossthe country (Committee on National UrbanPolicy, 1990). Among the Potomac-Hopkinsresidents the project talked to this shithas resulted in two groups – a minorityo long-time residents who represent the

“old values”, have pride in the housing andappear more invested in the success o theircommunity, and the newer residents, whoare typically younger, have more troubledbackgrounds, criminal records, etc.

• Need for GED Preparation and JobTraining – Because many o the residentshave not completed high school, there

is a great need or GED courses on ornear the site. This seems to be one o the biggest hindrances to entry into theworkorce. There is also a need to providejob training or people who want tosecure employment, as well as continuing

education or those who have oundjobs, but lack the resources to pursueopportunities that could lead to careergrowth. Placing such services near the sitewould make it easier to attract participantsbecause they would not have to incurtransportation costs or travel ar romhome.

• Need for Enhanced Youth Programs at theBoys and Girls Club – In August 2009, UrbanBridge Builders, a neighborhood non-

prot who was instrumental in bringing anew playground to Hopkins Apartments,conducted a market survey on the use o services at the Boys and Girls Club. Resultsshowed that over hal o the residents atHopkins are between the ages o 5-18,however only one quarter o them use theBoys and Girls Club. Frequent reasons givenor the lack o use were a lack o knowledgeabout the center, inconvenient hours,inappropriate programs or children, andcompeting ater school programs. Youth

respondents reported that the programsthey would most like to see are sports andtness programs, tutoring and homework help, and mentoring programs. Realigningthe Boys and Girls Club programming withthe desires o the youth residents, alongwith improved outreach and marketing,would make the center more attractive andenhance participation rates.




OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS

OPPS & CONSTRAI

Ater reviewing the preliminary site analysis, theproject team identied a set o opportunitiesand constraints, ocused around physical designand social service issues.

CONSTRAINTS

Physical. As previously discussed, the encingand limited access points are constraints orboth sites. In addition, the block design andarchitectural character also create a disjointedrelationship between the sites and thesurrounding neighborhood. The Southeast-Southwest Freeway is another large constraintthat discourages travel between adjacent

neighborhoods, and also negatively impacts thedesign o spaces on either side o the reeway.

Social. Many social constraints also exist onthe site. As mentioned, the Potomac-Hopkins

residents ace severe aordability challengesgiven the high AMI throughout the Washington,DC metropolitan area and unabated housingdemand or living on Capitol Hill. Potomac-Hopkins residents currently make less than15% o AMI and are surrounded by highwealth residents, many o whom typically holdgovernmental positions. This structure hasresulted in a sometimes strained relationshipbetween residents and adjacent neighbors. In

depressed real estate valuesin adjacent neighborhoods

limited access points and on-site circulation

disconnected block characterand architectural style




S MAP

addition, the continuous demand or housingand the small number o vacancies in theneighborhood surrounding Potomac-Hopkinslimits the fexibility o the DCHA to set up an on-site relocation program, which is the preerredapproach to site redevelopment.

OPPORTUNITIES

Physical. Many physical opportunities or thePotomac Gardens and Hopkins sites exist. Therst opportunity lies in the redesign o boththe Potomac Gardens and Hopkins sites toallow or seamless integration o the housingunits into the surrounding neighborhood.

This will involve a reconguration o buildings,most successully accomplished through theconstruction o entirely new units on both sites toachieve the greatest parity with the neighborhood’s

building character. A second opportunity lies inthe potential to increase connections betweenthe two sites through a redesign o the street gridand open space. Increased open space and publicrealm are badly needed in the neighborhood. Athird area o opportunity that can be leveragedrom a Choice Neighborhoods redevelopmentis the enhancement o on and o-site services,both through improved physical location andtheir ability to meet resident needs. Additionalopportunities involve inclusion o innovativestormwater and energy eciency designs that

could tap into Department o Energy unds. Lastly,there are opportunities to strengthen connectionsbetween nearby transit, the Pennsylvania Avenueretail corridor, and the housing sites. These couldinclude public-private partnerships to developretail and commercial space suited to a mixed-income community.

Social. Social opportunities or the PotomacGardens and Hopkins sites exist through increasedconnections with surrounding schools, such asTyler Elementary School, Friendship Public Charter

School, and Cesar Chavez Public Charter School.Potential partnerships may also be realized withother schools in the area, particularly those withstruggling perormance indicators, by creatingprograms that are mutually benecial to the publichousing population and participating schools.These programs could provide prime opportunitiesto incorporate Department o Education PromiseNeighborhood unding in a Choice Neighborhoodsproposal. The proximity o these sites to downtownDC’s job center and to several transit stopsalso has the potential to attract Department o

Transportation dollars. Lastly, a major opportunitylies in the ability to involve residents in theredevelopment process and the dialogue shapingthe evolution o this neighborhood. I handledwell, a resident involvement process can bea tremendous opportunity to improve socialinteractions between current residents and theirneighbors and also to increase uture residentinvestment in their community.

Mmetro

increased connection toPennsylvania Avenue

connection to transit

enhanced partnerships betweensites and services






CORE ISSUES 47CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010


47.

ISSUES

CORE

Income Mix & Housing

Resident Relocation

Building Demolition vs. Rehabilitation

Financial Feasibility: Funding Sources

Services & Community Management

Open Space & Public Amenities

Physical & Social IntegrationAlignment with Planning Efforts




4


48.

ISSUES

CORE

In order to create practical nal recommendations,the project team sought to gain a deeperunderstanding o the challenges acing theDC Housing Authority and Potomac-Hopkins

residents, as well as other stakeholders who work on-site or in the surrounding community.

Through independent research and discussionswith DCHA, residents, and service providers, theproject team determined eight core issues thatshould be taken into consideration throughout

the redevelopment process. These include: incomemix and housing, resident relocation, demolition

versus rehabilitation, nancial easibility,services and community management, openspace and public amenities, physical and socialintegration, and alignment with other planning

eorts.

Although many o these issues can be ound

at public housing sites across the country, theproject team looked specically at how theymaniest at Potomac-Hopkins. Thus, the coreissues presented here orm the crux or the

service and design recommendations discussedin Section 5.




INCOME MIX & HOUSINGISSUE 1:

Creating communities with a range o income levels is not anew idea. In its original design, public housing was intendedto serve working poor in the bottom third o the incomescale. There are also many naturally occurring mixed incomeneighborhoods all across the country.

Advocates o mixed-income communities claim thata number o benets result rom having economicallydiverse populations live near one another. Among the mostcommonly benets cited are:

1) To de-concentrate the isolation and (widely debated)“culture o poverty” behaviors experienced by manypublic housing residents, particularly those living inolder, aging public housing sites with concentratedpoverty.

2) The role model eect, in which amilies, particularlychildren, are able to observe the positive results o adults who participate in activities such as ull-timework, parenting, and homeownership.

3) Increased access to opportunities and socialnetworks – jobs, education, proessional contacts– or low-income residents, which can be achievedby interacting with better-connected moderate andupper-income neighbors.

4) A greater level o public services and amenities thatcan be achieved by higher income populationswho are typically able to demand greater politicalattention and navigate the necessary bureaucraticsystems. Higher income residents may also be ableattract greater private investment in the community.

Evaluations o mixed-income communities in achievingthese purported benets have been very limited, and theresults that have been reported are mixed. The ollowingcases illustrate some o the positive results as well as thechallenges o mixed-income housing.


49.




CENTENNIAL PLACE, ATLANTA, GA

Built in 1936, Techwood Homes was the rst public housingdevelopment in the country. In 1993, the project was awardeda $42 million HOPE VI grant rom HUD to redevelop as a mixedincome community. The new development was renamedCentennial Place and redevelopment intended to revitalize thedeteriorated community, while also eradicating the deeply heldsense o isolation elt by public housing residents. The incomemix set aside 40 percent o units or residents making less than60 percent o AMI, 20 percent o units making between 50 and60 percent o AMI, and another 40 percent o units at market rate.The design incorporated historic preservation o one prominentbuilding in the center o the development.

Key Elements

• Extensive resident participation rom a very early stage inthe project, including a legally binding Further AssurancesAgreement, which guaranteed certain elements suchas relocation, priorities or return, and site design,and resolved many o the current residents ears o displacement.

• Particular attention was given to housing design andamenities to make them competitive in the market. Non-housing elements included retail and a neighborhoodschool to ensure that a transormation o theneighborhood – not just the housing site – could occur,and to attract market rate households to the area.

Challenges

• Attracting residents, both market rate and low-income,to live in the preserved building proved dicult. Tenantspreerred the new construction units, and eventually thehistoric building was converted into oce space.

Results

Centennial has won several awards or both its planning conceptand site design. Centennial Place Elementary is the second highestperorming school in the Atlanta school system despite its low-income student population. Students there also out perormnational average (Glover, 2010). In addition to the school, a YMCA,bank and library were all incorporated into the plan. One study,conducted by the Brookings Institute, reported that propertyvalues in the surrounding neighborhood had increased ater theredevelopment.

INCOME MIX & HOUSING CASE STUDIES

ennial Place in Atlanta, GA sits on the former

f Techwood Homes, the rst public housing

opment in the United States.




Lake Parc Place represented the Chicago Housing Authority’s (CHA)earliest attempt to create a mixed income community. Originallypart o a group o CHA’s most troubled properties, the two 15-storytowers were rehabilitated in 1991 and turned over to two privatemanagement companies to carry out the new mixed-incomeexperiment. Unlike Centennial Place, Lake Parc Place mixed only lowand moderate income residents, and did not include market rate units.This decision was made because stakeholders believed the buildingcould not attract market rate renters due to its long history as a poorlymanaged complex. In addition, all o Lake Parc’s residents were AricanAmerican, which some believe may have resulted in greater interactionbetween income groups.

Key Elements

• Income groups were mixed on every oor throughout thebuildings to ensure that true mixing would occur.

• The income mix was chosen deliberately with the goal o interaction. Unlike many other mixed income developmentswhere moderate and market rate residents are oten singlesor couples without children, many o the moderate incomeresidents at Lake Parc had children, and many had lived inpublic housing at some point in the past.

Challenges

• CHA eventually took the buildings back rom the privatemanagement group and were less stringent about rellingunits vacated by the moderate income residents. Overtime thebuilding became reoccupied by nearly all low-income tenants.

Results

A resident survey taken about one year ater Lake Parc openedindicated that the mixed income model was having signicant positiveeects or residents and the neighborhood. Lake Parc had muchlower rates o crime and grati than other CHA sites. The low-income

residents reported eeling much saer than their previous publichousing situations (though moderate income residents reported nochange). Both low and moderate income residents had similar levelso interaction and riendship among with other residents, with slightlyhigher levels reported among the low-income tenants. However,interaction across income groups was not directly measured so it isunclear how much mixing actually occurred.

LAKE PARC PLACE, CHICAGO, IL

Lake Parc Place in Chicago, IL represents

the earliest attempts to provide housing t

income residents in a public development




Studies tracking the outcomes o mixedincome development have concluded thatthe primary benets include improvedphysical design and neighborhoodsaety. Making income “invisible” andintegrating low-income units all throughoutdevelopment is critical to avoiding income-based clustering. This can sometimes bechallenging when programming units, as low-income tenants oten have more children oramily members living with them than higherincome tenants, and building congurationsare requently separated by amily size.

In nearly all cases, evidence o social interactionbetween income groups is has been limited.Strong management and strict enorcemento rules were cited as essential elements tomaintaining order and physical upkeep at thebuildings. In most cases this involved rigoroustenant screening processes. Some study resultshave indicated that the particular levels o income matter in the degree o interaction andneighboring that is achieved, and populations

with similar income levels are more likely tointeract and relate with one another.

RESIDENT RELOCATIONISSUE 2:

Relocation and the potential or residentsto return to public housing sites ater siterehabilitation, are perhaps some o the mostchallenging and controversial elements o public housing authority (PHA) redevelopments,such as those that have occurred under HOPE VIand are proposed under CNI. One o the biggestcriticisms o HOPE VI has been the large-scaledisplacement o public housing amilies inavor o households with higher incomes. Aso September 30, 2008, o the 72,265 amiliesdisplaced by HOPE VI, only 17,382 had returnedto the revitalized HOPE VI communities, which isa return rate o 24% (Kingsley, 2009). This rate ismuch lower in HOPE VI developments that havebeen completed in the District o Columbia.

Typically when HOPE VI redevelopments haveoccurred in DC, the site’s current residents areoered the option to take a Housing ChoiceVoucher (HCV), which can be used to rent aunit on the private market, or to relocate toanother public housing site in the District. Very

ew residents are granted the right to return tothe same site ater it has been redeveloped. Thisis usually because they cannot meet the morestringent screening criteria at the new site and/or because they do not meet the income levelrequired by the housing authority to keep thedevelopment nancially solvent.

The majority o residents who are beingrelocated opt to take a voucher and seek theirown unit in the private market. These HCVs(ormerly known as Section 8 tenant basedvouchers) allow residents to pay 30 percent o their income toward rent, while the vouchermakes up the dierence between that amount

and the regionally determined “air marketrent.” While the voucher program has resultedin positive outcomes or some residents –allowing them to relocate in neighborhoods o lower poverty and greater services than theyhad at their PHA site – many residents end upin neighborhoods with conditions that areequal or worse than their previous home. For

LESSONS FOR POTOMAC-HOPKINS




residents who choose to move to another PHAsite, they oten nd themselves among otherresidents who have been screened out o newdevelopments or the private market, therebycreating even greater concentrations o povertyand social service needs than the original sites.

One-or-One Replacement

In the past, the majority o HOPE VI projectsreplaced approximately hal o all demolishedpublic housing units with new publichousing units (Congressional Budget Oce,

2008). Under the HOPE VI Improvement andReauthorization Act o 2008, one-or-onereplacement became mandatory, achievedeither through public housing or project-basedrental assistance.

Despite this replacement requirement, anumber o loopholes have allowed housingauthorities to meet the obligation withoutcreating new “hard units”. In Washington,DC, the housing authority has redevelopedseveral o its HOPE VI sites at lower densities

than previously existed and counted HCVs asreplacement units. The result has been newsites that predominately serve new, and higherincome populations, and leave the originalresidents to nd new housing in DC’s extremelytight and unaordable marketplace.

One o the leading actors driving the low rateso return o original residents is the to desire

o policymakers to deconcentrate the povertyound on public housing sites by mixing incomesin communities. The HOPE VI program is basedon this premise, and its sites are designed so thatpublic housing residents are interspersed amongother low and moderate-income, and marketrate renters or homeowners. HUD has promotedthis mixed-income housing strategy or a varietyo reasons, principally or the purported spin-o eects or low-income residents o high qualityservices and amenities, social and proessionalnetworks, and role modeling eects that are

associated with higher income residents. Inaddition, HOPE VI’s emphasis on high qualityhousing design, including making subsidizedunits indecipherable rom market rate units, isintended to reduce the stigma o public housing.

A second actor that has inuenced the returnrate o original residents is the high costs o housing redevelopment. These costs demanddiverse unding streams in order to supplementthe HUD awards. In HOPE VI projects this undinghas typically been achieved through Low IncomeHousing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units and marketrate units, which generate higher rents thanpublic housing units. LIHTC’s nance units orhouseholds making up to 50 or 60 percent o area median income (depending on the type o credit received). Market rate units are advertisedto achieve the highest price possible, attractingrenters and buyers making 100 percent o AMI orabove.

Previous HOPE VI eforts by DCHA, suchas Wheeler Creek (let) in Southeast DC,

have resulted in the displacement o thousands o public housing residents.




In response to heavy criticism o thedisplacement o public housing residentsin HOPE VI redevelopments, the CNI dratlegislation has put a large emphasis on one-or-one replacement o public housing units.Specically, the drat legislation calls or:

• 100 percent replacement o all units thatare demolished, through on-site and o-site units (replacement bedrooms mustadequately serve returning tenants andtenants on waitlist)

• The location o replacement units mustbe within the neighborhood beingrevitalized or within 25 miles o originalproject site. O-site units must:

• Provide access to “economic

opportunities and publictransportation and be accessibleto social, recreational, educational,commercial, health acilities andservices”

• Not be located in areas o minorityconcentration or extreme poverty

• Up to hal o the public housingunits may be replaced usingtenant-based vouchers where

there is an adequate supply o aordable rental housing in low-poverty areas

Right to Return

As currently written, the CNI legislationguarantees the right to return to on-site or o-site replacement housing or residents who arelease compliant at the time o departure, andthroughout the relocation period. The bill statesthat preerence to occupy (on-site or o-siteunits) will be given to returning tenants beore

those on waiting lists or the general public.

Screening Criteria

In the majority o the District’s HOPE VIdevelopments, DCHA has allowed currentoriginal residents to create the screening criteria

or the residents who will qualiy or the newhousing. This has requently resulted in verystringent rules that disqualiy many o theoriginal residents.

Lessons or Potomac-Hopkins

The low historic return rates or originalresidents o DCHA’s HOPE VI developments aretroubling to current residents Potomac-Hopkins.Additionally, the sites’ location in a desirableand relatively afuent area o Capitol Hillmake prospects or nding nearby aordablereplacement housing (through a HCV voucher)unlikely. Potomac-Hopkins residents andservice providers have proposed an alternaterelocation strategy or the site: a “build rst”occupied redevelopment, that would allowcurrent residents who desire to remain at thesite the option to do so, as long as they arelease compliant and willing to withstand theinconveniences o temporary relocation andongoing construction.

I assumed, this strategy would be a bolddeparture rom past HOPE VI developmentsthat have vacated sites in order to demolishbuildings and build anew. While a build rst,on-site relocation process presents a numbero challenges, it represents a commitment tobuilding or the current residents rather than a

new population. This model is being proposedas a part o the larger Community ManagementProgram in which residents would participatein the relocation and redevelopment process byproviding input in the design process, trainingand job opportunities and managing theproperties upon their completion. The strategyprovides opportunities or skill building andemployment, as well as a sense o pride andownership in their new housing.

I undertaken, this strategy will require a

signicant investment o vision, time andunding on the part o project stakeholders, butis regarded as an innovative alternative thatwill allow a CNI redevelopment to benet theoriginal public housing residents, instead o alargely new population.




BUILDING DEMOLITION VS. REHABILITATIONISSUE 3:

Overview

The project team aced a decision betweendemolition and partial rehabilitation o theexisting buildings o Potomac-Hopkins.Rehabilitation is oten the preerred methodo redevelopment i the existing buildingsare in a suitable condition or repair and i thecost to rehab is lower than demolition andnew construction. However, rehabilitationis more unpredictable and oten moredicult to carry out. Given the goals o the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, thechallenges involved in renovating the currentbuildings to become more aligned with thecharacter o the surrounding neighborhood,and uncertainty about the marketabilityo rehabbed units to non-public housingresidents, the project team to ultimatelydecided or ull demolition.

In Context to Project Site

The rehabilitation o Potomac-Hopkinswas not easible because o building age,

condition and construction method. Mosto the buildings are outdated and largelydilapidated; Hopkins Apartments were builtin 1957 and Potomac Gardens in 1968. Whilethe three high-rise buildings at the northernend o Potomac Gardens are quality masonryconstruction, the rest o the buildings atboth sites are wood constructed and haveexceeded their lie expectancy. The layouto Potomac Gardens is inecient and doesnot allow or unctional open space. “Spot”rehabilitations o the masonry buildings

was the only easible alternative to ulldemolition, but the project team believesthat the costs o the technical expertise torepair those buildings would exceed thecost o demolition, and would still largely ailto address other site design issues, such asopen space, circulation and orientation to thestreet.

Best Practices: Deconstruction

The concept o demolition has recently evolved

rom expedient destruction and disposal o a building to the re-use, recycling and wastemanagement o a site. HUD encourages“deconstruction,” or selectively dismantlingor removing materials rom buildings beoreor instead o some elements o demolition.Deconstruction can be a link to job training andeconomic development eorts; small businessescan handle the salvaged materials rom thedeconstruction process and reuse them in newprojects. The process is both environmentallysensitive and economically sensible in that it

diverts valuable resources rom crowded landllsinto protable uses.

One o the most debated topics in public housing redevelopment isdemolition versus rehabilitation. The towers (above right) are be-

ing torn down, while the row houses are being rehabilitated (abovelet) at Cabrini-Green in Chicago.




FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY: FUNDING SOURCESISSUE 4:

The project team considered a variety o unding sources or this report and these arebriey outlined below.

Community Development Block GrantProgram (CDBG)

2009 DC Allocation: $18,179,591

The Community Development Block Grantprogram was established in 1974 to providecommunities with resources to address a widerange o unique community development

needs. CDBG unds are or activities thatbenet low and moderate-income persons.The activities must benet low and moderate-income persons, prevention or eliminationo slums or blight, or address communitydevelopment needs having a particular urgencybecause existing conditions pose a seriousand immediate threat to the health or welareo the community or which other unding isnot available. The program aims to “ensuredecent aordable housing, to provide servicesto the most vulnerable in our communities,

and to create jobs through the expansion andretention o businesses” (U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, 2010).

The amount each jurisdiction is granted eachyear is determined using a ormula comprisedo several measures o community need,including the extent o poverty, population,housing overcrowding, age o housing, andpopulation growth lag in relationship to othermetropolitan areas. Washington, DC wasallocated $18,179,591 in 2009.

HOME

2009 DC Allocation: $9,322,221

HOME unds are the largest Federal block grant to state and local governments andare designed exclusively to create aordablehousing or low-income households. Eachyear the Federal government allocates

approximately $2 billion among the statesand hundreds o localities nationwide. HOMEunds can be used to provide home purchaseor rehabilitation nancing assistance to eligiblehomeowners and new homebuyers; build orrehabilitate housing or rent or ownership; or or“other reasonable and necessary expenses relatedto the development o non-luxury housing,”including site acquisition or improvement,demolition o dilapidated housing to make wayor HOME-assisted development, and payment o relocation expenses (U.S. Department o Housing

and Urban Development, 2010).Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program

The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is asource o nancing allotted or the economicdevelopment, housing rehabilitation, publicacilities rehabilitation, construction orinstallation or the benet o low- to moderate-income persons, or to aid in the prevention o slums. The program allows local governmentsto transorm a small portion o their CDBG undsinto ederally guaranteed loans large enough

to pursue physical and economic revitalizationprojects that can renew entire neighborhoods. Itis essentially the City’s pledge o a uture streamo CDBG unding or up to 20 years. Section108 is potentially a good, available source o unding or the HOPE VI inrastructure needs.For instance, a pledge o 20 percent o the City ’sCDBG entitlement or ten years would provideapproximately $6 million in unding or the HOPEVI program.

Section 108 allows signicant capital to be

raised or projects o substantial size such asneighborhood revitalization. Activities eligibleor Section 108 nancing include:

• Economic development activities eligibleunder CDBG;

• Rehabilitation o publicly owned realproperty;




•

Housing rehabilitation eligible underCDBG;

• Construction, reconstruction, orinstallation o public acilities (includingstreet, sidewalk, and other siteimprovements);

• Related relocation, clearance, and siteimprovements;

• In limited circumstances, housingconstruction as part o community

economic development, HousingDevelopment Grant, or NehemiahHousing Opportunity Grant programs.

Recovery Zone/Build America Bonds

Build America Bonds were created under theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act o 2009 (ARRA) to provide much-needed unding orstate and local governments at lower borrowingcosts to pursue necessary capital projectsincluding governmental housing projects. Thebonds, which allow a new direct ederal paymentsubsidy, are taxable bonds issues by state andlocal governments that will give them accessto the conventional corporate debt markets.The U.S. Treasury Department will make a directpayment to the state or local governmentalissuer in an amount equal to 35 percent o theinterest payment on the Build America Bonds.Consequently, local governments will have lowernet borrowing costs and are able to reach moresources o borrowing than with more traditionaltax-exempt or tax credit bonds. Washington DCwould be able to issue a Build America Bond at a10 percent taxable interest rate, and the TreasuryDepartment would make a direct payment tothe government o 3.5 percent o that interest,and the net borrowing cost would thus be only6.5 percent (ustreas.gov). At the time o thispublication, a U.S. Treasury 30-year bond is at 4.66percent (Bloomberg.com, 2010).

Similarly, the creation o the Recovery ZoneBond program designated $25 billion in bondstargeted or areas particularly aected by job lossand in need o economic development projectssuch as public inrastructure development. Asum o $10 billion is allocated or Recovery ZoneEconomic Development Bonds and $15 billionor Recovery Zone Facility Bonds. The economicdevelopment bond is a type o Build AmericaBond that allows state and local governmentsto obtain lower borrowing costs through a newdirect ederal payment subsidy or 45 percent o

the interest. This is used to nance a broad rangeo qualied economic development projectssuch as job training and educational programs.Facility bonds are a type o traditional tax-exemptprivate activity bond that may be used by privatebusinesses in locally designated recovery zonesto nance a broad range o depreciable capitalprojects.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

The Capital Improvement Plan is a short-rangeplan that covers the capital budget and capital

programs developed by the City. Funding ora project can be included in the program andunded, as a budget item over multiple years,through the CIP. Such a program allows or asystemic evaluation o all potential projects at thesame time and the ability to stabilize debt andconsolidate projects to reduce borrowing costs.The DC Water and Sewer Authority currently relieson a ten-year $3.2 billion CIP, which vendors andcontractors might use to identiy uture businessopportunities.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Tax Increment Financing is essentially acommitment o uture increases in tax revenueswithin a designated area to raise capital oreconomic development activities within thatdesignated area. I the project area is not in analready designated TIF district, unding rom TIF




might be challenging as it would likely requireone to be created (the TIF area must meetcertain requirements or designation, which

typically relate to blight). TIFs are commonlyused in distressed neighborhoods targetedor redevelopment, but they are not relevantsources o revenue given the relatively highproperty values in the project site.

Project-Based Section 8 (Housing ChoiceVouchers)

Section 8 is not a direct source o unding, buti a project has an agreement with a housingauthority to enter into a Housing AssistantPayment (HAP) contract or project-based

Section 8 units, the expected income rom theproject-based units can be used as security ora loan. The project-based voucher is assignedto a unit as opposed to the tenant. The cost o tenant-paid rent and utilities is 30 percent o household income, and the remainder o therent payments is paid to the landlord by HAP.

Moving to Work (MTW)

Moving to Work is a demonstration program orpublic housing authorities that provides them theopportunity to design and test innovative, locallydesigned strategies that use Federal dollars moreeciently, help residents nd employment andbecome sel-sucient, and increase housingchoices or low-income amilies. The DCHA signeda MTW agreement in 2003 known as “CreativeLiving Solutions” which aims to achieve theollowing objectives:

• Develop enhanced housing opportunities

• Sustain quality property management

• Achieve eective customer supportservices

• Organize ecient business-like operatingsystems

Other DCHA HOPE VI

developments, such asHanson Ridge (let), have

utilized unds rom theDistrict’s Capital Improve-

ment Program and HUD’s

Community Development Block Grant Program.




SERVICES &COMMUNITY MANAGEMENTISSUE 5:

In September 2009, with a “CommunityBuilder” grant rom the Department o Justice U.S. Dream Academy, DC-based non-prot service coordinator Faithworks beganworking at the Potomac and Hopkins sites.The $215,000 grant provided unding or an11-month period, which allowed Faithworksto bring a coalition o service providers toPotomac-Hopkins, and also act as a servicecoordinator and scal agent at the sites.In this role they are acilitating relationswith DCHA, the Resident Councils, the City

Councilmember’s oce and working withyouth and adults rom both properties andthroughout the community.

Faithworks’ model is based around acommunity management approach, whichseeks to empower and build capacity inresidents to ultimately operate and managetheir own housing. Faithworks’ DirectorRobert Boulter has extensive experience withcommunity management through previouspositions with local aordable housingprovider, Jubilee Housing, and national

community development organization,Enterprise Community Partners, both o whom are pioneers o the communitymanagement model. Much o Faithworks’eorts since their arrival at Potomac-Hopkins has evolved around building thetrust o residents through regular meetingswith small groups o residents. From anexamination o monthly progress reports,Faithworks reports making slow, buthopeul, progress through their communitymanagement model with an extremely

high-poverty, dicult to serve population.One prescient example o this progressoccurred this all when sta rom SashaBruce Youthwork and Peaceoholicstwoo the sites’ regular service providersand Faithworks conducted a successul

intervention with neighborhood gangs atera serious stabbing incident at one o thenearby high schools. This type o ocused andcoordinated service model has not been providedin the past.

Faithworks has also created several stipendedpositions or residents who have shown aninterest in organizing activities or working at thesites. For example, one emale Hopkins residentreceives a stipend to organize programs orresidents and children in one o the Hopkinscommunity rooms. Two other male residentsreceive stipends or perorming maintenancework around the sites. These are exampleso some beginning steps o a communitymanagement program.

On-site Services

The majority o on-site services are housed inseveral ground oor apartments in the 1212building at Potomac Gardens. This hub o services, known as “Community Row”, is intendedprovide an array o easily accessible services or

Potomac adults, children and youth. Additionalservice providers visit both sites on a weekly basisto conduct programs and services or residents.

A complete listing o onsite service providers andweekly programs are described below:

Community Row Services

Little Lights Urban Ministries

Little Lights occupies two apartments inCommunity Row and serves elementary and

middle school children through a combination o academic and aith-based programs. Oeringsinclude tutoring, lie skills activities, weekly boysand girls nights, and trips. They also employ teeninterns.




Capitol Hill Group Ministries

Capitol Hill Group Ministries (CHGM) is acoalition o churches that provide an array o social services to Potomac-Hopkins residents,as well as other residents o Ward 6. With

onsite social workers CHGM provides intensivecase management, rental assistance, in-homesupport, and reerral services. The group wasinstrumental in organizing the planning andnancing o the new playground at Hopkins.

Georgetown Medical Clinic

With an oce located onsite, the GeorgetownMedical Clinic provides ree primary caretreatment or residents o both sites.

Total Family Care

Total Family Care (TFC) provides a variety o services or children and amilies, includingamily advocacy and legal assistance,atherhood and parenting program, and drop-in services. TFC uses the recreation centerin Potomac Garden’s 700 building or theirsummer youth programs.

Digital Connectors

Digital Connectors is a program oered by OneEconomy, a national non-prot dedicated tobringing broadband internet and technologytraining to low-income communities. DigitalConnectors provides onsite classes or two agegroups (ages 14-18 and ages 19-21) twice aweek.

The Boys and Girls Club

Located on the ground oor o one o theHopkins buildings, the Boys and Girls Clubprovides homework assistance and recreationalactivities or children in grades K-12.

Weekly Programs/Service Providers thatcome to Potomac-Hopkins

Boxing

Weekly boxing classes or elementary andmiddle school children are held in therecreational center in Potomac Garden’s 700building.

Faith Temple Church

Faith Temple Church has a long historyo involvement in the Potomac-Hopkinscommunity. They are currently planningto transorm one o the vacant Potomac

apartments into a recording studio or youth.

Sasha Bruce Youthwork

Sasha Bruce Youthwork (SBY) is a verysuccessul organization with over 30 yearso experience in helping at-risk youth inWashington, DC. SBY holds small groups oryoung men and women, and parenting groups,three days per week at one o the Hopkins’community spaces.

Peaceoholics – Like Sasha Bruce, Peaceoholics

has a strong track record in reaching at-risk youth through outreach, prevention,intervention and re-entry programs or youthinvolved in the juvenile detention system.Peaceoholics holds weekly “Saving Our Sisters”and “Brothers Helping Brothers” programs inthe community room o the Hopkins 1430 LStreet building.

Gaps in Service

As evidenced by the extensive oerings o

onsite services, there are many ongoingeorts aimed at addressing Potomac-Hopkinsresidents’ wide range o age and issue specicneeds. Yet there are some gaps in serviceprovision that remain unlled or that could beenhanced. These gaps are discussed below;recommendations to address these issues arecontained in the ollowing chapter.

Early Childhood Education

In conversations with Potomac-Hopkinsresidents and services providers, the project

team noticed a lack or services ocused onearly childhood development in the area.Numerous studies have shown that a child’searliest experiences and environments arethe most critical or their brain’s development,laying the oundation or the rest o theirlie. By the time children reach elementaryschool their ability to think, problem solve,interact with others, and learn is predicated




on skills they developed between birth andthe age o three. Studies show a strongcorrelation between children’s cognitiveskills beore they enter kindergarten andtheir achievement in elementary school andeven high school. Thus the early years o

an inant’s development are a critical timeo opportunity or vulnerability. A child’sdevelopment can be greatly compromisedby such inuences such as toxins, extremepoverty, malnutrition, substance abuse,child abuse and neglect, community oramily violence or poor quality childcare.Fortunately, early intervention programsimprove the outcomes or the youngest andmost vulnerable children. Economic analysisdemonstrates that or every dollar investedin early childhood program savings between

$4 and $17 can be expected due to improvededucational attainment, improved workorce,and a raise in earnings (Lurie-Hurvits, 2009).

Adult Education and Job Training

The very low employment rate among resi-dents at Potomac-Hopkins prohibits manypeople rom achieving economic stability, ac-cessing opportunities and increasing sel-su-

ciency. Chie among the obstacles to ndingsteady employment is low educational attain-

ment. Ater talking to residents, it becameclear that GED courses are needed on site toengage the hardest to reach populations. Forresidents who are able to gain steady employ-ment, they oten nd themselves stagnant

in low-level jobs without opportunities orupward mobility.

Senior and Disabled Residents

Senior and disabled residents share two o the high-rise buildings at the north end o Potomac Gardens. This situation is not idealor a number o reasons. First, many o thedisabled residents are young adults whoseliestyles and service needs are very dierentrom the senior residents. In some casessenior disabled residents live in ear o theyounger disabled residents and their riends,

which oten results in them rarely leaving theirapartments.

Additionally, the disabled residents all intoseveral categories – physically disabled, mentallydisabled and residents with dual diagnoses.

The needs o these three divergent populationsrequire dierent and specialized services.Residents with mental health disabilities otenrequire greater case management and psychiatricservices than the general population. It isessential that these services be eective andaccessible to mentally disabled residents i theyare sharing buildings and acilities at the site.

Residents with physical disabilities do notnecessarily require special social services butdo require physical amenities in their units andbuildings that enable them to use the acilities.Additional services that some o the handicappedresidents might need are assistance withhousework and cooking.

Senior Services

Targeted services or senior residents is anotherarea in need o enhancement. Currently manyPotomac-Hopkins seniors receive servicesthrough a DCHA sponsored program thatprovides daily in-home aids or help withtasks such as housekeeping, medications,

and companionship. The program acts as amechanism to support seniors as well as employDCHA residents. Despite DCHA’s intent tobenet two resident populations through thisprogram, many seniors report problems with theservices. Seniors reported eeling intimidatedand neglected by their home aids; there havealso been reports o elder abuse by aids in severecases.

Senior residents also expressed a strong desire ormore on and osite activities, such as trips to sites

around the District.

Challenges to Service Provision

Because many Potomac-Hopkins residentsace multiple and overlapping barriers, such asentrenched poverty, low educational attainment,




mental and physical disabilities, a numbero challenges exist or service providers ineectively reaching a greater number o residents.

• Tur: As previously mentioned, thereare strong eelings o territorialitybetween and among the buildingsand common spaces at both sites.In many cases, these long-heldeelings have prevented residentsrom seeking out services locatedat sites/buildings that they eel arenot within their territory, even whenthey may be only a block awayor at the building next door. Theresult has been very little mixing o residents rom the two sites in serviceprograms, like Peaceoholics “Brothers”and “Sisters” sessions.

• Access/Transportation: Due to thebarriers listed above, as well as

nancial constraints, many Potomac-Hopkins residents at this point areunlikely to access services that arelocated osite. Services that arecurrently missing rom the oerings,such as adult basic education and jobtraining/apprentice opportunitiesshould be brought to or near the sitei possible.

• Mental Barriers/Intimidation or Re-entry:Returning to the workorce or school ateran extended absence may intimidatesome individuals. Consequently, theymay shy away rom the services that canhelp them obtain new skills that theycould use on a job or in a classroom.By addressing these sel-condencechallenges, residents may become morecomortable accessing available services.

Faithworks’ community managementservice approach, particularly its ocuson individual and small group supportsessions, attempts to resolve these typeso issues.

• Poor Health/Disabilities: Researchers haveound that many public housing residentssuer rom physical ailments that limittheir mobility (Cisneros & Engdahl, 2009).Not only do poor health conditions makeit dicult to walk long distances or standor hours at a time, it detracts rom a

person’s overall quality o lie. As a result,these individuals may not possess thebodily strength to complete a ull day’swork or sit in an hour-long class.

Potomac-Hopkins residents

ace numerous challenges

in overcoming generationso poverty and government-

assisted living.




OPEN SPACE & PUBLIC AMENITIESISSUE 6:

Public parks and open spaces are vital parts o any healthy, livable and desirable neighborhood.Many aging public housing developmentsacross the country were constructed with insulardesigns that literally ence o residents rom thesurrounding area. Open space on public housingsites oten lacks landscaping, trees, or naturalelements or residents to enjoy. On-site openareas are requently paved or oddly congured,creating unassigned spaces in which residentseel unsae, typically because the purpose o thespace is unclear.

Numerous studies demonstrate the criticalimportance o parks and landscaped openspaces or neighborhood success, and call or ashit in thinking – away rom parks as amenitiesand towards the idea o parks as necessities. A2006 white paper by the Trust or Public Landnotes the desperate need in American citiesor parks, especially in inner city and low-income neighborhoods. While the Potomac-Hopkins sites are not situated in a low-incomeneighborhood, the area does lack park and openspace immediately adjacent to the sites, and the

existing site conguration o Potomac Gardensprovides no green space and little incentive toseek it out elsewhere in the neighborhood.

The Trust or Public Land white paper outlinesthe many benets o parks and open spaces incity neighborhoods, including improved publichealth through greater access to recreationopportunities, stress relie rom interactions withthe natural world, and access to democratizedspaces, where theoretically people o all incomelevels and backgrounds can interact (Sherer,

2006). Not only have parks, trees, and openspaces been proven to increase the value o neighborhood residential properties (Wachter,2006), links also exist between well-designedpublic spaces and a reduction o crime andjuvenile delinquency (Sherer, 2006). Thesespaces can oten take the orm o communitygardens, which studies link to increased residentinvestment in the community, opportunities

or stewardship, and increased opportunitiesor youth education about the natural world.Parks are also highly valued as play spaces orchildren and seniors, where important learningand socialization experiences take place or kids,and stimulating social opportunities can takeplace or older adults. Scholar Elijah Andersonnotes in his yet-to-be published book, TheCosmopolitan Canopy , that well-designed parksand public spaces allow or social interactionbetween groups rom diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds where they experience

the democratizing o truly public space. Onpublic housing sites this is a rare situation, asmost site designs create an insular eeling o separation rom the surrounding area. A reportby the University o Chicago and the Universityo Illinois-Chicago ound that in a study o publichousing sites, the levels o vegetation in commonspaces predicted the ormation o social ties, andthat levels o vegetation correlated to residentssense o saety and enjoyment (Sherer, 2006).

On the Potomac-Hopkins sites, as discussedin earlier chapters, there is a severe lack o

vegetation and landscaped areas. Open spaceson the Potomac Gardens site consist o pavedconcrete courtyards, with a ew basketballhoops and very little space or seniors tocongregate outdoors. Older children that areno longer attracted to swing sets and see-sawscongregate in clusters throughout the courtyard.Conversations with many residents revealed thatinstead o redeveloping green space on site, theresidents need more incentives to go o site andtake advantage o park and open space resourcesin the neighborhood, which could potentially

increase interactions between Potomac-Hopkinsresidents and their neighbors. Given the lack o available park and recreation spaces in theimmediate area (and the large reeway barriercutting o access to the Anacostia Waterront)this is an important core issue that is addressed inboth design alternatives.




PHYSICAL & SOCIAL INTEGRATIONISSUE 7:

Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, ederallyunded urban renewal projects demolishedmuch o the inexpensive inner city housing thathoused low-income minority populations tomake way or new business districts. For manyo the displaced populations, replacementpublic housing was constructed in segregatedneighborhoods where racial and incomeconcentrations were exacerbated. Many o these new public housing buildings did notblend into the neighborhoods in which theywere placed, instead they stood out as densely

packed mid to high-rise concrete structures inotherwise low density areas.

In the 1980s, most central city housing projectswere located in high poverty Arican Americanneighborhoods where racial and economicisolation was urther intensied by Federalpolicies that targeted housing subsidies tothe very poorest populations. These housingprojects were continually underunded,leaving a backlog o repairs and deterioratingconditions or the residents. Essentially, publichousing became the housing o last resort, and

the neighborhoods around them suered romdisinvestment and abandonment, generallyleaving the neighborhoods with ew necessaryamenities like retail stores, nancial institutions,and hospitals.

By the 1990s, public housing was regarded asone o the most visible ailures o national socialwelare system, in part due to its egregiousphysical and social segregation. In 1992,Congress enacted the HOPE VI program withthe goal o deconcentrating poverty. Since its

inception, six billion dollars in HOPE VI undinghas been devoted to revitalizing and replacing

dilapidated structures with mixed-incomecommunities and improving social services.Under the Obama administration, HOPE VI is tobe replaced with the Choice NeighborhoodsInitiative, which also ocuses on redevelopmento distressed low-income housing through mixedincome communities, but urther encourageshousing providers to link housing interventionswith broader neighborhood improvements.

Currently, Potomac Gardens and HopkinsApartments ace barriers o both physical andsocial isolation reminiscent o the outdatedpublic housing models described above.Among the most noticeable physical barriersthat separate the housing projects rom theneighborhood are the ences that surround theproject sites. With inward acing buildings that donot address the street, Potomac Gardens housingcontrasts greatly rom the two and three storyrow homes that comprise the majority o thehousing stock in the surrounding neighborhood.Potomac-Hopkins residents are also severelyeconomically disadvantaged, with the averagehousehold earning about 20 percent o the

income o residents o the neighborhood. Themajority o the crime in the area also occurs atthe two sites, urther contributing to a negativestigma associated with Potomac-Hopkins.

As DCHA considers redevelopment options orPotomac-Hopkins it will be essential to resolvethe physical and social barriers presented bythe design and demographic imbalances withthe surrounding neighborhood. The ollowingcase studies describe two successul exampleso repairing ragmented social and physical

abrics at aging public housing sites throughredevelopment.




City West - Cincinnati, OH

Bordering downtown Cincinnati, twomassive public housing projects known asLincoln Homes and Laurel Court transormedCincinnati’s West End between 1937 and 1943.With a total o 2,000 units, the projects werebuilt without regard or neighborhood context.The buildings eature small units, commonhallways and interior courtyards that are typicalo public housing o their era but had becomeoutdated under current standards. In 1999 theCincinnati Housing Authority was awarded aHOPE VI grant to redevelop the sites.

The new plan reintroduced the tree lined

street grid to the area and eliminated theisolated inward acing superblock o the twohousing projects. The housing design wasadopted rom the nearby Dayton HistoricDistrict, which stakeholders agreed was a“good neighborhood”. The new design includedbuildings with close street rontages andparking placed in the rear o the housing. Civicand retail spaces were added or livability.Cramped apartments were converted intotownhomes with separate entrances andgarages on private alleyways. Architectural

details rom the neighborhood were deliberatelyincorporated into the design, such as brick acades, elaborate cornices, and stone stills andlintels. The redevelopment resulted in increasedproperty values, a mix o low, middle, and high-income residents, and a reduction in crime.

Columbia Villa - Portland, OR

The Housing Authority o Portland, Oregon (HAP)owned an isolated and distressed 82-acre publichousing site in Portsmouth, one o Portland’smost ethnically diverse neighborhoods. In2007, using a HOPE VI award, HAP replaced462 rental units with 854 rental and or saleunits. The eort transormed the area into amixed income community serving low-incomerenters and market rate owners without losingthe ethnic diversity that characterized the area.Throughout the development process the 28member Community Advisory Committeeconducted workshops and collected residentinput or the new development, which includescommunity college classrooms, a new Boys andGirls Club, the Rosa Parks Elementary School, andsignicant open space.

As part o the CSS plan HAP also provided aconstruction trade apprenticeship program,computer technology programs, jobs andhousing programs, and access to digitaltechnology through a $1.1 million grant romOne Economy. Due to the success o thedevelopment, community leaders persuadedthe city to extend the urban renewal boundaries

urther into the Portsmouth neighborhood tohelp revitalize the struggling main commercialcorridor. Many credit the development orbringing jobs, investment, and value back to theneighborhood while creating opportunities orlow-income amilies.

CASE STUDIES IN PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION




ALIGNMENT WITH PLANNING EFFORTSISSUE 8:

Washington, DC Ofce o PlanningComprehensive Plan

The Home Rule Act requires the Districto Columbia government to develop aComprehensive Plan to provide overallguidance or uture planning and developmento the city. Originally adopted in 1984 /1985, the comprehensive plan is periodicallyupdated and most recently revised in 2006 toreect changing goals or uture developmentand redevelopment.

The Housing Element in the 2006Comprehensive Plan revision lists veobjectives or housing policy in the District o Columbia: 1) ensuring housing aordability; 2)ostering housing production; 3) conservingexisting housing stock; 4) promoting homeownership; and 5) providing housingor residents with special needs. The cityrecognizes the interconnection o housingand other planning eorts, such as landuse, transportation, and service provisionand approaches housing policy rom that

standpoint, which ts well with the intentiono the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. Thecity comprehensive plan also acknowledgesa dramatic rise in housing values in the lastdecade and describes the city as being in a“crisis o aordability”, with limited “move-up”options or the lowest income tiers.

The city comprehensive plan states severalgoals or the Capitol Hill District, which is thedistrict that includes the Potomac Gardensand Hopkins sites. These goals include the

ollowing specic recommendations orPotomac-Hopkins:

• Rehabilitation o the public housingproject itsel

• One-or-one replacement (within thecommunity) o all redeveloped units

•

Homeownership opportunities or publichousing residents

• Rehabilitation o Potomac Gardens as amixed-income community that includesequivalent number o aordable units

• Improved parks and recreation acilitiesthrough Capitol Hill

• Improvements along the PennsylvaniaAvenue corridor, which is also a majorocus o the Capitol Hill Area Plan within

the Comprehensive Plan

• Revitalization o the Potomac AvenueMetro station and the surroundingcommercial spaces

In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, theDC Oce o Planning recently released aninitiative called “Healthy By Design”, which is amulti-aceted program that includes goals suchas increasing walkability, increased access toparks and open spaces, and development o community gardens in lower income areas o thecity.

Pennsylvania Avenue SE Corridor LandDevelopment Plan

The Pennsylvania Avenue SE Corridor LandDevelopment Plan was nalized by the city in2008, and notes several planning goals andredevelopment recommendations that involvethe Potomac-Hopkins sites. Through illustrativemaps this plan notes the limited amount o parksand open space immediately adjacent to the

Potomac-Hopkins sites. The plan notes the openspace at the intersection o K Street and PotomacAvenue as a recreation area, however the projectteam believes that this site does not qualiy as anacceptable recreation space, as it consists solelypaved suraces, trees, and benches.




Capitol Hill Transportation Study

The Pennsylvania Avenue SE Corridor LandDevelopment Plan cites recommendationswithin the Capitol Hill TransportationStudy, which propose improvementsat the Potomac Avenue Metro stationand or the development o a traccircle at the intersection o PotomacAvenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Theserecommendations were made partially inanticipation o the Jenkins Row development.At this time, the Metro station improvementshave been completed, however the traccircle proposal remains under consideration.

Anacostia Waterront Initiative

The Anacostia Waterront Initiative was putinto motion in 2000 as a major city initiativeto transorm and redevelop the AnacostiaWaterront, rom the Maryland border to theconuence o the Anacostia and Potomacrivers. This initiative contains ve themes:

1. Restore: A Clean and Active River2. Connect: Eliminating Barriers & Gain-ing Access

3. Play: A Great Riverront Park System4. Celebrate: Cultural Destinations o

Distinct Character5. Live: Building Strong Waterront

Neighborhoods

This initiative directly relates to identiedneeds or increased open space and public

realm in the Potomac-Hopkins neighborhood,particularly the themes that call or increasedaccess and linkages o neighborhoods to thewaterront.

From top: Washington, DC ag; DC Department of

Transportation logo; Anacostia Waterfront Initiative logo






SITE RECOMMENDATIONS 69CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010


69.

RECOMMENDATIONS

SITE

Project Goals

Vision: Potomac Gardens & Hopkins

Service Needs & Recommendations

Relocation Recommendations

Finance Recommendations




5RECOMMENDATIONSSITE

Under Choice Neighborhoods, PotomacGardens and Hopkins Apartments willprovide a sae, attractive site that isully integrated into the Capitol Hillneighborhood. Serving amilies, seniorcitizens, and disabled residents in a mixed-income community, the redevelopment willpartner with community stakeholders toempower residents and put them on a pathto upward economic mobility.

VISION STATEMENTPOTOMAC GARDENS & HOPKINS

1. Connectivity and Accessibility: Toestablish a site plan that promotesconnectivity, integrating residents andneighbors with both on-site and o-siteamenities

2. Integrating Physical Design: To createa built environment that responds tothe needs o on-site residents and ts

seamlessly within the surrounding urbanabric

3. Residential Mobility: To support theaspirations and eorts o site residentsto greater levels o employment,achievement and sel-suciency

PROJECT GOALS4. Appropriate and Eective Services: To

ensure that the development providesthe necessary social services and

amenities in support o diverse on-sitedemographics, helping residents toovercome challenges to their own sel-suciency

Ater completing the analysis phase, theproject team established the ollowing

our goals to address on-site activities atPotomac Gardens and Hopkins Apartments:







Given the diverse population and serviceneeds at Potomac-Hopkins, the project

team recommends the implementation o a multi-pronged service plan, to be carriedout during the redevelopment and remain inplace once the site is complete. Services mustbe tailored to current residents’ needs, andservice providers should be both experiencedand passionate about assisting dicult toserve, very low-income populations.

To meet the needs o Potomac-Hopkinsdiverse resident population, the projectteam believes both on-site and o-siteservices are necessary. Residents and

service providers reported the need oron-site services or residents who currentlyexperience low mobility, are less prepared toenter the work orce, or are disabled. Otherservices, such as early education programsand job training are more appropriate atnearby o-site locations where they can beincorporated into acilities like schools andjob sites. As residents build capacity – orexample, moving through a GED programto job training or apprenticeship – they willmove rom on-site to o-site service centers.

Having residents travel to o-site locationsalso emulates habits similar to those that willbe needed when they enter the workorce.This integrated model corresponds to ChoiceNeighborhoods goals to provide a continuumo services in the neighborhood aimed athelping residents build sel-suciency.

NON-PROFIT SERVICE COORDINATOR

The project team recommends that currentservice coordinator Faithworks continue to

acilitate services through the previouslydescribed community managementapproach. Faithworks’ philosophy is basedon providing a continuity o services andbringing in experienced providers whounderstand the complex barriers acingpublic housing residents. In their limitedtime at Potomac-Hopkins, Faithworks hasbeen successul in earning the trust o, and

building community among, many o the site’sresidents. Faithworks’ Executive Director Robert

Boulter has extensive experience working withlow-income communities, like Potomac-Hopkins,in large-scale phased occupied rehabilitations.

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT

Faithworks’ community management programhelps residents build capacity to manage andmaintain their own housing. Residents graduallyincrease responsibility over time as they gainthe trust o one another and receive the trainingnecessary to operate the property. Communitymanagement is also a mechanism or residents

to obtain quality employment opportunities.Some o the areas in which residents canbecome employed include construction,maintenance, security, community organizingand administration. The community managementapproach helps residents develop a sense o pride and ownership in their housing, resultingin improved physical and social oversight romresidents. The community management modelundoubtedly requires a greater long-terminvestment o vision, time, and unding, but theproject team believes it will ultimately lead to

better outcomes or residents and the broaderneighborhood than a traditional, less intensive,human services model.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

The Boys and Girls Club is located in the 1000building o Hopkins Apartments. In 2008, the cityannounced that the club was going to be shut

down due to poor perormance and low member-ship. Neighborhood residents and organizationsrallied around the club and were successul in

implementing improvements and keeping it openor a trial period. The club provides programs or5 to 12-year-olds and teenagers, including home-work hour with a ocus on reading and math,

nancial literacy, Chess Junior, art activities, sportsand character/leadership building programs.

SERVICE NEEDS & RECOMMENDATIONS




When closure was being threatened, the neigh-

borhood based non-prot Urban Bridge Buildersconducted a neighborhood survey and evalua-tion o the program’s oerings and service needs.Key ndings rom the survey included a desire or

improved space with quiet study spaces or older

students, access to recreational areas and a largeinterest in programs or adults, most notably

in the areas o job training and computer skills.These ndings were considered in the projectteam’s service recommendations and spaceplanning and are discussed in more detail in the

“Location o On-site Services” section below.

SENIOR AND DISABLED RESIDENTS

The passage o the Americans with DisabilitiesAct o 1990 required all new buildings to be

handicapped accessible; new handicappedaccessible units will be included in the Potomac-Hopkins redevelopment. O-site senior outingsto museums, theater productions, and othercultrual events around the city should beconsidered. Although the project team wouldsuggest separating mentally and physicallydisabled residents because o service needs, thisaction is not permitted by law.

ON-SITE SERVICES

We recommend the ollowing current providerscontinue to serve residents on-site (see Section 4or a description o these services):

• Little Lights Urban Ministries

• Capitol Hill Group Ministries

• Sasha Bruce

• Peaceoholics

• Digital Connectors

• The Boys and Girls Club

• Total Family Care

The recommendation to return these serviceproviders was made based on conversationswith DCHA, Potomac-Hopkins residents andFaithworks sta. The project team ound thatthese providers oer a diverse and eective scopeo services. Maintaining them on-site will alsoensure continuity o services between providersand residents, some o whom have long-termrelationships. A number o proposals have

been submitted or grants to increase residentservices opportunities or the next three yearsat both properties. Residents o both propertieswould be employed and Faithworks could play acoordinating role i these grants are received.

The project team urther recommends that acomprehensive Adult Education Curriculum beadded to on-site oerings. These services aredescribed in detail below.

Adult Education

In order to reach a larger portion o the residentswho need adult education, the project teamrecommends that adult basic education and GED

courses be oered on-site. On-site services elimi-nate the need or residents to travel ar or theseprograms and enable them to attend classes withtheir neighbors, who may provide moral support

or their endeavors. The Academy o Hope, lo-cated in Northeast DC, provides adult educationalservices that address a range o competency

levels, which include adult basic education (ABE),

general education development (GED), externaldiploma program (EDP), and Pathways to Success.(Academy o Hope, 2010). DCHA should consider

partnering with the Academy to adapt these pro-grams to the specic needs o Potomac-Hopkinsresidents. The project team recommends that an

adult education model include courses like thosedescribed below:

DCHA resident receives medical care.




Adult Basic Education

For adults whose educational prociency is belowa 10th grade level, basic education may be therst step or them to pursue more advancedlearning. People who perorm at this level need

instruction in undamental reading, writing, andmathematics. This training provides the ounda-tion toward obtaining a GED credential. Without

these basic skills, they risk the chance o never be-ing able to achieve gainul employment.

General Education Development

For residents who would like to complete the re-quirements or General Education Development(GED), preparatory classes could be held on-site

to attract residents who may nd it dicult totravel. Obtaining a GED opens doors to greateremployment opportunities, as many businesses

require at least a high school education or hiringeligibility.

External Diploma Program (EDP)

As a national program, EDP gives people who areat least 25 years old the opportunity to show theirhigh school level competency by translating their

personal experiences into a high school diploma.This program oers more fexibility or adults whohave other responsibilities that limit the amount

o time they are able to commit to the program.In order to complete the program, individuals

must succeed in the diagnostic and assessment

phases. In the diagnostic phase, participants areevaluated on their basic skills in reading, writing,and math. In the next phase, participants perorma series o real-lie tasks as an advisor assesses 65

specic competencies in their actions.

Pathways to Success

For persons over the age o 18, Pathways to Suc-cess oers the chance to improve academic andjob skills to ease the transition into college or the

workorce. Students can choose either the work-orce pathway or the college pathway. Withinthe short-term workorce training, students donot need to have a high school diploma or GED,

but they are expected to gain competency in ve

areas: computer skills, job skills, academic skills, acareer-specic supplementary course, and porto-

lio preparation.

Those who are interested in a long-term programmay opt or the college pathway, which prepares

them or high wage careers by receiving a collegedegree or advanced certication and training.Participants should have a high school diploma orGED upon entering the program and gain com-

petency in computer skills, proessional devel-opment, college readiness, academic skills, and

portolio preparation.

LOCATION OF ON-SITE SERVICES

See Section 6 or discussion o on-site servicelocations or each proposed design alternative.

OFF-SITE SERVICES


Due to the high priority placed on earlychildhood education in the Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative, and the current lack o these services at Potomac-Hopkins, theproject team recommends that these servicesbe added to the overall service plan. With thesupport o several high prole oundations, theconstruction o a comprehensive early childhoodeducation was recently announced in theSoutheast’s Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhoodin anticipation o the Department o Education’s

Shreveport, LA public housing residents take GED test prepara-

tion courses as part of the CSS programs offered by the Housing

Authority of the City of Shreveport.




Promise Neighborhoods (See Section 2:Related Federal and Local Programs). Theproject team recommends that a similarmodel be reproduced near the Potomac-Hopkins site.

Another successul local provider o comprehensive early childhood educationand amily services is the DC DevelopingFamilies Center. The Center is a collaborationo three non-prot providers, Family Healthand Birth Center, Healthy Babies Projectand Nation’s Capitol Child and FamilyDevelopment. They are currently providingservices to Carver Terrace and Trinidad/Ivy City, low-income housing communitiesin Northwest DC, where there has beensignicant statistical documentation on the

decrease in childbirth disparities in the area(Family Health and Birth Center, 2010).

A third potential partner or this newprogram is Urban Bridge Builders (UBB),one o the organizations that played a keyrole in bringing the new playground toHopkins Apartments. UBB is in the processo developing a New/Expectant ParentsProgram, which would provide physical,emotional and spiritual parental mentoringand counseling. UBB is looking or our to12 parents to serve as the rst cohort o theprogram.

Job Training

The high percentage o unemployed orunderemployed residents at Potomac-Hop-kins hinders the earning potential o theseindividuals. Without proper skills training,

residents may not be able to nd long-term,steady employment that will enable them toimprove their economic standing. For people

who have already received their high schooldiploma or GED, job training may create amuch needed link to living wage employ-ment that could allow them to become less

reliant on government assistance.

In a survey conducted by UBB, Hopkins residents

indicated their interest in carpentry, plumbing,and electrical training (Urban Bridge Builders,2010). Apprenticeship programs to developskills in these areas would allow participants to

ease into employment while earning income.

Faithworks has already recruited one suchprogram, Get it Right Home Improvement, a

home improvement contractor, to train and su-pervise older youth in construction skills.

This eort has grown into a DCHA aliated

training course. Faithworks is in the process o implementing another resident training programocused on site-based community improvementprojects, including building a community gar-

den and youth recording studio. Similar eorts

or Potomac-Hopkins youth are being plannedthrough DC’s Summer Youth Employment pro-

gram. Additional employment opportunities orresidents will become available i the communitymanagement program is continued throughoutthe redevelopment process.

Due the nature o job training programs, many o these activities would take place o-site, possiblyon the job or at a training acility. Hosting these

trainings o-site normalizes the routine o leavinghome each day, thus easing the transition rom

unemployment to a regular working schedule.

AUXILIARY SERVICES

In addition to providing educational opportuni-

ties and job training, residents voiced the needor continuing education that could help em-ployees advance in their elds. Tenants who havebeen able to secure employment oten remain

at a disadvantage due to the lack o additionaleducation within their positions.

Many workers also need assistance with coveringtransportation costs and nding aordable work-orce clothing. As a way to oset the cost o pub-lic transit, DCHA could collaborate with WMATA to




oer discounted ares to public housing resi-dents traveling to and rom work; discountsare already available to senior citizens and thedisabled. Dress or Success, a local non-prot

that promotes economic independence orlow-income women, oers complimentarybusiness suits to those who have a pending

interview, and they can receive a second suitonce a job has been secured.

Because a large percentage o residents at

public housing residents are single mothers,securing childcare is critical to maintaining

steady job training and employment. Facili-tating an on-site childcare option, or inorm-

ing residents o accessible childcare options,can remove some o the barriers aced bysingle mothers searching or quality daycare.

For residents struggling with health andmobility limitations, receiving the properassistance could be the rst step in breaking

barriers to employment. Common ailmentsmay include asthma, arthritis, hypertension,and/or depression. Although obesity is a

major concern or many residents, it usu-ally occurs as a result o the aorementionedconditions (United States Congress, 2007).On-site service providers who specialize in

physical therapy and psychological counsel-ing could help residents learn to overcometheir physical and mental challenges with theultimate goal o securing steady employment

or pursuing educational opportunities.

LOCATION OF OFF-SITE SERVICES


The project team recommends these serviceswould be best located at a nearby o-site a-cility such as a neighborhood school or healthclinic due to the overlapping objectives o these types o institutions. Possible locationsinclude Tyler Elementary School and theUnity Health Care clinic at DC General Hos-

pital, which already provides a DC Title X FamilyPlanning program and is located about one milerom Potomac-Hopkins at 1900 MassachusettsAvenue, SE.

Job Training

There are several job training centers in theDistrict that can be utilized by Potomac-Hopkins residents seeking employment. Theseinclude So Others Might Eat (SOME) Centeror Employment Training and Jubilee Jobs.Additionally, DCHA seeks to strengthen its ownworkorce development program at the Greenlea

Family Resource Center. Each o these housesunique programs that may appeal to residents atPotomac-Hopkins.

The SOME Center or Employment Trainingoers three courses o study that aim to connectparticipants to living wage, high-growth elds:Business & Customer Relations Associate,Medical Administrative Assistant, and BuildingMaintenance Service Technician. Students canexpect to spend approximately six months intheir respective programs; however, times may

vary due to the sel-paced nature o the classes.In 2009, 87 percent o people who completedthe program ound jobs upon graduation. Theyearned an average o $12.06 an hour, and 80percent o the jobs provided them with ullbenets. Trainings take place at the SolomonG. Brown Center in the Anacostia section o Southeast DC – only 1.5 miles rom Potomac-Hopkins (So Others Might Eat, 2010).

At Jubilee Jobs, located in Northwest DC,participants are paired with career counselorswho assist them throughout the job search

process until they secure employment. Interestedpersons must attend one o the weeklyorientations beore deciding whether or notto commit to the program. Those who chooseto stay work with counselors to evaluate theirspecic job skills and personal circumstances.They also receive interview and résumé preparation, as well as post-interview eedback




rom counselors. Ater participants nd jobs,Jubilee continues to work with them on jobretention eorts and measures their progress.The next step or successul participants is tobecome Achievers. This means they earn atleast $8.00 an hour, have employer-sponsoredmedical insurance, use community resources

to urther their employment and give back tothe community (Jubilee Jobs, 2010).

Currently, DCHA is attempting to strengthenits in-house workorce training eorts atthe Greenlea Family Resource Center inSouthwest DC. On-site service providerFaithworks is working with DCHA to createa job training curriculum or Potomac-Hopkins residents that would prepare themor the programs held at Greenlea. Throughthis process, participants rom Potomac-Hopkins would have greater opportunitiesto link with other high-quality employmentopportunities.

CURRENT EVALUATION METHODS

In March 2009, Howard University released itsindependent report “Second Intermediate Evalu-ation o the Community Supportive Services

Program at Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg Dwell-ings in the District o Columbia.” As mandated

by HOPE VI legislation, the study examines thestatus o existing programs at the redeveloped

site compared to the baseline study conductedin 2007. Through interviews with service organi-zations, case managers, and residents, research-ers assessed participation rates among persons

reerred to programs, the mixture o availableservices, and tenants’ unaddressed needs. Morespecically, they covered topics related to case

management, employment status, adult educa-tion, transportation, childcare, substance abusecounseling, lease maintenance, homeownership

preparation and entrepreneurship interests.

Although the Howard University study capturesthe quantitative aspects o the current services, itlacks eective qualitative measurements. Whilegures can refect the number o people whoare involved in specic activities, they do notshow how well those programs address residents’needs. As new programs are developed, it is

Early childhood education plays

a pivotal role in the Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative.




imperative to track how well these servicesperorm rom their launch. Service providersshould solicit eedback rom residents on anongoing basis and conduct ull individualsurveys at the six-month and one-year marks.It is critical to take an in-depth and regularlook at the impact o supportive services sothat providers can make adjustments sooneri they realize that current methods are notworking. Examples o sample qualitativeevaluation questions can be ound in the theAppendix.

BUDGET

Given the absence o specic languageregarding the CSS unding allocationor Choice Neighborhoods in the dratlegislation, the project team based itsbudgeting assumptions on the guidelinesoutlined 2009 HOPE VI NOFA. HOPE VI allows

housing authorities to use up to 15 percento the grant or resident services. However,housing authorities are required to supplymatching unds or any amount between veand 15 percent o this budget.

The project team drated a ve-year servicesbudget based on existing services and proposednew services estimated at an annual budgeto $2,645,000, o which $2,430,000 representsnew proposed services and $215,000 o currentservices. This gure does not include $50,000o donated services. Assuming that the annual$215,000 will continue to be secured romoutside sources, the remaining services amountto $12,150,000 or ve years ($2,430,000 x 5).Assuming a CNI award o $35 million, 15 percento this gure equals $5,250,000, or $1,050,000 peryear. This requires DCHA to secure an additional$1,380,000 per year rom outside sources, such ascity and state unds and oundations.

The ve-year services operating budget andpotential unding sources or proposed newservices can be ound in the Appendix.

Potomac-Hopkins residents indicate they

would like more job training opportunities.




The ollowing relocation phasing plan hasbeen devised to minimize disturbance toresidents on-site. In particular the plan looksto minimize the number o households thatneed to move more than once. See relocationstrategy diagram in Section 6 or more details.

FLEXIBILITY THROUGH MANAGED

VACANCY

According to inormation provided by theDCHA, Potomac-Hopkins are composedo 500 aordable housing units, o which

450 are presently occupied. Further,DCHA sta indicate that annual turnoveris approximately six to seven percent o occupied units. It is recommended that theDCHA rerain rom re-renting units duringthe year leading up to the redevelopment’santicipated start date. In so doing, the500-unit site will house approximately423 households once redevelopmentcommences.

BUILD FIRST – ACQUIRING AND BUILDING

AT THE SALVATION ARMY SITE

The keystone to the relocation plan is theacquisition o the Salvation Army site atthe corner o 12th and G streets, SE. It isbelieved that this site can be acquiredor approximately $1.3 million based onthe assessed property value rom taxrecords. Both scenarios, outlined in theDesign Alternatives (Section 6), locate 10townhomes, consisting o a total 30 units

on this site. The intention is to relocate residentscurrently living at the three Hopkins buildings atthe southwest corner o the 12th and K streets(currently two and three-bedroom units) intothese new units, as well as any vacancies in thePotomac Gardens buildings. Once vacated thesebuildings can then be demolished in order todevelop the highest density properties includedin the design plans. Once built these buildingswill allow much more fexibility or the relocationo the remainder o existing residents.

PRIMARY CONCERN OF PHASING – TAX CREDIT

FINANCE

The relocation plan is designed to incorporate thephasing necessary to maximize subsidy or theoverall redevelopment plan. In particular, the DCQualied Allocation Plan (QAP) restricts project-by-project contributions to $1 million in ninepercent competitive tax credits annually (or a$10 million, 10-year award). In order to maximizethe equity available rom this source, the planwill incorporate our phases, one per year orour years. By selecting specic properties, and

moving quickly through the relocation plan, theplan can include approximately $40 million innine percent tax credits, yielding approximately$35.1 million in cash equity. The remainingproperties that include aordable units in eachphase shall incorporate non-competitive ourpercent credits. Specic details regarding theamount and phasing o the tax credit nancingare contained in the nancial pro ormas on theenclosed CD.

RELOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS




HAYES VALLEY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Beore its HOPE VI redevelopment in 1995,Hayes Valley in San Francisco, CA experi-

enced similar problems to the ones ound atPotomac-Hopkins. Plagued by an entrencheddrug culture and requent violence, HayesValley became known as “Death Valley.” It alsocontained a mixture o young proessionals

and working class residents, mirroring theeconomic demographics o the area sur-rounding Potomac-Hopkins. Additionally, like

Washington, DC, which has seen real estateprices rise tremendously over the last decade,San Francisco has long been considered one

o the most expensive housing markets inthe country. These conditions have made thesearch or aordable housing extremely di-cult in both cities.

As part o the redevelopment eorts, theSan Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA)wanted to better integrate the site into the

neighborhood. They accomplished this bycreating three- to our-story townhouses thatace the street with private entrances. Muchlike Potomac-Hopkins, the ormer structures

spread across multiple blocks, which gavethem an overwhelming presence in theneighborhood. During the reconstruction

phase, 60 percent o Hayes Valley residentswere relocated to other public housing sites,and the remaining 40 percent opted to useSection 8 vouchers in the private market.

SFHA consulted with housing specialists toassist residents seeking private housing. Theyalso appointed six tenant advocates whoacted as liaisons between the residents and

the housing authority throughout the mov-ing process.

SFHA estimates that 35 percent o originalresidents returned to the redeveloped site,but a 2002 study conducted by Abt Associ-ates, Inc. and the Urban Institute ound a

higher number – 44 percent – came back. They

cite the high cost o San Francisco housing asone o the primary reasons or the high rate o

return. They also credit the resident managementorganization with adopting a re-entry screeningpolicy that allowed many o the original ten-ants to return. Under this policy, residents with

drug oenses and substance abuse problemscould move back as long as they had not been introuble within the last two and a hal years. Those

who chose to return did so under the conditionthey would enroll in the Family Sel-Suciency

program and passed criminal background andcredit checks.

Seventy percent o original Hayes Valley residentsindicate they are “somewhat satised” or “verysatised” with their new accommodations.However, even though physical conditionsimproved or residents, many o the working-agetenants still nd it dicult to maintain ull-timeemployment. Just over 30 percent o them work ull-time, and 20 percent work part-time. Voucherholders are the most likely to be employed at

41 percent, while Hayes Valley returnees reportonly a 28 percent ull-time employment rate.In the year prior to the Abt study, 43 percent o respondents received welare benets. Eighty-vepercent earned incomes below 30 percent o thearea median income (Buron, et al. 2002).

Between 35 percent and 44 percent of the original residents

returned to Hayes Valley in San Francisco, CA after the comple-

tion of its HOPE VI redevelopment.

CASE STUDY IN RESIDENT RELOCATION




UNIT MIX

The project team was conronted with the challenge o providing on-site units or each householdcurrently residing at Potomac Gardens and Hopkins. This challenge was an important, yet

ormidable one. The team ocused on providing on-site units or current residents rather thanproviding one-or-one replacement o all 500 public housing authority (PHA) units. The rationalesbehind this are:

• The primary concern or unit replacement in redevelopment is avoiding the dislocation o the community by relegating community members o-site

• The intention o Choice Neighborhoods is to provide mixed-income communities, therebyreducing the concentration o poverty. It was clear early in our analysis that well-designedincreases in on-site density would not be sucient to provide a realistic balance and keepall 500 PHA/ACC subsidized units on-site

To arrive at an appropriate gure or the number o units required to provide an on-site unit oreach existing household, several actors were considered:

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

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

• The DCHA estimated the likelihood that, i oered outright, 40 percent o on-site residenthouseholds would preer to accept a Section 8 voucher than remain on-site. That said,the project team understood that the DCHA sought to discourage this behavior and so itis estimated that just 20 percent o those oered a voucher would accept once educatedabout this value and the plan or the development.

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

The design scenarios provide or unit mixes that incorporate one, two, and three-bedroom unitsat average unit sizes o 700, 900, and 1,200 square eet, respectively, conorming to the QualiedAllocation Plan (QAP) and various other policy restrictions. The unit mix o occupied PHA unitswas then evaluated, and the rent roll was reviewed to identiy over-housing and under-housing.The analysis identied the need or 166 one-bedroom units, 143 two-bedroom units, and 141three-bedroom units to accommodate the 450 presently occupied units. The project team believesthat this mix o PHA units is balanced, and not only refects the present need, but the need in the

neighborhood going orward or aordable housing units. The project team chose to maintainthe same ratio o unit sizes, and uniormly adjust the gure downward by 20 percent or use inthe 360-unit scenario, yielding 135 one-bedroom units, 113 two-bedroom units, and 112 three-bedroom units.

FINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Unit Mixes 2-BR 3-BR

360 PHA Units 113 112

450 PHA Units 143 141

Summary Table 1: PHA Unit Mix




Next, the project team sought to devise a unit mix that would cater to an optimal mix o incomes,considering the aorementioned constraint o a minimum o 360 or 450 PHA units. Market researchshowed that the neighborhood was adequately providing market-rate rental and homeownershipopportunities, which were accessible to those earning approximately 55 percent o Washington’s AreaMedian Income (AMI). The units at the project site were providing housing to those earning between0-10 percent o AMI as well, and those are slated to be replaced. As such, the project team targeted

nancing models that would achieve the ollowing goals:

• Maintain 360-450 PHA units

• Provide housing to those earning between 10-55 percent o AMI

• Improve the social situation on-site and integrate the site eectively within the neighborhoodsurrounding it

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

% LIHTC Units % Market Rate Units % Total

Scenario 1

360 PHA Units 57.4% 153 24.4% 114 18.2% 627

450 PHA Units 71.9% 88 14.1% 88 14.1% 626

Scenario 2

360 PHA Units 54.0% 181 27.1% 126 18.9% 667

450 PHA Units 68.0% 121 18.3% 91 13.7% 662

LIHTC Units

Due to Washington’s high AMI o $102,700, LIHTC units, which target aordability to those householdsearning 45-60 percent o AMI, provide a signicant solution to lack o workorce housing on site.Civil servants and many government workers that live nearby t within this range. Providing LIHTC-nanced units enables the project to attract an important link in the mixed-income aordabilitychain, while using signicant available subsidy to do so. Ultimately, the PHA unit constraint limited thenumber o LIHTC units that could be provided. Though one-third o the development would be ideal,under a 360 PHA unit scenario, 24 percent and 27 percent were achieved in the two dierent designscenarios. The gure dropped to just 14 percent in a 450 PHA units scenario.

Market-Rate Units

Although the neighborhood surrounding the project site has attracted many market-rate owners andtenants, the project team elt it was important to incorporate a segment o market rate units on-site aswell. This decision communicates the importance o true mixed-income, and it achieves an importantgoal o placing residents on-site that are more like the those living in the immediately adjacent blocks.The project team believes that this will make the site more inviting to neighbors, improve neighboring

property values (to help gain support or the project), and eectively work to integrate the sitewithin the neighborhood in a way that has been lacking since its original development. Thoughthe conventional target or such units would be one-third o the development, due to the PHA unitconstraint, and the degree o available market-rate units in the immediate vicinity, the project teamtargeted 18-19 percent o units in a 360 PHA unit scenario, and 14 percent in a 450 PHA unit scenario.It should be noted that this is where the project team believes the 450 PHA unit scenario ails, as it isunlikely that market rate tenants will be satised living in such a minority within the project.

Summary Table 2: Overall Unit Mix




Project-Based Section 8 Units

The remaining aordability gap between10 percent and 45 percent o AMI remainedthe greatest challenge. Though the DCHAindicated that this was consistently a

problem, and one that was rarely rectied,the best possible solution identied wasthe use o Project-Based Section 8 undingor approximately 25 percent o the PHAunits. Indeed, this is likely a more long-termsolution to a current problem, as currentresidents o the project site will initiallyoccupy these units, but this unding sourceprovides greater uture fexibility with respectto aordability limits. As turnover occurs, it isrecommended that the DCHA rent these unitsto households that all within this gap. There

are two primary reasons or this:

• These households are typicallyunderserved in the District.

• Closing the aordability gap alsomeans closing a social cleavageon-site. The existence o such uturetenants on site has the potential toimprove the acceptance o tax credittenants toward PHA tenants, andvice-versa, as discussed briefy in thecore issues section o this report.

No Homeownership Included

The project team elected not to includehomeownership units, be they market rateor aordable, primarily or social and politicalreasons. First, it is widely recognized thatthe immediately surrounding neighborhoodattracts market-rate homeowners in asignicant way. As such, the project teamwas concerned that the development o market-rate homeownership units would

be distasteul to the existing residents –potentially viewed as a needless usurpationo community property. Further, the projectteam considered the existing challengesbetween neighbors and site residents. As itis recommended that the DCHA been seenunequivocal in its encouraging existingresidents to stay at the project site, the

project team was concerned market rate homeownership units would be a tough sell in themarket where such concerns regarding the sitepopulation are rampant. By contrast, tenantsare more likely to ‘take a chance’ on the productoering up ront as they have the ability to vacate

their units in a short period o time i they aredissatised.

Once the project team concluded that market-rate homeownership should be avoided,the inclusion o aordable homeownershipbecame more problematic as it would serveto urther reduce the number o market rateand LIHTC units on the site, due to inherentdensity constraints. It was elt that maintainingthe appropriate number o PHA units, whilesmoothing out the mixed-income scale was

more important than providing a ew aordablehomeownership units, particularly when they hadbeen recently established at the DCHA’s nearbyCapper site.

FINANCING RECOMMENDATIONS

Primary Funding Sources

Choice Neighborhoods

The primary goal o this redevelopment plan wasto maximize the use o Choice Neighborhoods

Initiative (CNI) grants, anticipated later in 2010.HUD Budgets and releases seem to indicatethat grant amounts will provide between $35million and $50 million in gross unding, but thatsignicant leverage is sought. While leveragingnon-housing related unding sources seemsto be a primary way to qualiy or the grant, itis important to understand that non-housingunds are exactly that – unds to be spent onneighborhood improvement costs other thanhousing. As such, leverage alone does notincrease the available unding required or

housing. That said, the ecient use o mixednance, and the employment o a mixed-incomestrategy has enabled the project team to leveragea $35 million (anticipated) grant greater thanour to one (4.4 to 1 and 4.9 to 1). This is also atestament to the eciency o the recommendeddesigns as they minimize costs to denseaordable housing.




Tax Credits

The project team recommends that LIHTC credits be used to the greatest extent possible. Recentchanges to the program, particularly the appreciation o nine percent credits, have made this a fexibleand invaluable program or such a development. Further, over 80 percent o the program qualies as

housing aordable to those earning less than 60 percent o the AMI, and thereby qualiying or taxcredits. The project’s size is signicant, though, and as discussed in the phasing plan, phasing is veryimportant to maximizing access to nine percent competitive credits. Nevertheless, wide use o ourpercent credits over the $10 million cap per phase is expected to provide over $26 million in additionalcash equity nancing upon syndication.

HOME Funds & Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

A central component to both design scenarios is the development o green space and improvementsin integration and connectivity throughout the site. The project team believes that Washington,DC CDBG unding can go a long way to providing support or these improvement and to makingthis redevelopment a success. In addition to CDBG unding, the city can help by providing a HOME

allocation as well. The project team oresees $4 million in combined CDBG/HOME unding beingallocated over the lie o the project, and dispersed across the phases.

Taxable and Tax-Exempt Debt

The high market rental rates available in the neighborhood, the attractive air market rents dictatedby HUD or use in project-based Section 8 units, and the correspondingly high LIHTC rent limits willprovide the redeveloped site with signicant positive cash fow or those units. This provides thesite with a unique opportunity to saely carry signicant debt. Indeed, 28-29 percent o the TotalDevelopment Cost shall be nanced with taxable and tax-exempt bonds provided by the privatemarket and the DC Housing Finance Agency. Taxable bonds will be used to nance those units thatincorporate nine percent tax credits. Taxable bonds are presently or 30 years at 5.17 percent interest.

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

Scenario 1-360 Scenario 1-450 Scenario 2-360 Scenario 2-450

Market Rate Unit Debt $17,910,825 $13,941,910 $19,221,189 $14,009,954

LIHTC Unit Debt $15,179,150 $8,679,250 $17,991,814 $11,665,059

Project-Based Section 8 Unit Debt $11,795,693 $15,341,003 $11,486,383 $14,574,453

Choice Neighborhoods Grant $29,750,000 $29,750,000 $29,750,000 $29,750,000

Combined HOME/CDBG Funds $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000

DCHA Capital Fund Allocation $5,156,244 $13,351,670 $10,850,187 $21,150,828

Deferred Development Fees $3,871,046 $2,828,506 $5,954,644 $3,876,282

Market Rate Unit Investor Equity $4,934,891 $3,885,480 $6,755,955 $4,714,821

9% Tax Credit Equity $35,100,000 $35,100,000 $35,100,000 $35,100,000


Total $154,277,069 $155,307,231 $172,040,336 $171,965,399

Summary Table 3: Sources of Funds




MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

In order to evaluate the scal balance o the project, a general nancing model wascrated. The model considered the individualnancing o each unit type by subsidy, and

then rolled up to an overarching sourcesand uses statement and general pro orma.It is important to note that while these unittypes were evaluated separately, they areintermixed in each o the properties to bedeveloped, and so in reality, some crosssubsidy does occur. This is ultimately takeninto consideration in the rolled up sourcesand uses statement. The primary assumptionso this model are as ollows:

Construction Costs

To most accurately obtain development costprojections, construction cost per square ootwere obtained rom RSMeans CostWorks. Theprimary typologies used in the developmentwere three-story walk up, and midrise (ourto six stories). Hard costs, including a 10percent contingency were estimated at $124and $128 per square oot, respectively. Sotcosts were calculated using estimated inputbased on comparable aordable housingdevelopments, which provided a weightedaverage sot cost per square oot o $57, also

including a 10 percent contingency. Thisgure was applied to both typologies. Finally,a $25 per square oot charge was levied pergross square oot or site work and associatedinrastructure costs. At an average unit sizeo just over 1,000 square eet, this equates toapproximately $25,000 per unit .

These costs seem reasonable in comparisonto other DCHA projects o similar magnitude.Capitol Gateway, a HOPE VI project inNortheast DC completed in 2008, eatured

761 units o a variety o typologies. Totalproject cost was estimated at $157.1 million,or an average o approximately $206,000 perunit. The project team has estimated a higherper unit cost or the redevelopment at over$240,000, depending on the scenario.

Market Rate Units

Market rate units are nanced with taxable bondsand investor/developer equity. The relativediculty to develop in this area is made clearthrough a rather low 6.0-6.4 percent implied

ingoing cap rate – indicating that costs o development should yield just 6.0-6.4 percent inNet Operating Income in the rst year (stabilized).Nevertheless, the social and design goals o theproperty help to justiy the development o theseunits to the developer.

Incorporated within the evaluation o the marketrate units is approximately 3,657 square eet o retail space to be located at 12th and K streets,in Southeast. This piece o property has beenconservatively underwritten, including a 30percent vacancy rate, at just $12 per square ootin the rst year. Such conservatism has beenincorporated because o the odd space provided.

LIHTC Units

LIHTC units have been exclusively underwrittenusing debt (approximately 45-47 percentdepending on the scenario), LIHTC credits (bothnine percent and our percent), and a deerreddevelopment ee o between $1.8 million and$3.6 million, depending on the design scenario.This deerred development ee is expected to

take between 5-10 years to recoup throughexcess cash-fow. This nancing structuresupports units aordable to those making 60percent o AMI, assuming that the average rentsrealized are actually 10 percent lower than thelimit itsel. The result is 153 to 181 aordable unitsthat incorporate between $18.5 million and $21million in LIHTC subsidy.

Project-Based Section 8 Units

Due to attractive air market rents, project-basedSection 8 nanced units are quite easy to nanceat the site. The ongoing cash stream availablerom the Section 8 voucher enables 60-64 percentleverage on cost or these units, coupled with$10-10.5 million in combined tax credits, theseunits can actually support more nancing thanthey require to build, necessitating no deerred




developer ees. The primary limiter inbuilding more o these units is the availabilityo project-based section 8 vouchers, whichhave been limited to 82-84 units (dependingon the design scenario), or approximately 25percent o the PHA unit-count.

Given the 450 currently occupied PHA units,the 360-unit PHA model will require thedistribution o 90 Section 8 vouchers orrelocation in addition to the projected 82-84project-based Section 8 vouchers dependentupon design scenario. The DCHA will have tonegotiate these measures.

Annual Contributions Contract Units (ACC)

This portion o the PHA units comprisesthe single largest group o units – 276-278

units in total. These units command $33million to $34 million in combined valueo LIHTC credits. For simplicity, 85 percento the $35 million Choice Neighborhoodsgrant has been applied to this componento the development (the remaining 15percent has been earmarked or Communityand Supportive Services purposes). Uponincluding CDBG unding to this group o units as well (ostensibly to cover their shareo inrastructure costs), these units generatebetween $5.7 million and $9 million in

excess nancing – depending on the designscenario.

REVIEW MODEL PHASE

The project team demonstrated thepracticality o the redevelopment by devisinga sample phase transaction. The project teamwas unable to determine the unit dispersionwithin the as-built buildings, so a specicphasing analysis was not possible. Thatnotwithstanding, the project team aimed to

give an understanding o what a model phasemight resemble, and did so by encompassing56 units in two buildings at proportionalmixes to the whole development plan,utilizing the aorementioned nancingsources. Total development cost or thephase is estimated at $14.8 million. It is worthnoting that the per square oot cost is slightlyhigher or this phase compared to the rest o

the model because it includes the entirety o theacquisition costs o the existing Salvation Armysite.

Based on the Stitch alternative, this model phaseo our buildings labeled “A” and “B” used the

pro orma to identiy the debt service potentialor each property, with all o the assumptionsholding constant rom the original model.This phase was devised to maximize the use o nine percent tax credits worth $8.75 million,and coupled that source with taxable bonds.The properties can support $5.5 million indebt. The project team broke out the eligiblebasis calculations to show in detail how debtand tax credits could be supported, becausethey apply on a building-by-building basis.No DCHA capital allocation unding would be

required in this transaction as the addition o Choice Neighborhoods Grant and HOME/CDBGunding proportionate to the percentage o allunits in the plan that shall be developed in thistransaction, potentially generates $2.5 million inexcess unding. It is anticipated that the DCHAwould couple a nine percent tax credit phasesuch as this with a our percent tax credit deal o a ew other buildings during each true phase o construction during the ve-year spending termanticipated rom Choice Neighborhoods, in orderto achieve the necessary number o units in this

time span, and maximize the available subsidy.Sources and Uses – Rolled Up

When the sources and uses statements, andpro orma statements, or each type o unit isrolled up into a single overall developmentsources and uses statement, the potential or thisdevelopment plan is as ollows.

THE “STITCH” ALTERNATIVE

The Stitch alternative would be a $154 million

development, incorporating 627 units overall.Average unit costs would be approximately$220,000 on a weighted average basis, net o acquisition costs, or a total cost o $228 per grosssquare oot. To nance such a development, all o the aorementioned sources would be used, andwould require the DCHA to contribute just $5.1million in capital allocations over ve years, andnegotiate $3.87 million in deerred development




ees. The development would leverage over $60 million cash rom nine percent and our percent taxcredits, and 29 percent o the development would be nanced by debt.

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

THE “CATALYST” ALTERNATIVE

The Catalyst alternative would generate additional density, placing 667 units on site at a total cost o $172 million, or approximately $223,000 per unit on a weighted average basis, net o acquisition costs.Such a development would command $66 million in combined tax credits, and support 28 percentleverage. The total costs to the DCHA capital allocation und would be approximately $10.8 million,assuming $6 million in deerred developers ees could be negotiated. As a result, scenario two wouldhave to be justied by its unique design, the number o PHA units created in this scenario would bethe same (360). However, this scenario does, perhaps, do a better job o reducing the concentration o poverty on-site, or the additional cost.

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

To nance this project, the DCHA would need to allocate more than $21 million dollars to complete.Leverage on this project is quite low at 23 percent on aggregate. While the additional 40 unitsprovided in this alternative make the 450 PHA units comparatively less expensive, this option stillseems untenable considering the additional cost.

Scenario 1-360 Scenario 1-450 Scenario 2-360 Scenario 2-450

Sources of Funds

Market Rate Unit Debt $17,910,825 $13,941,910 $19,221,189 $14,009,954

LIHTC Unit Debt $15,179,150 $8,679,250 $17,991,814 $11,665,059

Project-Based Section 8 Unit Debt $11,795,693 $15,341,003 $11,486,383 $14,574,453

Choice Neighborhoods Grant $29,750,000 $29,750,000 $29,750,000 $29,750,000Combined HOME/CDBG Funds $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000

DCHA Capital Fund Allocation $5,156,244 $13,351,670 $10,850,187 $21,150,828

Deferred Development Fees $3,871,046 $2,828,506 $5,954,644 $3,876,282

Market Rate Unit Investor Equity $4,934,891 $3,885,480 $6,755,955 $4,714,821



Total Sources $154,277,069 $155,307,231 $172,040,336 $171,965,399

Uses of Funds

Acquisitions $2,260,000 $2,260,000 $2,980,000 $2,980,000

Hard Costs $101,003,673 $101,735,599 $113,432,526 $113,379,067

Soft Costs $38,461,528 $38,674,704 $41,668,700 $41,653,409Developer's Fee (9% HC+SC) $12,551,868 $12,636,927 $13,959,110 $13,952,923

Total Uses $154,277,069 $155,307,231 $172,040,336 $171,965,399

Summary Table 4: Total Sources and Uses of Funds








89.

ALTERNATIVES

DESIGN

Schematic Plans

ALTERNATIVE 1: The Stitch

ALTERNATIVE 2: The Catalyst

Block & Building Typologies




6


90.

ALTERNATIVES

DESIGN

Section 6 outlines the design alternativesrecommended by the project team or theredevelopment o Potomac Gardens andHopkins Apartments. This section begins withan overview o the three initial schematicplans that the project team presented toDCHA at the mid-point o the semester. Next,the section details the two nal alternativesdeveloped by the project team ater extensiveeedback rom DCHA and Faithworks (theon-site non-prot services coordinator) andtenant representatives. The last part o thissection provides diagrams o block typologies,a preerred townhouse building typology andrelocation strategy.

Early in this process, the project teamsynthesized the rst portion o the site analysis(ound in Section 3) into three separate

alternatives. These alternatives were presentedto DCHA. Using eedback rom DCHA, Faithworks,and tenant leaders, the project team urtheranalyzed the physical and social conditions o the Potomac-Hopkins site and developed a list o eight core issues. These core issues (detailed inSection 4) ormed the basis o the project team’sservice, nance and design recommendations.

The design recommendations described inthis section provide two vantage points on the

Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI). Withouta concrete understanding o the pending CNIlegislation, the project team believes these twoperspectives on how CNI can be applied to thephysical redevelopment o Potomac-Hopkinsprovides DCHA with a larger set o tools andgreater exibility or addressing this site.




SCHEMATIC PLANSThree initial design alternatives were constructed ater reviewing the needs assessment and identiying ourkey analysis points (Site Accessibility, Physical Design, Housing Choice, and Resident Services). These designalternatives ocus on addressing specic elements o those key analysis points.


91.




CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: SITE ACCESSIBILITY




This design scheme looks closely at housing choice andavailable space or resident services and seeks to capitalizeon existing nearby services and amenities. These services andamenities include area schools, open spaces, transit stops and

routes, and other community eatures, such as Eastern Marketand religious institutions.

Space or two established on-site service centers on thePotomac Gardens and 1200 block Hopkins sites. These servicecenters are envisioned as ground oor spaces or social serviceprogramming with residential uses on the above oors.

The scheme also extends K Street rom 12th Street to 11thStreet to connect through the Hopkins service center andprovides 805,461 square eet o residential and service space,which is 31.4 percent more than currently exists.

SCHEME 1:SERVICE HUB







This design scheme seeks to connect the existing ragmentedpublic spaces, to increase connections to o-site public spaceresources, and to increase available public and green spaces or allneighborhood residents.

Scheme 2 calls or rehabilitation o three o the upper PotomacGardens buildings, with new açades and interior designs.

Public open space is increased by way o a green corridor that runsthrough the site and connects to a larger public green space on thelower site.

This scheme calls or the closure o Potomac Avenue between 12thand 13th streets and higher density residential at the Hopkins 1200block, which provides 941,436 square eet o residential and servicespace -- 41.3 percent more than currently exists.

SCHEME 2:CONNECTED PUBLIC SPACE







Recognizing the stark contrast o the existing building design withthe surrounding neighborhood, this scheme maximizes seamlessintegration o architectural and block character. In this alternative,building character and block structure are designed to blendinto the neighborhood so that public and low-income housing is

indistinguishable rom surrounding residential properties.

Scheme 3 is an all demolition scenario in which the row home/townhouse typology is repeated throughout the site. Thisscheme emphasizes seamless integration with the surroundingneighborhood.

Scheme 3 also calls or higher density development at the Hopkins1200 block, which includes services on the rst oor. It also provides858,726 square eet o residential and service space, which is 35.4percent more than currently exists.

SCHEME 3:BLOCK & ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER










100.




ALTERNATIVE I: THE STITCH




ALTERNATIVE I: THE STITCH


102.

Alternative I: The Stitch draws on the idea o the

Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) as a tool

or stitching together a public housing site and

the surrounding community. In this perspectiveon CNI, a public housing site is “the last stitch” in

a desirable and high unctioning neighborhood.

The idea o “the Stitch” or Potomac-Hopkins is

to integrate the Potomac Gardens block through

a re-orientation o buildings and streets and to

redevelop buildings with architectural character

that reects the local vernacular and surrounding

neighborhood.

627 Units Total

513-539 Aordable Units

46.2 Units/Acre

1-bedroom units: 249



UNIT MIX




DESIGN PRINCIPLES:

UNITE DISPARATE SOCIAL & NEIGHBORHOOD FABRICS

RESTORE ECOLOGY AT NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL

SECURE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF CAPITOL HILL

The idea o the Stitch is built around three

guiding design principles. First, the Stitch

seeks to secure the residential character

o Capitol Hill by mending the divergent

architectural character o the Potomac

Gardens and Hopkins sites. This is achieved

through the construction o row houses

and new through streets that mirror the size

and scale o surrounding blocks. The second

guiding design principle or the Stitch seeks

to unite disparate social and neighborhood

abrics. Currently, the Potomac-Hopkins sites

are a series o concentrated public housingapartment buildings surrounded by a tall

ence. This principle or the Stitch is achieved

by designing a place where individual public

housing or low income housing tax creditunits are indistinguishable rom their

neighbors. This principle seeks to take down

the ence and incorporate Potomac Gardens

and Hopkins into the neighborhood in

order to mitigate visual and psychological

separation that currently exists. Lastly,

the Stitch seeks to restore ecological

integrity at the neighborhood level. The

Stitch demonstrates this idea through the

incorporation o additional green spaces, the

use o permeable pavements, stormwater

runo designs, sidewalk swales andincreased street tree planting in ront o all

new development.




PLACE QUALITIES SERVICE LOCATIONSThe Stitch creates important new place

qualities or the existing Potomac-Hopkins

sites. Through redesign o the buildings andphysical site conguration and addition o

open spaces areas and through streets, the

Stitch provides residents with small open

spaces behind their units and access to new

public space in the neighborhood. The addition

o these spaces directly addresses issues o

territorialism on both the Potomac Gardens

and Hopkins sites. The Stitch also increases

place qualities through the redevelopment

o buildings such that the design mirrors the

surrounding area. This is an important aspect

o decreasing the stigma associated with publichousing and dissolving perceived boundary

lines within the neighborhood. Continuous

small pockets o landscaping and an intact tree

canopy also play an important role in the place

qualities o the Stitch.

Both design alternatives propose a combina-

tion o housing types that include single-amily

row homes, multi-amily townhomes, and largerapartment buildings (mid- and high-rise). All

apartment buildings include a ground oor

multi-purpose room or shared use by residents.

The ollowing descriptions outline the location o

community and service spaces or each alterna-

tive:

The Stitch Alternative

This alternative is largely characterized by multi-

amily townhomes that match the character

o the surrounding neighborhood. Four largerapartment buildings are scattered throughout

the southern end o the site. Due to this building

conguration, the majority o service and recre-

ational space in the Stitch will be located on the

ground oor o building 1. This 16,900 square

oot space will eature a large community room, a

kitchen, bathrooms, and eight spaces or on-site

service providers. See oor plan (right) or details.




The Boys and Girls Club will occupy the ground oor o building 3, with o a total area o 6,000

square eet. The club is located next to ample park space and the skate park, which will support

the Boys and Girls Club’s programming o sports and other recreational activities. The currently o-

ered boxing classes and planned recording studio will also be located in that building. The close

location o these two service centers enables adults to access services in building 1, while their

children participate in youth programs at the Boys and Girls Club.

Oce Oce Oce

Oce

Oce

Oce

Oce

Oce/Flex Space

Kitchen

WCWC

Elevator/

Stairs

Community Room

WC

WC

Elevator

Boys and Girls Club

Recreational

Flex Space

Recreational Flex

Space/Recording

Studio

12 3

4

BUILDING 1 BUILDING 3





106.



CORE ISSUES 107CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010ALTERNATIVE 2: THE CATALYST




Gil haleris ce nium talatis, quam ta nonsulicae

cotem, cescem, terciendam auratum

enteataline abisquas lariviuspere nondum

dem inam porbita ora omaxim invo, ut publis

prarei senatquere tur ubisum num ut nonsu

es? Ihilicae terniri deperi spionst odiena,

inc ori consus ocatquam Romnicupios et

audessulicam et antemeneris stantem sentus

rebeerbit? Tum is nihi, ue cutem duceceps, suli est con tuis, simultorae inulisque

no. cut aperrarem quastilibunu conn tam

niuretr aeditam. Batilicae quostan tioccis

iacerni hilibulienat atus At vivehen atuderese

urbisse, Cupimmo ensulici tantercero

essum, ses convert eressedit? Satua vissa

reternum, Catum in dis consus consum treortil

Gil haleris ce nium talatis, quam ta nonsulicae

cotem, cescem, terciendam auratum

enteataline abisquas lariviuspere nondum

dem inam porbita ora omaxim invo, ut publis

prarei senatquere tur ubisum num ut nonsu

es? Ihilicae terniri deperi spionst odiena,

inc ori consus ocatquam Romnicupios et

audessulicam et antemeneris stantem sentus

rebeerbit? Tum is nihi, ue cutem duceceps, suli est con tuis, simultorae inulisque

no. cut aperrarem quastilibunu conn tam

niuretr aeditam. Batilicae quostan tioccis

iacerni hilibulienat atus At vivehen atuderese

urbisse, Cupimmo ensulici tantercero

essum, ses convert eressedit? Satua vissa

reternum, Catum in dis consus consum treortil

ALTERNATIVE II: THE CATALYST


108.

Alternative II: The Catalyst is the project team’s

second perspective on the Choice Neighbor-

hoods Initiative (CNI). This alternative envisions

CNI as a tool in which redevelopment o a publichousing site transorms the neighborhood. In this

perspective on CNI, a public housing site acts as

a catalyst, exerting a transormative orce on the

surrounding community. The idea o “the Cata-

lyst” or Potomac-Hopkins is to create a unique

series o places throughout the Potomac Gardens

block and a large increase in and variety o open

public spaces.

667 Units Total541-574 Aordable Units

49.2 Units/Acre




UNIT MIX




DESIGN PRINCIPLES:

SUPPORT URBAN CHARACTER & APPROPRIATE DENSITY

ELEVATE THE PUBLIC REALM & NATURAL SYSTEMS

REINFORCE & RECONSTRUCT THE IDEA OF PLACE

Like the Stitch, design recommendations orthe Catalyst are guided by a set o designprinciples. First, this design alternative seeksto reinorce and reconstruct the idea o placewithin the Potomac-Hopkins neighborhood.Washington, DC is a city o unique places andneighborhoods, and this design envisionsthe Potomac-Hopkins sites as one o thoseunique places and neighborhoods.

The second principle is that the Catalyst willsupport urban character and appropriatedensity. Currently, the building styles andphysical design o the Potomac-Hopkins sitesare not related to the surrounding area. Thisconguration impedes urther compatible

density, and the Catalyst addresses this issue byincluding a mix o townhomes and larger scaleapartment buildings. Lastly, the Catalyst willelevate the public realm and natural systems o this area, through the inclusion o distinct andvaried park spaces, ecologically appropriatelandscaping elements and stormwatermanagement techniques. The Potomac-Hopkinsneighborhood currently lacks adequate publicgreen space or passive and active recreation,

and the open space made available to Potomac-Hopkins residents is concrete, devoid o vegetation and enced into the interior o thesites. The Catalyst provides a gradient o publicspace by incorporating a variety o passive andactive recreation spaces into the design.




PLACE QUALITIESThe Catalyst alternative is designed aroundthe idea o place-making and reects this ideain the myriad details built into this design.First, the decision to bend the road throughthe Potomac-Gardens block creates a series o vistas and small stopping points throughout theblock. The green median gradually increases inwidth, creating a passive open space that leadsinto an active green space at Potomac Avenue.

Here, Potomac Avenue is closed, yet maintainsthe linear orm intended in the L’Enant Plan.The Catalyst envisions this space as a recessed,wide and active lawn that allows or a varietyo activity. The park area is surrounded by plazaspace and bookended by an open plaza spaceon the northeast end and a kiosk structure at thesouthwest end. From there, the green space leads

into the recreation area located at the Hopkinssites. In this alternative, the southeast terminuso Potomac Avenue is ramed by a higher densityapartment building, which also contains on-siteservices. This scenario creates active and passiveplaces throughout the sites and new open spacesthat are available to the surrounding community.

On the Potomac Gardens block, the Catalyst

creates a distinct character that is currentlymissing in the neighborhood. Townhomes andtaller apartment buildings are mixed togetherand set at angles to each other in order to createvisual interest and to rame smaller spacesthroughout the block. Compared to the Stitch,the Catalyst creates a wider variety o experiencesor residents and visitors alike.




SERVICE LOCATIONS

OceOce

Oce

Oce

Kitchen WC

WC

Community Room

WC

Oce

Oce

WC

WC

Recreational

Flex Space

Recreational Flex

Space/Recording

Studio

Boys and Girls Club

Elevator

The Catalyst Alternative

The Catalyst alternative eatures more large

apartment buildings than the Stitch, including

the two prominent buildings at the northern

end o the site. Services will be distributed

across the site in this alternative. Seven thou-

sand square eet o service space will be lo-

cated on the ground oor o building 1. On the

southern end o the site, building 4 will contain

the new Boys and Girls Club (6,000 square eet)and an additional 4,000 square eet o on-site

service space, which will also house a desig-

nated area or boxing classes and the recording

studio. Like the Stitch, this location is ideal or

its close proximity to the adjacent open space,

skate park and basketball courts. See oor plans

(above and to the right) or details.

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 1

1

2

34

5




1- and 3-Bedroom

Apartments2-Bedroom Apartments

2-Bedroom Apartment

862 Sqft

2-Bedroom Apartment

862 Sqft

3-Bedroom Apartment

1,041 Sqft1-Bedroom Apartment

686 Sqft

Stairs to Third Floor Apartments

E t ri r t ir t c n n

T hir Fl r rtm nt

Stairs to Third Floor Apartments

MONTREAL STYLE TOWNHOMES

BUILDING TYPOLOGYIn considering a new model or apartment styleliving at Potomac-Hopkins that might betterrespond to the context o the surroundingneighborhood, the rst thought or many isthe townhome, one or two apartments peroor. However, it might become an unsaeenvironment with so many amilies sharinga single stair, or expensive i every time one

member o one o the amilies loses a key andDCHA has to change the locks and providenew keys to all households involved. Aboveall else, the ability to have your own door canpotentially instill residents with a stronger senseo ownership and responsibility within thecommunity.

At the core o this model is the interior andexterior circulation system that allows each amily

to have their own ront door and stair. As seen in thethree oor plans below, the rst oor apartments havetheir own doors o o the street. One can access thesecond and third oors by the exterior stair with thesecond oor apartments having doors that come o o that second oor landing. The third oor householdsgain access to their own apartments through the twodoors in the middle o the second oor landing.

As seen in the two oor plans to the right, each ooro these townhomes has the potential to be eithertwo 2-bedroom units o between 790sqt and 862sqtor a 3- unit o between 980sqt and 1,041sqt and a1-bedroom unit o between 618sqt and 686sqt. Theability to mix and match within the larger townhomegives DCHA the ability to cater their buildings to thetypes o households they would like to provide orwithout jeopardizing the architectural character o thehistoric Capitol Hill neighborhood.




BLOCK TYPOLOGY: The StitchThese diagrams show block typologies or the

two design alternatives. The block typology or

The Stitch shows the uniorm townhome building

type that is integral to this alternative. This dia-

gram explains the dimensions o alleyways, land-

scaping, setback, sidewalk width and building

width. It also shows the relationship o the block

to the central landscaped median. The central

alley allows or vehicular travel and one parking

space or each building. This block structure also

allows residents to have opportunities or garden-

ing and private green spaces.




Alley

width: 25’

Landscaping

setback: 5-10’’

Apartment

buildingwidth: 65’

Townhouse

width: 18-20’

Alley

Landscaped

median

Sidewalk

width: 12’

The block typology or The Catalyst alterna-

tive demonstrates the spatial relationship

between the townhome buildings and the

larger apartment buildings, the rontage

o the larger apartment building onto the

angular landscaped median, and the network

o alleyways on the block. This diagram shows

how the buildings address the street and create

a strong street wall, and a series o interstitial

spaces throughout the block.

BLOCK TYPOLOGY: The Catalyst




RELOCATION STRATEGY As discussed in the Relocation Recommendations in Section 5,the relocation plan will be based on a build-rst strategy, whichnecessitates the acquisition and demolition o the SalvationArmy building at the corner o 12th and G streets. This areawill allow or 30 units o new housing. Residents currently

living in the three Hopkins buildings at the southwest cornero 12th and K streets will be relocated to these new units, aswell as vacant units at Potomac Gardens and eastern Hopkinsbuildings.

Buildings of residents

to relocation

Resident Movement

into vacancies in Po-

tomac Gardens

First Phase of Building

- Build First

RELOCATION SCHEME

Scenarios 1 & 2

Purchase and DemoSalvation Army

Building



UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA l DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNINGA116




appendix


116.

CONTEXT MAPSSchools & OrganizationsNeighborhood Services

Demographic Inormation

Market Overview

Sample Qualitative Evaluation Questions

5-year CSS Budget & Funding Sources

Reerences & Image Credits

Acknowledgements




schools & organizationsPOTOMA C GA RD ENS & H OPK INS public school

charter school public housing site

religious organizations

military neighborhood boundary



APPENDIX A119CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS STUDIO SPRING 2010

neighborhood SERVICESPOTOMA C GA RD ENS & H OPK INSpublic school

charter school human services

child care services

5 minute walk

10 minute walk




DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Population

Area 2000 2009 2014

Census Tract 68.02 2,029 2,231 2,325

Census Tract 68.04 2,640 2,677 2,696

Census Tract 69 1,805 2,003 2,087

Census Tract 70 2,142 2,110 2,111

Census Tract 71 2,780 2,811 2,832

Census Tract 72 1,853 2,044 2,162

Potomac Gardens n/a 624 n/a

Hopkins Apartments n/a 408 n/a

Total n/a 1,032 n/a

Study Area 13,249 13,876 14,213

Washington, DC 572,059 591,721 604,029

Sources: Policy Map; Washington, DC Housing Authority

Households

Area 2000 2009 2014

Census Tract 68.02 921 942 990

Census Tract 68.04 180 246 282

Census Tract 69 929 1,065 1,117

Census Tract 70 1,044 1,056 1,066

Census Tract 71 1,081 1,120 1,138

Census Tract 72 859 962 1,026

Potomac Gardens* n/a 345 n/a

Hopkins Apartments* n/a 155 n/a

Total n/a 500 n/a

Study Area 5,014 5,391 5,619

Washington, DC 248,590 260,749 267,772


Income

Area 2000 2009 2014

Census Tract 68.02 $39,097 $54,769 $63,077

Census Tract 68.04 $31,000 $38,750 $45,000

Census Tract 69 $51,438 $74,177 $85,363

Census Tract 70 $67,109 $90,878 $102,500

Census Tract 71 $25,022 $35,172 $40,096

Census Tract 72 $8,089 $12,784 $14,394

Potomac Gardens n/a $9,286 n/a

Hopkins Apartments n/a $13,975 n/a

Average n/a $10,740 n/a

Study Area $38,579 $53,382 $60,536

Washington, DC $40,127 $54,704 $62,281


Race by Percentages

Race Census Tract 71 Study Area City

White 11% 30% 36%

African American 80% 65% 53%

Asian 4% 2% 3%

Other 5% 4% 7%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Hispanic 3% 3% 8%

Source: Policy Map

Age by Percentages

Age Range Potomac Hopkins Tract 71 Study Area City

0-4 3% n/a 10% 6% 6%

5-9 8% n/a 9% 5% 5%

10-14 13% n/a 9% 5% 5%

15-19 14% n/a 8% 7% 7%

20-24 11% n/a 8% 9% 8%25-34 11% n/a 14% 19% 18%

35-44 7% n/a 14% 17% 15%

45-54 13% n/a 13% 14% 13%

55-64 9% n/a 8% 9% 11%

65-74 6% n/a 5% 5% 6%

75-84 3% n/a 2% 3% 4%

85+ 1% n/a 1% 1% 2%





Fundamentals in the Washington D.C. metro area apartment market continue to soten due to theon-going recession, but remain one o the best perorming metropolitan divisions in the US in 2009.

The average monthly absorption or new apartment communities was 15 units per month over thequarter. The average rental rate or both class A and B apartments was $1,484 per month, a dollar less

than the previous year’s average. Over all product types, vacancy is 4.3%, up rom 3.6% the previousyear, second only to New York City. (Cushman & Wakeeld Marketbeat: D.C. Multiamily Report 2Q09)

Cushman & Wakeeld orecast that due to the amount o ederal spending in the region, the DCmetro area will be one o the rst metro apartment markets to emerge rom the current recessionary

period. A selection o apartments in the surrounding neighborhood are listed below:

Apartments by Size and Rent in SE Washington, DC

215 C Street, SE

1 BR 1 bath 420 s rom $1420

909 at Capitol Yards909 New Jersey Avenue, SE

studio 534 s rom $1,7251 BR 828 s rom $2070

2 BR 1107 s rom $2645

Axiom at Capitol Gardens100 Eye Street, SE

1 BR 1 Bath 770 sq t. rom $2075

Jeferson at Capitol Yards70 Eye Street, SE

studio 1 bath 529 s rom $1,580; 608 s or $1830

1 BR 1 bath 744 s or $1,9952 BR 2 baths 977 s or $2625

Naylor Gardens --2725 30th Street, SE

1 BR 530 s or $765

1 BR730 s rom $8702 BR 1 bath, 840 s rom $950

The Overlook at Oxon Run3700 9th Street, SE

Aordable housing communities or amilies and seniors. 1 and 2 BR plans with rents starting at $900. Townhomes On Capitol Hill 637 Ellen Wilson Place, SE

1, 2 and 3 bedroom units or rent.

Rent ranges rom $928 up to $1725. Floor area listed range rom 572 and 1250 s. Terrace Manor Apartments. 3347 23rd Street, SE

1 BR 1 Bath 520 s rom $7002 BR 1 bath 620 s rom $800

3 BR 2 bath 1020 s rom $1020

Vantage and The Parks 601 Edgewood Street, NE

1-4 bedroom units starting at $698 or 451 s, up to 4 BR 1,177 s or $13252 BR or $1304

Averages in zip code 20003

1 BR 1 Bath-- smallest unit average $1,199

Average size o smallest unit: 541 square eet.

$26.60 ps/year

2 BR, average size 856 s; $1,410

MARKET OVERVIEW




Education

• How do residents view the role o education in their lives?

• Have they taken steps to expand their knowledge base beyond the programs oered by

DCHA?

• Do residents know how to leverage their knowledge into improved job opportunities or moreadvanced education?

Employment

• Do residents report general satisaction with their employment status?

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

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

Health

• How do residents eel physically on a day-to-day basis?

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

• Do residents take proactive steps toward maintaining their health (i.e. preventative care, regu-lar exercise, healthy ood choices, etc.)?

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

Substance Abuse Counseling

• Has substance abuse counseling helped participants reach sobriety? What could be done tostrengthen the program, i anything?

• What types o continuing support would residents like to receive or their addictions?

• How many drug counseling recipients report sobriety? How many months have they beensober?

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

Social Interaction

• Do residents eel sae in their homes? In common areas? Within the neighborhood?

• Has there been less violence among children under age 18?

• Do residents eel isolated on their sites?

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

SAMPLE QUALITATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS






JOB TRAINING

• Comcast Foundationhttp://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/inthecommunity/ounda-tion/comcastoundation.html Commercial Real Estate Womenwww.crewdc.org

• Corina Higginson Trustwww.corinahigginsontrust.org• Davis Constructionwww.davisconstruction.com• DC Department o Employment Serviceswww.does.dc.gov• DC Oce o Planning and Economic Developmentwww.dcbiz.dc.gov

• Hattie M. Strong Foundationwww.hmstrongoundation.org

• Herb Block Foundationwww.herbblockoundation.org

• Jones Foundationwww.thejonesoundation.com

• Jovid Foundation www.oundationcenter.org/grantmaker/jovid/

• MARPAT Foundationwww.oundationcenter.org/grantmaker/marpat/

• Microsot Unlimited Potentialwww.microsot.com/unlimitedpotential/deault.mspx

• Morris and Gwendolyn Caritz Foundationwww.caritzoundation.org

• Oce o the State Superintendent o Educationwww.osse.dc.gov• PNC Bankwww.pnc.com

• Rapoport Foundationwww.rapoportdn.org

• The Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundation www.meyeroundation.org

• The Fowler Foundationwww.oundationcenter.org/grantmaker/owler/about.html

• The Moriah Fundwww.moriahund.org

• United Way o the National Capital Areawww.unitedwaynca.org

• Verizon Foundationwww.oundation.verizon.com

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

National Programs

• America’s Promise Alliancewww.americaspromise.org• Healthy Start Programwww.healthystartassoc.org• Oce o Head Startwww.ac.hhs.gov• The Annie E Casey Foundationwww.aec.org• The Buett Early Childhood Fundwww.buettearlychildhoodund.org• The Caritz Foundationwww.caritzoundation.org• The Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundationwww.meyeroundation.org

• The Philip Graham Fundwww.plgrahamund.org• The Robert Wood Johnson Foundationwww.rwj.org• W.K. Kellogg Foundationwww.wkk.org

Local Programs

• City Interestswww.cityinterests.com• DC Department o Healthwww.dchealth.dc.gov• DC Department o Housing and Community Developmentwww.dhcd.dc.gov• Oce o Early Childhood, DC Department o Human Serviceswww.ac.hhs.gov

POTENTIAL CSS FUNDING SOURCES




Academy o Hopehttp://www.aohdc.org/ProgramsServices/AdultEducationPrograms/tabid/76/Deault.aspx

Bennett, L., Smith, J. L., & Wright, P. A. (Eds.). (2006). Where Are Poor People to Live? Transforming

Public Housing Communities. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Building Neighborhoods website, “Administration Outlines Choice Neighborhoods Proposal”.http://unca-ac.org/?cat=4

Buron, L., Popkin, S., Levy, D., Harris, L., & Khadduria, J. (2002). The HOPE VI Resident Tracking

Study: A Snapshot o the Current Living Situation o Original Residents rom Eight Sites. U.S. De-partment o Housing and Urban Development, Oce o Public Housing Investments. Washing-ton, DC: Abt Associates Inc. and Urban Institute.

Choice Neighborhoods Budget, FY2011. Up to 10 percent o these unds may be set aside orplanning grants, up to 5 percent may be set aside or program evaluation and technical assis-tance.

Cisneros, H. G., & Engdahl, L. (Eds.). (2009). From Despair to Hope: Hope VI and the New Promise of

Public Housing in America’s Cities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

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

Family Health and Birth Center. (n.d.). About Us Family Health and Birth Center. Retrieved March25, 2010, rom Family Health and Birth Center: http://www.yourhbc.org/about.html (added byPaul)

Glover, R. Making a Case or Mixed Use, Mixed-Income Communities to Address America’s Aord-able Housing Needs

Goetz, E. G. (2010). Better Neighborhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation Outcomes inHOPE VI. Cityscape: A Journal o Policy Development and Research , 12 (1).

Jubilee Jobs(http://jubileejobs.org/what-we-do/success-stories)

Lurie-Hurvits, E. (2009, February). Making the case or a comprehensive inant and todler policy

agenda. Early Experience Matters , 1-7.

Other potential collaborating agencies include Commerce, Agriculture, Energy (Choice Neighbor-

hoods Budget, FY2011)

Ramirez, S., CEO o the National Association o Housing and Redevelopment Ocials (NAHRO),Statement Beore the Committee o Financial Services, March 17, 2010.

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

REFERENCES




Sherer, Paul. The Benets o Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space. TheTrust or Public Land, 2006.

So Others Might Eat: http://www.some.org/services_recovery_employment.html

United States Congress. (2007, June 21). Testimony o Susan Popkin, Urban Institute, preparedor the hearing on HOPE VI Reauthorization.

United States Department o Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/oces/cpd/aordablehousing/programs/home/

United States Department o Transportation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights

Urban Bridge Builder Power Point Presentation

Wachter, Susan and Kevin Gillen. Public Investment Strategies: How They Matter orNeighborhoods in Philadelphia – Identication and Analysis. The Wharton School, TheUniversity o Pennsylvania, October 2006.

PHOTO CREDITSArthur Capper: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hamelbuilders.com/im-ages/Harlem Children’s Zone: http://danielgaryhill.les.wordpress.com/2010/03/hcz-kids-and-canada-2.jpg

Brown Baby Reads online: www.brownbabyreads.com

Centennial Place: http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/09/55/11/

slideshow_1115595_evtechwood_HS02.JPG

Chicago demolition: www.limits.com

City West: www.citywestohio.com

Coalition or the Homeless: www.coalitionorthehomeless.org

Columbia Villa: www.mayersarch.com

Department o Health and Human Services: http://theamericano.com/wp-content/up-loads/2009/11/health-human-services.gi

Department o Labor logo:http://www.slcc.edu/academicadvising/careeradvising/US-DeptOLabor.png

Department o Justice seal: http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID14309/images/091211173940US_DeptOJustice_Seal.png

Housing Authority o the City o Shreveport: www.shvhousauth.com

Lake Parc Place: www.fickr.com

San Francisco Housing Authority: www.sha.org




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the ollowing people or their support and guidance throughout this project.

STUDIO INSTRUCTORS

John Kromer, Faculty & Senior Consultant, UPenn Fels Institute o Government

Gil Rosenthal, Principal , Wallace, Roberts & Todd DesignOlusegun Obasanjo, Director, Duvernay + Brooks, LLC

DC HOUSING AUTHORITY STAFF

Adrianne Todman, Interim Director, Washington DC Housing AuthorityLaurie Putscher, Director o Oce o Operations, Washington DC Housing AuthorityJanice Burgess, Director o Oce o Planning & Development, Washington DC Housing Authority

FAITHWORKS, INC. STAFF

Robert Boulter, PresidentKeith Fleury, Faithworks

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF DESIGN FACULTY AND STAFF

John Landis, City & Regional Planning Department Chair, University o PennsylvaniaMichael Larice, Associate Proessor, Department o City & Regional PlanningFernando Micale, Principal, Wallace, Roberts & Todd Design

Laura Wol-Powers, Associate Proessor, Department o City & Regional PlanningKate Daniel, PennPlanning

Roslynne Carter, PennPlanning

PROJECT TEAM

Mat Abramsky, Public/Private DevelopmentLucy Corbett, Community & Economic Development, Public/Private DevelopmentJohn Curran, Public/Private Development

Anna Ellis, Public/Private DevelopmentSusanne Fogt, Land Use/Transportation/Environmental PlanningPaul Shabsis, Community & Economic DevelopmentShara D. Taylor, Community & Economic Development

Danae Tilghman, Urban Design



FINAL.BOOK.Choice.Neighborhoods.DC

Documents