Housing- selling low

[flyingember]

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/28/40 ... ouses.html

there's good news on the horizon for the abandoned homes across KC. This looks to be an anti-gentrification process too which is interesting to see. While the city needs to draw more high income jobs to KC, it also needs to be a place for low-income individuals because a strong economy isn't just made up of professional jobs.

My favorite part was the development specifically for veterans. The idea that anyone could come back from serving this country and be forced to live in poverty because of expensive housing is unacceptable. If KC would do more housing like this and become a hot spot for returning veterans for the whole region it would be a positive thing for the community.

Duffy says Kansas City already had an abandoned-housing problem in 2009, when it counted about 3,000 vacant structures. The mortgage meltdown and recession worsened the crisis, to the point where the city now estimates it has 7,000 abandoned houses.

Legal Aid is pursuing about 50 abandoned housing court cases a year — and could increase that rate this year — with city money to hire more staff.

The most dramatic reclamation of an abandoned property is Cameron Place, a 48-unit apartment building under construction at 3218 Brighton Ave., near the VA Medical Center.

The site previously was occupied by Timbercreek Apartments, a vacant 115-unit apartment complex owned by investors from California and Colorado who never followed through on rehab plans. In addition to rotting buildings, the four-acre site became a dumping ground for tires, mattresses and other junk.

The blight was so bad, Duffy said, that it hindered a Swope Community Builders affiliate’s ability to rent out units in a nearby apartment complex.

Legal Aid and the Polsinelli Shughart law firm filed suit under the state Abandoned Housing Act and ultimately negotiated an agreement with the out-of-town investors to sell the property at minimal cost to Swope.

Swope then was able to get low-income housing tax credits to demolish and replace Timbercreek with a new building with affordable rents for veterans and their families. Completion is expected this summer.

A year ago, Bank of America promised to donate 75 houses to the city along with up to $875,000 to renovate or demolish those structures. Most will be demolished, but the city expects to sell about 25 to people who will occupy them and use the bank funds to do needed repairs.

For months, the process languished. Now it’s begun in earnest, with three homes sold, offers on three more, and seven others being marketed to buyers.

A few of the bank-donated houses could sell for $50,000 or more, but for many East Side properties, the sale price is less than $5,000 with Bank of America reimbursing up to $20,000 in repairs.

[chaglang]

The KC gentrification debate is strange. So much of this city is so far from gentrification that I have a hard time believing that this is a problem. $5000 houses are not hard to find. I can see two from my house, and a third that is going for $15000. The bigger issue is retaining people in urban neighborhoods, as evidenced by the abundance of abandoned houses. This approach by the city is an improvement over the way things were handled in the past, but the anti-gentrification piece seems unnecessary.

[warwickland]

There is very little problematic gentrification going on in the midwest, and absolutely none in this state.

[chrizow]

i would say there is probably genuine gentrification occurring in the "upper" westside area of KC. that is about it. no idea about STL.

[warwickland]

i would say there is probably genuine gentrification occurring in the "upper" westside area of KC. that is about it. no idea about STL.

Oh, yeah that's a weird one because of the state line. It's such a tiny area, though.

[aknowledgeableperson]

there's good news on the horizon for the abandoned homes across KC

Kansas City has had a few programs in the past similar to this. None, while not failures, were what one would call a success. But every little bit helps.

[flyingember]

i would say there is probably genuine gentrification occurring in the "upper" westside area of KC. that is about it. no idea about STL.

there's early signs the area around 27th and Troost eastward a few blocks is going the direction of the westside with new development

there's that new building at 18th/Vine that's a great model for the area
there's the relatively new apartments at 27th/paseo
etc

there's a huge number of empty blocks and there's no way to do anything but build new on the land and even without the article saying it, there's no way any development will be anything but government low income or $75-100,000 market rate when building new

[chaglang]

there's early signs the area around 27th and Troost eastward a few blocks is going the direction of the westside with new development

I see some redevelopment around there, but I do not see signs of gentrification. 27th, east to Paseo and from there north to Linwood is full of very, very affordable houses.

[flyingember]

there's early signs the area around 27th and Troost eastward a few blocks is going the direction of the westside with new development

I see some redevelopment around there, but I do not see signs of gentrification. 27th, east to Paseo and from there north to Linwood is full of very, very affordable houses.

FYI, Linwood is south of 27th.

I didn't say gentrification. because the westside is very mixed housing.

[chaglang]

Right, south. Thanks. But you get the area I'm talking about. So are you thinking of the Westside townhouse development west of West Pennway, between 22nd(ish) and 17th? That's kind of similar to the townhouses at the NW corner of 27th and Troost.

The Westside, especially north of 20th and west of West Pennway, is seriously gentrified. Prices on Summit and Madison rival Central Hyde Park. I haven't looked at prices on the hill above SW Blvd in a while, but I bet a single story 2br house would run you $50k - $60k.

[flyingember]

Right, south. Thanks. But you get the area I'm talking about. So are you thinking of the Westside townhouse development west of West Pennway, between 22nd(ish) and 17th? That's kind of similar to the townhouses at the NW corner of 27th and Troost.

The Westside, especially north of 20th and west of West Pennway, is seriously gentrified. Prices on Summit and Madison rival Central Hyde Park. I haven't looked at prices on the hill above SW Blvd in a while, but I bet a single story 2br house would run you $50k - $60k.

I think it will take years, but yes, I see that near east area going that direction. where a 4BR home costs $150K+ side by side with an apartment complex with $800/month units down the street from low income row homes.

the Main Street corridor is slowly running out of options for redevelopment. What remains will jump in cost with more interest. Look at how much of downtown is going up for development with the streetcar and Main St south seems like the major sure thing on expansion. the neighborhoods to the west, Main to SW Trafficway, will go up in price quicker than east of Main because they have the reputation. There's some empty lots but it's also strong on apartments and density that will continue. I also see Penn Valley expanding south at some point and a notable hospital purchase of land along Broadway, Children's Mercy is landlocked unlike Truman Medical and already has one building in the area. Downtown looks to be going more market rate and that will drive people outwards to live. Downtown will hit the population goal but the average income will go up by 50% in the process.

There's the empty land just to the east of Hospital Hill and there's the jobs nearby on hospital hill both blue collar and high pay.

Troost redevlopment, a key step for the eastside, will be driven by bringing a mixed population in from low to mid income.
There's no point in encouraging removing the existing population to the south when there's a good opportunity a few blocks to the north.

I could see UMKC building a notable student housing cluster in the area.

And there's nothing like driving a grocery store at 31st and Troost than a core middle class population closer to that intersection than to Conesntino's. It would be a huge coup to get HyVee to come to the urban area. Conesntino's does urban well but hyvee does jobs.

The city would be smart to enourage market rate in the area with targeted incentives.
A mid-rise building (5-8 stories) would do well along US 71 too to drive public perception. Nothing changes opinion than seeing something new and shiny.

[loftguy]

Okay, so educate me. Is not "problematic" gentrification, what occurs when a the demographics and economics of a neighborhood "force out" the traditional and historic inhabitants of a community.

So how is the Westside an example of this?

You don't know the history of the hood, if you think that is true. The westside is a better neighborhood today, for folks throughout, because the north end was stabalized, and brought back from the depressed slumlord hell that it really was. The artists and entrepeneurs who banded together to renew those few blocks did a good thing for the Westside and downtown in general.

The poor, hispanic and black residents have not been forced out, and instead they too, live in a more diverse and stable area and as result, the Westside is a pretty exemplary neighborhood.

[chaglang]

Okay, so educate me. Is not "problematic" gentrification, what occurs when a the demographics and economics of a neighborhood "force out" the traditional and historic inhabitants of a community.

So how is the Westside an example of this?

You don't know the history of the hood, if you think that is true. The westside is a better neighborhood today, for folks throughout, because the north end was stabalized, and brought back from the depressed slumlord hell that it really was. The artists and entrepeneurs who banded together to renew those few blocks did a good thing for the Westside and downtown in general.

The poor, hispanic and black residents have not been forced out, and instead they too, live in a more diverse and stable area and as result, the Westside is a pretty exemplary neighborhood.

Well, it came back from slumlord hell and is now stratospherically expensive. It's not the whole Westside, but the poorer population has been gradually priced off the hill in the last 20 years.

[aknowledgeableperson]

but the poorer population has been gradually priced off the hill in the last 20 years.

But isn't that the goal of most people? Drive up the price of real estate?

[shinatoo]

Okay, so educate me. Is not "problematic" gentrification, what occurs when a the demographics and economics of a neighborhood "force out" the traditional and historic inhabitants of a community.

So how is the Westside an example of this?

You don't know the history of the hood, if you think that is true. The westside is a better neighborhood today, for folks throughout, because the north end was stabalized, and brought back from the depressed slumlord hell that it really was. The artists and entrepeneurs who banded together to renew those few blocks did a good thing for the Westside and downtown in general.

The poor, hispanic and black residents have not been forced out, and instead they too, live in a more diverse and stable area and as result, the Westside is a pretty exemplary neighborhood.

Well, it came back from slumlord hell and is now stratospherically expensive. It's not the whole Westside, but the poorer population has been gradually priced off the hill in the last 20 years.

Were they forced to sell, or was their rent driven up? If neither of those are the case, then good for them. They made a profit on their investment.

[chaglang]

but the poorer population has been gradually priced off the hill in the last 20 years.

But isn't that the goal of most people? Drive up the price of real estate?

Sure. That doesn't mean that it's not gentrification. C'mon, I know you know this.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The point is it seems to many that gentrification is something 'BAD'. Granted, there is something negative with that word but shouldn't the good part outweigh the bad?

[flyingember]

The point is it seems to many that gentrification is something 'BAD'. Granted, there is something negative with that word but shouldn't the good part outweigh the bad?

it's not good nor bad. I'd like to see it used in a controlled manner more places in the city. we're not getting anywhere with the economic split even before we discuss the racial split. we need to find a way to give areas more perceived value as jumpstart areas

We can't be too proud to do what it takes to bring more mid range stores into the city.

Imagine if HyVee or Target would commit to building a store at 31st and Troost if the city could bring more middle class individuals to the area.
That store would benefit that whole area and would be worth doing.

[chaglang]

The point is it seems to many that gentrification is something 'BAD'. Granted, there is something negative with that word but shouldn't the good part outweigh the bad?

Further up the thread, you'll see where I say that housing is so cheap that there's almost no displacement happening in Kansas City. So the whole discussion is a little strange to me. This part of the Westside is a notable exception. But, as Loftguy correctly points out, it's not even the whole Westside. Places like SW Blvd have retained their Hispanic character.

[ThaMexican]

I know the Westside has changed quite a bit in the last few years. I used to visit back in 2000 and moved in 2004 (south part of the Westside).

Even with the changes it is really a tiny area that may be expensive, where I live I can buy the house next door for 30K (2 bedroom). Even the north part of Westside if you go west of Holly and north of Cesar Chavez then you can see a lot of small houses for what I can see most of the people that live there are Hispanics and prices are still affordable.

I looked at a house back there in 2005 and the asking price was 80k I think for a 4 bedroom house.