Part I
:: Trickle Down…
Issue 1
Volume 2
Shelter from the Bubble:
Low-income and affordable housing in Providence
by Ray Huling and Amy Stitely
This is precisely what
happened with WEHDC’s redevelopment of the Rau Fastener Mill on Dexter
Street, just south of the Armory. WEHDC converted an abandoned, toxic, historic
mill complex into a mixed-income apartment complex. The $15 million project
was initiated, not by the CDC, but by residents. They petitioned the board
directly. Homeowners, some past beneficiaries of WEHDCs work, demanded the
rehabilitation of the site. That WEHDC had no prior expertise in renovating
historic mills only reinforces the extent of their prior success: they had
inspired their patrons’ faith.
Faith was needed. The 69-unit apartment complex opened its doors in December
2005, nearly ten years after the initial petitioning. This type of development
is shockingly uncommon in Providence. Conard-Wells emphasized that there existed
no expertise in this hybrid of a CDC-sponsored, historic, brownfield, mixed-income
redevelopment. When asked if the project was replicable she said yes, but
that the “learning curve is very high and very expensive.” The
biggest challenge of the project was complying with the city, state, and environmental
regulations and the contingencies (and lawyers) of 10 private and public funders
(RI LISC being one).
When asked how the project could have been more manageable, Conard-Wells laughingly said, “knocking the building down.” Working within the bounds of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Historic Commission was beyond WEHDC’s normal practices. Further, it was harder to fundraise for a mixed-income project than for a low-income one. Her normal syndicated partners felt Rau didn’t offer enough low-income units, yet private funders shied away from the project because of its 22 low-income units.
The mill lies 2 blocks from the Armory, a block from Cranston Street and 2 blocks from Elmwood Avenue. Conard-Wells said that this complex’s impact on the neighborhood is too great to be 100% low-income or 100% market rate. 22 units in the complex rent to qualified low-income applicants, all of which are currently occupied. The rest rent to the much-ballyhooed workforce class—popularly sketched as ‘teachers, nurses, firemen, and policemen.’ Even better, low-income units are interspersed inconspicuously among the market rate ones, just as in SWAP’s project.
When asked if private
developers should take on the responsibility of building affordable housing
rather than leaving it all up to the CDC’s, Conard-Wells stated that
the process of developing this type of housing would take too long for their
interests.
“You can’t do this if you’re trying to make money. If money
is the bottom line, these processes are not appropriate. We don’t do
it because it’s smart [financially]. We do it because it’s right
for the neighborhood… in our view… however…there could be
a partnership. If a private developer said ‘I cannot apply for this
subsidy. I’d like to partner with WEHDC,’ then we would be interested.”
Carla DeStefano finds that private developers have incentives other than money to do this kind of work, but that they then beg off, once they see the difficulty of it. She has no time for their protestations, and gives terse counsel: “yes; it is hard; this is what it takes to get it done.” In terms of learning how to put in low-income and affordable housing, private developers have a much shorter path than do those who work outside of real estate. They simply have to educate themselves and get to work.
Perhaps they need further incentives to steel their will. Residents could lobby the city for an Inclusionary Zoning ordinance that would force private developers to commit a percentage (12% in Boston) of their ‘loft’ developments to affordable housing. That way the burden of building affordable spaces wouldn’t fall only on non-profits. But, as CDCs will continue to do the lionesses’ share of the work, it would help to have the 75 million dollar affordable housing bond on this fall’s ballot.
