View Full Version : Dying/dead malls.....
gimmethesimplelife
3-20-21, 11:08am
What do you think should be done with dead/dying malls? Rob
catherine
3-20-21, 11:28am
Depends on the needs and values of the communities. Community centers with education and recreation, senior housing, community colleges, rewilding.
I love the idea of a year-round farmers and artisans market along with community celebrations e.g., Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, Hogmanay, whatever. Our market can only run from Apr-Oct due to weather.
The need right now is for additional housing for children crossing the border.
Parks :~) (rip those suckers down!)
Affordable housing, with walking trails and community gardens.
Around here there are a couple of obsolete industrial areas that have been converted to small communities with parks, walkable shopping, and affordable single family housing. And less attractive ones with poor planning and zoning that are just a part of urban sprawl. I favor turning the whole bunch into parks are natural areas, but it's also a waste of some usable resources that could be repurposed.
The malls depending on their age have good parking, transit access and often high density housing around them. Build on that. My detached house with a nice yard is going to be the exception as the population is not strategically separated in the planning.
ToomuchStuff
3-20-21, 1:25pm
How would you all pay for these? (the malls still belong to someone)
Teacher Terry
3-20-21, 1:34pm
Affordable housing is the primary need here.
iris lilies
3-20-21, 2:19pm
Affordable housing is the primary need here.
I think anyone who believes converting a suburban mall into successfully sustainable residential housing units doesn’t know what “affordable” means, but then I have decades of experience watching the federal government’s HUD program spend ridiculous sums of money.
If you watched their antics you would think that the taxpayers could afford anything. Doesn’t really matter what the bill is for the taxpayers.
I remember the exact year, it was 1992, that the feds with your tax dollars spent $120,000 On average on the small public housing units up the street from me. All of those units are much smaller than my house. That was the year we had $120,000 into my 2000 square-foot house as we were keeping track during our renovation. I couldn’t figure out what the actual FK they were spending money on, but it doesn’t really matter because spend money they did!!!.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-21, 2:28pm
Yea build housing, condos or apartments (but good luck trying to get even market rate apartments built when all anyone seems to want to cater to is the top 20% of people who can buy a condo - because who cares about the vast majority of people, am I right).
But the chances of local government spending less than a million per unit (that's cost not sales price) to built a unit of "affordable housing", is low. So affordable housing LOL, nah housing ok, build housing but it's not going to be all that affordable.
I think anyone who believes converting a suburban mall into successfully sustainable residential housing units doesn’t know what “affordable” means, ...
Agreed. I have spent decades working on affordable housing here - we've build permanently-affordable 109 homes, and 75 apartments. I was primarily in charge of land acquisition, financing, and our own organization's finances.
I wouldn't touch a mall-conversion project like that.
Agreed. I have spent decades working on affordable housing here - we've build permanently-affordable 109 homes, and 75 apartments. I was primarily in charge of land acquisition, financing, and our own organization's finances.
I wouldn't touch a mall-conversion project like that.
Why? Just curious.
Why? Just curious.
The cost to reclaim and remodel the existing buildings and pavement and utilities would likely be prohibitive, even with cooperation from local land use authorities. (It's hard enough to make things work with greenfield projects.)
This is why these malls sit dead and dying all across America - they aren't an asset, they are a liability.
Agreed. I have spent decades working on affordable housing here - we've build permanently-affordable 109 homes, and 75 apartments. I was primarily in charge of land acquisition, financing, and our own organization's finances.
I wouldn't touch a mall-conversion project like that.
I think that’s very true, at least in my corner of the Midwest. There are so many opportunities to rehab old housing stock or do fill-in projects in existing neighborhoods, I don’t see how it would make any financial sense to convert a mall type property to housing. The road, sewer and utility work would probably be very high.
The big problem my organization has encountered has been local opposition to lower income housing, even small projects. I would think in most areas the NIMBY objections to a massive housing project would be very strong.
The cost to reclaim and remodel the existing buildings and pavement and utilities would likely be prohibitive, even with cooperation from local land use authorities. (It's hard enough to make things work with greenfield projects.)
This is why these malls sit dead and dying all across America - they aren't an asset, they are a liability.
Ugh.. another blight brought on by consumerism.
Some of those malls will be going with jingle mail (https://investinganswers.com/dictionary/j/jingle-mail) in a decade or so.
They will be starved by the local governing authority (city, county, etc.) of infrastructure maintenance and will dissipate because nobody wants to go to whatever's left in that mall. Too many of those malls were built on the backs of public financing and pension plans which will require them to make a profit when a profit (or enough profit) may not be possible. Then the place withers and dies and becomes that sea of asphalt pocked with weeds and abandoned sofas and big buildings that are tagged by the local turf warriors. The governing authority will spend all kinds of time and money hearing grand visions of repurposing only to see credit markets and societal trends obviate those plans by the time the EIS is finished. The mall will sit for some years longer. Then it finally will be torn down (often at public expense) to make a grayfield that may eventually be filled with market-rate housing or an office building (depending on which one is needed more when the planning begins). The governing authority will decry commerce not stepping up to fill the area's needs without realizing they are the reason it all happened in the first place.
frugal-one
3-20-21, 3:01pm
Read today that a local mall has a large building that is vacant. The talk is to make it a homeless shelter for men. Supposedly, an upscale development was to be built not far and they are backing out. I don't see how having a homeless shelter at the mall would be a good thing?
The big problem my organization has encountered has been local opposition to lower income housing, even small projects. I would think in most areas the NIMBY objections to a massive housing project would be very strong.
Indeed.
A few years ago, a consortium of folks came together to purchase the other mountain on this island for the public. It was too large of a project for any one conservation organization to accomplish. If we hadn't purchased this mountain, there was the likelihood that hundreds and hundreds of expensive homes would have been slapped down on the mountainside, overlooking us all. The land itself is a priceless natural resource.
My community land trust was involved in the project, until almost the end. We were contributing financially, in exchange for some small parcels of a few acres tucked away near the edge of the mountain that were well-suited for developing affordable housing, already properly-zoned, and that wouldn't have impacted anyone's view or whatnot. We were going to construct two small neighborhoods of about 12 permanently houses each, where there was existing infrastructure available.
Just a couple days before the deal closed, some local Very Wealthy People approached the lead agency, bought out our participation, and kicked us out of the deal. They used a fair bit of strong-arm tactics, involving threats of pulling their support to other conservation organizations. I mean, nobody wants "those people" living here, right?
Anyways, it's a very nice preserve, but...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/conservationists-buy-turtleback-mountain-hikers-can-visit-soon/
There is one in Austin that was developed using a public private partnership. Much of the building was converted to a branch of the local community college. The JCPenney building became the math science labs. Some of the massive parking lots are/were being built up with apartments and condos surrounding the campus. A portion returned to green space. It is always about the money...
iris lilies
3-20-21, 3:52pm
?.
... It is always about the money...
Because someone has to pay for it?
yes, I think so, even us taxpayers have limited funds.
Because someone has to pay for it?
yes, I think so, even us taxpayers have limited funds.
But it's been proven that urban areas that created a common space have become more vibrant. My son told me about the difference in two cities back in the early days of this country's growth. New York and Newark, NJ. To make a long story short, New York decided to dedicate a significant part of Manhattan to green space--which became Central Park. Newark, NJ, which was developing at around the same time, decided to privatize all the property. Fast forward 200 years--where would you rather spend your vacation?
Because someone has to pay for it?
yes, I think so, even us taxpayers have limited funds.
This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.
I think that’s very true, at least in my corner of the Midwest. There are so many opportunities to rehab old housing stock or do fill-in projects in existing neighborhoods, I don’t see how it would make any financial sense to convert a mall type property to housing. The road, sewer and utility work would probably be very high.
The big problem my organization has encountered has been local opposition to lower income housing, even small projects. I would think in most areas the NIMBY objections to a massive housing project would be very strong.
The NIMBY objections to low-income housing are pretty much across the board, unless you're putting the units in already crappy neighborhoods. Even with "affordable" housing, which you would hope would attract lower-income working people, the fear is you're going to get crime, gangs, and so on. People in public housing/section 8 do not have a good reputation for being decent neighbors. I remember years ago when Detroit was tearing down some projects, the housing authority was having to educate the residents on what NOT to do when they moved into housing in the midst of neighborhoods - no loud music, no throwing trash around, that sort of thing.
Elderly public housing has worked well in my area. General public housing has not.
Elderly public housing has worked well in my area. General public housing has not.
Public housing for seniors is a totally different animal.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-21, 4:43pm
Here I can totally see malls becoming housing, there isn't all the surplus land in the world. Expensive condos is their most likely fate unless nothing becomes of them.
Just trying to make them a low income housing project is, well there isn't any success in building homeless housing without costing an insane fortune to build around here. It's all that's happened with attempts to build housing for the homeless etc.. And yes there is NIMBY too although it's not the main cost driver but it doesn't help any, and it just prevents lots of stuff from happening in the first place.
I can totally see them becoming eCommerce warehouses or something of the sort.
Indeed.
A few years ago, a consortium of folks came together to purchase the other mountain on this island for the public. It was too large of a project for any one conservation organization to accomplish. If we hadn't purchased this mountain, there was the likelihood that hundreds and hundreds of expensive homes would have been slapped down on the mountainside, overlooking us all. The land itself is a priceless natural resource.
My community land trust was involved in the project, until almost the end. We were contributing financially, in exchange for some small parcels of a few acres tucked away near the edge of the mountain that were well-suited for developing affordable housing, already properly-zoned, and that wouldn't have impacted anyone's view or whatnot. We were going to construct two small neighborhoods of about 12 permanently houses each, where there was existing infrastructure available.
Just a couple days before the deal closed, some local Very Wealthy People approached the lead agency, bought out our participation, and kicked us out of the deal. They used a fair bit of strong-arm tactics, involving threats of pulling their support to other conservation organizations. I mean, nobody wants "those people" living here, right?
Anyways, it's a very nice preserve, but...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/conservationists-buy-turtleback-mountain-hikers-can-visit-soon/
I was involved in a similar situation in a well-to-do but not super rich suburb of Milwaukee. The town government encouraged us and offered infrastructure support to build about 8-10 smaller single families in a not particularly desirable strip along an Interstate. They told us they were eager to have more housing that teachers and cops could afford. Under our model, we issue zero interest mortgages based on the cost of the property, so these houses weren’t exactly for the poorest of the poor.
We thought all the wheels were greased until an ambitious town board member raised a hue and cry over how this would damage the value of the local McMansion market. The town wound up losing its nerve and the project got aborted.
I have to wonder, especially in an island situation, where the wealthy homeowners would expect their gardeners, house cleaners and pothole fixers to live.
I have to wonder, especially in an island situation, where the wealthy homeowners would expect their gardeners, house cleaners and pothole fixers to live.
Around here, the low-class freeloaders that tend to infest our affordable housing communities tend to be people like nurses, firefighters, schoolteachers, police officers, water system engineers, waste system engineers, electrical linemen, and other such riffraff.
iris lilies
3-20-21, 6:56pm
Elderly public housing has worked well in my area. General public housing has not.
Yes because most all of the serious troublemakers have either died off or gone to prison by senior citizen age. You have left only nuisance makers of those who create trouble for their neighbors. Like the (likely) senior who stole election ballots from a polling place DH worked years ago.
The blank ballots were dropped off at the polling place inside a senior housing complex. When DH and other workers got there, the ballots were gone.
iris lilies
3-20-21, 7:48pm
I also don’t understand the apparent idea here that cramming a lot of people into some unattractive bland commercial space is anything other than warehousing them. Look how well that worked in the social engineering experiments of the 1950s and 1960s.
When I moved into this neighborhood we had typical inner-city huge public housing towers down the street that were abandoned because they were unsuccessful. Warehousing the poor never works. But I guess no one really cares about lessons learned.
GeorgeParker
3-20-21, 8:46pm
I also don’t understand the apparent idea here that cramming a lot of people into some unattractive bland commercial space is anything other than warehousing them. Look how well that worked in the social engineering experiments of the 1950s and 1960s.What is a typical 1950s suburban tract house except a bare box with a fancy exterior? Or any house built after 1940 for middle-income families? Let alone any typical apartment?
It's the furnishings and decorations that turn a mass-produced characterless box into a cozy home. And as I've said in a different thread, the public housing projects you're talking about failed because of the people who lived there and the oppressive restrictions and policies that were put on them by the government.
What is a typical 1950s suburban tract house except a bare box with a fancy exterior? Or any house built after 1940 for middle-income families? Let alone any typical apartment?
It's the furnishings and decorations that turn a mass-produced characterless box into a cozy home. And as I've said in a different thread, the public housing projects you're talking about failed because of the people who lived there and the oppressive restrictions and policies that were put on them by the government.
I resemble that remark.
There are a couple of what they call "affordable housing" projects in my area. I believe they are privately financed and the renters who qualify receive some sort of rent subsidies from the government. I'm sure there are regulations that government certain of their operations. They are three and four story multifamily apartment buildings with a modest amount of visual appeal and totally out of character for the neighborhood. I'm moderately ok with them, but I have signed petitions to block similar developments. There are places for such things, but when they threaten the character of a nice quite low traffic neighborhood with mature landscape, there needs to be an alternate plan. If that's NIMBY, I'm guilty, but I just say find a location where they fit in better, like a new housing development, a more industrial area, or a place where a new structure enhances the area rather than detracts. Some of the endangered malls probably fit that bill, others do not.
Then there are the real government "low income" projects. Those are pretty sterile buildings. Possibly another issue.
iris lilies
3-20-21, 10:02pm
I also don’t understand the apparent idea here that cramming a lot of people into some unattractive bland commercial space is anything other than warehousing them. Look how well that worked in the social engineering experiments of the 1950s and 1960s.
When I moved into this neighborhood we had typical inner-city huge public housing towers down the street that were abandoned because they were unsuccessful. Warehousing the poor never works. But I guess no one really cares about lessons learned.
What is a typical 1950s suburban tract house except a bare box with a fancy exterior? Or any house built after 1940 for middle-income families? Let alone any typical apartment?
It's the furnishings and decorations that turn a mass-produced characterless box into a cozy home. And as I've said in a different thread, the public housing projects you're talking about failed because of the people who lived there and the oppressive restrictions and policies that were put on them by the government.
I have sat through many public meetings, housing design charrettes, planning events, etc. I don’t know how many hours I’ve devoted to being a good neighbor doobie in working with HUD officials. Back in those days I sincerely believe them when they said they wanted my input. Of course they did not and now I know better, They went ahead to build hideous schlock despite the wishes of our neighborhood. But anyway, I do have some experience in this area. It is cute that you blame restrictive government rules and regs for the failure of public tower houses.
The professionals who ran those big public housing complexes do not place the blame on their own rules and regs. Surprise! And they are of course the experts because we have to believe they are the experts. Anyways—-
In our many hours of oppressive meetings with public housing bureaucrats, we learned that poor people want their own front stoop. They want their own barbecue space. They want a backyard for their kids to play in and a place to park their car.p that is theirs.
Cramming them into acres of cement space does not work Whether that cement space is vertical space or horizontal space like shopping malls.
GeorgeParker
3-20-21, 10:16pm
I'm sure there are regulations that government certain of their operations.I was referring to the government rules and regulations that restricted who could live in those big subsidized housing projects that were built in the 40s-80s and imposed oppressive rules upon those tenants.
Those policies basically filled up the buildings with people who were chronically unemployed or employed in very-low-wage jobs and were generationally poor (having come from poor parents and grandparents). There was also the problem that if a tenant started to be a little successful by getting a better job or being frugal enough to save a little money, they were in danger of losing their right to live there, even though they couldn't really afford to live anywhere else.
Throw in a bunch of kids growing up in poverty and turning into bored unemployed teens angry at the government, the system, or whatever else you want to call it, and you've got a recipe for gangs, chaos, and disaster. That was why those big projects failed and the government started building small houses and small apartment buildings.
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-21, 1:37am
However much they "failed" has to be small in comparison to having a massive homeless population, which is what some government construction is designed to address. The problem is they continually fail to build it affordably and NIMBY. So affordable housing, oh yea sure.
iris lilies
3-21-21, 2:56am
However much they "failed" has to be small in comparison to having a massive homeless population, which is what some government construction is designed to address. The problem is they continually fail to build it affordably and NIMBY. So affordable housing, oh yea sure.
The high rise public housing towers didn’t “ fail” they FAILED. I live a long block from them, a place few here would live.
The low rise public housing complex is still going on, two long blocks from me. There, residents have a front stoop. A yard fir their kids to play in. A place for their bbq grill.
GeorgeParker
3-21-21, 5:24pm
It is cute that you blame restrictive government rules and regs for the failure of public tower houses.The answer to your comment is right there in your other comments. And you're ignoring the the fact that I blamed the failure of those projects on the kind of tenants who inhabited them, which was a direct result of the oppressive rules and regulations. Anyone who could either avoided them or moved out as soon as they could. That isn't my opinion, it's what I've heard and read over and over for forty years in documentaries about those projects in which the former tenants themselves talked about why things turned out the way they did.
I have sat through many public meetings, housing design charrettes, planning events, etc. I don’t know how many hours I’ve devoted to being a good neighbor doobie in working with HUD officials. Back in those days I sincerely believe them when they said they wanted my input. Of course they did not and now I know better, They went ahead to build hideous schlock despite the wishes of our neighborhood.The "public housing bureaucrats" hold "oppressive meetings" to get input from the public because regulations require them to hold those meetings, even though they clearly don't want that input and they have no intention of following it. And they sure as heck didn't want any input from the people who would be living in those housing projects.
The professionals who ran those big public housing complexes do not place the blame on their own rules and regs. Surprise! And they are of course the experts because we have to believe they are the experts.Nobody ever wants to take the blame for a disaster. And what the bureaucrats say doesn't alter the fact that the planning process and the rules and regulations created by those public housing bureaucrats were the primary cause of those big public housing projects failing.
poor people want their own front stoop. They want their own barbecue space. They want a backyard for their kids to play in and a place to park their car that is theirs.How does that make them different from anyone else?
Cramming them into acres of cement space does not work Whether that cement space is vertical space or horizontal space like shopping malls.Then how do you explain all those highrise apartment buildings in New York and Chicago and similar cities being so popular and having such high rents, even though they obviously don't have back yards or any of that other stuff? How do you explain huge apartment complexes with 1000-4000 apartments in 3-4 story buildings surrounded by parking lots being so successful all over the country? And how do you explain those huge apartment complexes being so clean and orderly and well run and the tenants being mostly law abiding and peaceful? Could it maybe have something to do with the kind of people who live there and with the fact that most of the people who live there recognize that tearing up their landlord's property is counter productive?
Watch some documentaries and read some books that tell the true story of why those big complexes failed and you'll probably agree with me. The primary reason they failed is that they took lower-class poor people out of crappy housing, put them in high-rise apartment buildings designed for middle-class people, and expected them to suddenly possess all of the typical middle-class values and attitudes, even though nothing in the social structures or the prejudices of the surrounding city had changed. So even the good people who sincerely tried to improve their circumstances mostly failed and those who did succeed got out of the projects as fast as they could.
GeorgeParker
3-21-21, 5:37pm
The low rise public housing complex is still going on, two long blocks from me. There, residents have a front stoop. A yard fir their kids to play in. A place for their bbq grill.One simple question: Would you be willing to live in that low rise public housing complex, with those neighbors, if you could afford to live in a better neighborhood with better neighbors?
The old high-rise projects and the new low-rise projects are totally different animals, but they still share some of the same social and economic problems. Until those problems are solved, changing how many floors a building has is just a partial solution.
iris lilies
3-21-21, 5:39pm
One simple question: Would you be willing to live in that low rise public housing complex, with those neighbors, if you could afford to live in a better neighborhood with better neighbors?
The old high-rise projects and the new low-rise projects are totally different animals, but they still share some of the same social and economic problems. Until those problems are solved, changing how many floors a building has is just a partial solution.
Of course I wouldn’t want to live in public housing.
Of course the low rise and the high-rise units share problems. They are still shooting up themselves and kids over there yonder in public housing. It’s public housing. DOH.
GeorgeParker
3-21-21, 5:48pm
Of course I wouldn’t want to live in public housing.
Of course the low rise and the high-rise units share problems. They are still shooting up themselves and kids over their yonder in public housing. It’s public housing. DOH.That sounds a lot like you're agreeing with me that the problem is the people who live there, not the design of the buildings. That's a start at least. :)
iris lilies
3-21-21, 6:41pm
That sounds a lot like you're agreeing with me that the problem is the people who live there, not the design of the buildings. That's a start at least. :)
When I speak about the design of the publicly funded housing units, I’m passing on the infinite wisdom of our overlords, the fed’s Housing and Urban Design bureaucrats. If you had spent more time on this website and knew me better, you would have a pretty good idea of my opinion of those… people. Why dont you take up your argument with them.
GeorgeParker
3-21-21, 11:39pm
When I speak about the design of the publicly funded housing units, I’m passing on the infinite wisdom of our overlords, the fed’s Housing and Urban Design bureaucrats. If you had spent more time on this website and knew me better, you would have a pretty good idea of my opinion of those… people. Why dont you take up your argument with them.Because it would be a total waste of time. And if you knew me better, or even paid attention to what I've said in this thread, it would be mighty damn obvious that I have just as bad an opinion of the bureaucrats as you do because they're the ones who created the public housing mess, and the urban renewal mess, and a whole lot of other messes. So why don't you understand that we're on the same side?
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 12:18am
When I speak about the design of the publicly funded housing units, I’m passing on the infinite wisdom of our overlords, the fed’s Housing and Urban Design bureaucrats.BTW: Why would you "pass on the infinite wisdom of our overlords" when you clearly hate them, instead of saying in plain words exactly what it is that you believe and what your opinion is? Sarcasm is difficult on the internet, and it's virtually always an ineffective way to make your point in a discussion about the effects of bad policies, because it gives people the impression you're just hating on the government and not discussing the policies themselves or suggesting ways they could be improved.
As it is, I really don't understand what it is you're trying to say by telling me "When I speak about the design of the publicly funded housing units, I’m passing on the infinite wisdom of our overlords, the fed’s Housing and Urban Design bureaucrats." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Other than the fact that you hate them?
Good point that you are making, GP. Can both or either of you express how you would do things differently?
iris lilies
3-22-21, 9:13am
BTW: Why would you "pass on the infinite wisdom of our overlords" when you clearly hate them, instead of saying in plain words exactly what it is that you believe and what your opinion is? Sarcasm is difficult on the internet, and it's virtually always an ineffective way to make your point in a discussion about the effects of bad policies, because it gives people the impression you're just hating on the government and not discussing the policies themselves or suggesting ways they could be improved.
As it is, I really don't understand what it is you're trying to say by telling me "When I speak about the design of the publicly funded housing units, I’m passing on the infinite wisdom of our overlords, the fed’s Housing and Urban Design bureaucrats." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Other than the fact that you hate them?
ah, yes. i do hate them! Good for you to pick up on that.
But I also do think that their wisdom about residents of public housing like their front stoops and yards for kids and etc is true. The overlords can sometimes speak truth.Poor people are people and they like the same amenities of non-poor people.
Public housing towers were built for poor families and were initially populated by poor families not crime ridden families. i have met people my age, white people, who were some of the first to live there. Public housing was not a place where drug infected families and gangs lived at first.That came later as poor working families fleed the encroaching crime of public housing complexes.
I stand by my initial comment that piling a whole lot of very poor people especially “the homeless” together in one structure, be it a high rise or a horizontal former shopping mall, is a recipe for disaster. We have tried that with public housing towers. That’s why Section 8 housing is The Gold Standard for housing of super poor families—placing those tenants amoung market rate housing influences them for the better. Or so goes the theory.
When the towers were razzed a block from me and the Feds refused to sell the land to commercial interests, the Feds undertook a new generation of public housing they referred to as “Mixed.” Not mixed race, but mixed income. Varying degrees of housing subsidy are given to residents, but the percentage of very poor people who are housed there now is very low. The area went from housing units for hundreds of poor to a dozen such units.
That area is certainly better looking than 30 years ago when abandoned towers stood tall. But the replacement structures are cheap and look ridiculous, like a downscale Disney version of the Victorian houses in my neighborhood. Federal housing at its finest.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 10:47am
What do you think should be done with dead/dying malls? Rob
To answer this original question, what should be done with the site of a dead shopping mall is whatever the owner and community want to be done.
These are not generally architecturally significant so it doesn’t break my heart for them to be bulldozed.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 1:59pm
This discussion caused me to think about the shopping enclosed mall I went to as a teenager. I remember how grown-up I felt when my mom would drop me off there where I could shop alone. And then a year or two later, I could drive a car there. It was quite rich and upscale for the 60s. S high end jewelry store was there. And for anyone who knows Des Moines Iowa, it was on the east side of town which is not the desirable side of town now, far from it.
That mall still stands!
Here’s a poster from the 1956 opening of that enclosed mall telling us it is the first and best in the state of Iowa.
3709
When I said affordable, I was thinking of something like a well-designed mixed-use condo complex. So "affordable" meaning middle income range. There's a mall in Portland heading that way, I think.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 10:44pm
ah, yes. i do hate them! Good for you to pick up on that. But I also do think that their wisdom about residents of public housing like their front stoops and yards for kids and etc is true. The overlords can sometimes speak truth.IMO the powers that be were dragged kicking and screaming into that conclusion by reality, and they came to that realization rather late.
Poor people are people and they like the same amenities of non-poor people.I agree, but that doesn't address the fact that millions of non-poor people happily live in skyscrapers or big apartment complexes which are the very structures those public housing towers and complexes were based on. In fact the public housing towers and complexes were often designed by the same architects and built to the same standards as successful commercial residential buildings.
So let's look at what was really happening when those towers were built: After WWII the stereotypical suburbs full of cookie-cutter 1000 sq ft houses were born and those suburbs rapidly expanded as middle-class and upper-blue-collar families fled their small city apartments for the now-affordable houses in suburbia. This outward expansion was aided by the Federal government being eager to help build freeways and highways and other infrastructure to make life good for all those middle-class suburban voters.
Meanwhile city governments wanted to demolish poor neighborhoods to create open space near downtown where factories, businesses, and other buildings that would pay higher property taxes could be built. But there was a problem. Most of the people who had crummy low-wage jobs as janitors, cooks, factory workers, and so on lived in those poor neighborhoods and couldn't afford to live in the suburbs (or weren't allowed to because they were the wrong color) so the cities couldn't just bulldoze those slums because the factories they were trying to attract needed the workers who lived in them.
The perfect solution was to build high-rise state-of-the-art-apartment-complexes that would house those poor people in a fraction of the space and let the city bulldoze the slums. As a bonus the poor people got better housing at a reduced rent they could afford. But the catch was, the feds were only willing to help build those towers if the city would be responsible for maintaining them.
The cities thought a mixture of subsidized poor tenants and non-subsidized blue-collar tenants would allow the buildings to break even financially since all the maintenance would be done by existing city building-maintenance crews. But when the non-subsidized tenants began to flee, and hooliganism increased, rent income went down and maintenance expense went up, so less maintenance got done, and even poor people who could somehow afford to move fled.
Pretty soon you end up with what they ended up with. I really wish I could give you some links to good documentaries about this, but even the ones that were on PBS are all behind a pay wall now.
Public housing towers were built for poor families and were initially populated by poor families not crime ridden families.No doubt that was the intention, but the effect was the opposite for the reasons I already stated and others that are too complex to go into here.
i have met people my age, white people, who were some of the first to live there. Public housing was not a place where drug infected families and gangs lived at first.That came later as poor working families fled the encroaching crime of public housing complexes.Bingo! As I said previously, the criteria for living in those places at a reduced rent created conditions where it was easy for resentment of The System and hooliganism to flourish, so good people who could afford to live elsewhere fled and the public housing towers went downhill from there.
I stand by my initial comment that piling a whole lot of very poor people especially “the homeless” together in one structure, be it a high rise or a horizontal former shopping mall, is a recipe for disaster. We have tried that with public housing towers.I agree completely for the reasons I just stated.
That’s why Section 8 housing is The Gold Standard for housing of super poor families—placing those tenants amoung market rate housing influences them for the better. Or so goes the theory.Sometimes that theory works, and sometimes it doesn't. The most notable failures being with teens and preteens who feel like a fish out of water, and miss hanging out with their friends, and feel like they have nothing in common with the kids their age in this new neighborhood. Adults and children often adapt pretty well to new social norms and different standards of behavior, provided they don't feel like the locals are rejecting them, it's harder for teens and preteens.
And who says they're the Gold Standard? I'd really like to see where that quote came from. And I'm certain some small European countries have our Section 8 housing beat hands down in the Gold Standard department.
When the towers were razzed a block from me and the Feds refused to sell the land to commercial interests, the Feds undertook a new generation of public housing they referred to as “Mixed.” Not mixed race, but mixed income. Varying degrees of housing subsidy are given to residents, but the percentage of very poor people who are housed there now is very low. The area went from housing units for hundreds of poor to a dozen such units.Thereby creating a mixed-income neighborhood in which the better off residents will, hopefully, serve as a role model and inspiration for the less well off and especially for the less well off children.
That area is certainly better looking than 30 years ago...But the replacement structures are cheap and look ridiculous, like a downscale Disney version of the Victorian houses in my neighborhood.There you go hating on Disney again. ;)
ApatheticNoMore
3-22-21, 11:08pm
I guess section 8 is the gold standard in that if you are poor it is good to get one.
But not only will many landlords not accept them, but there is often years of being on a of waiting list to qualify for section 8, applications are only open for short period of times (sometimes LESS THAN once a decade! - yes that is literally how often it is open in some rental markets) and close abruptly as demand far outstrips supply by at least 4 times nationwide, and yes it often amounts to years until approval.
It's not much of a housing solution at all, it's less a safety net than a safety net lottery where if you are poor, you might have a chance to win yourself affordable housing (and we wonder why the poor gamble :laff:). A new section 8 voucher only opens up if someone dies or earns to much money for theirs.
I remember in middle school my son kept begging me to move to the projects because he liked a girl who lived there and I was trying to tell him no and answering his why not questions without disparaging where she lived or making him feel sorry for her.
rosarugosa
3-23-21, 7:24am
In my town, we have a 266-unit low-income housing complex that reminds me of a timeshare vacation complex, and I'm not exaggerating. We have good friends that live there, so this is not just a drive-by assessment. I know there is a waiting list, and our friend who lives there is disabled and on SSDI. She was very excited when she got the apartment and likes it there a lot, so I guess this place is doing something right:
http://corcoranapts.com/communities/massachusetts/saugus/saugus-commons/
We also have 3 senior affordable housing complexes that are owned and run by the town. Those don't seem quite as nice and I know them on more of a drive-by or walk-by basis. I believe they are decent enough though, since I never see complaints on the town social media pages, and people on there complain about EVERYTHING.
iris lilies
3-23-21, 9:27am
I guess section 8 is the gold standard in that if you are poor it is good to get one.
But not only will many landlords not accept them, but there is often years of being on a of waiting list to qualify for section 8, applications are only open for short period of times (sometimes LESS THAN once a decade! - yes that is literally how often it is open in some rental markets) and close abruptly as demand far outstrips supply by at least 4 times nationwide, and yes it often amounts to years until approval.
It's not much of a housing solution at all, it's less a safety net than a safety net lottery where if you are poor, you might have a chance to win yourself affordable housing (and we wonder why the poor gamble :laff:). A new section 8 voucher only opens up if someone dies or earns to much money for theirs.
Yes everything you say is true which is why it is a gold standard. A section 8 voucher is very hard to get, is rare, highly coveted.
So this should be the creme of poor people right? yet ongoing stories of section 8 landlords and how they got out of that business reveal that many poor people just don’t know how to live in and take care of a property. Whether they’re renting or owning, Reasonable standards of care ate not part of their world.
And then we all know the stories of section 8 rental on our blocks are nearby. Often the crapiest building and tenants of the area. Fortunately my neighborhood has priced out of the section 8 housing market, but there were section 8 units near me when we moved here.
DH was a sec 8 landlord in Iowa when I met him. His tenant was a single mom with a couple of kids and she was a perfectly fine tenant.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.