Do you honestly think this city needs more houses with a declining population? I think the last offer they got on the land should have accepted. In the current market getting face value is nothing to take lightly. If they're doing it to make money they should have built it in Eldridge.
There is nothing new about urbanisim. The Council for New Urbanism is a great marketing machine and deserve a tip of the hat for elevating urbanism and the link between auto dependency and obesity.
It's not about one new subdivision vs Eldridge its about the entire historic core of the Quad Cities vs sub and ex urbia.
Restoring the desirablity of older neighborhoods is about confronting racial attitudes, perceived and real crime, and neglected infrastructure.
And taking advantage of future increases in energy pricing that will help redensify the core over a twenty to fourty year cycle.
Lastly, yes the city needs new housing with a declining population as long as the number of households keeps increasing as it has despite very little population growth in the region over the past twenty five years.
"Davenport’s case, almost all of its population gains over the past five years came between 2004 and 2005, the Census Bureau said.
After the 2000 census, Davenport lost people until 2002 before inching upward again. It had regained the losses by 2004 and added 482 people by 2005, the government said. If that growth rate continues, Davenport’s population will hit 100,000 people in 2008. The last time the city reached that point was in the mid-1980s. "
Also, new subdivisions are being built in Davenport whether we think we need them or not. Wouldn't you rather they were well designed and used fewer city dollars per household?
As someone who remembers when Davenport was bigger than Cedar Rapids with a very vibrant downtown, I don't like seeing projects getting approved just for the sake of the project. Actually we build less new houses here than in Iowa City, which has 30,000 less people. We have a lower percentage of high school and college graduates than either Cedar Rapids or Iowa City, and we have a higher unemployment rate. All of which adds up to more crime. Downtown used to be destination with Woolworth's, Grant's, Petersen's, Bishop's, and Walgreen's, plus 2 movie theaters. We had a bigger riverside park that had family fests, and concerts. All that was replaced with things that aren't working like RME, the Figge, and the skybridge.
Maybe that's why they have more building permits than us. Also with the Universtiy and Veteran's hospitals, and the State Univerity, they have more people moving in or out at any given time. They must be getting the extra rent because when I worked up there a few years ago there was a lot of building going on.
Cruiser, Iowa City is addressing a vast housing shortage. Places that would rent for $600-800 in Davenport fetch twice that amount in Iowa City. Also, Iowa City's true population is probably not expressed in its official numbers due to the high concentration of students who don't claim Iowa City for census purposes.
New Urbanism is such a stupid thing. It is like we are all wishing for the past to come back where natural communities are formed. We obviously don't get it. We in Davenport have too many planned developments and too many subsidized housing places that new urbansim will never work again as a planned thing. Instead we shoudl cherrish and promote the central city and part of the west end where it is a reality or sould be a reality. Meaning tht we already have the housing (some needs renovated) and we used to have the businesses (the buildings are still there). Just totally promote the concept agan in already exisitng areas. Stop the developmetns for the poor and promote mixed income development in existing buildings. We are missing the mark by promoting a gated like community for new urbanism. This term is thrown around loosely. In fact, even John Lewis has used it to describe Cobblestone. Cobblestone is not new urbanism. It is a buzz word that planners love to hear - perhaps it makes them feel better. Who knows, but we have new urbanism here in this city. But true new urbanism includes a mix of people, a mix of housing, a mix of business, etc. I doubt the promoters of it really understand it. We, in Davenport are scared of diversity and we are for some reason leary of the revitalization of the central city. Racism, classism, red-lining, concentration of poverty. It all is happening in the areas that really are the core of new urbanism. We don't value this area now, but we are sure wanting to build a 'new' lillie white version of what we already have.
Supposedly some of the condos in PH will sell for around 100k, which is pretty cheap for new construction.
Everyone acts like we shouldn't build PH because we don't need more housing. Yet new housing is going up all over Davenport, so obviously developers believe the market can support it. Out past 53rd there are dozens of new streets that I've never even heard of. There are more new neighborhoods being built over by Emeis and out by Cheyenne.
The question is whether we want to give something new a try, or continue with curvy street, cul-de-sac filled, inefficient, unwalkable suburban development.
People would never have thought that folks would pay $1000 a month to live in this building along with people whose income is limited. Yet the Davenport Lofts has been hovering around 97% occupancy. What is the harm in providing new options for housing in Davenport?
QCI, I don't think you get it. We have an unused, unapreciated resource now called the central city. Some people prefer SoLo also. The thing is we should boot out JLCS, Interfaith, and Habitat; and let homeowners and private investers revitalize the area. As anon at 2:21 mentioned, we have the urbanism, and our area has it's own charm along with a few problems. Why not work with we have instead of devastate the area by making PH out to be more than it is. They should have sold it when they had a chance and put the money into the SoLo area.
We need a smart growth plan. We should be limiting the amount of new development to stop the devaluing of our existing homes. New urbanism concept for these limited new developments is a great idea and we should be encouraging it, not sure about requiring it. In other cities it is taking off like mad.
Cruiser- "we should boot JLCS, Habitat, Interfaith"-right, because if they were gone the private developers would just come flooding in. Just who is it that is improving the existing stock and making homeownership available? Is it the nonprofit developers that are preventing banks from making loans south of Locust? Man, am I tired of the same old rag on these blogs about the nonprofits. Also the rant on selling PH is useless because its already tasked out to a developer chosen through a public RFP process. Even the idea of bulldozing blocks south of Locust has been around a long time-any NEW ideas out there?
I still say get rid of the non-profits, use all the monies they get to let private enterprise step in and remodel what's here. All the non-profits do is build ranch style houses or apartment buildings that don't fit the neighborhoods they're put in. As for PH, you're right, it is a done deal. I just hope it turns out better than anything else the city has been involved with lately.
Cruiser- you don't know what you're talking about. Interfaith only does rehab and beautiful and architecturally correct ones at that. I can't think of a multifamily development that has been built in the last five years other than by for-profit companies-Alexander has soaked up a bunch of that wonderful money. Again-bitching about a non-existent problem and not one original idea. Keep spinning your wheels.
Either you don't live SoLo, or you spend as little time as possible there. Two house on 6th. and LeClaire St. have been redone how many times? Don't put in new houses? How about 900 and 100 block of LeClaire St. Development hasn't gone ahead because a private contractor can't compete with the non-profits. Lucky Lang has rehabed several houses in the area and Oak Helm has also done quite a few. I still say, let the non-profits go elsewhere and we'll get along fine without them. As for new ideas, moving out must be new, it got you worked up. Talk to some of the neighbors and see how appreciated they are.
Interfaith had a hard time finding a buyer for that ranch style house they built on Leclaire Street. That house definately stuck out like a sore thumb.
I think Davenport does need new development. If Davenport doesn't build it, Eldridge and Bettendorf will continue to build it (and have been for many years). This situation illustrates just how aggressive we need to be in improving our urban core. It's going to take leadership to get it done.
I'm all for a "smart growth" plan as snarky chick suggests, but that is going to require planning at least at the county level. That will be a tough sell for these other communities. And even if we got a more regional development plan in place, we're still going to have to work on improving the inner city, plan or no plan.
I'm still optimistic. This area has assets that other areas don't, and probably never will (yes, we do). As 2:21 suggested, we need to start valuing them again, utilizing them again, and promoting them again.
20 comments:
Do you honestly think this city needs more houses with a declining population? I think the last offer they got on the land should have accepted. In the current market getting face value is nothing to take lightly. If they're doing it to make money they should have built it in Eldridge.
There is nothing new about urbanisim. The Council for New Urbanism is a great marketing machine and deserve a tip of the hat for elevating urbanism and the link between auto dependency and obesity.
It's not about one new subdivision vs Eldridge its about the entire historic core of the Quad Cities vs sub and ex urbia.
Restoring the desirablity of older neighborhoods is about confronting racial attitudes, perceived and real crime, and neglected infrastructure.
And taking advantage of future increases in energy pricing that will help redensify the core over a twenty to fourty year cycle.
Lastly, yes the city needs new housing with a declining population as long as the number of households keeps increasing as it has despite very little population growth in the region over the past twenty five years.
Also, the population isn't declining.
In 1990 the population was 95,333.
In 2000 it was 98,359.
Then it took s small dip and was 97, 512 in 2003.
However, a 2005 estimate shows us back at 98,845.
Here's a quote from the QCTimes from last June:
"Davenport’s case, almost all of its population gains over the past five years came between 2004 and 2005, the Census Bureau said.
After the 2000 census, Davenport lost people until 2002 before inching upward again. It had regained the losses by 2004 and added 482 people by 2005, the government said. If that growth rate continues, Davenport’s population will hit 100,000 people in 2008. The last time the city reached that point was in the mid-1980s.
"
Also, new subdivisions are being built in Davenport whether we think we need them or not. Wouldn't you rather they were well designed and used fewer city dollars per household?
As someone who remembers when Davenport was bigger than Cedar Rapids with a very vibrant downtown, I don't like seeing projects getting approved just for the sake of the project. Actually we build less new houses here than in Iowa City, which has 30,000 less people. We have a lower percentage of high school and college graduates than either Cedar Rapids or Iowa City, and we have a higher unemployment rate. All of which adds up to more crime. Downtown used to be destination with Woolworth's, Grant's, Petersen's, Bishop's, and Walgreen's, plus 2 movie theaters. We had a bigger riverside park that had family fests, and concerts. All that was replaced with things that aren't working like RME, the Figge, and the skybridge.
Cruiser, Iowa City is addressing a vast housing shortage. Places that would rent for $600-800 in Davenport fetch twice that amount in Iowa City.
Maybe that's why they have more building permits than us. Also with the Universtiy and Veteran's hospitals, and the State Univerity, they have more people moving in or out at any given time. They must be getting the extra rent because when I worked up there a few years ago there was a lot of building going on.
Cruiser, Iowa City is addressing a vast housing shortage. Places that would rent for $600-800 in Davenport fetch twice that amount in Iowa City. Also, Iowa City's true population is probably not expressed in its official numbers due to the high concentration of students who don't claim Iowa City for census purposes.
I didn't think that was posted when my battery died immediately after hitting the "publish" button... I should pay attention.
New Urbanism is such a stupid thing. It is like we are all wishing for the past to come back where natural communities are formed. We obviously don't get it. We in Davenport have too many planned developments and too many subsidized housing places that new urbansim will never work again as a planned thing. Instead we shoudl cherrish and promote the central city and part of the west end where it is a reality or sould be a reality. Meaning tht we already have the housing (some needs renovated) and we used to have the businesses (the buildings are still there). Just totally promote the concept agan in already exisitng areas. Stop the developmetns for the poor and promote mixed income development in existing buildings. We are missing the mark by promoting a gated like community for new urbanism. This term is thrown around loosely. In fact, even John Lewis has used it to describe Cobblestone. Cobblestone is not new urbanism. It is a buzz word that planners love to hear - perhaps it makes them feel better. Who knows, but we have new urbanism here in this city. But true new urbanism includes a mix of people, a mix of housing, a mix of business, etc. I doubt the promoters of it really understand it. We, in Davenport are scared of diversity and we are for some reason leary of the revitalization of the central city. Racism, classism, red-lining, concentration of poverty. It all is happening in the areas that really are the core of new urbanism. We don't value this area now, but we are sure wanting to build a 'new' lillie white version of what we already have.
Supposedly some of the condos in PH will sell for around 100k, which is pretty cheap for new construction.
Everyone acts like we shouldn't build PH because we don't need more housing. Yet new housing is going up all over Davenport, so obviously developers believe the market can support it. Out past 53rd there are dozens of new streets that I've never even heard of. There are more new neighborhoods being built over by Emeis and out by Cheyenne.
The question is whether we want to give something new a try, or continue with curvy street, cul-de-sac filled, inefficient, unwalkable suburban development.
People would never have thought that folks would pay $1000 a month to live in this building along with people whose income is limited. Yet the Davenport Lofts has been hovering around 97% occupancy. What is the harm in providing new options for housing in Davenport?
QCI, I don't think you get it. We have an unused, unapreciated resource now called the central city. Some people prefer SoLo also. The thing is we should boot out JLCS, Interfaith, and Habitat; and let homeowners and private investers revitalize the area. As anon at 2:21 mentioned, we have the urbanism, and our area has it's own charm along with a few problems. Why not work with we have instead of devastate the area by making PH out to be more than it is. They should have sold it when they had a chance and put the money into the SoLo area.
The fact is, many people want a new house. Are you suggesting we simply turn those people away to different cities and miss out on their tax base?
Or that we bulldoze large areas of SoLo to build new?
We need a smart growth plan. We should be limiting the amount of new development to stop the devaluing of our existing homes. New urbanism concept for these limited new developments is a great idea and we should be encouraging it, not sure about requiring it. In other cities it is taking off like mad.
Cruiser-
"we should boot JLCS, Habitat, Interfaith"-right, because if they were gone the private developers would just come flooding in. Just who is it that is improving the existing stock and making homeownership available? Is it the nonprofit developers that are preventing banks from making loans south of Locust? Man, am I tired of the same old rag on these blogs about the nonprofits. Also the rant on selling PH is useless because its already tasked out to a developer chosen through a public RFP process. Even the idea of bulldozing blocks south of Locust has been around a long time-any NEW ideas out there?
I still say get rid of the non-profits, use all the monies they get to let private enterprise step in and remodel what's here. All the non-profits do is build ranch style houses or apartment buildings that don't fit the neighborhoods they're put in. As for PH, you're right, it is a done deal. I just hope it turns out better than anything else the city has been involved with lately.
Cruiser-
you don't know what you're talking about. Interfaith only does rehab and beautiful and architecturally correct ones at that. I can't think of a multifamily development that has been built in the last five years other than by for-profit companies-Alexander has soaked up a bunch of that wonderful money. Again-bitching about a non-existent problem and not one original idea. Keep spinning your wheels.
Either you don't live SoLo, or you spend as little time as possible there. Two house on 6th. and LeClaire St. have been redone how many times? Don't put in new houses? How about 900 and 100 block of LeClaire St. Development hasn't gone ahead because a private contractor can't compete with the non-profits. Lucky Lang has rehabed several houses in the area and Oak Helm has also done quite a few. I still say, let the non-profits go elsewhere and we'll get along fine without them. As for new ideas, moving out must be new, it got you worked up. Talk to some of the neighbors and see how appreciated they are.
Interfaith had a hard time finding a buyer for that ranch style house they built on Leclaire Street. That house definately stuck out like a sore thumb.
I think Davenport does need new development. If Davenport doesn't build it, Eldridge and Bettendorf will continue to build it (and have been for many years). This situation illustrates just how aggressive we need to be in improving our urban core. It's going to take leadership to get it done.
I'm all for a "smart growth" plan as snarky chick suggests, but that is going to require planning at least at the county level. That will be a tough sell for these other communities. And even if we got a more regional development plan in place, we're still going to have to work on improving the inner city, plan or no plan.
I'm still optimistic. This area has assets that other areas don't, and probably never will (yes, we do). As 2:21 suggested, we need to start valuing them again, utilizing them again, and promoting them again.
Post a Comment