Gilbert wins Brewster-Douglass

[Hypestyles]

So in this context, what does "affordable" mean? What's the monthly rent supposed to be? Can single people with no kids qualify?

The design of the new residences is extremely important. The old standard of oppressive towers should be completely abandoned.

Security should be paramount. Regardless of the income, everybody should be made to feel safe living here. The cliche's of the 70s and 80s [[gangs, drugs, prostitution) need to be avoided at all costs.

[Junjie]

So in this context, what does "affordable" mean? What's the monthly rent supposed to be? Can single people with no kids qualify?

The design of the new residences is extremely important. The old standard of oppressive towers should be completely abandoned.

Security should be paramount. Regardless of the income, everybody should be made to feel safe living here. The cliche's of the 70s and 80s [[gangs, drugs, prostitution) need to be avoided at all costs.

I think the good news is that the towers in the park style has pretty definitely been rejected at this point [[I mean in current construction by developers who know what they're doing, not anything specific about this project).

"The plan is required to have at least 224 public housing units, in mixed-income neighborhood settings on and off the original Brewster-Douglass site, according to the RFQ. Unit residents must pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent.

“The new community should include a mixture of deeply subsidized, affordable and market rate rental and/or homeownership units as determined to be viable and advantageous to the overall development effort,” the RFQ said."

The idea is to have a mix of income levels and therefore avoid the concentrated poverty that breeds social ills.

Not sure what the standards are for "deeply subsidized" [[section 8?) and "affordable" - maybe someone else can speak to that. 30% of income doesn't tell us much without an income level.

[Honky Tonk]

So in this context, what does "affordable" mean? What's the monthly rent supposed to be? Can single people with no kids qualify?

The design of the new residences is extremely important. The old standard of oppressive towers should be completely abandoned.

Security should be paramount. Regardless of the income, everybody should be made to feel safe living here. The cliche's of the 70s and 80s [[gangs, drugs, prostitution) need to be avoided at all costs.

And yet there are towers all over the planet, with efficiency sized units, commanding high rent to live there, without the issues the Brewsters had. Why do you think that is?

[Junjie]

And yet there are towers all over the planet, with efficiency sized units, commanding high rent to live there, without the issues the Brewsters had. Why do you think that is?

Probably because they're not clustered together in a park and limited only to poor people. Why do you think it is?

[EL Jimbo]

Probably because they're not clustered together in a park and limited only to poor people. Why do you think it is?

The design itself has nothing to do with the social issues. Be it a towers, row houses, whatever. The issue was concentrated poverty. Wherever poverty is concentrated, problems occur. The fact that this is planned to be mixed incomes makes it much more likely that problems won't occur than if it were strictly low-income housing.

[Honky Tonk]

Probably because they're not clustered together in a park and limited only to poor people. Why do you think it is?

Total nonsense. So if you're rich and clustered together, something magic happens, if you're poor and clustered together, shit happens?

[ekleezy]

Total nonsense. So if you're rich and clustered together, something magic happens, if you're poor and clustered together, shit happens?

You can't deny that it's more likely that there will be more problems with concentrated poverty than concentrated wealth. There can still be problems with mixed incomes living together but it's less likely.

[dtowncitylover]

There can still be problems with mixed incomes living together but it's less likely.

LOL This is called a real and functional city.

[Shai_Hulud]

Total nonsense. So if you're rich and clustered together, something magic happens, if you're poor and clustered together, shit happens?

Seriously? It's 2016 and you're acting as if concentration of poverty isn't real?

Take all the poor, ignorant and desperate that you can find, cram them in as tight as you can, isolate them and just watch the Nobel winners start popping out?

Oh ok.

[Honky Tonk]

Seriously? It's 2016 and you're acting as if concentration of poverty isn't real?

Take all the poor, ignorant and desperate that you can find, cram them in as tight as you can, isolate them and just watch the Nobel winners start popping out?

Oh ok.

No they become transformed into natural born killers. Give them each a hundred grand and they'll become upstanding citizens. Thanx for the timeline, my watch stopped.

[MSUguy]

Total nonsense. So if you're rich and clustered together, something magic happens, if you're poor and clustered together, shit happens?

Nothing magical there is decades of research on the effects growing up in concerted poverty has on people.

[Wesley Mouch]

Probably because they're not clustered together in a park and limited only to poor people. Why do you think it is?

I subscribe to the theory that the problem is cultural, not from poverty. If you were to ask most residents of any public housing, you'd probably find that security is their number one concern. Likely not in favor of the BLM crusade to cure the world of active policing.

[southen]

I subscribe to the theory that the problem is cultural, not from poverty.

Poverty creates the culture, there is no separating the two.

[Honky Tonk]

Poverty creates the culture, there is no separating the two.

Southen, we weren't destitute, but we were by no means rich. We helped and respected our neighbors not took advantage of them. The biggest issue IMO is attitude, not monetary status. I have no idea how to change that in some one else.

[southen]

Southen, we weren't destitute, but we were by no means rich. We helped and respected our neighbors not took advantage of them. The biggest issue IMO is attitude, not monetary status. I have no idea how to change that in some one else.

Attitude and culture are derived from your surroundings. Not everyone is impacted the same way by poverty, but it clearly has an impact on people, especially in urban communities where opportunity isn't as readily available. I would like to think that I would have respect and would not resort to bad behavior if I grew up the son to a single mother in Detroit vs. growing up the son of a single mother in Rochester like I did, but I can't say for certain I would have ended up the same.

Given the amount of Detroit youth that make their way into the prison system im not sure there is a surefire way to change that in a person. I think it boils down to making inner city neighborhoods a priority and providing opportunities and a good education.

Every time I want to yell at my television "Why?!?!?!" when I see another one of these stories I have to remind myself that I didn't grow up on a block with three burned down homes, in a neighborhood with no street lights and in a school district that has a mushroom and rodent problem. There is definitely a culture to a lot of this, I just happen to think that it starts with poverty and goes from there.