• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

The future of affordable house

wingo

Member
Messages
1
Points
0
I'll go to McGill university to study the Affordable House. Can anyone tell me something about the future about this majoy.
After finishing the school,can I find a job in North America easily? Thank you very much.
 

Jen

Cyburbian
Messages
1,703
Points
24
Welcome to Cyburbia wingo

If I understand you correctly, you say that you attend McGill Univ and are majoring in affordable housing? or something like that? Is that in Urban Planning or a school unto itself. I noticed McGill has a renewable resources department.

Well, if you are in real estate or the mortgage business President Bush's recently announced 'Homeownership Plan" may be a boon to affordable housing market sectors. I'm thinking of cheapo townhomes and manufactured housing parks...

j
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Jen said:
Welcome to Cyburbia wingo
I'm thinking of cheapo townhomes and manufactured housing parks...j
I think that the outlook for the production of affordable and sub-affordable housing is indeed good. However, the long term prospects are not going to be good unless a mix of incomes is encouraged. I am especially thinking of the various low incoming projects that replace poorly designed structures with better designs but still warehouse the poor in segregated developments. Although low income and affordable are somewhat different it still hits my point of economically segragated housing does poorly regardless of design.
Especially on the low end, I think that you should not plan on low income residents being more than 10% of the residential population. Above that concentration and you get excessive dysfunction and the same end result as we have now.
I know that this is somewhat of a shift of the original topic.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
Runner said:


I think that the outlook for the production of affordable and sub-affordable housing is indeed good. However, the long term prospects are not going to be good unless a mix of incomes is encouraged. I am especially thinking of the various low incoming projects that replace poorly designed structures with better designs but still warehouse the poor in segregated developments. Although low income and affordable are somewhat different it still hits my point of economically segragated housing does poorly regardless of design.
Especially on the low end, I think that you should not plan on low income residents being more than 10% of the residential population. Above that concentration and you get excessive dysfunction and the same end result as we have now.
I know that this is somewhat of a shift of the original topic.
Runner, you are going to have an awfully hard time keeping low income density to 10% without clustering, considering that they (poor people) make up a larger share of the overall population. Personally, I do not care how much my neighbors make, so long as they don't break the law, take care of their home, don't let their cats run wild, and don't have a 3 on the back of their truck.

As for a career in affordable housing, I would say that is a safe bet. There are always available jobs. Just be sure you like dealing with various bureaucracies and state and federal programs. If you do not enjoy writing grants, filling out forms and reports, monitoring labor standards and administering all sorts of tedious details, this may not be your best choice. At least an internship should be very easy to find, so you can give it a try before you get too committed. You will also get a taste of the pay by working an internship. Most housing directors could probably qualify to live in the housing the manage.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
Wait a second. When did affordable housing become synonymous with low income housing?!

No wonder folks in this white-bread suburb are oppossed to it - planners are tlaking like they are one and the same!
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Michael Stumpf said:
Runner, you are going to have an awfully hard time keeping low income density to 10% without clustering, considering that they (poor people) make up a larger share of the overall population.
I think we may have our definitions crossed. By low income I was referring to near or below the poverty level and or living on public assistance. I could not recommend above 20% concentration and I think that is pushing it. I'll look at census figures later but I don't think this group makes up a "larger share" of the population.

Of course ownership can make a big difference at those income levels too. Rental units or public housing with high or exclusive low / poverty / subsistance incomes just doesn't work. I suspect that the beautifully designed replacements for modernist public housing towers are destined to fail if economically successful residents to serve as examples are not present in overwhelming quantities.

Sorry to take this off the topic of the original post.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Runner said:
Although low income and affordable are somewhat different it still hits my point of economically segragated housing does poorly regardless of design.
bturk,
When did affordable housing become synonymous with low income housing?! I don't know, when did it?

Although I guess they could be if they are both below market rate...
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
The phrase "somewhat different"

IMHO, "Somewhat different" is a mis-statement, Runner. I picked up on the phrase and the rest of your post melded into the background.

They are alot different in this part of the country. An affordable house in this community is the rare 50 year old, 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom, slab on grade with no garage for $175,000. Affordable, perhaps. Low income, not.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Re: The phrase "somewhat different"

bturk said:
IMHO, "Somewhat different" is a mis-statement, Runner. I picked up on the phrase and the rest of your post melded into the background.
Semantics, but I trust you understand what I was trying to say now. Around here "affordable housing" still refers to some degree of government intervention although not nearly to the degree of low/no income housing. This is different from "housing that is affordable" which may have no intervention, be a great deal/steal, or even a "fixer upper".

Oooops, by no intervention I was ignoring traditional loans and income tax issues which could easily be argued as government intervention...
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
And the beat goes on... LOL

Anyways, my real point was also semantics. Any talk of affordable housing in this area degenerates into talk of low income housing and "those people". We have to be carefull in our discussions and presentations to make a distinction or else we'll lose any chance of addressing affordability in our next Comprehensive Plan.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
bturk said:
Anyways, my real point was also semantics... We have to be carefull in our discussions and presentations to make a distinction or else we'll lose any chance of addressing affordability in our next Comprehensive Plan.
Good point. Maybe we need to make a concious effort not to use the buz words "affordable housing" at all. Glomer mentioned using the term "work force housing" in an earlier thread:
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1146
I'm not sure if this is better but I guess we may agree that a term with less baggage would be useful.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
Runner said:


Good point. Maybe we need to make a concious effort not to use the buz words "affordable housing" at all. Glomer mentioned using the term "work force housing" in an earlier thread:
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1146
I'm not sure if this is better but I guess we may agree that a term with less baggage would be useful.
People are getting to know the euphemisms - affordable housing, work force housing, etc. It really could be called middle class housing. Maybe the best approach is to discuss it in terms of household income. Why not "housing marketed toward families earning about $40,000 or more a year" or something like that?
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Michael Stumpf said:
It really could be called middle class housing. Maybe the best approach is to discuss it in terms of household income.
Yes, that sounds good to me. Part of the KISS principle in action! Time to get back to: lower, middle, and upper class price points and leave it at that (the existing hyper striations of housing is not beneficial). Further, I still strongly believe in the benefit of mixed income / mixed use developments. A melting pot of incomes in a melting pot of uses if you wish.
 
Top