COMMUNITY-ORIENTED RES IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SITE
Feasibility Analysis and Prospectus
by
Ronald Thomas Hafer
Bachelor of Arts
DePauw University
1957
Master of Arts
University of Illinois
1958
Bachelor of Divinity
Andover Newton Theological School
1965
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE
MASTER IN SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SEPTEMBER, 1985
(0 Ronald Thomas Hafer 1985
The
Author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission
reproduce and to distribute publicly copies
of this thesis document inwhole or in part.
to
Signature of the author-_-Mnad Thomas Hae?
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
September, 1985
Certified by
-V
Associate Professor
Ph llip
Ur
n St
'
T
:?ts
L. Clay
Planning
s i-er
Accepted by
(Professor
Lawrence S. Bacow
Chairperson
Interdepartmental Degree Program
in Real Estate Development
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
SEP 3 0 1985
LIBRA91ES
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SITE
Feasibility Analysis and Prospectus
by
Ronald Thomas Hafer
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree
Master in Science in Real Estate Development at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
What
is unique about the community-based approach to urban
residential real estate development? Can "community needs" be
the central consideration in determining the feasibility of
such a project?
Can a coalition of neighborhood agencies
sponsor a site specific community planning process which seeks
to keep affordable housing where there are rapidly increasing
market
forces?
These are the theoretical questions in this
thesis.
The more practical questions addressed are ones which relate
to a feasibility analysis of a potential urban residential
real estate development when conducted from the standpoint of
the community approach mentioned in the paragraph above.
The
client for the analysis is a community planning group.
The
site is one located next to the Southwest Corridor in
Boston. It is part of a neighborhood real estate market which
is rapidly becoming unaffordable for the current residents,
many of whom have been residents throughout the corridor's
construction phase.
The writer is a student in the Master's program of the M.I.T.
Center for Real Estate Development.
He is also the Executive
Director-on-leave of one of the sponsoring community agencies,
the one with experience in housing renovation and development.
Thesis Supervisor:
Dr. Phillip L. Clay
Title: Associate Professor of Urban Studies and Planning
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SITE
Feasibility Analysis and Prospectus
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
I. The Broader Setting . . . . . . .
II.
The Specific Approach.........
.
.
.
. . . . .
.. .....
. p.
p.
5
11
CHAPTER II: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTUS
I. The Context .:. .....
.
. .
.
.. .. .. ..
. . . ......
. .
*.......
..
II. Site Analysis
III. Highest and Best Use: A Community Perspective .
IV. Design, Site, and Construction Options . . . . .
. . .p.
. . . . . . ..
V. Legal Constraints Analysis
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ..
VI. Market Analysis
A. The "Open Market"
B. The "Affordable Market"
. . . . . . .
.......
VII. Financial Analysis
A. Bringing Balance to the Pro Forma
B. Indirect Subsidies
C. Direct Subsidies
D. Base Pro Formas
.
VIII. Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER III; CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS .
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
APPENDICES
.
p.
14
20
27
36
39
41
p.
48
. p.
59
. p.
64
. . . . . p.
68
.
70
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
o.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I. Development Pro Formas: Sensitivity Runs
II. Past Use Map: Chestnut/Hoffman Area
III. Preliminary Site Plans
IV. Prototype Models:
A. Rendering and Floor Plans: Double Duplex
B. Buyer Pro Forma
C. Development Pro Forma: Base Figures
V. Excerpts from: "Identifying the Power
Structure of a Community"
3
.
.
p.
p.
p.
p.
. P.
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED
OF
AN
RESIDENTIAL
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE:
Feasibility Analysis and Prospectus
4
Chapter I: Introduction
I. The Broader Setting
In
the
development
oriented
past twenty years,
has
been emerging,
and
for
development."
a new form
which
of
real
a form which is
one
name
is
estate
communnity-
"community-based
Several basic characteristics of this form are
divergent from those of the traditional industry. For example,
"community based" practitioners frequently view "meeting human
needs"
as their basic purpose,
ignore
dollars,
a "bottom line"
cannot
but which is not measured in dollars in
manner of the traditional developer.
sites
that
the
Further, the sources for
are frequently lower income neighborhoods,
both
urban
and rural, sources frequently by-passed by developers who look
to
the central city core or the suburban ring
development sites.
Community
Also,
for attractive
the main development
Development Corporation,
vehicle,
is organized under
the
"non-
profit" portions of corporate law.
During
the
past
five
years,
"community-based
development" has established itself as a long term phenomenon.
It has withstood the vicissitudes of public policy changes
the
at
federal level and emerged as a source increasingly turned
to at the state and local levels of activity.
worthy of support because of the potentially
5
It is viewed as
greater benefits
it
offers
in
meeting
public
For example,
development/redevelopment.
public
ways,
policies
in
recognizes the need to utilize
law
relating
Massachusetts,
CDCs
several
in
CDCs
agencies have been established to service
public
to
(City of Boston, "Community Development Plan, FY 1985," n.p.),
and
both
current - Governor
the
Massachusetts
of
the
Commonwealth
and the current Mayor of Boston have
of
developed
policies which rely upon the use of CDCs.
This
which
need
differ
and
is
not to say that
the
categories
of
questions
to be asked in an effective feasibility
significantly between the community-based
the traditional one.
include market analysis,
The categories are
site analysis,
analysis
perspective
similar.
financial
They
analysis,
best use analysis, site control and legal constraint analysis,
as
well
as
approval,
isssues relating
to
site
and community support.
control,
In fact,
feasibility analysis may look quite similar.
in
which the questions are asked,
they are asked,
which can be
government
the data in the
It is the manner
the process through
which
different and which can produce
a significantly different feasibility analysis.
The typical developer may well head his/her list with the
questions:
(1)
What
is the financial differential
between
costs and market returns, i.e. what is the likely profit to be
generated?
surrounding
is
likely
(2)
Is
there
sufficient
market to support this?
to
ask:
(1) What
6
are
strength
in
the
The community developer
the
leading
perceived
community needs which can be best met at this site and how
relate to public purposes and practices?
these
and
(2)
do
How
can this project lend strength to the surrounding marketplace?
Put
is
another way,
to
test
a view of community
development
in
which
the typical
the
driven,
traditional development is developer benefit
typical
while
a major thesis to be examined in this paper
community development is community benefit
driven. Each sees much the same issues but in a reversed order
of importance and priority.
Hence,
a Chart of
"Development
Priorities From Two Perspectives" such as the one following in
this
text
reverse
will
order
list the same topics,
of
necessarily
an
priorities
which
process,
one
priority..
order
of
This,
process,
operate
but
within
of
but
a
provide
course,
rather
a
development
a
near
is
not
set
of
packaging
which is likely to jump back and forth
between
elements.
Is this a valid approach to a feasibility
it
serve as the basis for community based
analysis?
development?
Can
How
does one start developing a "blue print" for such an approach?
These
are
the
theoretical questions at the
heart
of
this
thesis.
To
keep
these
understandings
that
Hence,
should be noted.
government
this
questions in
is
simply
perspective,
First,
"community"
several
it should be
one
step
key
noted
removed.
process assumes a strong interaction between the
immediate neighborhood and the local government,
7
both
around
questions
the
"community goals" and determining
of
"common
good" and around questions of specific roles and contributions
of resources.
Further,
the
purpose of this document is not to examine
the growth of the community-based development "movement"
a
from
general historical perspective or sociological perspective.
Rather,
it
is to test the perspective and process
above
from
site.
In other words,
who
"inside" a process which is examining
initiated
guiding
that
perspective
of
a
specfic
the author is a "participant observer"
the process and is playing a major
process.
that
analysis/prospectus
This
discussed
He
has
process in
which
also
role
written
preparing
the
in
from
the
feasibility
is the major part of this
will include a look at the issues still to be
thesis.
faced
if
this project is to be successful.
Finally,
situation
the
to
traditional
market is strong enough in the
suggest that the project will have
competition.
In
fact,
some
particular
significant
observors
of
community development scene would say that the approach
here
is
with
a
valid and workable in the context of a
"soft
market,"
relatively strong market.
set
of
to
in
which
posed
neighborhood
there
is
a
This project will test whether the
priorities listed above will also work
market conditions,
wish
but not one
the
under
strong
and if so, under which. Therefore, we will
see what can be learned from this one
8
example
that
will
be
useful
to
the broader
worlds
of
both
development and real estate development as a whole.
9
community
CHART: DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES
TRADITIONAL
DEVELOPER
PRIORITIES
(1) The User Market:
Identifying, Defining,
Analizing
(7)
(2) The Site: Analyzing Use
Options and Market
Potentials
(6)
(3) Site Control: Securing
(5)
(4) Preliminary Architectural(4)
Plans: Preparing and
Costing Out
(5) Capital and Financing
(3)
Determining Availability
and Cost
\/
(6) Government Approvals:
Obtaining
(2)
(7) Community Purposes:
Determining and Meeting
(1)
10
1
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPER
PRIORITIES
II. The Specific Approach
While
the
principal
occupation
author
since
Center
an additional role has been that
for Real Estate Development,
Director-On-Leave
Corporation
of the
Community
Housing
Development
which plays a central role in providing the
for this document.
that
the
of 1984 has been that of student at the MIT
September
of
of
data
For this reason, there is the possibility
the development project at the heart of this project may
actually be carried out.
Of course,
there also are
numerous
factors which could lead to the project not happening, many of
which
are related to,
approach
being
but not inherent in,
taken.
For
example,
the
the
development
situation
does
represent two logical, but significant, new steps for both the
development
corporation
development
for
the
and
for
the
organization
up
author.
to
this
First,
point
consisted of renovation projects and recently the "infill"
manufactured
very
housing in vacant lots,
projects which
"UPDATE
AND ANNUAL REPORT,
1984," p.1.)
of
present
limited choices within an architectural program.
Edge,
has
(Urban
This project
represents a development of sufficient size and complexity
to
present significant choices in site planning and developing an
"architectural
allows,
program."
Second,
the nature of the
project
almost encourages, a greater amount of local resident
participation
in
the
planning process
than
have
previous
projects in which the genuine choices were quite limited.
11
are
partially
only
barriers
to
controllable
reaching
the
and
potential
numerous
construction
which
variables
situation also contains numerous
The
stage.
The
potential barriers relate to gaining site control of a
of
abutting
The most critical of
land parcels.
key
number
these
are
those which are publicly owned, and hence combine site control
with
"developer
principally
status."
In
this
case
we
of 70,302 square feet owned by the
are
talking
Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority (Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority,
"Southwest Corridor Development Plan," p. 6),
square
feet owned outright by the city of Boston,
square
feet still privately owned,
encumbrances
n.p.).
(City of Boston,
Less
potential
square
critical,
is to be maximized,
which
acquired,
but,
the
back
Department of Assessing,
also necessary if
the
n.d.
project
is site acquisition of
10,417
relatively
will "take a piece out of the site"
in the opinion of the author,
tax
if
not
will offer the
chance of being acquired at a reasonable price only when
speculative expectations of the present owners have
diminished.
will
be
Because of these issues, two central chapters
written
in
the
form
analysis/prospectus prepared principally
considers
a
been
These issues will be examined more in the course
of the paper.
(For
and 19,294
but with heavy
feet of privately owned parcels with taxes
current,
best
but
7799
to be the key decision maker,
of
a
for what the
the city of
more detailed analysis of the reasoning
12
feasibility
author
Boston.
behind
this
view,
along
with
a
description of the
principle
decision
makers involved, see Appendix V.)
It
should
also be noted that the process
of
seeking
a
design concensus, a critical part of the community process, is
serving
next
as the subject matter for a larger thesis due in
semester
Estate/Architectural
and
being
joint
written
degree
candidate
collaborating with the author of this thesis.
13
by
the
who
the
Real
is
II:
CHAPTER
ANALYSIS
FEASIBILITY
AND
A
PROSPECTUS:
COMMUNITY-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
I. The Context
the Commonwealth
In the late 1960's and early 1970's,
the
Roxbury
through
undertook significant land acquisition
Massachusetts
and
Jamaica
Plain
sections
of
of
The
Boston.
acquisition occurred in anticipation of a multi-billion dollar
transportation
Project.
and
Rail
Corridor
known as the Southwest
construction
transit
were to
be
with
combined
an
interstate Highway.
The
been
original
annuled.
plan for highway construction
has
long
Construction under the amended plan for
rail
construction is now nearing completion.
As a result, certain
excess parcels of land, designated since 1978 to be resold for
specified development purposes, will soon be offered through a
Request for Proposals process.
are
particularly
Parcels 65,
65a, 66, and 66b
important because they represent
the
only
parcels designated for new housing construction in the portion
of
the corridor abutting the Hyde Square and Egleston
neighborhoods
the
of Jamaica Plain (Southwest Corridor Project of
Massachusetts Bay
Corridor
Parcel
neighborhoods
Square
to
Transportation
Book,"
n.p.),
Authority,
opportunity
"Southwest
for
regain a portion of the housing units
these
they
lost during the acquisition, planning, and construction phases
14
of the corridor.
However,
significance
these
parcels
in other ways.
have
special
community
One of these relates to some of
the new community non-profit agencies which have
spawned
and
matured during the twenty years since the highway plan of 1965
was announced.
This "network" includes a major social service
agency,
four
public
housing
advocacy
tenant
organization
institute,
whose
community health centers
an
management
and
Perhaps
the
and
two
growth
community
and
legal
a "community
a
tenant
services
persons
farm"
which
a building materials
development
of this network of
community agencies came about,
changes
a
a
educational/training organization for
support for local gardening,
co-operative,
clinics),
corporation,
newspaper,
native language is Spanish,
emphasizes
(medical
new
corporations.
non-traditional
in part, because of the unique
challenges the community faced.
One
of
these
would be the necessity of response to the physical devastation
created by demolition,
fire and
disinvestment brought on
the knowledge of the highway plans.
to respond to
from
of
Another would be the need
psychological strains.
the uncertainty and the waiting,
community
construction,
social
and
fabric
finally
by
through
Such strains came first
then from the tearing
the
acquisition
by the realization
that
and
housing
market pressures might mean the period of "hanging on" will be
followed
by a period of being "forced out"
"Housing
Trends
in Egleston Square,"
15
(City
n.p.).
of
Boston,
Regardless of origins, those organizations are now part of
the social and economic fabric which holds this
in-transition together.
play
a
central
role
neighborhood-
Because three of these organizations
in
this
project,
and
others
peripheral roles, another significant question is raised.
play
Can
such
"alternative" community organizations play a significant
role
within a neighborhood experiencing an appreciating
estate
market of the magnitude of that currently
in
real
Jamaica
Plain?
It was because members of three of the organizations
the need for mutual efforts relating to parcels 65,
65a,
saw
66,
and 66b that a unique planning process has been occuring since
March of 1984.
Southwest
The process began with representatives of the
Corridor
Corporation.
Both
neighborhood.
garden
had
Farm and
interests
Urban
in
Edge
the
immediate
including their green house and many of their
plots,
are
literally
located
on
parcel
Corridor
Farm occupancy of this land has always been
tenuous,
limited
(Acebedo and Roth,
has
grown
Housing
For the Farm it was the fact that most of their
core territory,
best
Community
over
to
temporary
n.p.).
leases or
tenancy
66.
legally
at
will
However, the Farm use of this site
a period of eight years into
a
stable
and
positive association of activities, ones centered on the land,
and
ones
residents
drawing
for
For Urban Edge,
together a diverse group
private gardening and
of
collective
neighborhood
activities.
it was an eleven year history of having
16
been
deeply
involved
community
interest
the
in
housing
stock
area.
The
and
encouraging
had
organization
of
abandoned
within a four block radius of the corridor
property.
units in multi-family structures are held by
community
housing
sponsored
resold
entities.
to
assisted
other
the
service
the
to three family houses
income families.
style
a policy commitment
neighborhood
as many
been
had
also
through
of real estate brokering.
made
have
Urban Edge
families to purchase homes
agency
struggled
One
moderate
unconventional
ago,
saving
and renovated some sixty-seven units
purchased
Those
in
of
to
its
its
Five
own
years
continue
poorer
to
families
to not be displaced by escalating real estate costs
(Urban Edge,"ANNUAL REPORT - INFORME ANUAL 1982," p.6).
The third agency is the Oficina Hispana,
Community
Service
agency which emphasizes training
that include construction skills.
the corridor,
services
residents
in
the
neighborhood
surrounding the parcels (Oficina Hispana,
joined
develop
n.p.).
other residents to see if
a "community joint venture" to bring
divergent
primary
with
and
common concerns.
interest
was
programs
The Oficina's office abuts
directly on the other side from the
many
agencies
a local Hispanic
For
some
farm,
immediately
In May, the
they
could
together
their
residents,
in gaining permanent control
vacant land which has been used for local recreation.
months
of
neighborhood
May,
June,
meeting,
and
July
there
and
were
one
of
the
some
In the
large
five openly publicized "working group"
17
meetings, and numerous small and informal planning sessions of
various groupings of people.
Organizational staffing for this
activity
has
come
Oficina,
and
three persons representing Urban Edge.
from staff of
the
the latter are the technical staff,
Director
Farm,
one who is the
the
Two of
returning
of Urban Edge and is responsible for assembling this
prospectus/feasibility
enlisted
Community
for
analysis,
the
other
who
has
the architectural role of seeking to
been
obtain
a
consensus design (Peter Roth, the MIT student mentioned in the
last
paragraph
of
the first chapter).
Every
one
has
a
significant review role.
The analysis and prospectus presented here is that of the
author.
However,
it
represents
as
well as
possible
the
currently available information and the author's sense of what
is
currently an emerging concensus position on
questions, including those of design.
18
the
critical
CHART: DATA RELATING TO SITE PARCELS
Map
Letter
MBTA
Par-
Other
Owner
#
A
66B
no
3.5
23,912
B
66
no
6.5
25,000
C
65
l lot
5.0
16,795
of Square
lots
Feet
Other Special
Uses Characteristics
no
abuts
warehouse
Core of
Gardens SWCC Farm
flat
no
city
D
no
Priv
4.0
10,417
E
65a-
no
3.0
5,169
F
65a-
priv
tax
4.5
16,858
3.5
10,200
outside
control
possible
no
Irregular
play
field
delinq
G
no
TOTAI
MAP:
PARCELS
city,
30.0
WITHIN
THE
no
108,351
NORTHERN JAMAICA
PLAIN
CORRIDOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE
19
SOUTHWEST
II. Site Analysis
site under consideration needs to be viewed from two
The
(1)
perspectives,
and
political/legal,
(2)
six private owners, two public owners, and
Legally, there are
one non-profit community owner, Urban Edge.
here are two types of abutting property:
as
the
geographical.
(Not being counted
(1) vacant land such
two parcels owned by a local private party
separate
plans
abutting
his property
several
with
dwellings,
office,
and
the two
three
small
publicly
who
owned
parcels
(2) parcels with structures such
family
houses
used
as
has
as
traditional
and three with a house and two garages used for an
residences,
Community
Farm.
and
All
storage
of
by the Southwest
the above abut the
site
Corridor
on
its
periphery, except one three family house.)
It
is
meaningful
an
essential element
development
is
of
this
prospectus
feasible with just
the
that
publicly
owned parcels and the one owned by Urban Edge.
Acquisition of
the
at
reasonable
will, of course, enhance the development.
(Privately
privately owned parcels,
prices,
if accomplished
owned land breaks down into two larger groups of parcels.
One
group
tax
has
arrearages.
with
of
three private owners and parcels with serious
The
other group has three owners
little tax arrearage.) In effect,
seven
necesary.
mini-packages,
Each
each
which
and
there is a collection
can
stand
can provide small scale residential
20
parcels
alone,
or
if
open
development,
space
more effective scale to the development.
give a
The project potential area is a minimum of 78,640
the
privately owned and two small publicly owned parcels
for
which
the separate private plans
made,
and
make
packages
of
privately
properties which the Community Farm would like
a permanent part of their
operation.
These
mini-
are summarized in a sketch map ("Parcels within
Northern
Jamaica
Residential
Site
mentioned earlier are being
exclusive of the 11,600 square feet
owned abutting
to
square
exclusive of
and a maximum of 108,351 square feet,
feet
two
to
each can be combined with others
and
Plain
Southwest
Corridor
Development Site") and chart ("Data
Parcels"),
both on a preceding page.
the
Potential
Relating
(Also,
a
to
more
detailed map is included in the appendix.)
Geographically,
valley
placed
the site can best be understood as the
edge of Stoney Brook.
underground
so that a railroad
built through the valley.
for
A century ago,
the brook was
embankment
be
Today, the same route is being used
construction of the new Southwest Corridor transit/Amtrak
depressed railway system.
valley floor.
Map sections A through E were once
They are flat, former house lots which are good
for gardens as well as new housing construction.
and
could
Sections
G are on land which begins the rise away from the
floor.
It
topographically
However,
its
has
for
irregular
ball
terrain
playing
and
than
is
less
sections
F
valley
suited
A
to
E.
proximity to surrounding houses has led it into
21
neighborhood
It
use.
recreational
is
the
of
subject
a
neighborhood "claim" for permanent recreational use.
The northern edge of map section A (MBTA lot 66b) has
least
two
special
features.
One is the
abutting
at
office
products distribution building which runs from Chestnut Avenue
Another is the "three decker" nature of
to Lamartine Street.
the abutting housing on Chestnut Avenue.
suggest
the
architectural
construction
section
of
orchard.
a
These two
appropriateness
at this end of the site.
of
The
66b is currently occupied by a
features
three
story
Chestnut
recently
Avenue
planted
The Community Farm Board of Directors has indicated
willingness
to
move the orchard to corridor
land
across
Lamartine Street in the "Linear Park" which now abuts the
transportation corridor.
generally
new
(Use of that section for housing has
been accepted by all members of the planning group.
Also generally accepted has been leaving the two small gardens
fenced
and
used
by
the
two
backyards abut the gardens.)
A
and
the
term
homeowners
A final feature of both
Section B is the stone retaining wall which
middle-of-the-block
private
portions
from
the
it
While
will
whose
Section
separates
currently
houses on the up hill (Chestnut Avenue) side
sections.
wall,
long
of
no construction is planned up against
need to be inspected as part of the
used
the
this
detailed
architectural planning to come later.
Two
Parcel
Thousand
66b,
Five Hundred (2500) square
feet
of
plus all of Parcel 66 comprise Section B on
22
MBTA
the
This area comprises the farm greenhouse and areas under
map.
active cultivation.
Soil tests have repeatedly confirmed the
The southern portion abuts
quality of this land for growing.
house owned by a farm member which for several years
the
served
the farm office and residence for
both
as
the
has
farm
Director, as well as for another family.
Section C (MBTA parcel 65 + one city owned lot) comprises
a
flat
block
corner quarter (Northeast Corner) of
south
Section
from
the farm area.
the
The western
C includes the one standing house on
next
city
boundary
this
of
block,
a
three decker in apparently good condition.
Section
the
D should be combined with Section E to
southeast corner quarter.
section
may
prove
complete
Because acquisition of
difficult or impossible at
a
this
reasonable
price,
it is considered separately.
Sections D and E are the
lowest
in
sections.
elevation of any of
the
The
negative
elements of this feature are accentuated by the fact that both
streets
they
abuting
approach
streets
the sections have been placed on a
the corner.
This has been done to
bring
as
the
up to the level of the humped overpass of the transit
corridor which occurs at Mozart Street.
the
rise
center
of the section,
From the viewpoint of
a person must look
up
to
both
streets.
By looking at the map, it is easy to see the difficulty of
appropriately placing housing units on the irregular and small
shape
of
Section E should no other parcels abutting
23
to
the
north be acquired.
This is particularly true due to the below
grade access to the street.
the
However,
both the MBTA plan and
analysis done for this paper do find it possible to place
two to four units on the parcel standing alone.
Section
F
is largely privately owned land which
serious tax delinquency.
play
area
in
this
is
in
Community sentiment also calls for a
corner
(southwest)
Topographically, it is "gently rolling.
of
the
block.
2805 square feet from
MBTA parcel 65a is added on the Mozart Street side,
and
2472
square feet are subtracted on the Chestnut Avenue side.
Section
block,
is
G,
L
the final quarter (northwest) of the
shaped
due to the one privately
second
owned
triple
decker house mentioned earlier.
The corner lot was purchased
earlier
Urban
at
a
development
city auction
corporation
by
involved
in
Edge,
this
ownership involves two city owned lots and,
the
community
project.
Other
if possible, half
a city tax title lot closest to the ballfield.
This area does
extend somewhat into the informal play area now used.
As
a
whole, this section is almost level and the highest section in
the site.
assumes
Housing is the use planned for this section.
that farm plans for a tot lot on one portion will
This
be
replaced with acceptable smaller tot lots elsewhere.
Two
other
abutting
sections,
are not a
part
of
but could become more directly related at
the
current
plan
some
point.
The first "outside section" is comprised of the three
Chestnut Avenue parcels in the southwest corner of the Section
24
A
&
block.
B
house/office"
future
owned
discussions,
"Section H".)
of
This,
course,
by a member of the
farm.
this
be
parcel
will
"farm
the
includes
certain
(In
referred
to
as
It also includes the two garages currently used
free of charge by the farm for storage, but owned by a Jamaica
Plain
small businessman who has not to date indicated to
Director
future
of
the Farm any interest in
discussions,
refered
these
two
to as "Section I".)
selling.
parcels
(In
together
the
certain
will
The second "outside section" is
the four parcels facing Lamartine Street immediately south
the
designated
site,
Street.
This
parcels
totaling
those between Mozart Street and
section is
comprised of two
indicated
number
he
of
Wyman
privately
owned
publicly
owned
9,838 square feet plus two
parcels totaling 3,123 square feet.
has
be
Since the present owner
is arranging a private
of housing units on that land,
development
of
it is not part of
a
the
present plan.
There should also be one other "agenda item" mentioned in
connection
with
neighborhood
site
planning
considerations.
group
have
Members
noted that
it
of
the
would
be
desirable to include a number of vacant lots in the
planning,
if
scattered
not
the development process.
through
number
the
six
present housing which surrounds
different sites,
are
the
with sizes ranging
square feet to 3,824 square feet.
the site.
These lots
site,
from
and
8,435
All are within a block of
Some are sized appropriately to accept a one or two
25
family
house;
interested
parking,
some
in
too
having gardens
some
preferences.
are
housing;
some
small.
there,
have
Some
some
have
tot
abutters
abutters
lots,
with
some
unknown
However, everyone in the process has agreed that
giving attention to these lots should be secondary to the main
development.
26
III. Highest and Best Use: A community perspective
The
discussions
under the
rubric
of
the
"working group" has some similarities
planning
community
occuring
typical discussions between potential participants in a
to
joint
venture.
While each member recognizes he/she is entering into
a
plan
total
positions,
area
for the total good,
(1)
for
one
of
four
pro-farm (maintain the current community farm
purposes;
gardening
community gardens),
type
most favor
maximize
other
for
space
(2) pro-recreation (maintain a "ballfield"
of use in section F at the intersection of Mozart Street
and Chestnut Avenue; encourage "tot lot" uses in other areas),
and
(3)
housing
pro-housing (maximize the amount of
development;
land
(4) pro-balance. (Some
members identify with all three needs nearly
have
to
maximize moderate income homeownership;
watch questions such as density.) and,
people
given
emerged as the "builders of
equally.
These
consensus.")
Most
important, it should be noted that because almost everyone has
held
an interest in consensus to a greater or lesser
degree,
a consensus has been emerging on an "architectural/development
program" looking like this (Acebedo and Roth, n.p.):
The
(1)
current
farm
"core,"
which
the
includes
greenhouse,
all
greenhouse,
and certain privately owned parcels which include
the
house
storage
with
garage,
the
gardens
immediately
relating
the farm office and Director's
should
stay.
27
Ownership,
home
to
and
maintenance,
the
a
and
further
development
Corridor
Community
will be in the hands
Farm
Board
of
of
the
Southwest
Further
Directors.
may be placed in the corridor park immediately across
gardens
Lamartine
Street.
This space cannot be included in
housing
uses.
Space will be allocated for
(2)
area
southwest corner of the
the
in
parcel
65.
center
of
current
ballfield/recreation
block
which
includes
The northern boundary will be approximately
the #60-#62 Chestnut Avenue parcel,
fence.
acquired,
a
two
locations.
Should
all
of the land
in
south of
the
or three totlots will be built at
Should
the
city
not be able to
the
the
block
be
appropriate
foreclose
the
properties on which the ballfield is located, and sell them to
a community owner such as the community farm,
the total group
will make its best efforts to persuade the city to take
measures
such as tight enforcement of zoning or,
eminent
domain for purposes of park creation,
other
preferably,
to insure
its
continued use as a recreation area.
(3)
the
Space will be allowed for a loading
dock
alongside
office products building located at the northern edge
parcel
66b.
trailer
(4)
trucks
All
Transportation
This includes a driveway deep enough to
of
allow
to be unloaded off the street.
other
land which can
Authority,
the City,
be
acquired
from
the
or from private parties
will be purchased by Urban Edge, utilized for the construction
of new housing, and sold for permanent ownership to individual
28
owner occupants.
(5)
in two-family duplexes if their rental can be
units
in
to twenty five percent of the units may be
Up
a
way
to
significantly
allow
families
of
lower
second
arranged
income
(income
below that necessary to purchase the new homes)
to rent and be secure against displacement from the units.
minimum
assure
an
of
twelve
and a half percent is
expected
both
some inclusion of lower income families and to
adequate
number of housing units,
given the
A
to
assure
open
space
needs of the plan.
(6)
Preferably,
all ownership units will be developed in
a way which enables them to be purchased by families who
the federal guidelines for moderate income.
However,
meet
twenty
five percent to be sold at market rate is acceptable.
(7)
Based
homeownership
townhouse,
upon
a
tour
of
several
new construction sites,
each with its own entrance,
recent
urban
some form of two-story
small yard and nearby
parking space is the preferred housing style.
However, it may
be appropriate for the duplexes to be three story.
(8)
limiting
and
Attaching
townhouses is
the number in one row,
utilizing
other means of
probably
necessary,
varying set-back
keeping
an
but
distances,
"individualistic"
sense to the houses is important.
(9)
Unelaborate,
but
adequate,
landscape
design
and
landscaping should be part of the construction program.
(10) At least two additional concerns should be met by the
29
"joint venture" team,
of
even though they are not explicity part
(a) advocacy for "speed bumps"
central project:
the
innovations which can slow down traffic
other
on
Lamartine
making it more of a residential street and less of an
Street,
arterial street,
vacant
(b) investigating adjacent or near-adjacent
lots and seeking to work with the abutters to
either playgrounds or "infill
Behind
community
the
above
discussions
program,
and
the
and at the
"working
heart
group"
has
currently
live near the area and for those who will
new
somewhat,
develop
housing."
sessions,
the
and
of
planning
been an unlabeled "bottom line" for those
homes.
the
The perspectives and definitions may
live
who
in
differ
but the collective goal has been a better community
"quality of life."
A
brought
summary
of
the
program concerns
which
need
into a compromise consensus is given in the
charts, entitled, "Site Analysis by Parcels."
30
to
be
attached
SITE ANALYSIS BY PARCELS:
CHART I
Plan I--Pro-Communnity Gardening
1
2
Max
Min Other Special
Uses CharactHse Hse
eristics
Unts Unts
Map MBTA Other # of Square
Let- Par- Owner lots Feet
ter cel
A
66B
no
3.5
23,912
8
8
Farm abuts
Event warehouse
B
66
no
6.5
25,000
0
0
Gardens
Core of
SWCC Farm
C
65
1 lot
city
5.0
16,795
12
12
no
flat
Priv
lots
4.0
10,417
12
0
outside control
quite possible
3
Irregular
D
no
E
65a- no
5,169
4
2
F
65a- priv 4.5 16,858
--tax delinq
0
0
G
no
City, 3.5 10,200
U.E.
8
6
no
H
no
Farm 1.0
Member
4,800
0
0
farm
continue
office & house
I
no
priv 2.0
owner
6,800
0
0
now 2
farm
storage garages
119,951
44
28
TOTALS
33.
play
now used
field
this way
Irregular
1. Assumes only publicly owned and non-profit owned land
can be procured at reasonable price.
2.
Assumes all land can be procured.
31
SITE ANALYSIS BY PARCELS; CHART II
Plan
II--Pro-Community Recreation
2
1
Map MBTA Other # of Square
Let- Par- Owner lots Feet
ter cel
Max Min Other Special
Uses CharactHse
Hse
Unts Unts
eristics
A
66B
no
3.5
23,912
16
16
B
66
no
6.5
25,000
0
0
C
65
1 lot
city
5.0
16,795
12
12
D
no
Priv
lots
4.0
10,417
12
0
outside control
quite possible
E
65a-
no
3
5,169
0
0
no
F
65a---
priv 4.5
tax delinq
16,858
0
0
play
field
G
no
City,
U.E.
10,200
4
2
no
3.5
no
abuts
warehouse
Gardens
Core of
SWCC Farm
no
flat
Irregular
H
no
Farm
1.0
Member
4,800
0
0
continue farm
office & house
I
no
priv
6,800
0
0
farm
now 2
storage garages
119,951
44
30
TOTALS
2.0
33.
32
SITE ANALYSIS BY PARCELS; CHART III
Plan III--Pro-Community Housing
Map
MBTA Other # of Square
Let- Par- Owner lots Feet
ter cel
2
1.
Max Min Other Special
Hse Hse Uses CharactUnts Unts
eristics
A
66B
no
3.5
23,912
16
16
B
66
no
6.5
25,000
4
4
C
65
1 lot
city
5.0
16,795
12
12
Priv
lots
4.0
10,417
12
0
outside control
quite possible
no
3.0
D
no
no
abuts
warehouse
Gardens
Core of
SWCC Farm
no
flat
E
65a-
5,169
4
2
no
F
65a- priv 4.5
16,858
--tax delinq
2
2
play
field
G
no
City,
U.E.
10,200
8
8
no
H
no
Farm 1.0
Member
4,800
0
0
continue farm
priv
owner
6,800
I
no
TOTALS
3.5
2.0
33.
Irregular
now used
this way
Irregular
office & house
0
119,951
58
33
0
44
farm
now 2
storage garages
SITE ANALYSIS BY PARCELS; CHART IV
Plan
IV--Pro-Community
Concensus
2
1
Min Other Special
Max
Uses CharactHse
Hse
eristics
Unts Unts
MBTA Other # of Square
Map
Let- Par- Owner lots Feet
ter cel
no
abuts
warehouse
Gardens
Core of
SWCC Farm
no
flat
A
66B
no
3.5
23,912
16
16
B
66
no
6.5
25,000
0
0
C
65
1 lot
city
5.0
16,795
12
12
Priv
lots
4.0
10,417
12
0
outside control
quite possible
3
Irregular
D
no
E
65a-
no
5,169
4
2
F
65a-
priv 4.5 16,858
tax delinq
0
0
play
now used
field
this way
G
no
City, 3.5 10,200
U.E.
8
6
no
H
no
Farm 1.0
Member
4,800
2
2
continue farm
office & house
I
no
priv 2.0
owner
6,800
0
0
farm
now 2
storage garages
119,951
52
TOTALS
1.
2.
33.
Irregular
36
Assumes only publicly owned and non-profit owned land can
be procured at reasonable price
Assumes
all
land can be
34
procured
SITE ANALYSIS BY PARCELS: CHART V
Summary: Site Analysis By Parcels
1
2
Max
Hse
Unts
Min
44
28
Plan II--Pro-Community
Recreation
44
30
Plan III--Pro-Community
Housing
58
44
Plan IV--Pro-Community
Concensus
52
36
Plan I--Pro-Community
Gardening
35
Hse
Unts
IV. Design, Site and Construction Options
Attached
versions.
in
One
package,
all
Appendix A are the two most
is for the minimal acceptible
units,
ownership
site
assembly
and
It includes thirty six
nine of which are rental units linked with an
unit,
and
two "tot lots."
The other is
maximal site assembly package up to Mozart Street,
privately owned land,
being
design
land owned by the Transportation Authority
all land currently owned by the City.
housing
recent
for
the
adding all
and providing forty eight units, twelve
rental units linked with an ownership unit,
and
three
"tot lots."
Should
the
unit
option,
to
the three story duplex idea need to be
count
will drop four to six units in
dropped,
the
smaller
and six to eight in the larger. Should it be possible
include
the
nearby and privately
owned
parcels
facing
Lamartine Street and extending to Wyman Street, the unit count
would
increase
by
up
to
six
units.
Separate
development of those units is currently planned.
but
not
all,
of
the privately owned parcels
contingent plans will be developed.
that
the
unit
Transportation
numbers
Authority
for
are
those
private
Should some,
be
acquired,
It should also be
parcels
slightly
lower
owned
noted
by
than
the
those
suggested in the preliminary guidelines of that agency.
Site
layout is being planned so that,
36
interior
to
the
blocks,
there
is some
common land connecting units to
and garden areas and to each other.
Also, the large trees in
the center of the MBTA parcel 65 block are saved.
of
that
Maintenance
land which is common should be addressed,
responsibility
play
with
resting with either the Corridor Farm or
the
with
abutting homeowners.
Construction
experience
cost estimates are based upon
of
Urban
Edge
under
its
the
New
revised
Construction
Initiatives program with the City (See "Form 3 Development Pro
Forma"
in
residents
Appendix IV-C).
on
The actual design preferred
their tour is that of the Cherry
Street
development done by Homeowners Rehab in Cambridge.
was one of mixing 2,3,
the
and 4 bedroom lay-outs,
by
mini-
The design
most so
narrow portion of the structure faced the street.
that
Front
depths were varied so that an individual exterior identity was
given
each
together.
unit,
even though several
units
were
attached
Small, individual front yards went with individual
entrances and parking spaces right in front of each unit.
examination
reveals
a
of
their costs (while not in a matching
close
similarity
to those
adjusted for inflation (Homeowners Rehab,
While
the
Cherry
of
Urban
Inc.,
Street model was the
An
format)
Edge
when
n.p.).
basis
for
the
original site plans, it is expected that a custom plan will be
developed.
Also,
while both the Homeowner's Rehab and Urban
Edge prototypes are largely manufactured off site,
37
there will
be
an effort to see if the costs can be realistically met
bettered by competent local stick-built contractors.
38
or
V. Legal Constraint Analysis
The
majority of the site has "M-1" zoning
(i.e.
"Light
between
"L-5"
(Local
Services) and "R-8" (Apartments and Three
Family
The
Industrial").
and
Retail
rest
is divided
Structures) (City of Boston,
easily
designations
potential
being
taken
with these zoning designations.
inclusive,
particularly
the
"M-1"
There is
to
a
development
Because
so
they offer encouragement to the private owners
of
to think that there are more lucrative
their land than moderate priced housing.
acquisition
L-5",
these
are
parcels
parcels
and
the
Hence,
include the uses proposed.
problem for the over-all approach
designations,
the
map 9."
"Zoning,
at
uses
This, in turn, makes
a reasonable price more difficult for
still in private ownership.
of
those
Further exploration
of
the legal options relating to this consideration is needed.
Zoning variances will still be needed due to some problems
with set-back, side, and back distance requirements.
However,
since the over-all density will be within both the zoning code
and
the
receiving
MBTA
preliminary
"preferred
use
description,"
a variance to allow a "cluster approach" should not
be a problem.
One
form
of
legal hinderance
which
might
occur
can
probably be mitigated by early action. The title received from
city
and
foreclosed property is not always clear and irreversible
complete title searches by attorneys for a purchaser
39
are
frequently
process.
not
Moving
undertaken
this
until
process
late
in
an
up and enlisting
assistance in clearing title is strongly advised.
40
acquisition
early
city
VI Market Analysis
There are,
within
many
market
where
in fact, two markets within Jamaica Plain, as
of today's Boston
neighborhoods.
is
the
demand for sound housing is constrained by
the
ability
to pay by present
residents,
market"
or the "subsidized market."
i.e.
One
the
"affordable
The second is the market
where demand for living space is constrained by the supply and
the willingness to pay by any and all parties,
i.e. the "open
market."
A. The "Open Market"
The
area,
"open
as
well
market" for
as
the
the
Hyde
Lamartine/Chestnut/Hoffman
Square
neighborhoods between which it lies,
and
real
estate
conducted
by
sales in the
the
Housing
Egleston
Division
of
A recent
neighborhood
the
Neighborhood
and Employment Agency illustrates the
They
an
over-all increase in average
sale
houses of 42% per year during the past two years.
sub-neighborhoods
they
analysis
Square
Development
found
Square
has been under intensive
appreciation during the past three years.
of
Egleston
situation.
price
of
In the two
looked at which immediately abut
the
site being discussed here, areas they labeled "Egleston North"
and
"School Street," those figures were 15% and 37%.(City
Boston,
analysis
"Housing Trends in Egleston Square," n.p.)
conducted
by the author of this
41
document
of
A similar
for
the
immediately
abutting areas not considered in
found
a per year sale price increase of
least
one
these
years
those
28%.
However,
seasoned broker of homes in this area
represent the "crest" of the
studies,
at
feels
that
appreciation
wave
which started in 1978 in the southwestern portions of
Jamaica
Plain and has been making its way northeastward since. (Leary,
n.p.)
for
Hence,
the
a continuing appreciation rate of 15% per year
period
of
development
of
this
project
The average sale price for one,
two,
and three
is
more
reasonable.
houses in 1984, the last full year, was $58,500
Directory,
used
1982-1984).
This
slightly
structures,
and
(The Transfer
figure can most reasonably be
for two family structures,
Prices
family
so that will be
higher
should
prices
slightly
be
used
lower
for
for
done
here.
three
family
single
family
structures.
It
must also be noted that these are prices for
housing.
typical
The
broker just mentioned also estimates that
home
comparable
sold would be quite livable,
in
condition
repair/modernization
$15,000
per
to
costing
new
$20,000
each additional unit.
per
the
but would not
construction
first
A property
would then have a value which would roughly
new
existing
so
be
without
unit
and
renovated
exceed that of
a
townhouse by $15,000 due to its greater charm and greater
number of square feet.
To get to a projected market value of the houses in
42
this
project,
the
final
is to add two years
step
appreciation to the above 1984 calculations,
year
projected
necessary for
a
and a half development period and six month construction
period.
This
would place the market sale price of
constructed
two
development
at $112.500.
would
in
of
family
house in a
moderately
a
priced
1987
With advantageous financing,
this
mean a purchaser with total pre-purchase family
excess
of
$49,000 per
newly
year,
that
is
income
households
with
combinded incomes in the $50,000+ range.
B. The "Affordable Market"
The
1980
median
income
for
the
Egleston
Square
neighborhood, according to the NDEA research reported earlier,
is $10,048. Even
a ten percent increase per year for the past
five years (and hence for 1985) places that income at $16,200.
This is barely half of the current (1985) median income in the
Boston metropolitan area for a family of four of ($32,300) and
less than half for a family of six ($37,500).
Even if given a
20% increase over the next two years, this will represent only
one third of the income needed to make market purchases of new
housing in 1987.
Clearly,
"open market" housing will not be
"affordable housing" to the vast majority of potential
from
of
the surrounding neighborhood.
the
show
a
federally
The marketing experience
city NDEA programs for new and renovated
strong demand for home purchase by
defined limit for moderate income.
43
buyers
homes
families
in
That limit
does
the
is
80%
of metropolitan median or currently
of four,
and $29,100,
$25,850 for a family
for a family of six.
These latter are
the families targeted by the city block grant programs. Hence,
families with incomes in the mid twenties per year represent a
ready
market
families."
income
$20,000
a
market."
targeted
for
to
"moderate
$29,000 depending
numerous and eager primary
Also,
$32,300
homes
income
Therefore families of three to six persons, with
of
represent
for
four
person
upon
family
"affordable
families with
size
housing
income
up
to
and six person families with income up to $37,500 are
classified
as "middle income" by the city/HUD guidelines
use of Community Development Block Grant money,
times
eligible
three
to
and are
for a percentage of such homes.
six and incomes of $26,000 to $37,500
for
some
Families
of
represent
a
strong secondary "affordable housing market."
Operating
Urban
provide
pro formas for one of the
Edge quadraplex,
the
model
are included in the
back-up material for the
price data.
44
above
houses,
Appendix.
the
They
income/purchase
SUMMARY OF DATA
II.
Option Unit Numbers
------ ---------------
To-
----
tal
Mar- Mod- Low- To-
erat Intal
Income
come Rent
ket
ANALYSIS
SENSITIVITY
FROM
#
of
sales
Pri- Minimum Subsidy Dollars
vate -----------------------Ac-
Per
qui- Low/
si-
Per
Unit
Total
Mod
tion Unit
A
0
28
4
32
28
$ 0
$17,998 $17,998 $575,931
B
0
24
8
32
24
$ 0
$22,529 $22,529 $720,931
BB
8
20
4
32
28
$ 0
$13,372
C
8
16
8
32
24
$ 0
$19,414 $14,560 $465,931
D
0
40
4
44
40
$60K $16,531 $16,531
$737,531
E
11
29
4
44
40
$60K
$ 9,440 $ 7,080
$311,531
F
0
33
11
44
33
$60K
$22,183 $22,183
$976,031
G
11
22
11
44
33
$60K
$16,319 $12,239 $538,531
*
Assumes
will
go
one rental unit with Section 707
with
each
owner
occupied
unit
Subsidies
State
in
each
duplex.
number also equals # of families with income
Therefore,
this
below
subsidized purchase income line,
the
$10,029 $320,931
number of duplex ownerships.
45
and
equals
the
CHART: POTENTIAL SOURCES OF SUBSIDY for URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION: LOW/MODERATE INCOME FAMILY EMPHASIS
Boston
Summer, 1985
Inorder to shorten the descriptive material given in the chart
the following classifications are created here:
Point of Intervention: I.Development Proforma Budget
II.Operating Income/Expense Statement
Means of Intervention:
(Revenue Side)
A. Payments to Reduce Net Interest Costs
B. Tax Shelter Induced Contributions
C. Public Purpose Induced Contributions
D. Payments to Supplement Rent Payments
(Expense Side)
E. Reductions in Interest Rate Charges
F. Increased Tax Deductions to Homeowners
6. Write-down to Cost of Land
Form of Intervention: 1. Grant
2. Loan with Deferred or Reduced Repayment
Final Recipient of Intervention: R. Renter
0. Owner Occupant
O/R. Owner Occupant and/or Renter
DOLLAR
PROGRAM SOURCE
FORM
FOR Z DOLLAR
WHOM L/M LIMITS
OTHER
LIMITS
OTHER
COMMENTS
NDEA of
BOSTON
NEW
CONSTR Fed
INITIAT CDBG
$15-25K
pr unit
I C/S 1 O/R 75 $200K+
pr Proj
MAP/TAP Fed
CDBB
I
LEND
BUILD
Meant for smaller
projects--works better
with all owner-occupied
units
$25-52K Important "front-end"
8 1 O/R 75+- pr Proj personnel costs
Fed
CDBG
I,
II E 1 O/R 51
Fed
CDBS
I,
IIa E I D/R 51
46
Loan w
flex
term
Up to 50% of proj costs
Practical limit-Acquisit & Other
up front" costs
Loan w
flex
term
Total Const. Mortg.
100% letters of Cred req;
Less Flex, same prac
limit as LEND
Potential Sources:
Page 2
EOCD of
MASS.
SHARP
707
State
State
I,
IIE 2
R
25
IID I
R
100
TA &
SPECIAL STATE & I 61
PROJECTS CEDAC
Diff betw market &
Loan w
flex down actual inter rates
to 5% int repayable/rent only
Good for individ
rental units,
any size bldg.
Add to MAp/TAP
GIR Flex Small
INDEPENDENT
AGENCIES
of MASS
2 pts
below
market
MHFA
Bonds
I,
IIE 1
CDFC
Bonds,
State
I 62
D/R
MASS
LAND
BANK
Bonds
I,
II E 2
D/R
+-
Const & Perm finan/
owner occup per.
marts w banks
Somewhat
Flexible
Source of Equity,
Paid back at below
market interest
Somewhat
Flexible
Source of Equity;
Paid back at below
market interest
PRIVATE
SOURCES
LISC
Grants
I,
II G f2 D/R
ENTERPRIS Grants I 8 2
FOUNDATION
R
OTHER
Contribs I G1
FOUNDATIONS
D/R
100 Flexible
47
$25K+-
Also possible source
of guarantees
Usually Special
Purposes
VII FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A.
Bringing Balance to a Revenue/Expense Pro Forma: Subsidies
Due,
in part,
families
For
today
those
to imbalances in our economic system, few
purchase homes without some form of
in higher income tax brackets,
subsidy is the extensive savings in taxes
in
the
early years of a mortgage,
mortgage interest.
most
the main
paid,
subsidy.
form
of
particularly
by deductions
taken
for
For those in lower tax brackets, including
persons currently living in the urban neighborhood being
addressed here, such subsidies are small, or non-existant.
If
the sale or rental planned here is to meet the community
goal
of
meet
the
being affordable to current residents,
city
and
and it is to
federal goal of being affordable
income families in general,
to
moderate
then additional subsidies to that
of tax deductions must be found.
With
the contraction of the level of federal
to such subsidies,
subsides are fewer and smaller.
commitment
However,
they still do exist to some degree in most urban areas.
the
such
case example to which this paper is addressed
an area,
subsidies,
Since
occurs
and since project feasibility rests upon
in
such
a catalogue of currently available subsidy sources
has been compiled and placed in an accompanying two page chart
entitled, "Potential Sources of Subsidy for Urban Neighborhood
Residential New Construction with a Low/Moderate Income Family
48
Emphasis."
While
subsidies
take on many
forms
with
formulas, they all come down to one of two approaches:
many
(1) one
time additions to the revenues or subtractions to the expenses
of
a
"pure
market" development pro
forma,
additions/subtractions to the operating budget,
formula
tied
picture.
In
balanced
long
other factors in
to
either
financial
the
(2)
or
yearly
adjusted by a
operating
financial
"1" or "2" the object is to
provide
statement without either sacrificing
term stability of the project or
a
the
over-compensating
the
parties involved.
In seeking to create a "package of subsidies" adequate to
bring
be
the necessary feasibility,
posited from historical
a number of assumptions can
precedent.
These
include:
indirect subsidies (subtractions from the expense side,
(1)
which
generally do not show up in a simple income/expense statement)
which
are
formula
forma,
more
wibhout
(2)
likely
to be alotted
via
a
predetermined
concern for the other elements
in
the
pro
direct subsidies (additions to the income side of
the statement, which generally do show up in an income/expense
statement) which are more likely to be subject to negotiation.
That
occurs because:
(a) Each subsidy source will want
to
examine the entire package to be satisfied that there are
not
excess
see
total
subsidies.
(b) Each source will want
other sources sharing in the costs.
feel
(c)
that
Most sources will want to
the limits of other sources have
Commitments
been
by sources will come in stages.
49
to
exhausted.
No
source
want
will
to
be
committed
totally
until
confidence that feasibility will be achieved.
it
total
has
(Again, see the
accompanying chart entitled, "Potential Sources of Subsidy for
Residential
Neighborhood
Urban
Income
Low/Moderate
Family
New
with
Construction
for
Emphasis"
data
a
regarding
specific subsidy sources.)
B. Indirect Subsidies
Indirect
profit
are generally
or non-profit developer,
so-called
the
available
and
either
although some forms may
be
The forms being sought for this project include:
income tax advantages to owners over
federal
to
for either "below market" or
"market-rate" housing,
restricted.
(1)
subsidies
state
income taxes) (2)
renters
monthly
rent
(both
subsidy
payments on behalf of lower income tenants (in this case state
707
payments),
through
LISC,
one or more of several sources
etc.),
buyers
(3) interest reduction of construction
(4)
(BUILD,
LEND,
interest reduction of permanent
through MHFA,
loans
CDFC,
loans
to
(5) write-down of land prices by public
agencies.
C. Direct Subsidies
Meeting
"joint
of
the
program goals developed
by
the
venture process" and achieving successful
this project will require,
development
among several things,
analysis of the dimensions within which financial
50
community
a sound
investment,
and
loans,
direct
are
dimensions
continuums.
in
set,
the
by
effect,
Those
packaged.
be
must
of
limits
two
The first continuum relates to benefits to people
It is represented
to afford market-rate housing.
unable
one
subsidies
end by Option BB (as described in the accompanying
entitled,
offers
half
chart
"Summary of Data From Sensitivity Analysis.") which
minimum benefits under the guidelines (twelve and
percent
state
low income rental apartments made
section 707 rent assitance payments,
half
on
percent moderate income buyers,
market rate units).
direct
subsidies
earlier).
The
one
possible
sixty two
by
and
and twenty-five percent
This 32 unit option requires $320,931
(plus
Direct
the
indirect
Subsidies
a
subsidies
amount
to
in
mentioned
$10,029
per
constructed unit, $13,372 per low/moderate income unit.
The other end of the continuum is represented by Option B
which
five
provides maximum benefits under the guidelines (twentypercent duplexes with low income 707
seventy-five
This
percent ownership by moderate income
representative
subsidies
assisted
renters,
families).
32 unit option requires $720,931
plus the indirect subsidies mentioned
direct
above,
and
amounts to $22,529 per unit, all subsidized.
The
second
acquisition.
the
It
continuum
is
that
scale by the two examples mentioned above,
44
to
site
is represented at the thirty-two unit end of
subsidy range of $320,931 to $720,000.
the
relating
It is represented
unit level by Options E and F in the
51
presenting
attached
a
at
chart
entitled,
"Summary
of Data from Sensitivity Analysis".
If
one assumes a cost of $60,000 for all acquisition of privately
owned
land
(the
10,417
square
feet
without
serious
delinquency and any of the delinquent parcels necessary to
tax
be
purchased) the subsidy amounts fall within a range of $311,531
(
Option
E) to $976,031 (Option F) and include
constructed
units.
twelve
more
At the $976,031 subsidy end of the scale
(maximizing the number of low/moderate income units) there
a
gain
of twelve such units with an increase in
subsidy cost of $255,100, or $21,258 per unit.
close
to
the
average
for
the
various
the
is
direct
This figure is
options
in
the
sensitivity analysis.
However, at the low end of the subsidy
scale
with minimum duplex rental
(i.e.
maximum
the
end
market rate units),
there is no
cost for going to forty four units.
units
additional
and
subsidy
And, there are 9 moderate
income units gained.
A
third continuum which could also be considered is that
relating
to
the
number of lower income
available.
Providing
context
a
of
frequently
mixed
a
number
income
of such
development
Sensitivity
in
such
shifting
four
units
made
within
as
this
goal.
"Summary of Data
Analysis," reveals the cost.
situation,
moderate
units
units
considered a highly desirable societal
examination of the accompanying chart,
unit
rental
owner
is
An
from
In the thirty
from
the
two
occupied
income units to renter occupied units costs $145,000
subsidy
dollars,
or $36,250 per unit
52
in
direct
costs.
Shifting from four to eleven under the forty four unit options
costs
227,000 or $32,000
these
involve additional indirect costs to the state
the 707 subsidies.
the
unit
per unit in direct costs.
Both of
through
They also include both indirect savings to
moderate income owner of the duplex in which
the
rental
both in reduced out-of-pocket monthly costs
is located,
and increased income tax deductions in the the early years
of
ownership.
D. Base Pro Formas
We began this financial analysis by going immediately
the
"bottom line" for below market rate housing
the
level of subsidy,
development,
or "negative profit" which needs to be
made up in order to have feasibility.
examination of the
to
This was followed by an
means of acquiring the subsidy.
However,
those figures are only as good as the "pro forma" estimates of
revenues and expenses which produce the figures.
Two
examples
attached.
They
subsidy
levels
minimum
benefit
of the pro formas used for this paper
show one example of the costs and
to bring about feasibility
for
affordable housing
within
allowed
program, and one example under the maximum allowed.
example
housing,
is at the
with
necessary
both
the
under
the
Also, one
"minimum acquisition" level of 32 units of
and the other is at the "maximum acquisition"
of 44 units.
are
level
In the Appendix are the additional computer runs
changes in the key variables:
53
(a) Number of two
family
structures,
land
(b) Number of market rate sales, and (c)
acquisition
summarized
"Summary
in
of
from
private
parties.
the chart at the beginning
Those
of
Data From Sensitivity Analysis."
this
It
stressed that these are only representative options,
Price of
runs
are
section,
should
be
designed
to bring out the dimensions of the issues involved and clarify
the potential trade-offs in costs vs. benefits.
54
WORKSHEET:
Note:
keyed
PRO-FORMA DEVELOPMENT
"xx" means #
individually
EXHIBIT
1:
is
PREFARATION
11
COSTS SAMPLE
X
Per
4 Units
(Option F)
Total
COST ESTIMATE
I. PRE-DESIGNATION PHASE
Land Acquisition
A.
1. Options
Agreements
:r.0
$11 ,000
Putr chases
$11
,
o000
10 0 0(7) 0
$11,000
Total
B.
121 ,000
Flanning and Approvals
1.
In
2.
Consult ant Staff
Over h ead
Nonrefundable Fees
Fee Advances
Other
4.
5.
6.
House S:ta+ff
C)7
C)CC
$:r500
j
'r500Oj(
$r.0
$r54(-4
,550
$0~c
Total
TOTAL
II.
4V1 1 ,000
$2,C00
207, 500
$13,(00C)
$r41 ,500
PRE-DEVELOPMENT PHASE
A.
Land Acquisition
1., Options
Agreements
Purchases (+#42)
4. Taxes, etc.
5. Other Costs
$0
C-)
C)
$2 ,00C)
$50 (
Total
B.
Planning
*
5,50)
$22, 000
J5,500
$0
$31,000)
and Approvals
1. In House Sta-f
2. Consultant Staff
Over h ead
4. Fee Advances
5 Other
$ 1 ,C00C)
$5000
$500
.r$1 , 000
$ 1 000
$-14, 0)
$5,500
$1.11, 00)
11 1 ,000
T ot al.
4 ,000
$742 , 500
3.
TOTAL
$175.,500
55
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I &: II)
DEVELOPMENT
A.
3.
COSTS
Public Owned
Private Owned
Other
$C0
$76 ,000
$5,500
Site
Preparation
1.
2..
3.
Utilities
Survey, Eng,
Al1 Other
Fees
$4 ,020
$31 ,988
$88,682
$44.,220
$351,868
$r44,070
..
$484
.,770
Construction
1.
2.
Off Si te
On Site
Total
Related
$132, 221
$55,994
$1, 454,431
6 15,936
$188,215
$2,070,,367
Costs
1.
2.
3,
4.
Legal & Acct
Proj. Mang (fr
Const. Mang
Const. Finance
5.
Tax
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mark1::eting
Secur i ty
Sponsor Fees
Sponsor Costs
$.055C70
$1 .870
&I I
1:44,0
$4, 00 C-
$66 ,C C)
$9,
& Insur
r 1. 5 (
Contingency
438, 86
(Tot--C1x.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
COST
$427, 460
.$79.,433
$7,221
--.
56
900
'22, 990
$5000
$126, 500C
$3 ,500
Tot a.
E.
160 00
:r0 x"x<
Tota 1
D.
16 ,(:000
5 , 000 x x
Total
C.
Page '2
Land Acquisition
1.
9.
SAMFLE
0--,0
INCOME
DEVELOPMENT
AA.
SAMPLE
:1t:
Page 3
total
per sale
Sales of Units
Moderate
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
1.
2
3
4
w
bedrm
bedrm
bedrm
bedrm
rental
Market
2.
a.
b.
c .
d..
e.
Income
5
5
6
6
11
units
units
units
units
unit
$12225,)000)
-0
' 45
$52,000
$260
$58 ,00
$69,5O):'
$76 ,C)0 )
Rate
73,0 C C
$83, 000
1 bedrm units
2 bedrm units
3bedrm units
4 bedrm units
w rental unit
$0
$0
$0
so
0
$1 3,000
Total
$2.,0(86
Subsidies
BB.
Shortfall
w/0
CC.
Potential
Subsidies
1.
2.
.
4.
,00
$348,000
$417,000-)
$836 I,000
$976, 031
(unit $22,183 )
Boston MAP/TAP
Massachusetts "Special Projects"
Interest savings on construction
and "front
end" loans ($57 per
$1,000 loan from BUILD, LISC,
(Ln D4x5/13)
CDFC, etc.)
and
Boston "New Iitiatives"
similar
programs ($15F:x*44 units)
,000
$50 , 000
$25, 000
$25, C)00
$666 ., 000
Subsidies direct to families: (a)
2" of interest
Mass. 70-7 payment of difference between
rent and 30.% of income for rental families
in the two family structures.
Notes:
MHFtA purchase mortgages,
Total
DD.
+/-,
total
$766, 000
Subsidy Loss Margin
($21 0
57
,031)
SAMPLE ASSUMPTIONS Regarding Basis of Estimates:
(1)
Page 4
Figures are based upon actual experience of the sponsoring
Community Development Corporation with the construction
quadraplex residences mostly manufactured off site.
of
Experience was in 1984-5, adjusted and projected for
1985-86.
(2) Since sale prices and moderate income (80% of SMSA median)
prices are based on same years, any increases in costs due
to delays in bringing project to fruition are assumed to
be balanced by sale price increases.
(3)
Since there was some generalized learning curve involved
the savings
is
assumed that
in the above experience, it
of providing a
there
will balance the increased costs
as opposed to the
townhouse approach to new construction
expensive, especially
quadraplex which is somewhat less
in foundation costs.
possible that the primary means oF
quite
%4) It is
rather than manufactured.
built
be stick
construction will
A (nix between the two approaches will also be considered.
can be
unless comparable costs
Neither will be utilized
confirmed.
(5)
There is no adequate experience upon which to base
held land in the
of the cost of privately
estimates
assume some
The base figures
Southwest Corridor situation.
on such land and that the cost will be
be built
will
units
likely
parcels will
In fact, particular
$5,000 per unit.
one type of land or the other, and the
be either totally
together if
owners all
plan is geared to avoid private
not allow
will
either prices are too high or -feasibility
purchases at lower prices.
(6)
is
Due to economies of scale in the planning area, it
produce savings
assumed that a project over 32 units will
item.
These are figured
management" line
in the "project
of $1000 per unit
over 32.
at
the rate
(7)
"XX
after
a base figures
indicates that the pro forma
rather than the
considerations
is keyed to individual
standard unit
multiplier.
(8)
Due to the landscaping needs of the over-all
site,
additional
$2,000.00 per unit has been included in
"on site"
construction costs.
an
-9) Due to anticipated
increases in construction
costs
each
year beyond the base year, 10% increases
per year for two
years planning/development time have been added to the
"site
preparation" section under "other,"
and to the
"construction"
section under "on s:ite."
58
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The
create
proposed
project presents a unique
living environment which
balanced
a
with
neighborhood
with cultural diversity.
rests
the
in
sense
of
blends
and blends
a newly created one,
diversity
opportunity
Part of the
achievement
which
can
to
old
an
economic
opportunity
come
from
realizing the results of the neighborhood planning process.
The
success
of this project will also
partly
depend
upon maintaining flexibility among the variables looked at
the
"sensitivity
determining
and
analysis."
preparing
This is critical both
for
"best
in
case/worse
in
(a)
case"
scenerios, and (b) weighing the costs vs benefits of decisions
which
present themselves regarding items such as purchase
land and subsidy levels.
of
Therefore, from the financial point
of view, several clear recommendations emerge:
(1)
balance
Assuming
of
that
an important goal is
lower income families via the
owner-occupant-house
route,
707
to
provide
a
renter-in-an-
the cost for each rental unit is
still high (an additional $21,000 to $32,000 per unit over the
cost for the unit to be moderate income owner occupied).
This
phenomenon
cost
is
due to the limited
additional
purchase
which
a buyer can afford when purchasing a two family
There
may well be no alternatives.
However,
house.
with a goal so
important and costs which are coming out so consistently high,
59
further exploration of income/ownership arrangements which are
less expensive in subsidies,
but still meet this goal, should
occur.
(2)
If
the privately owned non-tax delinquent land
be purchased for a combined price in the vicinity of
can
$60,000,
as projected, it will benefit the project or be neutral to the
project
under
every scenario.
Under a 32 unit and 44
unit
"maximum of affordable housing" options comparison (i.e. A and
D),
$162,500
moderate
additional
income
units.
subsidy
produces
12
Under a "25% market
comparison (i.e BB and E),
additional
rate"
options
there are nine additional moderate
income units at no additional direct subsidy costs.
(3)
If the $60,000 assumption for
private
acquisition
turns out to be significantly low, then the 46 unit projection
may need to be dropped.
(4)
that
the
rate
units
percent.
The "sensitivity analysis" of pro
formas
suggests
financial savings incurred by including 25%
cuts
Given
the subsidy needs
more
the
subsidy
shortage
of
than
market
one
funds
hundred
locally,
regionally, and nationally, this suggests that the social goal
of
maximizing the number of decent "below market rate"
regionally
Should
weigh
might
collide
this turn out to be true,
that of
doing
balance."
This,
so
locally.
it gives special reason
carefully the social goal of maximizing the
"below market rate" units
income
with
units
number
to
of
against the social goal of a "mixed
of course,
60
should be doubly true if
projections
there are "caps" on available subsidies below the
for
An
(5)
the development.
affordable" units in
"totally
affects
of
"market
rate units." The definition of "middle
here
is
utilizing
that
projects,
"middle income" units
developed for the use of
i.e.
see
should also be conducted to
analysis
"below
the
as
CDBG
the
opposed
income"
to
used
funded
Boston
Metropolitan Area Median
Income
(currently $32,300 for a family of four).
The success of the project also depends heavily upon
city
the
and state identifying a commonality of interest with the
neighborhood process which has occured.
Areas in which
this
can occur include:
(1)
Articulate
housing."
This
minimize
publicly their advocacy for
includes
expectation
southwest
Hoffman
corridor
area
in
adaptability
making
decisions
of gross appreciation of
in
general and
particular.
to
zoning
the
strategy
the
"affordable
land
Lamartine
This also
which
means
advocated here
in
the
Chestnut
showing
which
is
an
to
minimize land speculaion by being prepared to go ahead with as
little
or
upwardly
is
as
much of the land as can
be
acquired
without
skewing the costs per unit for all the housing
built.
acquisition
especially
At
of
the
same
land
time,
which
can
it
be
means
made
supporting
available,
expediting the completion of the land
that
early
and
foreclosure
processes on those parcels for which it is already far along.
(2)
Advocate
for
kind of
the
61
state,
city
and
MBTA
the
Development Proposals that recognize
for
Requests
long
term value to the neighborhoods of developments which grow out
of
that
especially
planning,
community
serious
which
is
neighborhood and site specific.
(3)
to development which
priority
Give
at
looks
mixing of "open space" uses already ingrained
appropriate
kind
consideration to plans which do
variance
of
goals
by
utilizing
cluster
and
in
Giving
the neighborhood with new construction and renovation.
zoning
the
meet
these
planned
unit
development concepts when appropriate.
(4)
Provide adequate funding for this kind
of
project,
particularly because homeownership subsidy does not come in as
many forms or as large amounts as does rental.
Finally,
organizations
development
the
neighborhood
and
the
neighborhood
need to continue and broaden their planning
process
during
the
latter
months
of
-
1985.
Particular areas include:
(1)
Resolve
speed,
and
of recreation and living areas in
and
of
issues
integration/separation
parking,
street
around the new housing units.
(2)
Firm up plans for long term ownership and management
of common areas within the site.
(3)
Affirm in writing the "consensus principles,"
given
here or affirm new ones.
(4) Develop more details for the principles.
(5)
Increase
direct
messages
62
to key
city
and
state
of ficals.
residents
Increase communications and enlistment of
(6)
not yet involved in the process.
In
summary,
this
project
shows every
sign
of
being
feasible if the following conditions are met:
(1)
minimum
of
Subsidy
plus
rental
financing,
housing
the
and
unit
commitment
the
$320,000
subsidy,
and a maximum of
Direct
of
units
reduced interest construction and
707
permanent
sale of land at the reduced rate of $500
per
There should further be
a
to increase the above direct subsidy commitment to
- $976,000 range and the 707 commitment
if property acquisition includes the private
units.
a
to
of
$721,0000
indirect subsidies of four
to be constructed.
$540,000
units
commit
State officials collectively
and
City
(The
project
can
go further toward
to
11
ownership
the
goals
maximizing affordable housing if governmental agencies
of
commit
the larger amount of direct subsidy.)
(2)
a
type
City and state ("T") officials commit to
of Request for Proposals for the sale of
supporting
the
public
land which supports the principles and goals given here.
(3)
consensus
Neighborhood residents and groups commit to a set of
principles within the guidelines of
this
analysis
and commit to actively support implementation.
Feasibility,
project
will
"designated
be
does not mean in itself that the
of course,
developed.
developer
status"
63
The
project
must
be
by the owner of most
given
of
the
land,
MBTA
listed
the MBTA.
It is assumed, however, that persuading the
of the importance and appropriateness of the
above
under
"commonality of interest"
strong contender of the project.
64
principles
will
make
a
CHAPTER III:
This
SOME CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
paper
began by talking about
community-based
community
the
results
been
and
its
development corporations.
chief
that
from
those goals.
to
determine
The work behind this thesis
experiment in using that perspective
whichj
"Determining
and
to
Meeting
was
the top priority and the central theme of
process.
The
resulting plan of development
Government
Rewarding
Approvals."
User
establishing
Market"
next
"Identifying
was
done
and
which
priority,
the
Most
was
the
resulted
"Obtaining
Financially
important
lthe financial feasibility needs.
a
Community
Purposes"
priority led into the
has
prepare
in
this
the
concrete
document
from
of
practitioners,
It suggested
type of process to be used
an
perspective
came particularly from the goals being served and
perspective
from
development
the
for
However,
it
played a minor role in the development of the plan because
it
had
minor
established
Support"
significance
and
after the
"Governmental
community
Approval"
purposes
and
were
"Community
became the driving force of feasibility rather
than
"Market Potential."
The document which resulted will serve as an analysis
of
the
feasibility
of the real estate
development
It will
which
is emerging from the community process.
serve
as
those
who are essentially the investors--the public
a kind of prospectus for selling
65
that
project
project
also
to
agencies
who
control
necessary
both
to
the direct and
undertake
indirect
subsidy
the project in the
form
sources
which
has
A document
has
emerged.
The
been
central tasks have been completed.
prepared.
planning
Its
source has been the type
of
community
process which was suggested for testing in the first
chapter of this paper.
The process is open, but focused and site specfic.
one
which
identify
seeks
their
to
have
the
necessary
community
interests and bring them to
the
process
is
emerging
with
a
development
feasibility has been tested and recorded.
based
upon
a
"community
neighborhood/public
needs"
groups
negotiating
table in an approach which seeks to build consensus.
that
It is
To date,
plan
whose
That feasibility is
bottom
line
agency partnership approach,
and
a
as outlined
in the opening chapter.
To
date,
feasible.
between
some
One
three
corrolary
concepts
also
proving
of these is the concept of a "joint
venture"
community
based entities,
are
all of
whom
have
brought essential elements to the venture from the "communitybased" perspective of development, even though only one of the
agencies
might
traditional
community
is,
be
considered
joint venture.
a
legitimate
The elements of
partner
in
experience
a
and
interest brought to the venture by all three groups
in fact,
critical both to the plan which is emerging and
to the successful carrying out of the eventual development.
66
Another
corrolary concept suggests that,
conditions,
site
for
Again,
which there can likely be
conditions
process
certain
affordable market development is feasible with
in
important
under
competition."
this situation,
the document points to realizable
which
this
of
and
"market
a
do
make
very
feasible,
which is probably the nature
the
resulting
venture
of
the
the
partnership
most
planning
which
has
emerged.
Of course, the final test of validity for an
feasibility
hold
analysis is that which asks,
approach to
"How well
did
it
up under repeated implementation over a period of time?"
That test must come in the future.
67
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acebedo,
C. and Roth, P..
"Notes from Community Meetings,"
May, June, July, 1985. (Photo Copy)
City of Boston.
Assessing Department.
Property 1984-1985."
1985.
"Assessments:
Real
City
of
Boston.
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
(BRA).
"Index Map of City of Boston,
Topographical and Planametric
Survey Sheet Number 18N-6E." n.d.
City
of
Boston.
Neighborhood Development
and
Employment
Agency
(NDEA).
"BUILD:
Community
Development
Interim
Financing
Program."
A descriptive
document
created
and
distributed
by
NDEA,
Boston Massachusetts.
1984.
(Photo
Copy)
City
of
Boston.
Neighborhood Development and
Employment
Agency
(NDEA).
"Community Development Plan,
FY 1985."
A
Descriptive
Proposal Created and Distributed
by NDEA, Boston
Massachusetts.
April,
1984.
(Photo Copy)
City
of Boston.
Neighborhood Development
and
Employment
Agency
(NDEA),
Housing
Division.
"Housing
Trends
in
Egleston
Square."
A report
prepared and
distributed
by
NDEA,
Boston Massachusetts.
1985.
(Photo Copy)
City
of Boston.
Neighborhood Development and
Employment
Agency
(NDEA).
"New Construction
Initiatives
Proqram."
1984.
A
program
description
prepared and distributed
by
NDEA,
Boston Massachusetts.
1984.
(Photo Copy)
City
of
Boston.
Boston
Zoning
Commission.
Districts
of
the City of Boston,
Map
9---Jamaica
August, 1962.
"Zoning
Plain."
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts.
Executive
Office
of
Community
Development.
"Chapter
707
Rental
Assistance
Program."
A
program
descriptive
document
created
and
distributed
by EOCD. n.d. (Photo Copy)
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts.
Executive
Community Development.
"Housing and Community
Programs."
A descriptive
document created and
by EOCD.
n.d. (Photo Copy)
68
Office
of
Development
distributed
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY PAGE 2
Homeowner's Rehab,
Inc.
"Cherry Street Development Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 1984."
An unpublished private document
provided as a planning service.
Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
1984.
Massachusetts
Bay
Transportation
Authority.
Southwest
Corridor Project.
"Corridor-Wide Working Committee Meeting:
Implementing
Development,
July 1,
1985."
1985.
(Photo
Copy)
Massachusetts
Bay
Corridor
Project.
23, 1985."
1985.
Transportation
Authority.
Southwest
"Parcel 45 Developer's Kit Draft,
July
(Photo Copy)
Massachusetts
Bay
Transportation
Authority.
Southwest
Corridor
Project.
"Southwest Corridor Development
Plan,"
1978. (Offset Printing)
Massachusetts
Bay
Corridor
Project.
(Photo Copy)
Transportation
Authority.
"Southwest Corridor Parcel
Southwest
Book."
n.d.
Massachusetts
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA).
"Homeowner's
Loan Program,
Spring 1985."
A Descriptive document created
and distributed by MHFA.
1985. (Offset Printing)
Oficina
Hispana
de
la Communidad.
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.
1982.
REPP.
1982,
"Transfer
Directory,
1984 Issues.
Informe
Suffolk/Jamaica
Anual
1982.
Plain."
Framingham, Massachusetts.
1985.
Urban
Edge,
Inc.
"Pre-Assembled
New Houses Soon
To
Be
Available."
A Financial Pro Forma and Property
Description
Booklet prepared
Massahcusetts.
for
Prospective Purchasers.
1984.
Urban Edge,
Inc.
Autumn, 1984.
(Offset Printing)
Ugdate and
69
Annual
Report
Jamaica
Plain,
Informe Anugl
APPENDIX I
Development Pro Formas:
70
Sensitivity Runs
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Option A
32 Units
total
8 x per 4 units
(Except irregular "xx estiaates)
A. Land Acquisition
1.Public Owned
2.Private Owned
3.Other
(per unit)
$2,000 xx
$20,000 xx
$0 xx
$16,000
$0
$0
Total
$221000
$16,000
1.Utilities
2. Survey, Eng, Fees
3. All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$64,496
$32,160
$255,904
Total
$44,070
$352,560
1. Off Site
2. On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,057,768
$447,954
Total
$188t215
$1,505,722
1.Legal & Acct
2. Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
3. Const. Mang
4. Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.7
5. Tax & Insur
6. Marketing
7.Security
8. Sponsor Fees
9.Sponsor Costs
$1,870
$4,000
$4,000
$6,000
$900
$3,500
$2,090
$5,000
$11,500
$14,960
$32,000
$32,000
$48,000
$7,200
$28,000
$16,720
$40,000
$92,000
Total
$38,860
$310,880
$8,046
$64,370
$30II191
$29,3531
B. Site Preparation
C. Construction
D. Related Costs
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
71
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
Option A page 2
AA. Sales of Units
#
per sale
total
6
6
6
6
4
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$270,000
$312,000
$348,000
$417,000
$304,000
0
0
0
0
0
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$113,000
$133,000
1.Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
c. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e.w rental unit
2. Market Rate
a. 1 bedra units
b.2 bedra units
3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
Total
28
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $18,204 )
72
$1,51 ,000
$582,531
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT -COSTS
Option B
32 Units
Total
8 x per 4 units
(Except irregular 'xx' estiaates)
A. Land Acquisition
1.Public Owned
2.Private Owned
3.Other
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
$0 xx
$16,000
$0
$0
Total
$5,500
$16,000
1.Utilities
2. Survey, Eng, Fees
3. All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$64,496
$32,160
$255,904
Total
$44,070
$3521560
1. Off Site
2. On Site
$132, 221
$55,994
$1,057,768
$447,954
Total
$188,215
$1,5051722
1.Legal & Acct
$1,870
2.Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
$4,000
3.Const. Mang
$4,000
4. Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.27 $6,000
5. Tax & Insur
$900
6. Marketing
$3,500
7. Security
$2,090
8. Sponsor Fees
$5,000
9. Sponsor Costs
$11,500
$14,960
$32,000
$32,000
$48,000
$7,200
$28,000
$16,720
$40,000
$92,000
8. Site Preparation
C. Construction
0. Related Costs
Total
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
73
$38860
$3I0,880
$7,221
$57,770
$283,866
$2,226,931
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
AA. Sales of Units
#
per sale
total
4
4
4
4
8
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$180,000
$208,000
$232,000
$278,000
$608,000
0
0
0
0
0
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
1. Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
2. Market Rate
a. bedra units
b. bedra units
C. bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
Total
24
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $22,529 )
74
$1,506,000
$720,931
Option BB
32 Units
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
8 x per 4 units
Total
(Except irregular "xx" estimates)
A. Land Acquisition
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
$0 xx
1.Public Owned
2. Private Owned
3. Other
$16,000
$0
$0
$16,000
Total
B. Site Preparation
1.Utilities
2. Survey, Eng, Fees
3. All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$64,496
$32,160
$255,904
Total
$44,070
$352,560
1.Off Site
2. On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,057,768
$447,954
Total
$188,215
$1,505,722
1.Legal & Acct
2. Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
3.Const. Mang
4. Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.7
5.Tax & Insur
6. Marketing
7. Security
8. Sponsor Fees
9. Sponsor Costs
$1,870
$4,000
$4,000
$6,000
$900
$3,500
$2,090
$5,000
$11,500
$14,960
$32,000
$32,000
$48,000
$7,200
$28,000
$16,720
$40,000
$92,000
Total
$38,860
$310,880
$7,221
$57,770
$283,866
$2,226,931
C. Construction
D. Related Costs
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
75
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
#
per sale
total
4
4
4
4
4
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$180,000
$208,000
$232,000
$278,000
$304,000
2
2
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
$146,000
$166,000
$186,000
$206,000
$0
AA. Sales of Units
1.Moderate Income
a. I bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
2. Market Rate
a. bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
Total
2
0
28
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $10,029 )
76
$1,906,000
$320,931
Option c
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
32 Units
8 x per 4 units = Total
(Except irregular "xx" estimates)
A. Land Acquisition
(per unit)
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
1.Public Owned
2.Private Owned
3. Other
$0 xx
$16,000
$0
$0
$5,500
$16,000
1.Utilities
2.Survey, Eng, Fees
3.All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$64,496
$32,160
$255,904
Total
$44, 070
$352,560
1.Off Site
2. On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,057,768
$447,954
Total
$188,215
$1,505,722
1.Legal & Acct
2. Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
3. Const. Mang
4. Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.7
5. Tax & Insur
6. Marketing
7. Security
8. Sponsor Fees
9. Sponsor Costs
$1,870
$4,000
$4,000
$6,000
$900
$3,500
$2,090
$5,000
$11,500
$14,960
$32,000
$32,000
$48,000
$7,200
$28,000
$16,720
$40,000
$92,000
Total
$38,860
s310,880
$7,221
$57,770
$283,866
$2,226,931
Total
B. Site Preparation
C. Construction
D. Related Costs
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
77
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
I
per sale
Option C Page 2
total
2
2
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$90,000
$104,000
$116,000
$139,000
$608,000
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
$146,000
$166,000
$186,000
$206,000
$0
AA. Sales of Units
1.Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedri units
c. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
2
8
2.Market Rate
a.
b. 2
C. 3
d. 4
e.w
Total
bedra units
bedra units
bedra units
bedra units
rental unit
2
2
0
24
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $14,560 )
78
$1,761,000
$465,931
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Option D
44 Units
11 x per 4 units = Total
(Except irregular 'xx" estimates)
A. Land Acquisition
(per unit)
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
$0 xx
$16,000
$60,000
$0
$5,500
$76,000
1.Utilities
2. Survey, Eng, Fees
3. All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$88,682
$44,220
$351,868
Total
$44,070
$484,70
1.Off Site
2. On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,454,431
$615,936
Total
$188215
$2,070,367
1. Legal & Acct
2. Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
3. Const. Mang
4. Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.7
5. Tax & Insur
6. Marketing
7. Security
8. Sponsor Fees
9. Sponsor Costs
$1,870
$4,000
$4,000
$6,000
$900
$3,500
$2,090
$5,000
$11,500
$20,570
$44,000
$44,000
$66,000
$9,900
$38,500
$22,990
$55,000
$126,500
Total
$381860
$427,460
$7,221
$79,433
$283,866
$3,062,031
1.Public Owned
2. Private Owned
3. Other
Total
B. Site Preparation
C. Construction
D. Related Costs
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
79
Option D Page 2
total
per sale
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
#
AA. Sales of Units
1.Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b.2 bedra units
c. 3 bedra units
d.4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
9
9
9
9
4
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
0
0
0
0
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
$405,000
$468,000
$522,000
$625,500
$304,000
2. Market Rate
a. bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
c. bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e.w rental unit
Total
0
40
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $16,762 )
80
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,341500
$737,531
Option E
44 Units
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
11 x per 4 units
(Except irregular
A.Land Acquisition
Total
"xx" estimates)
_ _ _ _ _---
1.Public Owned
2.Private Owned
3. Other
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
$0 xx
$16,000
$60,000
$0
Total
$5,500
$76,000
1.Utilities
2.Survey, Eng, Fees
3. All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$88,682
$44,220
$351,868
Total
$44,070
$484,770
1.Off Site
2.On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,454,431
$615,936
Total
$188,215
$29070,367
1.Legal & Acct
2.Proi. Mang (fr I&II)
3.Const. Mang
4.Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.7
5. Tax & Insur
6. Marketing
7. Security
8. Sponsor Fees
9. Sponsor Costs
$1,870
$4,000
$4,000
$6,000
$900
$3,500
$2,090
$5,000
$11,500
$20,570
$44,000
$44,000
$66,000
$9,900
$38,500
$22,990
$55,000
$126,500
Total
$38,860
$427,460
$7,221
$79,433
$283,866
$3,062,031
8.Site Preparation
C. Construction
D. Related Costs
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
81
$
per sale
Option E Page 2
total
7
7
7
7
1
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$315,000
$364,000
$406,000
$486,500
$76,000
2
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
$146,000
$166,000
$186,000
$206,000
$399,000
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
AA. Sales of Units
1.Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedre units
e. w rental unit
2.Market Rate
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. N rental unit
Total
2
2
3
40
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $7,080 )
82
1750,500
$311,531
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Option F
44 Units
11 x per 4 units =
Total
(Except irregular "xx" estimates)
A. Land Acquisition
1.Public Owned
2. Private Owned
3.Other
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
$0xx
Total
$16,000
$60,000
$0
$76,000
B. Site Preparation
1.Utilities
2.Survey, Eng, Fees
3.All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
Total
$88,682
$44,220
$351,868
$484,770
C. Construction
1. Off Site
2. On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,454,431
$615,936
Total
$188215
S29070,367
1. Legal & Acct
$1,870
2. Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
$4,000
3. Const. Mang
$4,000
4. Const. Finance (325K x.13x.7 $6,000
5. Tax & Insur
$900
6. Marketing
$3,500
7. Security
$2,090
8. Sponsor Fees
$5,000
9. Sponsor Costs
$11,500
$20,570
$44,000
$44,000
$66,000
$9,900
$38,500
$22,990
$55,000
$126,500
Total
$38,860
$427,460
$7,221
$79,433
$283,866
$3,062,031
D. Related Costs
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
83
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
Option F
Page 2
total
#
per sale
8
8
8
9
11
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$360,000
$416,000
$464,000
$625,500
$836,000
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
AA. Sales of Units
1.Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e., N rental unit
2.Market Rate
a. bedra units
b.2 bedra units
C. bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. 14rental unit
Total
0
0
0
0
0
44
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $8,194 )
84
$2,701,500
$360,531
Option 6
44 Units
EXHIBIT 2: DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA
(Includes Phases I & II)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
11 x per 4 units =
Total
(Except irregular 'xx" estiaates)
A. Land Acquisition
1.Public Owned
2.Private Owned
3. Other
$500 xx
$5,000 xx
$0 xx
$16,000
$60,000
$0
Total
$5,500
$76,000
1.Utilities
2.Survey, Eng, Fees
3.All Other
$8,062
$4,020
$31,988
$88,682
$44,220
$351,868
Total
$44,070
$484,770
1. Off Site
2.On Site
$132,221
$55,994
$1,454,431
$615,936
Total
$188,215E
$2,070,367
B. Site Preparation
C. Construction
D. Related Costs
1.Legal & Acct
$1,870
$4,000
Proj. Mang (fr I&II)
$4,000
Const. Mang
4. Const. Finance (325Kx.13x.7 $6,000
$900
5. Tax & Insur
$3,500
6. Marketing
$2,090
7. Security
$5,000
8.Sponsor Fees
$11,500
9. Sponsor Costs
$20,570
$44,000
$44,000
$66,000
$9,900
$38,500
$22,990
$55,000
$126,500
Total
$381860
$427,460
$7,221
$79,433
$283,866
$3,062,031
2J.
E. Contingency (Tot-Clx.05)
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
85
Option B Page 2
DEVELOPMENT INCOME
AA. Sales of Units
per sale
total
$45,000
$52,000
$58,000
$69,500
$76,000
$135,000
$156,000
$174,000
$347,500
$608,000
$73,000
$83,000
$93,000
$103,000
$133,000
$146,000
$166,000
$186,000
$206,000
$399,000
1.Moderate Income
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. w rental unit
3
3
3
5
8
2. Market Rate
a. 1 bedra units
b. 2 bedra units
C. 3 bedra units
d. 4 bedra units
e. N rental unit
Total
2
2
2
2
33
2,523 500
33
BB. Shortfall w/o Subsidies (unit $12,239 )
86
$538,531
APPENDIX II
Past Use Map:
Chestnut/Hoffman Area
87
Past Use Map:
Chestnut/Hoffman Area
APPENDIX
III
Preliminary Site Plans
89
liii I 'ii
L;I71
Vj
v
*
iv_
--
A-,-
~
-:1j
PI
FDi"
I'IrI
3. UNIrs mwi-
Ji~__
~L
r-4~~-
'i
.
~q~&TPoe*
"
u
---
1a
ad~
~~~~
/glov~
e.
,IrYv7 )av
la/Al atyvl 7
->v,
0'zhalQ~
-
JASMI
-
.
P3I4 Arid
m
0
H
KY-4 Fat.
-4J
04
~LIIIIIi
44el
rH
Z2j1~F'7'L7
U~NJ~L/~2
4
em-f
/f~
EDk~l
4..u_________
,
Ir
II
hc
et
.
I-
.- .~ .~ . ."
I
6'*
-----.......
.
'
Site Plan: Working Plan
93
APPENDIX
Prototype
94
IV
Models
Prototype Model
Front View:
PRE-ASSEMBLED NEW HOUSES SOON
TO BE AVAILABLE.
MUY PRONTO ESTARAN
DISPONIBLES CASAS NUEVAS
PRE-FABRICADAS.
( VIEW OF TWO FAMILY HOUSE )
URBAN EDGE IS NOW ACCEPTING
APPLICATIONS FOR EIGHT CONDO
UNITS AND FOUR 2 FAMILY HOUSES
TO BE BUILT IN JAMAICA PLAIN
AND ROSLINDALE.
620 CENTRE STREET,
JAMAICA PLAIN, MA
95
URBAN EDGE ESTA ACEPTANDO
AHORA SOLICITUDES PARA 8
UNIDADES DE CONDOMINIOS Y 4
CASAS DE DOS FAMILIAS PARA
SER CONSTRUIDAS EN JAMAICA
PLAIN Y ROSLINDALE.
02130, TEL:
524-1393
7
Prototype
Floor Plans
8
?-vosm
4.bitW
UNIT4lM."N
W"l*V-
P9LIIPAiW FLDOM LA"
'.JLJ5Cl
TO RAIb")~O
I 9RONO4
UNIT
ueRwr
2
~==I
w
IKwNuFM4AUAP
LVBblLw ,Jkb.ct Te RSIV-t4ow
96
Prototype Buyer Pro Forma 1:
Reduced Cost Unit
91
AFFORDABILITY
COSTEABILIDAD
The housing related costs
which result
from the prices
of the condo units and the two
family houses are well within
the reach of home buyers of
moderate
Los costos relacionados a
la vivienda que son resultado
de los precios de las unidades
de condominio y de las casas de
dos familias estgn bien dentro
del alcance econ6mico de compradores de casas de ingresos
I moderados.
Los precios proyectados de
ventas para ambos sitios son
como siguen:
income.
The projected sale prices
for both sites are as follows:
CONDOMINIUMS
1
3
BR.
BR.
$27,500.,
$39,500.,
TWO FAMILY
2
4
BR.
BR.
$33, 500.
$45,500.
HOUSES
CONDOMINIOS:
CASA
One and three bedroom
combination:
$ 62,500.00
Two and four bedroom
combination:
$ 68,000.00
DE DOS FAMILIAS
Combinaci6n de uno y tres
dormitorios:
Combinaci6n de dos y
cuatro dormitorios:
Enlistados en las paginas
siguientes estan nuestros estimados del dinero inicial en
efectivo requerido para
la compra y los costos mensuales de la vivienda.
M.H.F.A. Financiamiento al
10.65% de interds (si ests
disponible).
Listed on the following pages
are our estimates of the
initial cash required for
purchase and monthly housing
cost.
M.H.F.A. Financed at 10.65%
Interest rate (if available).
CONDOMINIUM/CONDOMINI0S:
1 BR/Dorm
2 BR/Dorm
$27,500
$33,500
$39,500
$45,500
26,125
31,825
37,525
43,225
1,375
1,675
1,975
2,275
1,800
1,900
2,000
2, 100
$3,175
$3,575
$3,975
$4,375
Purchase Price/
Precio de Compra
Mortgage Amount/
Hipoteca
Down payment-5%/
Pronto Pago-5%
Closing Costs/
Costos de Cierre
Cash for purchase/
Gastos de Compra
97
3 BR/Dorm
4 BR/Dorm
Prototype Buyer Pro Forma 2:
Reduced Cost Unit
10
CONDOMINIUMS (continued)
1 BR/Dorm
Monthly Carrying
2 BR/Dorm
4 BR/Dorm
Costs/Mensualidad
Monthly Basic/Bgsico Mensual
Principal & Int./
284
Principal e Int.
R.E.
Taxes/
39
Impuestos
Mortg. Ins. Prem./
6
Pre. Seg. Hipoteca
Total
3 BR/Dorm
Basic/Basico
346
408
48
57
65
8
10
12
402
475
547
28
31
34
20
25
30
25
30
35
60
73
86
99
16
19
22
25
35
45
50
55
9
13
19
25
10
12
14
16
329
Monthly Condo./Condo. Mensual
Joint Insurance/
25
Seguro Conjunto
Joint Repairs/
15
Reparaciones Conjuntas
Joint Maint./Mgmt.
20
Mant./Adm. Conjunta
Total Condo./Total
Other Ind./Otro Ind.
Insurance on Unit/
Seguro sobre la Unidad
Heating Cost/
Costos de Calefaccion
Water/Sewer
Agua/Alcantarillado
Rep/Maint.
Rep./Mant.
Total Others/Otros
70
Total All Cost/Costo Total: 459
89
105
564
98
470
121
666
767
Prototype Buyer Pro Forma
3:
Reduced Cost Unit
11
2 FAM. HOUSES/CASAS de 2 FAM.
Combinaci~nes de:
_
1 & 3 BR Combination
1 & 3 Dorm.
Initial Costs/Costos Iniciales:
Purchase Price/
$62,500
Precio de Compra
Mortgage Amount/
59,375
Hipoteca
Downpayment/
3,125
Pago de Pronto
Closing Costs/
2,500
Costos de Cierre
Cash needed for purchase/
$5,625
Efectivo necesario para compra:
Monthly Carrying
$68,000
64,600
3,400
2,500
$5,800
Costs/Mensualidad
Monthly Basic/Basico Mensual
Principal & Interest/
$754
Principal e Intereses
Mrtg.
Ins. Prem./
14
Pago de Seg. de Hipoteca
R.E. Taxes/Impuestos
89
Insurance/Seguro
50
Total
2 & 4 Combination
2 & 4 Dorm.
Basic/Basico Total
$820
14
97
50
$907
$983
Common Expenses/Gastos Comunes:
Water/Sewer
$50
Agua/Alcantarillado
Electricity/Electricidad
15
Maintenance/Mantenimiento
40
$50
Total Common Expenses/
Total Gastos Regulares:
$105
15
40
$105
Total All Monthly
Costs/
$1,012
Total de Gastos Mensuales:
Estimated Income from
Rental Unit/
Ingreso Estimado de la
Unidad de Alquiler
$1,088
$400-700
$300-600
99
Prototype Buyer Pro Forma 4:
Reduced Cost Unit
12
Basic Requirements of
Program:
Requisitos
programa:
the
bgsicos del
Estas nuevas unidades de
viviendas seran vendidas a
residentes de Boston que estin
comprando casa por primera
vez.
Ademis los ingresos
familiares del comprador no
pueden exceder el limite
senalado en las indicaciones
siquientes.
Por favor, ffjese
que por lo menos el 75% de las
unidades ser~n vendidas a
compradores cuyos ingresos
caigan dentro de la Columna A
y el 25% restante sera
vendido a compradores de la
Columna B.
These new housing units will
be sold to Boston residents
who are buying a home for the
first
time.
Also, the buyer's
household income must not
exceed the limit listed on the
following schedules.
Please
note that at least 75% of the
units will be sold to buyers
under Column
whose incomes fall
A with the remainder 25% sold
to buyers with incomes under
Column B.
Income
Limits
Approx.
Limite Aproximado de Ingresos
Household Size
Tamano Familiar
B
$18,100
$22,600
2
$20,700
$25,800
3
$23,250
$29,100
4
$25,850
$32,300
5
$27,450
$34,900
6
$29,100
$37,500
7
$30,700
$40,100
8
$32,300
$42,600
100
Forma
Prototype Model Development Pro
,4ISITION AND SITE PE,<EPATION COSTS
DEVELOPMENT PRO FORMA (MA. ACTUlED tinTTS)
-
HPK
GPk
ROUND II PER SITES:
SITE 1
SITE 2
BOYL
Totals
SITE 3
8Poo
4000
240
0
2500
3000
25000
2000
2000
1000
11036
0
9800
6800
16125
2000
120
0
1468
1500
12000
1000
1200
1000
5475
0
1000
3400
8062
2000
120
0
1393
1500
12000
1000
1200
1000
4800
0
1000
3400
8062
8800
500
500
9600
92301
38725
37975
169001
254272
6250
43000
10171
127136
3125
21500
5085
156846
127136
3125
21500
5085
156846
5085'Vf
4900
440
8000
8000
12000
1650
220
4000
4000
6000
2450
220
4000
4000
6000
9000
16000
16000
24000'
0
1800
7000
3780
0
10000
23000
0
900
3500
2090
0
5000
11500
0
900
3500
2090
0
5000
11500
0
3ox
14ood
7760
P
20000
46000
78920
38860
39660
157#/0
1/ IfA/fI11024
5411
5113
239542
TIOTAL DEVELOPMEN4T COST
cy7JO76 495937
'o;,9-4'
Items
Items referenced with (*) will be sed to pay back MAP.
referenced with (**) will be used to p
A
239594
Acquisition
Engineering aridSoil Boring.. -At
Demo/Removal of Exist. Found.
Clearance & Removal of Debris
Excavation of Foundation
Construction of Fbundation
Back Fill
Rough Grading
Finish Grading
Driveway & Walks(Curb Cuts)
Retaining Walls(if Applicable)
Landscaping & Tempo/Perm.Fencing
ik.*(
.Survey and Title
Utilities(Gas,W/S,Drain,Elect. Tren.)
Roadways (If Applicable)
Permit Fees
Total Acquisition & Site Prep.
Y80
0
5514
6000
490cmO
4000
49"0
3000
2131/
0
11300
13600
321 Vq
CONSTRUCTION
Unit Cost Delivered
Site Assembly
Finish Wxbrk
Contingency on Unit Cost(41)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
, i-2-
&
7313693
86mo
203V'/
62739,7
RELATED COSTS
.Legal aridTitle Fees
Acounting
,.Project Management Costs
%Construction Management Cos,. *
Construction Financing
(S325000atl3% 7 months)
Real Estate Taxes During ConsLr.
Insurance
: A
-Marketing & Brokerage
'Security(Ibg+Tempo.Fence)
Other.Specify(Consult.,Arch.)
Sponsor Fees
Sponsor Costs
Total Related Costs
CONTINGENCY
'S,
5f5fi
/
/
1/fj)
g9o
212L/9
5% of all except boxes)
101
97507 6
,cIMm k
APPENDIX
V
Excerpts from:
"Identifying the Power Structure of a Community"
102
the
"Identifying
written
Power
Structure
of
a
Community,"
for MIT course 11.367 by Ronald Hafer:
Spring Semester,
a
paper
Excerpts
1984-85
I. Type and Location of Development
scale,
small
is
development addressed here
proposed
The
a
It includes
moderate income residential.
predominately
special "mixed use" feature, inclusion of a "community farm"
(gardens) use which has occupied one portion of the site for
several years.
"Southwest
the
facing
nature,
in
is
linear
site
The
nearing
facility
transportation
new
rail
a
Corridor,"
section
Plain
the
Jamaica
through
of
construction
completion
of Boston.
in
depth
varying
site
is two and a half blocks long,
The
half
the
site
Approximately
block
to
a
block.
from
a half
of
of land which held housing prior to the taking
consists
It's
built.
was
not
that
by the state for a highway
land
Transportation
is
the
Massachusetts
Bay
current
owner
Authority.
The
other half is mostly in private ownership,
some by parties friendly to the developer and a considerable
amount by parties no longer paying taxes.
One parcel on the
another is land upon which taxes
edge has occupied housing;
are still being paid by outside parties.
The latter can be
omitted from the development if necessary.
II.
Context
of
the Community
Power
Structure
quite
The
dynamics of power relating to this community are
legal
entities.
various
stems from
Authority
difuse.
of
form
some
have
groups
and
organizations
Numerous
For the particular project discussed here, legal
influence.
authority is quite explicit, stemming from the Massachusetts
Commonwealth
Transportation Authority on behalf of the
Bay
For some of
of Massachusetts for most of the land involved.
the land for other approvals important to the project, legal
its
through
City
of
Boston
from
the
comes
authority
Real
of
Department
Facilities,
of
Public
Department
Employment
and
Development
Neighborhood
and
Property,
upon
heavily
of
site control depends
Completion
Agency.
the
from
status"
developer
"designated
receiving
Achievement of
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
may well constitute de facto community approval
that status
said another way, a form of community approval
as well (or,
will be necessary to achive that status).
103
The
form
of
use proposed above is already
favored
by
a
significant
number
of
the
elements
of
the
formal
and
informal
power
structure.
Also,
there
is
considerable
support
for the idea that the best means of achieving
that
goal is a non-profit community development
corporation,
of
which the proposed developer is one.
However, the approach
of
community
development
corporations and
the
forms
of
housing
they tend to develop will also be perceived by many
elements
as against their interests.
Hence,
the path
to
community
suppoert
is an involved one,
and review of
the
dimensions
of
community
power
at
this
time
is
most
appropriate.
III.
Particular Elements of
A.
The formal
the Power Structure
authority group level
includes:
1.The
Director
of
the
Massachusetts
Bay
Transportation
Authority:
Legal
responsibility
for
disposition of the surplus corridor property rests with this
person,
James O'Leary
with approvals necessary by
certain
other
state boards asnd officials.
Preparatory action for
those decisions has apparently been vested to a considerable
extent
in the Director of the Southwest
Corridor
Project,
Dan Ocassio.
The "T" has publicly acknowledged on more than
one occasion that they have a responsibility to first review
a
1979
planning document designating use
for
development
parcels
and then dispose of the parcels via an RFP
process
consistent with the document.
They have indicated they will
utilize
the
"T" managed community input process
known
as
"SATFS" (Station Area Tasks Forces) for that review.
The
decision making waters were muddlied recently when
the
Mayor of Boston announced that his Neighborhood
Development
and
Employment
Agency
(NDEA)
would be
involved
in
the
process.
Some
people
interpreted this to mean
the
NDEA
would
run the process for the "T."
Others thought it meant
just that the NDEA would monitor on behalf of the city.
2.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation
of the Commonwealth:
This position has authority over
the
"T."
Since
the present occupant,
Fred
Salvucci,
has
a
special interest in the lcorridor, he is likely to intervene
at some point.
3.
The
Governor
of
the
Commonwealth:
Mikael
Dukakis,
the current Governor, of course has authority over
the
Secretary
of Transportation.
Since he
has
recently
taken
a
personal interest in the urban housing
crisis,
a
significant
controversy over the use of the land might
draw
him into
the decision.
104
4.
The
NDEA
(Neighborhood Development
and
Employment Agency):
This city agency, as mentioned earlier,
will
apparently
act as the Mayor's
representative.
Like
their lcounterpart at the state, EOCD, they will play a role
with
strong
influence
since each is
a
channel
for
the
subsidies
and grant monies which will be essential to
make
the project
work.
5.
The Mayor's Office,
and Mayor Flynn
himself,
are likely to be involved at some point.
They are currently
directly
accessible
to many community groups.
6.
City
Councilor
Maura
Hennigan
and
State
Representative
Kevin
Fitzgerald
both
lhave
significant
influence.
The
legislative
bodies of lwhich
each
is
a
lmember
almost
invariably
support
the
ldistrict
representative in matsters such as these.
7.
The Boston Zoning Board of Appeals will be the
body dealing with the zoning variances which will be needed.
However,
given
the public nature of the earlier decisions,
approval
is
likely
to be perfunctory by the time it
reaches
them.
8.
The Public Facilities
Commission if
the likely
converyor of city owned land,
and the Tax Title division of
the
city
will
have
to
make
a
decision
to
expedite
foreclosure
of
those parcels in tax title.
The
property
disposition process now emerging within the city
government
suggests
that
both may be responding more to direction
by
the Mayor's more than initially in his term of office.
B.
The Community Influence Group Level:
This group will play a major role in the decision.
They
may even play the dominant role if most member
groups
coalesce
together.
Regardless,
this
level
will
be
interacting,
sometimes
extensively,
with
the
"authority
group
level."
In Jamaica Plain,
these groups are numerous.
My
experience
says
that
the degree of
involvement
will
be
proportionate
to:
(a)
the amount of
time
available
to
"build
up" to a given issue/event,
(b) the perceived "self
interest,"
including perceived "turf" being
involved,
(c)
the amount of involvement perceived to be coming from
other
groups
to
whom there is an historic interest (positive or
negative).
105
In relation to the site proposed here, all three of the
above indices will weigh heavily since: (a) The corridor and
the
issue
of
replacing lost housing has been
with
some
people for an excess of seventeen years, (b) The site is the
largest corridor development site designated for housing
in
Jamaica Plain and is in a central, visible location, (c) The
"turf"
issue is especially strong with one group with
many
friends--the "Corridor Farm" has been located,
as a tenant,
on the site
for
many years.
The over-riding issue in this situation is minimizing-or
not
minimizing--the
displacement of
current
low
and
moderate
income families.
Therefore,
in the interest
of
brevity,
I
will
list neighborhood groups by their view
of
this
issue.
Seen
in
this
manner,
the
groups
and
organizations are:
1.
Displacement.
Pragmatists
Interested
in
Minimizing
Note: Because there are three organizations in this category
for
whom
this site has special relevance,
they
are
here
described in more detail:
a.
The
Southwest Corridor Community Farm:
A group of
mostly residents who have developed a greenhouse and
garden
plots
on
several of the "T" owned parcels.
They hold
a
number of community events each year highlighting aspects of
urban gardening.
Use of the site if
officially "temporary,"
but
has become more unofficially permanet as time has
gone
on.
At
this
time,
the Board of the Farm
is
reportedly
divided
between those interested in minimizing displacement
by building new housing if gardening and the greenhouse
can
be
kept on part of the land and those who wish to fight the
official
"housing" disposition plan in order to
keep
the
entire
farm site.
The former also remember the
agreement
ten years ago that the site would eventually be returned
to
housing.
b.
The
Oficina Hispana:
The leading local
agency servicing the Hispanic population of J.P.
An agency
primarily
involved in training and education,
but
also a
strong
advocate
for
other
needs of
the
local
Hispanic
population,
especially housing.
They are located directly
across the corridor from the Farm.
106
c.
Urban Edge, Inc. A ten year old community
housing
and real estate agency whose goals focus on
trying
to
minimise displacement by maximizing housing
development
for
those
persons
most
likely
to
be
displaced.
The
development agency of this paper.
Idealists
interested
in
minimizing
displacement.
Groups
with
other primary purposes
sympathetic to the displacement issue.
who
are
4.
Residents nearby (less than a block) from the
proposed
site.
Most seem to feel that the farm has been a
good neighbor.
Some have an interest in more
recreational
space;
some
a
strong
need
for
new
housing;
all
a
concern/uncertainty around the future use of the land.
5.
Those
who feel "upgrading
the
neighborhood"
can/should occur at the expense of current poorer residents.
IV.
A time Line of
Periods in this
Process
An Influence Matrix
Very
Medium Low
Hi
Hi
Very
Low
AF
IVV
B,E,G
VI
E,H
IV,V
A,B,F,
III
B,E
IV
VI,D,G,H,E
III ,V
A,1 .
IX, x
B
E
D, G,H
B
4 Proposal under
Cobnsideration
--
ABF
A
E
D,G,H
5 Pre-Initial
--
A, F
1 Pre-Guideline
Review Decision
2 Pre-Process
Clarification
.3
Preparation
of
RFP Response
6 Construction
107
VIII
IX,X
B,VIII
--