|
|
Introduction |
Mission Main was one of the most troubled and distressed of the Boston Housing Authority's (BHA) properties. Built in 1940 under a federal program to provide low-cost public housing, the development was built as a "superblock," with 38 three-story buildings arranged in rows without through streets, and with very little parking. The site was originally well-landscaped with trees, grass, shrubs, and play areas.
However, as a result of poor management and lack of resources, partial interventions and inconsistent maintenance were the rule, thus, the site deteriorated drastically. An extensive building assessment conducted in 1993 described 56% of the buildings in poor condition, 36% in fair condition and only 3% were considered to be in good condition. The grounds had deteriorated to the point that only a few mature trees existed. There was no longer any fencing, grass and play equipment. In fact, cars moved about in all areas whether paved or unpaved.
The physical deterioration had not occurred in a vacuum, as the crime rate at Mission Main rose to become the highest of all BHA properties. Drugs in particular and the violence they breed took hold of the development and its residents as nowhere else. Fueled in part by a relatively higher income neighborhood, the development became the place where offenders went not only to traffic but also to look for a safe haven as the physical structures provided a maze of indefensible spaces where police pursuit was nearly impossible.
The high crime rate led to high vacancy rates, as those who had a choice, elected to go someplace else. In addition, federal regulations governing occupancy of public housing contributed to the concentration of the poorest members of society and the decline in occupancy of working families. The continuing decline in the income of the residents made normal operation of the development more difficult to perform, aggravating the deterioration of the development and contributing to its downward spiral.
Nevertheless, important positive qualities existed. There is a large number of committed residents for whom Mission Main is their home and who were determined to make a difference in their own lives and in those of their neighbors. The Mission Main Task Force (MMTF) has worked steadfastly with the BHA in developing a vision for its neighborhood, and remains committed to being an active participant in making the vision a reality.
In addition, the neighborhood is home to the largest concentrations of institutions in the city. World renowned medical institutions, art museums and several universities are Mission Main's neighbors. These institutions possess resources and networks that can benefit the Mission Main community, yet despite their proximity, they historically have been unconnected to the development.
To address all the issues at Mission Main, a severely distressed development under HUD standards, the BHA submitted in 1993 a HOPE VI application that proposed a major rehabilitation of the site and buildings in accordance with the constraints of HUD regulations applicable at the time. However, since 1993 the HOPE VI program changed two key factors dramatically. The first was a better understanding of the costs involved. The design development estimates for the Mission Main rehabilitation plan and the experience of the bidding of a comparable plan at Orchard Park demonstrated that an aggressive rehabilitation plan is prohibitively expensive. The second was HUD’s adoption of a broader community development approach to HOPE VI and the introduction of leveraged financing to public housing. At the same time, Congress started to remove many of the statutory impediments to realizing HUD's goals for the "reinvention" of public housing. Thus, the stage was set to take another look at Mission Main. The "new" HOPE VI context provided an extraordinary opportunity to change the very nature of the place.
The revised program envisioned porous boundaries where Mission Main would be physically, socially and economically integrated into the neighborhood around it. A new construction program replaced the rehabilitation strategy originally planned for Mission. Finally, the Mission revitalization would be undertaken in partnership with a private development team. The plan was for a complete makeover for the neighborhood.
|
Goals of the Program |
The BHA established the following goals for the Mission Main HOPE VI initiative:
- End isolation of Mission Main by integrating the development physically, socially and economically with the broader Mission Main neighborhood;
- Build high-quality housing that will attract and retain a broad income mix, and will survive well without extraordinary capital improvement resources;
- Create a self-sufficient community through supportive service, community service, and economic development components;
- Create and maintain a meaningful partnership with the residents in the redevelopment and ongoing operations of the Mission Main development;
- Promote economic development in the Mission Main community and neighborhood during the redevelopment that will have a lasting impact by providing jobs to local residents, particularly residents of Mission Main, minorities and women, and by providing access to contracts for goods and services to minority and women-owned businesses;
- Minimize temporary dislocation during the redevelopment period in order to build and, to the maximum extent possible, maintain a cohesive residential community through and beyond the redevelopment period;
- Develop the largest possible number of units available to public housing eligible residents through the creative use of HOPE VI funds, private financing, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other sources of financing and subsidy;
- Identify new forms of ownership, management, financing, resident selection, service delivery and economic development that will assist the BHA in carrying out its mission to provide high quality living environments for families of low and moderate income.
|
Implementing the Program |
The following is a description of the general parameters for the Mission Main HOPE VI program.
A. Physical Redevelopment
- Demolished the existing units and created 535 new housing units of which at least 83% serve public housing eligible households within a larger mixed-income community. The redevelopment was done in three phases to minimize relocation difficulties and avoid disruption of the service and economic development components of the program.
- Reorganized the site to create a typical family housing neighborhood and remove the "institutional" feel, and include in the design various elements to create visual interest and identity. The buildings, town-house style and a mid-rise building, were carefully considered to respond to the existing neighborhood pattern as well as current market demand. In addition, the design and construction of new public streets and green spaces is in accordance with the neighboring landscape. The development will not be structured as a "superblock" with limited access and the attendant safety compromises.
The redevelopment consists of 535 units of rental housing. The development has 120 one bedroom units in a seven-story building and the remaining 415 units are a combination of rowhouse and walk-ups.
The bedroom distribution is:
|
1 Bedroom
|
120
|
|
2 Bedrooms
|
186
|
|
3 Bedrooms
|
181
|
|
4 Bedrooms
|
46
|
|
5 Bedrooms
|
2
|
The new development has a mixture of 83% public housing units and 17% market rent. There are also 4 income tiers for the public housing units to ensure a range of incomes over the life of the development. The income mix goals as a percent of Area Median Income are:
|
Tier 1
|
27 % units at 0-14% of AMI
|
|
Tier 2
|
14 % units at 15-26% of AMI
|
|
Tier 3
|
15 % units at 27-35% of AMI
|
|
Tier 4
|
27 % units at 36-60% of AMI
|
B. Financing
As stated earlier, events mandated a different financial approach to the redevelopment of Mission Main. To be able to implement its goals, the BHA in conjunction with the Mission Main Task Force determined that phased demolition and replacement of the buildings was the way to proceed. The program used a combination of city capital funds for infrastructure; the HOPE VI grant of $50 million and Comprehensive Grant Program funds of $28 million; and private funds obtained by the use of 4% and 9% Low Income Tax Credits.
The first phase was done with 4% credits and tax-exempt bond financing through the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency. The bonds were collateralized by the HOPE VI funds used for that phase. Phase 2 and 3 were done with 9% tax credits allocated by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development.
C. Ownership
The new realities affected the vision for the development and created the opportunity to tap into the existing private development entities in the Boston area. The introduction of private financing into the plan necessitated a new ownership structure for the revitalized development. Therefore, the BHA publicly procured, in a competitive RFP process, a private development team to implement the physical redevelopment agenda and transferred the site to a limited partnership entity, subject to a ground lease and other contractual documents. The development team was comprised of a joint venture of Peabody/Cruz Companies and the Winn Company. Other members of the team included the architectural firm of Chia-Ming Sze; legal counsel is Goulston & Storrs and Nixon Peabody.
The BHA maintained a role in overseeing the HOPE VI program at Mission over the period of redevelopment. In addition, the BHA monitored and enforced the developer's contractual obligations, particularly the affordability requirements through the ground lease.
D. Management
The BHA originally planned to continue to manage the property, however, several factors affected and changed this option. The desire to attract a private developer/owner, market-rate residents and investors caused the BHA to transfer the Mission Main site to private management. In order to send a positive message to the community that change was coming, the BHA pursued an interim management agreement during the pre-development stage. Interim management demonstrated BHA’s commitment to carry out its proposed plan and to provide a transition period for the residents to introduce new management standards and expectations. Management was procured as an integral part of the developer RFP. The management is a joint venture of the Winn Companies and the Peabody/Cruz Companies. At this time, the management company works for the new owner entity.
As part of the redevelopment, HUD approved a site-based waiting list. Over 5,000 applicants submitted applications during a two-week period the summer of 1999.
As of June 2000, the percentage of wait-list applicants per income tier were as follows:
|
Tier 1
|
30.94%
|
|
Tier 2
|
22.77%
|
|
Tier 3
|
13.84%
|
|
Tier 4
|
30.50%
|
|
Tier 5
|
1.95%
|
As of June 2000, the wait-list applicants per reported race/ethnic group were as follows:
|
White (not Hispanic)
|
4.31%
|
|
Black (not Hispanic)
|
46.37%
|
|
Hispanic
|
25.56%
|
|
Asian or Pacific Islander
|
9.10%
|
|
American Indian or Alaskan Native
|
.54%
|
|
Unknown
|
14.11%
|
E. Relocation
Resident relocation was done in phases to meet the demolition/construction schedule under a HUD approved plan. All households were given the right to return to the new development as long as they remained tenants in good standing. Relocation options consisted of temporary or permanent relocation and residents could choose between public housing or private housing with a section 8 voucher.
F. Supportive Services
The BHA and HUD agreed to the formation of a new non-profit entity, the Mission Main Resident Services Corp. (MMRC), to implement the HUD-approved services program. The MMRC received HOPE VI funds and fundraises for other services. The system provided a comprehensive assessment, referral, and coordination of services and ensured that Mission Main residents received a holistic approach to their needs.
A range of services included after-school, youth and elderly programs. A child-care center was built on-site in collaboration with a local agency. In addition, preventive health, basic pediatric, and adult services (including mental health and substance abuse referral) were available.
The underlying principles to both the service and economic development program are:
- Create a comprehensive continuum so that everyone's needs are met and capabilities are realized.
- Connect Mission Main to existing networks and providers so that the public housing residents are not isolated or stigmatized and the benefits last beyond the HOPE VI grant.
- Require all providers to establish and meet measurable, realistic goals and objectives for their programs.
- Focus the HOPE VI limited funding on the gaps within existing networks, whether they be discrete pieces in the continuum or seemingly minor adjuncts to existing programs that would allow more residents to take advantage of existing services and opportunities.
To read more about resident services at Mission Main in the April 2005 BHA Today Newsletter Click Here
G. Economic Development
The MMRC also implemented a broad economic development program to develop self-sufficiency. The program was based on information from a survey and focus groups and was geared to provide long-term impact and break the poverty cycle.
Adult educational, skill training and job preparation initiatives were coordinated to ensure the smooth transition for the participants from non-employment status through employment and job retention. A computer center was built on-site and it is available to all ages for training.
H. Partnerships
In order to carry out the HOPE VI program, BHA coordinated the efforts and resources of different City departments. For example:
- The Boston Police Department: a partner in crime prevention strategies.
- The Boston Redevelopment Authority: a partner in securing expedited approvals.
- The Boston Public Works Department: a partner in developing new city streets.
I. Security
The Boston Housing Authority Police, a Special Police Division within the Boston Police Department, prepared a report entitled “Reported Crime in Public Housing 1997-1999.” The following statistics, comparing reported crime in the HOPE VI developments from 1997 through 1999 to reported crime city-wide, were excerpted from this report.
Crime statistics were broken down into two categories. Part I: crimes of violence with malicious intent against persons and property, and Part II: less serious crimes against persons or property.
|
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
% Change
|
|
Mission Main Part I
|
50
|
57
|
31
|
-31.6%
|
|
Mission Main Part II
|
241
|
246
|
153
|
-35.7%
|
|
City-Wide Part I
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-6.0%
|
|
City-Wide Part II
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-5.8%
|
These statistics clearly illustrate the positive impact that HOPE VI has achieved in this development.
|
To Learn More |
|
For more information, call the HOPE VI staff at (617) 988-4137.
|
|
 |
