Out of the blight comes Affordable Housing

With the crash of real estate all over the country, the city of New York recently unveiled a program to "convert vacant and stalled high-end projects for middle income families." This $20 million program, known as HARP- Housing Asset Renewal Program, is geared to clean up the blight littering the five boroughs and at the same time create much needed affordable housing for the city.

“Private developments that sit vacant or unfinished could have a destabilizing effect on our neighborhoods, but we’re not about to let that happen,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement. “This program holds out the promise of addressing the unintended blight caused by vacant sites, while transforming what would have been market-rate buildings into affordable housing for working class New Yorkers.”

Speaker Christine Quinn introduced this option in February 2008 during her State of the City address and the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development was brought on board to flesh out some of the details that need to be worked out before implementation.

The entire process is set to work thus: the city will issue a request for funding applicants—a sort of RFP with a rolling deadline—in July that is expected to run through December. Applicants will be judged on three criteria: those who offer the deepest discounts, require the least amount of subsidy, and provide the most “stabilization” to the neighborhood. For instance, a single building in need of subsidy in a ten block radius would be more likely targeted than 15 buildings in need within a five block radius, according to Andrew Doba, a council spokesperson. - www.archpaper.com

I think this is a great idea to not only open up financing to complete the construction on these projects but to also provide affordable housing for the public. Also, this will greatly help to clean up the blight and make the neighborhoods safer by removing these spots which could harbor potential predators in the dark.




Images obtained from: www.archpaper.com
Article details obtained from Matt Chaban's "Harping on Affordable Housing"

Increased Demand for Green Buildings

In light of work in the private sector having fallen off the map for architects, it seems like the increased demand for energy efficient and environmentally friendly buildings is helping to bring more business to architects during the current lull in the building industry. But has this been a necessarily good thing for the building industry or environment?

In the last year, more clients become more familiar with the LEED ratings system, and the potential advantages of sustainable buildings and as such have begun to request that their projects meet the criteria to be at least LEED certified. So ultimately, the more LEED accredited professionals within a firm, the better positioned they are to tap into this market.

Although this has been hailed by many of my peers as a good sign, I am not as optimistic. I think what has happened now, is that the word "green" has become a label developers seek to apply to every ugly little box they want to market to the public as unique. I recently worked on an apartment complex in Southern California that the developer wanted to have meet the LEED certified criteria and provided the necessary strategies needed for the project to achieve this. Now, the building is still a piece of junk aesthetically and has many issues to be ironed out but the developer could care less. He feels that since he is applying the LEED "label" like some kind of beauty lotion, the project will magically transform into something potential occupant will fall over themselves to rent.

Having said that, I must add that I am appreciative of the revenue these projects are bringing in which help keep many of us working but I have noticed that these days, having a LEED certified building does not necessarily mean that you have an environmentally friendly building by any means.

Image obtained from: fivecat.wordpress.com

The Worst Building in the World

I had my doubts about how bad this building could possibly have been when I heard about it. I mean we all know that architecture is very subjective and not everyone is going to agree about the aesthetic qualities of any building but when I saw an image of the Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea, I had to admit that this was the one exception to the rule. It's truly awful!

The one-hundred-and-five-story, world's 22nd largest skyscraper broke ground as far back as 1987 by Baikdoosan Architects but construction was stopped in 1992 when it was rumored that the state ran out of money to continue. Now, more than twenty years later after North Korea poured more than two percent of its gross domestic product into this eyesore, construction has resumed though I can't understand why. The Ryugyong Hotel dwarfs and stands out so much from its surroundings, it looks like it was just dropped there from outer space with no care for site integration. Also, the government themselves think it is so bad that they airbrush it out of official photos of the city skyline, pretending that it isn't there.

Even by Communist standards, the 3,000-room hotel is hideously ugly, a series of three gray 328-foot long concrete wings shaped into a steep pyramid. With 75 degree sides that rise to an apex of 1,083 feet, the Hotel of Doom (also known as the Phantom Hotel and the Phantom Pyramid) isn't the just the worst designed building in the world -- it's the worst-built building, too. - www.esquire.com/the-side/DESIGN/hotel-of-doom-012808

I think like most people do, that the Ryugyong Hotel is horrid but again we really can't judge the entire process of its design and construction as it is within a communist country we do not understand or have much access to. This building clearly would not have even gotten approved anywhere in Europe or the United States nor would so much money have been poured down the drain on a project the government and community clearly seem to despise.

Images obtained from: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/DESIGN/hotel-of-doom-012808