What the... Onion Flats?

**MariusPontmercy** · 10-26-2012, 04:16 PM

Changing Skyline: High-quality homes for low-income Philadelphians

It doesn't get any better than this: subsidized rental units with high end appliances and luxury features for the "poorest of the poor". Well I'm so glad. I'm sure giving poor people Bosch appliances is going to break the cycle of poverty.

How the hell do they justify these things?

**thoth** · 10-26-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by MariusPontmercy

Changing Skyline: High-quality homes for low-income Philadelphians

It doesn't get any better than this: subsidized rental units with high end appliances and luxury features for the "poorest of the poor". Well I'm so glad. I'm sure giving poor people Bosch appliances is going to break the cycle of poverty.

How the hell do they justify these things?

Holy ****. I don't necessarily have a problem with building non-hideous subsidized housing, but why would you splurge on fancy appliances? Dumb.

However, as I suspected, and they confirmed this in the article, these received the same subsidy as the brick ****boxes the non-profit normally builds. So if we're going to have "affordable" housing developers shelling out 250k of tax money for this:

...I'll take the onion flats style instead.

If anything, it goes to show you how much waste there is normally with PHA and other AH developers if 250k can get you a custom, luxury green house.

**MarketStEl** · 10-26-2012, 05:01 PM

Note the word "owners" in Inga's column. These are not "subsidized rental homes," they're "affordable housing" - units intended for sale at prices probably below what would be required to recoup the cost of construction.

Did either of you see ArcticSplash's post on his blog about the city advertising affordable homes for sale via water bills?

One Group Really Hates the New Zoning Code. A Lot. | Philadelinquency

While I'm sure they don't have quite the level of appliances inside that the Onion Flats homes do (however: maybe they're not stainless steel Bosch appliances, and the countertops might not be granite; Inga Saffron was silent on these important matters), those houses sure don't scream "Cheap!" the way that rental property pictured above does. They look to me like houses I'd see offered at market rate in certain changing city neighborhoods like, say...Point Breeze.

The funny thing is, though, this is probably waste of another sort, unless you believe that there should be a mix of incomes and socioeconomic classes living in every neighborhood in the city. (I do consider income diversity a good thing but note that the way the process usually works, a neighborhood in transition usually becomes all one class or another eventually absent direct intervention.) The Lower Northeast block I live on is all "affordable housing" if the prices on those flyers is any guide, and people are buying the 1920s-1950s houses up this way. (Yeah, I mused on this on the blog too.)

My own opinions notwithstanding, in an era of scarce funds, if the market is offering "affordable housing" in areas that have an acceptable quality of life, then maybe the city should be spending its own money on something else. That said, more power to Onion Flats for pulling this off within the standard budget for such housing.

**the mule** · 10-26-2012, 07:40 PM

There is still something fundamentally wrong with spending $250,000 to produce one unit of subsidized housing when existing homes can be rehabbed to market rate finishes for a fraction of the price. Not to mention the fact that reusing the ample existing housing stock is much greener than new construction no matter how you slice it.

With that said, Onion Flats definitely put out a far superior product to just about any affordable housing project I've ever seen for a lower cost, so that's commendable. If this kind of development is going to happen, these guys need to be awarded more projects.

**the mule** · 10-26-2012, 07:40 PM

There is still something fundamentally wrong with spending $250,000 to produce one unit of subsidized housing when existing homes can be rehabbed to market rate finishes for a fraction of the price. Not to mention the fact that reusing the ample existing housing stock is much greener than new construction no matter how you slice it.

With that said, Onion Flats definitely put out a far superior product to just about any affordable housing project I've ever seen for a lower cost, so that's commendable. If this kind of development is going to happen, these guys need to be awarded more projects.

**raider.adam** · 10-26-2012, 07:51 PM

nevermind

**Giavella Water** · 10-26-2012, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by MariusPontmercy

Changing Skyline: High-quality homes for low-income Philadelphians

It doesn't get any better than this: subsidized rental units with high end appliances and luxury features for the "poorest of the poor". Well I'm so glad. I'm sure giving poor people Bosch appliances is going to break the cycle of poverty.

How the hell do they justify these things?

If you don't do it, it's considered 'hate'. The same people who SCREAM about corporate welfare and taxpayer waste shut their mouths very fast when taxpayer money is wasted creating something that costs more to create than what it will be sold for on the other end of the scale.

**Jerry19127** · 10-26-2012, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by MariusPontmercy

Changing Skyline: High-quality homes for low-income Philadelphians

It doesn't get any better than this: subsidized rental units with high end appliances and luxury features for the "poorest of the poor". Well I'm so glad. I'm sure giving poor people Bosch appliances is going to break the cycle of poverty.

How the hell do they justify these things?

A good lot of the limousine liberal PS posters on here abhor the philly.com comments but the dude that said he was going to Logan to get some nice appliances when tenants move in was spot on. Anyone know if they got new washers/dryers going in? I got $100 and a pack of Newports.

**eldondre** · 10-26-2012, 11:55 PM

what's not amazing is that they turned out a great product for $250k. what is amazing is how awful a product usually gets delivered for the same price and purpose. it annoys me that she's so impressed. why? it may not be market rate selling price but it's market rate construction price. one would guess bosch makes the "green" line and low end appliances do not meet that standard. what should annoy the rest of us is that developers can't sell us $300k homes with high end appliances and still make a hefty profit.

**MarketStEl** · 10-27-2012, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by eldondre

what's not amazing is that they turned out a great product for $250k. what is amazing is how awful a product usually gets delivered for the same price and purpose. it annoys me that she's so impressed. why? it may not be market rate selling price but it's market rate construction price. one would guess bosch makes the "green" line and low end appliances do not meet that standard. what should annoy the rest of us is that developers can't sell us $300k homes with high end appliances and still make a hefty profit.

One reason why is because construction technology has not evolved as rapidly as other technologies have.

Or, put more accurately, because builders have refused to embrace new technologies.

Recall that the column mentioned that these houses were built off-site and assembled in place using modular construction by Blox, another Onion Flats subsidiary that has a factory in Phoenixville. Modular, off-site construction has been around for decades, but it's most commonly associated with real low-end housing, namely, trailer parks. Attempts to adapt it to other market segments have thus far proved short-lived. Onion Flats is also using Blox to build the modules that will become Stable Flats in NoLibs, a high-end, net-zero-energy development.

I'm not sure why $50k isn't a decent profit on a house, for I'm not that well versed in the economics of housing construction.

**billy ross** · 10-27-2012, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by the mule

There is still something fundamentally wrong with spending $250,000 to produce one unit of subsidized housing when existing homes can be rehabbed to market rate finishes for a fraction of the price. Not to mention the fact that reusing the ample existing housing stock is much greener than new construction no matter how you slice it.

With that said, Onion Flats definitely put out a far superior product to just about any affordable housing project I've ever seen for a lower cost, so that's commendable. If this kind of development is going to happen, these guys need to be awarded more projects.

Not by union labor. When the government rehabs rowhomes the pricetag is stratospheric.

I agree with you guys that in a city awash with 'affordable' housing, as determined by the market, the government has no business trying to drive down the cost of housing. If your housing costs are cheap and people still can't afford them, you have an income problem, not an expense problem. Attacking that problem (poverty) from the expense side is nonsensical. When you have a dysfunctional population, the solution isn't to give them everything. The solution is to help them become self-sufficient by enabling them to become functional. Then they contribute to the tax base, instead of to the tax burden.

**annie** · 10-27-2012, 11:03 AM

I guess I am the only one that read the appliances and windows as purchased for the energy efficiency reasons.

**MariusPontmercy** · 10-27-2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by thoth

Holy ****. I don't necessarily have a problem with building non-hideous subsidized housing, but why would you splurge on fancy appliances? Dumb.

However, as I suspected, and they confirmed this in the article, these received the same subsidy as the brick ****boxes the non-profit normally builds. So if we're going to have "affordable" housing developers shelling out 250k of tax money for this:

...I'll take the onion flats style instead.

If anything, it goes to show you how much waste there is normally with PHA and other AH developers if 250k can get you a custom, luxury green house.

I suspected as much, but Inga didn't really clearly state that anywhere in the article.

I can understand affordable housing in transitional neighborhoods. In fact, I like the idea of providing a range price points for buyers in that situation. However, in a neighborhood like Logan where these "affordable units" are probably going to match the price of houses in the neighborhood, it doesn't really make any sense. In fact, there's probably a glut of houses at that price in that area, since honestly, who is moving to Logan right now?

**ShoshTrvls** · 10-27-2012, 11:47 AM

Give people nice things and they will take better care of them - shown time and time again. Not everyone, of course, but I suspect many of the people who will qualify for these homes will do so, making them better neighbors and prouder owners. Moreover, it may have a positive generational impact. Children who live in traditional low income housing are unlikely to invite their non-low-income peers to their homes to study or play, and similarly parents are reluctant to let their children go there. Thus, these kids generally socialize only with other kids at their own economic level With homes like this, those barriers to social integration are more likely to fall, to the benefit of all.

**ShoshTrvls** · 10-27-2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by MariusPontmercy

I suspected as much, but Inga didn't really clearly state that anywhere in the article.

I can understand affordable housing in transitional neighborhoods. In fact, I like the idea of providing a range price points for buyers in that situation. However, in a neighborhood like Logan where these "affordable units" are probably going to match the price of houses in the neighborhood, it doesn't really make any sense. In fact, there's probably a glut of houses at that price in that area, since honestly, who is moving to Logan right now?

The main difference is that these homes come with loan guarantees and alternative financing structure to make the, affordable for those who can't get traditional financing.

**Marquis** · 10-27-2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by annie

I guess I am the only one that read the appliances and windows as purchased for the energy efficiency reasons.

Now you're just making stuff up.

**annie** · 10-27-2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis

Now you're just making stuff up.

What? By read I meant interpreted. Energy efficient stuff generally don't come cheap. It'd be stupid to spend all that effort making the home efficient only to install inexpensive inefficient appliances and windows.

**Marquis** · 10-27-2012, 05:21 PM

Calm down, I was kidding.

**sharkey** · 10-27-2012, 07:25 PM

[QUOTE=ShoshTrvls;544551]Give people nice things and they will take better care of them - shown time and time again.

This statement is pure fantasy.

**sharkey** · 10-27-2012, 07:28 PM

This city already has far more than its fair share of "affordable housing." If people can't find a cheap enough place to live here, let them move on and out. Our city gov't, unfortunately, seems to focus on and cater to the forever needy residents of our city. The policies encourage the needy to stay and the wealthy and self-sufficient to go. We are on our way to becoming a city of tax consumers, ala Camden.