Homes don't call attention to themselvesBy Robert Behre (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, June 30, 2008
 
Robert Behre The houses on Peecksens Court are similar in their size and floor plan, but their details, such as piazzas and columns, differ. The 11 houses on Peecksens Court not only help the Elliottborough neighborhood by adding handsome new houses to what had been a vacant, blighted street, they also strengthen the city by giving more people a chance to stay downtown while owning a home of their own. Charleston's greatest architectural achievement during the past generation might be its scattered-site public housing, a series of public housing units built in the 1980s that, for the first time, didn't resemble military barracks but instead blended in with nearby historic homes. These units, scattered rather anonymously throughout Charleston's central peninsula, won design awards from the American Institute of Architects and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sometimes, the best new architecture simply reinforces a sense of place and promotes social healing without calling much attention to itself. Peecksens Court can be thought of in this way. Architect Stephen Russell remembers speaking at the groundbreaking in 2003. In his remarks, he referred to Peecksens Court as a "project" and quickly paused. Never mind that architects always call their current work a "project." Russell realized the word also carries a negative whiff of low-rent housing. "I thought, 'This is not going to be a project,' and hopefully those who look at this today will feel that it's borne out," he says. "The whole idea was to blend it into the city's fabric architecturally and economically." It wasn't an easy task. Even with land and other support from the city of Charleston that added up to about $60,000 per house, Russell and the Humanities Foundation, the nonprofit developer, had to rebuild the street and sidewalk, design the homes with the Board of Architectural Review's blessings and build them so they could be sold for the relatively affordable prices of $245,000 for a three-bedroom home and $290,000 for a four-bedroom. The challenge is reflected in the five years it took to get them built, a delay caused partly by site and financing issues. Russell says the footprint of the homes are essentially the same, but the BAR wanted variety, so each has a slightly different piazza shape, facade massing, and column, gable and siding detail. They're a lot like single homes: They have rectangular footprints with the narrow side facing the street, a small side yard for parking and gardening, even "northside manners," where one house has no windows opening onto the neighbor's side yard. But the nicest touch may have been moving away from a strict single-house approach, in which the piazzas and front door are built along the side. Instead, most of Peecksens homes have a more bungalow-like look with the piazza out front. The result is a street that has a more open welcoming feel compared to other nearby narrow streets such as Rose Lane. That's not to say one is necessarily superior, but the variety is nice. The open feel also is accentuated by leaving one potential lot undeveloped on the half-acre site. It now has a few benches and a picnic table. The homes can be purchased by first-time homebuyers who make between 60 and 120 percent of the area's median income, which is $58,400 family of four, which means a family of four would have to earn between $35,040 and $70,080 a year to qualify. Also, the city limits how much the homes can be resold for, essentially guaranteeing that its subsidy lasts for generations instead of disappearing into the pocket of the first owners. Those limits haven't dampened their popularity. Six have sold, and there are contracts on two others. Most people passing by these houses may never know of the public subsidy and toil that surrounded their birth. Hopefully, they'll just see them as another nice place to live. Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771; fax, 937-5579; e-mail, rbehre@postandcourier.com; or mail, 134 Columbus St., Charleston, SC 29403. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 15 comment(s)
Posted by jeff61 on June 30, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These are pretty nice public housing homes. How do I get one. How long will it be before they are all tore up and turned into crack houses.
Posted by Two_Sheds on June 30, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since when is $245k-$290k "relatively affordable?" It is WAY out of reach for a lot of people, including myself.
To answer your question jeff61: they probably won't get all torn up from the residents, because they have to shell out the money to BUY them, unlike the people who get free homes in the project.
Statistics have proven that when these people get free government homes, they don't have a vested interest in keeping them nice, so they get all torn up within a couple years. Happens every time.
Posted by jeff61 on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You mean the house pictured is not a "Public Housing" Project home. I was under the impression it was.
Posted by Tammie on June 30, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...could be sold for the relatively affordable prices of $245,000 for a three-bedroom home and $290,000 for a four-bedroom."
Affordable for who?
Posted by jeff61 on June 30, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Tammie on June 30, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...could be sold for the relatively affordable prices of $245,000 for a three-bedroom home and $290,000 for a four-bedroom."
Affordable for who?
Affordable for who should be yelled. I totally agree.
Posted by umakebrains on June 30, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These houses are built by the city and offered to first time home buyers who meet the financial criteria. The loan is given at the lowest rate possible with a possible grant of 50,000 dol. or more, The owner must not sell the property for current market value if they decide to move, the property is sold back to the homeownership program to be sold to another first time homeowner. The upside of this is if the current owner stays over a certain amount of time, ie 15 or so years the entire loan can be forgiven.
Posted by drp7773 on June 30, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In other words a handout while the rest of us pay 30 year morgages.......
Posted by Tammie on June 30, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the clarification brains. That's still expensive as heck and you know they had to put some hellified terms in that contract. Thank God I inherited my house!
Posted by jeff61 on June 30, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So you were given a house also... so what is the complaint. The only thing I ever inherited was a bunch of B.S and heart ache..
Posted by Tammie on June 30, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Jeff. :-(
Posted by roseb on June 30, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by umakebrains on June 30, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These houses are built by the city and offered to first time home buyers who meet the financial criteria. The loan is given at the lowest rate possible with a possible grant of 50,000 dol. or more, The owner must not sell the property for current market value if they decide to move, the property is sold back to the homeownership program to be sold to another first time homeowner. The upside of this is if the current owner stays over a certain amount of time, ie 15 or so years the entire loan can be forgiven.
Can you cite your source of information.
Posted by redman1959 on June 30, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
roseb
The terms expressed seem to be pretty common in the affordable housing business. Habitat operates this way. The idea is to not give something for "free" then have the new owner go out and make a windfall profit. Seems to work also.
I'd rather see people invested than living in "free" apartments. At least they are building some kind of wealth for their families and themselves. ( I feel more liberal everyday). Do they have any drugs to stop that?
Posted by umakebrains on June 30, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I noticed these houses being constructed in various areas in the city, and as a homeowner in the Longborough neighborhood, where the city promised to build some of these houses I went on to do my homework. The program is called City of Charleston Homeownership for time homeowners, sponsored the city by way of family services home ownership resource center, Debbie Kidd is the contact person, the homes are funded through Charleston Bank Consortium, Nancy Fabian is the banker. I have always armed myself with first hand information so when I complain I know what I am speaking about.
Posted by GoBoilers on June 30, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congress's housing bill... The $300 billion housing bailout bill, currently stalled in Congress, promises to rescue homeowners and save the economy. Comprising the core of the bill is a $300 billion increase in FHA lending permitting banks to offload their riskiest mortgages onto American taxpayers in exchange for realizing losses that would be all but a certainty. In order to ensure there are sufficient special interests handouts to appease everyone, a new policy has been included that enables homeowners to deduct up to $1,000 in property taxes even if the homeowner does not itemize. Additionally, the bill provides money to local governments to buy foreclosed properties in an attempt to reduce “blight” and prop up the values of houses in depressed areas. All of these proposals may have noble intentions, but they are misguided pork-laden attempts at preventing further pain in the housing market.
http://www.beyondthemargin.net/2008/06/h...
Posted by realman on July 1, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
". . .build them so they could be sold for the relatively affordable prices of $245,000 for a three-bedroom home and $290,000 for a four-bedroom."
Affordable? Affordable for who? What do you mean "relatively affordable"? Relative to what? Income? Perhaps it should read: "relatively affordable for a family that makes a lot of money". Good grief. . .