Poet’s Landing Phase II Construction Update, 7/2017

16 07 2017

Over at the Poet’s Landing construction site, it looks like two of the buildings, previous dubbed “E” and “F” since I have no actual documentation of individual address, are pretty close to completion. “F’s” exterior work is almost complete, waiting for a few more trim pieces such as balcony and porch railings. It’s difficult to tell how far along the interior is; what looks like a gaping hole in the front at first glance, is actually a covered vestibule that leads to front doors, some of which appear to have been left open in photos seven and eight below. A typical build-out usually involves the interior being fairly far along by the time exterior trim is being attached – rough-ins complete, drywall hung, and probably the painting, utilities finish work and counters/cabinetry are underway. Building “E”, which is a little further behind on the trimwork, appeared to have some unpainted drywall visible just beyond the open front doors.

Stepping further back in the construction process, building “D” is in the midst of Certainteed vinyl siding attachment, and Building “C” has been shingled and fully wrapped in DuPont Tyvek, its balcony frames and porch columns just naked beams for now. Building “B” has yet to be fully wrapped, and “A” isn’t even fully framed yet. It looks like some of “A’s” roof trusses are sitting near Building “F”.

Although unsure offhand, if Conifer is planning to do a phased move-in, they could have Buildings “F” and “E” occupied by Labor Day, “D” and “C” before Halloween, and “B” and “A” before the end of the year. Building “F” was just getting its second story framed back in February, so another six months for “A” doesn’t seem unreasonable.

When finished, there will be 16 1-bedroom units, 24 2-bedroom units, and eight 3-bedroom units. Units will be rented to households making 60% of area median income or less, so less than $32k/year. Tenants will have an interview with management, and have to pass a background check. Given the dearth of affordable housing, not everyone interviewed and qualified will be offered a unit, but in that case, they will be offered a spot on a waiting list if desired. Those interested in units in the $10.8 million project can sign up for an “interest list” here, which will notify them as management interviews commence, giving them the chance to sign up and start the process.

So, this is something I’d like to expand on a bit, given some of the recent talk about Hamilton Square in Trumansburg. Some folks have cited Overlook at West Hill as an example of the crime and degeneracy that “these people” will bring to the village. This reminded me of the West Village piece I did for the Voice last year, where I argued successful affordable housing involves community engagement and respect, access to services, and proactive tenant management.

With any group of landlords, you have good ones, mediocre ones and bad ones. Overlook’s management leaves something to be desired, as has West Village’s. Omni Development, which manages West Village, seems to be taking a greater, more proactive role, although its history of hands-off behavior leaves many wary. Overlook is managed by Domain Companies, which is based out of New York City and New Orleans, and was developed in partnership with the Arker Companies. Back when it was proposed in 2003-04, INHS did advocate for the project during the town’s review process and obtain affordable housing loans. However, they are not and have never been Overlook’s property managers.

I can honestly say I have never heard of systemic issues with anything INHS or Conifer manages in Tompkins County. Rarely if ever is there a criminal complaint about the people who occupy Conifer’s Linderman Creek, Poet’s Landing I, The Meadows, or any of their other Tompkins County properties. That goes for the general affordable housing as well as the senior housing. I can say the same thing about INHS – through the Voice, which wouldn’t hesitate to cover crime since it drives clicks so well, there’s nothing I’ve seen about Stone Quarry’s residents being an issue, or the Henry St. John Apartments, Breckenridge Place or TowerView. I can come up with complaints for both (Conifer’s unfortunate choice of auto-centric sites with cookie-cutter units, INHS’s care-worn older stock), but neither of those has to do with tenant management.

If it were Domain/Arker or Omni pushing Hamilton Square, There would be reason for concern. But given that’s it’s INHS, mixed-market with owner occupied units, moderately sized and has convenient access to Trumansburg village, I strongly doubt management of the rentals is going to be a problem.


Actions

Information

2 responses

17 07 2017
CornellPhD

Potentially impactful thoughts on Hamilton Square – you should put them somewhere the antagonists are likely to see them! (They’re kind of buried in this entry on another development)

17 07 2017
B. C.

Yeah, I did a similar thing with 210 Hancock before someone asked me to put the write-up in its own entry. I tend to be a bit shy about taking strong public stances. If there’s a push for it, I’ll compose and post separately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: