Much has been written about gentrification and about the specter of poor people being displaced from cities — despite the fact that nearly every central city still has higher poverty rates than most of its suburbs.

But the City Observatory blog has an interesting post about one Atlanta suburb’s attempt to gentrify not through market forces, but by using public money to buy up and destroy an apartment complex dominated by low-income African-Americans.  In other words, the city’s goal isn’t gentrification that might result in displacement — it is displacement as a goal in itself, gentrification or no gentrification.

(Cross-posted from cnu.org)

by James A. Bacon

The American suburbs built since World War II have many deficiencies, not the least of which are expensive, fiscally unsustainable infrastructure and a proclivity toward traffic congestion. But the greatest drawback of all gets the least attention: the poverty of the public realm. Outside of shopping malls, there really is no public realm in the post-World War II suburbs. Streets are not designed for walking. There are no plazas. Parks are accessibly mainly by automobile. The only gathering places are found indoors — libraries, churches, fitness clubs and the like.

But tastes are changing, and a new generation of real estate developers understands that creating quality public spaces — particularly streets, sidewalks and parks — allows them to charge premium prices for their buildings. The key insight they have grasped is that humans are social creatures. Yes, people like their privacy of their homes, but they also enjoy being around other people. They like to walk. They like to watch other people. They like gathering in groups.

Developers in the Richmond region have gotten the message that there is a large unmet demand for “walkable urbanism,” places that make it easy, even delightful, for people to walk around. Walkability goes deeper than the utilitarian function of allowing people to substitute walk trips for car trips, thus reducing traffic congestion. People like walkability because it facilitates social interaction. Sadly, most efforts to build walkable communities in the Richmond suburbs have been underwhelming.

That’s why I’m paying close attention to the development of Libbie Mill-Midtown in Henrico County. Gumenick Properties may be paying keener attention to the quality of the public spaces they’re building in the 800-acre, $434 million project than has any other suburban developer in the history of the Richmond region. As a sign of how seriously Gumenick takes the public realm, the company has engaged the Project for Public Spaces, a non-profit organization launched by William Whyte, the pioneer who first studied the sociology of small public spaces from a scientific perspective.

Little of what Gumenick is doing is new — it’s just been forgotten. Company spokesman Ed Crews describes the project as “retro.” Libbie Mill-Midtown seeks to create “what the urban environment was a century ago,” before counties outlawed mixed-use zoning and developers designed communities largely around the car.

As I explained in a recent post (see “The Invisible Parking Garage“),  Gumenick is building a pedestrian-friendly community. The mixed-use  project is laid out in a street grid with wide sidewalks. Great attention is paid to defining the pedestrian street space and providing a variety of destinations within easy walking distance of apartments and town homes. Gumenick donated land for construction of a new Henrico County library, and plans call for lots of street-level space for restaurants, shops and local services.

Parking is only one dimension of the challenge. The landscape of the Richmond region is pocked with ugly sediment ponds installed to manage storm water. Occasionally, someone sticks some gazebos by them or turns them into something visually interesting like a man-made wetlands. But Gumenick is investing the resources to transform its storm water pond into the focal point of the entire development.

The rendering above is a conceptual sketch of what that lake might look like. The final design will depend upon the buildings constructed around it. But there will be trails, a fountain, plazas, an amphitheater and places where people can touch the water. One of the key insights learned from the Project for Public Spaces, says Crews, is not to fill in the public space with fixed benches and other objects. Instead, provide portable furniture that people can rearrange to accommodate the size of their small groups.

Shane Finnegan, vice president of construction, says the plaza will be built for flexibility in order to accommodate a wide range of activities. For instance, to accommodate tents for farmer’s markets and other events, the design calls for embedding hold-downs in the pavement. Alternatively, the community might bring in taco trucks and a marimba band. The programmatic element of bringing in events and concerts will be important in Libbie Mill-Midtown, as it is in downtown Richmond, Innsbrook and other areas. The difference is that in Libbie Mill, the physical space will be designed from the beginning with that programmatic element in mind.

“This won’t be built in a day,” cautions Crews. Indeed, the project is expected to take 10 years to complete, depending upon market conditions. There needs to be a critical mass of people living and working in the neighborhood for activity in the public spaces to take off.

Bacon’s bottom line: Gumenick is betting that investing in the public realm will pay off. I’d wager that the company has it right.

(Cross posted from Bacon’s Rebellion.)

Is this critique fair? Somewhat.

Pavone examined a variety of suburban multifamily developments, but focuses on Reading Woods, in Reading, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. She claims that Reading Woods residents “cannot walk to the public library, a bank, or a grocery store” and would have to cross I-95 to reach a chain restaurant. So I decided to look at Reading Woods on Google Street View and see how horrible it is.

First of all, I looked for sidewalks. The main street serving Reading Woods is Jacob Way. Jacob Way generally has sidewalks, as does Augustus Court (the main street serving the part of Reading Woods further away from South). So it seems to me that a resident of Reading Woods can use sidewalks for most visits to South Street and other neighborhood streets. To reach Main Street (the neighborhood’s main commercial street) you must walk briefly on South Street, which also has a sidewalk (though it only serves one side of the street, and looks pretty narrow).

By contrast, I have seen multifamily dwellings (especially in the South) that do far less to accommodate pedestrians. For example, if you go to Calibre Brooke Way in Smyrna, Georgia you will see an apartment rental office, and you will see a long driveway leading to apartments—but what you will not see is a sidewalk. The designers of the Calibre Brooke apartments seem to have assumed that every resident would either drive everywhere or be perfectly content to share the driveway with cars. Compared to Calibre Brooke, Reading Woods is downright pedestrian-friendly.

Second, I looked for destinations within walking distance. Even if the residents of Jacob Way have a sidewalk, what can they walk to?  Here too, they do better than many suburbanites. The walkscore of Jacob Way is a mediocre 47. Although Reading Woods residents cannot walk to everything, they can walk to quite a few things, even without crossing the highway. The commercial street nearest to Reading Woods is Main Street. Walkscore tells me that on the Jacob Way side of I-95, there are five restaurants on Main Street within a mile of Reading Woods, including a Burger King, a Domino’s and a few non-chain restaurants. In addition, there is an ATM, a fruit store, and some other small stores. Of course, there are additional delights for those foolhardly enough to walk under the I-95 underpass.

The part of Main Street closest to Jacob Way seems to me adequate but not great from a pedestrian perspective: there are sidewalks on both sides of the street, and four lanes, more than I would like but fewer than in much of suburbia.

On the negative side, much of Reading’s civic equipment is roughly one to two miles away—too far, I suspect, for many people to walk in Massachusetts weather. The nearest full-service grocery stores seem to be just over a mile away, and the public library and City Hall area both almost two miles away.

Third, I looked for public transit. If you can’t walk to the public library or city hall, can you take a bus or train there? Reading Woods is 1.3 miles from the Reading commuter train station—walking distance for an able-bodied person in good weather, but not for everyone and not in today’s weather conditions. Unfortunately, bus service is Reading Woods’s Achilles’ heel: the closest bus stop is on the other side of the highway, not significantly closer than the train station, and only runs until 7 pm on weekdays and not at all on Sundays. I can’t say that I would like to live there; on the other hand, compared to Kansas City’s western suburbs (where buses stop running around 5 pm and rail transit is a pipe dream), Reading Woods does not look so bad.

So do high-density islands such as Reading Woods increase societal walkability, or do they merely add density to suburban sprawl? I think the right answer is a question: “Compared to what?” Compared to the city of Boston or to close-in suburbs like Brookside, Reading Woods is mediocre at best. But compared to the outer suburbs of the South or Midwest, Reading Woods does not look so terrible.

So should government do anything to encourage housing in places like Reading Woods? From a smart growth perspective, Reading Woods is better than some further-out suburbs but still pretty mediocre. Ideally, a wise government would permit enough housing in closer-in communities to sate public demand for apartments affordable to the middle and lower classes.

On the other hand, Boston is a pretty expensive market, and it may not be politically possible to bring down rents without creating new units in places like Reading Woods. So I guess my answer is: “It depends.”

(Cross-posted from planetizen.com)

by James A. Bacon

Union Presbyterian Seminary settled into its current location off Brook Road in northside Richmond in 1898, when industrialist Lewis Ginter donated land to the educational institution from the streetcar suburb he was developing. The seminary has been a good neighbor ever since, leaving a large tract of the land vacant as a park open to the public. Now the seminary needs some of that land to build new housing for seminary students and their families in place of antiquated housing that it provides at present.

The neighbors are up in arms. Many people who live nearby, it appears, are worried about the loss of open space, traffic and the impact on property values, according to the Times-Dispatch. A “crowd of hundreds” packed a meeting in the seminary auditorium when the institution unveiled a proposal to build 349 housing units. At one point, some in the crowd erupted in loud boos.

I find this extraordinary. Who do these people think they are? It’s one thing if the City of Richmond decided to sell a public park to a developer. It’s quite another when a private institution, which has been a foundation of the community for more than a century, wants to sell the land in order to preserve the viability of that institution. The seminary owns the land — not the neighbors!

Union Presbyterian has fallen upon hard times. The number of Presbyterians is shrinking. Between 2008 and 2011, the denomination closed churches at the rate of 75 to 80 per year. Under the 2009-2014 strategic plan, Union Presbyterian slashed its budget by $3 million, reduced the number of students to 180 FTEs, and cut its faculty from 32 to 22.5 FTEs to align with the smaller student body.

Now the seminary is seeking to raise $75 million to reinvent itself — in effect, to stay relevant in a changing world. According to the 2014-2019 strategic plan, the campaign has raised $27.2 million, but achieving its goals also requires maximizing the value of its real estate holdings that have long laid dormant.

Here’s the killer. According to the T-D, the seminary could extract even greater profit from the property by building at greater density, as allowed under existing zoning, or by selling the land on the open market. It is not pursuing those options. The seminary wants to be a good neighbor. “We’re trying to do what’s right by the community and what’s right by the seminary,” said Andrew M. Condlin, a local land-use attorney.

Apparently, that’s not good enough. Some attendees took exception to the idea of the seminary erecting a four-story building at the corner of Brook and Westwood — as if a four-story building would be out of character for a higher ed setting!

They’re worried about traffic, too. Have these people been possessed by Beelzebub? The housing would be occupied by seminary students who would walk to the campus across the street! OK, some students might be married and have kids. Gee, spouses might drive to their jobs or run errands. I’ve driven on those Northside Streets and they are way under-utilized. Traffic fears are utter nonsense.

As for property values, adding quality density development will increase the value of property along the Brook Street corridor, not diminish it. More to the point, maybe the neighbors had better focus on what would happen to property values if Union Presbyterian closed its doors! Imagine the impact if the buildings were vacant and the landscaping was going to pot?

The incident brings to mind the parable of Jesus and the talents:

For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them.  To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey.  The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work and gained five more. In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! … You should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten.

For years, Union Presbyterian had done the functional equivalent of burying its talent in the ground — to the benefit of its neighbors. It can no longer afford that luxury. It’s time to put that asset to work. Jesus understood how capitalism functioned and cited approvingly the investment of money to make more money. (He also thought that the kingdom of God was at hand and urged his followers to give their money away, but that’s a different issue.) The seminary is acting entirely within its rights. The neighbors ought to be darned grateful their input was solicited at all.

The people at Union Presbyterian are far too nice to say this but I will: It’s time for the neighbors to stop bellyaching over trivial inconveniences and time to help make sure the seminary is still around another century from now.

by Ron Beitler

The TIF for Hamilton Crossings passed tonight 3-2.

Brian Higgins yes
Ryan Conrad yes
Jim Lancsek yes
Ron Beitler no
Doug Brown no

The bottom line is this. The Township will be getting a new and much anticipated shopping center. One that I believe was a certainty with or without the TIF. And that is great news for residents. According to one poll, over 80% of residents support the project but not necessarily the TIF funding.

I shared this basic sentiment as I generally supported the project but had concerns with misusing a funding mechanism designed for distressed communities.

I sincerely believe the township could have and should maintained more revenue resources (100% of revenue instead siphoning off 50% back to the developer). This is revenue I believe we’ll eventually need over the course of the next 20 years to mitigate the giant strip center’s inevitable and unpredicted negative impacts. These impacts are normal with rapid development of the type LMT will see over the next 20 years, as LVPC predicts our population will continue to boom. These concerns relate primarily to traffic but also other issues as well. For example, this project will make it harder to rely on the state police. The traffic issue is compounded by the fact that the traffic impact fee did not apply to the project. The impact fee is designed to give us the resources to make future improvements.

Every land development of this type and magnitude comes with the good (more shopping options, jobs etc.) but also the bad. (traffic, crime etc.) The challenge for leaders is to mitigate the bad as much as we can. This is why I believe the decision to forfeit critical and much needed revenue (especially in light of recent tax increases) was fundamentally shortsighted.

Huge part of smart growth is accounting for financial health over multiple life cycles. It’s the long view. That means setting up the township to be financially strong over the long term. Its seeking net positive ROI beyond the immediate windfall. Tonight by passing TIF we failed to do that.

So, to wrap this issue up we’re getting the new center…. But we were always getting the new center. We’ll just have less resources to insure its negatives don’t eventually outweigh its positives. And the developer will have a slightly more padded profit line. They are clear winners. But the community will have more local shopping options and the jobs that come with them. Like I said, +’s and -’s. But overall inevitable progress forward.

After the vote I’m mostly disappointed in myself that I wasn’t able to make a more compelling argument to get other Commissioners who voted yes to take a harder look at the big picture.

(Cross posted from Smart Growth for Lower Macungie)

Route 50 through the City of Fairfax is a classic stroad, a street-road hybrid, that originated as a state highway and degenerated into a local access road for commercial development, with the result that it serves neither function — moving cars or providing local access — especially well. In a lengthy stretch around Fairfax Circle, the “highway” is flanked by disconnected, low-density and low-value development such as gas stations, fast food, auto dealerships, shopping centers and the like. It’s typical of the “suburban sprawl” development that has dominated Fairfax City and County, and the rest of Virginia, since World War II.

At long last, the stars are aligned to re-develop much of this corridor as high-value, higher-density, mixed-use property that will fill the city’s coffers with greater tax revenue at little offsetting cost — and create an attractive place where people are more likely want to live and do business.

On Tuesday, City Council approved a plan by Combined Properties build two apartment buildings with 400 units, ground-floor retail, and a 54,000-square-foot grocery store. Structured parking will replace large parking lots. Expanded sidewalks, buffers and a frontage road with parallel parking will create a pedestrian-friendly environment. While the plan has imperfections, the results will be vastly preferable to what’s there now.

Fairfax Circle typifies the re-development that is taking place in “suburban” counties across Virginia and much of the country. As I explained in “The Evolution of the Burbs,” suburban jurisdictions are selectively urbanizing. Low-value commercial property on major thoroughfares like Rt. 50 (Lee Highway) will be re-developed in mixed uses, at higher densities, with more walkable surroundings, often with access to mass transit. (Fairfax Circle is within walking distance of the Vienna Metro.) Yes, growth is occurring in the “suburbs” but it’s looking more like Fairfax Circle and less like the shopping centers and cul-de-sac subdivisions of yore.

Cities and counties can either allow this re-development to occur in a haphazard way, or they can create a planning framework for the pieces to fit together. The City of Fairfax completed but never passed a Fairfax Boulevard Master Plan. As Douglas Stewart writes in Greater Greater Washington:

Many of the project’s shortcomings stem from the fact that Fairfax City still does not have a clear plan for Fairfax Boulevard. An adopted plan that sets forth clear guidelines for street connectivity, green infrastructure, affordable housing and other elements would make the process easier for applicants and more beneficial for the city.

Rules governing street connectivity and storm-water infrastructure are essential to ensure that future projects integrate harmoniously with Fairfax Circle. An affordable housing component is more problematic; it will add costs, creating a higher financial burden for re-development without really addressing the affordability issue. (See Emily Washington’s essay, “How Affordable Housing Policies Backfire.”) Be that as it may, we’ll be seeing a lot more development like this and, for the most part, that’s a good thing.

(Cross posted from Bacon’s Rebellion)

We had a great webinar last week with Ed and Leslie Wetherbee, discussing their exciting project in the Old Sawmill District at the heart of Missoula. Here is a re-cap:

Ed and Leslie are working to restore the sight of an old sawmill. It used to look like this:

Here is an aerial view of the site, you can see piles of logs stacked top of the photo, and the rail line cutting diagonally through the site:

The Wetherbees have big plans for the site, including 140,000 square feet of commercial space, more than 500 residential units, 14.5 acres of park, and more. Here is a view of their plan (for reference, you can still see the rail line in the lower right corner of this graphic):

The Wetherbees are at work making this plan a reality. They have completed evironmental remediation, excavated old foundations and infrastructure, made street improvements, installed a boat ramp, completed the park along the river, and more. As much as possible, they have used sustainable practices–for example, salvaging materials for park shelters:

The Wetherbees are also maximizing recreational assets. The park is the hub of a 22-mile trail system, and it borders an existing aquatic center, softball field, and baseball stadium. The new boat ramp allows river users an extra mile of boating access to the Clark Fork River.

The development has not been built-out yet, but the Wetherbees are taking reservations for Polley Square:

This building will be mixed-use, with commercial spaces at the ground floor, and residential spaces above. Future developments will include a range of real estate products. Residential options will include detached, single-family housing, but also apartments, townhouses, condominiums, and more. Commercial spaces may vary from large-scale office facilities, to small boutique retail or restaurant space.

Keep an eye on the Old Sawmill District to keep up with future developments, or watch the webinar for additional details!

(Cross posted from Community Builders)

by Alison Berry

We had a great webinar yesterday with Ed & Leslie Wetherbee, discussing their exciting revitalization project in Missoula’s Old Sawmill District. Questions from the audience prompted additional information from the Wetherbees. Here is a re-cap:

Q: Did you use a form-based code to implement your vision?

A: No. The city has building codes that we will have to meet. Our concept is for higher-density urban living, so that is driving where we are going. The city was actually very interested in our plan, in fact, they even wanted more density that what we have proposed. In addition, from an economic standpoint, the costs of getting to where we are now creates a scenario where we need to have higher-density to cover our costs.

Q: Do you have any plans for affordable housing for the residential units?

A: We don’t have plans for this. There is a great deal of affordable housing available nearby, across the river. We don’t have plans to incorporate that.

Q: What is the University of Montana’s role in the development? Do you have a programmatic realationship with the university? Are they a partner or a stakeholder?

A: There is no formal relationship. The extended learning program is acting as an advisor to us, and there is a lot of interest from the alumni office. We are working closely, we meet often, and as the project unfolds, we will see where that relationship can go. We would like to see a very close relationship, but there are boundaries that will need to be observed. The university has a program called the “MOLLI” program that is for people aged 50 and older, and is incredibly popular here. The university is excited because we could offer them an opportunity to have an off-campus site. We are very excited and learning about how this type of relationship has worked in other college towns. This is an exciting way to offer a new, not-done-before-in-Missoula type of product.

Q: What were your sources for financing? What were some of the challenges you faced in getting this financed? What did you have to offer to lenders?

A: What has been done so far has been financed by a combination of our private investor equity—the developer entity group, the landowner, is Millsite Revitalization Project. That company is comprised of two partners, one is Kevin Mitty and the Shelter West family, and our company is Boulder Partners. We have come together with our own private resources. Kevin and I are basically the two managers of the effort. So there is a substantial amount of private equity involved.

We also were the beneficiaries of grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is an awkward process. Here’s how it worked: first, Millsite Revitalization Project created an application. Then the city or an economic development organization–we orgininally worked with the Missoula Area Economic Development Corporation—they packaged it up and applied for a grant from the revolving loan fund from the EPA.

We did that three times. Those funds would come to the city, because they had to be granted to a municipality. We then had to apply to the city for the funds. The money comes to the city, and becomes owned by the city in a revolving loan fund. As these funds are repaid through incremental property tax over time, that creates a pot of money. I think it is on the order of $1.5 million, that would be able to be re-lent to other projects down the road.

We also had a grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that helped in a big way. And, the city financed construction of the park and of Wyoming Street. That is the basic combination of things.

Q: Did you use New Market Tax Credits?

A: we are working with the New Market Tax Credit Program, in efforts to finance one of the first buildings for the site. We are in the process of doing that now. If it all comes together, the financing should close later this year, on our first project. It is about $20 million.

Q: Don’t New Market Tax Credits require some low-income benefit?

A: There are a few different angles to New Market Tax Credits. What helps our project qualify, is that it would be the first project to stimulate the area. There is a common story that is told about how the first building, or the first several buildings, will really help create the momentum for an area. There is some negotiation going on right now about just what we have to do to qualify. There may be some small component of reduced-rent, affordable apartments, but we haven’t figured that out yet.

Q: When will the project be completed?

A: We have quite a bit of information from market studies about market absorption, prices, and competition, and other things. Given the fact that we have many different product types, at many different price points, we expect that absorption for the project will be somewhere in the seven-year time frame. We could get surprised in a strong market, if financing comes together, it could be five to seven years. But I believe for the project to be completely built out and finished, we are looking at a seven to ten year time frame.

Q: When will you be looking for reservations for along Wyoming Street, and in the residential areas?

A: We are taking reservations on our first condo building right now. The other building, that we are using New Market Tax Credits for, that is an apartment building that will have executive-style apartments for rent, and a commercial area as well. That’s one we’re hoping to be able to begin construction on at the end of this year. We are talking to people, about retail businesses, restaurants, and office space. We are very anxious to be able to bring all of those people to the site.

Q: Looking forward, do you have plans for a Business Improvement District for the commercial areas, and/or homeowners associations for the residential areas?

A: We are spending a fair amount of time with lawyers right now drafting those documents. Each building, or each block, depending on how it’s defined, is likely to have its own homeowners association, and then there will be a master homeowners association for the entire site. We are very much looking to have a well-managed and well-cared for neighborhood.

We have not worked on creating a Business Improvement District yet, but I can see over time how that would be a good step. Much like the one that focuses on businesses in downtown Missoula, I can see something like that here as well.

Q: Do you have plans for bike lanes?

A: We do already have bike lanes on Wyoming Street now. We like to call this a pedestrian village. The trails are all heavily used by bicycles as well. The hub of the city trails has the trails emanating from our neighborhood, with additional trails in the park, all of which are available for bikes and pedestrians.

Q: Knowing what you know now, would you have done anything differently, and were there any downsides to the project that you would have changed?

A: We didn’t expect it to take twelve years! We are very happy to be where we are. In the larger context, we survived one of the largest economic downturns this country has seen, at least in recent decades. That certainly caused us some concern.

We found that over several years, we were working with various different city councils, because they turn over. And everybody’s got an opinion about how things should go. But all in all, we’ve had very strong support from the public sector, and we’re very happy about that. We learned a lot along the way, we thought it would be a five-year plan. It turned into twelve—so far.

The environmental remediation part, while it’s not really that much that we had to do, was very time consuming, and not quite what we expected. But at the end of the day, we got a lot of cooperation from people who extended themselves to help make things work. So we are where we are. Would we have started if we knew what we knew now? Yes, we might have structured it a little bit differently. But we are very proud of what’s been achieved and what the city’s done, with the park and the street.

At times, certainly things are frustrating, but we are very excited about where we are now, and we are very excited about embarking on the next phase. The responses that we get from people—just from what it looked like before, and what it looks like now—people are so excited about it. People are actually thanking us for doing it, and we have a great sense of pride. It is really starting to take shape now and people are seeing the vision of what it can be.

Our last little bit of success is in the last 60 days or so, we had the last final sign-off from state environmental regulators, and that allows us to move forward on some of this vertical development. Some we will do ourselves, some we’ll partner with others, and it will be an exciting next few years.

Keep an eye on the Old Sawmill District to keep up with new developments. And, if you missed the webinar, you can view it HERE. Thanks to Ed & Leslie for a great presentation!

(Cross posted from Community Builders)