University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

(USC Thesis Other)

Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content i

SUCCESS STORIES:
AN EXPLORATION OF THREE NONPROFITS WORKING IN PRESERVATION,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

By

April Garnet Sommer Rabanera

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION

December 2013

Copyright 2013 April Garnet Sommer Rabanera

ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures iii-vii
Abstract viii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Providence Revolving Fund 2-43
Chapter 2: Heritage Housing Partners 44-96
Chapter 3: Project Row House/Row House CDC 97-141
Chapter 4: Analysis 142-151
Conclusion 152-153
Bibliography 154-168
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: John Brown House, Providence, Rhode Island. Photo from Historic
American Buildings Survey, Arthur W. LeBoeuf, Photographer.

Figure 1.2: College Hill Neighborhood in Providence, Rhode Island. Figure from
ProvPlan.org.

Figure 1.3: Benefit Street, date unknown. Photo from Providence Public Library
Figure Collection.

Figure 1.4: Benefit Street 1958. Photo from Providence Public Library Figure
Collection.

Figure 1.5: Broadway-Armory District (Area 1), North Elmwood (Area 2), Upper South
Providence (Area 3), South Elmwood District (Area 4), Downcity (Area 5).
Map by author.

Figure 1.6: Providence Revolving Fund Office. Photo by Providence Revolving Fund.

Figure 1.7: Wedding Cake House at 514 Broadway. Photo by Community Works
Rhode Island.

Figure 1.8: Wilkinson Building before rehabilitation. Photo by Providence Revolving
Fund.

Figure 1.9: After, Wilkinson Building utilized $400,000 through Downcity Loan for an
adaptive reuse creating twelve apartments and one retail space. Photo by
Providence Revolving Fund.

Figure 1.10: Dreyfus Building before rehabilitation. Photo by Providence Revolving
Fund.

Figure 1.11: After, Dreyfus Building utilized $10,000 in grant funding and $19,000 in
loans to rehab the building creating fourteen affordable apartments, ten
studio apartments, a restaurant, and art gallery. Photo by Providence
Revolving Fund.

Figure 1.12: Armington & Sims Building, 1890. Photo from The New England Wireless
and Steam Museum.

Figure 1.13: Monohasset Mill interior during renovation. Photo from ArtinRuins.com.

Figure 1.14: Monohasset Mill loft interior after renovation. Photo from
Apartmenttherapy.com.

iv
Figure 2.1: Original Raymond hotel, destroyed by fire in 1895. Photo from
Pasadena Digital History Collaboration.

Figure 2.2: Pasadena Annexation map. Figure from City of Pasadena Planning &
Community Development.

Figure 2.3: Pasadena City Hall, photo by J. Allen Hawkins, Pasadena Digital History
Collaboration.

Figure 2.4: Parson house on its original site in Pasadena, c. 1910. Photo from
timandersenarchitect.com.

Figure 2.5: Gartz Court. Photo by Alexander Vertikoff for American Bungalow
Magazine.

Figure 2.6: Charlotte Perkins Gilman House after restoration. Photo by Pasadena
Heritage.

Figure 2.7: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing
Partners.

Figure 2.8: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing
Partners.

Figure 2.9: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing
Partners.

Figure 2.10: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage Housing
Partners.

Figure 2.11: 1329 Fay Place, The acquisition of a 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
bungalow built by local developers Fay & Fay was HHPs first project. It
was one of twelve intact bungalows located on Fay Place, which has
placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The rehabilitation work
began in early 1999 and the property was sold in September 1999 to an
enthusiastic low-income senior citizen. Photo by Heritage Housing
Partners.

Figure 2.12: 1021-1023 S. Magnolia, South Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage
Housing Partners.

Figure 2.13: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage
Housing Partners.

Figure 2.14: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage
Housing Partners.
v

Figure 2.15: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage
Housing Partners.

Figure 2.16: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage
Housing Partners.

Figure 2.17: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage
Housing Partners.

Figure 2.18: The Merrill House – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.19: The Merrill House – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.20: The Merrill House – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.21: The Merrill House – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.22: The Merrill House – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.23: Fair Oaks Court – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.24: Fair Oaks Court – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.25: Fair Oaks Court – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.26: Fair Oaks Court – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.27: Fair Oaks Court – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.28: Fair Oaks Court – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.29: Fair Oaks Court new construction. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.30: Fair Oaks Court new construction. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.31: Fair Oaks Court new construction and rehabilitated houses face onto
shared green space. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 3.1: City of Houston, 1920. Map by Texas Map & Blue Printing Company.

Figure 3.2: Birthplace of Elvis Presley in Tupelo, MS, example of typical shotgun
house. Photo by Markuskun.

vi
Figure 3.3: Floor plan of a typical shotgun house. Figure by Susan Murray.
Figure 3.4: Shotgun house at 2400 Holman before restoration. Photo by
Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.5: Shotguns, Third Ward #1, 1966. Art by John Biggers.

Figure 3.6: Project Row House/Row House CDC project area, Area A see Figure 3.7,
Area B see Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.7: Area A, (1) Shotgun Houses, (2) Project Row Houses Offices/Community
Center, (3) Six Square House, (4) Division Street Duplexes, (5) Francis
Street Duplexes, (6) Renovated and rented single family house, (7)
Renovated single family house, (8) El Dorado Ballroom, (9) XS House,
(10) zeROW House, (11) Outhouse, (12) Delia’s Lounge/Row House CDC
Offices, (13) Workyard. Map by Author.

Figure 3.8: Anita Street Duplexes (1), site of Napoleon Street Duplexes (2) currently
under construction. Map by Author.

Figure 3.9: Hearth House: A Period Room, 2011. Installation view of “Round 34:
Matter of Food” at Project Row Houses, by Toni Tipton Martin and Luanne
Storall. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.10: El Dorado Ballroom. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.11: A big band performs at the El Dorado Ballroom in the 1940s. Photo
courtesy Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.12: Volunteers working on the exterior restoration of the Project Row Houses
shotgun houses. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.13: Volunteers working on the interior cleanup and restoration of the Project
Row Houses shotgun houses. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.14: Art is installed at the exterior or the shotgun houses as part of the “Drive
By” exhibition. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Figure 3.15: Project Row Houses galleries after restoration. Photo by Author.

Figure 3.16: Six Square House diagrams. Figure by Rice Building Workshop.

Figure 3.17 Six Square House exterior and interior. Photos by Rice Building
Workshop.

Figure 3.18: Six Square House exterior and interior. Photos by Rice Building
Workshop.

vii
Figure 3.19: Division Street duplexes elevation. Drawing by Rice Building
Workshop.

Figure 3.20: Division Street duplexes. Photo by author.

Figure 3.21: Division Street duplex floor plan. Drawing by Rice Building Workshop.

Figure 3.22: Anita Street duplexes. Photo by Row House Community Development
Corp.

viii
Abstract

Lack of affordable housing and the abandonment of historic neighborhoods have been
ongoing problems for many metropolitan areas. In the past several decades there has
been a movement to address both issues with the same solution: rehabilitation and
revitalization of the historic urban buildings for use as affordable housing. Providence
Revolving Fund in Providence, Rhode Island; Heritage Housing Partners in Pasadena,
California; and Project Row Houses/Row Houses Community Development Corporation
in Houston, Texas have had a significant effect on the communities they serve by
restoring buildings that would have otherwise been demolished, providing much needed
affordable housing, and helping rebuild a sense of community. This thesis examines
these nonprofits; reviewing the organizations’ background, focus, funding, and projects,
as well as innovative solutions for addressing and mitigating these issues. These
organizations were selected and analyzed as model programs whose common
characteristics and practices reveal a pattern of similarities that can serve as a
framework for others in addressing the need for affordable housing, the preservation of
our built environment and cultural histories, and an ongoing community revitalization.
1
Introduction

“What a cruel irony it is to see a homeless person sleeping on the street in front of a
vacant building.”
1
Lack of affordable housing and the abandonment of historic
neighborhoods have been ongoing problems. Previous attempts to rectify the two
issues such as building heavily subsidized dense public housing on the fringes of a
community (typically referred to as “projects”) or whole –sale demolition of older
neighborhoods under the auspices of Urban Renewal have proven more destructive
than productive. In the past several decades there has been a movement to address
both issues with the same solution: rehabilitation and revitalization of the historic urban
buildings for use as affordable housing. Some of these efforts have gone beyond just
saving a building or housing a low-income family, and made a significant impact in
revitalizing an entire community.
Every American city has a Dunbar Hotel or a Rosa True School – an older
building that despite its dilapidated condition remains a neighborhood anchor and
community treasure. In a time of unprecedented need for affordable housing,
these local landmarks represent an enormously valuable – and largely untapped
– resource. Moreover, their rehabilitation can be a catalyst for comprehensive
and successful programs of community economic development and
revitalization.
2

When the National Park Service (NPS) and National Trust for Historic Preservation
(NTHP) collaborated to publish Affordable Housing Through Historic Preservation: A
Case Study Guide to Combining the Tax Credits in 1995, Providence Preservation
Society (PPS), Pasadena Heritage (PH), and Project Row Houses (PRH) were already

1
Delvac, Escherich, and Hartman, Affordable Housing, 1.
2
Ibid, v.
3
Rypkema, “Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing,” 1-2.
2
Ibid, v.
2
familiar with many of the concepts laid out in the publication and had been putting
them into practice. Lack of affordable housing was already an increasing concern at
that time and continued to grow as the housing market took off. By 2002, when
Donovan Rypkema penned Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed
Connection for the NTHP, lack of adequate and affordable housing had transformed into
a problem for the middle and working class as well as those in poverty.
But today the crisis in affordable housing is not confined to the poorest of the
poor. Today the housing crisis affects virtually every American family because it
affects our children, our parents, our employees, and our public servants. It is
not just the unemployed who are being affected. In 1999 there were 3.7 million
working families who were paying at least 50 percent of their income for housing.
. . . Thus affordable housing is no longer just a social service issue. It has
become an issue of urban policy, of environmental protection, of community
development and particularly an issue of economic development.
3

Adequate affordable housing continues to be a problem today. The generally accepted
definition of affordability is spending no more than thirty percent of a household’s annual
income to pay for housing. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), an estimated 12 million households (both renters and owners)
spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. With 12.1 million households
classified as extremely low-income in 2011, and only 6.8 million units available at 30
percent of their income, the gap in housing need for the poorest has grown to 5.3 million
units.
4
In addition, there is nowhere in the United States where a household with one
full-time worker earning the minimum wage can afford the local fair-market rent for a

3
Rypkema, “Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing,” 1-2.
4
Kimura, “Affordable Housing Gap Grows.”
3
two-bedroom apartment, and it is becoming less affordable for the middle working
class as well.
5

Affordable housing development spans both the for-profit and non-profit sectors, and
typically partners with government agencies, private lenders, and local governments. In
Los Angeles, like most metropolitan areas, for-profit developers are responsible for
building most of the new housing. In contrast, affordable housing is often developed by
nonprofit entities.
6
Of the Top 50 Affordable Housing Developers of 2012 as reported to
Affordable Housing Finance, eighteen were nonprofits.
7
As local and federal
redevelopment funds are becoming less available, many of these developers are also
looking to incentives such as the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program.
According to a recent report by the NPS, the tax incentive has helped fund the
development of affordable housing through the rehab of historic buildings. Over the
past 35 years, 460,000 housing units have been rehabilitated or created using the tax
incentive, including 124,000 low-to moderate-income units.
8

Across the country, the program has helped revive abandoned or underutilized
schools, warehouses, factories, churches, retail stores, apartments, hotels,
houses, agricultural buildings and offices, and, in turn, helps support the
redevelopment of entire downtowns and neighborhoods. It also supports
community revitalization, job creation, affordable housing, small businesses,
farms and Main Street development, among other economic benefits.

‘The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program is the nation’s most
effective program to promote historic preservation and community revitalization
through historic rehabilitation,’ said National Park Service Director Jonathan B.

5
“Affordable Housing,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
6
“Who is involved in building affordable housing?” City of Los Angeles.
7
“Top 50 Affordable Housing Developers of 2012,” Housingfinance.com. The top 50 developers actually
consisted of 53 due to three ties.
8
“Interior Highlights 35th Anniversary of the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program,”
National Park Service.
4
Jarvis. ‘For 35 years, we have given these buildings a new life in a manner that
maintains their historic character.’
9

This thesis examines three nonprofits that are addressing the need for affordable
housing through preservation and in turn stimulating community revitalization.
Rhode Island’s Providence Preservation Society (PPS), started in 1956 to block the
demolition of hundreds of historic homes for an expansion by Brown University, was a
pioneer in promoting preservation as a conduit for economic and community
revitalization. Over the next twenty-five years, PPS helped stimulated a neighborhood
renaissance in the heart of Providence. When PPS established what would become
known as the Providence Revolving Fund (PRF) in 1980, it created an organization that
has been responsible for developing over 500 for-sale affordable housing units and
numerous rehabilitated historic buildings. Of those 500 units developed over the past
30 years, there have been only seven defaults totaling $450,000.
10

On the West Coast, the founders of Pasadena Heritage (PH), currently California’s
second largest preservation organization, came together after misguided city planners
approved the construction of a suburban-style mall in the heart of the city in 1976. Over
the next twenty years, the organization was responsible for protecting and saving many
of the city’s historic buildings and districts. This attracted the interest of the NTHP,
which ultimately led to the founding of Heritage Housing Partners (HHP) in 1998. Since
its inception, HHP has developed 111 new affordable housing units (none of which have

9
Ibid.
10
Clark Schoettle, email message to author, June 27, 2013.
5
defaulted) as well as pioneered the use of New Market Tax Credits as a viable funding
source in the affordable for-sale housing market.
11

Though originally conceived as an arts organization, Project Row Houses (PRH) rounds
out the case studies as the newest of the three organizations. Founded in 1992 in the
poverty-stricken Third Ward neighborhood of Houston, PRH utilized the rehabilitation of
abandoned shotgun houses to revitalize a community. Not only did the organization
save twenty-two historic buildings from demolition, it also provided affordable housing
for single young mothers, as well as arts education and a renewed sense of community
to a disenfranchised neighborhood. PRH started Row House CDC (RHCDC) in 2003 to
address the growing need for adequate affordable housing, especially for its graduates.
As newer organizations, PRH and RHCDC work much more in tandem than either of
the other two case study organizations. Since PRH’s inception, over 50 young mothers
have “graduated” from its program; in addition, it and the RHCDC have added fifty-six
units of affordable housing to the Third Ward community.

Beyond just a review of these organizations’ histories, this thesis aims to answer the
question: What are these organizations’ common characteristics and practices that have
lead to success in fulfilling their mission? The following four themes are identified and
examined through the three case studies:

11
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
6
1. Foundation: Each of these organizations has a respected parent organization
based in preservation that initiated their formation as well as a core group of
highly skilled and enthusiastic leaders.
2. Focus: Each of these organizations has a specific focus in both their mission as
well as geographic area, and they have exercised a track record of smart
expansion and adapting to the changing needs of their clients and communities.
3. Funding: Each of these organizations has cultivated and developed a variety of
funding sources and fundraising to perpetuate their mission.
4. Projects & Partnerships: Each of these organizations has developed a
relationships with other nonprofits, neighborhood groups, corporations and public
entities to form partnerships to work together in achieving their mission. In doing
so they have developed a track record of successful projects which furthers their
reputation as a thriving nonprofit and helps them perpetuate their mission.

PRF, HHP, and PRH/RHCDC were chosen for their similarities and contrasts. The
organizations are similar in that they all have the same primary focus of preservation,
affordable housing, and community revitalization. However they also offer some
interesting contrasts due to their age, geographic location, use of funding, and variety of
programs. But, most importantly, they serve as excellent examples of success in the
sense that they have all continued to fulfill their missions, grow, and adapt, even in spite
of the recent economic declines.
7
Chapter 1: Providence Revolving Fund
The mission of the Providence Revolving Fund is to preserve Providence’s
architectural heritage and stimulate community revitalization through advocacy,
lending, technical assistance, and development in historic areas. This is
accomplished by: partnering with neighborhoods and community-based
organizations; retaining and developing affordable housing; collaborating with
others to preserve and develop real estate; and serving as a catalyst for public
and private investment.
12

FOUNDATION

The City of Providence was founded by Roger Williams in 1636 as a haven for religious
nonconformists seeking refuge from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
13
The city’s
location at the head of the Narrangansett Bay made it ideal for a robust port, and it
quickly became a hub for sea trade, ship building and manufacturing which fueled the
construction of mansions for merchants and dense housing for the working class.
14
By
the end of the eighteenth century, industry in Providence shifted from sea-based trade
to over-land commerce as the United States and rail transportation expanded. The city
also led the country in textile manufacturing after the invention of the first water-
powered cotton mill in 1794 in nearby Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
15
By the early
twentieth century, Providence had become an epicenter for the production of not only
textiles, but also jewelry, machine tools, steam engines, and metal fabrications.
16
The
city had also gradually filled in or decked over most of its coves and rivers as it focused

12
“About Us,” Providence Revolving Fund.
13
Leazes and Motte, Providence, the Renaissance City, 28.
14
Ibid, 29.
15
Ibid
16
Ibid, 31.
8
on rail as the vehicle for commerce. By 1940, the city had swelled to a population of
over 250,000 fueled primarily by the incoming foreign-born immigrant labor force.
17

The College Hill neighborhood, Providence’s original colonial settlement, boasted the
bulk of the historic structures in the city, including extravagant properties originally home
to mostly wealthy residents. Such affluence could be found there, that upon visiting
John Brown’s house (built in 1786) in College Hill, President John Quincy Adams
described it as, “…the most magnificent and elegant private mansion that I have ever
seen on this continent.”
18
(Figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1: John Brown House, Providence, Rhode Island. Photo from Historic American Buildings
Survey, Arthur W. LeBoeuf, Photographer.

17
Ibid, 29, 35.
18
“Neighborhood Services: College Hill,” City of Providence.
9
The city’s population continued growing well into the early twentieth century. However,
the manufacturing industry started to rapidly decline due to the availability of cheap
labor in the South and overseas.
19
Soon the wealthy population moved away from
College Hill. By the middle of the twentieth century many of the large houses had been
subdivided into tenements and became home to the city’s minority and immigrant
population.
20
From 1940-1980, the city lost approximately 100,000 residents.
21

While Providence’s economy and development stagnated after World War II, Brown
University and Rhode Island School of Design were outgrowing their campuses and
expanding into the adjacent College Hill residential areas. (Figure 1.2) Close to 100
houses, including several local historic landmarks, were demolished or moved to
accommodate the construction of two student residential buildings for Brown University
in the early 1950s.
22
In 1956, Benefit Street, home to numerous eighteenth and
nineteenth century houses, was the proposed site for Brown University’s next
expansion.
23
(Figure 1.3 & Figure 1.4) In the spring of 1956, John Nicholas Brown
(descendant of the wealthy mercantile family and the University’s namesake as well as
a member of the university’s board of trustees) and 150 concerned citizens of the city
formed the Providence Preservation Society (PPS).
24
The organization was quickly
incorporated and started working to save Benefit Street. Rather than taking a traditional
stance towards preservation and creating untouchable house museums or pressuring

19
Page and Mason, Giving Preservation a History, 166.
20
“Neighborhood Services: College Hill,” City of Providence.
21
Leazes and Motte, Providence, the Renaissance City, 36.
22
Page and Mason, Giving Preservation a History, 167.
23
Ibid, 166.
24
Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996, 2.
10
the cash-strapped city to allocate funding, PPS promoted a pro-growth stance to
balance the goals of preservation and economic development.
25
This was the start of
an ongoing cooperative and flexible relationship with the city and other organizations
with a shared goal of restoring the city and developing economic stability.
26

At that time [1950’s], historic preservation was a novel idea that was untried in
most cities in the United States. Under the leadership of PPS, Providence
charted its own course: we chose preservation as an alternative to the popular
urban renewal policies of the day which looked to wholesale demolition of
neighborhoods and new buildings to revitalize depressed cities. Providence's
elected officials, business, community and neighborhood leaders embraced
preservation and that has made the difference in retaining the unique character
of our city and helping it prosper again in the late 20th century.
27

25
Page and Mason, Giving Preservation a History, 168.
26
Page and Mason, Giving Preservation a History, 168.
27
Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996, 3.
11

Figure 1.2: College Hill Neighborhood in Providence, Rhode Island. Figure from ProvPlan.org.
College Hill
12

Figure 1.3: Benefit Street, date unknown. Photo from Providence Public Library Figure Collection.

13

Figure 1.4: Benefit Street 1958. Photo from Providence Public Library Figure Collection.

PPS and some of its prominent members were responsible for producing tangible
results and advancing preservation as a catalyst for revitalizing the city. PPS’s
membership was primarily comprised of many of the city’s founding and prominent
families who decided to stay and help rebuild the city rather than abandon it. Those
same members encouraged other residents of the city’s elite to stay as well. Next, the
organization sought and acquired a grant from the federal government to survey
Providence, document the many historic resources of the city, and develop a
preservation plan. Some of the members, such as Beatrice Chace, even purchased
deteriorated properties themselves and rehabilitated homes to demonstrate the
14
potential of preservation.
28
Other members challenged urban renewal by promoting
an alternative preservation policy. In 1959, Antoinette F. Downing along with Bill
Warner and Laichlin Blair (a former Rhode Island state planner) and the Providence
Planning Commission acquired financing through a Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) grant to write College Hill: A Demonstration Study and Plan for
Historic Area Renewal.
29
Downing surveyed 1,350 buildings, almost 80% of the total in
the College Hill area, and developed a ranking system for historical significance,
architectural quality and physical condition.
30
Informally known as the College Hill Plan,
the study developed a way to “…measure and quantify the value of historic architecture,
the direct result of the Preservation Society’s efforts to save College Hill.” It also gained
Downing a prize from the American Institute of Architects in 1961.
31
Downing soon
became a legend in Providence preservation politics, and was a seminal force in
establishing the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission
(RIHPHC). The Commission continued her work and eventually completed the daunting
task of surveying the historic resources for the entire state of Rhode Island.
32

From PPS’s founding in the mid-1950s until the mid 1970s, the College Hill Area was its
main focus for advocacy as well as educational events. In 1976, Antoinette Downing,
who had become the Chairperson of the Rhode Island state historic preservation office,
organized the Providence Neighborhoods Conference, bringing together

28
Leazes and Motte, Providence, the Renaissance City, 53.
29
Ibid.
30
Page and Mason, Giving Preservation a History, 168.
31
Leazes and Motte, Providence, the Renaissance City, 56.
32
Ibid.
15
representatives from each of the city’s neighborhoods to discuss mutual concerns as
well as develop relationships and promote the goals of PPS.
33
The next year PPS
added a Neighborhood Coordinator to its staff and soon adopted its first strategic plan
and expanded to citywide support in four areas: education, neighborhood assistance,
rehabilitation projects, and planning and design review.
34

PPS soon realized the breadth of issues to be addressed citywide was more than any
one organization could tackle, and started investigating the idea of starting its own
revolving fund. In 1980, the Providence Preservation Society Revolving Fund (PRF)
was founded to address the need for a, “…hands-on private nonprofit organization
actively engaged in real estate development….”
35
Although always a separately
incorporated 501(c)(3), PRF was set up as an affiliated organization with PPS. PPS
members initially comprised the membership of the PRF and even elected the officers
of the eleven-member board at its annual meeting.
36

PRF struggled for its first few years, but finally found a leader and a focus after hiring
Clark Schoettle as the executive director in 1983.
37
A founding member of the National
Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program, Schoettle remains the driving
force behind the PRF’s success to date.
38
After receiving the Frederick C. Williamson
Professional Leadership Award from the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and

33
Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996,17.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
37
Ibid, 5.
38
Smith, “A conversation with Clark Schoettle, historic preservationist,” 1C.
16
Heritage Commission in 1996, executive director Edward F. Sanderson praised
Schoettle’s work:
It is not easy to run a successful revolving fund. Many communities have tried
and failed. The PPS Revolving Fund's success and the visible impact which it
has had on historic West Side neighborhoods is due in a large measure to Clark
Schoettle's… professional expertise, management ability, communication and
negotiation skills and all-too-uncommon common sense.”
39

The PPS and PRF officially separated in 2007, and the name changed from Providence
Preservation Society Revolving Fund to simply the Providence Revolving Fund.
40

However, the two nonprofits still work closely together, and each organization’s
President and Executive Director serves as a voting member of the other organization’s
board in an effort to synergize policies, goals and efforts in the City of Providence.
41

39
Davis, “'Common sense,'” D-06
40
Providence Revolving Fund, Form 990 2007, 22.
41
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
17
FOCUS

Specific Targets
PPS’s leadership in saving and revitalizing the College Hill neighborhood from the
1950’s to the 1970’s is touted as a success story in preservation and redevelopment.
However, as with many redevelopment accomplishments, it also meant an increase in
property values causing an exclusion of many low and median-income households from
the area. One of the early priorities of PRF was to target the redevelopment of these
low and moderate-income neighborhoods without the displacement of its current
residents.
42
Initially the funds were used to purchase endangered or blighted properties
and resell them to responsible owners.
43
However, it soon became evident that many
current owners were being denied conventional financing due to their income level or
often because of the condition or location of the property. Thus the idea of giving low-
interest rehabilitation loans to owners was soon made a priority as well.
44
PRF took a
two-pronged approach in its efforts, loaning money on a short-term basis and then
"revolving" it back into the capital fund when a building was resold, or as loans were
paid back.
45
Executive Director Clark Schoettle, described how PRF chose its targets in
a 1996 interview with the Providence Journal:
Early on we realized that to administer a loan pool or a capital pool and try to
make something positive happen, that we should target our resources to specific
neighborhoods. We looked at all the National Historic Register districts in the
city… identifying all the abandoned properties and properties that were in very
poor condition. And then we overlaid the owner-occupied houses and those

42
Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996,18.
43
Ibid,17.
44
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
45
Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996,17.
18
which were absentee-owned and tried to identify areas that seemed to have a
problem with disinvestment, had abandoned properties and properties in poor
condition, but also had a relatively high percentage of owner-occupied housing.
We look for that mix, so that we could work with a group of stakeholders in a
neighborhood, meaning the owner-occupied houses.
…and through that analysis we identified the Armory District and the northern
part of Elmwood and a little bit of the upper part of South Providence (adjacent to
northern Elmwood). With both of those neighborhoods we have steering
committees made up of neighborhood residents in the areas that we're working
that review all the loans that we make and review properties that we would buy to
rehabilitate. So we pretty much let (local residents) shape how our program
would be in their neighborhood…
46

The Armory District was the first neighborhood PRF focused its efforts starting in 1982.
As the organization grew in capacity, it added the North Elmwood/Upper South
Providence neighborhood in 1986, and Downcity (downtown Providence) in 2003.
47
(Figure 1.5)

46
Smith, “A conversation with Clark Schoettle, historic preservationist,”1C.
47
Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996,18.
19

Figure 1.5: Broadway-Armory District (Area 1), North Elmwood (Area 2), Upper South Providence (Area
3), South Elmwood District (Area 4), Downcity (Area 5). Map by Author.

Adaptability
With over thirty years of work under its belt, PRF has seen its share of real estate cycles
and learned to adapt to the needs of the community as well as the market. As the real
estate market invariably ebbs and flows, so does the organization. As the market
20
appreciates, acquisition costs increase and there are generally less buildings falling
into foreclosure so the demand for rehabilitation loans by owners wanting to repair their
homes increases. Conversely, as the market recedes and more depressed properties
flood the market, the PRF steps in as a developer and decreases lending to limit the
risk. As Schoettle describes it, “We sort of do this balancing act where we go from
being a lender to being a developer depending on the cycle in the market.”
48
This
philosophy has helped the organization stay relevant and solvent despite a volatile
market.

Besides adapting to the market, PRF also strives to cultivate new relationships with like-
minded organizations even if it doesn’t fit the borrower/lender pattern. On a small scale,
this flexible and entrepreneurial spirit lead to collaborating with a community land trust
that acquires and develops community farms on vacant land, and developing a
feasibility study and business plan for the organization. In return, the PRF received not
only an additional funding source by acting as a consultant, but also another partner in
revitalizing its targeted neighborhoods.
49
On a larger scale, PRF collaborated with an
energetic but inexperienced group of artists on the first conversion and rehabilitation of
a historic mill building into mixed-income housing at the Monohasset Mill.
50
That group
of inexperienced enthusiasts has since gone on to rehabilitate other abandoned historic
buildings into successful developments.

48
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
21
PRF exercises further adaptability and increased impact in community revitalization
by not limiting projects to just residential, but also incorporating commercial buildings
into its business plan. Schoettle expanded on PRF’s scope of projects in a 1996
interview:
We have the flexibility to do almost anything that relates to a historic building that
might be endangered. We have concentrated on dealing in neighborhoods, and
in that capacity we've dealt with commercial properties (such as corner
markets)…. We've also been working in the Broad Street area and have worked
with the city and some of the owners over there to sort of mothball buildings,
where we made loans and worked to stabilize the exterior of the building … make
sure that it's watertight, even though there may not be an immediate use for the
interior. And then (we'll) work to find a user for the inside….
51

Preservation Resource Center
In 2006, PRF purchased 372 West Fountain Street enabling the organization to have its
own space separate from PPS and relocate near its target neighborhood areas. (Figure
1.6) Built in 1920 and originally home to the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA), the building was renovated from 2007-2009 and now
houses PRF’s administrative offices on the second floor, while the entire first floor is
dedicated to their Preservation Resource Center.
52
The space includes a conference
room, community space, preservation library, and an architectural salvage recycling
program. More importantly, the new space allowed PRF to expand its existing services,
develop new preservation initiatives, and be more physically accessible to its targeted
neighborhoods. It also provides access to preservation support to interested individuals,
groups, and organizations beyond their targeted areas. The development of the

51
Smith, “A conversation with Clark Schoettle, historic preservationist,”1C.
52
Shalvey, “Revolving Fund’s preservation-center goal within reach.”
22
Resource Center was financially supported by several organizations, including the
1772 Foundation, the City of Providence, the Rhode Island Foundation, Champlin
Foundations, Textron, Citizens Bank Foundation, Bank RI, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and the RIHPHC.
53

Figure 1.6: Providence Revolving Fund Office. Photo by Providence Revolving Fund.

53
“Resource Center,” Providence Revolving Fund.
23
FUNDING

Unlike a typical preservation advocacy organization that relies heavily on donations,
PRF assembles a variety of funding sources to pursue its mission. As a nonprofit
organization oriented towards achieving its mission rather than focused on making
profits, not every project it takes on is financially self-sustaining. As such, the
organization is perpetually involved in fundraising to sustain and expand its original
revolving fund loan program. PRF provided consulting and fee-based services,
acquires government funding, private grants from corporations and other nonprofits, and
combines other loan resources. Most recently, PRF took over management of the
multi-million dollar Downcity Fund.

Neighborhood Revolving Loan Program
In 1980, the City of Providence agreed to provide initial and continuing annual funding
of $50,000 in Community Development Block Grant money to start PRF. Those funds
were soon matched with a $125,000 grant from the Rhode Island Foundation, and a
loan pool was quickly established.
54
The fund was originally intended to acquire
endangered or abandoned properties that would either be rehabilitated or resold by the
organization, and profits “revolved back” after the sale. PRF took a new approach to
community revitalization when it added the lending component to its mission. By
loaning a little money to existing homeowners (who may not have qualified for traditional
funding through banks), PRF was able to make a swift but significant impact in

54
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
24
revitalizing a neighborhood by not only eliminating visual blight, but also creating
stakeholders.
55
Since its inception, 460 buildings have been restored (10% of which
were previously abandoned) $7.4 million has been invested, and almost $24 million
leveraged in additional financing in the target low and moderate-income
neighborhoods.
56

Neighborhood Loans are currently available for properties in the four areas targeted by
PRF: Broadway-Armory National Register District, North Elmwood, Upper South
Providence, and South Elmwood Historic District. Loans are evaluated based on a
variety of criteria, including:
• architectural significance of property
• relative condition of the property
• impact that the loan will have on the surrounding area
• financial or technical need for the loan
• sufficient collateral to secure the loan
• ability to complete the project and repay the loan
• leverage of additional investment
• type of financing requested and impact on the Fund
• desire for Revolving Fund involvement
• recommendation of the Neighborhood Steering Committee
57

All loan applications are reviewed by PRF’s Neighborhood Loan Committee and
eventually approved by the PRF Board. Loans up to $50,000 are available for owner-
occupied structures for exterior renovations. Typical terms for a loan are four to eight
years with an interest rate of 6%. If the property is multi-family and has more than 50%
of its residents below 80% of median income, the owner can benefit from a loan fee

55
Ibid.
56
“About Us,” Providence Revolving Fund.
57
“Neighborhood Loans,” Providence Revolving Fund.
25
waiver.
58
Investment and commercial properties may also qualify for construction
loans, ranging from $20,000-$50,000, however the terms are typically eighteen months
at 8% interest.
59

Consulting & Fee-Based Services
With every loan it administers, PRF also provides technical assistance in the form of
estimates, construction specifications, financial project management, and construction
monitoring by the staff.
60
The organization subsidizes some of its costs by providing
historic consulting services for a fee to individual homeowners, developers, and other
institutions whose projects are not financed by PRF. The organization has performed a
variety of services including preparing tax credit certification applications for the
rehabilitation of historic buildings for developers, choosing paint colors for the historic
properties owned by Brown University (over 450 to date), performing a historic survey of
over 2,000 properties for the West Broadway Neighborhood Association, and preparing
a feasibility study and business plan for a community land trust trying to acquire vacant
properties for community gardens.
61

Government Funding
Beyond the CDBG seed money, the PRF taps a variety of federally funded programs. In
1997, it was awarded $300,000 from a City of Providence bond earmarked for various

58
Ibid
59
Ibid
60
“Neighborhood Loans,” Providence Revolving Fund.
61
Schoettle, Interview, 2012; Providence Revolving Fund Form 990 2011, 26-27; Schoettle, Interview,
2012.
26
public improvements, to further expand the housing rehabilitation loan program.
62

PRF has acted as a sponsor for HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds
through HUD for over 15 years.
63
HOME is the largest federal block grant intended
exclusively to create affordable housing. The grants are awarded to states and
communities who frequently partner with nonprofits to, “…fund a wide range of activities
that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership or
provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.”
64

PRF was awarded $150,000 for the first project to utilize aid from the “Come Home to
Providence” program - a city-administered $3.3 million program started in 2009 that
focused on projects that “…call for the acquisition and rehabilitation of properties for
low-income rental housing, historic preservation or redevelopment. It also offered funds
for demolishing, boarding up or cleaning foreclosed properties.”
65

In 2009, the organization received $9,000 for phase two of a four-part thematic National
Register nomination titled "The Diners of Rhode Island" to research and document
Worcester Lunch Car Company diners. The grant was a part of the Commission's
Certified Local Government (CLG) program, which provides assistance to cities and
towns that, “…protect the historic character of their communities through local historic

62
“Metro Digest $300,000 earmarked for housing program,” C-01.
63
Smith, “A conversation with Clark Schoettle, historic preservationist,” 1C.
64
“HOME Investment Partnerships Program,” Department of Housing and Urban Development.
65
Marcelo, “First foreclosed home selected for recovery effort,” 4.
27
district ordinances.”
66
Funding for the grants came from the National Park Service/
Department of the Interior, and were awarded and administered by the RIHPHC.
67

Many of PRF’s individual projects have received governmental funding as well,
including 169 Congress Avenue. This two-family property in South Elmwood was
foreclosed on in 2009, then resold to a first time income-restricted buyer in 2010. The
rehabilitation was made possible by a $199,000 grant through the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.
68
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), another HUD
program, was started with the goal of, “…stabilizing communities that have suffered
from foreclosures and abandonment….”
69
At least 25% of the granted funds must be
used for the purchase and redevelopment of abandoned or foreclosed properties that
will be used for households whose incomes do not exceed 50% of the area’s median
income, and all activities funded by NSP must benefit low- and moderate-income
persons.
70

Private Grants
In 1996, PRF was awarded $18,000 by the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage
Finance Corporations (RIHMFC) as part of their Capacity Building Initiative program to
help offset federal funding cuts. The RIHMFC hoped the funds would help various
organizations and agencies "improve their ability to serve their neighborhoods" and "get

66
"Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission Awards Grants to Bristol, Newport,
Providence," US Fed News Service, Including US State News.
67
Ibid.
68
Providence Revolving Fund, Form 990 2011, 2.
69
“Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants,” Providence Revolving Fund.
70
Ibid
28
better at what they do."
71
The funds helped PRF hire a project manager to oversee
several projects.
72
In 2008, a $100,000 grant from the 1772 Foundation (an organization
dedicated to preserving architectural and cultural history) helped push the organization
towards its goal for completing work on its Resource Center.
73
In 2011, the RIHPHC
awarded PRF a $10,000 grant to manage development of architectural and engineering
plans to complete emergency repairs to the roof and tower of the “Wedding Cake
House” at 514 Broadway. (Figure 1.7)
74

71
Davis, “Five housing agencies get $18,000 RIHMFC grants….”
72
Ibid
73
Shalvey, “Revolving Fund’s preservation-center goal within reach;” “About Us,” The 1772 Foundation.
74
Barret, “5 communities share historic-preservation grants.”
29

Figure 1.7: Wedding Cake House at 514 Broadway. Photo by Community Works Rhode Island.

Other Loan Resources
PRF also utilizes a variety of other loan resources including borrowing $300,000 from
RIHPHC loan pool, which is loaned to the PRF at a very low interest rate. That money
is then re-loaned by PRF to property owners at an affordable rate.
75

75
Smith, “A conversation with Clark Schoettle, historic preservationist,” 1C.
30

Downcity Fund
The Downcity Fund provides loans and grants for capital improvements to property
owners and leasehold tenants within the Downtown Providence Historic District.
76
In
2000, PRF decided to expand its efforts to include downtown Providence, modeling its
program after Lowertown in St. Paul, MN, a successful redevelopment funded by a
generous $10 million investment from the McKnight Foundation.
77
PRF the idea to the
Rhode Island Foundation (who had provided the original startup funding for the
organization in 1980) and made such an impressive presentation that the Rhode Island
Foundation decided to set aside $10 million, the largest single allocation in the
foundation’s history, and undertake the project itself. In 2001, Downcity Partnership
was launched, “… to help create a distinct community in what was the neglected former
downtown core.”
78
Unfortunately, the program was set in motion at the same time the
stock market started to drop, and the investment intended to fund the program turned
into a loss.
79
The Rhode Island Foundation also realized it was not equipped to run a
real estate program and noted it was “…better off giving or loaning money to
organizations with expertise and a track record in a particular area rather than trying to
do something itself.”
80
After two unsuccessful years (and a loss of roughly $2.5 million),
the Rhode Island Foundation turned over the program to the PRF.
81
in 2003, PRF

76
“Downcity Loans,” Providence Revolving Fund.
77
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
78
Smith, “Money Available for Downcity projects,” B-01.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
31
finalized the agreement with the Rhode Island Foundation and transferred the
remaining $6.5 million from Downcity Partnership, Inc. to continue the program.
82

The Downcity Fund now provides loans up to $1 million for development projects, and
by early 2011, had funded 16 projects totaling in $5,566,285 in investment.
83
The
priorities for awarding Downcity Loan funding include: upper story housing conversions,
upper story commercial development, ground floor retail and commercial, conversions
for arts and entertainment uses, façade improvements, and development of
underutilized lots.
84
According to Executive Director Clark Schoettle, the Downcity Fund
has had an enormous impact and success, especially leveraging additional funding. He
estimates for every $1 million put in by the Downcity Fund, an additional $10 million has
been generated, equating to about $100 million worth of properties in less than ten
years Figure 1.8 and 1.9).
85

82
Providence Revolving Fund, Form 990 2003, 16.
83
“Downcity Loans,” Providence Revolving Fund; Providence Revolving Fund, Form 990 2011, 2.
84
“Downcity Loans,” Providence Revolving Fund.
85
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
32
Figure 1.8: Wilkinson Building before rehabilitation. Photo by Providence Revolving Fund.
33

Figure 1.9: After, Wilkinson Building utilized $400,000 through Downcity Loan for an adaptive reuse
creating twelve apartments and one retail space. Photo by Providence Revolving Fund.
34

The Downcity Fund also provides storefront improvement loans up to $50,000 that can
be used for the rehabilitation of street-side building elevations including improvements
and repairs to the building, signage, lighting, canopies, painting, and cleaning.
86

Similarly, the Downcity Fund also provides matching grants up to $10,000 for storefront
improvements. As of early 2011, 27 storefront matching grants totaling over $170,000
had been provided for the improvement of downtown Providence properties.
87
“This
program is meant to be an incentive … to make good design and historic preservation
easier and affordable. It’s a process that can be in stages,” said Lisa Milano, the
Downcity Fund program manager.
88
The program also includes free design assistance
to assist owners and tenants with signage that could improve visibility and attract
customers to their commercial space (Figure 1.10 and 1.11).
89

86
“Downcity Loans,” Providence Revolving Fund.
87
Data compiled from Tax Forms 990 years 2005-2011.
88
Meyers, “Downtown retail hits its stride.”
89
Ibid.
35
Figure 1.10: Dreyfus Building before rehabilitation. Photo by Providence Revolving Fund.

36

Figure 1.11: After, Dreyfus Building utilized $10,000 in grant funding and $19,000 in loans to rehab the
building creating fourteen affordable apartments, ten studio apartments, a restaurant, and art gallery.
Photo by Providence Revolving Fund.

37
PARTNERSHIPS AND PROJECTS

For over 30 years, PRF has worked to improve its target neighborhoods and, in doing
so, has cultivated numerous allies who share similar goals. Neighborhood groups,
other nonprofits, developers, banks, and government entities have all been partners in
helping PRF achieve its mission and develop a track record of successful projects.

Monohasset Mill – 532 Kinsley Ave.
Monohasset Mill was designed by architect James C. Bucklin for Paine & Sackett in
1866, and was known to have produced some of the best wools in the country for 21
years (Figure 1.12). In 1878, the mill was bought by the Armington & Sims Engine
Company where engines were produced for other garment industry mills throughout the
country and abroad for the next eighteen years. At that time, the company failed and
the mill and equipment was sold to the Eastern Engine Company, which lasted only
seven years, and closed in 1903.
90
For the first half of the twentieth century, the mill
was occupied by a variety of worsted companies, as well as a rug manufacturer, and a
jewelry manufacturer. After 1955, the mill was primarily occupied by several small
jewelry and industrial companies until the mid 1980’s when it became home to a variety
of artists.
91

90
Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission, “Providence Industrial Sites...,” 59.
91
Ibid 60; Davis, “Artists save mill, preserving a bit of city's history,” C.01.
38

Figure 1.12: Armington & Sims Building, 1890. Photo from The New England Wireless and Steam
Museum.

The mill is composed of several large brick structures with granite trim, ranging from 2 –
5 stories high, the main building being a 4-1/2 story high structure with a gambrel roof.
92

The building boasts over 60,000 square feet of open floor plans, high ceilings, large
windows, and cheap rent, making it and other abandoned industrial buildings a natural
draw for artists. In 2000, when the Rhode Island Foundation opted not to award PRF
the Downcity Funds, Clark Schoettle began to explore alternative projects including the
possibility of redeveloping one of the many vacant buildings. The second mill he toured
was Monohasset, where he met Erik Bright, a potter who had been living and working in

92
RIHPC, “Providence Industrial Sites...,” 59.
39
the building.
93
Bright, along with fellow artist David Stem (also a small general
contractor), Clay Rockefeller, Nicolas Bauta, and Joel Taplin had a vision to buy the
mill building and rehabilitate it as an affordable home exclusively for artists. Spurred by
a recent loss of industrial buildings due to fires and new development, the enthusiastic
group convinced Schoettle and PRF to sign on as the development consultant, lending
its respected reputation and connections to the project.
94

The group quickly won the support of then-Mayor Vincent A. Cianci, Jr. (a long time
promoter of the preservation and revitalization movement in Providence), who pushed
for landmark status for the mill buildings as well as, “…a package of initiatives aimed at
subsidizing the redevelopment of mills; clearing zoning obstacles that interfere with the
use of mills as places to live and work, especially for artists; and controlling the uses of
the mills.”
95
The Urban Mill Restoration and Tax Exemption Act was approved in mid-
2002 by the Rhode Island State General Assembly, and Monohasset Mill was the first
project to take advantage of the new incentives.
96

After the purchase of the building by the artist-formed Monohasset Mill LLC for
$625,000 and gaining community support, the team went to work on making the project
a reality.
97
Schoettle brought in Peter Case of Truthbox as the architect and part of the
project team to develop 39 total units, ten being affordable units for artists making under

93
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
94
Davis, “Artists save mill, preserving a bit of city's history,” C.01; Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
95
Smith, “Cianci unveils plan to preserve city mills,” B.01.
96
Marshall, “Industrial Sites.”
97
Smith, “Studios they call home…” D.01.
40
80% of median income.
98
The project was split into three phases, and $60,000 in
grant money from the City of Providence was earmarked for each affordable unit
through the HOME Funds program. This support from the city helped secure additional
funding for the project, including $637,000 from the Providence Economic Development
Corporation, $650,000 from Bank Rhode Island, $200,000 in State Tax Credits,
$546,700 in partner equity, as well as $500,000 in federal housing subsidies funneled
through the Providence Neighborhood Housing Corporation.
99
The first phase took
almost two years from start of construction to the sale of the first ten units. In total, the
project took five years to complete at a cost of $6.5 million.
100
In 2006, when the last of
the units were being sold, the typical cost of an affordable live/work condo ranged from
$80,000-$130,000, or a monthly mortgage payment of $550-$700 (Figures 1.13 and
1.14).
101

98
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
99
Marshall, “Industrial Sites;” Smith, “Studios they call home…” D.01.
100
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
101
Smith, “Studios they call home…” D.01.
41

Figure 1.13: Monohasset Mill interior during renovation. Photo from ArtinRuins.com.
42

Figure 1.14: Monohasset Mill loft interior after renovation. Photo from Apartmenttherapy.com.

As a building developed by artists for artists, it was very important to the team to avoid
the typical pitfalls of artist gentrification and keep the building affordable for its
inhabitants. Would be buyers must prove they are active artists and present a portfolio
to the condo association for approval prior to purchase. Legal restrictions were also
placed in the contracts to limit resale of subsidized units to eligible artists and to limit the
resale cost to 3% annual inflation. Even market rate condos have restrictions including
a 30 day right of refusal to allow the condo association time to find another interested
artist as a buyer, though there are no limits on the resale price for the market rate
condos.
43

The Monohasset Mill rehabilitation took adaptive-reuse to a new level by incorporating a
variety of salvaged materials from other demolished buildings. Artist and partner Erik
Bright described the building as a museum to the other lost mills. The design team was
able to salvage and reuse floorboards, moldings, and other pieces from mill buildings
demolished in the neighboring Eagle Square development, stair treads from a now
demolished mill where a Home Depot now stands on Charles Street, copper doors from
the Marvel Gym at Brown University, and a wooden roof balustrade from the old
Providence National Bank Building.
102
This creative reuse and recycling of materials
won the project an award for Adaptive Reuse and Material Conservation from PPS in
2007 and a preservation award from RIHPHC in 2008.
103

Artist and Monohasset partner Clay Rockefeller once quipped, “professionals built the
Titanic but amateurs built the Ark,” and while the completed Monohasset Mill project
was anything but amateur, it was none the less a testament to the power of community,
enthusiasm, and building partnerships to achieve a lofty goal.
104
Since completing the
mill rehab project, several of the partners have gone on to work on a variety of
redevelopment projects, nonprofits and startups inspired by their success at the
Monohasset Mill. Even PRF expanded its experience, playing a new role as lead
development consultant on a large-scale project for the first time.
105

102
Smith, “Studios they call home…” D.01.
103
“Preservation Gems,” D.6; “R.I. heritage panel to give 11 awards,” C.1.
104
Smith, “Studios they call home…,” D.01.
105
Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
44
Chapter 2: Heritage Housing Partners
Our mission is to promote long-term affordable homeownership. HHP works for
neighborhood revitalization through the preservation of existing historic homes
and the construction of new, contextual single-family residences. We believe that
we encourage neighborhood revitalization by providing low-, moderate-, and
workforce-income first-time homebuyers with affordable homeownership
opportunities. HHP endeavors to develop homes that instill our buyers with pride,
the pride of homeownership and pride in their neighborhoods and communities.
This engenders community and community activism.
106

FOUNDATION

The area that is now the City of Pasadena was originally occupied by a variety of Native
American tribes, and eventually settled by Spanish missionaries when they established
the San Gabriel Mission in 1771. The missions were broken up after 1833 and large
parcels, also called “ranchos,” given to individuals by the Mexican government.
107
Over
the next fifty years, those ranchos were further subdivided and sold off as more settlers
moved to the area. The population remained sparse as land was used primarily for
citrus orchards, ranching and one of the largest wineries in Southern California.
108
The
1880 census recorded only 383 residents in the area. A city directory from 1883
showed the first signs of population growth as the town grew to over 1,200 residents.
109

In 1885 the San Gabriel Valley Railroad connected Pasadena to Los Angeles, and was
soon sold to the Santa Fe Railroad. That line was quickly extended east to Colton,

106
“About Us,” Heritage Housing Partners.
107
Grimes and Vanaskie, “Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century Development and Architecture in Pasadena,”
3.
108
Ibid 4.
109
Ibid 6.
45
connecting it to the transcontinental route leading to Chicago, Illinois, and sparking an
influx of residents and tourists.
110

The City of Pasadena was incorporated June 19, 1886, shortly after it was connected to
the rest of the country via the transcontinental railroad.
111
The real estate market
exploded after the city’s incorporation, with an acre of land selling for $1,000 by the end
of the year. One year later, Pasadena’s population had jumped to 6,000, and 400 new
buildings had been built.
112
Although construction and population slowed by the end of
1887, development of the city’s commercial district radiated out from the intersection of
Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, and continued well into the twentieth
century. This area would eventually become known as the Old Pasadena National
Register Historic District. Although, the buildings remain mostly intact, the facades
along Colorado Boulevard date to the 1930 widening of the street.
113

The same year Pasadena was incorporated, the Raymond, a resort hotel featuring
landscaped grounds and a golf course, was opened (Figure 2.1). Although there had
been several hotels already built in Pasadena, the Raymond and other subsequent
resort hotels attracted the attention of wealthy Midwest and east coast families who
started spending their winters in Pasadena.
114
Even after the real estate boom ended in
1887, the city’s tourism industry continued to grow. Several additional resorts were built

110
Ibid 7.
111
Ibid 7.
112
Ibid 9.
113
Ibid 8.
114
Ibid.
46
which attracted clientele year round. Many of these wealthy vacationers also
purchased land and built themselves grand winter homes and mansions in the city,
especially along Orange Grove Boulevard and Grand Avenue, just West of the
expanding commercial district.
115
The influx of affluent residents in turn attracted
architects and contractors. “This demand for fine housing created the atmosphere for
design and construction services in excess of that which a typical City of Pasadena’s
size would require. Architects, artisans and allied businesses were attracted to
Pasadena.”
116
Many of these architects developed “regional styles” that influenced
design trends through out Southern California, and often were published nationally in
home and architecture magazines.
117

115
Ibid 9-10.
116
O’Connor, “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena,” 32.
117
Ibid 77.
47
Figure 2.1: Original Raymond hotel, destroyed by fire in 1895. Photo from Pasadena Digital History
Collaboration.

By 1890, the city boasted sewers, paved roads, electric street lighting, an opera house,
a fire station, a public library, and the first installment of what would become the
Tournament of Roses parade.
118
The parade was started by the Valley Hunt Club (a
private social club in Pasadena) to showcase the area’s mild winter weather, and
followed by games including, “…chariot races, jousting, foot races, polo and tug-of-war
under the warm California sun.”
119
The next year, local philanthropist Amos Throop
founded Throop University in Pasadena. Now known as the California Institute of

118
“Pasadena Becomes a City: 1886-1920,” City of Pasadena.
119
“Rose Parade History,” Tournament of Roses.
48
Technology, or Caltech, the school is world renowned in science and engineering
academics and research.
120

By the turn of the century, Pasadena’s population had grown to over 9,000.
121
Within
10 years, the city more than doubled in size, annexing North and East Pasadena and its
population surpassed 30,000.
122
In 1914 the city annexed San Rafael Heights and
Linda Vista (which had been made accessible only the year before by the Colorado
Street Bridge), Pasadena Heights in 1916, Annandale in 1917, Lamanda Park to the
east in 1918, and the Arroyo Addition in 1919.
123

120
“History & Milestones,” California Istitute of Technology.
121
“Pasadena Becomes a City: 1886-1920,” City of Pasadena.
122
Grimes and Vanaskie, “Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century Development and Architecture in Pasadena,”
12; “Pasadena Becomes a City: 1886-1920,” City of Pasadena.
123
Grimes and Vanaskie, “Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century Development and Architecture in Pasadena,”
12; O’Connor, “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena,” 33.
49
Figure 2.2: Pasadena Annexation map. Figure from City of Pasadena Planning & Community Dev.
50
Figure 2.3: Pasadena City Hall, photo by J. Allen Hawkins, Pasadena Digital History Collaboration.

From 1920 to 1930, Pasadena’s population grew from 45,000 to 76,000, and despite
the Chamber of Commerce’s effort to entice new industry, the city’s manufacturing and
industrial base dropped from 191 to 150 companies.
124
While Pasadena may not have
gained much industrial development during the decade, it gained prominence by
building an impressive civic center. Inspired by the City Beautiful movement, George
Ellery Hale helped establish the city’s first Planning Commission in 1922 to make the
civic center a reality. By 1923, plans were adopted by the city’s Board of Directors and
a bond issue was approved to construct the City Hall, the Central Library (both
completed in 1927), and the Civic Auditorium (completed in 1932) (Figure 2.3). By

124
O’Connor, “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena,” 33.
51
1930, the city also boasted the world famous Rose Bowl (completed in 1922) and
Brookside Park, numerous museums, and an expanding campus at California Institute
of Technology, which would soon become the nation’s leading center of aeronautical
research and technology.
125

Pasadena experienced slower growth during the Great Depression years, gaining only
7,000 new inhabitants by 1940, a year that also marked the completion of the Arroyo
Parkway (the West’s first freeway) between Los Angeles and Pasadena.
126

Construction had dropped off, and many of Pasadena’s Orange Grove Avenue
mansions were abandoned or converted to rooming houses.
127
Despite its decline, a
study by Dr. Edward Thorndike of Columbia University declared Pasadena the best U.S.
city of all in which to live in 1939.
128

The city quickly rebounded during World War II and the remainder of the 1940’s, and
the entire southland benefitted from an increase in industry and manufacturing.
129
New
housing tracts were quickly developed along the western edge of the city to meet the
demand of the city’s 22,000 new inhabitants. Even areas of Orange Grove Avenue
were rezoned to accommodate apartment development, which subsequently lead to the
demolition of much of “Millionaire’s Row.”
130
The region’s dramatic increase in

125
Ibid, 41; Historic Resources Group & Pasadena Heritage, “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past,” 17.
126
“Pasadena Becomes a City: 1930-1950,” City of Pasadena.
127
O’Connor, “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena,” 46.
128
“Pasadena Becomes a City: 1930-1950,” City of Pasadena.
129
“The Southland’s War on Smog: Fifty Years of Progress Toward Clean Air,” AQMD.
130
O’Connor, “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena,” 46.
52
population, industry and automobile usage also resulted in severe air pollution. In
1943, the Los Angeles Times ran a story reporting the growing problem:
... a pall of smoke and fumes descended on downtown [Los Angeles], cutting
visibility to three blocks. Striking in the midst of a heat wave, the ‘gas attack’ was
nearly unbearable, gripping workers and residents with an eye-stinging, throat-
scraping sensation. It also left them with a realization that something had gone
terribly wrong in their city, prized for its sunny climate.
131

From 1948 to 1954 the city annexed pieces of Hastings Ranch and Eaton Canyon,
expanding the city’s borders to the east, and by 1960 had a population of 116,000.
132

After the completion of Pasadena’s Civic Center at Garfield and Holly Streets in the
1930s, the city’s commercial center continued moving east along Colorado Boulevard,
and gave rise to a new commercial shopping district along South Lake Avenue, “…in
the '40s, South Lake Avenue became the rage, and downtown Pasadena fell to the
wayside.”
133
The area that had thrived as the heart of the city for the last eighty years
was decaying, vacancy rates were on the rise, and property values falling. As the city
center declined, middle-income families abandoned the area and low-income and
minority families filled in the older neighborhoods. By the early 1960’s, Pasadena had
lost several major companies due to the lack of space for expansion.
134

Although the problem of central city decline was pointed out in a major report in 1959,
the Chamber of Commerce waited until 1967 before hiring a team of consultants

131
“The Southland’s War on Smog: Fifty Years of Progress Toward Clean Air,” AQMD.
132
Historic Resources Group & Pasadena Heritage, “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past,” 18.
133
O’Connor, “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena,” 41; Mozingo, “Pasadena
Studies Ways to Revive Civic Center; Community,” 3.
134
“Pasadena Faces the Challenge: 1950-1970,” City of Pasadena.
53
(Livingston and Blayney) to study why businesses and residents were fleeing the city.
The report released in 1969 painted a sad picture:
In a jolting report that spoke of decline, decay and something called “Eastern city
death syndrome,” the research team killed an Figure and forced forth a hard fact
of life: Pasadena, as a sleepy retreat of the rich, Crown City with “the most
distinguished address in the West,” its millionaires’ row, superior schools and
little old ladies in tennis shoes, doesn’t exist any more.
135

A month later, Pasadena’s Planning Department released its own study. Four years in
preparation, its recommendations called for the creation of a parking authority, an
improvement district for the central business district, and the development of a nonprofit
to guide development. Both the independent study and the department’s report
proposed investment in the original Colorado Boulevard commercial district and called
for a combination of private and public investment to revitalize the area.
136
Lawrence
Livingston also specifically called for the revitalization of “Old Town” and stressed
keeping the historic structures intact, “Colorado will always be Pasadena’s main street –
it’s a symbol to the world as the route of the Rose Parade,” Livingston explained.
137

By 1970, the city had expanded to its geographical limits and its population had
declined slightly to 113,000.
138
The city and its citizens were also taking the first steps
towards revitalization. The first efforts to entice new development to the city included
building an enclosed shopping mall across from the Civic Center that was incompatible

135
Townsend, “White Flight, Urban Blight, School Problems,” B1.
136
Birkinshaw, “Pasadena Planners Complete 4 Year Study of Center City,” SG-B1.
137
Ibid.
138
Historic Resources Group & Pasadena Heritage, “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past,” 18.
54
with the beaux-arts buildings and interrupted the original axis along Garfield Street.
139

While the mall was approved and eventually completed in 1980 (and later overhauled to
create a more pedestrian and contextually friendly shopping center), the fight against it
brought together a core group of preservation-minded citizens.
140
“’That’s where it
started,’ Bogaard said, ‘and a number of people who have been involved with that went
on to form Pasadena Heritage.’”
141

In 1976, Pasadena Heritage led its first architectural tour and signed up its first 250
members the same day. By January 1977, they incorporated and quickly became a
driving force in preservation.
142
By the end of 1978, they had successfully nominated
Pasadena’s Civic Center to the National Register of Historic Places, including City Hall,
the Central Library, the Civic Auditorium, the former YMCA and YWCA, and several
more buildings that were part of the 1925 Bennett Plan.
143
The same year, the city
banned the demolition of historic buildings in Old Pasadena and ushered in an era of
revitalization.
144

In 1979, Pasadena Heritage launched its revolving fund and took on its first restoration
project.
145
The Parsons House, designed by Alfred and Arthur Heineman, was
threatened by a new condo development (Figure 2.4). Pasadena Heritage purchased
the house from a condo developer and resold it to Phil Elkins for $1.00. The house was

139
Esposito, “Preserving the heritgage,” Q4.
140
Mann, “$100 Million Plaza Pasadena Mall Dedicated,” SQ1.
141
Esposito, “Preserving the heritgage,” Q4.
142
Avery, “Hotel Vote Comes as Rare Setback for Pasadena Heritage,” 1.
143
Harp and Pasadena Heritage, “National Register of Historic Places Inventory….”
144
Dunn, “Boom May Turn Old Pasadena into ‘Westwood East,’” 1.
145
“35th Anniversary - Highlights of first 35 years,” Pasadena Heritage.
55
cut into pieces and painstakingly moved to Altadena and eventually restored.
146
For
the next ten years, Pasadena Heritage continued its efforts by nominating numerous
buildings to the National Register, establishing historic districts, lobbying for
strengthened preservation ordinances and aiding in the restoration of historic
properties.
147

Figure 2.4: Parson house on its original site in Pasadena, c. 1910. Photo from timandersenarchitect.com.

In 1984, Pasadena Heritage partnered with the City of Pasadena in its first effort to
combine historic preservation and affordable housing.
148
Gartz Court, a six-unit
craftsman style complex was the city’s oldest surviving bungalow court (Figure 2.5).
Facing demolition to build a new office complex, the units were relocated, restored and
sold as affordable housing.
149

146
Anderson, “Parsons House Revisited.”
147
“35th Anniversary - Highlights of first 35 years,” Pasadena Heritage.
148
Kuzins, “A Peaceful Place: The Bungalow Court, Revived,” 103.
149
Kaplan, “Discarding the Notion of the `Throwaway City' City Review,” 1.
56

Figure 2.5: Gartz Court. Photo by Alexander Vertikoff for American Bungalow Magazine.

In 1989, the organization started its own grant program for homeowners in the
northwest Pasadena neighborhood Lincoln Triangle. The funds were made available to
mostly low-income homeowners in the area to help repair their properties.
150
In 1992,
Pasadena Heritage used its revolving Preservation Fund to move and rehabilitate the
Charlotte Perkins Gilman House (an early feminist) in Lincoln Triangle (Figure 2.6).
151

The house was slated for demolition to make way for an apartment building. Pasadena
Heritage moved the house to a nearby lot, restored the property and eventually sold it
as affordable housing.
152
Over the next few years, Pasadena Heritage took on even
larger projects including the award-winning restoration of the Castle Green exterior
funded by a $693,000 grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation and the
reopening of the restored Colorado Street Bridge.
153

150
“35th Anniversary - Highlights of first 35 years,” Pasadena Heritage.
151
Ibid.
152
Dubrow & Goodman, Restoring Women’s History through Historic Preservation, 216.
153
“35th Anniversary - Highlights of first 35 years,” Pasadena Heritage.
57

Figure 2.6: Charlotte Perkins Gilman House after restoration. Photo by Pasadena Heritage.

In 1998, Pasadena Heritage was approached by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation to expand their Community Partners Program (CCP).
154
The program had
been launched in 1994 in an effort to promote historic preservation in revitalizing urban
neighborhoods. The CCP worked to partner community development and historic
preservation groups at a grass roots level to demonstrate the increased effectiveness of
combining efforts.
155
Pasadena Heritage had already demonstrated an ability to
successfully take on large-scale rehabilitation projects through several of its previous
endeavors and had an established Preservation Fund. However, the Preservation Fund
had not been touched in several years since those projects tended to be drain on the

154
Mossman, Interview, 2012.
155
Stipe, A Richer Heritage, 325.
58
small staff and took time away from other programs.
156
So, Heritage Housing
Partners (HHP) was established as a separate but affiliated 501(c)(3) nonprofit
developer devoted solely to restoring historic properties to be resold as affordable
housing. HHP’s initial executive director, Sue Mossman, as well as most of its board of
directors came from Pasadena Heritage. The new organization picked up mostly where
Pasadena Heritage had left off, working with existing homeowners to repair their historic
homes and rehabbing individual historic properties for affordable resale.
157

In 2001, HHP hired Charles Loveman as its new Executive Director.
158
Loveman joined
the organization with an impressive track record as a principal and partner at Gilmore
Associates, a Los Angeles based real estate development that was the first developer
to take advantage of the Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, and credited with
spurring much of the downtown Los Angeles redevelopment.
159
Before Gilmore
Associates, Loveman owned his own consulting firm (Landmark Partners), worked at
Kosmont Associates (a consulting firm that specialized in structuring public/private
transactions), and was also a Senior City Planner with the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Los Angeles.
160

Only six years after forming, HHP took a new approach, changing its business model
from single building rehabilitation to multi-family developments that mix rehabilitated

156
Mossman, Interview, 2012.
157
Ibid.
158
Loveman, Interview, 2011.
159
“About Us,” Gilmore Associates.
160
“Our Executive Officers,” Heritage Housing Partners.
59
properties and new construction.
161
In much of the Southern California region,
housing prices increased exponentially in the 2000s. According to the City of
Pasadena’s General Plan Housing Element, this rise was caused by:
Pent up demand for housing, historically low interest rates, and creative
mortgage packages [that] lead to easy credit and unprecedented escalation of
housing prices in the State of California. This pressure has been acutely felt in
Pasadena, where the City is greatly sought after for its job base, location,
housing quality, and level of amenities.
162

In 1998 (the year HHP was formed), the median cost for a single-family home in the City
of Pasadena was $261,500. By the peak in 2007, housing costs had more than tripled
to the mid $700,000s with the greatest increases occurring 2002-2004 (right after
Charles Loveman was hired as the new Executive Director).
163
This meteoric rise in the
cost of purchasing a single property (even lower-priced, foreclosures or severely
dilapidated properties), rehabilitating it, and reselling it as affordable housing, quickly
became an unsustainable model for HHP.
164
So, in 2004, facing the decision to grow or
end, Loveman took HHP in a new direction: moving away from single-family
rehabilitation and into real estate development. This essential organizational
transformation was responsible for producing the unique and highly successful Fair
Oaks Court project (completed in 2008) and partner project Doran Gardens (completed
in 2012). It also helped garner national respect for HHP as preservationists and
developers.

161
Loveman, Interview, 2011.
162
“City of Pasadena General Plan: 2008-2014 Housing Elelment,” 27.
163
Ibid.
164
Loveman, Interview, 2011.
60
FOCUS

Specific Targets
Lack of affordable housing, even for median income households, was a growing
problem in Pasadena by the time HHP was started in 1998. This problem was a source
of major concern as pointed out in the City of Pasadena’s General Plan Housing
Element, “Given the high price of single-family and townhouse products, fewer and
fewer first-time home buyers can afford to purchase a home in Pasadena.”
165
By the
year 2000, 23% of households with mortgages in Pasadena were moderately
overpaying (spending 30-50% of household income) and 10% were severely overpaying
(spending more than 50% of household income) for their housing. The statistics were
even worse in the rental market, where 21% of all renters were moderately overpaying
and 22% severely overpaying for their housing.
166

HHP chose to address this problem by pursuing development projects in Pasadena and
eventually other similar cities, where the quality of life is high, but the availability of
affordable for-sale housing is typically out of reach for households making between 80%
to 150% of the area median income.
167
Rather than join the numerous organizations
and developers building multi-family rental properties as a typical solution for low-
income or affordable housing, HHP differentiated itself with a specific mission to serve a
particular set of clients. The organization focuses on developing market-quality units for

165
“City of Pasadena General Plan: 2008-2014 Housing Element,” 29.
166
“City of Pasadena General Plan: 2008-2014 Housing Element,” 30.
167
HHP has also completed projects in South Pasadena and Glendale; “About Us,” Heritage Housing
Partners.
61
sale at below-market prices, by promoting preservation, integrating new construction,
and creating community stakeholders out of income-qualified first-time homebuyers.
168

In addition, HHP’s compulsory adaptation of its business strategy in response to the
changing housing market helped this little nonprofit make an impact nationwide.

Preservation
With its roots in Pasadena Heritage and the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
HHP’s initial priority is to promote historic preservation. “HHP extends a strong
preservation ethic into residential areas by purchasing historic houses and rehabilitating
them, taking care to retain the original character and scale of the home while improving
livability.” The City of Pasadena is famous for its rich and distinguished collection of
historic properties and neighborhoods and has been committed to protecting its historic
resources since adopting its first preservation ordinance in 1969.
169
Half of the city’s
housing stock is over fifty years old, over 300 properties have been designated as
historic landmarks or monuments, there are seventeen designated local Historic
Districts and fourteen National Register Districts.
170
This abundance of quality, though
sometimes dilapidated, historic properties combined with incentives and support from
the city provides HHP frequent opportunities for rehabilitation. Restoring or even
relocating buildings – many of which have become a blight on the community, suffering
from years of neglect or in danger of being razed due to new development - rather than

168
“Our Projects,” Heritage Housing Partners.
169
“City of Pasadena General Plan: 2008-2014 Housing Element,” 81.
170
“Designated Historic Properties – City of Pasadena,” City of Pasadena; “City of Pasadena General
Plan: 2008-2014 Housing Element,” 33.
62
demolishing them, not only preserves the building, but also helps maintain the
character and density of the surrounding neighborhood.
173 and 175 Carlton Avenue in Pasadena (completed in 2007) is an excellent example
of restoration of a blighted property. The large lot originally had one house built in the
late nineteenth century. That house was moved to the back of the property and another
home (relocated from the Fair Oaks Court project site) was added at the front. Both
buildings, suffering from years of neglect, were completed restored. Both homes were
purchased by first-time moderate-income buyers, one of which had been on HHP’s wait
list for four years. (Figures 2.7-2.10)

Figure 2.7: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

63

Figure 2.8: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.9: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
64

Figure 2.10: 173-175 Carlton Ave, Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Integrating New Construction
Instead of a traditional approach to redevelopment – razing any existing structures and
starting from scratch or maximizing building on an undeveloped lot – HHP works within
the context of an existing neighborhood. When the opportunity for new in-fill
construction is present, HHP strives to integrate new properties into the surrounding
environment, taking cues from the neighborhood’s scale, form, density and style.
171

The resulting projects blend seamlessly into the existing setting and often add amenities
such as landscaping and open space.

171
“Our Projects,” Heritage Housing Partners.
65

Community Stakeholders
Most affordable housing in Los Angeles County is typically available as rental property.
HHP sets itself apart by focusing on homeownership as a conduit to a community’s
renewal. “We believe that providing low-, moderate-, and workforce-income first-time
homebuyers with affordable ownership opportunities results in overall neighborhood
revitalization.”
172
HHP concentrates its efforts on serving households who cannot afford
homeownership by providing financial advice and assistance to make purchasing a
home attainable. Assisting families in finding permanent homes helps to strengthen the
community by, “…increasing the number of local stakeholders who take pride in their
homes.”
173

Adapting
When HHP was started, it picked up where Pasadena Heritage left off: providing small
restoration grants and assistance to homeowners fin the Garfield Heights neighborhood
and rehabilitating Pasadena’s neglected historic houses and selling them to qualified
first-time home buyers. Unfortunately the strategy had not been updated since
Pasadena Heritage had abandoned it several years before the housing market took off.
So, as the cost of real estate and construction escalated, HHP found itself unable to
sustain this business model within a few years. In 2004, HHP changed its business
model from rehabilitating or “flipping” one or two properties at a time to a developer-
based model. Rehabilitating multiple structures and incorporating new in-fill

172
“About Us,” Heritage Housing Partners.
173
“Our Projects,” Heritage Housing Partners.
66
construction all in one project as opposed to multiple projects allowed HHP to use the
available funding more efficiently, lower the development cost per unit, and create more
affordable homeownership opportunities for buyers.

HHP successfully completed several multi-family development projects after
reorganizing its business model. However, the affordable housing market as well as
general economic redevelopment in California took a hit in 2012 when the State’s
community redevelopment agencies (CRA) were officially dissolved to close a gap in
the State budget.
174
The Community Redevelopment Law was enacted in 1945 in an
effort to help local governments revitalize blighted communities, and had grown to
nearly 400 agencies by the time it was dissolved as a result of California
Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos.
175
Controversy surrounding the CRA’s had
been growing for years and came to a head as the State struggled to meet its financial
needs. However, even Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (the only dissenter in the case)
noted that despite the controversy, the CRA’s had made a significant impact in
communities across California:
Although the system of redevelopment in this state has been far from perfect, it
certainly is worth noting redevelopment projects like the restored Public Market
Building in downtown Sacramento, the Bunker Hill project in downtown Los Angeles,
Horton Plaza and the Gaslamp Quarter in downtown San Diego, HP Pavilion in San
Jose, and Yerba Buena Gardens in downtown San Francisco. When faithfully
administered and thoughtfully invested in the interests of the community, a
redevelopment agency can successfully create jobs, encourage private investment,
build local businesses, reduce crime and improve a community's public works and
infrastructure.
176

174
Dolan, “State Supreme Court upholds abolition of redevelopment agencies.”
175
California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, 8.
176
Ibid 79.
67
Unfortunately, the loss of the CRA’s means a loss in available funding and subsidies
for affordable housing and redevelopment dollars from the cities that helped make
HHP’s projects possible. As a result, HHP must once again adapt to the change in
market as well as legislation. Although as of July 2013, it had not yet been
implemented, HHP is in the process of organizing a for-profit partner organization to
help fill the funding gap. Tentatively known as HHP Ventures, the new organization
would focus on rehabilitation of historic properties as well as new infill construction
similar to HHP, but would instead sell properties as market rate, taking advantage of the
recent improvement in the real estate market. In return, profits from the sale of the
properties could then be rolled over to HHP to help fund the affordable housing
projects.
177

177
Loveman, Interview, 2013.
68
FUNDING

Heritage Housing Partners’ ability in obtaining traditional and non-traditional funding
sources is a key to its success. Initially, HHP’s programs were funded by a line of credit
from the National Trust for Historic Preservation as well as Pasadena Heritage’s
Preservation Fund. However, as its projects became more ambitious and reputation
and experience grew, the organization branched out to qualifying for local and federal
grants and funding, city and private loans, and more creative financing like New Market
Tax Credits.

Start-Up Funding
From 1998 to 2002, HHP’s projects were funded by Pasadena Heritage, the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, the City of Pasadena, as well as public support and
grants. Initial start up funding came from Pasadena Heritage’s own Preservation Fund
and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the way of a line of credit through its
Inner-City Ventures Fund (ICVF).
178
The ICVF is used exclusively to provide flexible
low-interest loans - primarily to nonprofits, public agencies, and community groups – for
historic rehabilitation projects in low and middle-income neighborhoods.
179
After that
initial funding was pledged, the City of Pasadena’s Community Development
Commission approved assistance through its Housing Trust Loan Fund for the
acquisition, rehabilitation and resale of a minimum of three deteriorating properties in

178
Compiled from Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2001 and 2002.
179
Ceraso, “Eyesore to Community Asset….”
69
the Garfield Heights area.
180
More specifically, the Commission provided three
individual loans totaling up to $141,180 to partially reimburse the National Trust’s short-
term ICVF funding that was used to acquire the properties. The Housing Trust Loan
was utilized as a bridge loan and offered at 2% interest. The accrued interest was then
forgiven upon completion and sale of each home to a qualified buyer.
181
In addition, the
loan had generous terms that also helped the buyers directly:
The homebuyer will be eligible for homebuyer assistance through the forgiveness of
$15,000 of the $47,060 Commission loan and conversion of the remaining loan
balance to an amortizing, 30-year, second mortgages at interest rates of 1.5 to 2.5%
based on the homebuyer’s income level and capacity to repay. These mortgages
may be deferred up to five years, if necessary, and the amortized interest during the
period may be forgiven on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Housing
Administrator.
182

Direct public support and government contributions/grants were also utilized in the
organization’s start-up phase, and accounted for over $490,000 from 1999 to 2002.
183

180
Kurtz to Pasadena Community Development Commision, 1999.
181
Ibid.
182
Ibid.
183
Compiled from Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2001 and 2002.
70

Figure 2.11: 1329 Fay Place, The acquisition of a 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow built by local
developers Fay & Fay was HHPs first project. It was one of twelve intact bungalows located on Fay
Place, which has placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The rehabilitation work began in
early 1999 and the property was sold in September 1999 to an enthusiastic low-income senior citizen.
Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Expanded Funding
Pasadena Heritage and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have continued to
support HHP’s work. However, as the projects grew, it quickly became necessary for
the organization to pursue additional funding sources including loans from other cities,
construction loans from traditional financial institutions, grants from other nonprofits, and
rental income. In 2003 HHP commenced working on its first project outside of the City
of Pasadena: 1201 and 1203 South Magnolia in neighboring South Pasadena (Figures
2.12-2.17). It was similar to the HHP’s other projects in both scope and funding and
71
included the relocation and rehab of two historic single-family homes.
184
The project
utilized two new funding sources: a $235,000 loan from the city of South Pasadena and
a construction loan through the South Pasadena branch of Washington Mutual (WaMu)
for $255,887.
185
The total development cost for the two properties came to $673,000
while the resale only netted $585,000, leaving a funding gap of $88,000. The city of
South Pasadena aided in closing the gap by providing additional subsidy in the way of a
silent second mortgage.
186
By May 2004,1023 Magnolia was sold to a family who had
rented a half block away for twenty-five years, while 1021 Magnolia was sold to a retired
couple who had previously rented the house for forty years prior to its move and
rehab.
187

Figure 2.12: 1021-1023 S. Magnolia, South Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

184
“1201 and 1203 South Magnolia, South Pasadena,” Heritage Housing Partners.
185
Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2003.
186
Loveman, “Affordable For-Sale Housing in Historic Neighborhoods,” 19.
187
“1201 and 1203 South Magnolia, South Pasadena,” Heritage Housing Partners.
72
Figure 2.13: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.14: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
73

Figure 2.15: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.16: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
74

Figure 2.17: 1021-1023 South Magnolia, South Pasadena – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Tapping New Funding Sources
Six years after it’s founding, HHP was getting priced out of even the most dilapidated
properties as the housing market in Southern California skyrocketed. However, by this
time the organization had already built a reputation for completing successful projects
and gained a level of trust with the cities and nonprofits that supported its projects.
188

As its previous business model became unviable, HHP moved into rehabilitating and
developing multiple properties in a single project. In 2004, HHP received a loan of over
$1.7 million from the Enterprise Foundation (renamed Enterprise Community Partners in
2005).
189
Enterprise Community Partners works nationwide, but in Southern California

188
Loveman, Interview, 2011.
189
Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2004.
75
its priorities align with HHP’s as it makes an effort to, “…promote policies that support
preservation and development of affordable housing for low-income families…”
190
Aside
from funding through Pasadena Heritage’s Preservation Fund and continuing line of
credit from the National Trust, HHP also received a substantial increase in funding from
Pasadena’s Housing Trust Loan Fund of over $2 million.
191

In 2005, as the Fair Oaks Court project became a reality, HHP tapped a substantial loan
of $10,440,000 from the City of Pasadena as well as $3,240,000 from the city of
Glendale. The organization was also collecting rental income from the existing homes
that occupied (and would subsequently be rehabilitated) the future development.
192
The
project was also funded by a traditional construction loans acquired through WaMu in
2007 and Wells Fargo in 2008. HHP also worked with Fuller Theological Seminary in
Pasadena who provided $3,880,000 additional funding in return for designating a
portion of the project as workforce housing for its faculty.
193

While HHP pulled together numerous funding sources to make the Fair Oaks Court and
Doran Gardens projects pencil out, the most unique resource was the leveraging of
New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) equity – the first time it had been utilized in a for-sale
housing project in the United States. Enacted in 2000 as part of the Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act, the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program permits
taxpayers to, “…receive a credit against Federal income taxes for making qualified

190
“Priorities & Impact,” Enterprise Community Partners.
191
Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2004.
192
Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2005.
193
Heritage Housing Partners, Form 990 2007, 2008.
76
equity investments (QEIs) in qualified Community Development Entities (CDEs).”
194

At least 85% of the qualified equity investment must in turn be used by the CDE to
provide investments in low-income communities where median family income does not
exceed 80% of the area’s median income. NMTC hadn’t been used previously to create
for-sale housing because the federal government requires the credits to remain invested
in qualified uses over a seven year period, which poses a problem when most housing
projects are sold within eighteen months.
195
HHP overcame this obstacle by reinvesting
the repaid equity from homes sold in the Pasadena Fair Oaks Court project into the next
round of homes in the Glendale Doran Gardens project.
196
In addition, HHP worked
with its partner Lake Forest (a California-based Clearinghouse CDFI) to maximize the
NMTC funding.
197
Pasadena and Glendale combined funds and invested them directly
into the CDE created for the project, instead of the project itself, which created the
opportunity for additional tax credits and increased the equity investor’s return on
investments.
198
Clearinghouse CDFI provided a construction loan for the project while
Affordable Housing Clearinghouse assisted homebuyers in qualifying for and obtaining
acquisitions loans through Clearinghouse CDFI’s single family department.
199

194
“New Market Tax Credits,” Internal Revenue Service.
195
Ibid.
196
Loveman, Interview, 2011.
197
According to the US Department of the Treasury, CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution)
is “…a specialized financial institution that works in market niches that are underserved by traditional
financial institutions. CDFIs provide a unique range of financial products and services in economically
distressed target markets, such as mortgage financing for low-income and first-time homebuyers and not-
for-profit developers, flexible underwriting and risk capital for needed community facilities, and technical
assistance, commercial loans and investments to small start-up or expanding businesses in low-income
areas. CDFIs include regulated institutions such as community development banks and credit unions, and
non-regulated institutions such as loan and venture capital funds.”
198
Enochs, “Low-Cost Homes in Pricey Pasadena.”
199
“2008 Annual Report,” Clearinghouse CDFI.
77
PARTNERSHIPS & PROJECTS

The Merrill House

‘The alternative for the Merrill House was to tear it down and build a 20-unit
apartment house; that would have been dreadful,’ says Loveman. Instead, we
preserved the neighborhood, kept the scale and character intact, and helped a
deserving family who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to enjoy
homeownership; the neighborhood is much stronger as a result.
200

Designed and built by Charles and Henry Greene in 1910, the Merrill House is a modest
Craftsman bungalow compared to the Greene’s world famous Gamble House. None
the less, the home is listed on the National Register and exhibits many of the trademark
features of a Greene and Greene including deep eave overhangs, casement windows,
clinker brick and arroyo stone walls and piers, and extensive woodwork and built-ins.
201

Unfortunately, by 1999 the house had become a neighborhood nuisance, home to
transients and drug dealers. Vacant for several months due to foreclosure, HHP learned
about the Merrill House when its neighbors asked for help.
202

HHP took on the Merrill House as its fourth project, but not without a lot of support and
collaboration. From the outset, Pasadena Heritage helped HHP negotiate the purchase
of the property at a steeply discounted price of $40,000 from its owner Washington
Mutual. This allowed more of the available funding to go towards the rehabilitation and
restoration of the property. HHP combined all its available funding from the City of

200
Gringeri-Brown, “Sam Merrill’s New House,” 62.
201
Ibid, 57.
202
"Preservation Groups, Bank Work to Save a Gem from Pasadena's Past," K-3.
78
Pasadena and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
203
In addition, Pasadena
Heritage also committed resources from its Preservation Fund as well as expertise from
its member’s previous work on the Greene’s better-known Gamble and Blacker
houses.
204

HHP received volunteer help from Pasadena Heritage members, who helped select
period appropriate interior colors, redesign the kitchen, and painstakingly strip paint
from the historic brick fireplace.
205
The two organizations also used this project as an
opportunity to engage the community and raise funds at the same time. Pasadena
Heritage held “Hard Hat Workshops” on the property during several of its annual
Craftsman Weekends where they demonstrated inspection and restoration techniques
while the work was in progress as well as soon after completion.
206
The various tours
and workshops were well attended by interested neighbors and restoration
enthusiasts.
207

In the end, the bulk of the funding went towards updating mechanical and electrical
systems as well as the foundation and roof. Much of the deteriorated wood siding that
“crumbled to the touch” was replaced as well.
208
Despite the years of neglect, HHP was

203
Ibid.
204
Gringeri-Brown, “Sam Merrill’s New House,” 59.
205
Ibid, 60.
206
“Lectures and One Tour Still Available,” 1; Eastman, “On the Town…,” F14
207
“The Merrill House,” Heritage Housing Partners.
208
Gringeri-Brown, “Sam Merrill’s New House,” 59.
79
able to restore almost all of the original woodwork and built-in cabinetry, light fixtures,
and rebuild the brick fireplace.
209

The project took almost three years from when HHP acquired the house in November
1999 to October 2002 when it was sold for $275,000 to a moderate-income family who
had been renting in the neighborhood. The purchase was made possible with the help
of a $47,000 loan from the City of Pasadena that didn’t require payments for the first
five years.
210
The project was featured in American Bungalow magazine in Fall 2003,
garnering the fledgling organization some national attention, and recognized with a
Preservation Award by the Pasadena Preservation Commission in 2005.
211

209
“The Merrill House,” Heritage Housing Partners.
210
Gringeri-Brown, “Sam Merrill’s New House,” 61.
211
Maddaus, "Local group honors historic preservation," A-3.
80

Figure 2.18: The Merrill House – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

81

Figure 2.19: The Merrill House – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

82
Figure 2.20: The Merrill House – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.21: The Merrill House – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

83

Figure 2.22: The Merrill House – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

84
Fair Oaks Court

The Fair Oaks Court Project is an excellent example of redevelopment at its best
– private/public partnerships utilizing innovative financing tools to undertake
developments, which remove blight, revitalize neighborhoods, and provide
affordable housing.
212

By 2003, HHP had already completed four projects and built a successful partnership
with the Pasadena Community Development Commission (Commission) when they
entered into the initial negotiations for the Fair Oaks Court project.
213
The 1.76-acre
project site is located at the southeast corner of North Fair Oaks Avenue and Peoria
Street within the Villa Parke Redevelopment Project Area in Northwest Pasadena. The
property was purchase by HHP in early 2003 for approximately $2,550,000 million, and
had sixteen historic rental homes, all in need of significant repairs.
214
Owned by a
single landlord, the homes had become an ongoing neighborhood nuisance and source
of blight due to the lack of maintenance and illegal alterations.
215
HHP initially proposed
the rehabilitation of twelve of the existing homes and demolition of four unsalvageable
buildings along with the construction of twelve new infill units, totaling twenty-four new
affordable homeownership units for the City.
216
However, after review from the city, the
project was revised several times with increases in density and housing types,
eventually settling on a project consisting of forty-one units.

The final development was completed in May 2008 and consists of 33 low- and

212
Huang, “Pasadena Breaks Ground in Affordable Housing…,” 13.
213
Kurtz to Pasadena Community Development Commision, 2003.
214
Ibid.
215
Huang, “Pasadena Breaks Ground in Affordable Housing…,” 13.
216
Kurtz to Pasadena Community Development Commision, 2003.
85
moderate-income affordable homeownership units, three workforce homes for faculty
of local college Fuller Theological Seminary, four market-rate homes, and one
commercial unit.
217
Project architect Moule & Polyzoides drew inspiration from the
context of the surrounding Raymond-Summit neighborhood as well as the existing
homes on the site, creating a seamless blend of nine rehabilitated homes and thirty-one
new infill Arts and Crafts-style townhouses.
218
HHP also worked with Pasadena Water
and Power, who provided funding, “…to improve wall and ceiling insulation, incorporate
higher efficiency air conditioning units, upgrade the appliances to Energy Star models,
and install energy-efficient windows,” resulting in a project that exceeds the California
energy efficiency standards by 50 percent.
219

217
Williams, “Affordable housing units earn national praise.”
218
“Fair Oaks Court,” Heritage Housing Partners.
219
Pasadena Water & Power, “Customer Spotlight.”
86

Figure 2.23: Fair Oaks Court – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

Figure 2.24: Fair Oaks Court – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
87

Figure 2.25: Fair Oaks Court – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
88

Figure 2.26: Fair Oaks Court – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
89

Figure 2.27: Fair Oaks Court – Before. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
90

Figure 2.28: Fair Oaks Court – After. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
91

Figure 2.29: Fair Oaks Court new construction. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

92

Figure 2.30: Fair Oaks Court new construction. Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.
93

Figure 2.31: Fair Oaks Court new construction and rehabilitated houses face onto shared green space.
Photo by Heritage Housing Partners.

The project generated a lot of interest from area homebuyers. HHP received 650
applications from first-time homebuyers, which was eventually whittled down to 90
qualified finalists, with precedence given to buyers who already lived and/or worked in
Pasadena.
220
Final affordable sales prices for Fair Oaks Court ranged from $108,500
for a one-bedroom unit to $294,000 for a four-bedroom unit.
221

The Fair Oaks Court project received numerous accolades, including a 2009
preservation award from the City of Pasadena’s Design and Historic Commission.
222

220
Williams, “Affordable housing units earn national praise.”
221
Huang, “Pasadena Breaks Ground in Affordable Housing…,”13.
222
“Fair Oaks Court,” Heritage Housing Partners.
94
The project was also named Affordable Housing Finance magazine’s Affordable
Homeownership Project of the Year for 2008, as well as Southland's Affordable
Homeownership Project of the Year by the Southern California Association of Non-Profit
Housing.
223
While its merits as an historic rehabilitation and affordable housing project
stand on their own, the project’s biggest impact came from its innovative use of funds.

When HHP decided to make the transition into developing multi-family projects in lieu of
single properties, it hadn’t anticipated the steep rise in construction cost that
accompanied the housing boom. The organization was already in negotiations with the
City of Pasadena for the development of Fair Oaks Court when it became clear there
was a funding gap. Faced with a decision to reduce the scope of the project or find
additional funding lead HHP to explore New Market Tax Credits (NMTC).
224

The NMTC program was created to encourage investment in low-income communities
by providing a credit against federal income taxes of 39% of a qualified equity
investment.
225
To qualify, money has to be invested in eligible community development
uses such as, “…financing small businesses, improving community facilities such as
day care centers, and increasing homeownership opportunities.”
226
However, the funds
have to remain invested in qualified uses for a seven-year period.
227
Community
Development Entities (CDEs), like the Clearinghouse Community Development

223
Williams, “Affordable housing units earn national praise.”
224
“Affordable Homes in Los Angeles County…,” 19.
225
Christopher, “Pioneering Deal Uses NMTCs for Housing-Only Project.”
226
Internal Revenue Services, “New Market Tax Credits,” 1.
227
Ibid, 3.
95
Financial Institution, apply to the Community Development Financial Institutions
Fund, a branch of the US Treasury Department, for an allocation of the NMTCs. CDEs,
in turn, issue credits to their investors.
228

In order to take advantage of this funding source, HHP devised a unique plan of
developing several phased projects together and “rolling over” the funds in order to
keep the equity invested for the required seven-year period. This funding for a
Pasadena-based project was made possible by an unlikely source: a project in the city
of Glendale.
“While we had originally been working on the funding for Fair Oaks Court in
Pasadena, the city of Glendale is a big hero because of how quickly it came to
the table and committed its funds and arranged financing to make this deal
possible,” said Loveman. Glendale had to approve the sale of the two project
sites to HHP, approve a disposition and development agreement, make a loan
commitment to the projects, and enter into an intercreditor agreement with the
City of Pasadena—all almost two years before groundbreaking would occur in
Glendale.
229

The key to maximizing the benefits of the program was both cities agreeing to put
subsidy funding through the NMTC structure. This resulted in a greatly reduced cash
repayment of investor Commercial Capitol Bancorp/Washington Mutual’s NMTC loan at
the end of the seven-year term due to the additional credits earned from the cities’ funds
that do not need to be directly repaid.
230

The final development costs for the Fair Oaks Court project totaled just over $19 million

228
Christopher, “Pioneering Deal Uses NMTCs for Housing-Only Project.”
229
Ibid.
230
Loveman, “Making the NMTC Program with Affordable For-Sale Housing,” 3,7.
96
with funding coming from city, county, and state monies, as well as conventional
financing. The NMTC closed the $6.3 million gap in funding and required only $930,000
to be repaid at the end of the seven-year compliance period. The net benefit of the
NMTC on a per unit basis was just over $88,000 or about 20 percent of the total
development cost per affordable unit.
231

While the major goal for the Fair Oaks Court project may have been simply to “renew
and stabilize a neglected but historically important portion of the Raymond-Summit
Neighborhoods,” its impact will certainly be felt across the nation, as it becomes a
model for cities, nonprofits, and developers.
232

231
Huang, “Pasadena Breaks Ground in Affordable Housing…,”13.
232
“Fair Oaks Court,” Heritage Housing Partners.
97
Chapter 3: Project Row Houses & Row House CDC
The mission of Project Row Houses is to be the catalyst for transforming
community through the celebration of art and African-American history and
culture.
233

The mission of Row House CDC is to develop housing for low-to-moderate
income residents, public spaces, and facilities to preserve and protect the historic
character of the Third Ward.
234

FOUNDATION

The City of Houston was established by brothers Augustus Chapman Allen and John
Kirby Allen on August 30, 1836, only six months after the fledgling Republic of Texas
had won its independence from Mexico.
235
On January 1, 1837, the city numbered
twelve residents and one log cabin building, but a mere four months later had already
expanded to 1,500 residents and 100 houses, officially incorporating June 5, 1837.
236

Houston served as a temporary capital for the Republic from 1837 to 1839 and 1842 to
1845, when the capital was moved permanently to Austin, and Texas was accepted into
the United States.
237

Houston’s first charter called for a voter-elected mayor and eight alderman to represent
the city, which was divided into four “wards” in 1840. The ward system, a precursor to
today’s City Council Districts, was in common use throughout the country in the early

233
“Our Mission,” Project Row Houses.
234
“Our History,” Row House CDC
235
McComb, “Houston, TX.”
236
Ibid.
237
Johnson, “Capitals.”
98
nineteenth century.
238
The layout of the wards was not based on population
distribution or set up in an effort to have an equal number of residents in each (this was
before women and African Americans were allowed to vote), instead the boundaries
were based roughly along natural boundaries (major streets, rivers, bayous, etc.)
(Figure 3.1).
239
The intersection of Main Street and Congress Avenue served as the
innermost boundary of the original four wards and extended to the city limits. The Fifth
Ward was added in 1866 north of Buffalo Bayou and East of White Oak Bayou to
accommodate the growing city. A decade later the Fourth Ward was divided to form the
Sixth Ward, but it was not given representation until 1896.
240
In 1905, Houston voters
abandoned the ward-based system in favor of a commission form of government, with a
mayor and four commissioners elected at large.
241
In 1928, city maps removed the
word “ward” completely and replaced it with various geographical reference points.
“Nowadays, the wards are a social and cultural phenomenon, only loosely
geographically defined and with no bearing on how our civic leaders are elected.”
242

Even though the ward system was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, locals
still commonly use the term.

238
Kalb and Kever, “Pride Lives on in City’s Six Historic Wards,” E1.
239
Kalb and Kever, “Pride Lives on in City’s Six Historic Wards,” E1.
240
Chapman, “A System of Government Where Business Ruled,” 30.
241
Ibid, 31.
242
Kalb and Kever, “Pride Lives on in City’s Six Historic Wards,” E1.
99
Figure 3.1: City of Houston, 1920. Map by Texas Map & Blue Printing Company.

Houston’s Third Ward
Settlement of Houston’s wards grew rapidly after the Civil War, especially by former
slaves.
243
With the end of slavery in Texas on June 19, 1865, came the beginning of
segregation. Until the 1920’s, the Fourth Ward, often referred to as Freedman’s Town,
was home to one-third of Houston’s African American population.
244
While the Third
Ward was ethnically diverse, affluent Jews, barred from living in the exclusive River

243
Wilson, “Third Ward, Steeped in Tradition of Self-reliance and Achievement,” 31.
244
Lin, The Power of Urban Ethnic Places…, 98.
100
Oaks neighborhood settled South of Blodgett Street while African American settled
to the North.
245
However, after 1945, the Third and Fourth Wards rapidly changed.
Widespread disinvestment in the Fourth Ward and divisive projects such as the San
Felipe Courts housing project (designated for white military family only) built during
World War II and construction of the Gulf Freeway that bisected the area in 1953,
caused much of the African American population to shift to the Third Ward.
246

The expressly racist preferences given to whites by the Home Owners Loan
Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration and the ban on state
enforcement of restrictive covenants declared by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Shelley v. Kraemer enabled Jewish American and other white residents of the
ward to move west and southwest into new exclusively white suburbs.
247

So, as the size and economy of Houston grew, and the Anglo population moved out of
the inner city, and the African American population in the Third Ward flourished, building
communities complete with churches, schools, businesses, and educational institutions
like Texas Southern University (originally started as the Texas State College for
Negroes).
248

The Third Ward thrived with a diverse economic mix of African American families until
the mid-1960’s. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act outlawed most forms of discrimination
against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, as well as women. The Fair
Housing Act, passed in 1968, allowed people the choice of where they wanted to live.
The middle and upper class residents moved on and those without means stayed,

245
Parks, “’This is Our Home’ opens thoughtful doors,” 6; Zheng, “The Price of Progres…,” O1.
246
Lin, The Power of Urban Ethnic Places…, 98.
247
Lipsitz, How Racism Takes Place, 151.
248
Steptoe, “Dixie West…,” 218; Wilson, “Third Ward, Steeped in Tradition of Self-reliance and
Achievement,” 31.
101
resulting in the Third Ward’s dramatic loss in population and signaling the rapid
decline of this African American community.
249
From 1970 to 1990, the Third Ward
population dropped from 81,490 to 35,123.
250
Meanwhile, those who stayed were
predominantly low-income. By 1999, Third Ward median household income had
dropped to under $15,000 in comparison to the Houston average of over $36,000.
251

The area also suffered from one of the highest crimes rates in the city and only a 45%
high school graduation rate.
252
Despite the Third Ward’s deterioration, it was mostly
spared the ravages of disinvestment, displacement, and, eventual gentrification,
previously felt by the Fourth Ward, and remained mostly intact both physically and
culturally.

The Shotgun House
Although a variety of architectural styles can be found throughout the Third Ward dating
back to the nineteenth century, the area is widely recognized for its many “shotgun”
houses.
253
These distinctive buildings are descendants of the homes built throughout
the South by freed slaves, and are part of the city’s African American architectural
legacy.
254
A typical shotgun house is rectilinear in form: one room wide and at least two
rooms deep, lacking in hallways, with a gable ended entrance and a modest porch at
the front and back entrances (see Figure 3.2 and 3.3).
255
The homes were usually built
close together in an urban setting and set a few feet off the ground to escape flooding

249
“Community Background,” Row House CDC.
250
Drexel, “Third ward groups plan revitalization.”
251
“Census 2000: Average Median Incomes in 1999”
252
“Community Health Profiles,” City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services.
253
Wilson, “Third Ward, Steeped in Tradition of Self-reliance and Achievement,” 32.
254
Bless, “Texas: Artists Move in on Project Row House.”
255
Frost, I’ve Got a Home in Glory Land…, 264
102
and take advantage of prevailing winds.
256
Typically, the modest homes are built
from wood balloon framing with wood siding and asphalt or metal roofing material.
257

The majority are vernacular structures with little or no ornamentation, though some
common decorative elements include Victorian spindle work, bargeboards, and
decorative balustrades. Built as inexpensive housing, these buildings feature cheap
building materials and occupy narrow, rectangular lots with little or no front yard. The
term “shotgun” has two suspected origins, one coming from the layout of the house and
the ability to fire a shotgun at the entrance and have the shot exit out the back without
hitting any walls, and the other as a corruption of the Nigerian Yoruba word “togun”
meaning house.
258

Figure 3.2: Birthplace of Elvis Presley in Tupelo, MS, example of typical shotgun house. Photo by
Markuskun.

256
Gilderbloom, Invisible City, 152
257
Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African American History 1619-1895, 94.
258
Frost, I’ve Got a Home in Glory Land, 264.
103

Figure 3.3: Floor plan of a typical shotgun house. Deawing by Susan Murray.
104

The modern shotgun house is thought to have developed from the homes of sugar
growing plantation workers in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and originally brought
from Yoruba tribes in West Africa.
259
An adaptation of homes that slaves left behind, the
design is first seen in New Orleans in the early nineteenth century and disseminated
throughout the south by slaves and free African Americans, corresponding
chronologically with the expanding railroad lines throughout the American South.
260

Despite their prevalence as predominately poor housing today, the shotgun house
added a new element to the American architectural vocabulary in the form of the
“southern porch” now found all over America. “It’s a technology that left behind and
indelible and formative mark on our landscape. It propagated that outward-looking sign
of community over America – the front porch from which people greeted friends and
neighbors ever since.”
261

Rick Lowe and Holman Avenue
Born in rural Alabama in 1961, Rick Lowe was one of twelve children raised by a single
mother on a sharecropping farm. He showed a spark of artistic talent even as a child,
but viewed sports as his salvation from poverty, eventually enrolling in college in
Columbus, GA to pursue a basketball scholarship. He soon abandoned his athletic
dreams and became absorbed in his art classes, eventually leaving college in his junior
year under the encouragement of one of his professors. "He said, `You know, there are
people in the world who are doers and those who talk about doing. You are a doer. You

259
Lorusso, “American Vernacular Architecture: The Shotgun Style in Florida.”
260
Fox, The Shotgun Cottage in Houston,” 33-34.
261
Lienhard, “No. 820: Shotgun Homes and Porches.”
105
should go out in the world and be an artist.' I interpreted that as meaning I wasn't
prepared to do the academic work. I simply wasn't smart enough."
262
Lowe lived briefly
in Biloxi, MS, and eventually moved to Houston in 1985 where he joined forces with
former University of Houston students and started the Commerce Street Art Warehouse
and participated in a variety of shows.
263

In the early 1990’s, as Lowe’s artistic career was at its peak, he was challenged to do
more by a local high school student. "I had a bunch of high school students touring my
studio," Lowe said. "And one of them came up and complimented me on my work. `Your
work is good,' he told me. `But we already know what the issues are. We don't need
someone to tell us the issues. We need solutions to the problems. If you're a creative
artist, why don't you create solutions?'”
264
In summer 1992, Lowe found his catalyst in a
group of long-abandoned shotgun row houses sitting on two blocks of Holman Avenue
(Figure 3.4).
265
He was immediately reminded of John Biggers, an African American
Houston artist and professor at Texas Southern University who frequently used the
powerful Figure of the shotgun house in his works (Figure 3.5).
266

John Biggers became fascinated with these shotgun houses while teaching art at
Texas Southern University in Houston’s Third Ward between 1949 and 1983.
Biggers had been raised in a shotgun house in Gastonia, North Carolina, where
he learned about racialized space at an early age. . . . The porch decorations,
yard art, and medicated shotgun houses of the Houston ghetto inspired John
Biggers to create visual art that passed on their message to a wider world,
traveling to places like elite museums that the inhabitants of these houses rarely

262
Turner, “Changing the lnadscape…,” A31.
263
Ibid.
264
Ibid.
265
Johnson, “All in a Row – Third Ward houses get a face lift,” 1.
266
Loe, “Art and Access…,” 1A.
106
entered. Yet Biggers’s art also came full circle as the inspiration for the
creation of a new generation of shotgun houses.
267

Figure 3.4: Shotgun house at 2400 Holman before restoration. Photo by Project Row Houses.

267
Lipsitz , How Racism Takes Place,155, 158.
107

Figure 3.5: Shotguns, Third Ward #1, 1966. Art by John Biggers.

By the spring of 1993, with the help of fellow artists were James Bettison, Bert Long, Jr.,
Jesse Lott, Floyd Newsum, Bert Samples, George Smith, Dean Ruck and Nestor
Topchy, Rick Lowe established Project Row Houses (PRH) on that site of twenty-two
abandoned shotgun homes. The goal was to connect the work of artists with the
revitalization of the Third Ward community.
268
With the help of seed money from the
Cultural Arts Council of Houston and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the
organization was able to draw further support from other corporations and foundations
as well as local businesses, art groups, and volunteers.
269
Before the end of the year,
PRH had negotiated a lease/purchase agreement for the buildings and added Deborah

268
Lowe, “Founder’s Statement.”
269
“From the Archives…,” National Endowment for the Arts; Silver Medal 1997, 26.
108
Grotfeldt (who had helped Lowe establish PRH as a legal nonprofit) as Managing
Director.
270
Within its first year, PRH had also set up a Board of Directors and was able
to purchase the houses outright with the help of a no interest loan from the Heimbinder
Foundation.
271
Of the original twenty-two houses, seven are used as artist galleries,
rotating every six months, and one reserved for a writer or spoken word artist. Five of
the homes are set aside as housing for the Young Mothers Residential Program
(YMRP) as well as an additional house for their mentor, and another as a day-care
center for their children. Offices, a gift shop, a classroom for an after-school program,
and storage areas occupy the remaining buildings.
272
In just twenty years since its
inception, PRH has grown from its original block and a half of twenty-two row houses to
more than fifty properties on ten blocks.
273

In 2003, PRH established the Row House Community Development Corporation
(RHCDC) as a separate, affiliated nonprofit.
274
Intended to address PRH’s goal to
“create community,” RHCDC focuses on developing low-income rental housing as well
as, “…strengthening, sustaining and celebrating the life of the Third Ward
community.”
275
The organization’s first project was the restoration of the historic El
Dorado Ballroom. In its first ten years, RHCDC has rehabilitated or built thirty-two rental
units with twenty-two units nearing completion as of July 2013.
276

270
Ibid 27.
271
Ibid; Fox, “Atlanta’s Endangered Arts Row…,” K4.
272
Loe, “Art and Access…,” 1A.
273
Lowe, “Founder’s Statement.”
274
“About Project Row Houses,” Project Row Houses.
275
“Our History,” Row House CDC.
276
“Community Background,” Row House CDC.
109

Figure 3.6: Project Row House/Row House CDC project area, Area A see Figure 3.7, Area B see
Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.7: Area A, (1) Shotgun Houses, (2) Project Row Houses Offices/Community Center, (3) Six
Square House, (4) Division Street Duplexes, (5) Francis Street Duplexes, (6) Renovated and rented
single family house, (7) Renovated single family house, (8) El Dorado Ballroom, (9) XS House, (10)
zeROW House, (11) Outhouse, (12) Delia’s Lounge/Row House CDC Offices, (13) Workyard. Map by
Author.

110

Figure 3.8: Anita Street Duplexes (1), site of Napoleon Street Duplexes (2) currently under construction.
Map by Author.
111
FOCUS

The Rev. Robert Earl McGee of Trinity United Methodist Church, which sits opposite the
site, says the organization is, "…like a blood transfusion; it has given life to the
community."
277
PRH has since expanded to fill several vital neighborhood needs.
Today, the organization has three main project areas: Public Art, Young Mother’s
Residential Program (YMRP), and Education Projects. PRH’s core program is its Public
Art program. According to PRH’s website, the program commissions artists to "…
respond to our community, involve our community, and reflect our community. To us,
arts and community are integrally necessary for each other to thrive – art is not viable
without community and community is not viable without art."
278
In addition to PRH, the
RHCDC addresses the needs of the community and built environment by, “…developing
housing for low-to-moderate income residents, public spaces, and facilities to preserve
and protect the historic character of the Third Ward.”
279

Artists and Community Programs
Through their Public Art programming, PRH involves artists in issues of neighborhood
revitalization, historic preservation, community service, and youth education. Twice a
year, ten artists are invited to create installations, for which each receives a $2000

277
Goldberg, “In Houston, Rebuilding by Creating,” 2.26
278
“Public Art at Project Row Houses,” Project Row Houses.
279
“Our History,” Row House CDC.
112
stipend, $500 for materials, and a house to transform.
280
Typically, artists do site
visits a few months before their residencies to make plans, and then return for two
weeks to create the work.
281
Working on-site allows the artists to connect with members
of the community, encouraging both to interact as well as explore and address cultural,
ethnic, and social issues that affect the area. Local high school interns aid the artists
with their installations as well as act as guides for tours that attract a variety of people
from throughout Houston. The artists also volunteer their time by conducting after-
school and weekend workshops for the local underserved youth through the Arts
Education program and children of the YMRP.
282
Since its inception, almost 270 local
and national artists have participated in the residency program.
283

280
Bryant, “Houston’s Master Plan for Public Ar Facilitates Downtown Renewal,” 97.
281
Bless, “Texas: Artists Move in on Project Row House.”
282
Lowe, Interview, 2012.
283
“Project Row Houses dropped in on Houston’s Third Ward – and stayed for 20 years.” Kresge
Foundation.
113

Figure 3.9: Hearth House: A Period Room, 2011. Installation view of “Round 34: Matter of Food” at
Project Row Houses, by Toni Tipton Martin and Luanne Storall. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Young Mother’s Residential Program
PRH had originally intended to only use ten of the houses for its installations, but
realized there was more private and public grant money available for housing than for
art. In addition, income from a housing component could help subsidize the cost of the
community art project.
284
Unfortunately, the organization was denied funding through
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. However it did bring together an
enthusiastic team that helped shape the direction of the organization.
285
It was also the
catalyst that inspired Deborah Grotfeldt with the idea for the YMRP.

284
Tucker, “Reinnovating the African-American Shotgun House,” 67-68.
285
Lowe, Interview, 2012.
114
You know we would try to remember to always ask people, so what would you
like to see happen here on this [site] and what would you like to see happen in this
community? Over an over again people in the neighborhood would tell us there
were so many single mothers struggling so hard to raise children alone. So as a
woman and the mother of a young woman and feeling a lot of empathy-- my mother
was a single parent in the [1950’s] when there weren’t very many women alone
raising children.

So when they said housing, I kind of went-- what about if we begin to investigate
housing for single mothers and making a little community within the Row House
community [within] the greater Third Ward community.
286

The YMRP was established in 1996, based on the idea that healthy communities have
“social safety nets” to support members in need. It is a transition center for single young
mothers age 18-26, providing and educating them with tools so they can empower
themselves and move on in their lives. Candidates for the program must be actively
enrolled in a two or four-year college or university and employed at least part time.
287

They are chosen based on an extensive program application questionnaire, in-depth
interviews, and their family’s interaction.
288
For $75-$250 a month (depending on their
income), the mothers and their children are provided with a wide variety of services,
which according to the program website, includes:
• A fully furnished row house with rent subsidy for one to two years
• A weekly workshop series with topics on budget/finance, parenting, computer
skills, job readiness, healthy relationships, etc.
• A program mentor, consisting of a professional woman who has volunteered to
be available to a mother as a friend and advisor
• Counseling support services, as needed
• A structure whereby participants learn to establish healthy boundaries for the
raising for their children, and community networks to sustain them upon exiting
the program
289

286
“Third Ward, TX.”
287
“Program Description,” Project Row Houses.
288
“Project Row Houses…,” National Trust for Historic Preservation.
289
Ibid.
115
With the help of local bank sponsors, the mothers also set up a savings plan to help
them learn to budget for realistic housing costs upon exiting the program.
290
While
there are only five mothers in the program at any given time, as of 2013, over fifty
mothers have “graduated” from the YMRP. Some of the mothers are still pursuing a
degree; others are “professional artists, college professors, accountants, pharmacists,
interior designers, teachers, bankers, business professionals and lawyers.”
291

Arts Education Program
The mission of PRH’s Arts Education program is to use the creative process to
encourage children to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills. Its After-
School/Summer Art Education Program involves over fifty area children, ages 5-13, and
engages the creative process and arts instruction to help develop academic skills. The
program is taught by Houston artists and teachers, who instruct the children in skills
ranging from music and visual arts to gardening and dance.
292
By the end of 2010, the
program had benefitted over 1,200 children and youth in the Third Ward community.
293

Expanding: Row House Community Development Corporation
While PRH has played a major role in renewing the soul of the Third Ward community, it
has also made a major impact in the economic development of the area, transforming
not only the real estate market, but also bringing in tourism. The imminent threat of
gentrification in recent years has redirected PRH’s focus into the area of community

290
Perez, “Banks offer young mothers help with financial planning,” 6.
291
“Program Description,” Project Row Houses.
292
“Art Education Program,” Project Row Houses.
293
Project Row Houses, Form 990 2011.
116
development. While still holding arts and cultural efforts at the core of its values and
mission, PRH has sought to expand its efforts. In an attempt to ensure that the Third
Ward’s history and culture remain intact, unlike some of the neighboring areas that have
been leveled as a result of renewal and redevelopment, the organization turned its
sights on land acquisition and development.
294

The Row House Community Development Corporation (RHCDC) grew out of PRH in
order to address these concerns. One of PRH’s first major projects through this effort
began with the receipt of the historic El Dorado Ballroom in 1999. (Figure 3.10 and 3.11)
Built in 1939 at Elgin Street and Dowling Street, the building was designed by local
Houston architect Lenard Gabert (known for several Art Deco structures in Houston)
and owned by African American business woman Anna Dupree.
295
Until it closed in the
1970’s, the El Dorado was the local venue of choice for renowned blues and jazz
musicians performing in Houston, and was regularly headlined by well-known musicians
such as Ray Charles, Guitar Slim (Eddie Jones), Etta James, and Big Joe Turner.
296

After four years of renovations, the El Dorado was reopened in May 2013 with a
fundraising gala, called Howling on Dowling, which raised more than $75,000 for its
ongoing renovation.
297
Since then, the venue has hosted numerous community events
and concerts. PRH has also continued to collect oral histories, old photographs, and
other research resources in the effort to compile an archive for the facility. In 2011, the

294
Lowe, Interview, 2012.
295
“Rent the historic El Dorado Ballroom,” Project Row Houses.
296
Wood, “El Dorado Ballroom.”
297
“Rent the historic El Dorado Ballroom,” Project Row Houses.
117
El Dorado was recognized with a Texas Historical Marker.
298
Through the
acquisition of this land, PRH/RHCDC was also able to expand its community
revitalization and arts efforts, and preserve an area that might otherwise become
subject to gentrification.

Figure 3.10: El Dorado Ballroom. Photo by Project Row Houses.

298
Wood, “El Dorado Ballroom.”
118

Figure 3.11: A big band performs at the El Dorado Ballroom in the 1940s. Photo courtesy Project Row
Houses.

In the past ten years, the RHCDC has completed four major projects providing thirty-
four affordable rental units and is nearing completion on an additional twenty-two units
as of July 2013.
299
The organization describes its development strategies as follows:
• Identifying and increasing affordable housing opportunities for low income
residents by expanding the affordable rental housing supply to assist existing and
new residents
• Developing a design that complements and remains relevant with existing
architecture in the community
• Seeking the best density for sustainable low-income housing development in the
community
• Supporting an active Resident’s Council
• Incorporating a Community Building requirement in our lease agreements, so
that each household will annually provide 22 hours of service in the community
• Contributing to sparking economic development by instilling a renewed sense of
pride and cooperation in Third Ward residents; being an active part of the
coalition to reshape the community identity; promoting historic and cultural
preservation.
300

299
“Community Background,” Row House CDC.
300
Ibid.
119

Using a combination of restored historic structures and contextually sensitive new
construction, the RHCDC’s future development plans include mixed-income housing,
green space, public facilities, artists’ living/studio spaces and additional preservation
radiating out from the original shotgun houses. The organization is striving to
strengthen the existing community through its architectural renovations and design that,
“…promotes connecting with neighbors via porches and common open space.”
301
More
than just an affordable housing developer, the RHCDC is helping ensure the Third Ward
remains a vibrant and diverse community, challenging poverty and gentrification.
302

301
“Our Properties,” Row Houses CDC
302
“Community Background,” Row Houses CDC.
120
FUNDING

A truly grassroots effort, PRH and RHCDC’s programing and rehabilitation and
construction projects have been accomplished primarily with volunteer efforts, major in-
kind contributions from corporations and individuals, government funding for the arts,
private foundations grants, rental income, and only recently, direct support from the City
of Houston.

Early Supporters and Volunteers
A $6,000 grant from the Cultural Arts Council of Houston and a $25,000 grant from the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) helped launch and legitimize the fledgling
organization.
303
Despite enthusiastic support for the project, the shotgun houses were
almost demolished by the city before PRH could truly get off the ground.
In 1993, Lowe was about to give up because the houses were going to be
demolished, and he couldn't come up with the money to buy the property.
Serendipitously, his partner, Deborah Grotfeldt, mentioned the problem to Isaac
Heimbinder, president of Houston-based U.S. Home Corp., at a cocktail party.
304

PRH’s first major support came from the Heimbender Family Foundation who provided
a $126,000 no interest loan to purchase the original twenty-two houses and accepted
responsibility for $26,000 in back taxes.
305
Even with that initial generous support,
much of the PRH’s early efforts – repairs and restoration of the shotgun houses – came
from volunteer efforts by individuals, corporations and other nonprofits, and in kind

303
“Silver Medal 1997,” 26.
304
Fox, “Atlanta’s Endangered Arts Row…,” K4.
305
“Silver Medal 1997,” 27.
121
donations, as well as the “House Challenge” sponsors.

Except for plumbing and electrical, volunteers completed all the restoration work. PRH
soon garnered attention and support when it launched the “House Challenge.” Lowe
challenged other Houston arts organizations to "adopt" houses - provide volunteer labor
for construction and $3,500 for materials and a licensed electrician. The Museum of
Fine Arts, the Contemporary Art Museum, Diverse Works and the Menil Collection
accepted the challenge, as did Trinity United Methodist Church, which sits diagonal
from the project site, and some successful Third Ward families.
306
Amoco, offered its
employees nationwide a day off to go to Houston and volunteer, helping the
organization restore the exterior of twelve of the houses.
307
Chevron followed suit.
Home Depot pitched in with materials. The city's museums and nonprofit galleries sent
curators, carpenters and electricians. The sheriff sent nonviolent juvenile offenders to
work off their fines, and Houston residents turned out in force. Heaps of trash and piles
of used needles were cleared away, and all twenty-two of the houses were fully or partly
restored for the art exhibition and studio space, an office, permanent and temporary
housing for artists and the various educational programs.
308
(Figure 3.12 and 3.13)

306
Greenberg, “Project Row Houses….”
307
Amoco was an offshoot of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. In 1998 Amoco merged with BP, and
became the largest producer of both oil and natural gas in the US. BP.com; Johnson, “All in A Row…,” 1.
308
Golderg, “In Houston, Rebuilding by Creating,” 2.26
122
Figure 3.12: Volunteers working on the exterior restoration of the Project Row Houses shotgun houses.
Photo by Project Row Houses.

123

Figure 3.13: Volunteers working on the interior cleanup and restoration of the Project Row Houses
shotgun houses. Photo by Project Row Houses.

Grants
In addition to PRH’s extensive support from volunteers, the organization is primarily
funded through public arts and private grants. The NEA was one of the original funders
and an ongoing supporter of PRH’s work. Established by Congress in 1965, the NEA
acts as an independent agency of the federal government. The organization has
awarded over $4 billion in support of the arts since its inception.
309
PRH has been the
beneficiary of at least seventeen grants totaling over $620,000 in the past twenty
years.
310

309
“About Us,” National Endowment for the Arts.
310
compiled from nea.gov
124
One of PRH’s biggest supporters is the Houston Endowment, which was started
Jesse H. and Mary Gibbs Jones in 1937. Focused on improving the lives of the
residents of greater Houston, the organization donates approximately $75 million each
year to organizations that, “…support and promote arts and culture, education, the
environment, health and human services.”
311
From 1994 to 2013, PRH was the
recipient of ten grants totaling $1,680,000 from the Houston Endowment for its efforts in
public art and educational programs, neighborhood revitalization, historic preservation,
community engagement and African-American history and culture. The Houston
Endowment has also supported RHCDC with a grant of $500,000 in 2004 for the
purchase of property for the organization’s first duplex project. Additional grants of
$50,000 in 2008 and $80,000 in 2011 have also supported RHCDC continued work in
affordable housing.
312

A $100,000 grant from the Meadows Foundation of Dallas, Texas helped kick start the
YMRP in 1995.
313
The Meadows Foundation was started in 1948, with a mission to
“…assist people and institutions of Texas improve the quality and circumstances of life
for themselves and future generations.”
314
Since then, the organization has awarded an
additional $60,000 to PRH in 2000 for the renovation of its administration space, and
$150,000 to RHCDC in 2004 in support of the organizations early efforts in affordable
housing.
315

311
“About Us: Overview,” Houston Endowment
312
compiled from houstonendowment.org
313
Silver Medal 1997,” 27.
314
“About Us,” The Meadows Foundation
315
compiled from mfi.org/
125

A long list of other recognizable public and private organizations have also supported
PRH. In 2004, it was one of twelve organizations nationwide to receive a $150,000
grant from the Ford Foundation to continue their community transformation efforts.
316

The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts awarded three grants totaling $81,000
for PRH’s Artists Programs.
317
A substantial $450,000 grant came from the Kresge
Foundation’s Arts and Culture Program to support PRH’s general operation in 2010.
318

In 2012, Houston Arts Alliance also provided grant money totaling $105,000 through the
Houston HOT (Hotel Occupancy Tax) Fund to support PRH’s general operation and
marketing.
319

In addition to support from the Houston Endowment and Meadows Foundation, RHCDC
is also building a list of supporters. In 2010, Amegy Bank and Federal Home Loan
Bank (FHLB) Dallas donated $191,588 through their Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
grants. Each year, the FHLB uses 10 percent of its profits to fund the AHP grants to
support the development of affordable housing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New
Mexico, and Texas. RHCDC was one of seventy-nine organizations to receive support
in 2010.
320
Bank of America’s Charitable Foundation also granted RHCDC $20,000 in
2011 to for its efforts in addressing the area’s ongoing affordable housing needs.
321

316
“Rent the historic El Dorado Ballroom,” Project Row Houses.
317
"The Andy Warhol foundation for the Visusal Arts 20-Year Report 1987-2007 Grants and Exhibitions."
318
“Grant Highlights: Project Row Houses,” Kresge Foundation.
319
"Creative Energy: Houston Arts Alliance Annual Report 2012," Houston Arts Alliance.
320
“Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas Awards Record-Breaking $18.5M in Affordable Housing Grants,”
Federal Home Loan Bank.
321
“Row House CDC Receives Bank of America Housing Grant,” Project Row Houses.
126
Government Support
PRH spent over two years applying for funding through the city’s Community
Development Block Grants.
322
But despite being touted as the country's best in the Art
in Public Places program by the National Endowment for the Art, it was eventually
denied.
323
It took until 2006 before the organization received any substantial funding
from the city, when the City Council approved a $975,000 "zero interest performance-
based loan," that helped fund the Francis Street/Hanna duplexes.
324
The RHCDC was
also able to take advantage of Tax Increment Redevelopment Zone (TIRZ) funding for
the Anita and Napoleon Street Duplexes.
325

Other Support
Besides the more traditional backing of volunteers, grants and government, PRH has
received support from a variety of other sources as well. In addition to volunteers from
Amoco and supplies from Home Depot, PRH received substantial corporate
sponsorship when they partnered with Masco and US Homes for the renovation of the
houses for the YMRP (see additional details in Partnerships & Projects section). Rick
Lowe also made a substantial donation in 2002 when he was awarded $100,000 from
the Heinz Award in Arts & Humanities.
‘I'm getting the award because of my involvement with Project Row Houses, so I
don't feel it's my money. I'm donating it back to the project. Most of it, $100,000,
will go toward the restoration of Eldorado, in hopes that it will challenge the
African-American community to contribute to the effort,’ Lowe said. The balance
of $25,000 is designated for the Project Row Houses Foundation, to provide

322
Johnson, “All in a Row – Third Ward houses get a face lift,” 1.
323
Robinson, “3 arts groups rebuffed by city over funding," A1.
324
"A bigger canvas…,” Houston Chronicle.
325
Ibid.
127
‘small stipends to people who are doing community-based work for nothing,’
he said.
326

Some of the more recent duplex projects built by RHCDC have also utilized loans
through more traditional lenders like Whitney Bank, Fannie Mae, the City of Houston,
the Rice Building Workshop, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas.
327
Fannie
Mae, as part of a master participation agreement with Whitney Bank, provided $112,500
of a $225,000 loan on the project through its American Communities Fund, a program
started in 1996 to “…provide loans and equity to for-sale and rental housing
developments to increase the supply of affordable housing and to revitalize
communities.”
328
Even though the rents are subsidized and charged at low-income or
affordable rates, PRH and RHCDC are also able to partially fund the programs through
the rental income collected for the many properties.

326
Johnson, “Project Row Houses founding director wins Heinz Award,” 1.
327
Bobb, “Housing project targets families for Third Ward…,” 01.
328
Ibid; “Fannie Mae's American Communities Fund Supports Intermediaries,” Cascade.
128
PARTNERSHIPS & PROJECTS

Twenty-Two Shotgun Houses
In the initial plan for PRH, each of the selected artists would create an installation in one
of the houses. However, the houses were in such disrepair, it became evident that they
would need to be extensive repairs before any artistic work could begin. This minor
roadblock was a major influence on the current revitalization mission of the
organization.

There were originally thirty houses arranged in two parallel rows that made up Frank
Cash Row, located in the 2400 and 2500 blocks of Holman Avenue and Division
Avenue. They were built as rental property in 1939 by Frank and Katie Trombatore,
who owned and operated the two-story grocery store that sits on the same block and
now serves as PRH offices and a community center.
329
The buildings mostly conform to
the typical shotgun house archetype: front-facing, gabled buildings, five rooms long, of
simple wood-framed construction on raised stone piers. However, they differ from the
pure shotgun prototype of single linear rooms, by being one and a half rooms wide.
330

As a single structure, any one of these buildings would have easily been lost in the
landscape of the deteriorated Third Ward. However, their organization – compact and

329
Fox, “The Shotgun Cottage in Houston,” 37; Tucker, “Reinnovating the African-American Shotgun
House,” 65.
330
Fox, “The Shotgun Cottage in Houston,” 37.
129
repetitively built, four to a lot with two facing the street and two facing the alley
forming a shared backyard space – creates a powerful impact both spatially and
socially.
331

The repetition of house fronts along the block faces speaks to what is so compelling
about the organization of this house type in rows: the capacity of a house so narrow
that alone it would be spatially insignificant to form a collective that shapes space
urbanistically. It is the strong form of the shotgun cottage that endows these small
houses with the presence and dignity that are essential attributes of urban
architecture.
332

The houses in the project are a hybrid of a cottage and the shotgun style. They vary
only slightly, ranging from 16 to 18 feet wide and 34 feet deep at their greatest
dimensions. The original interior walls of wood shiplap were covered with plasterboard,
and the decaying ceilings were removed to expose the beams and add volume to the
tight quarters. For the homes renovated for the YMRP, architect Sheryl Tucker
reworked the interiors, providing a living area, kitchen, two bedrooms, and a bath for
each unit. The interiors were then renovated by volunteer designers and carpenters
with the help of many donations of materials and furniture.
333
The artists’ houses are in
varying states of repair within: some have exposed, old wood walls and floors, others
are drywalled and have painted floors, and only one retains the original floor plan with it
interior walls.
334
All the houses’ exteriors were restored in accordance to the Texas
Historical Commission guidelines.
335

331
Ibid.
332
Ibid.
333
Buehl, “Row House Revival,” 10-11.
334
Bless, “Texas: Artists Move in on Project Row House.”
335
Tucker, “Reinnovating the African-American Shotgun House,” 68.
130
The houses’ placement helps establish the concept of community. The houses sit in
two rows, with their front porches facing parallel streets. To the rear, however, back
porches face a common courtyard, enhancing the spirit of the community. The hope is
that he site planning will encourage interaction between the residents, community, and
artists.
336

A step ahead of the wrecking crews, Lowe, co-founder Deborah Gotfeldt, and a wide
circle of supporters have not only preserved the houses, but also begun rebuilding
the sense of community. The have mixed the arts, affordable housing, historic
preservation, and community education into a surprisingly effective antidote to urban
ills.
337

With a shoestring budget of about $35,000, the initial renovations of the first twelve
houses was mostly a labor of love for Lowe and a hundreds of volunteers. Lowe and
other artists and volunteers spent the first months cleaning up the site and installing the
“Drive By” exhibit, painting pieces on the exteriors of the houses while the restoration
efforts were still in progress. “We called it ‘The Drive-by,’ as in…drive-by. ‘Drive-by’
was a very effective term then….It was a twenty-four hour a day exhibition. The
important fact is it was stopped from being nothing and converted into something.”
338

(Figure 3.14 and 3.15)

336
Buehl, “Row House Revival,” 8.
337
Bless, “Texas: Artists Move in on Project Row House.”
338
“Third Ward, TX.”
131

Figure 3.14: Art is installed at the exterior or the shotgun houses as part of the “Drive By” exhibition.
Photo by Project Row Houses.

132

Figure 3.15: Project Row Houses galleries after restoration. Photo by Author.

Rehabilitating the houses for the YMRP took more effort than making them suitable for
galleries. The houses would need to be livable, with kitchens, bathrooms and
bedrooms, as well as furnishings. Luckily, by the time PRH had completed the
galleries, they had developed a reputation for success and credibility that helped attract
corporate sponsors. Lowe credits Sheila Heimbinder and her connection with Masco
Corp. for taking the lead in the YMRP.
339

…the US Homes Corporation, a major home building firm, partnered with Masco
Home Furnishings to renovate them for the residency program for single mothers.
Every year at the Astrodome they hold the National Home Builders show.

339
Gaines, “It's True Artistry In Houston….”
133
Something like 5,000 home builders are here for the week or so. For that show,
US Homes usually builds a $200,000-$300,000 house in one of the suburbs. Masco
Home Furnishings provides all the furniture, and Women’s Day magazine features
the house in the magazine. Well, this year, we managed to convince the president
of US Homes to do a different twist to the home show. (It didn’t take too much
convincing. He was really excited about it.) Instead of doing houses in the middle-
class suburbia, he decided to help us with the renovation and furnishings of the
houses here. These would be their model homes. Along with Women’s Day
magazine they selected five different interior designers, and invited them to design
the interior of the houses. (There are six of them, because Chevron completed one
of those houses.) Each house looks like a little suburban town home. Its pretty
funny, actually.
340

The collaboration could not have been more fortuitous. Masco had been looking for an
outlet to showcase its products for the National Association of Home Builders show.
Woman's Day Special Publications was already in talks with Masco about teaming up
for the show. PRH helped fill the gap. The project gave U.S. Home and Masco an
opportunity to promote their products, Woman's Day would get compelling material for
its magazine, and the community and young mothers would benefit in the process.
"We were impressed with Rick and the people who were involved," Samuel Cypert, a
Masco spokesperson said. "This is a model that can be duplicated in any city where you
have somebody who is committed and people who are involved and willing to reach out.
They're doing it themselves. They're creating opportunities for people."
341

The rehabilitation of the original twenty-two derelict shotgun houses into a vibrant space
for the community, both art and local, has attracted nationwide attention and
recognition. The project has earned numerous awards including 1997 National
Preservation Honor Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the

340
Finklepearl , Dialogues in Public Art, 252.
341
Gaines, “It's True Artistry In Houston….”
134
Keystone Award from the American Institute of Architects, and the Rudy Bruner
Silver Medal Award for Excellence in the Urban Environment in 1997.
342

Duplexes
The collaboration between PRH and the Rice University Building Workshop (RBW)
started in 1996 when Rice University School of Architecture professors Danny Samuels
and Nonya Grenader met with Rick Lowe to discuss their new real life design/build
studio.
343
Just one year later, a successful design that melded with the local vernacular
was chosen. The design would eventually come to be known as the “Six-Square House”
and the basis for all subsequent built projects at PRH. (Figure 3.16 – 3.18) This 900
square foot two-story home echoes the surrounding context with simple clapboard
siding, raised pier and beam foundation, porches on the front and back, and a metal
roof.
344
What makes the house unique is its highly adaptable modular design. Based
on a six square unit module (hence the name), the building could be partially built off
site, and then assembled in its final location.
345
This design was used as the inspiration
for the next major project: collaboration between the RBW and the new RHCDC to
produce new low-income housing in the Third Ward.

342
“Project Row Houses…,” National Trust for Historic Preservation; “Silver Medal 1997,” 27.
343
Day, “Revitalizing Lives: Architecture and the Third Ward,” 26.
344
Ibid, 27.
345
Ibid.
135

Figure 3.16: Six Square House diagrams. Drawings by Rice Building Workshop.
136

Figure 3.17 & 3.18: Six Square House exterior and interior. Photos by Rice Building Workshop.

After the completion of the Six-Square house, RBW and PRH collaborated again, along
with the newly created RHCDC, to investigate solutions to developing low-income rental
housing. Responding to requests from several graduates of the YMRP who wanted to
continue living in the Third Ward community but were having a hard time finding
affordable housing, the RHCDC began to develop a project on a site directly behind the
original shotgun houses at 2400 Division Street.
346
"We wanted to make sure that what
we did was low density because that's the scale and nature of this neighborhood," said
Antoine Bryant, project manager of the Row House CDC. "The Rice Building Workshop

346
“Division Street,” Row House CDC.
137
adapted the design for this project and came up with a contemporary take on the
African-American shotgun architecture so they could honor the history and legacy of this
community."
347

This low-density development consists of four, two-story duplexes for a total of eight
670-square-foot two bedrooms one-bath units.
348
Taking its design cues from the Six
Square House and adjacent shotgun houses, the buildings were also built on a raised
platform, clad in simple clapboard siding, feature a generous front porch, wood floors,
large windows, and energy-efficient features, all organized under a generous
overhanging metal roof. Construction was completed in 2004, and some of the first
residents of the new duplexes included graduates of YMRP, who were able move into
an apartment and pay $425 a month.
349
(Figure 3.19 - 3.21)

Figure 3.19: Division Street duplexes elevation. Drawing by Rice Building Workshop.

347
Bobb, “Housing project targets families for Third Ward…,” 01.
348
“Division Street,” Row House CDC.
349
Bobb, “Housing project targets families for Third Ward…,” 01.
138

Figure 3.20: Division Street duplexes. Photo by author.
139

Figure 3.21: Division Street duplex floor plan. Drawing by Rice Building Workshop.

That initial project of four duplexes, built by a local Third Ward contractor, was so
successful that PRH and RHCDC then acquired a site behind the first project at 2400
Francis Avenue with funding from the Houston Endowment.
350
The new project was
used the same design template as the original duplexes, but double the quantity with
eight buildings housing sixteen two and three bedroom units.
351
The Francis
Street/Hanna duplex project was completed in 2008 with HUD funding through City of
Houston HOME Funds, and participation by many institutional supporters.
352

350
“Francis Street (Hannah),” Row House CDC.
351
Bobb, “Housing project targets families for Third Ward…,” 01.
352
Ibid.
140
With two major projects under its belt, RHCDC teamed with Houston’s Midtown
Redevelopment Authority (MRA), to purchase vacant properties utilizing its Tax
Increment Redevelopment Zone (TIRZ) funding.
353
The first phase of the project was
located at 3400 Anita Street, one mile east of the PRH site, near the main campus of
the University of Houston and the future Metro southeast line. (Figure 3.22) Completed
in 2010, the Anita Duplexes added four duplexes (eight two-bedroom units) of
affordable housing to the area. The units are slightly larger, 730- square feet, than the
previous duplexes, and also incorporated a rear porch and rent for $575 a month.
354,355

The second phase, located one block North of the Anita Street project at 3400
Napoleon Street is nearly complete (Summer 2013).
356
The larger of the two projects,
Napoleon Street will add fifteen duplexes (thirty units) to the area. The units are also
slightly larger at 730 square feet for a two bedroom and 900 square feet for a three
bedroom, also adding a rear porch to the design.
357
The Anita and Napoleon duplexes
are the third and forth iterations of the original RBW design. However, revisions and
improvements have fostered an increased commitment to sustainability, durable
construction, and universal accessibility. The newer units are Energy-Star certified, and
incorporate highly efficient air conditioning, insulation, windows, light fixtures, and
additional features seldom seen in affordable housing.
358

353
Ibid.
354
“Anita Street,” Row House CDC.
355
“Our Properties,” Row House CDC.
356
“Napoleon Street,” Row House CDC.
357
Ibid.
358
“Duplexes,” Row House CDC.
141
“People interested in housing and social services have a narrow focus. From a
developer’s standpoint, the houses we’ve built are not cost-effective. But to me, they’re
not just housing. They tell a story about a community.” (Rick Lowe)
359

Figure 3.22: Anita Street duplexes. Photo by Row House Community Development Corp.

359
Kimmelman, “In Houston, Art is Where the Home is,” 2.1
142
Chapter 4: Analysis

Foundation
The three case studies illustrate the impact a strong foundation has on an organization’s
success in fulfilling its mission. In this case, the Providence Revolving Fund (PRF),
Heritage Housing Partners (HHP), and Row House CDC’s (RHCDC) background history
had two consistent themes present in the analysis: the area experienced a period of
growth followed by economic decline and/or abandonment and the threat of destruction,
catalyzing the founding organization as a seminal force in promoting the ethic of
preservation in the community.

Decline
Providence is one of the oldest cities in the United States, dating back to the early
seventeenth century. The city experienced over 300 years of continued growth as a
leader in manufacturing and shipping. Providence’s decline was caused by the shift of
manufacturing away from the northeast, which lead to widespread abandonment of the
city and its core neighborhoods by the wealthy as well as the working middle class,
initiating a dramatic loss of population.

Pasadena experienced a similar pattern of expansion and decline, albeit in a shorter
time frame. The city’s growth over its first sixty years was spurred primarily by tourism.
World War II and its impact on expansion of Southern California’s manufacturing base
brought on a population explosion. As Pasadena grew to its geographic limits, several
143
large companies left due to lack of expansion space, and the city’s commercial and
shopping districted shifted east, abandoning its original business district on Colorado
Boulevard. As the city declined and business left, wealthy and middle class residents
followed.

Houston’s population and geography has continuously increased since it’s founding,
however it also experienced deterioration and abandonment of portions of the city.
Where Providence and Pasadena’s decline was caused primarily by economics and a
loss of business, Houston’s was largely social. Instead of the population being
compelled to leave due to loss of work, the residents of the predominantly African
American Third and Fourth Wards left because the end of segregation in the 1960s
afforded them the opportunity to live in neighborhoods that had previously been
restricted.

Promoting Preservation
Although it’s the smallest of the three cities at 20.5 square miles, with over 300 years of
consistent growth, Providence had built up a high concentration of historic buildings
including fourteen National Historic Landmarks, 159 buildings on the National Register,
and eight local historic districts containing over 2,500 properties.
360
It was the loss of
over a hundred historic homes and threat of further demolition by Brown University in
the 1950’s that brought together the group that formed the Providence Preservation
Society (PPS). The organization and its members were instrumental in saving the

360
“Planning + Development,” City of Province.
144
historic College Hill neighborhood from further demolition by promoting preservation
as a tool for economic revitalization. They were also responsible for shaping early
preservation policy, advocacy, and educational programs that have been modeled by
other cities and organizations.

At 22.5 square miles and less than half the age of Providence, Pasadena has five
National Historic Landmarks, 123 buildings listed on the National Register, thirty-one
historic districts, and over 130 local landmarks. At its heart is the impressive beaux-arts
civic center. Unfortunately, in an effort to entice new business and patrons, the city
approved construction of a large enclosed shopping mall that interrupted the axis and
flow of the civic center and discouraged pedestrian activity in the surrounding streets.
Despite strong objections from many residents, the mall was completed in 1980.
However, it also brought together the initial leaders in the city’s preservation movement
and the founders of Pasadena Heritage (PH). Since then, the organization has become
the second largest preservation nonprofit in California, responsible for numerous
landmark listings and nominations to the National Register, as well as strengthening
preservation ordinances.

At an expansive 627 square miles, Houston’s four National Landmarks, forty-three
listings on the National Register, and 350 locally designated properties are far less
dense than Providence and Pasadena.
361
The city’s preservation movement is also far
newer than either other city. But, despite the history of official ordinances, there is no

361
“Historic Landmarks and Protected Landmarks,” City of Houston.
145
lack of community and cultural pride in the area, especially the Third Ward. Much of
the modest historic housing stock, as well as cultural institutions, of the Fourth Ward
had already been demolished by the time Rick Lowe was challenged to affect social
change and discovered the abandoned and endangered twenty-two shotgun houses.
Project Row Houses (PRH) may have started out as an art installation, but grew into a
program that promoted preservation of the built and social environment of the
neighborhood. It also helped transform the perception of the shotgun house from an
Figure of decay to a source of cultural and neighborhood pride.

By responding to their community’s decline and resulting preservation emergencies,
PPS, PH, and PRH not only stimulated a revitalization of their cities’ built environment,
but also the economic and social health of the area. The organizations’ subsequent
track record of leadership and successful projects earned institutional and governmental
respect and set the stage for the collaborative development-based nonprofits they
founded.

Focus
Another consistent characteristic between PRF, HHP, and PRH/RHCDC is their specific
focus in both their mission as well as geographic area. All have grown and adapted to
the serve the changing needs of the communities and residents as well as respond to
the economy and real estate market.

146
When PRF was started, the PPS had already successfully revitalized the College
Hill neighborhood and recognized the need for an organization dedicated specifically to
historic real estate development in Providence. As College Hill became the city’s
“crown jewel,” property values naturally escalated and many residents found
themselves priced out of certain neighborhoods. The PRF initially focused on
purchasing and reselling properties or making loans to current owners for restoration
depending on the market flux. As the PRF’s capacity grew they expanded and started
working in adjacent historic neighborhoods. In order to create a vibrant neighborhood,
the PRF didn’t limit its services to residential properties, but also made funding available
for commercial spaces in an effort to revitalize business investment in the area as well.

The City of Pasadena had already seen a dramatic revitalization of its original
commercial district, as well as landmarks and historic properties; by the time PH started
HHP. In an attempt to address the need for community revitalization in historic lower
income neighborhoods and the rising cost of housing in the city, its first projects
included small grants for home repairs and historic single-family rehabs. As property
values soared, HHP changed their business model from one-off projects to multi-family
developments. As its accolades grew, HHP has been able to expand its work outside
Pasadena to similar cities in southern California where the quality of life is high, as is
the demand for reasonably priced housing.

Rather than one city or one neighborhood at a time, PRH and more recently RHCDC
have worked one block at a time to revitalize the poverty-stricken Third Ward.
147
Combining art, preservation, education and affordable housing (first for young single
mothers and eventually for low income families) has helped rebuild a disenfranchised
community. The first duplex project was initiated in direct response to requests from
graduates of the Young Mothers Residential Program who wished to stay in the Third
Ward community but lacked options for safe affordable housing. PRH and RHCDC
along with a wide variety of partners have transformed the negative Figure of the
shotgun house and the Third Ward community. They have helped save these modest
historic buildings and expanded to provide contextual infill housing, and in doing so,
have garnered widespread support for its place-based model of community
revitalization.

Whether via modest shotgun houses or large multi-family rehabilitations, PRF, HHP and
RHCDC’s specific focus on preservation and affordable housing have facilitated the
revitalization of their communities. The organizations have built a growing portfolio of
outstanding completed projects by exercising steady expansion and adaptation to the
market and the needs of the people they serve. This smart growth has been key to
building a level of trust with their communities, partners, and clients and will continue to
bolster the organizations in their future work.

148
Funding
Diversification – the practice of spreading out money into a variety of investments to
limit risk - is a commonly recommended strategy in asset management.
362
The same
concept holds true for the funding sources for PRF, HHP and PRH/RHCDC. Instead of
relying on any one source, each of these organizations has tapped a variety of sources
of support to perpetuate their mission.

PRF was started with the support of the city, which promised the initial CDBG money
and a grant from the Rhode Island Foundation to perpetuate their revolving fund. They
also engaged in their own fundraising activities including providing fee-based consulting
services to other developers and institutions. Although not wholly self-sustaining, this
model at least guaranteed some return of capital through repayment and interest
collected. As its endeavors expanded, PRF pursued additional public funding sources
such as HOME and NSP funds through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as well as a variety of National Park Service and local Providence-based
programs. It pooled money from private businesses and other nonprofits, as well as
low-interest loans through a variety of supporting financial institutions, and worked to
maximize affordable housing and rehabilitation tax credits whenever available. PRF’s
biggest gain in assets came when it took management of Downcity Fund, a $6.5 million
revolving fund that has had an enormous impact on the organization’s ability to leverage
additional support from other entities.

362
“Beginners’ Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing,” Securities and Exchange
Commission.
149
Although HHP used a similar revolving fund approach when it was started, the
organization quickly found the need for a more creative approach to financing its
projects. The organization’s initial money came from PH’s own fund combined with a
line of credit from the NTHP. With that seed money in place, funding was added from
the City of Pasadena and nonprofit organizations, as well as rental income from
purchased properties and construction loans. However, when the model became
unsustainable due to the rise in acquisition costs, HHP got a little more creative. Aside
from combining affordable housing funds and rehabilitation tax credits, the
organization’s use of New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) helped fill the financial gap as
well as tap a funding source thought unusable to affordable for-sale housing
developments. This creative approach to financing projects has brought HHP national
attention and respect in the preservation and development field.

PRH’s seed money was provided by the National Endowment for the Arts and Cultural
Arts Council of Houston. While they were initially started as an arts organization, the
rehab of houses for young mothers was the organization’s first attempt at diversifying its
financial backing by tapping public funds for affordable housing. Unfortunately the city
turned it down. However, with education, arts, and affordable housing as components
of its mission, PRH was able to qualify for a wider base of public and private grants than
either PRF or HHP. Never underestimating the capabilities of a grass-roots effort, the
organization also built a strong community and corporate volunteer base to accomplish
much of its early work. It took almost twenty years before PRF/RHCDC received direct
150
public support from the City of Houston, but as its projects have grown, so has the
city’s trust in the organization’s ability to provide much needed affordable housing.

Projects and Partnerships
Each of these organizations has developed a relationship with other nonprofits,
neighborhood groups, corporations and public entities to form partnerships to work
together to achieve their missions and develop track records of successful projects that
further their reputation as a thriving nonprofit and helps them perpetuate their missions.

PRF has developed or financed over 500 units of affordable housing since 1982.
363
It
has provided grants to numerous residential and commercial building owners to
continue the economic revitalization of historic Providence neighborhoods. It has
teamed with numerous developers, nonprofits, institutions, and the city to rehab and
restore a wide variety of building projects. The Monohasset Mill project was one of
many examples of pooling resources to save a building and fill a housing need in the
community. This project set the precedent for mill conversions and helped establish
legislation to support similar projects in the future.

In the 15 years since it was founded, HHP has developed 121 total units of housing,
111 of which were designated as affordable.
364
It has also developed a reputation for
cultivating partnerships and finding inventive funding sources. The Fair Oaks Court

363
Clark Schoettle, email message to author, June 27, 2013.
364
Loveman, interview, 2013.
151
Project garnered the organization national attention. Not only was HHP able to get
two cities to work together and agree to pool their money for mutual benefit in funding
two separate projects, but it also found this partnership afforded access to a new
funding source in New Market Tax Credits. This pioneering use of a relatively new
funding source developed a model other organizations could follow to develop
affordable historic projects.

PRH has been responsible for the twenty-two initial rehabilitated row houses that
included six units of housing for its Young Mothers Residential Program. In
collaboration with the RHCDC, the organizations have developed an additional fifty-six
affordable housing units since 2003, including numerous duplex projects. In partnership
with the Rice University Building workshop, they have built contextually sensitive new
units based on the design aesthetic of the shotgun house. Their place-based grass
roots model has also inspired other communities to preserve and revitalize their modest
historical vernacular environment as well.
152
Conclusion
It challenges the land-use philosophy that privileges profits over people. . . .[it]
finds value in devalued spaces, and offers alternatives to possessive
individualism and competitive consumer citizenship. Yet the project also builds
upon tradition, tapping into a long local history of vernacular art making and
collective community building.
365

Providence Revolving Fund, Heritage Housing Partners, and Project Row Houses/Row
House CDC have had a significant effect on the communities they serve by restoring
buildings that would have otherwise been demolished, providing much needed
affordable housing, and helping rebuild a sense of community. Unfortunately the
services and homes provided by these organizations are only a drop in the bucket
compared to the growing needs of their communities. Nonetheless, an examination of
their common characteristics and practices reveal a pattern of similarities as well as
innovations that can be emulated by other organizations.

Foremost, none of these projects would have been possible without a variety of funding
sources. One of reasons PRF, HHP, and PRH/RHCDC have thrived is due to their
successful and creative fundraising. PRF straddles the developer and lending role to
limit the impact of the volatile real estate market on its work and has built such a strong
reputation with its community and supporters that it was handed the reins for a multi-
million dollar revolving fund. HHP pioneered the use of NMTC for use in affordable for-
sale housing – opening a whole new funding source for the field. PRH/RHCDC
combined art, preservation, and affordable housing grants to breathe life into a

365
Lipsitz, How Racism Takes Place, 164.
153
struggling community. These organizations’ demonstrated creativity and multi-
faceted fundraising are excellent examples for others, whether nonprofit, for-profit, or
public entities.

Each of the organizations has been an important and respected player in the
revitalization of its community. Providence, Pasadena, and the Third Ward
neighborhood of Houston, all experienced a period of growth followed by economic
decline that threatened the built and social fabric of those areas. This is not an
uncommon problem - many cities and neighborhoods are currently experiencing marked
decline. Rick Lowe, Charles Loveman, and Clark Schoettle spoke of numerous
occasions where they were contacted to act as consultants for other organizations or
cities throughout the country.
366
Though this thesis did not explore the results of their
work outside of their respective cities, that would be the first step in evaluating the true
success of these organizations’ models. Can other organizations successfully emulate
the work of PRF, HHP, or PRH/RHCDC? Can it be used as a model for cities like
Detroit or New Orleans who are currently struggling with steep economic decline and
disenfranchisement? Can some of these problems be addressed sooner, mitigated, or
avoided in the future? Hopefully, the model programs and projects these organizations
have created will serve as a framework for others in addressing the need for affordable
housing, the preservation of our built environment and cultural histories, and a ongoing
community revitalization.

366
Lowe, Interview, 2012; Loveman, Interview, 2013; Schoettle, Interview, 2012.
154
Bibliography

1772 Foundation. “About Us.” 1772foundation.org. Accessed August 30, 2013.
http://www.1772foundation.org/about-us/

"A bigger canvas: Project Row Houses receives almost $1 million to continue its
visionary mission" Houston Chronicle, December 20, 2006.

“Affordable Homes in Los Angeles County Being Developed Using New Market
Tax Credit.” Tax Credit Advisor, June 2007: 1, 19-20, 28.

Anderson, Tim. “Parsons House Revisited: The classic California bungalow that
was rescued.” TimAndersonArchitect.com. Accessed January 10, 2013.
http://www.timandersenarchitect.com/Parsons-House-Revisited.html

Air Quality Management District. “The Southland’s War on Smog: Fifty Years of
Progress Toward Clean Air.” AQMD.org. January 10, 2013.
http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Archives/History/marchcov.html

Avery, Sue. “Hotel Vote Comes as Rare Setback for Pasadena Heritage.” Los
Angeles Times, May 24, 1987: 1.

Avery, Sue. “Neutra-Built Home 1st to Be Preserved as Pasadena `Treasure.'”
Los Angeles Times, April 26, 1987: 1.

Birkinshaw, Jack. “Pasadena Planners Complete 4-Year Study of Center City.”
Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1969: SG-B1.

Barfield, Deborah. “Affordable-Housing Program Launched,” Providence
Journal, March 21, 1991.

Barret, Chris. “5 communities share historic-preservation grants.” Providence
Business Journal, March 11, 2011. Accessed October 11, 2012.
http://www.pbn.com/5-communities-share-historic-preservation-
grants,56177?content_source=archive&search_filter=providence+revolvin
g+fund&search_filter_mode=and&search_range_option=entire_site&sub_t
ype=stories,packages.

Bless, Nancy. “Texas: Artists Move in on Project Row House.” Artlink, Winter
2000.

Bobb, Maurice. “Housing project targets families for Third Ward - Row House
part of group's plan to preserve area.” Houston Chronicle, October 29,
2004: 01.

155
Bryant, Rebecca. “Houston’s Master Plan for Public Art Facilitates Downtown
Renewal.” Cities and the Arts: A Handbook for Renewal, edited by Roger
L. Kemp, 95-99. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company Publishing, 2004.

Buehl, Olivia Bell. “Row House Revival.” Home Remodeling, January 1996: 2-
12.

California Institute of Technology. “History & Milestones.” Caltech.edu. January 4,
2013.
http://www.caltech.edu/content/history-milestones

California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231, No.
S194861 (Dec. 29, 2011).

“CDFI Announces First Use of New Market Tax Credits to Create Affordable
For-Sale Housing.” NMTC Monthly Report, June 2006: 1-2, 7.

“Census 2000: Average Median Incomes in 1999.” Houstontx.gov. Accessed
July 24, 2013.
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/demograph_docs/incom
e_avgs.htm

Ceraso, Karen. “Eyesore to Community Asset: Historic preservation creates
affordable housing and livable neighborhoods” Shelterforce Online.
July/August 1999. http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/106/ceraso.html

Chapman, Betty Trapp. “A System of Government Where Business Ruled.”
Houston History, Fall 2010: 31-35.

Charles Loveman, (Executive Director, Heritage Housing Partners), interview by
April G.S. Rabanera, April 26, 2011.

Charles Loveman, (Executive Director, Heritage Housing Partners), interview by
April G.S. Rabanera, June 18, 2013.

Christopher, Moira. “Pioneering Deal Uses NMTCs for Housing-Only Project.”
Affordable Housing Finance. Housingfinance.com. March 1, 2007.
http://www.housingfinance.com/community-projects/pioneering-deal-uses-
nmtcs-for-housing-onlyproject.aspx

City of Los Angeles. “Who is involved in building affordable housing?” lahd.lacity.org.
Accessed September 5, 2013.
http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Portals/0/Policy/curriculum/gettingfacts/building/
whobuilds.html

156
City of Houston, Texas. “Historic Landmarks and Protected Landmarks.”
Houstontx.org. Accessed September 1, 2013.
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/landmarks.html

City of Pasadena, California. “Designated Historic Properties – City of Pasadena.”
Ci.Pasadena.ca.us. Accessed June 1, 2013.
http://cityofpasadena.net/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6442462
538&libID=6442462506

City of Pasadena, California. “Pasadena Becomes a City: 1886-1920.”
Ci.Pasadena.ca.us. Accessed January 4, 2013.
http://ci.pasadena.ca.us/History_1886-1920.aspx

City of Pasadena, California. “Pasadena Becomes a City: 1930-1950.”
Ci.Pasadena.ca.us. Accessed January 4, 2013.
http://ci.pasadena.ca.us/history_1930-1950.aspx

City of Providence, Rhode Island. “Neighborhood Services: College Hill.”
Providenceri.com. Accessed July 9, 2012.
http://www.providenceri.com/ONS/neighborhoods/college-hill.

City of Providence, Rhode Island. “Planning + Development.”
Providenceri.com. Accessed August 31, 2013.
http://www.providenceri.com/planning

City of Pasadena General Plan: 2008 – 2014 Housing Element.” Adopted July
26, 2010.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemI
D=644 2464411&libID=6442464379.

Clark Schoettle (Executive Director, Providence Revolving Fund), interview by
April G.S. Rabanera, June 1, 2012.

Clearinghouse CDFI. “2008 Annual Report.” July 6, 2013.
http://www.clearinghousecdfi.com/pdf/reports/2008annualreport.pdf.

“Community Health Profiles: 1999-2003.” City of Houston Department of Health
and Human Services, Office of Surveillance and Public Health
Preparedness.” Accessed July 24, 2013.
http://www.houstontx.gov/health/chs/Greater%20Third%20Ward.pdf

Davis, Karen A. “Artists save mill, preserving a bit of city's history.” Providence
Journal, June 29, 2001, C.01

157
Davis, Karen A. “'Common sense' earns award for preservation fund director *B.
Clarkson Schoettle, the executive director of the Providence Preservation
Society Revolving Fund, was recently honored by a state commission.”
Providence Journal, May 7, 1996: D-06.

Davis, Karen. “Five housing agencies get $18,000 RIHMFC grants *The grants
were awarded to help the nonprofit agencies cope with planned cuts in
federal funds.” Providence Journal, January 30, 1996.

Day, Linda. “Revitalizing Lives: Architecture and the Third Ward.” Rice
Magazine, April 2001: 26-29.

Delvac, Willam F., Susan M. Escherich, and Bridget Hartman. Affordable
Housing Through Historic Preservation: A Case Study Guide to Combining
the Tax Credits. Darby, PA: Diana Publishing Co., 1995.

Dheere, Jessica. “Artist Rick Lower preserves humanity in Houston.”
Architectural Record, February 2000: 218.

Dolan, Maura. “State Supreme Court upholds abolition of redevelopment
agencies.” Los Angeles Times. LATimes.com, December 29, 2011.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/california-supreme-court-r
edevelopment-agency-ruling.html

Drexel, Joanna. “Third ward groups plan revitalization.” Thedailycougar.com.
Accessed July 31, 2013.
http://archive.thedailycougar.com/vol61/107/1b.html

Dumbrow, Gail Lee and Jennifer B. Goodman. Restoring Women’s History
through Historic Preservation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2003.

Dunn, Ashley. “Boom May Turn Old Pasadena into ‘Westwood East.’” Los
Angeles Times, May 28, 1987: 1.

Eastman, Janet. "On the Town; at Home with Form and Function; Pasadena
Heritage Event Will Spotlight Distinctive, Arts and Crafts-Style
Residences." Los Angeles Times, Oct 10, 2002: F14

Enochs, Liz. “Low Cost Homes in Pricey Pasadena” Affordable Housing
Finance, August 2008. Accessed July 6, 2013.
http://www.housingfinance.com/affordable-housing/low-cost-homes-in-
pricey-pasadena.aspx

158
Enterprise Community Partners. “Priorities & Impact.” Enterprisecommunity.com.
Accessed July 6, 2013.
http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/where-we-work/southern-
california/priorities-and-impact

Esposito, Richard. “Preserving the heritage: Group tries to protect historic
architecture, keep new development in line.” Los Angeles Times, June
17,1989: Q4.

“Fannie Mae's American Communities Fund Supports Intermediaries.” Cascade,
Winter 2005. Accessed July 10,2013.
http://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/publications/
cascade/60/04_american-communities-fund.cfm

Federal Home Loan Bank. “Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas Awards Record-
Breaking $18.5M in Affordable Housing Grants.” Fhlb.com. August 9, 2010.
Accessed September 1, 2013.
https://www.fhlb.com/press/2010/pr_20100809.htm

Finkelpearl, Tom. Dialogues in Public Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.

Finkleman, Paul. Encyclopedia of African American History 1619-1895: From the
Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglas. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006.

“First foreclosed home selected for recovery effort.” Providence Journal, April 24, 2009,
4.

Foster, Catherine. “Historic Homes Get Affordable Face Lift.” Christian Science
Monitor, November 6, 1990, 14.

Fox, Catherine. “Atlanta’s Endangered Arts Row house rehab project brings art and aid
together.” Atlanta Journal Constitution, December 27, 1998: K4.

Fox, Stephen. “The Shotgun Cottage in Houston.” Row: Trajectories through the
Shotgun House. Houston, TX: Rice University School of Architecture, 2004.

Francis J. and Mark T. Motte. Providence, the Renaissance City. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press, 2004.

Frost, Karolyn Smardz. I’ve Got a Home in Glory Land: A Lost Tale of the Underground
Railroad. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.

Gaines, Sallie. “It's True Artistry In Houston, Rundown Housing Provided The Palette
For A New Kind Of Community Redevelopment.” Chicago Tribune, March 31,
1996.
159

Gilderbloom, John Ingram. Invisible City. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press,
2008.

Gilmore Associates. “About Us.” Gilmoredev.com. Accessed January 5, 2013.
http://www.gilmoredev.com/about_us.html

Goldberg, Vicki. “In Houston, Rebuilding by Creating.” New York Times, July 16, 1995:
2.26.

Greenberg, Mike. “Project Row Houses – Neighborhood blight becomes neighborhood
hope in Houston's Third Ward.” San Antonio Express-News, August 6, 1995.

Grimes, Teresa and Laura Vanaskie. “Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century Development
and Architecture in Pasadena.” United States Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Multiple Property Documentation Form. April 30, 2010.

Gringeri-Brown, Michelle. “Sam Merrill’s New House.” American Bungalow, Fall 2003:
56-62.

Harp, Catherine S. and Pasadena Heritage. “National Register of Historic Places
Inventory – Nomination Form: Pasadena Civic Center District.” United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service. September 15, 1978.
http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/80000813.pdf

Heritage Housing Partners. “About Us.” HeritageHousingPartners.org. Accessed
December 28, 2012.
http://heritagehousingpartners.org/content.php?pgID=5

Heritage Housing Partners. “Fair Oaks Court.” HeritageHousingPartners.org.
Accessed July 10, 2013.
http://heritagehousingpartners.org/content.php?pgID=100

Heritage Housing Partners. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2001.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/9547066
51/popup/1

Heritage Housing Partners. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2002.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/9547066
51/popup/1

Heritage Housing Partners. “Our Executive Officers.” HeritageHousingPartners.org.
Accessed January 5, 2013.
http://heritagehousingpartners.org/content.php?pgID=93
160

Heritage Housing Partners. “The Merrill House.” HeritageHousingPartners.org.
Accessed June 5, 2013.
http://heritagehousingpartners.org/content.php?pgID=122

Historic Resources Group & Pasadena Heritage. “Historic Resources of the Recent
Past Historic Context Report: City of Pasadena.” October 2007.

Houston Endowment. “About Us: Overview.” Houstonendowment.org. Accessed
September 1, 2013.
http://www.houstonendowment.org/About/About.aspx

Huang, William K. “Pasadena Breaks Ground in Affordable Housing with Online
Search Engine and Innovative Financing.” Redevelopment, February
2010: 12-13.
http://www.calredevelop.org/external/wcpages/wcwebcontent/webcontentpage.as
px?contentid=488.

Internal Revenue Service. “New Market Tax Credits.” IRS.gov. Accessed July 6, 2013.
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/New-Markets-Tax-Credit--1

Johnson, John G. “Capitals.” Handbook of Texas Online. Accessed July 20, 2013.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mzc01

Johnson, Patricia C. “All in a Row – Third Ward houses get a face lift.” Houston
Chronicle, April 8, 1994: 1.

Johnson, Patricia. “Project Row Houses founding director wins Heinz Award.” Houston
Chronicle, February 6, 2002: 1.

Kaimann, Frederick. “Project Row Houses saves houses, mind with art.” Birmingham
News, June 4, 1995: 6-F.

Kalb, Loretta. “Beautifying Blight – Houston program may become a model for helping
poor single mothers through the arts.” Sacramento Bee, February 4, 1996: H3.

Kalb, Loretta. Kever, Jeannie. “Pride Lives on in City’s Six Historic Wards.” Houston
Chronicle, February 8, 2006: E1.

Kaplan, Sam Hall. “Discarding the Notion of the ‘Throwaway City.’” Los Angeles
Times, January 25, 1985: 1.

Kaplan, Sam Hall. “Preservation: Major Redevelopment Resource Old Buildings
Getting New Lease on Life.” Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1985: 1.

161
Kimmelman, Michael. “In Houston, Art is Where the Home is.” New York Times,
December 17, 2006: 2.1.

Kimura, Donna. “Affordable Housing Gap Grows.” Affordable Housing Finance.
Housingfinance.com. Accessed June 27, 2013.
http://www.housingfinance.com/affordable-housing/affordable-housing-gap-
grows.aspx

Kresge Foundation. “Grant Highlights: Project Row Houses.” Kresge.org. Accessed
August 31, 2013.
http://kresge.org/funding/grant-highlights/grants/grant/project-row-houses

Kurtz, Cynthia J. to Pasadena Community Development Commission. March 29, 1999,
Pasadena, CA. Approval of Commission Loan Agreement (“CLA”) by and
between the Pasadena Community Development Commission (“Commission”)
for the Development of Three Affordable Ownership Housing Units.
http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/agendas/mar_29_1999/8a.pdf

Kurtz, Cynthia J. to Pasadena Community Development Commission. September 8,
2003, Pasadena, CA. Authorization to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement and Predevelopment Loan Agreement with Heritage Housing
Partners for the Fair Oaks Court Development.
http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2003%20agendas/Sep_08_03/8c.
pdf

Kuzins, Rebecca. “A Peaceful Place: The Bungalow Court, Revived.” American
Bungalow, Winter 2009: 96-104.

“Lectures and One Tour Still Available.” Los Angeles Times, October 5, 2000: 1.

Lienhard, John H. “No. 820: Shotgun Homes and Porches.” Engines of Our
Ingenuity. KUHF, Houston. 1993.

Lin, Jan. The Power of Urban ethnic Places: Cultural Heritage and Community Life.
New York, NY: Routledge, 2011.

Lipsitz, George. How Racism Takes Place. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,
2011.

Loe, Victoria. “ART AND ACCESS - Project Row Houses nurtures Houston's historic
Third Ward.” Dallas Morning News, May 6, 1996: 1A.

162
Lorusso, Lesa. “American Vernacular Architecture: The Shotgun Style in Florida.”
Florida Historical Society, myfloridahistory.org, June 13, 2012. Accessed July
30,2013.
http://preservation.myfloridahistory.org/american-vernacular-architecture-the-
shotgun-style-in-florida/

Loveman, Charles. “Affordable For-Sale Housing in Historic Neighborhoods.”
(presentation, Fresno Economic Development Summit, Fresno, CA, September
13, 2013).
http://fresnodowntownplans.com/media/files/Charles_Loveman_FRESNO%20ED
%20SUMMIT%20PRESENTATION.091310.pdf

Loveman, Charles. “Making the NMTC Program Work with Affordable For Sale
Housing.” New Markets Tax Credit Connection, Spring 2007: 3,7.

Lowe, Rick. “Founder’s Statement.” Projectrowhouses.org. December 2012.
Accessed July 30, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/about/founders-statement/.

Maddaus, Gene. "Local group honors historic preservation." Pasadena Star-News, July
5, 2005: A-3.

Mann, Bert. “$100 Million Plaza Pasadena Mall Completed.” Los Angeles Times,
September 4, 1980: SG1.

Martin, Norma. “Group offers hope, homes to teen moms.” Houston Chronicle, March
9, 1995: A25.

McComb, David G. “Houston, TX.” Handbook of Texas Online. Accessed July 20,
2013.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdh03.

Meadows Foundation. “About Us.” Mfi.org. Accessed September 1, 2013.
http://www.mfi.org/display.asp?link=DE3RH1

“Metro Digest $300,000 earmarked for housing program,” Providence Journal,
December 23, 1997, C-01.

Meyers, Natalie. “Downtown retail hits its stride.” Providence Business News,
November 5, 2007. Accessed October 11, 2012.
http://www.pbn.com/Downtown-retail-hits-its-stride, 28161?content_source=
archive&search_filter=providence+revolving+fund&search_filter_mode=and&sear
ch_range_option=entire_site&sub_type=stories,packages

163
Mozingo, Joe. “Pasadena Studies Ways to Revive Civic Center; Community: Task
force takes to streets to determine what has kept area from thriving. Many think
shopping mall needs to be restructured.” Los Angeles Times, August 24, 1997, 3.

Murdock, James. “Project: Building Community.” Architectural Record. July 2006.

National Endowment for the Arts. “About Us.” Nea.gov. Accessed September 1, 2013.
http://arts.gov/about/index.html

National Endowment for the Arts. “From the Archives: Blighted Structures Get New Life
As Artists’ Studios.” January 28, 2011. Accessed July 30, 2013.
http://artworks.arts.gov/?p=13153

National Park Service. “Interior Highlights 35th Anniversary of the Federal Historic
Preservation Tax Incentives Program.” Nps.gov. June 17, 2013. Accessed
September 5, 2013.
http://home.nps.gov/news/release.htm?id=1494

National Trust for Historic Preservation. “A Brief History of the National Trust.”
PreservationNation.org. Accessed January 5, 2013.
http://www.preservationnation.org/who-we-are/history.html#.UjARnqnmuKw

National Trust for Historic Preservation. “Project Row Houses: Bringing Together the
Arts, Community Services, and Historic Preservation to Revitalize a Community.
1992-Present.” Preservationnation.org. Accessed August 31, 2013.
http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/case-studies/preservation-award-
winners/project-row-houses-bringing-together.html#.UiYdHqnmuKw

“New Market Tax Credits.” Internal Revenue Service. Irs.gov. May 2010.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/atgnmtc.pdf

O’Connor, Pamela and Urban Conservation Section Planning Division City of
Pasadena. “Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena:
Historic Context/Property Type Report.” January 13, 1993.

Page, Max and Randall Mason. Giving Preservation a History. New York City, NY:
Routledge, 2004.

Parks, Louis B. “’This is Our Home’ opens thoughtful doors.” Houston Chronicle, May
10, 1989: 6.

Pasadena Heritage. “35
th
Anniversary – Highlights of the first 35 years.”
Pasadenaheritage.org. Accessed January 4, 2013.
http://www.pasadenaheritage.org/content.php?pgID=52

Pasadena Water & Power. “Customer Spotlight.” The Conduit, June 2008.
164

Perez, Danny. “Bank offers Young Mothers help with financial planning.” Houston
Chronicle, April 18, 2001: 6.

Philip C. Marshall. “Industrial Sites.” Accessed October 22, 2012.
http://www.philipmarshall.net/providence/industrial_sites.htm

“Preservation Gems.” Providence Journal, January 19, 2007, D.6.

"Preservation Groups, Bank Work to Save a Gem from Pasadena's Past." Los Angeles
Times, Feb 13, 2000: K-3.

Project Row Houses. “About Project Row Houses.” Projectrowhouses.org.
Accessed July 30, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/about/

Project Row Houses. “Arts Education Program.” Projectrowhouses.org. Accessed
August 1, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/arts-education/

Project Row Houses. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income
Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2011.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/7604117
78/popup/1

Project Row Houses. “Our Mission.” ProjectRowHouses.org. Accessed July 20, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/about/mission/.

Project Row Houses. “Program Description.” Accessed August 1, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/young-mothers-program/program-description/

Project Row Houses. “Public Art at Project Row Houses.” Accessed August 1, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/public-art/

Project Row Houses. “Rent the historic El Dorado Ballroom.” Projectrowhouses.org.
Accessed August 1, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/community/eldorado/

Project Row Houses. “Row House CDC Receives Bank of America Housing Grant.”
Projectrowhouses.org. Accessed September 1, 2013.
http://projectrowhouses.org/2012/10/row-house-cdc-recieves-bank-of-america-
housing-grant/

165
“Project Row Houses.” Partners for Livable Communities. Livable.org. Accessed
August 3, 2013.
http://www.livable.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid
=64

“Project Row Houses dropped in on Houston’s Third Ward – and stayed for 20 years.”
Kresge.org. July 31, 2013. Accessed August 31, 2013.
http://kresge.org/news/project-row-houses-dropped-houston’s-third-ward-–-and-
stayed-for-20-years

“Project Row Houses: Grants received by this organization.” Idilogic.aidpage.com,
December 28, 2005. Accessed August 4, 2013.
http://project-row-houses.idilogic.aidpage.com/project-row_houses/index.b124.
u139.htm?ShowVisitorSum=1&IVL_PageNumber=0

Providence Preservation Society: Forty, 1956-1996. Providence, RI: Providence
Preservation Society, 1996.

Providence Revolving Fund. “About Us.” RevolvingFund.org. Accessed October 1,
2012.
http://www.revolvingfund.org/about.php

Providence Revolving Fund. “Downcity Loans.” RevolvingFund.org. Accessed
October 1, 2012.
http://www.revolvingfund.org/downcityloans.php

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2003.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2004.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2005.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2006.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

166
Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2007.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2008.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2009.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2010.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “IRS Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax.” Nccsweb.urban.org, 2011.
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/0503864
11/popup/1

Providence Revolving Fund. “Neighborhood Loans.” RevolvingFund.org. Accessed
October 1, 2012.
http://www.revolvingfund.org/neighborhoodloans.php

Providence Revolving Fund. “Resource Center” RevolvingFund.org. Accessed
October 1, 2012.
http://www.revolvingfund.org/resourcecenter.php

Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission. “Providence Industrial Sites
Statewide Historical Preservation Report P-P-6,” July 1981.
http://www.preservation.ri.gov/pdfs_zips_downloads/survey_pdfs/prov_indsites.pdf

"Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission Awards Grants to
Bristol, Newport, Providence." US Fed News Service, Including US State News,
June 11, 2009.

“R.I. heritage panel to give 11 awards.” Providence Journal, April 7, 2008, C.1.

Rick Lowe, (Founder, Project Row Houses), interview by April G.S. Rabanera, June 20,
2012.

167
Robinson, James. "3 arts groups rebuffed by city over funding" Houston Chronicle,
February 8, 1995: A1.

Row House CDC. “Francis Street (Hannah).” Rowhousecdc.org. Accessed July 24,
2013.
http://www.rowhousecdc.org/our-properties/francis-street/

Row House CDC. “Our History.” Rowhousecdc.org. Accessed July 24, 2013.
http://www.rowhousecdc.org/about/background

Row House CDC. “Community Background.” Rowhousecdc.org. Accessed July
24, 2013.
http://www.rowhousecdc.org/about/

Row House CDC. “Our Properties.” Rowhousecdc.org. Accessed July 24, 2013.
http://www.rowhousecdc.org/our-properties/

Rypkema, Donovan D. Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed
Connection. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002.

Shalvey, Kevin. “Revolving Fund’s preservation-center goal within reach,” Providence
Business News, October 24, 2008. Accessed October 11, 2012.
http://www.pbn.com/Revolving-Funds-preservation-center-goal-within-
reach,35837

“Silver Medal Award 1997: Project Row Houses Houston, TX.” Rudy Bruner Award for
Urban Excellence. Brunerfoundation.org. Accessed August 3, 2013.
www.brunerfoundation.org/rba/pdfs/1997/03_projectrow.PDF

“Six Arts Organizations Recognized with the 2010 MetLife Foundation Innovative Space
Awards - LINC and MetLife Foundation announce a total of $100,000 in
unrestricted funds nationwide to six outstanding artist spaces." PR Newswire,
November 11, 2010. Accessed August 3, 2013.

Smith, Gregory. “A conversation with Clark Schoettle, historic preservationist,”
Providence Journal, May 13, 1996, 1C.

Smith, Gregory. “Cianci unveils plan to preserve city mills,” Providence Journal, May
17, 2001, B.01.

Smith, Gregory. “Money available for Downcity projects,” Providence Journal, March
22, 2004, B-01.

Smith, Gregory. “STUDIOS THEY CALL HOME - Band of artists sets up new digs in
old Mill,” Providence Journal, September 29, 2006, D.01

168
Steptoe, Tyina Leaneice. “Dixie West: Race, Migration, and the Color Lines in Jim
Crow Houston.” Order No. 3314354, The University of Wisconsin - Madison,
2008.

Sue Mossman (Executive Director, Pasadena Heritage), interview by April G.S.
Rabanera, May 4, 2011.

Stipe, Robert E. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century.
Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

"The Andy Warhol foundation for the Visual Arts 20-Year Report 1987-2007 Grants
and Exhibitions" Editor Rachel Bers.
http://www.warholfoundation.org/pdf/volume2.pdf

“Third Ward, TX.” Directed by Andrew Garrison. Harriman, NY: New Day Films, 2007.
DVD.

“Top 50 Affordable Housing Developers of 2012.” Housingfinance.com Accessed
September 1, 2013.
http://www.housingfinance.com/ahf-50/2013/ahf-top-50-developers.aspx

Tournament of Roses. “Rose Parade History.” TournamentofRoses.com. January 4,
2013.
http://www.tournamentofroses.com/TheRoseParade/History/HistoryofRoseParad
e.aspx

Townsend, Dorothy. “White Flight, Urban Blight, School Problems: Pasadena’s Crown
City Figure Tarnished.” Los Angeles Times, April 27, 1969, B1.

Tucker, Sheryl G. “Reinnovating the African-American Shotgun House.” Places 10, No.
1, 1995, 64-71.

Turner, Allan. “Changing the Landscape: Artist uses city’s Third Ward as backdrop for
restoring vacant houses.” Houston Chronicle, March 31, 2002: A31.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Affordable Housing.”
Accessed August 24, 2013.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/afford
ablehousing/

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “HOME Investment Partnerships
Program,” HUD.gov. Accessed October 15, 2012.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/

169
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Housing Trust Fund.”
Hud.gov. Accessed August 31, 2013.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/hudprograms/housing-trust

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Neighborhood Stabilization
Program Grants” HUD.gov. October 15, 2012.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/comm
unitydevelopment/programs/neighborhoodspg

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation,
Diversification, and Rebalancing.” Sec.gov. Accessed September 1, 2013.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/assetallocation.htm.

Williams, Janette. “Affordable housing units earn national praise.” San Gabriel
Valley Tribune. Sgvtribune.com, October 15, 2008.

Wilson, Ezell. “Third Ward, Steeped in Tradition of Self-reliance and Achievement.”
Houston History Magazine, houstonhistorymagazine.org. Accessed July 3,
2013.
http://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wilson-third-
ward.pdf

Wood, Roger. “El Dorado Ballroom.” Texas State Historical Association.
Tshaonline.org Accessed August 1, 2013.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/xde02

Zheng, Chunhua Zen. “THE PRICE OF PROGRESS - Is development in Third Ward
leaving residents out in the cold?” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2001: O1.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Lack of affordable housing and the abandonment of historic neighborhoods have been ongoing problems for many metropolitan areas. In the past several decades there has been a movement to address both issues with the same solution: rehabilitation and revitalization of the historic urban buildings for use as affordable housing. Providence Revolving Fund in Providence, Rhode Island

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

PDF

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

PDF

Would community design overlay (CDO) be a tool for revitalizing Los Angeles Chinatown?

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

Historic preservation in the United States Air Force: exploring new frontiers

PDF

Identifying and conserving Pacoima: a heritage conservation study of a minority enclave in the San Fernando Valley

PDF

Greening historic districts with solar roofs: an exploration of Western Heights in Los Angeles

PDF

Empowering communities through historic rehabilitation: creating a maintenance plan for public housing developments in Los Angeles

PDF

SoCal ski hills: a typological analysis of a cultural landscape

PDF

Conservation practices in India -- a case study of Jaisalmer Fort

PDF

Deconstruction: a tool for sustainable conservation

PDF

From Ramona to the Brady Bunch: assessing the historical significance of sites used in movies and television shows

PDF

A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement

PDF

Money in the bank: three case studies in the adaptive reuse of midcentury bank branch buildings

PDF

Seeing beyond the fog: preserving San Francisco's cultural heritage in the Clement Street Corridor

PDF

Celebrating conformity: preserving Henry Doelger's midcentury post-war suburb

PDF

Culture, history, and gentrification: conserving Latino-oriented legacy businesses in San Francisco's rapidly changing Mission District

PDF

Lessons from Little Saigon: heritage conservation and ethnic enclaves in Orange County

PDF

Capturing the layers of the Arroyo Seco landscape: documenting a cultural landscape using digital storymaps

PDF

The vanishing Wadas Of Pune, India

Asset Metadata

Creator Rabanera, April Garnet Sommer (author)

Core Title Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Publication Date 09/24/2013

Defense Date 09/24/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag affordable housing,California,community revitalization,developer,Heritage Housing Partners,Historic Preservation,Houston,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest,Pasadena,Pasadena Heritage,Project Row Houses,Providence,Providence Preservation Society,Providence Revolving Fund,Rhode Island,Row House CDC,Row House Community Development Corporation,Texas

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Huang, William (committee member), Platt, Jay (committee member)

Creator Email aprilrabanera@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-330039

Unique identifier UC11297303

Identifier etd-RabaneraAp-2048.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-330039 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RabaneraAp-2048.pdf

Dmrecord 330039

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rabanera, April Garnet Sommer

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA