Apollo Village is a proposal to revitalize the lot in Camden formerly occupied by the Apollo tannery by creating a new complex of 60 apartments affordable to average-income households. The shorthand often used to describe it is workforce housing. We call it Apollo after one of businesses that used to occupy the site, village because that's what we want to create, and community because that's what we want it to be part of and contribute to.
The goal of the project is partially subsidized workforce housing. If backing can be found, some of the apartments would be subsidized and made available at below-market rates for the benefit of those earning some fraction of the median wage.
The proposal honors the current easement and supports the existing park alongside the Megunticook River. In fact, it expands public access because the entire grounds would remain public property, owned by the Town of Camden. By retaining ownership of the grounds — known as a ground lease — the town would retain some control over the property. In particular, it would be able to enforce any terms of the lease, which might for example include an affordability requirement.
The proposal does not include continued use of the property by the Camden Farmers' Market. The location is too valuable to reserve for a market that operates 3 hours a day, 2 days a week, 50 days a year. The market would be better situated downtown.
A large, complex undertaking like this will take years, and begins de novo, with no existing organization in place. The first step is to make the land available for development. How that would be done, and specifically to what end, are described below.
The apartments would be affordable and sustainable.
There would be in 3 buildings of 20 units each, arranged around a courtyard. Each building is 3 floors, constructed above ground-level parking. The building shelters the cars from the weather, and provides enough space for each apartment to park one car.
The apartments are modestly sized: 800, 1000, and 1200 sq ft, for 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms respectively. These are big enough to live in, for 1 person or a family, and small enough to afford.
What does afford mean? We begin with Annual Median Income (AMI) for a household in Maine. In 2019, that was $57,918, or almost $60,000. Affordable housing is defined as costing 25% - 30% of AMI. Starting with $60,000 for simplicity, that's $5000/month of income, for which affordable rent is, by definition, between $1250 and $1500. That works out to about $1.25 per sq. ft. per month.
Sustainability comes in two forms. The buildings are easy on the environment, very energy-efficient, LEEDS Platinum or similar. They're also located close to the town center and a school, meaning residents can rely more on walking and bicycles, and less on a car.
Perhaps surprisingly, the planned per-square-foot rent is not out of line with rental prices in Camden. What's different is cost of occupancy. That's influenced by 3 factors: size, efficiency, and location.
Size is one of the cost drivers of housing everywhere. In Camden, while you can probably rent somewhere for $1.00 per sq. ft. per month, it's very unlikely to cost you $1000/mo. A modest the house of 2000 sq. ft. will cost $2000/mo, or 160% of AMI.
That house will not be new, and it won't be energy-efficient. It will cost at least $1800 a year to heat, raising the effective rent by $150/mo., to $2150. That's 172% of AMI.
And we're not done. Any house for rent at that price is unlikely to be found close to town. A family living there will need 2 cars. A car reliable enough to rely on will cost another $2400 a year, or $200/mo, bringing the cost of occupancy to $2350/mo., or 188% of AMI. It's still affordable ... to a household with income of $112,000 a year.
This is what makes Camden a relatively expensive place to live. Not the scenery or the harbor or the schools, but large, old single-family houses zoned at low density, far from the town center.
For Camden to affordable to the median-wage earner, there must be housing that is appropriately sized and located. That is what Apollo Village is.
Apollo Village would consist of 3 buildings sited on 2.45 acre lot. Roughly 1/3 of the lot would be reserved for a public park, mostly by the river. Only a small portion of the remaining land is needed for the apartment buildings. The building grounds would remain the property of the Town of Camden, fully accessible to the public.
Apartment buildings maximize green space. Starting with 2.45 acres, that's 2.45 × 43,560 sq. ft. per acre, or 106,722 sq ft. total. Reserving 1/3 for a riverside park leaves 71,148 sq. ft. for the apartment complex. Each building has an 8000 sq. ft. footprint; 3 of them total 24,000 sq. ft. or just 1/3 of (its share of) the land. Overall, the apartments themselves require less than 1/4 of the site.
By arranging the 3 buildings in a semicircle, they define a courtyard area, convenient for picnics or play, or perhaps a community garden.
The first plan — the one no one likes — was to have the town itself finance and run the apartment complex as social housing. That's the simplest, because the town can provide the financing and absorb the risk. But, since no one likes it, a more complicated plan is required.
Financing, contruction, and management of the property would be given over to qualified 3rd party, probably a non-profit organization. For purposes of discussion, let's make up a 3rd party name that doesn't exist: Camden Affordable Subsidized Housing (CASH). The town would lease the land to CASH for a nominal price of $1/year. The lease would require the land be used according to specified terms, namely to provide affordable housing on the site as outlined above.
CASH would be responsible for meeting the terms of the lease. The idea is to use the lease to enforce the affordable-housing aspect of the project, but also other covenants the town deems important, such as how the property is maintained or its accessibility to the public.
At the present time (December 2021), there is no CASH, no lease, and no housing. There is not even any agreed-upon plan of any kind. The immediate plan, then, is simply to put a plan in place: to put grist to the mill and start grinding.
The immediate plan has 2 parts:
The tannery property is currently slated for environmental remediation, which is to be completed in October 2022. Entering into a lease meanwhile gives the CASH organization time to get the ball rolling, and authority to act.
It's unclear whether or not it's possible to build and rent these apartments without some subsidy. The answer depends on estimates about the present and guesses about the future.
Each 20-unit building is 24,000 sq. ft, comprising 20,000 sq. ft. of living space and 4,000 sq ft of common areas (20% of the space for lobby, corridors, stairs, mechanical, storage). For 3 buildings, that's 72,000 sq. ft.
While new, single-family housing is commonly estimated at $300 per sq. ft. or more, there is reason to believe apartments would not cost that much, because of economies of scale. Not only is there less exterior cladding and roofing (and fewer windows and doors) per unit, there's also less plumbing and customization.
Taking $300 as a starting point, these apartments cost on average $360,000 each to build. Why? The total construction cost for 72,000 sq. ft. would be $21.6 million. For 60 apartments, that's $360,000 each.
To finance $360,000 with a 30-year mortgage at prevailing rates today would cost $1600/mo, or 128% of AMI.
For a 1000 sq. ft. apartment to be rented at $1200/mo (100% of AMI) and just cover the mortgage, it would have to cost $270,000 to build, or $270 per sq. ft. If costs could be kept to $250 per sq. ft. — a distinct possibility — the project might not require any subsidy to achieve its primary goal.
A variety of source of funding, public and private, are available to support workforce and affordable housing. At this early stage, nothing definite has been identified.
Apollo Village can also subsidize itself, to a limited degree, because construction costs are fixed and rents are not. Over time, wages will rise, and rents with it, but construction costs (and any associated financing) remain fixed. Eventually, any mortgage on the property will also be retired.
In a building run for profit, the difference between rising revenues and fixed costs are profit to the owner. In a building run by a nonprofit organization for the benefit of the town, those “excess rents” are town property, and their use the subject of public policy. They could be used to subsidize some of the apartments, making them affordable to tenants further down the income scale. Or, they could be directed the town's general fund. As leaseholder, the town retains control. Future decisions will be made by future boards and future elections, in accordance with future needs.
If we want Camden to be the exclusive province of wealthy retired people, all we need to do is nothing at all. That is what's been happening for years, and what will continue to happen if nothing changes.
As owner of the tannery property, Camden could simply sell it to the highest bidder and let the market determine what to do with it. But let's acknowledge that the market is hardly free when it comes to land use. Every acre of Camden is zoned, and much of that zoning is for low-density, single-family dwellings. That zoning determines what the market will produce, and at what value.
In the alternative, Camden could keep the property and use it for public purposes. One proposal, for instance, is to use the space as a public park and to host occasional events, such as is done now with the farmer's market. That's an expensive choice. It would reserve the space to those few who choose to use the park or shop at the market. That would primarily benefit those who live adjacent to it. Their privilege would be underwritten by the Camden taxpayer, who would maintain the park with a reduced tax base.
Apollo Village serves a different pubic purpose. It creates a substantial workforce housing community within walking distance to the town center. It does something else, too: it pays its way, many times over. The apartment complex would yield substantial tax revenue, probably more than any other proposed project for the space.
Apollo Village would make higher use of the lot than any other proposal put forward thus far. It would accomodate more people living there, and provide a park by the river.
Despite what some may fear, apartments do not devalue property. If they did, land in Manhattan would be cheap. On the contrary, a large cluster of families sharing just a couple of acres makes that land very valuable, and makes single-family homes in the area all that much more desirable.
Consider just the pure financial aspects. Apollo Village represents over $20 million of housing on just a couple of acres. The revenues the town derives from property taxes will far exceed that from any alternative use of the site. That's before the benefits to Camden businesses: affordable, nearby housing for their employees, and new, nearby customers.
By siting apartments in town, the plan adds people, but not as many cars or traffic as would houses further away. Apollo Village residents will have less need for a car, with no need to drive to the town they're already in, or bus children to a school they can walk to.
What is less well understood is that Camden on its current track is being hollowed out. While it has always had tourists, Camden used to have more industry and commerce. Today, that's mostly gone. There is nowhere to buy shoes in Camden. There is nowhere to buy a bicycle or outfit kids for school. If you need a new hat or pair of gloves, likely you head south on Route 1. If you need a new souvenir, though, Main Street has got you covered.
Families living in town will encourage business formation in town, businesses that meet everyday needs for everyday people. Business prospers when employees live nearby, where they can easily get to work in just a few minutes in any kind of weather.
With 60 apartments, each with an income of about $60,000, Apollo Village represents $3.6 million of year-round aggregate income. They can only bolster Camden's business environment.
Apollo Village won't transform Camden. No mere housing complex can do that. But it will nudge Camden in the direction of greater economic self-sufficiency, and away from its current trend of ever more tourism.
An excellent location for the Farmers’ Market would be on Mechanic Street on the block between Elm and Washington. On the days the market operates, the street would be closed to car traffic. Vendors would set up stands in the parking lots and along the sidewalks.
Why is this an excellent location? It's good for everyone.
Nothing much happens in the public sphere in Camden without a vote at the town meeting. The select board won't decide whether or not Apollo Village becomes a reality. You will.
If this proposal gets to Square One, and the town agrees to give it a chance, this page will be updated with progress reports. Until then, it's just an outline of an idea. Whether you're pro or con, at least the thing we're discussing is written down where it can be referenced.
If you would like more information or to contribute time or expertise, you can email me, James K. Lowden. I'm the guy who came up with the idea, not that that matters very much. Ideas are cheap. For Apollo Village to become a reality will take a lot of work and patience — and no little courage — by many people. I hope you will be one.