Ask the Developer: Kindlewood

In the following Q+A, J.T. Engelhardt, Director of Real Estate at National Housing Trust (NHT), discusses the transformative redevelopment of Kindlewood in Charlottesville, Virginia, a groundbreaking project that places residents at the center of the design and planning process. Originally known as Friendship Court, this 12-acre site carries a complex history from its origins on land owned by Thomas Jefferson's associate Alexander Garrett, through its development as a predominantly Black neighborhood, to its designation as "blighted" during 1970s urban renewal efforts.

In partnership with Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), NHT has pioneered an innovative approach to affordable housing redevelopment that goes beyond traditional community engagement requirements. Through a resident advisory council established in the mid-2010s, residents have maintained decision-making authority over every aspect of the development, from architectural design to financing structures. Engelhardt shares insights into the challenges and rewards of this resident-led model, offering valuable lessons for other developers seeking to create more inclusive and community-driven housing solutions.

This Q+A explores how meaningful resident participation, while time intensive and complex, can lead to stronger communities and better development outcomes when developers recognize and value the lived experiences of those who call these places home.

Q: Can you talk about the history of the land and the community that Kindlewood is a part of?

J.T.:        The land was originally indigenous but came to be owned by Alexander Garrett, who was a business leader and an associate of Thomas Jefferson. Garrett brought more than 50 slaves onto the estate and the streets that bound the Kindlewood site are 4th St, Monticello St, 2nd St, 6th St and Garrett St. Even now the streets are still named after him but after the Civil War, the land was developed for commercial use and eventually became a working-class residential neighborhood. By the middle of the 20th century, this was a predominantly black neighborhood of single-family homes located just south of the main commercial areas in the city.

            In the 1970’s, the city of Charlottesville declared the area blighted and forced the landowners to sell their property as part of the urban renewal plan. At this time, a 150 unit, 100% project based Section 8 property named Garrett Square was developed on this 12-acre portion of the urban renewal area, and those structures exist still today. These are the structures we are currently working in phases to replace.

            In 2002, Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and National Housing Trust (NHT) purchased the property, began renovating it, and ultimately renamed the property Friendship Court through a resident participatory process. 

Q: Can you go into a little detail about how NHT and PHA came to be involved in the Kindlewood redevelopment?

J.T.:        The previous owner did not maintain the property well and was dangerously close to having its [Section 8] contract revoked. NHT had a lot of expertise in HUD preservation. The leadership of NHT approached HUD and the owner and facilitated a sale. NHT then reached out to PHA to find a local partner, and that’s how our two organizations came together in partnership to try to keep the Section 8 contract at the property and improve the property.

Q: This development is unique in how it’s involved residents in the design and planning process from a very early stage. Can you talk about how NHT and PHA first approached working with the residents?

J.T.:        If we fast forward to around 2012-2013, the physical structure and layout of this 12-acre block represented best practices from the 1970’s, which were garden-style walk up apartments where every unit had a door that opened onto the outside, which naturally created a sense of community. By the time we needed to start designing the layout in 2012, thinking had evolved and that layout was outdated. The actual physical structures on the property were also nearing the end of their useful life. 

            At the same time, Charlottesville was really growing as a community, partially because of the growth of the University of Virginia. Even though the property is near the Amtrak tracks which historically separated the city, it was close to this award-winning, high end pedestrian mall, so there was a real risk being posed by gentrification. The city of Charlottesville looked at this site, saw the potential it had, and identified it as an area of redevelopment that they would support.

            PHA took the lead in using those funds from the city, and completed HUD “checkbox” issues when doing a redevelopment. PHA deserves credit for completing those resident engagement portions of the requirements when you’re applying to HUD to bifurcate the Section 8 contract. In order to get HUD approval to take a piece of that Section 8 contract and apply it to those first 106 units, there are resident engagement and resident notification requirements, and PHA put some intention behind those things, and along with support from the city, Vibrant Community funding and pre-development funding from Virginia Housing Authority, allowed for us to make this into a resident led design process.

            Thanks to this, residents have participated in every aspect of planning from the mid 2010’s until today through a resident advisory council, which is a combination of residents and local Charlottesville leaders. For the redevelopment, we had a landscape architect on the council, and there have been City Councilmembers who contribute to this council, but the votes have always come from the residents, no one else. Since my involvement in 2018, this has truly been resident led. Every single decision is taken to the residents, and we give them a few feasible options and they choose for themselves.

Q. Have there been any hurdles you’ve encountered when working with residents so closely?

J.T.:        While it is a meaningful process, it certainly is very time-consuming and requires some odd hours at times. It can also be costly because of the architects, the civil engineers, the marketing and branding people–we must spend more time here than on other developments because of the presentation of options along with making sure residents understand what their options are. 

            One thing that was unexpected was early in the development of phase one, prior to when we were trying to figure out how to finance the 106-unit build, the original intent of the advisory council was to have it be truly mixed income. The general plan was to go from 150 project base Section 8 units to 400 to 450 total units and about a third of those units would be project-based Section 8, another third tax credit based, and then the remaining portion of units would be unrestricted or market rate units. We were having difficulty getting this financed in phase one so we had to go back to the residents and tell them that the only way we could have enough money to build phase one was if we converted the market rate tier to 80% AMI. This was a highly technical issue, but we presented the advisory council with the options, and they chose to have it be 100% tax credit and we were able to honor the idea. 

           There are going to be moments where you must spend extra time laying it out to residents what these technical situations imply and help them understand what that means for them. But when you take a step back from it all, ultimately, that extra time spent isn’t a hurdle when you realize that it’s all going towards outcomes that create a more vibrant and thriving community.

Q: Can you give any tips or tricks to any other developments who are looking to enhance their partnership and involvement with residents and communities?

J.T.:        First of all, it is not easy, but it is worth it. I encourage other developers to value, appreciate and seek the earned wisdom of the residents that live at a property. You would be very surprised at what kinds of outcomes, the level of trust and the strong communities that can result from simply understanding that as a developer our experience has limitations. Our experience as developers certainly has value, but there is a lot to be gained from earnestly listening to residents’ and the community’s experiences.

            There will always be constraints of one type or another, and cost and time will always be one of those, but this has been meaningful work for me, and it will continue to be. The work is also meaningful to the residents. They’re elected, serve a term and are compensated for their time, and they’re held accountable to showing up and participating. I’m confident that no matter what your constraints are, if you move in the direction of directly involving residents from the ground up, better outcomes will result.