Comments for Downtown complex re-branded at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.theind.com Sun, 19 May 2013 08:45:13 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10853-downtown-complex-re-branded#comment-26988 I like the new name, but seem to remember from a coterie meeting in this neighborhood that the salary for a tenant would not only have a maximum salary requirement, but also a minimum salary requirement. Your article says nothing about a minimum salary. I was open minded about this project in the very beginning, but with so many changes including Greg G. involvement, I can never trust a project of this kind again. I like the idea of vouchers for poor people. The LEED building idea is very good, but the exterior of this complex, just does not compliment the historic neighborhood... I now see this as very bad project for so many reasons... - Marie Broussard Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:39:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10853-downtown-complex-re-branded#comment-26954 why does greg gachassin get to build a housing project with federal money and make profit without risk? isn't this one of things we found so distateful about stewart? they're still ugly, pig in prom dress. why didn't they build affordable houses and sell them to people at a low rate. then there could be pride in ownership and not just warehousing. By they way where are all these people walking to? the bars downtown. they gave the only grocery store location to greg to build more ugly crap. why don't they put in resources, where people can get jobs instead of just stacking them. Oh wait, I know, greag need to make more money without risk - Krista Fontenot Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:56:24 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10853-downtown-complex-re-branded#comment-26952 What wrong with this project is it would have been cheaper to give people vouchers so that they could live anywhere they wanted. If the idea is to help the poor, then the most efficient way to do this is not to build apartments, but to give them vouchers. This allows them to leave in the are most convenient for them, (closer to schools, work, whatever)and it integrates them into the greater population. Now what you have is the same social economic class all located in 1 area. I thought one of the objectives of smart growth was to end that. Oh, did I mentioned these apartments are twice a expensive as they could have purchased an apartment complex for? - Tim Supple Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:21:59 +0100