Report on Affordable Housing Commitments for “The Pearl” Innovation District in Charlotte

Introduction: Urban Development and Sustainable Development Goals

The development of “The Pearl,” a medical innovation district in Charlotte, North Carolina, serves as a case study in the complexities of aligning urban development with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the project advances economic growth (SDG 8) and innovation (SDG 9), significant challenges have emerged regarding its commitments to affordable housing and community inclusivity, directly impacting SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This report analyzes the project’s housing commitments, the current implementation status, and the implications for sustainable urban development, particularly on land with a history of displacing a Black community.

Analysis of Housing Commitments in Relation to SDG 11

Initial Commitments for Public Investment

In 2021, Atrium Health secured $75 million in public funding for infrastructure for “The Pearl.” In exchange, commitments were made to address critical community needs, aligning with SDG 11.1, which targets access to adequate and affordable housing for all. The primary commitments presented to public officials were:

• On-Site Housing: To designate 5% of up to 350 planned residential units within Phase I of The Pearl as affordable housing for low-income residents.
• Off-Site Housing: To donate 14 acres of land on North Tryon Street to the city’s housing authority, Inlivian, to facilitate the development of at least 400 additional affordable housing units.

These pledges were positioned as a key component of a public-private partnership (SDG 17) intended to ensure the project’s benefits were equitably shared.

Implementation Gaps and Institutional Accountability (SDG 16)

Discrepancies in On-Site Housing Commitments

As of the opening of Phase I, the promised affordable housing has not materialized. A review of the legal agreement between Atrium Health and the city reveals significant deviations from the public promises, raising concerns about transparency and accountability, key tenets of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

1. Conditional Requirement: The agreement does not mandate the construction of housing in Phase I. It includes a provision allowing Atrium Health to forgo the on-site housing if no residential units are built at The Pearl within eight years.
2. Altered Affordability Levels: The public was informed that 5% of units would be for residents earning below 50% of the area median income (AMI). The contract, however, specifies that only 2.5% of units would be for that income bracket, with the other 2.5% designated for residents earning up to 80% AMI, reducing the support for the lowest-income households.

Challenges with Off-Site Land Contribution

The commitment to donate 14 acres for affordable housing has also been altered, further undermining progress toward SDG 11.1.

• Donation vs. Land Swap: The promised donation is now part of a proposed land swap. Atrium Health is seeking land owned by Inlivian near The Pearl in exchange for the North Tryon Street parcel and another property.
• Weakened Contractual Language: The legal agreement states that Atrium will “contemplate” contributing the land, or potentially “a portion” of it, which is a significant weakening of the definitive public promise of a full donation.
• Delayed Progress: Four years after the initial promise, the land remains an Atrium Health distribution center, and no housing development has begun.

Community Impact and Social Equity (SDG 10)

Erosion of Trust and Historical Injustice

The project is located on land that was formerly Brooklyn, a Black community destroyed during urban renewal in the 1960s under promises of redevelopment that were never fulfilled. For former residents, the current lack of progress on housing echoes this historical injustice, directly conflicting with the objective of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Community advisors have expressed that the failure to deliver even the modest initial housing commitment is an “insult” and demonstrates a prioritization of profit over people. The proposed land swap, which would convert more land near the historic Brooklyn site from potential housing to medical offices, is seen as a further setback for restorative justice and equitable development.

Implications for Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

As a healthcare provider, Atrium Health’s development project presents a contradiction. While the medical school advances health innovation, the failure to address affordable housing overlooks a critical social determinant of health. Stable housing is fundamental to achieving SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and its absence can perpetuate health disparities within the community the institution serves.

Conclusion: Reassessing the Partnership for Sustainable Goals

The development of The Pearl innovation district highlights a significant gap between stated commitments to sustainable and inclusive urban development and their execution. While the project contributes to economic objectives, its failure to deliver on foundational promises for affordable housing undermines progress toward SDG 11, SDG 10, and SDG 3. The discrepancies between public pledges and legal agreements also erode public trust, challenging the principles of accountability and strong institutions outlined in SDG 16. For this public-private partnership (SDG 17) to be considered successful from a sustainable development perspective, all partners must be held accountable for ensuring that economic growth is accompanied by tangible and equitable social benefits, particularly for communities impacted by historical injustices.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues related to urban development, housing, community rights, and institutional accountability that connect to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article discusses the historical displacement of a “thriving Black community” for urban renewal and the current fears of the same community being let down again. This touches upon issues of racial and economic inequality and the importance of inclusive development that does not disproportionately harm marginalized groups.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire narrative revolves around the promise and failure to provide affordable housing in a major urban development project (“The Pearl”). It addresses the challenge of creating inclusive, safe, and sustainable urban spaces.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article questions the accountability and transparency of both the private entity (Atrium Health) and public institutions (the city and county). It points out discrepancies between public promises and legal agreements, and the community’s struggle to “hold them accountable,” which relates directly to the need for effective and transparent institutions.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The development of “The Pearl” is a public-private partnership involving Atrium Health, the city, and the county, which received “$75 million in taxpayer money.” The article serves as a case study on the challenges of ensuring such partnerships deliver on their public benefit commitments, particularly for vulnerable communities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.
   • Explanation: The core conflict in the article is the unfulfilled promise to create affordable housing. Atrium Health made two key promises: building on-site affordable apartments at The Pearl and donating land for at least 400 more affordable units off-site. The article states, “So far, however, the affordable housing that was promised hasn’t materialized.”
2. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
   • Explanation: The article references the destructive “urban renewal” of the 1960s that bulldozed the Brooklyn neighborhood. The current concerns of former residents, who are part of “The Pearl’s community advisory council,” reflect a demand for more participatory and inclusive planning to avoid repeating past injustices. Rev. Janet Garner-Mullins’ statement, “Housing is important on this site because of the historic relationship that this place has to the Brooklyn neighborhood,” underscores this point.
3. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race… or economic or other status.
   • Explanation: The historical context of displacing a Black community and the current failure to provide housing for low-income residents directly relate to racial and economic inclusion. The community’s feeling of being “screwed again” highlights a pattern of exclusion and marginalization in urban development decisions.
4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Explanation: The article reveals a significant lack of transparency and accountability. There is a clear discrepancy between what was publicly presented and what was legally agreed upon. For example, the legal agreement “allows Atrium to forgo the housing altogether” at The Pearl, a detail not shared in public pitches. This directly challenges the effectiveness and accountability of the institutions involved in the deal.
5. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Explanation: While a community advisory council exists, its influence appears limited. Council members expressed that the initial promise of 5% affordable housing “wasn’t enough,” but this was dismissed. The feeling that the community is not being heard (“I’ve been told by individuals in government that we have to trust them. Well, how long are we going to have to wait?”) points to a failure in responsive and inclusive decision-making.
6. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…
   • Explanation: The project is a partnership between Atrium Health (private), the city/county (public), and community representatives (civil society). The article scrutinizes the effectiveness of this partnership, showing how public funds were committed based on promises that are now uncertain, raising questions about the partnership’s ability to achieve its stated community goals.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several specific, quantifiable, and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Number of affordable housing units: The article provides concrete numbers that serve as clear indicators. Progress can be measured against the promise to build “18” affordable units on-site and “at least 400 affordable units” on the off-site land. Currently, the number of units built is zero.
• Percentage of affordable housing in new developments: The promise was to set aside “5 percent of apartments in Phase I” for low-income residents. This percentage is a direct indicator for measuring the inclusivity of the housing development.
• Income level targeting for affordable housing: The article specifies the intended beneficiaries: “residents earning below 50 percent of Charlotte’s median income” and “residents who earn up to 80 percent of the area median income.” Tracking the income levels of residents in any future affordable units would be a key indicator of whether the target population is being served.
• Land allocated for affordable housing: The promise to donate “14 acres on North Tryon Street” is a measurable indicator. The article notes that Atrium still owns the land, and the “donation” has now become part of a “proposed land swap,” indicating a negative change in this metric.
• Timeline for development: A timeline was suggested by a city official, who stated that “three years is realistic once the property changes hands.” The article notes that four years after the initial promise, “there is no sign of any housing.” The time elapsed since the promise serves as an indicator of delay and lack of progress.
• Discrepancy between public commitments and legal contracts: The article’s investigation reveals a significant gap between public presentations and the signed agreement. This gap can be seen as a qualitative indicator of a lack of institutional transparency and accountability (relevant to Target 16.6).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: northcarolinahealthnews.org