MHA 2025: Downtown Affordable Housing Campus 

Proposed Multi-Generational, Energy-Efficient, Affordable Housing Campus in Downtown Manhattan  


• Develop a housing campus that would provide approximately 109 units of housing for the replacement of National Church Residences’ Garden Grove I and II (62 units senior) as well as the Manhattan Housing Authority’s Carlson Plaza (47 public housing units)

• Relocate residents from all three buildings (Garden Grove I & II, Carlson Plaza) to the new replacement building(s).

• The campus in downtown Manhattan, KS would consist of two or three buildings at or near the site of the existing Carlson Plaza and Colorado Plaza (50 units), an existing National Church Residences’ Section 8 senior housing property.

• The campus would consist of the replacement building(s) and Colorado Plaza, for a total of approx. 159 units.

• Transfer the rental subsidies from Garden Grove I and II and Carlson Plaza to the new building.

• Secure FEMA grant for the acquisition and demolition of Garden Grove I and II. The acquisition proceeds would be used to retire existing FHA debt on Garden Grove I and cover relocation costs of residents.

• The new development would be single plan of finance with three kinds of subsidy contracts -- Section 8 HAP, RAD for PRAC converted to PBRA, and Carlson Plaza public housing subsidy converted to project based subsidy under RAD or demolition/disposition authority.


Manhattan Housing Authority (MHA): will work with a Co-Developer to ensure project is completed and conversions from PH to Project Based Sec 8 happen within the guidelines of HUD and Federal Regulations. 

Oikos Development Corporation (ODC): nonprofit community development corporation dedicated to building quality affordable housing in partnership as Co-Developer with Manhattan Housing Authority. ODC will provide development oversight ranging from planning to construction to financing and tax credit application process. 

Housing MHK Fund: independent nonprofit organization formed to be affiliated and/or instrumentality of the Manhattan Housing Authority and would act as the general partner of the owner as necessary to meet HUD 202 ownership requirements and potentially as the developer, owner, and property manager of additional properties. 

National Church Residences (NCR): Will facilitate the transfer of the Garden Grove I and II rental subsidies and use restrictions to Manhattan Housing Authority / Housing MHK Fund as development is completed. 

• US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Approve the transfer of Garden Grove I’s Section 8 contract and 202 Use Agreement to the new building under the Appropriations Act Authority for moving Section 8 contracts and use restrictions. Approve the conversion of Garden Grove II’s PRAC to RAD and the transfer of the resulting RAD PBRA contract to the new building along with the required use restrictions. Approve the requested conversion of the public housing Carlson Plaza through RAD or demolition/disposition authority and moving the resulting project-based subsidy to the new building.

Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC): Provide 4% and/or 9% LIHTCs and needed gap funds.

City of Manhattan: Assist in approving any needed zoning variances to accommodate new building and any available tax abatement/PILOT. Submit a proposal to FEMA on behalf of National Church Residences for the acquisition of Garden Grove I and II. Authorize site control via MoU with Manhattan Housing Authority for City Parking Lot located at 5th & Pierre St. 

2nd Meeting Downtown Affordable Housing Campus

Project Properties Involved

Downtown Affordable Housing Campus Quick Proposal  6_30_22

Map of Downtown Site

Parking Lot Map

Views Downtown Project Site

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

Please submit your feedback to us!

  1. Please provide us with any additional feedback you have related to the proposed project. 

  2. What residential needs is Manhattan facing – describe what you know to be needs for residence in our community? What are the needs in terms of demographics (who)? What requirements (e.g. space, proximity) stand out for these groups?

  3. What do you see in this space (location, environment, proximity to resources) that would or would not make it appropriate to dedicate to residency?

  4. WHO might occupy this space as residents? (“Workforce”? Singles? Seniors? Others?)

  5. WHAT MORE can we envision in this space? Elaborate alternatives or blends of uses. What complementary uses?   

  6. WHAT impacts does the concept of RESIDENCY in this space here have on ____________________

    1. Other downtown development – How does this differ?  How could it be different?
    2. Consistency with MHK community goals
    3. Employers/employment
    4. Retail
  7. Leave This Blank:

  8. This field is not part of the form submission.