http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
This article got me thinking...is this the reality on the ground? I am hearing all this talk about how Midtown and Downtown are basically full. Is that people's actual experiances? Are rents rising 10-15% per year?
A second question is when do you think someone will come forward with a major residential development in Downtown?
As a soon to be 4th year WSU student, I have lived in Midtown for the previous 3 years, and its amazing what has been happening. I hope to create a detailed map of all the new projects to come online since moving down there. Talking to friends and other students, it appears what is available, is 'Student-Grade' housing, which is fine, for now. Yet, not housing one would live in as a young professional, or there are expensive properties on the other end. It mainly depends on what you desire, if you want a secure parking lot, your rent is going to be much more, yet if you're content being in a building with only on-street parking, you may find some more affordable properties. Rents DO seem to be on the rise though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
Yes, I know this is real. here are a few examples. I purchased a foreclosure recently in midtown. there were more than 10 bids on the property many of which above offer. A friend of mine had their home appraised at 150 last year, relisted this year for 20k more this year and had 15+ offers in a few hours. it went for more 170k+. Before we tried to buy we looked at a rental on Willis near Cass. the rent was 1200 for a 900 sq ft flat [[really an aprtment) with decent amenities no covered parking no AC. there were 30 people in line to look at it and it rented for 1325.
Another friend of mine broke her lease at the Broderick because she wanted to move back to RO near her friends. she was not charge a lease breaking fee and they rented it out that day for 300 more [[from what she says).
it is real. the thing is can we keep it going and get some more online before the tax incentives go away, and or, can the owners make enough money now. to be able to pay the taxes when that comes. becasue some of these buildings have been foreclosing...the Kales is one
I can attest to what French777 says, as a downtown resident, rents are absolutely going up. I've lived in one of the downtown high-rises for the last three years as I attended law school in Midtown. When I moved down, in Summer 2010, downtown rents were really quite low, to the point that my roommate and I were able to get a spot with a killer view in a secure building with secure garage parking for about the same price per sq. foot that we would pay for a nice 4 or 5 bedroom "college apartment" in sleepy Mount Pleasant, MI. As one can imagine, this was shocking [[and awesome) to us. To put into context, rents were already increasing in 2010, our building was weeks away from putting in a new floating market rent-setting process from what had been a flat/base rate computation [[lucky us, we got in under the lowest level).
This last month I inquired about re-leasing the same unit I've had [[building is under renovations, so it would be substantially upgraded with new appliances, finishes, paint, carpet, etc.) and the quoted price is roughly 50% higher than the initial rent in June 2010. The per square footage cost has gone from about $0.85 to $1.26 sq/ft. This is mind-blowing, and has made me have to reconsider retaining the unit.
If rentals continue going up, this building will be entirely young professionals soon, and the elderly and regular folks without vouchers or assistance of some kind will likely be out, the students will be out, and many of the other average folks will be out. It is exciting and frightening at the same time. Thankfully, I start my new job downtown in August, so I suppose I'll be in the new "target demographic" for my building for next year, at least.
If it is really the case that new development cannot happen without $2.00 sq/ft rates, we likely have a few years to go, but if there are no additional units built in the next couple of years, I wouldn't be surprised to continue to see rents skyrocket toward that figure.
When my husband and I [[both professionals) moved here last summer, we couldn't find a place to rent. We had a month of lead time but everything had long waiting lists. We wound up buying instead [[and got outbid on the first three houses). Being a life-long city renter, I wasn't ready to buy but in the long run, I'm glad we did. I still miss downtown loft living but this isn't so bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
But yeah, the "basically full" thing was true in our experience.
If you read the article, it says the increase in prices is mostly attributed to the fact that the owners can barely afford to pay the bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
While the increase in prices at face value seems like a good thing, the actual reason behind the price increases is not something to get excited about.
The whole scenario reminds me of the housing bubble in 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
there is one difference with the housing bubble and the "rental bubble'. when the foreclsure hit the building owners, they will get snapped up quickly by other investors who will not ahve to do build out and have a lower borrowing cost. this may put a blip in the market from the buying side but will then see another crop of developments come online during the blip.
if people just think about what they are doing they would realize that detroit [[in some cases) is one of the best values for the money in the country. ill take my 50 dolalrs a sq fot to live in detroit over 1000 sq ft to live in brooklyn.
and things are definitely changing. if you lvie in the burbs and have kids under five or are empty nesters or single or child free. come move to the city. your quality of life will actually be better than the burbs. you will see some blight. you will see some homeless people and they might ask your for change but you will have a good time,, were you can walk to a bar, walk to a museum, wlak toa casino, walk to a game all within 10 minutes walking [[3 on a bike of each other).
leaving DC and coming back home was one of the best decisions I ever made.
I do not think these are the same at all. This is rental rates increasing in a resurgent downtown. The housing bubble was people qualifying for loans that they should not have to finance purchases of homes that were traditioanlly out of their reach. These could not bemore different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
This. But substitute Chicago for DC in my case.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaytheory
As it approaches $2/ft^2 though, I wonder if it's no longer such a bargain. I paid $1132 for about 700 ft^2 in Streeterville [[80's building) and $1700 for 800 ft^2 in the Gold Coast/River North [[2000's building) area when I didn't live in the neighborhoods. I find it hard to believe that we, here, can pull $2+, but I'm hopeful.
But the reason for the rent increase is irrelevant, what's more important is that the market supports it. If I own a furniture store and the price of wood doubles, of course I will have to increase my prices. But that doesn't mean that people will be willing to pay the mark-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
The fact that prices are going up AND that people are willing to pay this is monumental. When rents hit $2.00 per square foot, you will see almost every vacant building in Greater Downtown see development interest. And then adjacent neighborhoods will start to see revival as overflow from people [[like myself) who are probably not willing to pay $2.00 psf will start to flood North Corktown, New Center, West Village, and Woodbridge.
If this continues, in 5 years, there will not be a vacant or blighted building within 5 miles of the city center.
to name a few, among many others:Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
-borderick
-david whitney
-auburn
-milner aka 'the ashley'
-south university village [[phase 2)
-united way building
-capitol park Building
-new center [[628 Delaware, 59, 69, 90, 93, 100 and 112 Seward)
-palmer park [[sarasota, la vogue, seville, palmer lodge)
hopefully housing options can broaden in the outlying neighborhoods and be made more attractive.
Yup, what else is new? This has been going on. Supply is lagging behind demand.
Nice try, but not exactly all of these are downtown. The United Way building is going to be offices, not sure if there is a residential component.Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
If you can adjust your scope to over the last couple of decades you can add quite a bit to the list including the Riverfront Towers, Millender Center, Trolley Plaza, Harbortown, and Stroh's. These are all substantial residential developments.
I am not discounting any of the projects that you have named, but if we include all of these we should also include places like Gardenview, and a whole slew of other buildings in the WSU area. I guess we all have different definitions. You see downtown as being much larger than I do. My frame of reference is much longer... I guess I am getting old! :)
United Way Building has residential. I believe the Archdiocese is moving into the first 5 floors, with ~50 units above. So downtown, just in the last few years [[off the top of my head) you have:Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
past:
Broderick
current/planned:
Claridge House [[leasing)
Security Trust Lofts [[leasing)
The Ashley
United Way
Capitol Park
David Whitney
Lofts of Merchant Row [[2 new buildings)
Vinton Building
Well once these rehabbed projects are done we need to focus on "NEW" construction, not everyone wants a "historic" turned modern residential living option. I know alot of folks who wont move to Detroit because of lack of "New" construction. I love all the residential projects downtown and midtown... soon to happen, no doubt. I hope we focus soon on building residential modern skyscrapers with balconies. It's needed here, believe it or not..Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
details details. what i would consider to be a 'high profile' downtown residential development would be one of these. surely one has to be in the pipeline ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
-book tower
-hudson block redevelopment
-anything new on the riverfront
I know of at least one downtown that hasn't hit news yet. Not the Book Tower, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
My friend looked last year to rent from 1300 to 3000. She found waiting lists and more waiting lists even at the high end. So yes, Detroit is experiencing a downtown housing shortage.
I'm moving the city next month and while I had a more modest budget of 1500/month, I didn't find a place that I liked with the higher end finishes that would accept a dog. I'll be moving into my friends combined condo unit [[two units combined into one) and pay her a nice chunk of rent.
People think I'm crazy when I say that you can shell out 2k and still not have a rental in the city.
Renovation?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
Rent increases are a signal to knowledgable people that rentals are scarce. It's viewed as a sign of growth and development.
However, for someone on the outside pondering a move to Detroit, it may have the opposite effect.
Numerous people here in NYC, when I tell them that I used to live in Detroit, respond by stating how "affordable" it must be to live there.
Then I tell them that I'm actually only paying an extra $250 per month for my [[albeit smaller) Brooklyn apartment, but with no need for a car, it's actually more affordable. And this is Williamsburg we're talking about, not an outer neighborhood.
So is cannibalization of the suburbs really what Detroit needs? It's part of the solution, but the draw for out-of-staters to move to Detroit will decline as affordability is no longer a viable option in the rental market.
There are plenty of lower-market rentals available, moby.
The correct comparison to Williamsburg is more something like sharing a Woodbridge house [[$300ish a room) than the Broderick or something, which is most comparable to a high-rise in Manhattan. Still apples and oranges, but not quite as bad of a comparison.
As someone who made the decision to move, the rents were not cheap but what is worse than rent is car insurance and income tax. Much higher than other cities I looked at. What is up with car insurance in this area?
By amenities and size of the apartment, Eber, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
But regarding amenities and local retail establishments, walkability...the only fair comparisons with W'burg are Midtown, Downtown, and Corktown.
Spill the tea?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
It's a bit surprising to me too. But keep in mind, Chicago is a huge bargain for renting, not buying. Downtown rents pretty much hang around $2 per square foot and drop dramatically as you reach the neighborhoods....$1.50-1.75 / sqftQuote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
If you want to rent in midtown or downtown Detroit and also own a car, you'll face a high cost of living. Since I work between both cities, I've considered trying and have ran the numbers. Midtown and downtown Detroit was too expensive. The cost of living in Chicago was at least $200 cheaper per month within 2 miles of the loop. Plus you had all the amenities for a very convenient lifestyle.
Whether you see Detroit's rental prices inflated or not, this is really good in terms of getting more buildings rehabbed or constructed. Clearly the demand is there. It's just a matter of when developers will deliver something other than a 4-story building. I seriously think Detroit is ready to start constructing some residential towers as the demand for modern apartments is there.
I agree totally, the demand is well overdue. We need new modern residential skyscrapers well over "4" story, how about 30-floors and up. That's about what the demand really is, we can use atleast 10-15 towers total in Downtown, Riverfront, Midtown and Corktown. I guaranteed all the buildings will 100% occupied....boy I wish I was a developer/investor...etc. I will be throwing them up so fast, similar to Chicago's North Shore residential towers district along the Chicago River. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
Demand in this [[and pretty much any) market is price-dependent. If you could build 10 towers to rent at the current market rates, that would be a lot of units, but I might believe you could rent them in some reasonable amount of time. However, it is unlikely you could build them and charge that little, and we really don't have a clue what demand is like at the prices that would probably be required.Quote:
Originally Posted by gthomas
DetroitYes plays SimCity!Quote:
Originally Posted by gthomas
how is that "good"?Quote:
The move to gentrify swaths of the city also is pushing out several hundred low-income residents who’ve been told to move after their buildings were sold, by new owners who’ll be raising the rent. It happened this year to residents of three small apartment complexes on Henry Street in the Cass Corridor. In downtown’s Capitol Park, senior citizens who relied on federal aid to pay their rent have been given a year to find a new home.
Tenants soon will start moving into the restored Beaux Arts building designed by Albert Kahn with relief stone carvings by Corrado Parducci. The seven-story building at 735 Griswold is a block from Campus Martius. Rent starts at $1,275 for a 850-square feet unit and tops out at $2,500 for a 1,440-square-foot unit. Based on the square footage, that’s about $500 a month more than almost anyone in the area would have charged two years ago.
sounds like the rich kicking out the poor, over a view of the skyline.
seems like there should at least be a little more thought given at least, to kicking out elderly, who have even less means or ability to deal with being displaced.
Because there are still plenty of places in Detroit, even near downtown, for the poor to live. They aren't being kicked to the streets. However, this opens up more expensive property [[or what would be expensive in any other city) so that we can actually have a tax base to provide services for the poor people.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaCoTS
I'd rather have a different house and police/fire/schools than have a rundown highrise downtown without basic city services. People can't have their cake and eat it too. Which one do you want?
And who said there isn't thought given? Are you familiar with the volunteers giving the tenants legal advice? The protestations leading to them getting an extension on the time they have to vacate? Are you showing up to help them move?
Classic. As long as they're NOT living around us.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
well, since you bring it up, are YOU?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
but if thats the case that these services are being provided in all cases, thats a good step in the right direction, and news to me. forgive me for being skeptical, but i am rarely given reason not to be.
lol, exactly. god forbid poor people be allowed to occupy prime real estate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaCoTS
While I have you online, will Fort Wayne be open for this years fireworks?
No, I don't care where they live; I wouldn't live in Detroit if I were worried that "they" live near me. I do care whether there are properties to attract people of all income levels. We have plenty for middle class and lower. I am happy to see us create places for upper income too. We desperately need a tax base in this city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
And I 100% support some sort of policy that protects a certain percentage of properties for low income. But I'm not going to cry over shifting dynamics.
Actually, I did contact someone who works with the individuals out on Cass who got pushed out recently and pointed her in the right direction as far as getting them free legal representation [[I don't do that kind of law, I can't help).Quote:
Originally Posted by WaCoTS
I also contacted moving businesses to see if they'd donate trucks so we could organize an effort to help them move.
So, yes.
But why would you do that when you could just bitch about people being displaced on a message board?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Hey, not bad for a Texan.... Thanx T!Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Or bitch @ the bitchers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
A tried and true approach, indeed. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I am pretty sure that the Hudson block development will be the frist new construction in quite a while that will be primarily aimed at filling residentail demand. If that sells out quickly, I would expect something else to drop fairly fast. Someone will see opportunity, and Detroit will get at least 1 30 story or higher condo tower.
Totally random guess at loaction is parking lot at the corner of Randolph and Lafayette.
well you know, when in Rome...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
Go on.......Quote:
Originally Posted by WaCoTS
River House in Grand Rapids is the tallest residential tower in the state, at approximately 400 feet [[about 50 feet taller than the Broderick). I suspect Detroit will pass that at some point [[if the Book becomes residential, it would be the tallest - 475 feet), but the question is when.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
Yes that parking lot is READY for a 30-story condo tower, I hope the Hudson site, partial Monroe site and the Statler site is nothing but residential. Those areas are dead zones after 5p. Adding thousands of units will create a density after dark downtown, without the Tigers/Redwings/Lions playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
Actually it won't create pedestrian density. Businesses do. Even one city block with 2000 residents can be silent. I think downtown can feel vibrant long before highrises go up. This is why I've never understood NIMBY complaints about tall towers and traffic when residential buildings only contribute to a marginal increase in traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gthomas
I don't think you are looking at this properly. What the residents will do a provide a better customer base for whatever businesses might want to open. A major retail area can draw customers from a wider area, as regional malls generally do, and they don't need a lot of nearby residents. But downtown Detroit is no longer a major retail area, it is never going to be able to compete with malls in terms of parking, and most businesses are going to need a critical mass of local customers to be successful. That implies a need for a lot more housing downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
The hope is that eventually downtown can get into a virtuous cycle, and you reach a sufficient density of businesses that it becomes a draw [[in conjunction with the other downtown entertainment attractions) that can pull people from outside downtown to shop, but I believe that density cannot be achieved without more local residents.
Yes, we are saying the same thing. The business districts that serve resident population alone aren't always vibrant. They are 9-6. Destination districts....be it downtown or neighborhood streets have bars, restaurants, and retail and need a huge critical mass to sustain itself.
But midtown and downtown benefit from some tourism interest, so they can attract those type of places and also get the accessory benefits of a growing residential population in the area.
To put this in perspective I think on average you need 5000 residents within walking distance to support 1 Starbucks store in a non hotel-non-corporate area. That's alot of residential towers and that is why it's not good to anticipate population density alone as a meter for opening businesses. Best to consider vibrant districts as places that attract people from all over.
This is the whole reason why Gilbert is stepping in to improve the retail scene downtown. I don't think it could grow this fast on its own.
I'm not sure we are saying the same thing. It sounds as if you think downtown could be a vibrant district attracting outside people without there first being more residents. I don't believe there is a path to that state without significantly more residents that there are now. Other than that, I think we are mostly in agreement.
from experience I would yes. I had a very hard time trying to find a one bedroom for a reasonable price that was nice and in the downtown area. I ended up renting in the Indian Village neighborhood. Which wasn't so bad for me because IV is my fav neighborhood. But to warn a lot of people it will get frustrating because almost every building between cork/mid/downtown have waiting list and even in New Center the apartments are limited as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
I think it bears keeping in mind that all of the large downtown buildings, whether office or residential, occupy spaces which formerly held much smaller buildings. When I see the AAA Building on the Statler site it makes me wonder whether low-rise development wouldn't be better for that location right now. It seems like Detroit is always holding out for the next "big" development when maybe we should be thinking in terms of baby steps. Detroit has 1/3 of the population it had in 1950. Why would we expect that when we tear down a large building [[Statler, Hudsons, etc...) that an even larger building would take its place? I'd rather see small scale development, which could eventually be replaced by larger scale development if future demand dictates, than empty space. 30+ story towers are not a prerequisite in order to have vibrancy.
I think this is not really the key issue. The issue is whether you can build new residential space of whatever size at current rents, or alternatively, when rents will be high enough to build new residential space. Even with the current rising rents, I don't believe new construction downtown is economic without subsidy.
The article that started this discussion said developers have identified that point as the average [[or maybe median?) rent hitting $2 per square foot. It's about $1.75 and rising. The prediction was that if/when it hits $2, you'll see a rash of new developments, especially because acquiring lots and vacant buildings is still going to be pretty cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Of course it could become vibrant before towers get built. But the busiest districts are not a result of their immediate surroundings of high population density. If such a direct correlation existed there would already be bustling retail around Detroit's existing residential towers. Instead it's mostly service based, some of it fast food, and much of it closes late evening.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDKeepsmiling
Just got my renewal info, and I'm looking at a 33% increase [[downtown) to about $1.75 per sq foot. Looks like I might be moving to another area in the city or back to the burbs...
Rents are skyrocketing and everything's full, I have about 2 weeks to find somewhere to move. I want to stay here, but damn!
Take a look in the Villages, Spartan. My friend just leased a beautiful two bedroom in the Parkstone for $950.
Villages? Indian Village? University Village?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_c
I would like to stay in "Greater Downtown." I've started looking more at Corktown/Lafayette Park but it seems to be much harder to locate properties around there. A lot of them don't have web sites, etc. Midtown is another option, but that is looking pretty similar to downtown. Everything seems to be <$700 and crappy or >$1000 and nice. There is a serious lack of "mid-level" stuff near downtown/midtown from what I've seen.
THE Villages: www.thevillagesofdetroit.com
Islandview Village, West Village, Indian Village, East Village, Gold Coast and Joseph Berry Subdivision. All very much within the Greater Downtown. We are the same distance from Woodbridge to Campus Martius and have more than two streets to choose from, too! Lol!
I'm sure he could find a nice place in the Villages, but they are farther from what most people think of as downtown than Corktown. If he is looking in Lafayette Park, he might try talking to the people at Vasileff; they seem to have a pretty good handle on that area.
It always makes me laugh when people talk about "distance" with regard to the Villages. The Villages are the same distance to Downtown as New Center or Woodbridge and Jefferson Avenue is arguably Detroit's most vibrant business street. Plus, we have the river anywhere from zero to ten short blocks away. And Belle Isle. We're thirteen minutes from Campus Martius by bike or bus and the busses are actually quite good. And grocery stores. And Eastern Market! Lol! I've been here for nine years and always suggest people take a look. It's the perfect balance of neighborhood and Downtown living. Good stuff. :)
Again, I'm not trying to suggest the Villages don't have their own appeal, but people in New Center or Woodbridge are probably more interested in their proximity to Midtown than their distance to Downtown. In any case, Spartan isn't a newcomer, and he can decide what constitutes Greater Downtown for himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_c
I'm sure it's nice, but I don't really have interest in a "balance of neighborhood and Downtown living," just "downtown living." I'm not looking in Woodbridge or New Center either. I want to be Downtown first, Midtown [[especially southern portion) and maybe Corktown/Lafayette Park if the prices are right. Ideally, I do not wish to be more than 1 mile from Campus Martius. 3-5 years from now, maybe I'll be looking at the Villages or Woodbridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_c