Duplexes could make a comeback in neighborhoods with pattern-book homes

Interesting proposal from the Michigan Municipal League
https://s3-prod.crainsdetroit.com/s3...ome-main_i.jpg

Quote:

---

The proposal, from the Michigan Municipal League, is reminiscent of the catalog homes that were built across metro Detroit and elsewhere a century ago. Called pattern-book homes, the latest iteration includes blueprints for duplexes, triplexes and quads that would create smaller, lower-cost housing units in neighborhoods, while still keeping the look of single-family homes.In announcing the plans, Michigan Municipal League's Melissa Milton-Pung, the group's program manager, said there is a gap in housing options that the pattern-book developments could help fill.
"Let's revive this tradition," she said. "They will slide right in."

---

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/real-e...-housing-needs

Interesting how cities ride this roller coaster of making mistakes,fixing them and then turn right back around and make the exact same mistakes again.

The quickest way to ruin an established neighborhood

Throw a duplex in there.

Cities already learned that lesson the hard way,many banned multi family in neighborhoods,some spent millions buying them up and demolished them just to get rid of them,now because real estate is in a up cycle they want to go back to old policies that already proved to devastate neighborhoods when the down cycle repeats itself.

One would think the objective would be to stabilize established neighborhoods and not look for ways to de-stabilize them.

Where I am at they built several large neighborhoods in the downtown,all SF vintage style bungalows,they are low income but they are homeowners and not renters,in 15 years the neighborhoods still are clean and act as neighborhoods.

I guess it boils down to what your long term objective is as a city,are you looking to create homeowners that have a vested interest in the city or transient neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Interesting how cities ride this roller coaster of making mistakes,fixing them and then turn right back around and make the exact same mistakes again.

The quickest way to ruin an established neighborhood

Throw a duplex in there.

---

Oh yeah, look at how terrible Hamtramck is doing because of all the Duplex homes. Same with Millwaukee, Manhattan, Chicago, all suffering, all with a high rate of people living in duplexes.

Sarcasm can be heard to read but the above certainly was sarcasm.

I could pick apart every piece of this nonsensical post [[the banning multifamily development was usually done solely for race/class related reasons, claiming that new construction on vacant lots would "destabilize" neighborhoods is just asinine, not much of a "downtown if it's full of SFH, and so on) but it would probably all be for naught, so moving on...

One of the best things about duplexes is it introduces lay people to the world of being a landlord. Having a good deal of experience in the industry, I can say the perspective of the property owners is usually hard to grasp unless you've personally rented property. They may not be so quick to jump on the tenants rights bandwagon when they know the feeling of a leach trying to suck them dry.

The North End would be a great spot to build up density with new 1-4 unit housing.

In my day, we generally referred to these as flats" or "income flats". Duplexes were where the units were side-by-side in a shared building and not up and down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-slice

Oh yeah, look at how terrible Hamtramck is doing because of all the Duplex homes. Same with Millwaukee, Manhattan, Chicago, all suffering, all with a high rate of people living in duplexes.

Sarcasm can be heard to read but the above certainly was sarcasm.

I could pick apart every piece of this nonsensical post [[the banning multifamily development was usually done solely for race/class related reasons, claiming that new construction on vacant lots would "destabilize" neighborhoods is just asinine, not much of a "downtown if it's full of SFH, and so on) but it would probably all be for naught, so moving on...

One of the best things about duplexes is it introduces lay people to the world of being a landlord. Having a good deal of experience in the industry, I can say the perspective of the property owners is usually hard to grasp unless you've personally rented property. They may not be so quick to jump on the tenants rights bandwagon when they know the feeling of a leach trying to suck them dry.

The North End would be a great spot to build up density with new 1-4 unit housing.

---

All you did there was show your ignorance when it comes to rental properties and tried to turn it into a racial issue.

The same ignorant argument that allowing duplexes and quads in neighborhoods will help with housing shortages,like a materials supplier offers a discount because one is building a duplex.

The whole purpose of somebody purchasing in an established neighborhood is because they know who their neighbors are from one day to the next.

There is your version of how it works then there is the real world.

Nice try naming cities with the highest crime rates in the country as examples to follow.

You are forgetting about the guy from Australia that bought a apartment building that got killed collecting the rent,because that is what happens when you disrupt established neighborhoods with people that are transient in nature that do not have a vested interest in the neighborhood.

You can call me all the little childish names you want,you cannot change or argue with established history.

How many duplexes have you rented in Manhattan?

Once again you are showing your ignorance when you compare Manhattan rentals and the clientele they draw verses Hamtramck,how many 2 bedroom duplex’s rent for $25,000 there ?

Indeed, there are duplexes and there are DUPLEXES deluxe that are absolutely grand! Take those near Boston Edison up thru Davison and Dexter [where it gets a bit dicey]. These brick units often have fireplaces, hardwood floors, balconies front and back, plaster walls, stucco ceilings - excellent woodwork.

There are two on Virginia Park near 12th street I know of having two bathrooms in both units. Upper and lower. Also these near-west side Detroit flats [as they are also called] have huge driveways. The long depth of the units [those with three bedrooms particularly] sometimes matched by large backyards. They are homes. Not apartments - though some may be split into more than two units.

There are cases where owner lives in the upper or lower unit - the renter the other. Sure, there are blighted [and vacant units] but drive for example about the bordering areas of mid-town to see existing and restored. Duplexes are coming back and for many areas of Detroit they never went away.

The only tri-county suburbs matching the size and build-quality of the D's best duplexes I've seen are found in parts of Farmington, F-Hills, Dearborn, and parts of the Pointes. As these are older suburbs they have these types of structures.

Hamtramck has some - mostly frame, sans driveways and large yards. The U of D area has a few side-by-side units. The near west side of Detroit has the most brick splendid structures. Block after block.

Here's one sold - note the duplexes on either side showcasing huge covered porches. You get alot of light as the driveways are wide...

https://www.redfin.com/MI/Detroit/15.../home/79049353

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

In my day, we generally referred to these as flats" or "income flats". Duplexes were where the units were side-by-side in a shared building and not up and down.

---

duplex was side by side, flats were an upper and lower unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Indeed, there are duplexes and there are DUPLEXES deluxe that are absolutely grand! Take those near Boston Edison up thru Davison and Dexter [where it gets a bit dicey]. These brick units often have fireplaces, hardwood floors, balconies front and back, plaster walls, stucco ceilings - excellent woodwork.

There are two on Virginia Park near 12th street I know of having two bathrooms in both units. Upper and lower. Also these near-west side Detroit flats [as they are also called] have huge driveways. The long depth of the units [those with three bedrooms particularly] sometimes matched by large backyards. They are homes. Not apartments - though some may be split into more than two units.

There are cases where owner lives in the upper or lower unit - the renter the other. Sure, there are blighted [and vacant units] but drive for example about the bordering areas of mid-town to see existing and restored. Duplexes are coming back and for many areas of Detroit they never went away.

The only tri-county suburbs matching the size and build-quality of the D's best duplexes I've seen are found in parts of Farmington, F-Hills, Dearborn, and parts of the Pointes. As these are older suburbs they have these types of structures.

Hamtramck has some - mostly frame, sans driveways and large yards. The U of D area has a few side-by-side units. The near west side of Detroit has the most brick splendid structures. Block after block.

Here's one sold - note the duplexes on either side showcasing huge covered porches. You get alot of light as the driveways are wide...

https://www.redfin.com/MI/Detroit/15.../home/79049353

---

So many of those beautiful, 1920's full brick duplexes in that Dexter corridor have been fire gutted, vandalized, and torn down. It's enough to make a grown man cry. I think the majority of them are gone, a terrible shame.

^ Yes. Particularly along Linwood and Dexter. Fullerton had some of the nicest duplexes. Closer in to Woodward there are more intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

All you did there was show your ignorance when it comes to rental properties and tried to turn it into a racial issue.

The same ignorant argument that allowing duplexes and quads in neighborhoods will help with housing shortages,like a materials supplier offers a discount because one is building a duplex.

The whole purpose of somebody purchasing in an established neighborhood is because they know who their neighbors are from one day to the next.

There is your version of how it works then there is the real world.

Nice try naming cities with the highest crime rates in the country as examples to follow.

You are forgetting about the guy from Australia that bought a apartment building that got killed collecting the rent,because that is what happens when you disrupt established neighborhoods with people that are transient in nature that do not have a vested interest in the neighborhood.

You can call me all the little childish names you want,you cannot change or argue with established history.

How many duplexes have you rented in Manhattan?

Once again you are showing your ignorance when you compare Manhattan rentals and the clientele they draw verses Hamtramck,how many 2 bedroom duplex’s rent for $25,000 there ?

---

The banning of multi family dwellings IS a racial issue. If you understood history as well as you claim you'd already know that. It's called exclusionary zoning, look it up, it's not that hard.

Secondly, you fail to understand is that these homes are by and large owner occupied. So you're whole argument that multifamily homes leads people "not know their neighbor" is totally invalid. I worked in real estate all over the US for YEARS, and the 1-4 unit homes all over the country [[including the 5 Burroughs) are owner occupied and they rent the other units, or share the mortgage with family members.

Obviously missing the point on the chosen cities I'll make it really obvious for you... Hamtramck and Manhattan are about as different as 2 densely populated cities can be, duh. But they are both stable, highly functional, urban areas with an abundance of duplex homes, which invalidates your entire argument that they destroy "established neighborhoods".

Your complete lack of expertise and first hand experience in this matter is evident. I know that's par for the course in your usual interminable diatribe though, so I'll go back to skipping oved your replies as I usually do. Have a good one.

There is no requirement in the article that says that the proposed multi family must be owner occupied.

To say the banning of multi family is a racial issue,dispels your claim of years of real estate experience.

Go in any neighborhood and you can tell the difference between home ownership and rented property,duplex or not,unless you have a high income neighborhood.

Adding multi family to an established neighborhood increases traffic and neighborhood instability.

In the city of Detroit with the downfall of many neighborhoods would you say a majority of those neighborhoods are home owners or renters?

If you were in real estate like you say you were you would know how localized it is,and you would not be comparing Manhattan to Detroit.

How about instead of looking for ways to deteriorate existing neighborhoods by turning them into rental properties,figure out how to make homeowners out of the renters and stabilize the other neighborhoods.

You are forgetting that was the whole idea behind HUDs decision to no longer build projects or multi family units and increase the monthly stipend in order to interrogate the low income into the suburbs which in turn destroyed the suburbs.

You are not arguing with me you are arguing with long established fact.

The whole reasoning as stated in the article was to provide low income housing in established neighborhoods,they are just doing it while trying to make it look like they are not doing it by changing the look of the structure.

Cities across the country have banned multi family in a SFR zoning for many years,what some are starting to do because some cities have a severe housing shortage is allowing extra un attached units,but limited in size and the primary must remain owner occupied.

But those are cities where the rental rates start at $2500 per month in the worst parts of town,Detroit is not there,there is an abundance of cheap housing where first homebuyers can easily afford a house verses renting.

If you were in real estate like you say,you would also know full well a home buyer looking to purchase a duplex and relies on the second unit in order to pay their mortgage,will lose that property.

Which is totally irrelevant because the link posted specifically reads that the intent is to provide units for the low income,zero to do with somebody buying a duplex and living on one side while renting the other.

You are arguing and supporting/advocating an issue in Detroit that does not exist,then trying to turn it around like I do not have a clue.

People spend more time trying to look out for the low income by catering to them instead of spending the same amount of time leveling the playing field by giving them opportunities.

Do you really think blending the low income into middle and upper income neighborhoods puts them out of site out of mind?

It did not work for HUD and they had billions to spend,it’s not solveing anything and certainly not helping those who you claim to be helping.

You brought up Chicago,Cabrini Green was HUDS first test in introducing low income into already established neighborhoods thinking that by doing so they would act like the surrounding residents,all it accomplished was to spread the violence from one spot to over the entire city.

You cannot just take somebody that is low income and drop them off in Manhattan and expect them to blend in,there is a process that needs to happen and the opportunity for them to no longer be low income needs to happen.

This is why in the trillion dollar war on poverty in 50 years has never changed the level of poverty in the United States the only thing it does is raise the standard of living of the low income so they can have the same thing everybody else does without actually working for it.

That same trillion dollars could have been used to educate or teach a skill to the low income so they can rise above the low income status,but that would entail actually helping them instead pretending you are.

Detroit does not have a low income housing shortage that needs to be fixed,Detroit has a lack of opportunity for the low income who now need to be housed because you failed to provide the opportunity,by design.

The “Parkside” is a gorgeous duplex! If only they would build them like that again.

Just rode my bike down Commonwealth in Woodbridge yesterday. Noticed lots of duplexes [[probably upwards of 30% of total housing stock), and let me tell you, the neighborhood is just suffering for it..... ;)

^ Why? Are they in disrepair? I lived on Commonwealth in one the few apartments and what I found most annoying is how NARROW the street is and those flats/ duplexes do NOT have driveways. So parking is a horrid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by preserve

duplex was side by side, flats were an upper and lower unit.

---

That's correct. My family and I lived in upper floor flats when I grew up in SW Detroit in the 50'/60's. They were great.

These catalogues are a brilliant idea! Preapproved plans essentially 'side-step' the red tape involved in building a home and can be crafted to match the feel of the neighborhood. This is important as administrative cost is as high as 40% of a home's total cost in Detroit! So a new 2000 sq ft house can cost $364,000 total where A pre-approved plan could lower that cost down to $260,000. This would do wonders in neighborhoods like the North End, where decent home values are starting to exceed this price point and the number of abandoned homes are drying up. Doubly so in places like Woodbridge, CoreCity/NorthCorktown, West Village and the peripheries of Islandview.

The math does not work

Using vintage plans does not lower costs because they are not to code,so an engineer and architect still has to go through everything and update it to current code and conform it todays standards,A/C/heating etc.

Even if the current price of $260,000 was realistic for a single family home,they are talking about duplexes,tri-plex and qauds.

So take that $260,000 and add another $100,000 because you are now doing a duplex that is 2 kitchens,4 bathrooms,fire prevention between the units,separate utilities etc.

So now you are at $360,000 or $460,000 not including the cost of the land purchase.

Keep in mind the program is geared to adding low cost housing,realistically as an investor how much rent can you draw from a 1000 sqft apartment in North End,considering that is it low income,which is based on average local rents with the max $1500,you are going to draw $3000 max,that is before taxes,insurance,months of lost income from not being rented,repairs,maintenance the list is long.

30yr Fixed / APR 6.826%

Per month $2,357

That is Quicken Loans.


You as an investor are all ready losing money before you even built the thing.

Think about it,cities in California with 60,000 homeless in the streets and the most desperate situations that call for this very exact same course of action and more liberal then Detroit can even dream of,will not allow it.

There is a reason.

Cities have been around for 200 years in this country anyways,they are not re-inventing the wheel or coming up with some kind of new revelation that will change the face of housing in the United States,everything has already been tried 10,000 ways under the sun,they kinda figured out what works and what does not by now,that is how they wrote the land use codes.

The picture that Zacha341 showed is what I grew up calling a "two-family" flat. Usually, the parents and kids lived on one floor and the grand parents lived on the other. The grandparents usually were the owners and rented the other flat or shared with the children payments on the mortgage. The initial picture in the OP may have been called a duplex but it was still a two-family flat, just that it had one outside entrance door. When you got inside there was a entry door to the first floor unit and stairs leading to the second floor unit that had an entry door.

13606 Cedargrove was the lower flat of a two family flat my parents owned. The upper unit, 13604, was almost a mirror image of the lower. Both units had two separate entrances, one in front and the other off the driveway, and separate basements and utilities, except for water. It was a good deal for us privacy and security wise, and financially, the tenant rent paid the mortgage. The finishes inside both units were very good. We had nine foot ceilings in the lower and eight foot in the upper. We loved living there. Getting and keeping good tenants was no problem. Zacha's observation struck a chord with me. When my folks sold in 1982, it was to a family. The grandparents, who were blind, lived in the upper flat, and the rest of the family in the lower.