Why is new housing in Detroit rarely multi-family residential?

[Detroitnerd]

I am from this area originally. I understand the history. I'm basically referencing the homes I've seen built within the last 20-30 years. I don't understand why the few homes that were built in Detroit were single family when there is a glut of those type of homes to begin with. Apartments, brownstones, flats, etc. seem to make more sense considering how the demographics and economics of the city were changing.

I think I understand what you're getting at, although I wish I knew exactly which new developments you mean.

But historical trends being what they are, I don't want to let us off the hook just yet. I think the planners, architects and developers here are about 20 years behind the curve. They try to think of neighborhoods in terms of where their parents would like to live, not where today's young people want to. So instead of dense, walkable, bustling and vertical, they think spread-out, drivable, serene and horizontal. For them, the suburban environments are and have always been synonymous with prosperity. So when developers want to take a part of Detroit and make it look prosperous, they imitate what they think of as prosperous, never considering they are pouring a form of housing onto an already-saturated market in an environment that already has nine strikes against it. [[Which is how you get oddly misplaced developments like Sand Bar Lane.)

[Hermod]

Oh, yes. I'll build my transit system with my own money.

Right after you pay for your freeway...

Non sequitur

I will pay to build my own house and you can pay for your high rise apartment building at 7-Mile and Schoenherr.

[EastsideAl]

I am from this area originally. I understand the history. I'm basically referencing
the homes I've seen built within the
last 20-30 years. I don't understand
why the few homes that were built in Detroit were single family when there
is a glut of those type of homes to
begin with. Apartments, brownstones,
flats, etc. seem to make more sense
considering how the demographics
and economics of the city were
changing.

OK, so the short form of what I said is: I don't thick they'd be economically viable, out side of the downtown & midtown area. In the rest of the city you're really talking about building for working class and middle class black families. And what they want is houses. Affordable, new or well-kept, houses, with parking, yard, and space for 2+ children. For what demand exists for housing in the city [[again, outside of the center), that's what it is for.

[Detroitnerd]

Non sequitur

Riiiiiggghht. It's all "market" decisions. When people wanted roads to drive their cars on, the market stepped up and built all those wonderful toll roads so we could travel from city to city. Same thing with all those profitable, never-need-to-be-subsidized airports. Thank goodness for the market for providing vital answers to our real market demand!

I will pay to build my own house and you can pay for your high rise apartment building at 7-Mile and Schoenherr.

I imagine you have some shred of interest in the common welfare of your fellow man. And perhaps are even grudgingly willing to admit that no man is an island; that many things work better when we collectively apply our effort.

Unless we're just cynical businesspeople trying to shear the public...

[maverick1]

I think I understand what you're getting at, although I wish I knew exactly which new developments you mean.

But historical trends being what they are, I don't want to let us off the hook just yet. I think the planners, architects and developers here are about 20 years behind the curve. They try to think of neighborhoods in terms of where their parents would like to live, not where today's young people want to. So instead of dense, walkable, bustling and vertical, they think spread-out, drivable, serene and horizontal. For them, the suburban environments are and have always been synonymous with prosperity. So when developers want to take a part of Detroit and make it look prosperous, they imitate what they think of as prosperous, never considering they are pouring a form of housing onto an already-saturated market in an environment that already has nine strikes against it. [[Which is how you get oddly misplaced developments like Sand Bar Lane.)

I was speaking of new or recent developments such as Virginia Park Estates or the new houses between I-75 and Martin Luther King near Trumbull.

[Detroitnerd]

I was speaking of new or recent developments such as Virginia Park Estates or the new houses between I-75 and Martin Luther King near Trumbull.

Yeah, the neighborhood they put in between Gibson and the Lodge has some multi-unit stuff, but the homes [[and the gargantuan lawns) are tone-deaf to the density of the city, what young people want, national shifts in taste. Personally, I find them appalling. But I'm guessing that's what you get when you ask metro Detroit's developers to come to the rescue: more of the same.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I was speaking of new or recent developments such as Virginia Park Estates or the new houses between I-75 and Martin Luther King near Trumbull.

The houses in Corktown were built in response to demand, and to establish a pattern of desired community planning. They were also considered low income [[at around 98K to 130k) before the bubble burst.

Trust me when I say there is no desire by the overwhelming majority of Corktown homeowners to build mutli-family. The high rise lofts get a pass because they are expensive and draw certain types of "acceptable" people. But if multi-family or apartments were built that were designed in such a way that they fit the character of the neighborhood, I think more neighbors might be open to it. The kind of neighbors that want more density I mean.

There are more houses in the works in North Corktown, being built by "Corktown Housing." You can buy one right now and they will build it for you.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I find that amongst my friends that want an apartment in the city outside of downtown their options are limited. You have more options as far as renting a house in Detroit than you have to renting an apartment. I believe 70%-80% of residential property in Detroit are single family homes.

It is true that quality apartments are harder to find the farther out you go. The weird thing is, if you venture into the near west side, along any part of Woodward, or along the Blvd/ New Center area, there are the most beautiful abandoned apartment buildings you ever saw just sitting there, waiting to be redeveloped. I assume the costs of renovation have yet to meet up with demand. To redo a costly 20-40 unit historical building means you have to have 20-40 people or couples willing to pay the higher rents, which people like myself just can't afford right now.

Some posters believe we don't have a shortage of affordable housing, but after completing almost 1400 home audits in The D/Hp/ Hamtown I must concur that finding rentals that dont exceed 40% of ones income are indeed hard to find. The expenses that accompany these older homes [[mostly the heat and water bills) really adds up. Most need weatherization, updated HVAC, new roofs, and landlords that give a damn about anything other than picking up the rent check.

My hope is that the apartment availability situation changes with the construction of the M1. Once the ink is dry, there will be more incentive to create dense housing.

[Hermod]

Riiiiiggghht. It's all "market" decisions. When people wanted roads to drive their cars on, the market stepped up and built all those wonderful toll roads so we could travel from city to city. Same thing with all those profitable, never-need-to-be-subsidized airports. Thank goodness for the market for providing vital answers to our real market demand!



I imagine you have some shred of interest in the common welfare of your fellow man. And perhaps are even grudgingly willing to admit that no man is an island; that many things work better when we collectively apply our effort.

Unless we're just cynical businesspeople trying to shear the public...

Infrastructure [[roads, canals, and airports) is a common problem and as such is a government function. What percentage of homes are built by the gummint? Homes have traditionally been a private affair. When the gummint has strayed into apartment building the results are usually Pruitt-Igoe, Brewster, and Jeffries.

I know you dream of the advent of the "collective" when you can force all the suburbanites into "workers flats" just outside of downtown with the dachas reserved for the nomenklatura like yourself.

[Detroitnerd]

Infrastructure [[roads, canals, and airports) is a common problem and as such is a government function. What percentage of homes are built by the gummint? Homes have traditionally been a private affair. When the gummint has strayed into apartment building the results are usually Pruitt-Igoe, Brewster, and Jeffries.

I know you dream of the advent of the "collective" when you can force all the suburbanites into "workers flats" just outside of downtown with the dachas reserved for the nomenklatura like yourself.

Oh, yes. Rugged individualists such as yourself [[I bet I pay into your social security!) always want everything done by the private market, because it does well by you.

No man is an island. All our destinies are tied up together. What you get when people run from social problems and flee to the four-lane intersection with a Sunoco and a CVS is Detroit. Old North in St. Louis. Gary. That's what the private market produces on the other end. And then folks like you point to the disinvestment they've helped create and say, "That's what you get from the public sector." I've heard all this before.

Collective effort, where we all work for a common goal produces stuff like, oh, I don't know: New York? Co-ops? Apartment buildings where everybody knows the building manager at least? And that awful, awful public sector produced Stuyvesant Town, which ain't too pretty, but provided a lot of affordable housing for thousands of people. [[It was a Moses project, and you know I'm no fan of Moses.) I suppose that rankles you, but, no worries: They privatized Stuyvesant Town in 2006. But, oops, the speculators had to declare bankruptcy two years ago, handing the keys to a blighted, troubled failing development worth a third of what they paid for it, over to the investors. Oh, that wonderful private sector, what a success that was!

Anyway, you're amusing. You seem to praise the free market, even as it devastates the average American person who wants a home. [[You live in Florida, right? Land of the For Sale sign?) You hate the gubmint, even though you worked for it in your prime [[building freeways, no less, back in the 1960s). I don't understand your black-and-white views that conflict with what must be your experience.

Get this clear: The United States hasn't been a purely capitalist country for almost 100 years. The United States economy is a MIX of capitalism and socialism, a mixed economy, just like Canada's. The public performs the unprofitable work. The private sector performs the profitable work. Don't heap laurels on private business just because it's profitable. There are many more important things to do in life that aren't profitable, and shouldn't be.

And there are lots of things short of workers' flats and gulags that we can do collectively, short of getting the government involved.

Now just sit back and let me pay into your social security while you complain about the "gubmint," OK?

[maverick1]

Yeah, the neighborhood they put in between Gibson and the Lodge has some multi-unit stuff, but the homes [[and the gargantuan lawns) are tone-deaf to the density of the city, what young people want, national shifts in taste. Personally, I find them appalling. But I'm guessing that's what you get when you ask metro Detroit's developers to come to the rescue: more of the same.

Exactly!! I'm just trying to get an understanding of why they are built. Sometimes it seems as if they force single-family homes in areas where it's obvious they don't belong. It's the same with strip-malls. You'll have a semi-walkable area in Detroit and build a strip mall. I don't get it. So most developers in Metro-Detroit only know how to develop for suburbia?

[maverick1]

The houses in Corktown were built in response to demand, and to establish a pattern of desired community planning. They were also considered low income [[at around 98K to 130k) before the bubble burst.

Trust me when I say there is no desire by the overwhelming majority of Corktown homeowners to build mutli-family. The high rise lofts get a pass because they are expensive and draw certain types of "acceptable" people. But if multi-family or apartments were built that were designed in such a way that they fit the character of the neighborhood, I think more neighbors might be open to it. The kind of neighbors that want more density I mean.

There are more houses in the works in North Corktown, being built by "Corktown Housing." You can buy one right now and they will build it for you.

I see. From my observations most people that move to the suburbs from Detroit rent. I think those that leave Detroit to buy a house in the suburbs are in the minority. I don't have proof but I think most people would stay in an apartment, flat, row house, etc. if the area is decent. The options are not there. The median individual income in Detroit is around $26K. These people are not buying houses. And those that rent in the suburbs aren't staying in grandiose apartments.

[iheartthed]

Exactly!! I'm just trying to get an understanding of why they are built. Sometimes it seems as if they force single-family homes in areas where it's obvious they don't belong. It's the same with strip-malls. You'll have a semi-walkable area in Detroit and build a strip mall. I don't get it. So most developers in Metro-Detroit only know how to develop for suburbia?

I believe the strip mall thing is the result of zoning laws. Most cities require dedicated parking spaces for new retail construction proportionally related to how much space is being built, especially if the zoning laws haven't been updated in the past 20 years or so [[when urban areas began to realize what a stupid fucking idea that was). Not sure if the lack of new multi-unit housing is for similar reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Detroitnerd]

So most developers in Metro-Detroit only know how to develop for suburbia?

Yes, I think so. Local businesses have the skill sets that the market rewards. [[Which is one of the reason we have so many wrecking and demolition companies in the metro area.) And I think that people confuse design and architecture with community and demographics. It's as if they believe that by building bigger houses, more luxurious lawns, they will naturally attract high-income people and the neighborhood will be nice. This thinking is backward.

Ever hear of cargo cults? They were tribal peoples on islands who watched the military come through, setting up supply lines, airstrips, radio towers, and plane after plane loaded with beautiful and useful things started landing. Well, after the war was over, the planes stopped landing. So the tribsemen built their own landing strips, with radio shacks, operators with coconut headphones, torches lighting the runway, etc., all in hopes that the great planes would come bearing gifts.

That's what a lot of these ideas for suburban-style development in Detroit remind me of. If only we build the trappings of a prosperous area [[suburbia! with lawns!), then the eventual prosperity will arrive.

Remember, city officials are kind of well-meaning, simple-minded people. They're not seasoned urban planners. The developers come to them with money-making, stopgap ideas, and then they approve them. And people who know better wonder what the hell they were thinking. Not even sure if those big-ass houses are selling, but the neighborhood on the other side of Gibson is stable and diverse.

Fact is, multi-family can look pretty good if you integrate it into what exists and renovate what's there. The East Ferry Street developments look pretty darn good.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferry+...80890&t=h&z=20

[ismoakrack]

There are more houses in the works in North Corktown, being built by "Corktown Housing." You can buy one right now and they will build it for you.


Can you provide a link or some contact info? I"m very interested in that buying in that area.

[ismoakrack]

Not even sure if those big-ass houses are selling, but the neighborhood on the other side of Gibson is stable and diverse.


I can't picture where you're talking about. Could you post a link? Thanks.

[maverick1]

Remember, city officials are kind of well-meaning, simple-minded people. They're not seasoned urban planners. The developers come to them with money-making, stopgap ideas, and then they approve them. And people who know better wonder what the hell they were thinking. Not even sure if those big-ass houses are selling, but the neighborhood on the other side of Gibson is stable and diverse.

Fact is, multi-family can look pretty good if you integrate it into what exists and renovate what's there. The East Ferry Street developments look pretty darn good.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferry+...80890&t=h&z=20

That is what I'm talking about. That fits and makes sense. Do you know if any planners have come to city government with plans for dense residential developments? Or have they came to the city and the city rejected them? I agree with "well-meaning, simple minded people". It reminds of the people that have argued with me over putting a mall in downtown. If it's a mall like the Eaton Centre in Toronto then it may work. A Somerset or Fairlane in downtown Detroit is just wrong. Although you have stores up and down Yonge to compliment the mall.

[maverick1]

I believe the strip mall thing is the result of zoning laws. Most cities require dedicated parking spaces for new retail construction proportionally related to how much space is being built, especially if the zoning laws haven't been updated in the past 20 years or so [[when urban areas began to realize what a stupid fucking idea that was). Not sure if the lack of new multi-unit housing is for similar reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Have the zoning laws been updated in Detroit? Or are the zoning laws reflective of 1950s Detroit?

[iheartthed]

Have the zoning laws been updated in Detroit? Or are the zoning laws reflective of 1950s Detroit?

Safe to say no on that one. The Atlantic magazine's urban blog did a story about a month ago on how slow cities have been to update 1950s era zoning rules. Washington, D.C. has just gone through a lengthy process of revising its zoning rules and one of the changes has been to relax minimum parking requirements in some circumstances. If Washington is just now getting to it then Detroit's probably a decade or two away from that...

It’s easy to forget that the District’sbuildings didn’t always require parking. Many large towers built in the early years of the automobile—like the Windermere at New Hampshire Avenue and Swann Street NW, or 2000 Connecticut Avenue near Dupont Circle—have no garages at all, yet command some of the highest rents in the city.

That all changed with the 1958 zoning code, which required minimum amounts of parking for all kinds of buildings, from churches to tennis courts. [[The writer of the car-friendly code also proposed parking garages to ring downtown as a buffer between residential and business zones. That idea, mercifully, didn’t make it.)

But the effect of the rule is that the cost of building is raised by as much as a third. And though developers can recover some of that money by renting spaces to those who want them, there are usually spaces left over. That boosts the price of each unit—which means that you’re paying more for parking, whether you get a space or not.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/b...03/21/park-it/

I wonder how closely tied the timing of these 1950s era zoning laws are to the fact that 9 of the 10 largest cities in America declined in population between 1950 and 1960?

[Detroitnerd]

Not even sure if those big-ass houses are selling, but the neighborhood on the other side of Gibson is stable and diverse.


I can't picture where you're talking about. Could you post a link? Thanks.

The area of gargantuan single-family homes is roughly bounded by Gibson on the west, Canfield on the north, Selden on the south, and the Lodge on the east. It’s acres and acres of suburban-style development of freestanding, single-family houses. One online resource, oblivious to the disconnect, said: “To give the project a Detroit feel, the streets in the housing development are named for Motown stars: Miracles Boulevard and Temptations Drive.” But no amount of "Motowning" can give this project a "Detroit" feel ...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=map+de...gl=us&t=h&z=18

It was built several years ago. And it looks like it has never become fully occupied.

Here are some photos from April 2008:


As you can see, there are some multi-unit residences, but the way they're conceived is not like an organically evolved neighborhood. It's a long, long wall of connected units, meaning there's no reason to walk on the street. It's just such a long street and so far away from any commercial or mixed-use zoning, the street has no life. You drive into the rear of the property, park your car, and then you are home. As for street life ... that is apparently reserved for homeless people walking through ...


Again, this sort of development belongs outside the boulevard, if not outside the city. What's more, the scale of the street, the addition of a faddish median, will all make traffic go faster, something you might not want in a residential area. And don't some of the houses just look a bit on the ticky-tacky side?


The scale of the lawns is another issue. It's back to that cargo cult thing: If you provide the trappings of what people perceive as prosperity, the prosperity is sure to follow!


This play area, unshaded by trees, tucked away inside the development, is not for the larger community. This sort of exclusivity, again, gives the impression of a neighborhood that cuts itself off from the larger community. It's a "public playground" re-imagined as private space. After all, people must not be allowed to just walk in and use the community's services.


And, the fact is, this kind of development is no longer doing well in the exurbs, where it belongs! Look above. This is not a photo of that neighborhood. It is an unfinished neighborhood in Clinton Township, one that might never fill in because of many reasons, among them shifting tastes and a desire to be where the action is.


To end our tour of this project, look at this street. This is Lincoln Street, one block west of Gibson. See the mature trees? The human scale of the street? The old and yet still diverse architectural styles? This is what a whole lot of "urban renewal" and "suburban-style" developments wipe away forever. It's still single-family, but the wide lots and adjacent vacant lots in between offer opportunities for greater density. Multi-unit residential could go in here and, with a bit of talent and intelligence, add to what's already there without McMansions, huge lawns, trendy street names, etc.

As for the work in North Corktown [[or Briggs or whatever you want to call it except that cutesy name I hate), they've done a great job of putting in sensible single-family homes. Really, the lot sizes would have been too small for multi-unit, but the stuff they built blends in nicely. Good work.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=map+de...gl=us&t=h&z=20

[ismoakrack]

Oh yeah, those Very disappointing. And the streets named after Motown legends is really the worst.

[casscorridor]

Detroit once had vibrant, walkable, transit-enriched neighborhoods with a diverse array of housing options from single-family, duplex, townhouse or apartment. Look at pictures of the inner-city from before the Urban Renewal to see that traditional Detroit neighborhoods, at least those close to the center, were not what we think of today as single-family bedroom communities, but rather contained every type of use: residential, commercial and industrial. Single-family homes were neither large nor sat on large lots, but rather were human-scaled and integrated into the surrounding neighborhood... a single-family home might sit next door to a retail store with apartment on top. There was no divide between where downtown starts and neighborhoods being. Detroit's neighborhoods were urban in the most proper sense of the word, if only they still existed [[only tiny pockets survived the systematic destruction).

As you can see from this picture alone, Detroit had very dense neighborhoods, but were systematically destroyed between the late 1940s through the 1980s during the Urban Renewal period:



You can see that the Russell street was a walkable "main street" intersecting the spoke avenue Gratiot. The street at the bottom [[im guessing) is Larned and is also a "main street" with many storefronts with apartments above. The side streets clearly contain a mix of different buildings with various sizes and scales -- some small houses, some larger apartments.

Here is an image of after the "slum" clearing took place:



Perhaps even more shocking is this aerial view of the East Side from the north, note how packed in all the building are:



And to continue the tour, look at the site of the first projects built in Detroit, which have since been destroyed and rebuilt again, on the corner of Wilkins and Beaubian:



And another picture of Gratiot near Hastings [[can you guess which street the latter is?):



and a zoomed in view of Gratiot and Beaubian:



Finally, here is one I will let you all guess, whoever wins is my honorary Detroiter of the Day!!!:




To conclude, Detroit was a very dense and urban city, but over the years it has been disintegrated, decentralized and suburbanized.

[Detroitnerd]

Good tour, CC. Yes, definitely inside the boulevard there was a good mix of different kinds of properties. Even outside the boulevard, there were multistory buildings with high densities. It is true that Detroit has a higher percentage of single-family dwellings than any other big American city, but don't let's ignore the density the core always had. And can have again ...

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Detroit does not need more multi-family low-income dwellings.

What Detroit needs is more mixed-use buildings in Downtown, Midtown, New Center, and in its viable commercial districts.

A Mixed Use Building provides commercial and retail on the ground floor, offices on middle floors and residential living on the upper floors.

Royal Oak has adopted this strategy to their success.

Downtown Detroit needs new Mixed Use Buildings.

[DetroitPlanner]

Finally, here is one I will let you all guess, whoever wins is my honorary Detroiter of the Day!!!:

I think I am finding Nemo.