The Albert

[corktownyuppie]

Yuppie, I agree with most of your post. But I hate affordable housing requirements, as well as rent-control and stabilization laws. The laws intended to help make housing "affordable" actually are subject to very much fraud and abuse [[try finding a poor person in a NYC rent-controlled apartment, I dare you), and in the long run deplete housing stock, which causes there to be fewer, and thus more expensive housing. In NYC, there was a bump in housing built right after WW2, and then the control/stabilization and Mitchell-Lana aparment laws went into affect. New York went almost 40 years without building housing, except for public housing projects and luxury apartments and condos. Why? The city legislated the profit out of building for ordinary incomes.

Affordable housing laws make their proponents feel good. But they fight against market conditions and ultimately lose. I think it would be better policy to just give the truly poor a house [[along with mandated home maintenance training) than to try to manage the business affairs of private developers with "affordable" housing schemes. It is like mandating that all restaurants serve 20% of their meals to those who either can't pay or pay full price. There would be fewer restaurants, and the prices would be higher at those that did stay open.

In a true free market economy you are correct.

I would posit -- but am not sure -- that one reason why affordable housing policy can work without adverse economic effect is because we have so much damn cheap land.

It would cost next to nothing to find a piece of vacant land owned in the land bank, and find a developer to build fairly economical housing for next to nothing.

What makes the "Albert" such a mismatch for low income housing is because:

a) rehab costs on an old building are very hard to predict and generally much more expensive than just building from scratch

b) the Albert is a Kahn-designed building in one of the most valuable pieces of real estate downtown.

Like I said, I generally don't want government inadvertantly screw around with real estate economics, but when it can do so with little to no adverse effect, it's worth doing.

[DetroitPlanner]

b) the Albert is a Kahn-designed building in one of the most valuable pieces of real estate downtown.

You can't be serious. Is it increasing in value? Yes. Is it one of the most valuable? Not by a long shot!!

[corktownyuppie]

You can't be serious. Is it increasing in value? Yes. Is it one of the most valuable? Not by a long shot!!

We can agree to disagree. A fully-developed Capitol Park will be prime real estate downtown. There is a reason why the Capitol was once located there, IMHO.

[mwilbert]

The US is general has very poor tenancy protections for renters. There are a lot of steps between nothing and full-on [[pre-war building) rent control as in NYC, but in most places nothing is pretty much what you've got. Under those circumstances, renters living in improving areas are very likely to have to move. If you don't think it is right that poor, elderly people should be forced to move, then you need to support different tenancy laws, or different poverty programs.

In the world we actually live in, I agree with CTY; if you want senior housing downtown, you need to build senior housing downtown.

[Honky Tonk]

The US is general has very poor tenancy protections for renters. There are a lot of steps between nothing and full-on [[pre-war building) rent control as in NYC, but in most places nothing is pretty much what you've got. Under those circumstances, renters living in improving areas are very likely to have to move. If you don't think it is right that poor, elderly people should be forced to move, then you need to support different tenancy laws, or different poverty programs.

In the world we actually live in, I agree with CTY; if you want senior housing downtown, you need to build senior housing downtown .

But if you want Yupster housing, throw senior citizens out. Makes sense.....

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I need to reiterate that the various issues involved here involve RENTING, which is by definition variable in cost, and unstable in tenancy. The answer is to direct your resources in your life towards buying, if you want the stability that buying brings. Rental units are subject to other people raising your rent, making property decisions you don't like, and deciding for one of a million reasons to end your tenancy at some point. Buying is LESS EXPENSIVE than renting in the long term [[often in the short term, too), but it takes long-term planning and commitment to sticking to the plan. Ownership isn't right for everyone for many reasons. But it is just silly to want ownership benefits from renting. Home ownership should be taught in Detroit high schools: how to choose and pay for a home; how to maintain a home; and how to manage the business affairs of a home. Most people who don't own their home will struggle financially in their later years, and will have far less control of their own fate. I say let's get people off the renting path, unless it is an intentional lifestyle choice.