Midtown to get makeover of two apartment bulidings

[SpartanDawg]

I asked for data and you responded with a first person anecdote.

my bad lemme get on that for you bro! so sorry please forgive me!!!!!

[SpartanDawg]

in all reality where the fu*k do you want me to pull hard data from? if you actually lived in the area you would see the progress happening. rising rents, storefronts filling, new construction. i'm not worried about seeing stats to prove it, i see it with my own eyes


in conclusion:
shut your mouth when you're talking to me.

[royce]

I'm sorry but this development does only one thing: keep poor folks living in the area. Affordable housing is code for poor. Let's not kid ourselves. It's nice that two dilapidated buildings are getting rehabbed but what can the poor do to make this area different from what it has been. Do they have the disposable income to patronize the future coffee shops, restaurants, and stores that people with money have?

Groups like Cass Corridor Communities are hell bent on keeping the poor in Cass Corridor. They built those apartments on Brainard Street and Third years ago and I still haven't seen a manicured lawn yet. I know poor people have to live somewhere, but why in this city do the poor always have to be a part of a development equation that's trying to bring in people with money, instead of letting the market determine where people can live? Even if Brush Park is redeveloped, you'll still have the poor living in the redeveloped Brewster Projects and the current Brewster Homes.

I know I sound anti-poor but it's just whenever a neighborhood has a chance to become middle class or upper middle class here in Detroit [[since there are so few neighborhoods in Detroit that are), there is some group or program hell bent on keeping that from happening. The poor have always got to share. Why can't Detroit have a nice middle to upper middle class neighborhood that is walkable and near downtown? [[Palmer Park/Sherwood Forest are not walkable and not near downtown so please don't bring them up).

Part of the American dream is that if you work hard and do the right thing most of the time, you can live in a neighborhood with other hardworking people who share the same beliefs. That is why you have the Grosse Pointes and the Bloomfields. And for those who are somewhere else that's not as nice, working hard and doing the right thing is the motivation to allow you to make it there if you desire it. The poor have got to have something to aspire to. Letting them in an affluent community or an up and coming one when they really haven't earned it sets a bad precedent. The community will have conflicts, and how long will those with the means chose to stay in a community [[or stay away) where the values about hard work and doing the right thing are not shared by all of those who live in that community? Isn't that one of the reasons cited by the middle class for leaving Detroit?

There is a place for the poor in Detroit. Up until now, it's been Detroit. But does it have to be most of Detroit? Can there be some oasis somewhere for the "fortunate?" If not Cass Corridor, then where? If not Brush Park, then where? If not downtown Detroit, then where? Is its Detroit's obligation to always cater to the poor?

[antongast]

I'm sorry but this development does only one thing: keep poor folks living in the area. Affordable housing is code for poor. Let's not kid ourselves. It's nice that two dilapidated buildings are getting rehabbed but what can the poor do to make this area different from what it has been. Do they have the disposable income to patronize the future coffee shops, restaurants, and stores that people with money have?

Groups like Cass Corridor Communities are hell bent on keeping the poor in Cass Corridor. They built those apartments on Brainard Street and Third years ago and I still haven't seen a manicured lawn yet. I know poor people have to live somewhere, but why in this city do the poor always have to be a part of a development equation that's trying to bring in people with money, instead of letting the market determine where people can live? Even if Brush Park is redeveloped, you'll still have the poor living in the redeveloped Brewster Projects and the current Brewster Homes.

I know I sound anti-poor but it's just whenever a neighborhood has a chance to become middle class or upper middle class here in Detroit [[since there are so few neighborhoods in Detroit that are), there is some group or program hell bent on keeping that from happening. The poor have always got to share. Why can't Detroit have a nice middle to upper middle class neighborhood that is walkable and near downtown? [[Palmer Park/Sherwood Forest are not walkable and not near downtown so please don't bring them up).

Part of the American dream is that if you work hard and do the right thing most of the time, you can live in a neighborhood with other hardworking people who share the same beliefs. That is why you have the Grosse Pointes and the Bloomfields. And for those who are somewhere else that's not as nice, working hard and doing the right thing is the motivation to allow you to make it there if you desire it. The poor have got to have something to aspire to. Letting them in an affluent community or an up and coming one when they really haven't earned it sets a bad precedent. The community will have conflicts, and how long will those with the means chose to stay in a community [[or stay away) where the values about hard work and doing the right thing are not shared by all of those who live in that community? Isn't that one of the reasons cited by the middle class for leaving Detroit?

There is a place for the poor in Detroit. Up until now, it's been Detroit. But does it have to be most of Detroit? Can there be some oasis somewhere for the "fortunate?" If not Cass Corridor, then where? If not Brush Park, then where? If not downtown Detroit, then where? Is its Detroit's obligation to always cater to the poor?

Whoa there, Paul Ryan, don't you have some old people you need to be throwing off Medicare or something?

[ABetterDetroit]

I'm sorry but this development does only one thing: keep poor folks living in the area. Affordable housing is code for poor. Let's not kid ourselves. It's nice that two dilapidated buildings are getting rehabbed but what can the poor do to make this area different from what it has been. Do they have the disposable income to patronize the future coffee shops, restaurants, and stores that people with money have?

Groups like Cass Corridor Communities are hell bent on keeping the poor in Cass Corridor. They built those apartments on Brainard Street and Third years ago and I still haven't seen a manicured lawn yet. I know poor people have to live somewhere, but why in this city do the poor always have to be a part of a development equation that's trying to bring in people with money, instead of letting the market determine where people can live? Even if Brush Park is redeveloped, you'll still have the poor living in the redeveloped Brewster Projects and the current Brewster Homes.

I know I sound anti-poor but it's just whenever a neighborhood has a chance to become middle class or upper middle class here in Detroit [[since there are so few neighborhoods in Detroit that are), there is some group or program hell bent on keeping that from happening. The poor have always got to share. Why can't Detroit have a nice middle to upper middle class neighborhood that is walkable and near downtown? [[Palmer Park/Sherwood Forest are not walkable and not near downtown so please don't bring them up).

Part of the American dream is that if you work hard and do the right thing most of the time, you can live in a neighborhood with other hardworking people who share the same beliefs. That is why you have the Grosse Pointes and the Bloomfields. And for those who are somewhere else that's not as nice, working hard and doing the right thing is the motivation to allow you to make it there if you desire it. The poor have got to have something to aspire to. Letting them in an affluent community or an up and coming one when they really haven't earned it sets a bad precedent. The community will have conflicts, and how long will those with the means chose to stay in a community [[or stay away) where the values about hard work and doing the right thing are not shared by all of those who live in that community? Isn't that one of the reasons cited by the middle class for leaving Detroit?

There is a place for the poor in Detroit. Up until now, it's been Detroit. But does it have to be most of Detroit? Can there be some oasis somewhere for the "fortunate?" If not Cass Corridor, then where? If not Brush Park, then where? If not downtown Detroit, then where? Is its Detroit's obligation to always cater to the poor?

Where does it say that this is a HUD project? Missed that part. Some income diversity in a neighborhood works fine in all great cities.
Relax, you will get your new high rise loaded with all the frills and expensive apartments, it's on the way soon.

[illwill]

You should ask your questions to all of the RICH developers who are rehabbing these building and renting them as affordable subsidized housing? They're free to provide affordable housing in America [[sarcasm).

Also, poor people have historically always been displaced. Maybe they're poor because they cannot establish generational wealth? Chicken or the egg. Detroit has PLENTY of land for YOU to build a posh courtyard building and demand the high rents that you and your friends want to pay.

You gotta get in the game to win.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

While this thread was started for the Davenport and Cass Plaza, I thought I'd post this about two OTHER Midtown buildings up for rehab.

The "double house" on Cass really does look New Yorkish, but the Traymore on Brainard interests me more because according to the article, "The 1916 apartment building has apparently been vacant for decades."

Yet another example of a rehab made possible because a vacant building was NOT torn down. If it had been, I doubt anyone would be building new on that lot yet.

​http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...-facelifts.php

I like that they seem to be planning on replacing the ugly windows with more appropriate ones; the wrong windows do a huge disservice to old buildings.

A Curbed article from a couple of days ago mentions that a rear addition is also planned, which is even better news.

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...ke-a-rehab.php

[rb336]

The "double house" on Cass really does look New Yorkish, but the Traymore on Brainard interests me more because according to the article, "The 1916 apartment building has apparently been vacant for decades."

Akbar's been fiddling around with Boydell House since before Cass Cafe opened. I don't think he really knows exactly what he wants to do with it yet.