Orleans Landing Project

[emu steve]

^^^ After agreeing with you on another thread, I agree with you here too. Wildly different rent for virtually equivalent housing is the norm in many places, for example in New York. It causes some tension, but it also leads to much more diverse communities, and more stable neighborhoods. In my estimation it's a certain benefit overall. Of course, the devil is in the details: the specifics determine whether or not any system is a success.

Meanwhile this sort of situation isn't limited to housing. We manage to work together even though employers often pay people performing the same job very differently. And we travel together paying drastically different prices for our seats.

Is it possible to make the housing units 'unequal' when it comes to appeal?

E.g., some units, even with the same number of bedrooms can be larger or smaller.

Or maybe end units vs. interior. Or maybe some units would have a den or an extra bathroom or half bathroom.

This would, in a sense, be analogous to plane travel. Even though we all get to the same destination at the same time, there is enough differences between 1st class and economy class that some are will to pay more for added benefits.

I am not suggesting granite counters for the full price units and some cheap counter material from Home Depot for the lower rent units.

Some of this is analogous to what one might find in say houses, e.g., brick or vinyl siding or wood [[or some combination). Builders have ways to make some houses less expensive to build than others.

[3WC]

Rarely are any developments financed conventionally anymore. By "conventionally" I mean a development where the developer invests a substantial amount of the costs, and borrows the remainder from an institutional lender [[bank, insurance company, pension fund etc.)

Now, the state and federal taxpayers are among the largest single financers of a development. The developer captures municipal and state tax abatements [[the taxpayer's money), brownfields support [[the taxpayer's money), numerous "tax credits" such as, for example, "historic" tax credits [[the taxpayer's money.) [There are numerous tax credits available to creative developers.]

So we're all financial investors in almost everything being build in Detroit. Don't count your dividends however. Your ROI is zip.

So, where you have two tenants paying grossly distorted rents for essentially the same apartment, one subsidized by the state etc [[our money), and one not, the guy paying the most rent is also, in addition to the rent he's paying, is also paying a part of his subsidized neighbor's rent.

Ain't America great.

[downtownguy]

Does anyone know how they are distributing the 20% geared to income tenancy. I was told that you could have someone paying 1500. A month for a unit and the person on the other side of the wall in the identical unit could be paying 600.00 as they will be geared to income. This wont take long before this complex will be doomed. Not many people will pay very high rents while others pay a fraction for the same unit. I fear alot of issues will develop in short time.

I moved into Trolley Plaza [[now Detroit City Apartments) when it opened in 1981. HUD assisted Forest City Enterprises with the financing and as such a certain number of units were made available at reduced rent for low income earners. I lived there for 7 years and never heard of one instance where the subsidized renters were a problem to anyone.

[downtownguy]

Rarely are any developments financed conventionally anymore. By "conventionally" I mean a development where the developer invests a substantial amount of the costs, and borrows the remainder from an institutional lender [[bank, insurance company, pension fund etc.)

Now, the state and federal taxpayers are among the largest single financers of a development. The developer captures municipal and state tax abatements [[the taxpayer's money), brownfields support [[the taxpayer's money), numerous "tax credits" such as, for example, "historic" tax credits [[the taxpayer's money.) [There are numerous tax credits available to creative developers.]

So we're all financial investors in almost everything being build in Detroit. Don't count your dividends however. Your ROI is zip.

So, where you have two tenants paying grossly distorted rents for essentially the same apartment, one subsidized by the state etc [[our money), and one not, the guy paying the most rent is also, in addition to the rent he's paying, is also paying a part of his subsidized neighbor's rent.

Ain't America great.

Yes, I believe America is great, and here is why.

If a for-profit developer gets financing thanks to us taxpayers, why shouldn't they be bound to make some units available as affordable housing? You seem to want the tax benefits to go only to the developers, whose motive is profit. Why shouldn't there be some community benefit offered in return, a la affordable housing?

[3WC]

downtownguy: You mischaracterize my view. Of course developers who accept taxpayer dollars must expect to modify their marketing and other plans, and to accept less revenue, by acquiescing to the demands of the state/muni/federal governments that dole out our money. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

My only point is that we who pay taxes are subsidizing a select group of individuals who by some way or another end up in subsidized housing, and that their neighbors are paying more rent for their housing than if the unsubsidized people weren't occupying the adjacent unit.

The tax benefits DON'T go to the developers; they go to the subsidized tenants. It's true of course that developers do make some profit by doing such deals but not as much as if the market permitted conventional financing.

The new, semi-socialist America is great, as you claim, if you believe in the way things are going in the country. Most taxpayers do not however.

[erikd]

downtownguy: You mischaracterize my view. Of course developers who accept taxpayer dollars must expect to modify their marketing and other plans, and to accept less revenue, by acquiescing to the demands of the state/muni/federal governments that dole out our money. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

My only point is that we who pay taxes are subsidizing a select group of individuals who by some way or another end up in subsidized housing, and that their neighbors are paying more rent for their housing than if the unsubsidized people weren't occupying the adjacent unit.

The tax benefits DON'T go to the developers; they go to the subsidized tenants. It's true of course that developers do make some profit by doing such deals but not as much as if the market permitted conventional financing.

The new, semi-socialist America is great, as you claim, if you believe in the way things are going in the country. Most taxpayers do not however.

How is this the "new, semi-socialist America?" We have had subsidized housing for almost a century in America.

As a fiscal conservative, I really despise this new trend of labeling long-standing policy as some kind of new socialist movement. It is factually incorrect, disingenuous, and works against any well-reasoned and logical argument for reform or improvement.

[emu steve]

How is this the "new, semi-socialist America?" We have had subsidized housing for almost a century in America.

As a fiscal conservative, I really despise this new trend of labeling long-standing policy as some kind of new socialist movement. It is factually incorrect, disingenuous, and works against any well-reasoned and logical argument for reform or improvement.

Gee, I can remember when Medicare was being proposed and Reagan labeled it socialized medicine [[there are audio recordings of his speeches on the Internet)

Since Medicare is probably one of the top couple most popular government programs, I guess we all have 'socialist tendencies.' Lol.

Getting back to Erikd's post, a LOT of things originated out of the FDR administration which hard core conservatives might disagree. LBJ added Medicaid. So a lot of things which might be called part of the 'social welfare state' are either 50 or 75+ years old.

Not much new in recent years, except Obamacare. [[CHIP in the late 90s too).

[emu steve]

Not to get this topic O/T, but I see conservatives having two major disagreements with the way the country has moved in say the the last 50 years:

1). Social welfare state mostly stuff by LBJ and his war on poverty. Not much since except the Children's Health Insurance Program [[CHIP) which isn't too large and Obamacare.

2). "Culture War" issues, such as abortion, gay rights, same sex marriage, etc.

RE: #1. Other than a step toward universal health coverage, I don't see much change to the so called 'social welfare state.' Some 'benefits' have been reduced.

If anything, welfare has been trimmed. Unemployment insurance benefits shortened. Funding of higher education has declined.

I believe most people believe that our health care spending is bleeding the country be it public spending [[e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) or spending through private insurance or by users of the system.

[3WC]

ericd: I didn't say subsidized housing is all off a sudden evidence of our new American Socialism. Sure, we 've had subsidized housing [[usually like Cabrini Green - slum replacement housing "projects") for 100 years. I'm just saying that's one of the many public policies that are turning the country into a socialist economy.

I doubt very much you are a fiscal conservative based on your comments here.

Labeling social policies as socialistic - long standing or otherwise - is not evidence of a "new " trend toward socialization of the country; it's been going on for a long time. Labeling the trend as such is factually correct, ingenuous, and supports well reasoned and logical arguments for reform and a return to the Capitalist policies that made the U.S. a financial powerhouse for so long.

[mwilbert]

ericd: I didn't say subsidized housing is all off a sudden evidence of our new American Socialism. Sure, we 've had subsidized housing [[usually like Cabrini Green - slum replacement housing "projects") for 100 years. I'm just saying that's one of the many public policies that are turning the country into a socialist economy.

I doubt very much you are a fiscal conservative based on your comments here.

Labeling social policies as socialistic - long standing or otherwise - is not evidence of a "new " trend toward socialization of the country; it's been going on for a long time. Labeling the trend as such is factually correct, ingenuous, and supports well reasoned and logical arguments for reform and a return to the Capitalist policies that made the U.S. a financial powerhouse for so long.

You have a odd definition of socialism if you think there is a trend toward it in housing. In the middle of the 20th century large amounts of public housing was built. Actual public housing, owned by government agencies, and rented out to people by the government. That was an honest-to-goodness sociaiist policy, but we basically no longer build that type of public housing, and the stock of housing provided that way has fallen and continues to fall.

What we do now is provide tax or financing subsidies to private builders to create affordable units which are then rented out by private entities, or we give people vouchers to buy housing in the private market. Both of these are clearly less socialist and more market-oriented.

[emu steve]

You have a odd definition of socialism if you think there is a trend toward it in housing. In the middle of the 20th century large amounts of public housing was built. Actual public housing, owned by government agencies, and rented out to people by the government. That was an honest-to-goodness sociaiist policy, but we basically no longer build that type of public housing, and the stock of housing provided that way has fallen and continues to fall.

What we do now is provide tax or financing subsidies to private builders to create affordable units which are then rented out by private entities, or we give people vouchers to buy housing in the private market. Both of these are clearly less socialist and more market-oriented.

Excellent points!! We are moving away from old fashioned public housing and housing programs toward something different.

Even Obamacare was designed to work within the context of a private market insurance system [[i.e., try to get more and more people insured with insurance policies which are issued within the traditional health insurance market, with subsidies, if necessary).

Even George W. Bush's Medicare Part D is different Part A and B in that it is designed to function within the private health insurance market.

[3WC]

mwilbert: Your comparison of traditional public housing with current tax generated public housing is a distinction without a difference.

[[We should all understand that we have been throwing around examples of "socialism" which don't satisfy the traditional definition of Socialism in which govt owns the means of production. We or at least I have spoken of trends toward the traditional Socialist system. Even though the govt doesn't own projects like Orleans Landing, it controls the basic, fundamental policy of who lives there and what rent may be charged as to the mandated number of units, certainly a fundamental indicia of ownership.)

emu steve, it's true as you say we are moving away from traditional public housing to "something different." As I said, a distinction without much of a difference. Our tax dollars being handed out, in slightly different ways, without our consent, to others who the govt thinks deserve our money more than we do. I'd prefer the right to provide my own money to others that I deem need it more.

[emu steve]

mwilbert: Your comparison of traditional public housing with current tax generated public housing is a distinction without a difference.

[[We should all understand that we have been throwing around examples of "socialism" which don't satisfy the traditional definition of Socialism in which govt owns the means of production. We or at least I have spoken of trends toward the traditional Socialist system. Even though the govt doesn't own projects like Orleans Landing, it controls the basic, fundamental policy of who lives there and what rent may be charged as to the mandated number of units, certainly a fundamental indicia of ownership.)

emu steve, it's true as you say we are moving away from traditional public housing to "something different." As I said, a distinction without much of a difference. Our tax dollars being handed out, in slightly different ways, without our consent, to others who the govt thinks deserve our money more than we do. I'd prefer the right to provide my own money to others that I deem need it more.

How about K-12 education? Those who did not have children are paying for others.

One can say that a gas tax is a user tax, but K-12 is not. If I understand funding of K-12 it comes from a variety of sources, including Federal money.

[3WC]

emu steve: Nice try, but I don't think it's a valid analogy. K-12 is a necessary service open to everyone for the benefit of all. Those that do not have children now and don't have anybody in those grades are free to use them when they do have children.

However, I can't use subsidized housing for various reasons.

There are thousands of examples of govt services paid for by all taxpayers even though many don't use them. For example, the FAA regulates airlines and provides many services [[flight controllers) even though many people have never flown and never will. The list is endless.

Most govt services are available to everyone whether they choose to use them or not. Subsidized housing is not.

[mwilbert]

mwilbert: Your comparison of traditional public housing with current tax generated public housing is a distinction without a difference.

[[We should all understand that we have been throwing around examples of "socialism" which don't satisfy the traditional definition of Socialism in which govt owns the means of production. We or at least I have spoken of trends toward the traditional Socialist system. Even though the govt doesn't own projects like Orleans Landing, it controls the basic, fundamental policy of who lives there and what rent may be charged as to the mandated number of units, certainly a fundamental indicia of ownership.)

If you don't think see any significant difference, it seems to me that you have insufficient faith in the market. Transferring money to people to purchase things is quite different from having the government produce things and give them to people. In general, it seems preferable to me to have most things, including housing, produced in the private sector under some kind of market constraint.

You argument about the control of rent levels and tenancy while making some sense in terms of affordable housing units [[although certainly those aren't the only factors in ownership) doesn't really apply to renter subsidy programs. So I can't agree with you.

[3WC]

mwilbert: So be it.

[DeLemur]

A gated community would be terrible. Thankfully that's not what this will be. And secured parking is a great idea. Of course there should be entrances from the secured parking for the residents. But it's important all of these buildings are also accessible from the public sidewalks. Otherwise the neighborhood will be much less conducive to pedestrian traffic and I'd be much less optimistic this will develop into the thriving walkable community it has the potential to be.

A mix of commercial is a great idea too, crucial for the kind of thriving walkable community I'm imagining. But 8 commercial spaces in a 4 block area isn't much. I hope some street-level residences are designed flexibly in anticipation that some can be converted into additional retail spaces should there prove to be demand for more.

Wishing the developers the best of luck!

I read the project sign the other day. They're advertising that its a 'gated community'. This really gets me. Why are we building walled off housing in 2016, with philanthropic dollars to boot? Luckily Orleans Landing is the exception not the rule to these new projects. Still, another gated community along the riverfront.....keep that stuff in Texas and South Carolina.

[southen]

I read the project sign the other day. They're advertising that its a 'gated community'. This really gets me. Why are we building walled off housing in 2016, with philanthropic dollars to boot? Luckily Orleans Landing is the exception not the rule to these new projects. Still, another gated community along the riverfront.....keep that stuff in Texas and South Carolina.

It is a gated community only in the sense that they will have gates for their parking lots. Everything else fronts the street and there is going to be retail included in certain spots. That doesn't really scream gated to me. They probably should have used better wording.

[Honky Tonk]

I read the project sign the other day. They're advertising that its a 'gated community'. This really gets me. Why are we building walled off housing in 2016, with philanthropic dollars to boot? Luckily Orleans Landing is the exception not the rule to these new projects. Still, another gated community along the riverfront.....keep that stuff in Texas and South Carolina.

Maybe to prevent break-ins, personal attacks, and property theft?

[casscorridor]

I drove past the development over the weekend. While the scale of it is good, the overall the whole project looks cheap in quality and design. Of course, we have to wait to see if fully completed.

[DeLemur]

I drove past the development over the weekend. While the scale of it is good, the overall the whole project looks cheap in quality and design. Of course, we have to wait to see if fully completed.

I agree. I hope you're right Southen,
Honky Tonk, maybe we should all live behind gates. Then there would be no personal attacks, thefts and break ins! Haaa.

[MSUguy]

I've seen that sign too, but it's very clear from the way it's being built that it's not going too be gated like Harbortown.

I will say this, the project shows how small things matter. The street frontage looks OK, but layout of the buildings ringing the front of the means you clearly see the backs of the buildings. But instead brick all around they're just using tan vinyl and it just cheapens the look.

[Mackinaw]

By all accounts this is a poorly executed project.

[southen]

By all accounts this is a poorly executed project.

The problem is that they are among the first to test the market. I live by DuCharme Place and have been thinking the same thing. I think future developments, as witnessed by what is being announced downtown and in Brush Park, will be of higher quality and more along the lines of what we want to see here.

[3d123]

A few hastily taken photos

Orleans side, at Atwater

More of the same, at the side of the old boatworks

The lucky few with the view on the atwater side

A peak up Riopelle

One of my favorite developments in the city -- though, I like DuCharme, too, so my taste will be questioned. But it's great to see this spring from the debacle of the Archer follies, where I spent so much of my youth -- tromping through abandoned lots and buildings and the occasional passing ship that docked -- what I've shared with my own, too. If we didn't have to rip the youngsters from their schools, we'd be strongly tempted to move back down here. I love the contrasting brick and design stylistic that melds well with what's already down here -- occupied and otherwise.