New Brewster Wheeler plan would bring 200-plus apartments to site

[Airforceguy]

A new plan has surfaced to redevelop the Brewster Recreational Site in Midtown. The plan calls for 200 apartments.


Bingham Farms-based affordable housing developer MHT Housing Inc. is attempting to buy the 6-acre site off I-75 south of Mack Avenue from KC Crain, CEO of Detroit-based Crain Communications Inc., the parent company of Crain's Detroit Business, for an undisclosed price.

As part of the overall vision, MHT would build 52 units of supportive housing for people who have aged out of the foster care system and provide wraparound services provided by Greater Grace Temple, run by Bishop Charles Ellis III, and Detroit Wayne Integrated Health Network. Those services include counseling, and training in life and job skills, financial literacy and conflict resolution. In subsequent phases, three more 53-unit buildings with mixed-income housing would be constructed.


There would be 78 one-bedroom units averaging 600 square feet and 81 two-bedroom units averaging 750 square feet in the three other buildings. There would be 48 units available at 30% of Area Median Income, 24 units at 40% of AMI and 87 units at 80% AMI.


In addition, the historic recreation center — where boxer Joe Louis once trained and the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team once played — would be renovated and returned to its original use, said T. Van Fox, president of MHT, which owns or manages nearly 50 residential properties in Detroit. Restoration of that building, at 2900 St. Antoine, would begin late summer.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/real-e...lus-apartments

[royce]

I thought Dan Gilbert and Bedrock had rights to this property.

[kuuma]

looks like the rec site, bottom left, was never part of Bedrock's renderings... although interestingly neither this image nor a page for the Brewster-Douglass site is on their website anymore.

[royce]

Thx, kuuma.

[Danny]

I thought Dan Gilbert and Bedrock had rights to this property.

He does.

[K-slice]

I thought Dan Gilbert and Bedrock had rights to this property.

The large lot that the Rec Center sits on is the one piece of land that Bedrock doesn't hold in the area. More details about it's history and ownership from Crains:

Crain and restaurateur Curt Catallo, who own the Vinsetta Garage restaurant in Berkley together, were to be responsible for turning the former rec center into a new restaurant and meeting space, while Livonia-based developer and landlord Schostak Bros. & Co. and New York City-based Rheal Capital Management LLC, run by Detroit native John Rhea, would build up to 200 residential units. But within a year or so, issues began to arise, in particular, on parking.
The development team couldn't find an economically viable way to accommodate a new parking deck, or expand surface parking, to meet the needs of the development. So the Schostak and Rhea team split off from the Brewster Wheeler team and pursued a new multifamily project in the neighborhood — called Brush Park South — which also fell apart.

[Danny]

The large lot that the Rec Center sits on is the one piece of land that Bedrock doesn't hold in the area. More details about it's history and ownership from Crains:

[FONT="]Crain and restaurateur Curt Catallo, who own the Vinsetta Garage restaurant in Berkley together, were to be responsible for turning the former rec center into a new restaurant and meeting space, while Livonia-based developer and landlord Schostak Bros. & Co. and New York City-based Rheal Capital Management LLC, run by Detroit native John Rhea, would build up to 200 residential units. But within a year or so, issues began to arise, in particular, on parking.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The development team couldn't find an economically viable way to accommodate a new parking deck, or expand surface parking, to meet the needs of the development. So the Schostak and Rhea team split off from the Brewster Wheeler team and pursued a new multifamily project in the neighborhood — called Brush Park South — which also fell apart.[/FONT]

It's time for Dan Gilbert to but that land and turn it his mega condo wonderland.

[gratiotfaced]

The development team couldn't find an economically viable way to accommodate a new parking deck, or expand surface parking, to meet the needs of the development. So the Schostak and Rhea team split off from the Brewster Wheeler team and pursued a new multifamily project in the neighborhood — called Brush Park South — which also fell apart.

Lol. Another economic development scuttled by parking minimums and the region's lack of rapid transit. Good work, everyone.

[Richard]

When you select a site,the first thing you do is check and see what exactly you can do there and what your limitations are.

Seems kinda odd that somebody would select a site,publicly announce what they want to do,including showing renderings,then say opps not enough parking.

It’s like when the guy first took over Packard and announced residential or the one that wanted to put a rave club in the body plant,what is the purpose of announcing projects that 10 minutes of research tells you that there is no way in hell that your going to achieve what you want to?

No argument the city needs a more viable transit plan but I do not think you can put this one on the citizens of the city,it was not lack of planning on their part and just maybe a restaurant in the former rec center was not highest and best use,that whole area needs a bigger picture plan that flows,just throwing up things willy nilly negates adding public transit in the future where lack of parking is a bonus.

Keep designing things based on the need for parking and the need for parking will always be there.

Filling in space just to fill space and repeating the past,I would translate all of that into the cities intent long term is to encourage development there where parking is not necessary which could be argued that it is a good thing sense many cities across the world are looking at reducing the amount of vehicles within the city.

If that is the only area where that project could have been pulled off in the city then it is time to go back to the drawing board and not have the city adapt to the project,but the project adapt to the cities future needs.

At peak 10,000 residents lived in the Brewster projects,did the community center provide parking to accommodate all of that in the past?

It existed for decades without having to.

[K-slice]

Lol. Another economic development scuttled by parking minimums and the region's lack of rapid transit. Good work, everyone.

I would be surprised if an official parking minimum prevented them from moving forward, more likely market research told them their demo would demand parking that they wouldn't be able to provide economically.

The dems in Lansing need to stop passing hair bills and get on this transit issue ASAP.

[royce]

Well, the thread is about a developer trying to bring in affordable housing to this part of Brush Park. My question is, "Why? Is this really the area to put transitional housing for former foster care individuals? And the 80% rule for affordability, isn't that just continuing what you used to exist on the Brewster-Douglass projects' site and what you have over at the Brewster Homes? I thought the idea for Brewster-Douglass was to bring in more market-rate housing?

I must admit that I am not a fan of these "affordable housing percentages/set-asides." It appears that every new residential development in Detroit has to have this criteria. Now, I think it's fine if an established area that is considered low-income or working class uses the affordability criteria to slow down gentrification, but Brush Park is not Harlem, New York. There is no area in Brush Park where one can say that gentrification is pushing out low-income residents. Any new residential development won't affect such places as the Brewster Homes or the Paradise Valley Senior Citizens complex.

Again, there's no gentrification going on in Brush Park, but for some reason, there are those who think that an up and coming area has to make room for those who normally wouldn't be able to afford living there. Is it a bad thing to have "well-off" neighborhoods in Detroit? Is there something wrong with an area being desirable but expensive to live in?

For me, this issue of setting aside a certain percentage of residences in a development for "affordable" has some negative consequences. Firstly, it says to those who can't afford to live there that it doesn't matter if you didn't work hard in school to get a degree or work hard in a profession and acquire some "mad" skills or experience, you can still live in an area where others have done so.

Secondly, if you got in due to affordable housing percentages or set-asides, can you partake in the amenities of the environment and spend money at the stores, shops, and restaurants that cater to those who have money. Wouldn't that make some one feel out of place or even resentful? I know that those who could get into an up and coming neighborhood would enjoy living in a safer environment, but would that be the only amenity that they could enjoy?

My last thoughts are these. A final question is this, "Does Detroit really want to become a "world class" city? In every world class city there are areas that you can afford to live in and there are areas that you can't. If you want to live in those "desirable" areas, then doesn't it take some motivation and effort on you part to do the things that are necessary that are going to get you there on your own? Or do you expect to just sit back and say, "The city is going to make it happen for me so that I can live where ever I want. I don't have to make a lot of effort." The latter attitude is what concerns me when you throw in the affordable housing percentages/set-asides.

[Richard]

It’s the trend though,everybody has a right to the American dream and the war on poverty has never been about eliminating poverty,it has been about bringing those in poverty up to the same level as those who are not,which eliminates the incentive to do better.

California is implementing a electric bill payment system according to income where those making over $100k per year will pay a higher rate in order to offset and subsidize those making under the medium poverty level.

Projects are based on subsidies because the path to socialism is accelerating,there is plenty of free money available so that is what builders are concentrating on,in some cities low income or housing for the homeless averages $350 to $400k per unit,so they live in high end new units without having to work.

Ask yourself this question

If Detroit is the only city in the entire country that has a 80% ratio of where it is cheaper to buy a home then to rent and in all the other cities that ratio averages 16% why the massive push to create more multi family rental units instead of encouraging generational wealth building through home ownership?

The citizens voted to become a progressive city and that is a part of that package,somebody making 20k a year has just as much as a right to live in Brush park or EEV as a person making $200k a year,the person making $200k a year can afford to offset the loss,they are the dumb ones who got an education and struggled to succeed and had a better life when they could have just done nothing and had the same privileges.

They did a survey back in the day when things like microwaves and,Nintendos,and video movie cassette first came out,they figured the war in poverty was a success because there was more homes at the poverty level that had those items then the middle class,the average working family could not afford to purchase those items.

The objective of the war on poverty is to give those less fortunate the same standard of living as the middle class so placing low income or subsidized housing in higher end neighborhoods is considered a success and mission accomplished.

We may have grown up with the concept of work harder to enjoy the finer things in life or if you want to eat get a job but that is an outdated way of thinking.

You have to get with the program and embrace the fact that anybody that makes over $100k a year or works hard makes everybody else look bad and those are the ones that have the problem.

They can live on $50k a year and give that other $50k to somebody less fortunate.

[dtowncitylover]

Well, the thread is about a developer trying to bring in affordable housing to this part of Brush Park. My question is, "Why? Is this really the area to put transitional housing for former foster care individuals? And the 80% rule for affordability, isn't that just continuing what you used to exist on the Brewster-Douglass projects' site and what you have over at the Brewster Homes? I thought the idea for Brewster-Douglass was to bring in more market-rate housing?

I must admit that I am not a fan of these "affordable housing percentages/set-asides." It appears that every new residential development in Detroit has to have this criteria. Now, I think it's fine if an established area that is considered low-income or working class uses the affordability criteria to slow down gentrification, but Brush Park is not Harlem, New York. There is no area in Brush Park where one can say that gentrification is pushing out low-income residents. Any new residential development won't affect such places as the Brewster Homes or the Paradise Valley Senior Citizens complex.

Again, there's no gentrification going on in Brush Park, but for some reason, there are those who think that an up and coming area has to make room for those who normally wouldn't be able to afford living there. Is it a bad thing to have "well-off" neighborhoods in Detroit? Is there something wrong with an area being desirable but expensive to live in?

For me, this issue of setting aside a certain percentage of residences in a development for "affordable" has some negative consequences. Firstly, it says to those who can't afford to live there that it doesn't matter if you didn't work hard in school to get a degree or work hard in a profession and acquire some "mad" skills or experience, you can still live in an area where others have done so.

Secondly, if you got in due to affordable housing percentages or set-asides, can you partake in the amenities of the environment and spend money at the stores, shops, and restaurants that cater to those who have money. Wouldn't that make some one feel out of place or even resentful? I know that those who could get into an up and coming neighborhood would enjoy living in a safer environment, but would that be the only amenity that they could enjoy?

My last thoughts are these. A final question is this, "Does Detroit really want to become a "world class" city? In every world class city there are areas that you can afford to live in and there are areas that you can't. If you want to live in those "desirable" areas, then doesn't it take some motivation and effort on you part to do the things that are necessary that are going to get you there on your own? Or do you expect to just sit back and say, "The city is going to make it happen for me so that I can live where ever I want. I don't have to make a lot of effort." The latter attitude is what concerns me when you throw in the affordable housing percentages/set-asides.

This is a long-winded post advocating for segregation based on income.

Yikes.

[djtomt]

This is a long-winded post advocating for segregation based on income.

Yikes.

Actually I think Royce has a point here. The "affordable housing %" gets tacked on to every downtown development in order to capture tax credits/government subsidies. Not every development should have this, that's not how these things are supposed to work.

It would be nice [[pipe dream maybe) if downtown Detroit could support development without taxpayer involvement once in a while. One would think an area like Brush Park could be one of these zones. I don't know...

[dtowncitylover]

Actually I think Royce has a point here. The "affordable housing %" gets tacked on to every downtown development in order to capture tax credits/government subsidies. Not every development should have this, that's not how these things are supposed to work.

It would be nice [[pipe dream maybe) if downtown Detroit could support development without taxpayer involvement once in a while. One would think an area like Brush Park could be one of these zones. I don't know...

And that's a valid argument to make and one in which I can agree with.

But the rank classism of wondering if the BW site is worthy of former foster care people, if poor/working class people can stand living in neighborhoods with more affluent people/amenities [[how about just being poor in, let me check, the United States of America, cause you know very well places like Somerset and Rodeo Drive exist whether or not you live next to them), or thinking that "world class" cities are defined by having stratified socio-economic neighborhoods, are all just very myopic, reductionist views of how a city should be.

Of course it's also not about whether or not there are poor neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods, in Detroit it's about the accessibility between these neighborhoods/cities [[example abound). Poor/working class people work downtown and in wealthier contexts because that is where the jobs are. But if this city wants to attract *any* population, it needs better mobile cohesion between its many parts. That is the mark of a world-class city.

[Richard]

Even in the most socialist countries in the world there is still a social divide between the rich and the poor neighborhoods,in what “World Class City” does the service worker or unemployed live on millionaire’s row?

How many section 8 apartments are in Manhattan?

Remember they tried that when they demolished Cabrini Green,it did not work out so well.

GM should give me a new Cadillac,because I deserve it.

I was poor and did not like it,so I did what it took not to be poor,that is the America you dislike ,the land that offers the opportunity of one takes the initiative,that’s why millions risk their life to jump the border,clearly they were not content in living in favelas all their life.

It’s easy enough to build your population,it’s already been proven in Seattle,Portland,San Francisco etc ,all you have to do is offer the homeless a free $350k accommodations,$300 per month and all expenses paid and they will flock there also.

Who is going to sell their $700k home in a nice neighborhood in another state just to move to Detroit and live in the hood,they are not,they will pick something like Brush park or EEV or simular.

All of this subsidizing is going to get you right back where you started,more drawing out of the system then paying in,if one cannot look around and see how well that worked out they are blind.

Cannot blame it on white flight any more,cannot even blame it on successful African Americans fleeing to the suburbs,there is nobody left to blame it on but ……

You cannot get all of the trinkets that make up a world class city without the residents ability to build wealth and that does not happen as a renter.

Even with the subsidized housing it is still cheaper to buy a house in the city then to rent one,so once again,why the push to keep people trapped in generational apartment dwellings which prevents them from building wealth while expecting those with means to pay ever increasing costs so the person living next door to them can stay home all day at their expense.

Even OPM has limitations,those limitations are what played a large role in bringing the city to its knees,do doubling down on that concept is prudent?

[royce]

This is a long-winded post advocating for segregation based on income.

Yikes.

Well, dtowncitylover, let me offer this analysis. Just recently the restaurant/coffee house "Saucy" closed. None of us know exactly what caused them to shut down, but we all have our own theories. Now, someone made a point about the neighborhood should have been able to support them. Well, how about the residents of the building they were in? Don't the residents of buildings that have restaurants or bars in them often frequent them?

Now, dtowncitylover, did you know that the building that Saucy was in is set aside for low-income seniors? Did you see many of these low-income seniors in the restaurant for coffee or dinner? I know on the occasions that I went there or drove passed there, I did not see them in there. Now, was that because the bar catered to a younger crowd? I don't know. It didn't have video games and it didn't have pool tables. As far as I know, Saucy sold coffee, beer, and pizza, among other things, and we all know that segments of all age groups like drinking or eating these things.

Now, dtowncitylover, could the reason you didn't see many of the seniors from that building in the restaurant was because they couldn't afford to go there? If the building was a market rate building would Saucy have been able to stay open because more of the residents who lived there would have chosen to go there often? All I can say is the it makes you wonder.

[Jimaz]

This is a long-winded post advocating for segregation based on income.

Yikes.

Somehow it called to mind that old vulgar joke heard while walking into a theater: "You can pick your seat but you can't pick your friend's seat."

[Richard]

So not only do some want to dictate where people live you also want to dictate as to how they should speak or convey thoughts.

How about - You can lead a horse to water but you cannot force it to drink.

Or cannot see the forest for the trees ,probably about 100 more fitting responses if one was so inclined.

[dtowncitylover]

All I can say is the it makes you wonder.

Well, royce, no it does not make me wonder. It has never made me wonder because cities are for all and should be a place built for all.

Perhaps the poor senior citizens do deserve a greasy spoon or coney island [[that's exactly what you're implying), but it's weird to say that low income housing needs to be in one part of the city while the wealthy need their own neighborhood. Didn't we call this separate but equal?

[masterblaster]

For me, this issue of setting aside a certain percentage of residences in a development for "affordable" has some negative consequences. Firstly, it says to those who can't afford to live there that it doesn't matter if you didn't work hard in school to get a degree or work hard in a profession and acquire some "mad" skills or experience, you can still live in an area where others have done so.

Secondly, if you got in due to affordable housing percentages or set-asides, can you partake in the amenities of the environment and spend money at the stores, shops, and restaurants that cater to those who have money. Wouldn't that make some one feel out of place or even resentful? I know that those who could get into an up and coming neighborhood would enjoy living in a safer environment, but would that be the only amenity that they could enjoy?

My last thoughts are these. A final question is this, "Does Detroit really want to become a "world class" city? In every world class city there are areas that you can afford to live in and there are areas that you can't. If you want to live in those "desirable" areas, then doesn't it take some motivation and effort on you part to do the things that are necessary that are going to get you there on your own? Or do you expect to just sit back and say, "The city is going to make it happen for me so that I can live where ever I want. I don't have to make a lot of effort." The latter attitude is what concerns me when you throw in the affordable housing percentages/set-asides.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I am an African-American resident of the city. Nothing wrong with your most desirable and vibrant area of the city being an enclave of high earners and well-to-do citizens. There are 139 square miles in the city. The working class likely can't afford the shops and dining that are opening in these areas, so that is going to make it harder for those businesses to thrive. This is why we need robust protected bike lanes and robust public transit so that the working class can easily and inexpensively get into the greater downtown area if they have jobs there or need to shop there.

EDIT:
Why is there no push to build affordable housing in Birmingham, and why are there none of these set-aside units in the mixed-use projects in downtown Royal Oak and Ferndale? The same arguments dtowncitylover made can be applied to wealthy suburbs - working class and poor work in these suburbs as well.

[royce]

Well, royce, no it does not make me wonder. It has never made me wonder because cities are for all and should be a place built for all.

Perhaps the poor senior citizens do deserve a greasy spoon or coney island [[that's exactly what you're implying), but it's weird to say that low income housing needs to be in one part of the city while the wealthy need their own neighborhood. Didn't we call this separate but equal?

Yes, dtownlover, I agree that cities are for everyone, but it doesn't mean that those that can't afford to live in a certain area should get set-asides to be able to. You live where you can afford to live. That's all I'm saying. And I don't think it's "weird" to say that low income housing needs to be in one part of the city while the wealthy need their own neighborhood. The problem in Detroit is that much of the wealthy no longer live in the city. They're in Birmingham, the Grosse Pointes, West Bloomfield, and Northville. A city should have the rich, the middle class, and the poor. Each living in areas of the city where they can afford. If one becomes educated or skilled, then you can move to a more expensive area to live. That's been the American Way. Improve your lot in life and you get to enjoy the benefits of that.

Also, it's not like Brush Park is an established working-class neighborhood that needs the set-asides to keep long time residents from being forced out due to gentrification. No, Brush Park was a mostly abandoned neighborhood with a few dilapidated mansions, a senior citizens complex, a public housing complex [[Brewster Homes, and a dilapidated and then torn down public housing project [[Brewster - Douglass). Unless the plan was to bring back the people who lived in the Brewster-Douglass projects, then what's wrong with improving the lot of the area by bringing in people with money?

And no, dtownlover, I was not implying that the poor citizens in the building that housed the Saucy restaurant only need to eat at greasy spoons or coney islands. I simply meant what I meant, and that is: the senior citizens of the building probably couldn't afford to go Saucy because they didn't have the means to frequently patronize the restaurant. Besides, I love "coney islands."

[dtowncitylover]

You live where you can afford to live.

Sure, but I'm wholly against building neighborhoods solely based on income. That's still segregation. Now of course getting to live somewhere is based on availability.

In reference to masterblaster's last comment, I would love to see more affordable and multi-use buildings in along the Woodward corridor [[from the Boulevard all the way to 15 Mile) and am totally against the NIMBY crowd that are currently making a stink in Royal Oak.

[K-slice]

Royce is absolutely right. Without a desirable [[expensive) downtown we can never hope to see population trends turn around, or broad development without massive tax subsidies. It should be said too, I don't think anyone is advocating for mandated "rich" areas or segregation, but for the invisible hand of the market be allowed to work rather than being potentially hampered by mixed income requirements.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times, the focus should be on bringing new affluent residents into the city. Once you accomplish that the rest will be much easier to accomplish.

All this goes without mentioning, there is absolutely no shortage of affordable housing options in Detroit. Put 48228 into Zillow and you'll see dozens of houses, in good shape, ready to move into, listing for sub $100K prices.

What we do have a shortage of is new, modern, $300-$500K homes for young professionals and families.

[Jimaz]

"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

— Pat Paulsen