Printable View
This one seems to be really tastefully done, but is still in planning stages.
https://detroit.curbed.com/2018/5/9/...sed-brush-park
More detail:
https://www.oombra.com/112-edmund-place/
https://www.oombra.com/2827-john-r-1/
Interesting the pushback on the building height - first time I've seen that with some of the newer developments. Something you would more likely see in a bigger/more congested city.
I know of height restrictions directly south of City Modern limited to 3 stories but this proposal is off to the side.
I appreciate their integration of an old carriage house in the design. I'm also surprised about the height. Views change. Let them build it if they can.
Bold Prediction: Brush Park will be one of the most sought after neighborhoods in the country in five years!
Very well done. Can't even tell there's a parking garage in one of the buildings.
You are sounding like SammyS. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakewayj
Bold but not out of the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakewayj
Location: unbeatable
Developments: high end
Selling prices: amongst the highest in Michigan already.
Remember, only 5 years ago, everything was a third of the price. Once all remaining patches are developed, especially the proposed Brewster Douglass high density residential, with a sprinkling of a few rumored boutique hotels, then you’ll have something closer to the articles vision.
I really like the reuse of the Carriage House. It's important we find ways to incorporate old buildings into new architecture instead of tearing them down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
you can thank the taxpayers for this. dan g bankrolling city modern creates a critical mass of high income earners in a small but concentrated area. this in turn creates additional demand [[birds of a feather). this is evidenced by these designs which incorporate expensive elements [[underground parking, reused facades) that can only be supported by higher prices. this is great an all, but it does absolutely nothing to integrate the city. it's just another class-divided hood [[notice how i didn't say race) - which isn't desirable in the long run...detroit will be the king of socialization of costs and privatization of profits
20% of City Modern is low income. Not enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
just because 20% of home are income-restricted doesn't mean people can afford the rate. and income-tiering pushes out most candidates. your 'low income' dwellers are actually kids from wealthy families who work for low-paying non-profits to pad their resumes..[[house poor on paper, but otherwise wealthy).Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
Quote:
The ordinance requiring a minimum of 20% affordable housing units amends Chapter 14 of the 1984 Detroit City Code, Community Development and creates Detroit's first Housing Trust Fund which will be used to address housing needs for residents with incomes at levels at or below 30% of area median income.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...its/680627001/Quote:
And of the 20% required affordable housing, Sheffield's original proposal sought to require an income tiering that would have imposed 10% of them to be at 80% of the area median income; 5% at 60% of area median income; and 5% at 50% of the area median income.
additional reading for you:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ing/482323002/Quote:
Today in Detroit low-income individuals have three options when it comes to renting. They all come with problems — namely a lack of actual availability. A person can live in public housing, which are units run by the Detroit Housing Commission. There are 3,340 units under the organization's purview. They are at 95% occupancy. The waiting list, which is currently closed, holds 5,760 individuals. When the list is open, it too can come with barriers. In January 2016, one public housing community opened its list. To apply one had to physically visit the building to get an application and then the completed application, which required original birth certificates, social security cards, proof of income and photo IDs for all adults, had to be “hand delivered” between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday.
A second option is a housing voucher — formally known as Section 8 — which gives one a rental subsidy, which can then be used at any unit at which a landlord decides to accept it. The waiting list for the city's housing voucher program, which has been closed since 2014, has 6,000 people on it. This calendar year, 140 vouchers were issued, according to the Detroit Housing Commission.
Finally, one can look for so-called affordable housing. These are units that are built through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which gives developers tax subsidies in exchange for building a certain number of "affordable" housing units that accommodate those living below the Area Median Income [[AMI).
What complicates this latter option is the fact that determination of AMI includes outlying suburbs. In the case of Detroit, the AMI is based on the Detroit-Warren-Livonia metropolitan statistical area. The end results are inflated AMIs, which skew out of the favor of actual Detroiters. While the AMI of a single person is $48,000 in the Detroit AMI, the true median income in Detroit is $28,000 — a 71% difference.
so lets do the math...80% of detroit's AMI of 48k = $38,400 after tax..thats $1272/mo. tell me how much a 'affordable' one bedroom is. I bet it's 50-60% of my income. and if i'm near the detroit AMI of 28K the 80% rate puts me at 22,400 annual...which is peanuts in this country.
I think that right now although large parts of Detroit aren't included focusing on density and building out from the city center is the right thing to do. In the pockets where there is still high density in terms of homes still standing and being occupied, development has begun and should continue. For instance like 7 mile and Livernois, that is going to help make the streets busy. Busy streets are safe streets.
The trouble in most of the neighborhoods comes from the lack of density and street life. Lack of eyes and sparse density are a haven for criminal activity.
As much as you don't want to relocate people I think the example that is happening in the Delray neighborhood has positive consequences. The house swap program could be implemented in severely sparse neighborhoods and increase density, street life and safety to neighborhoods where there are plenty of structures but many empty homes and businesses.
In the case of City Modern, it's strictly seniors.Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
right. the 'affordable' young folks belong here. $635-721/moQuote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
https://www.apartments.com/28grand-detroit-mi/p69rlfv/
I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. Wouldn't "wealthy" kids have better connections to private sector jobs that aren't non-profits such as GM or Comerica or some other corporate entity? Why do they need a non-profit unless they're passionate about non-prof work? [[and then therefore have the capital to live wherever they want or buy a house sooner rather than later)Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
What does the last sentence mean? Otherwise wealthy? Are we saying they can't have decent affordable housing because their parents might be wealthy and they're trying to live independently and saving their money for the future/buying a house? Have you vouched that these young people come from wealthy families?
Also, $38,400 p/yr [[after making $48,000) is $3200 a month or no more than $960 for housing [[30% of your monthly income).
simply because this number isn't accurate to city residents, rather skewed by the county overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Despite opposition from Carlton Loft residents, looks like the project is moving forward
https://www.freep.com/story/money/20...ent/620519002/
Quote:
The building — to be called 112 Edmund — would feature ground-floor retail topped by two floors of commercial space and four floors of about 32 condominiums, each unit likely priced above $400,000.
Aaaannnnnd more Brush Park development
https://detroit.curbed.com/2018/6/5/...open-this-fall
When I was a kid I would sit in the very top row of Comerica, look accross 75, and wonder why all that land and all those mansions were sitting empty. I couldn't understand why people wouldn't want to live so close that they could walk to Tigers games and all the downtown theaters. Guess a few people felt that same way.
Now we know what it would have looked like if the Mauna Loa were converted into rowhouses, by an architect who hasn't lived in one. Just kidding. It's just that I've lived in them for most of my adult life, and these look a little strange to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
And not because they aren't decorated with design motifs pulled from centuries past. I like that they aren't. My criticisms are minor, overall.
Stoops are great; they're well-loved where they have them. And I'm happy to see them here [[there aren't any in City Modern). But perhaps only because I love them so much, I'm disappointed with these. They're too narrow, and their walls too tall. That will discourage using them for what they are elsewhere so good for: interaction with your neighbors. It may even encourage their use for behaviors that are better discouraged.
A stoop should be wide enough for at least one person to sit while another comfortably passes. These seem to fall just short. And you should be able to sit and still see [[and be visible to) your neighbors. The walls on these will discourage interaction with even the neighbor who owns the other side. Rails would foster better behavior.
Visually, these stoops are too heavy for a building so short, even though they themselves only ascend half a floor. And it's a small criticism, but they'd be more inviting as entrances if windows instead of a wall were emphasized overhead.
Meanwhile the featureless extension of the facade above the top windows and its abrupt end reminds me almost of a building that has had its cornice stripped off. I don't suggest arbitrary decoration, but it's unclear what purpose the extension serves. Its visual simplicity is compounded by the second floor walls above the entrances. Together they make the top half of the design seem out of balance with the weight and complexity below.
And it's not important to follow tradition, but the tallest floor in a rowhouse is usually the parlor floor, at stoop height, with shorter floors upstairs and below. These stoops end oddly between floors, for uncertain purpose. And the extension of the facade above the top windows gives the false impression the top floor is tallest, inverting the parlor floor tradition.
If there is a purpose I hope it's as a wall for a roof deck. There should be more of those! And balconies [[the ones here are great). Then I'll take back half my criticism, reserving the rest to suggest the roof deck could have been visually distinguished in a way that improves the design.
In any case it's great to see developments continue of this [[or better yet a bit taller) scale. Even if in my opinion they're sometimes a little clumsy, they're heading in the right direction, and they'll complement their new neighbors very well.
And before you say it, who doesn't like a damp towel thrown in by an armchair critic, especially one who isn't an architect, and now lives somewhere else? :rolleyes:
Nice! I just love how much the quality has improved on development in the city in even just the past five years. I remember when we we're just happy to see that Crosswinds crap get built on Woodward, and now they look out of place.Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
It was a given that this neighborhood would eventually see a rebirth, but boy were there lots of fits-and-starts. It's really fascinating to see it virtually happen all at once and with such interesting architecture. For once, I actually credit Gilbert for this for setting the stage with City Modern, because what would have likely ended up was some cheesy faux-historicism crap.