Ex-Catholic school in Detroit transformed into affordable housing

I've often wondered why more schools are not converted into residential housing. Many of them have what would seem to be attractive features like swimming pools, gyms, workshops etc. Great to see this come on line.

"A $7.2 million renovation has turned a former Catholic school in Detroit's Banglatown neighborhood into housing. City officials and developers marked the opening Monday of the Transfiguration Place Apartments, where the 19 units are for individuals making $28,000 or less, and who will not pay more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities.

"The 21,500-square-foot building at 13300 Syracuse near East McNichols includes 17 onebedroom apartments and two two-bedroom units. Built in 1926, the former school also served as a church until 1950. It's been vacant since 2014. It is the only surviving part of a complex added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2019."

Attachment 41931

https://freep-mi.newsmemory.com?publ...a3b67e_1348301

Kudos on the adaptive reuse and forward thinking,verses the scorch and burn tactics of yesteryear.

Thats a win all the way around.

I still have a hard time understanding why converting existing solid brick structures like this is so expensive. Roughly 375,000 each for 1 bedroom units?

^ when I was contracting new build was $100 per sqft and remodeling $150 a sqft. But that was Florida,2006-2008 prices I could have retired years ago doing the same thing up there.

Way easier and faster for new build,and it depends on what materials are used,everybody expects granite counters and high end appliances that drives up prices,all depends on the layout of the building,if they have to do structural changes etc.

Fire control systems,elevators,handicap excess etc all has to be configured around the existing building verses incorporating into design from scratch,lots more work.

Also in this case,remediation,lead paint and asbestos removal drives the price up.

I used to build brand new 1200 sqft houses and sell them for 65,000 in the early 90s and make money,material costs right now are also insane,that’s probably another $20k per unit on top.

HUD for market rate drives up the price also,they did not say what the time frame is with retaining the market rate units,in new apartment builds if you use hud funding for market rate it is standing for 3-5 years then you can dump the below market rates for true market rates.

Many of these old schools from the 1920’s also have attractive architecture. Repurposing them for housing is a great way of retaining the character of the neighborhood. I really wish we would see more of this.

^ The units will be sound-proof that's for sure unlike the thin construction so often used these days!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

I still have a hard time understanding why converting existing solid brick structures like this is so expensive. Roughly 375,000 each for 1 bedroom units?

---

Answer: Graft. This is affordable housing for low income people and may be as good of a gift as food stamps and other government services. However, it is not so affordable to taxpayers as you point out. Lucrative profits have created this construction subset of building 'affordable housing'. Some companies, in the past have built housing for their workers to lure in and keep workers. I had relatives in Ontario who lived in housing provided by Falconbridge Nickel. Scotia, CA housing used to be provided by Palco Lumber for its sawmill employees. I first heard the upbeat term 'affordable housing' used in Marin County, CA just north of San Francisco where housing had become so expensive that teachers, tradesmen and other workers could no longer afford to live there among rich [[Democrats). The solution was to build federally and state subsidized 'affordable housing' so employers wouldn't have to pay higher wages so their necessary workers could afford to live there and local taxes wouldn't have to be raised so much.

Though not so affordable, St. Charles Borromeo grade school was transformed several years ago. The penthouse has been on the market for months, priced at $1,195,000. The newly built townhouses next to the original school, are renting out at $1,1950 on up.

https://www.highrises.com/detroit/sa...es-residences/

https://www.bexrealty.com/Michigan/D...es/Rentals.php

A lot of the cost probably went to engineering. It's awesome that an almost 100-year old building was able to be re-used, but for the building to be given that opportunity speaks to the fact that it was probably constructed like a fortress. Any structural changes required significant work that was probably a lot more complicated than ripping down some drywall and metal studs. Also, I'd guess that all of the utilities in place had to be removed, and retrofitting the building for new utilities was surely very complicated, as the building didn't have pathways or capabilities for modern plumbing, HVAC, and electrical requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Answer: Graft. This is affordable housing for low income people and may be as good of a gift as food stamps and other government services. However, it is not so affordable to taxpayers as you point out. Lucrative profits have created this construction subset of building 'affordable housing'. Some companies, in the past have built housing for their workers to lure in and keep workers. I had relatives in Ontario who lived in housing provided by Falconbridge Nickel. Scotia, CA housing used to be provided by Palco Lumber for its sawmill employees. I first heard the upbeat term 'affordable housing' used in Marin County, CA just north of San Francisco where housing had become so expensive that teachers, tradesmen and other workers could no longer afford to live there among rich [[Democrats). The solution was to build federally and state subsidized 'affordable housing' so employers wouldn't have to pay higher wages so their necessary workers could afford to live there and local taxes wouldn't have to be raised so much.

---

Check out Seattle where they are building apartments for the homeless,touted as having million dollar views and also having the cost of $350k per unit to construct.

Most of HUD funded affordable housing is income based which helps teachers,police and service workers etc.

But there is a lot of pushback with that because people say,why should I pay $350 k rates and this person can move in next door and pay 1/3 of that.

If the police are allowed to take their marked cars home,most apartment buildings will give them a highly reduced rate just to have the presence,although these days they may be considered a target.

Remember back in 2004 HUD made the decision to no longer fund “projects” and increased the level of funding in order to integrate past residents into the community and burbs.

At that time the monthly allotment went from $400 per month up to $1500 per month.

I agree with the income based aspect,they did that by me in the historic district,2 story buildings that look like they were built in the 1920s,there were strict requirements and it was heavily patrolled,actually one of the safest parts of the city,they even incorporated shops on the bottom with the ones that faced the main road,which gave some of the residents the opportunity to get into business.

It may change now though because the ACLU is getting involved regarding the inability of some to ply their trades on the corner and some feel the inability to sell drugs in public as the kids wait for the school bus is depriving them of their rights.

To provide clarification in this case,I found where they capped the affordability aspect at 20 years,which is unheard of in the past because usually you use the HUD funds to construct but were only required to retain them for the maximum for 5 years.

Which at that time you would flip the complex with full market rate abilities and build the next one.

You make money off of the poor and not the rich.

Something changed that allowed this to happen though,the adaptive reuse for empty schools for apartment conversions was always in the table,it was the school districts that did not allow it,they had extremely restrictive covenants when selling the buildings,alot of it was based on they are actually taxpayer built buildings originally,so they are in essence selling taxpayer property.

Its a shame they could not have come to some agreements in the past because it could be argued that it serves the taxpayers better as a redeveloped housing verses delict to the point of demolition at even more taxpayer expense.

Anyway you look at it the taxpayers would have been on the hook for millions,at least this way,history gets saved and the community gets new life and residents.

Also back in 2004 and I believe it was in Cleveland or something like that,as a school project students were tasked with finding adaptive reuse for empty school buildings,they came up with a lot of really good ideas,it actually took from that time and up to a few years ago for the actual school districts to get onboard with it.