Of the few glimmers of hope I had for this region was that this type of stupid development was dead, buried, and never to return. Guess I was wrong.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
Of the few glimmers of hope I had for this region was that this type of stupid development was dead, buried, and never to return. Guess I was wrong.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
Hey, If it worked once........Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
are you kidding me ? some people never learn.
wayyyyyy too much house, 5 bedrooms 5 baths. unless they have 4 kids whats the point , then you are still going to be stuck with it in 20 years once the kids are gone .
Didn't we already go through this ?
Ah yes, the Classics!Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
Just a lot of happy talk designed to force up prices and garner Realtors some commissions.
I will never get this sort of lifestyle either, and am mystified that it has returned so quickly.
Who on earth would spend over $2 million for a crappily constructed home in a township with poor services and declining schools? Why does anyone need 7500 ft.? What does that cost to heat in the winter?
I don't see how "normal people" [[meaning almost everyone, so household incomes below 200k and net worth below a million) want a home with more than 4,000 ft. What do you do with all that space?
If you're some millionaire baller, then good for you, but I don't understand your run-of-the mill professional, even with good incomes, buying some 5,000 square foot home in some godforsaken township, across from cows and trailer parks, and with all that space for nothing.
"across from cows"
What do you have against cows?
Yeah, it reads like a puff piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I think it is something of a puff piece, but the general theme [[the McMansions are returning) is correct, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameguy56
Anecdotally, I see lots of people buying into these new developments again, and the bulldozers are definitely rumbling. Go out to the exurban fringe, and construction is moving ahead again. I don't get it, but it seems to be deja vu.
I bet these people ask themselves why they should pay top dollar for a loft or apartment in Detroit, which has one of the highest violent crime rates of any large city in a developed nation, almost non existent city services, the worst schools in the nation, lack of retail, and a lack of clean and safe park space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
These are almost as big and as ugly as the ones they are building in Detroit on the East Riverfront.
And I would agree with them 100%. Possibly the only thing crazier than a million dollar McMansion in the cornfields would be a million dollar home in a Detroit slum [[at least from an investment perspective).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
But 90% of the U.S. isn't cornfield townships or urban wastelands. It's not like our only choices are Brush Park or Brighton Township.
Exactly.You can't justify irrational behavior by pointing out that other people have their own irrational behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The housing market is recovering. Detroit-based Pulte Homes stock [PHM] has tripled in the past year to be one of the biggest gainers of the past 12 months. Pulte is the largest home builder in the US although, as that market is highly localized, it only has about 2% of the national share.
Let's not forget that while the economy and employment are slowly and fitfully improving, stock portfolios are zooming by comparison. So those with securities holdings are seeing their fortunes increasing and their consuming habits are responding.
As for buying luxury homes, the same could be asked about buying luxury cars. Who cares? I'm sure the economy and those whose jobs result from them don't mind. And we all know big dogs eat first, so seeing them chowing down bodes well for everybody else. That's the cold hard facts of American capitalism.
It's not the "buying of luxury homes" that is the problem. It's the "buying of crappily built, mcmansions in ex-ex-urban cornfields in unsustainable developments all subsidized by state, county, and townships pro sprawl agenda".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Did we learn nothing from the last 5 years? These developments and the houses in them should be totally worthless....not merely selling at a discount.
Yeah, I'm not anti-luxury home construction.
I just don't personally understand the "mansion in farmland" phenomenon. It's not like these areas have good services, good schools, or really anything appealing outside of low taxes. They have horrible traffic, no stores or restaurants, and are a million miles from anything.
I have friends that bought in the Milford area, and to me, it's just awful. The schools aren't really good [[Wixom schools), there are no services [[good luck when it snows), traffic on I-96 is horrendous, and all the homes look like cardboard boxes. Their home is huge, but they can't afford to furnish all the rooms. It's supposedly "luxury living" but there are trailer parks and junkyards everywhere. Oh, well.
And that is precisely why whenever gas goes up a nickle and our local media hacks go running to a gas station on m59 to interview some exurban housefrau or joe lunch box about how outraged they are about how expensive it is to fill up the Yukon XL, I just laugh. Choices have consequences. How's that 4500 square feet in the middle of nowhere working out for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I don't think it's construction so much as sales. Maybe a few trucks show up to switch out fixtures or repair drywall or do work to spec, but I doubt we're talking bulldozers. There were plenty of unfinished subs in 2007 and why would anybody pay to build new unless they had an amazingly secluded site or special needs -- and a ton of money...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Metro Detroit is the US capitol for gauche. Quite a bit of money circulating around without enough taste to go with it. Tacky houses for tacky people.
When [[buyers) see how much they can affordhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png on a monthly basis," he said, "they realize they can afford a whole lot more house."
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2C2ODzz6V
Well doesn't that just say it all.
Sounds like people are going to be spending a lot more than they can afford. "Honey, it will only be $3,000 per month. We take home $5,000 between the two of us per month so that will be more than enough!!!"
love those photos included. money can't buy taste!Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
The writer of this article probably didn't even see the flacks coming. They showed him a bunch of happy statistics and told him a happy story. They told him the story they want people to believe. His editors probably wanted to believe it too. Remember that last article like this, from July, written by Greta Guest? It had this quote:
“We have more demand than inventory in Oakland County,” said Darralyn Bowers, owner of Bowers & Associates in Southfield. “We have only good things to report this month.”
Then it admitted that home sales were down, and that, really, only the top-end homes were seeing price rises because they were the ones with multiple bidders and, actually, the news wasn't THAT great.
But I'll be damned if I didn't see this article posted on a wall at the real estate office where I bought my house last month! Real estate people need this kind of press so they can trick people into buying "more house" than they need because the buyers still subscribe to outdated notions about "affluent exurbs."
I really feel sorry for the guy who wrote that article. Where else does he have to turn for the real facts behind the BS? Naturally, real estate people are not going to talk about a pending supply of inferior housing kept off the market in "shadow inventories" to artificially stimulate prices and make buyers think things are looking up again. Of course, these real estate flacks aren't going to elaborate on how they're essentially suckering people into buying houses that will be largely worthless -- and likely falling apart -- by the time the mortgage is paid off, if ever.
Where should these people be locating to if not in the outskirts?
I wonder how much the value of "classic" Detroit homes has held up over the last seven years. What does it cost a year to heat and maintain those Boston Edison homes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
The vast majority of Metro Detroit residents don't live in urban wastelands or the exurban fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
I'm not saying we should force people to move anywhere, but I personally don't understand why people prefer to pay big bucks for crappy construction in the middle of nowhere, instead of an established neighborhood in a nicer community.
For example, why not Farmington Hills instead of Milford? Taxes are higher, but almost everything else is better. I don't getting paying 500k to live next to junkyards and trailer parks.
I just find the irony by some on here judging and criticizing these people. These people can easily say they cannot understand paying $1700 a month to live in Detroit which has no city services and could be insolvent in a month or two. If I had money I would buy in Grosse Pointe but I'm not going to sit on my high horse and judge people who live north of 59.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I'm just giving my opinion. I'm not saying they're bad people or anything; I just don't get the mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
This is kinda my point, though. Grosse Pointe is often the same price or cheaper than these new communities. Why does a family-sized house in GP cost the same as a crapbox in Milford?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
I'm just saying that in most metros, the highest cost housing tends to be in older suburbs or [[in a few cases) the city center. It's probably true that the $1 million+ housing in Metro Detroit tends to be in Bloomfield-Birmingham-Franklin-Orchard Lake-GP Shores, but, below that level, a lot of folks want to want to live in some giant McMansion in Northville Township or something.
Depends on the size of the home. There are homes ranging from 1,500 Sq.Ft. to 20, 0000 Sq. Ft. and of course they are 80-100 years old more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Many people don't want to live in Grosse Pointe because you're literally blocks away from Beirut. Plus taxes in Grosse Pointe tend to be a lot higher than many suburbs. I would never want to live way out like Milford though.
Yeah, proximity to Detroit probably does depress prices somewhat. Taxes are higher, but services and schools are like 10,000 times better than in some township.Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
And intangibles like architectural quality, community feel, and beauty are off the charts compared to the exurbs. I would personally prefer a real neighborhood, with a history and dependible services.
Sorry, but you are seriously misinformed if you actually believe anything you just posted. For starters Wixom does not have it's own school district. I assume if you are not aware of that fact I doubt you are aware how well the schools compare to others. [[Wixom is served by Huron Valley, Walled Lake and Novi Community Schools).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I live in Milford on the edge of Wixom and have to say that the local services here and there are both top notch! The roads get plowed, the pot holes get fixed quickly and "No stores or restaurants"?????? Every other freaking building in Milford is a restaurant! As for shopping it's a 15 minute drive to the mother of all shopping districts in Novi and there are also many locally owned retailers as well as big box stores within 5 minutes of my home in Milford. "Junk yards and trailer parks everywhere?" Please let me know where you saw the junk yards, I'm always looking for a deal on parts. Unfortunately, I only know of one scrap yard in all of Milford and Wixom and it's on a road that I'm rather certain you have not driven. There are 3 trailer parks in Wixom and Milford, two of them are side by side off of Wixom Road and the other is off of Old Plank on the edge of Milford.
Cardboard boxes for homes? Yeah, I do have to admit there are quite a few cookie cutter vinyl sided subdivisions, but there are also lots of homes here from the mid to late 1800's, million dollar lakefront homes, large well built homes on acreage, affordable condominiums and apartments and more. If all you're looking for are Pulte track homes then I guess that's all you are going to see. Same as some suburbanites bragging about the burned out vacant lots they saw on their trip to Detroit won't even mention the well kept homes that sat across the street.
Living a block and a half away from "Beirut" as you call it does have its moments, but then I leave my front door open most nice days, and I do not worry to much about crime[[yes there is a crime but the pointes usually we have less crimes per 1000 residents than Bloomfield or Birmingham). What most do not care for are the lack of amenities such as restaurants.Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
As for taxes yes they are higher than most but you also get more bang for you buck mainly the schools!
It's funny people talk about Grosse Pointe's proximity to Detroit yet crime rates are incredibly low. Grosse Pointe has managed to keep Detroit out. Harper Woods fell to Detroit but Grosse Pointe is holding strong. If you live up by Vernier and Jefferson, you're kind of far from Detroit.
Their kids attend Walled Lake Schools. The school is in Wixom, so I thought it's Wixom schools, but it's Walled Lake. The scores are less than impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
I don't think most would agree with this. Services are generally poor in low tax jurisdictions. No taxes means no services. You're talking volunteer firefighters, limited pickup schedules, poor libraries and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
Re. restaurants I know that area, and there are barely any restaurants except for the fried fast food crap on the I-96 exits. Good luck getting something outside of Dominos or McDonalds.
Drive along I-96 and there are big junkyards of rusting equipment past Beck Rd. There's another big one closer to the Milford exit. It looks junky along that whole stretch. You also have the giant power lines towering over 96.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
I know of trailer parks off Wixom Rd., Napier Rd. and 8 Mile, and all are next to "luxury" new home developments. I personally couldn't see spending 500k to live next to trailers.
I've said it before, but they never fixed the problem to begin with. Time for that Detroit area green belt...Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
I'm not referring to the crime, just the proximity is enough to make many people with kids leery. If you live near Windmill Point in one of the nicest parts of Grosse Pointe what do you tell your kids? "Whatever you do when you ride your bike up the street DO NOT TURN LEFT!". Seems silly to have that much money and live in such a Dickensian area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Just curious, exactly how often does a kid from the Pointes get harmed by a "Detroiter"?Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
I thought I just heard recently that a 12 year old Grosse Pointe girl was attacked by a Detroiter. I remember the discussion on here because more people were upset that the parent called Detroit third world than the fact a 12 year old was attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Can't win an argument? Change the subject. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
My wife's cousin lived on Barrington a few homes from Windmill Pointe for almost 20 years and his backyard butted up to the homes on Alter. He was never broken into, and his children were never harmed. All the kids in the area do know not to go past Barrington although Alter is a quiet neighborhood. The only problem are the parks at the foot of Alter and there is not an easy way to get to them from Windmill Pointe. But then with Windmill Pointe and Patterson Parks why would they want to go to Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
Shollin, there are more choices than exurbs and Detroit. You do understand that, yes? Because it seems whenever anybody on this thread has criticized the choice of living in exurbia, you bring up the city of Detroit, as if that's the only other choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
There are lots of choices. We have a huge oversupply of exurban McMansions, and if you read the literature on the next generation of homebuyers, you'll find this is the type of housing for which there is the bleakest prognosis. As others have pointed out, buying in the second or third ring of suburbia often offers a better mix of amenities for the price you pay. Some people prefer first-ring: For instance look at all the drinking and dining choices in Ferndale that have cropped up over the last five years.
And, sure, some people prefer Detroit, but I don't think we're discussing that. You and Hermod seem to be the only ones determined to bring that up.
Hahahahaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
I don't see where that is changing the subject. The argument was that exurban homes cost too much to maintain and heat and their value was dropping. I made the observation that the same could apply to 5,000 sq ft houses in the D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
You see, we were talking about exurbia. The original post was about exurbia. The discussion it engendered was about exurbia. The aesthetic discussion was about exurbia. And that's why bringing up homes that are as far away from exurbia as you can get is called CHANGING THE SUBJECT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
You simply cannot get any more disingenuous, Hermod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitdave
Some times an empty nester needs a place to keep his beloved books.
Attachment 16577
These inner ring suburbs don't offer the same as exurbia. I raised two kids in Harper Woods in a 1000 square foot house and there were a lot of times I wish I had a larger house with a larger lot for them to play in. My point is people on this forum like to praise any apartment building that opens in Detroit and then points there finger at people who want to build their own home in exurbia. I find the irony amusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
No, you spurious sophist, the attack on exurbia was made because it was detrimental to the "holy city" and the main disadvantages listed for a 5,000 sq ft house in exurbia was that it cost too much in maintenance and that the heating expense was too much. In addition, it was decried that the value of such homes had declined drastically since 2006. I thereupon compared a 5,000 sq ft home in exurbia to a 5,000 sq ft home in Brazzaville on the Detroit River where the upkeep, heating bills, and taxes were a big bite out of an annual income and the intrinsic value was depreciating faster than an ice cream cone on an hot August day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I agree that 1,000 ft. is small, but then why 5,000 ft? I just don't get the huge jump in size, when 90% of the homes are between these two extremes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
I don't see why a typical family needs these huge homes. If they want to buy it, fine, but in many cases I see they can't even afford to furnish the place.
Keep in mind that the majority of U.S. households have no children. So the "typical" household in 2012 is childless, and that should be the focus of most homebuilders. Given the demographic realities, what's the point of a giant house unless you're some big-bucks baller?
Hell of an opening strawman, Bham. The article referenced in the original post discusses a home in West Bloomfield at Walnut Lake and Halstead. Schools and services are considered good relative to most other suburbs and the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
You assume the home has "crappy construction". Why? While it is possible to build a modern home poorly, or use the cheapest materials, the pricey new homes I've been in have been well-constructed with quality materials. The old=good, new=crap viewpoint is uninformed. For every knockout Palmer Woods mansion there are 100 Brightmoor shacks. The "solid" 1920's brick EEV house may have solid oak doors and leaded glass built-in bookcases but may also have undersized floor joists, sagging 2x4 roof rafters, asbestos in the vermiculite insulation [[if it had any insulation at all), absent or poorly designed duct runs, asbestos wrapped hot water pipes, leaky windows, overall poor energy efficiency for the size, dangerous knob-and-tube wiring, lead water supply piping, tiny closets, a "penalty-box" kitchen designed to keep the little woman hidden, too few bathrooms for today's family needs, or other common old house maladies. I generally prefer old house styles to newer styles but you have to accept the negatives too.
In that area of West Bloomfield there are a lot of Chaldean families where the adult children often live with the parents. It's common to have three generations in the house. So if they can afford it, what business is it of ours how they choose to live?
You ask why does any one need 7500 sqft. You might as well ask why does anyone need 7500 songs on their iPod? Or 15 watches, or 50 pairs of shoes, or 8 bikes or a top of the line Mac when a simple PC will do what most users need. It seems a little intrusive and intolerant to be so concerned with how others choose to live their private lives and allocate their funds.
I have a suggestion for all those who are so mystified as to why some people choose to live as they do. Take the opportunity to actually find out. Talk to them with an open mind. Leave your biases and preconceived notions at home. Discover what their priorities and values are, what makes them tick and why they've made the choices they've made. It might be an eye-opening experience for you. They're not some strange offshoot of the human race. Your inability to understand them [[not simply create a self-serving caricature) is more a reflection of your efforts thus far than of their "otherness".
Then again, it can be entertaining to poke fun at the "others", so keep chucking stereotypes out there until you feel sufficiently superior.
There was no proof he was a Detroiter other than he was black. He could have easily been from Grosse Pointe, Harper Woods, or Timbuktu for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Whether you live in Boston Edison or Brownstown I don't think anyone here should really be happy about these new developments [[mutations, perhaps?). There is already way too much supply and not enough demand with the housing stock in the region. Your property values and mine will likely continue to suffer.
Yet for a few pests here their first, tired old recourse is to slam Detroit, for no apparent reason other than it's what they know.
"There was no proof he was a Detroiter other than he was black. He could have easily been from Grosse Pointe, Harper Woods, or Timbuktu for that matter."
I agree. For all you know he could've been a GPF stockbroker who's cell battery died, and he needed to make a transaction, ASAP!
It's hardly a strawman. This is the most isolated, least developed far corner of W. Bloomfield. It's heavily dirt roads and well water. And W. Bloomfield schools are generally worse than all the surrounding school districts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
I'm comparing apples-to-apples. A Brightmoor shack isn't a good comparison to a $2 million home. If you want to compare, say, $500k executive homes, there's no comparison between some new subdivision in Milford and an older home in Grosse Pointe Farms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
The point is "they" obviously can't afford it. Ever heard of the real estate crash? Too many people bought too much home, and everyone else pays for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
Totally false analogy. Americans didn't see their lifetime accumulated savings destroyed because someone downloaded too many songs. The global economy wasn't brought to its knees because some folks bought too many shoes. HouseholdQuote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
net worth was shattered because too many idiots bought too much home, and we're paying for it.
The typical foreclosure costs the banks about $50,000, which is passed on to the consumer.
The Fannie Mae bailout was $116 billion. The Freddie Mac bailout was $76 billion. The TARP bailout was $700 billion. Then there was HAMP, then HARP, now HARP II. It never ends. Oh, and everyone's home is worth 40% less.
So, yeah, I think people have the right to question the exact same behavior that nearly brought down our economy a few years back.
Short answer... Yes. You do not ride your bike across Alter. For any reason. growing up, the only reason any kid had any business crossing Alter was to buy drugs at AP.Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
Seems far more ridiculous to live on a dead end street in the middle of a former cow pasture that requires your kid be driven to every. single. after school activity because your cul du sac empties out onto M-59 and you live 6 miles from any school.Quote:
Seems silly to have that much money and live in such a Dickensian area.
With the exception of a veritable war zone of poverty and blight across the border in Detroit, GP is the very walkable, dense [[for a burb), and sustainable living everyone claims to demand.
You didn't even mention the best part. Wait until these townships that fronted all of the money for that infrastructure to build these McMansions start to go belly-up because the property tax receipts never materialized to pay for that crap. What type of chain reaction will a city of Detroit bankruptcy set off in the ex-urbs when the ratings agencies start downgrading that debt out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I think that's the point we're making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
I don't see any irony. I see somebody whose taste perhaps differs from many on this board. You want larger lots? That's fine. I don't think you'll find anybody on here who says you shouldn't have larger lots if you want them, just pay for it all yourself and don't expect the whole system to subsidize that way of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Again, why have you constructed this continuum in which there are two choices: exurbia or the city? There are lots of environments that aren't exurbia, Hermod, and a metro historian such as yourself knows the range of them. Original settlements like downtown Rochester, puny though it is. Streetcar suburbs like Birmingham. Outposts gone urbane like west Dearborn. Cities that were once independent, like Wyandotte, now subsumed into the metroplex. Places with their own history and tale to tell in the development of the region. Even distant but accessible places such as Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti might fall into our metroplex by some definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
But exurbia, those places without histories, heritage, or anything but an association sign to describe what once was there before it was carved into a cookie-cutter money-machine for developers, stands on its own in this discussion.
I know that, given your penchant for grandstanding against the city, you'd rather that this was a polar debate with two sides to it, but I must point out that it isn't.
Now, we were talking about exurbia and its prospects ...
I don't know where you came up with this shit, but you are the only person who brings it up. In fact, you brought it up three times on this thread alone. While everyone else is offering reasonable ideas about surplus housing in the Metro region you continue with your broken record of "apartments in Detroit" and "nobody wants to live in Detroit because of services." Again, look throught the thread, you're the only one doing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
You have a pathological hatred of people chosing to live in apartments in Detroit, or Detroit period, for what reasons I can only guess. Look, I think people should live wherever they want. I think Grosse Pointe is probably the nicest area in the Metro region. I live in Detroit but wouldn't want to live in an apartment again, but obviously people do because they sell like mad downtown and in Midtown. A lot of people like that lifestyle - they're not like you, and they don't have to be - it's a free country, okay? If you can't get over the fact that people here are happy to see less vacancy in Detroit then you should probably pack your bags and head to the Free Press message boards because you're not going to be happy here.
clap clap clap clap clap clapQuote:
Originally Posted by poobert
Attachment 16587
" A lot of people like that lifestyle - they're not like you, and they don't have to be - it's a free country, okay?"
Exactly. If I want to live in a McMansion across the street from those evil cows, and not in a $1700 a month crackerbox, I should be able to.
Don't think you can get away with that subtle use of "cracker"box, "Honky" Tonk. I'm on to you. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I don't think anyone would disagree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
The issue is that the public subsidizes this lifestyle choice, and pays the price when folks get in over their heads. This is the crux of the problem.
Certainly there should be opportunities to live in the sticks. But those homeowners receive the federally subsidized mortgage deduction. They require new streets, utilities, and services, much of which isn't borne by the locality. And when they can't pay the mortgage, everyone else "pays the mortgage".
We currently subsidize people to take on too much house relative to their net worth. The risks aren't borne by the homeowner, but by society at large. That's why society should have a say in the matter.
Exactly. If you want Elsie as your neighbor then you need to pay to pave that road to get you there on your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I totally agree with you. This is one of the issues I have with tax breaks for the 1%, [[here we go). I have to pay the full amount, yet the 1% get to drive on, drink from, and poop into, infrastructure that I paid for, yet because of their position and wealth, THEY get tax breaks, and loopholes, I do not. I continue to pay. [[sorry, I wandered off a bit). The cow field McMansions want water, electricity, sewer system, etc., and yes, we're subsidising it, it's not being covered by the investors or the taxes those residents pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Except it's not WB schools, its Walled Lake schools, which are generally well regarded. Its not isolated, its very close to shopping and M-5. It has municipal sewers and city water not well water, and while there are some dirt roads [[like Royal Oak), the majority are paved. Its listed at $1.29 million, not $2 million. There are no cows or trailer parks anywhere nearby. So what the hell are you talking about? A strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Who is "they"? If you're talking about 2006, you're right in many cases, although the vast majority of houses that were foreclosed on were not expensive houses. Today however the qualifications required for a jumbo mortgage are pretty stringent. 720 credit, 20% down minimum with some lenders requiring up to 40% down, debt-to-income no greater than 36% - 38%, liquid reserves equal to 10% of the total loan amount. There are no more stated income loans, no more liar loans, no negative am loans, it's 2012, not 2006. The idea you put forth that the people buying $1MM+ homes today can't afford them is simply wrong. In fact 1/3 of all $1MM+ home buyers this year in metro Detroit paid all cash. The rest had to exceed fairly tough underwriting standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I'm with you on the outrage about the cost to taxpayers of the bailouts and the government's role in backstopping mortgage loans. You seem to have an issue with someone you know that you think is in over their head and bought in an area you don't like. Don't let that cloud your assessment of the overall market today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
WB and Walled Lake Schools both have test scores below their neighbors [[Bloomfield, Birmingham, Novi, Northville), so I would disagree. These buyers can live anywhere, and I assume you aren't comparing to Pontiac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
There's a trailer park to the east [[Orchard Lake) and at least one to the west [[Pontiac Lake). There's very little retail except along Orchard Lake, and you have to fight traffic along two-lane, winding, Pontiac Lake to get there. The whole area is a traffic nightmare, because of the lakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
And no, Royal Oak doesn't have dirt roads like Commerce-WB has dirt roads. That's just absurd. We should be preserving open space and promoting infill, rather than subsidizing construction on virgin land, especially in a shrinking region.
I don't think these are stringent terms. You're talking jumbo mortgages here. 20% is nothing, 720 is unimpressive and you can qualify for far less. IMO, almost anyone buying a million dollar home with 200k in liquid assets is a fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
I can qualify for a million dollar home with my salary and assets; that doesn't mean I should buy one. The standards are incredibly lenient, even if they're a bit tougher than a few years back [[like they actually check to see if you're working).
And cash buying is so common because of fear of low home appraisals. The sellers don't want the deal to blow up when the appraisal comes in too low. This does not, however, lessen the risk of paying too much, nor does it remove the potential external costs borne by the taxpayer.
But the larger point is that the benefits to buying are isolated to the buyer, while the risks to buying are borne by society. This is why the public has a right to question this type of development.
I agree wholeheartedly, Bham1982.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Perhaps the first step to understanding why exurban development isn't the kind of growth we need is to demonstrate how heavily subsidized it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
This is true. They are hyping up the market to get people to take the plunge. I don't think people are busting down agents doors to buy a house. It's hyperbole. Banks still have a death grip on credit for approving loans. If your score isn't superalative [[750 score or higher), you ain't getting approved anyway.
We bought our house 2 years ago. I have all 3 credit scores just above 800 and I put 20% down and I still had a hard time getting approved. Things may have loosened up a little bit but I was shocked at how hard it was this time around. Our last house we bought in 2005 with lower credit scores and 0% down and they didn't bat an eye. No wonder the mortgage melt down was so bad.
Nov 2, 2012: September 2012 housing data. In September, housing starts in the US achieved a four year high. Starts are currently 40% of what they were at the 2005-2006 peak and are at about 60% of the 50-year average, so there is plenty of room to grow.
Inventories of existing houses remain lean and sales are up. The elephant in the room is when the banks dump their foreclosure backlog into the housing inventory.
Here is a McMansion of its day in an area that has been discussed. For those who are interested you could contact the realtor to find out what the maintainance fees are. What I worry about unlike, the burbs and large new homes, this home is affordable but still has the upkeep of the newer homes if not more due to its age. B-E and other similar areas have suffered from well meaning owners who get in WAY over their heads trying to keep up a large home such as this one. Thx to southofbloor for the headsup on this being listed.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...2_M41260-25492
If it weren't for municipalities in MI being allowed to subsidize McMansions in cornfields, that house in B-E might be worth more than a mid-sized luxury car. The only way that B-E house can be properly maintained is if someone has cash on hand to sink tens of thousands of dollars into it. Otherwise, that B-E house will likely not ever qualify for any type of bank financing to make significant repairs/updates/modifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
Here in Chicago, that's why so many beautiful vintage multi-family homes get bought, leveled and turned into some huge single family home that does its best to mimic what was there. For awhile that was stomped out by the recession. But now that has passed contractors are back to work building huge spec homes. I'm all for more wealthy families moving into the city, but we're losing our city's heritage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
While Detroit has also lost alot, I sense a stronger enthusiasm for preservation there.
I don't think the B-E homes qualify as "McMansions"Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
Don't mean to sound naive, but why wouldn't it qualify? Because of the area it's located in?Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Sounds similar to the "bigfoot" homes in Birmingham, that owners level and rebuild so they can tower over other homes. Since they can't build out due to small lot sizes, they build up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
To over simplify it... The only way you can borrow money to repair a house is to borrow money against the house. If the house is only worth $50,000 then that's the very max you can borrow, assuming you own the home outright. If you have a mortgage for more than your house is deemed to be worth by the bank then you will not be allowed to borrow anything, no matter how good your credit. Upgrades to old houses like those in B-E can easily approach $50,000...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
Thanks for posting this Hermod. This is an excellent example of the sort of happy talk I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
In September, [after five years of almost no new building due to a mortgage meltdown that left the residential real estate business swimming in inventory with no buyers and absolutely no reason to sink money into building any new single-family homes,] housing starts [which include single-family homes, condos, apartment buildings, basically any sort of housing unit] in the US achieved a four-year high [see above]. Starts are currently 40 percent of what they were at the 2005-2006 peak [although data will definitely show a shift from single-family homes to apartments and condos, which produce bigger numbers but less economic activity] and are at about 60 percent of the 50-year average, [a range that includes a time when housing starts weren't vital economic statistics because the country actually made things for export, instead of pinning its economy on consumption and such data as 'housing starts,' giving us the impression] ... there is plenty of room to grow.
Inventories of existing houses remain lean [thanks to banks keeping distressed homes piled up in shadow inventories] and sales are up [because they couldn't go down].
While it's true that there is always happy talk coming out of the Realtor groups [["Now is a GREAT time to buy!"), it's also true that home prices in metro Detroit have firmed up this year. It's also true there's less supply of both foreclosures and privately-owned houses for sale. Nice houses in desirable areas are selling quickly and often with multiple offers submitted. Investors are seeing much more competition for the ugly houses. Building is up, both infill and fringe.
If you don't think things have changed, look at Royal Oak within a mile of 11/Main. There are dozens of new homes going up, and selling for $150/sqft - $175/sqft. That's $300K - $500K+ for a house in RO. It wasn't like this a year or two ago.
Or is it just the appearance that home prices have firmed up so the banks and real estate agencies and lenders can start building up another bubble?Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
Oh, sure. Prices are up a bit. But what's behind all this? The prices you're quoting have all been propped up -- by historically, record-setting low interest rates, manipulation of distressed inventory [[the banks are sitting on a massive stockpile of at least 5 million distressed homes that will eventually have to go to auction), and the very industry-generated propaganda I'm criticizing.
Some of the activity you're seeing is for the very rich, the top 10 percent can afford to level a Royal Oak house and rebuild it so they can have more space and still walk to the theater. For the enormously wealthy, they can still bid for those spectacular homes and properties -- sites perched over Lake Michigan, or 20,000-square-foot palaces in the sticks -- because most of them are richer than ever.
But for the average shmoe who's being suckered into buying a huge exurban house when the fundamentals of this economy are going to keep squeezing him for the next 30 years, when gas could be $20 a gallon and everything is miles away, when -- 30 years hence -- people will look at these McMansions the same way we look at, say, a gas-guzzling, all-steel car from the 1950s with tailfins: impressive to look at but obsolete as a daily driver.
You missed McMansion of its day! Time has a way of civilzing everything. Back when the homes in B-E were being built it was the noveau riche area of the city pretty much like what is being discussed in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Well, of course, at that time, the population growth supported the expansion. There has never been a case for M-59 and the ex urban developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
Possibly in 1906 B-E was a gamble there was plenty of good housing being built in the city inside Grand Boulevard! The lots in B-E are far larger than similar lots of the day especially West Boston Boulevard from Woodward to Hamilton. They have all the qualifications of the Suburban areas being discussed. Also the location of B-E would be equivalent to M-59, 23 0r 26 Mile Roads back then. 70 West Boston Boulevard is 4 acres and 150 West Boston Boulevard is 3.25 acres, how many lots urban or suburban are that large?Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Detroit's population grew by over 60% between 1900 - 1910. Metro Detroit grew by less than 3% in the 1990s and shrank between 2000-2010. Sounds like the builders were operating on much more sound fundamentals in 1900 than they are in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
You are correct, but the region[[not city) grew from approx, 600k to 760K an increase of 30%. There was still plenty of good land available inside Grand Boulevard at time. B-E was not necessary but I am glad they went ahead and developed the area anyway and they are the mcmansions of the their day just far better than what is being built today.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
http://www.somacon.com/p469.php
Regional growth is irrelevant during that period of time. 100% of the net population growth from 1900-1910 was a result of Detroit growing by attracting immigrants from outside the region. The difference between then and now is these developments are just sucking population from one part of the metro area to another. Now there is no population growth to cover the costs of the new development. There is no population growth to cover the maintenance of the old infrastructure. So sooner or later the region is gonna have to figure out how to cover the costs of both.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
This does not matter! I like all the homes in B-E! But when its all said and done people do not change that much. The homes there and other areas of the city were looked upon just like we look down on the large homes today. B-E has all the earmarks of the large homes in the "exurbs" whether we like it or not. If anything you could point to B-E and I.V. as some of the starting points to movement toward the burbs!Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
We're talking about two different things. I could give two shits about the size of house someone wants to build themselves. I'm talking about a declining population covering the costs of excess infrastructure when so much of what currently exists is so underutilized.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
Yes we are!! I do agree with you the city has a tremendous amount of land perfect for what is going on way out in the burbs. We need to figure a way to utilize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed