http://www.thealbertcapitolpark.com/
http://vimeo.com/88779497
Printable View
So, "The Albert" is really the old Griswold Building [[it took nearly halfway through that video to figure that out). I thought that was supposed to be a seniors building? What did they do with all the old folks in order to make the building 'safe' for those pretty young people with herringbone parquet floors and quartz countertops?
Old people make the biggest thugs. I got a @$$ whooping once from some old broad with a walker. I learned my lesson though.
So that's what Gilberttown folks did! Kick out the once subsidized poor folks from the Griswold Building. Gentrify it and sell it skinny jean young professionals and yuppies for a high price.
for young professionals and yuppies working for Dan Gilbert. The Griswold building units is problably selling like hot cakes. It's a real estate boom in an area where DEAD [[C)KRAK HEADS and folks waiting for D-DOT busses.
It's that building 90% sold or is it bust?
That old broad probably lived in Capitol Park long ago before you. But it was booted out by Gilberttown folks and cussing at rich folks today.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Just about two years ago. One of Dan Gibert's business ventures brought the Griswold Building. They wanted turn that building into to luxury condos so those poor senior citizens have 30 days to pack up and leave. Windgate Mgt. who owns several apt. buildings on Washington Blvd. allow them to stay. So did others relocated themselves to other apt units.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
See folks that what it called gentrification in action!
FWIW, Danny, the buyer/owner of the Building is the Sachse folks from Birmingham, not Gilbert or one of his many subsidiaries.
http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...apartments.php
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
One of their offices is in Downtown Detroit leased by Dan Gilbert and they recently joined their ventures. Corporations is not a solid entity. It a liquid entity.
They can trade a piece of blank white piece a paper for stocks and make a billion dollar profit or lose it.
Corporations are people, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Out with the old, in with the new
Can't make an omelette if you don't break a few eggs
Sorry, I can't think of any other good ones right now.
The old Grand River bus line began in front of the building. Even in the eighties, I remember cutting between the buildings to get to Capital Park from Woodward, and looking up and seeing all the windows open, tattered shades and all, wondering "who lives here, and why can't they fix the screens?"
According to the spiffy video, the flooring is actually in a "chevron" pattern. Sort of like our Chevron gas signs out here in CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
Who would own the footage shown at :36? That would be cool to see more of!
"THE BEAUTIFUL CANOPY" makes it worth it. It's not a bad move, really. The idea is to make Downtown Detroit Royal Oak 2, and they might just have a shot, which is a certain improvement over what existed before. If they're really going to help fix up Capitol Park, that alone is huge. That was probably the biggest mistake downtown since Hart Plaza. It's like someone knocked down the walls and tore the roof off of an outdated Greyhound Station and deemed it a public space.
The displacement of the senior citizens is actually a further argument for home ownership. When you don't own your home, the actual owner can rightfully make you leave when your tenancy no longer suits their interests, pursuant to the terms of the contract. Locating income-challenged individuals downtown, where it has been hoped for 40 years that a rebound would occur, was also bad planning. Should the rebound occur [[which it is), it provides incentives for the property owners to put out the existing tenants for ones who can spend more money. The fault lies not with the property owners who want to make money [[as does everyone in the city of Detroit, including the posters on this board), but rather with A) poorly planned housing policy and B) people who made life choices that did not put control of their later years in their own hands. Thankfully, no one has been rendered homeless by this situation. But renting is never more than temporary. I can't fathom how it is an unpleasant surprise that temporary comes to an end.
I think I am in the minority, but I kinda like the look and feel of Capitol Park. Yes, it's a little short of beautiful green space. But it is also thankfully much less full of panhandlers and pigeons than it used to be. And I think it was not intended to be a garden for the neighborhood so much as a patio. And when the surrounding buildings are reno'd and filled up, it will serve that purpose. I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
I agree - I think Capitol Park is a nice little area. It has a interesting unique feel and is well defined as a distinct space.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
I disagree somewhat on your point that the Griswold having been senior housing was a bad move. At the time, other buildings were being left vacant, so I'm not sure there was a better option. However, for the recent residents the timing was definitely working against them, and I'm sure having to move was a hardship for many. It certainly is nicer to see vacant buildings rehabbed as opposed to occupied ones being improved. Now if only the vacant buildings around the park would see some action.
There's no reason to think that many of the residents hadn't been homeowners when they were younger. Not every senior can or should be living in a single family home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
By owning capital property by means of liquidity from stocks, bonds and dividends. They turn properties and products into profits, compete for locations and bust small businesses and other environmental concerns out of their way.
Hey! Hey! Hey!
Oh wait - Fat Albert and the Cosby kids are low income people that are being gentrified out of the market by rich yuppies.
I have a couple comments on this since I've been reading some outrage on other sites about displacing seniors.
1. No renter is ever guaranteed reasonable rent unless you are in some rent controlled city, but those are few and have loopholes
2. Gentrification is only the beginning in neighborhood desirability. Eventually values go up so high that all those renovated apartment buildings and trendy warehouse lofts get demolished for soaring 1000 foot glass towers inhabited by millionaires. So yes, even young professionals get displaced when their rent jumps from $1000 / month to $1500
3. I have yet to see evidence that an aging building provided the proper conditions and care for aging tenants. Conditions may have been fine or maybe they could have been better, please inform me. But a lot, I mean ALOT has changed in codes and design for senior housing. Was it best to let this facility continue operating or time to draw a line and prepare a building for a more useful life?
4. Is Capitol park a proper location for seniors? Are their needs met? Close enough to hospitals and clinics? Close enough to churches and rec halls? Convenient for loved ones to visit? Maybe this building didn't provide it. So maybe it better meets the needs of a young population that really doesn't expect their taxes to work very hard for them.
5. Is this good for the building and the future of Detroit's core? Yes, young people spend lots of money on dining, shopping and entertainment and this building needed a new purpose to continue its existence for another 100 years.
I like it! Thumbs Up! Keep it coming!
I largely think Wolverine is spot on. Downtowns- especially ones that didn't have amenities to speak of- were not a good location for senior housing to begin with. Add to that dense urban areas are more unpredictable in terms of neighborhood conditions and property values and you are setting people up to need to be moved later on. From the perspective of developing downtown [[as opposed to the p.o.v. of housing seniors), seniors tend not to be big spenders [[even when they have money) at neighborhood stores, bars, and restaurants. So as building space becomes more scarce and more expensive, it doesn't make sense for anybody to keep seniors housed downtown. Obviously, not every senior has their living arrangements planned for them, and can lease or buy downtown or elsewhere like anybody else. But where someone is making decisions for others, Capitol Park isn't now an ideal location, if it ever was.
Awesome video. Love the amenities. Score one for Capitol Park coming back. Can't wait to see what that area will look like 12 months from now.
If only Ted's hadn't closed. I may never get over that.
A block from here is St Al's. I've attended service there and it is chock-full of old folks. DMC has a clinic in Compuware and there are still lots of larger medical services at the Medical Center and Henry Ford, a short cab ride away. St. Al's operates a community center that provides a clinic too.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
As a recently former resident of Capitol Park, I can tell you that the situation with the displacement of residents of The Griswold is a very upsetting, problematic and poorly managed issue from their perspective and from the perspective of many other community members. The building has been the home base for these seniors and people on disability for years and they consider their neighbors to be family. The pharmacy is around the corner. The bus station is two blocks away. The fruit truck comes by daily [[weather permitting). The Walmart bus would pick them up periodically for shopping runs. A number of other nearby stores provided food and amenities. They and residents of the other senior buildings in the neighborhood would gather daily in the park to talk, have lunch, do tai chi, have aerobics class, play chess, play music, cook-out and play with their grandkids. The idea that this area is some abandoned area, devoid of human activity is totally false propaganda.
Upon learning that they had been given one-year to vacate, residents of The Griswold hired legal help to assist their negotiations. The initial agreement made last summer secured continued occupancy for the 10 most elderly residents [[people in their 90's) as well as housing relocation assistance and moving assistance. Predictably, the way this has played out: Residents were not given any assistance in finding new homes beyond a phone number they could call. As far as moving supplies, they were given boxes and masking tape. Thankfully, movers were provided. The housing voucher process has been long, delayed and provides only $750 for rent. Since the new rent will be upwards of $1150, the 10 most elderly residents now have to leave as well. During the transition, illegal construction in the building while residents are still present created dust, noise and debris debris in the hallways and common areas, causing respiratory issues and other health problems. I know of numerous instances where residents have had to chase out construction workers knowing that they were in violation of housing regulations.
This idea that there is no room for seniors or other low-income residents Downtown is completely enraging. There are dozens of unoccupied buildings Downtown crying out for tenants. Of course I fully understand that it is much cheaper, easier and faster to kick out some poor black people than invest resources where they are actually needed: to rehab not-in-use properties.
That video is an unwatchable attempt to sweep the displacement of seniors and disabled people under the rug. As another example of these lame attempts to look good: https://www.facebook.com/citizensofc...313902/?type=1
"Yea, we should probably throw in some black people on the poster in front of the building where we kicked out all those black people"
The video seems professionally made, so I guess it is ok as an informational piece. I don't think it would really turn-on a media-savvy millennial. It didn't leave me excited, or even curious, but maybe I am not the target.
i'll just sit over in the corner with the other grey-beards and tell stories about being happy to get an orange for Christmas.
If you want a vibrant downtown you need vibrant people. If you want a sleepy downtown you need sleepy people. If you want a broke ass town you need broke ass people.
being broke doesn't make you a bad person, but it does keep you from spending the money you don't have on stuff you don't need.
small shops, cafés and jumping joints of jive thrive on cats with more money than brains. That is what makes Birmingham so appealing. The shops are full of people buying stuff they don't need.
"what kind of dining set defines me as a person?"Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
http://toldbydesign.com/wp-content/u...fight-club.m4v
I had some sympathy for you until you brought the racism in. This is about kicking out low-income people and replacing them with higher-income people. Complain about that all you want, and about the other conditions you mentioned. They're not kicking these people out because they're black, they're kicking them out because they can't even afford $400 apartments, in the largest economic center in the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by margdar
I'm just curious, how cheap was the rent if they cannot afford $400?
I seek not your sympathy but thanks anyway for clarifying the injustices about which I have permission to complain as well as the way in which I may complain. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan
Those low-income people are mostly black. Those high-income people are mostly white. The poverty rate among blacks is several times that of whites [[http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/). If you care to acknowledge the overlap between economic status/race and the facts of white privilege, then maybe your sympathy could evolve to empathy.
You tell em all, margdar.
Within the next 30 years Downtown Detroit will be running on Dan Gilbert power with little or no minority businesses in site. Old class buildings will be filled with yuppified folks who have a decent careers and lot's of income in the wallets. So subsidized apts. here and there but way out in the burbs. The poor could live there while Detroit's hoods look a urban hybrid of New York City and Chicago.
Rich people displacing poor people is normal -- and necessary -- if Detroit ever wants to have taxpaying citizens again. The fact that said rich people are mostly non-black and that most poor people are mostly black is an issue, but it's not one that has anything to do with the real estate developers and the real estate transaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
The fact that they were given 12 months to relocate and free moving help is fairly generous. Most people in the apartments at the Lofts on Woodward Row are getting notices that rent will go up with 3 months left on their lease. And they're not getting free movers either.
[[1) If you are renting, your housing is only guaranteed until the lease is up. Bottom line.
[[2) The city needs people who pay taxes in order to not be bankrupt.
[[3) The issues of income and education disparity are serious and need to be addressed, but it has nothing to do with real estate.
[[4) Detroiters have no clue what real gentrification is. SanFran? NYC? DC? Now you're talking. What's going on her is residential displacement. I guaranatee that all of these people could still live in the city if they want to. And I'm all about finding ways to make it humane. But it's necessary if we ever want to not be bankrupt.
What B/S. Did you have a liquid lunch, CTY?Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
It may just be your youth, and maybe you're not aware of it, but you can really come off like a cold-hearted, judgmental, condescending jerk sometimes. How in the world do you know what "life choices" people made, or even what life options were available for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
You seem completely unaware that a lot of people work hard all of their lives, act right, make decent decisions, and still end up with the short end of the stick. Particularly here in Detroit. Or of the basic American history that many people, obviously through no fault of their own, were born with a skin color that deeply limited their options. Particularly so for people of the age of these seniors.
As for home ownership, this being Detroit I assure that many, if not most, of the seniors in these buildings have been home owners. Certainly the two people I was close with who lived in downtown seniors apartments were. But home ownership, particularly in Detroit, is often not the avenue to solvency and security that your American dreams imagine it to be. In fact, it can be exactly the opposite.
But you just go right on believing in your libertarian fantasy land that all bad circumstances people find themselves in are a result of their bad decisions and lack of personal responsibility [[because, hey, otherwise they'd be well-off like me!). Since it seems somehow to allow you to feel perfectly comfortable with old people who've lived and worked in this city most of their lives being summarily thrown out to an uncertain future, so that they can be replaced with a "better mix" of more "active" younger and much more fashionable [[and rich) people.
I'm pretty lucid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
If you have 200 homeless people in a shelter that could be converted to upscale condos commanding $100,000 per year in income tax and another 50,000 per year in property tax, then do the math. We need to move the rich people in and move the poor people out....if we ever wanna add the 500 police officers we want.
I'm not saying it that it needs to be cruel. I'm well in favor of finding another place to relocate the shelter, helping communicate it well in advance, and making the transition as seamless as possible.
But while everyone is saying that it's heartless to cut people's pensions and they're saying that it's heartless to increase tax revenue and they're saying that it's heartless to not have enough police....
It's all part of the same problem. Sh** costs money.
Like I said...I don't want the transition to be any more painful than it needs to be. But it needs to happen.
I don't deny the economic status/race correlation, I just find it offensive that you seem to assume a causal effect in this case. I do feel bad for those that don't have as much, and I sympathize with the fact that blacks typically have much less opportunity and struggle to migrate away from that correlation.Quote:
Originally Posted by margdar
I'm just tired of white people being the big bad wolf in Detroit just because they generally have more money. These people aren't being displaced because they're black, it is because they're poor. It's that simple. If they were rich black people, they would be free to stay if they chose to.
Don't confuse things by exaggeration. This wasn't a homeless shelter. It was a section 8 seniors building for rent-paying tenants. Many of whom were retirees from full-time employment and veterans. These people are not trouble-makers, or detrimental to the neighborhood [[except, it now seems, in an economic and aesthetic sense). In fact, until all those pale yuppies suddenly decided they HAD to live downtown, these folks were the neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
This building was rehabbed with federal money as a seniors' residence when the offices there were no longer economically viable, and when no one else wanted to live downtown. But this program wasn't forced on anybody. The owners of the building made money on the deal, and on the subsequent subsidized rents, that's why they signed up for it.
But now that there's even bigger money to be made from little cell-like apartments, hasta la vista oldies. Here's some packing tape, and an underfunded voucher, bye!
If we're going to add the police officers to Midtown, like we're adding the "mass transit magic choo-choo", @ the expense of tossing elderly out on the street, because some fat chick wants to look @ buildings out the window while sitting on her herringbone floor, then maybe some rethought is in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
I think its a great area for seniors. But I'd rather have the market figure that out than self-appointed know-it-all bureaucrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
royal oak 2, yuck, ill be selling and leaving if that happens. if people wanted to live in royal oak wouldnt they just live in royal oak?
sigh.. so how much are these units? I suspect even working-class college grads like me can't remotely afford these.
I'm not particularly young. That's my personality. I do try to be cold-hearted in analyzing facts; emotions never fixed anything [[although they have led to a lot of spending!). And I am judgmental, as everyone is. I just don't usually feel the need to pretend I'm not. As for condescending, well, you wouldn't understand...Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
The points I made in my initial post in this thread are valid, your perceiving them as mean notwithstanding. I made several points, among them: when people don't plan for and provide for their own future [[reasons are not relevant at that point), they leave their circumstances in old age to others. I don't think it ever made sense for seniors to be housed in and around downtown in general, Capitol Park in particular. When it was "affordable" it was entirely unsafe and lacking amenities; now that it safer and growing, it is too expensive to house them there. As I also said in my post, fortunately no one has been rendered homeless. They may not have wanted to move, but when others are making the arrangements, that wasn't their choice to make. Also, it is entirely appropriate when reviving an urban neighborhood to consider what kind of residents are likely to patronize the businesses that are trying to get underway. Detroit wants downtown residents and workers who shop and dine out. That isn't the limited-income senior crowd. There is no moralizing there, just acknowledging reality. Seniors are free to buy and rent downtown like anyone else. If they are footing the bill. If someone else is paying all or part of the bill, well, that someone else has a say in the matter. And for the record, I have a number of relatives in the 75+ bracket, 2 of whom live in Detroit, and I assist in their care. My mother, as well, although not quite there yet, is in active preparations for her later life financial, housing, and health needs. I am more than familiar with planning and caring for elderly people. Which is one reason why it is glaringly apparent that Capitol Park was never a good choice. It might have been a good choice for the buildings, so they never became vacant, but it wasn't good planning or care for the residents.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
Downtown isn't going to be Royal Oak 2. But parts of it might look like Royal Oak 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaytheory
Detroit needs more money. That means they need more people....specifically people who have money. The people who have money want to live in the nicest parts of the city. If I'm living in a 4,000 sq ft penthouse in the nicest part of the city on my income alone, that's a problem because those need to go to the people who make 2-3x as much as me in order to have a healthy tax base.
Now I agree that there need to be affordable housing options for the poor and middle class. I'm totally in favor of that. And I'm also ok with the idea that if public money is used to develop property, then it's totally legit to mandate affordable housing requirements with that money.
And I'm also ok with the idea that if you are displacing 200 low income residents, you be required to develop an affordable housing replacement option.
But that's not the beef I'm hearing here. People don't like that the demographic composition of the city is changing. I have no patience for that.
Of course the composition needs to change. We are trying to grow the city by adding people from outside. I don't care if they're white, black, Bangladeshi, Polish, Arab, or whatever. They just need to have money, because that's what the city needs.
You know what might work, CTY? What if we round up the poor, the elderly, the homeless, and "make" a "special" section for them? Maybe far Northwest, say, Rouge Park? You know, like a "camp"? You could keep them all there, and the $1200 Shit/Shinola watch wearing Yupsters could collect canned goods and blankets in a charity drive @ one of the new Chuck-E-Bars? To even suggest that, let's say 5K, "new residents" within a 5 square mile radius could support a 140 square mile City is ridiculous. But then I'm sure these "new residents" advocate shutting off any City services anywhere beyond their 5 square miles that doesn't concern them. "What Me Worry?"
As angry as that might make you, at least it ends up putting money in the city coffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Look, I'm not trying to get rid of poor people or shuttle them off to some walled off district where I don't have to see them. They are good people, and they are an asset to the city.
Like I said, I'm ok with low income housing and I'm ok with developers being required to have affordable housing requirements.
I'm also ok with the fact that renters will have to move as people with money move in. That's one of the reasons why I stopped renting and I bought. There was same article about one of our posters in the Freep about moving out of the Kales building and buying a place in Corktown because rents are rising. Some of the renters in Corktown are starting to fill up vacancies west of the train station because rents are rising. This is rejuvenating a strip that was all but abandoned.
This is what it looks like when things are getting better.
The question is how can we ease the transition, especially for the most powerless and marginalized. And that's a debate that's totally worth having.
Yuppie, I agree with most of your post. But I hate affordable housing requirements, as well as rent-control and stabilization laws. The laws intended to help make housing "affordable" actually are subject to very much fraud and abuse [[try finding a poor person in a NYC rent-controlled apartment, I dare you), and in the long run deplete housing stock, which causes there to be fewer, and thus more expensive housing. In NYC, there was a bump in housing built right after WW2, and then the control/stabilization and Mitchell-Lana aparment laws went into affect. New York went almost 40 years without building housing, except for public housing projects and luxury apartments and condos. Why? The city legislated the profit out of building for ordinary incomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
Affordable housing laws make their proponents feel good. But they fight against market conditions and ultimately lose. I think it would be better policy to just give the truly poor a house [[along with mandated home maintenance training) than to try to manage the business affairs of private developers with "affordable" housing schemes. It is like mandating that all restaurants serve 20% of their meals to those who either can't pay or pay full price. There would be fewer restaurants, and the prices would be higher at those that did stay open.
In a true free market economy you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
I would posit -- but am not sure -- that one reason why affordable housing policy can work without adverse economic effect is because we have so much damn cheap land.
It would cost next to nothing to find a piece of vacant land owned in the land bank, and find a developer to build fairly economical housing for next to nothing.
What makes the "Albert" such a mismatch for low income housing is because:
a) rehab costs on an old building are very hard to predict and generally much more expensive than just building from scratch
b) the Albert is a Kahn-designed building in one of the most valuable pieces of real estate downtown.
Like I said, I generally don't want government inadvertantly screw around with real estate economics, but when it can do so with little to no adverse effect, it's worth doing.
You can't be serious. Is it increasing in value? Yes. Is it one of the most valuable? Not by a long shot!!Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
We can agree to disagree. A fully-developed Capitol Park will be prime real estate downtown. There is a reason why the Capitol was once located there, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
The US is general has very poor tenancy protections for renters. There are a lot of steps between nothing and full-on [[pre-war building) rent control as in NYC, but in most places nothing is pretty much what you've got. Under those circumstances, renters living in improving areas are very likely to have to move. If you don't think it is right that poor, elderly people should be forced to move, then you need to support different tenancy laws, or different poverty programs.
In the world we actually live in, I agree with CTY; if you want senior housing downtown, you need to build senior housing downtown.
But if you want Yupster housing, throw senior citizens out. Makes sense.....Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I need to reiterate that the various issues involved here involve RENTING, which is by definition variable in cost, and unstable in tenancy. The answer is to direct your resources in your life towards buying, if you want the stability that buying brings. Rental units are subject to other people raising your rent, making property decisions you don't like, and deciding for one of a million reasons to end your tenancy at some point. Buying is LESS EXPENSIVE than renting in the long term [[often in the short term, too), but it takes long-term planning and commitment to sticking to the plan. Ownership isn't right for everyone for many reasons. But it is just silly to want ownership benefits from renting. Home ownership should be taught in Detroit high schools: how to choose and pay for a home; how to maintain a home; and how to manage the business affairs of a home. Most people who don't own their home will struggle financially in their later years, and will have far less control of their own fate. I say let's get people off the renting path, unless it is an intentional lifestyle choice.