Printable View
I've noticed work on 4 Palmer Park apartment buildings lately, not including LaVogue Square. So glad to see it!
A few pictures....
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7078/7...5e28313f02.jpg
047 by Zack Blackerby's Detroit, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7099/7...d1bcce6e81.jpg
050 by Zack Blackerby's Detroit, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7235/7...ce6b710de6.jpg
051 by Zack Blackerby's Detroit, on Flickr
This is such GREAT news ! I'm always happy to see beautiful old buildings being reused. These amazing buildings are beautiful, and would fit in in any city i.e Chicago, New York, LA.
My only concern is the neighbor around these beauties . I'm sure there are plenty of people that would love to live in one of these building, myself included. However the neighbor around there is pretty rough,, by area around I mean just to the south of the park and east of Woodward. My heart goes out to the folks who are stuck in those neighborhoods.
It could even better than royal oak, or like Central park in NYC, but something HAS to be done with the area around Highland Park and east of Woodward.
This area has so much potential !
all the best !
The only way I would do it is with security for my car and for the area, and not Detroit PD. We all know how that works out !
Too bad the entire apartment district isn't fenced in with a nice wrought iron fence [[such as the Belle Isle Conservatory), and have a gated/manned entrance, like many condo's in the suburbs.
Granted such an idea is anathema to many urbanists, but without proper police response time, and taking a page from gentrification... it would likely promote the area as a safe haven... regardless of the rough surrounding area.
This in turn would likely promote the renovation of more of the apartment buildings. With the exception of the Gold Coast along east Jefferson, this was the only large historic residential area in Detroit that has the high density urban living common to so many large American cities, but lacking in Detroit.
The building in the last two photos is the Madrid Court Apartments at 17400 Third, built in 1926 and designed by Robert West.
I had my first apartment in that yellow brick building at 17400 Third in 1977. Nice to see it being restored.
Great to see more renovations! Perhaps there really is hope for this area. It just boggles my mind that building owners do not pull together for private security.
Paging Tony goldman....
I agree, I have often thought of many areas in Detroit that would benefit from a gated neighborhoods, mine included , but we know how this would be view :-[[.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
I don't have a problem putting gates up to stabliizing[[sp) areas of the city that we are in danger of loosing . I know A LOT of people would have problems with that.
It seems some of the last surviving neighborhoods are at the mercy of time, hopefully people that care and can afford to keep these beautiful areas up can keep them up , but with people moving out and people that can't afford or don't really care move in ,it's tough for people that have been there for years to hang on :-[[
Also @ Detroiteronthewestcoast, I'm not sure where on the west coast but , @ everyone else, I lived in LA for over 20 years and there is an area call Larchmont Village , similar to Boston/Edison,near downtown LA that has big stone gates, like the B/E area, it's not totally gated , but this might help.
Another idea that could help are speed bumps on side streets, that would slow speeding cars down. One way streets on side streets and no parking after 11pm without permit on side streets and permit parking on side streets.
These are ALL illegal and pretty easy fixes . I've seen this in many cities in LA i.e Beverly Hills , West Hollywood, this could also generate income for the city?
These fixed can do wonders for neighborhoods ! Let me know what you guys think ?
Such good news to see these buildings being rehabbed. I noticed the work on several buildings along the park in progress last week. Bring in some extra security and fencing and restore this area. I'm all for it!
Three articles on Model D today, including the hiring of a security team on horses [[potentially)
Just curious. Are there billboards next to these buildings stating these rehabs are funded by dozens of different government subsidies and grants like there is in front of LaVogue or are these rehabs privately funded? I believe there's a low income tenant requirement attached to LaVogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitZack
On the one hand, I'm glad to see work being done on them, but on the other, if the government has to foot the bill, I don't see this area turning into one inhabited by Birmingham millionaires. It's just going to end up going through the same cycle that made them vacant in the first place.
They won't be inhabited by millionaires but that doesn't mean they have to be in disrepair. Don't rule out all options just because it's not 1928 or 1954.Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
One company is renovating several buildings and providing gated parking and private security. There's a demand for that in Detroit and there's a middle class and renting population that fill the demand.
Not if it has to be subsidized. You might get the middle class in there, but under the affordable housing programs like the subsidies and grants provided for in Lavogue's rehab, they are requiring low income tenants to live there. Rent for a one-bedroom apt under the program is $434. http://www.modeldmedia.com/devnews/l...oit051512.aspx To qualify for affordable housing, as I've heard, one's monthly income can't be higher than around $1.300 a month [[3 times the monthly rent).Quote:
Originally Posted by j to the jeremy
So, how are you going to change the dynamic of the neighbourhood if the building rehab subsidy programs are designed to attract low income tenants?
Wasn't that why the Palmer Park historic apartment district declined in the first place? The middle class moved out, the low income tenants moved in, and the landlords could no longer afford the upkeep. Thus, the banks foreclosed and half the buildings ended boarded up.
The article that mentions the possibility of mounted patrols states that Shelborne Development has purchased close to a dozen buildings in the Palmer Park neighborhood. This includes the Madrid, pictured at the start of the thread and under renovation now. I recalled that Shelborne was behind the LaVogue but did not know they had such a major commitment to the area. Great to know - seems there really is more renovation in the works!Quote:
Originally Posted by j to the jeremy
The Model D article on the LaVogue itself states that there are four times the number of applications as there are available units - which will be a mix of "affordable" and market rate, not just the former. With so many applicants, I hope they can manage to attract decent tenants, regardless of their income level. With all of the effort going to the rehab, I'm sure they are committed to maintaining the buildings.
Yep, the Feds don't really subsidize anything but mixed income anymore! Theoretically.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
I'm looking forward to the results of these renovationS
Do you honestly believe that? If there were that many applicants willing to pay market rents, why do they need the affordable housing subsidy to rehab these buildings in the first place? Return the money and go all market rent. Why is half the neighborhood still boarded up if there's this huge pool of applicants lining up to pay market rates?Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
I understand your point of view... but that Model D article only talks about 1 of the buildings... one of the most attractive and closest to Woodward. It's all got to start somewhere I guess... perhaps there is a pent up demand... as there was with the Book Cadillac before the market meltdown. The "gap" financing is the rule rather than the exception for much of the residential rehab in many of Detroit's enclaves...Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this isn't an adequate argument. Here are three alternatives:Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
1) There is public rehab money available, and taking it lowers the risk of the project, even though you could finance it privately.
2) You can't find a private lender willing to finance an apartment project in Palmer Park even though the economics look good.
3) There are plenty of people willing to pay market rates, but market rates can't cover the cost of the rehab.
I'd say the answer is [[1) and [[2). The article doesn't say how many on the waiting list are there for market rate vs. subsidized, and with the crime issues and abandonment in the area well documented on this forum, I can't imagine competitive loan rates or even loan approvals needed. The public money helps overcome private funding shortfalls, and also provides a pretty steady income soruce with subsidy payments coming in from HUD for those units.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Suppose we go with 3). Why dip into the affordable housing program? Last I checked, the Book-Cadillac didn't have affordable housing units and five years ago that section of downtown was pretty sketchy with the crumbling Lafayette across the street and the craziness behind it from Capitol Park They were catering to people willing to pay market rates. I remember reading another thread on here where Ferchill's investment of his own money in the whole BC project was less than 1%. Yet, they never dipped into the affordable housing program.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
If I have $50K worth of home furnishings and want to move into Lavogue, do you think I'm going to want to have a low income neighbor in the unit next to me who might break in while I'm at work and steal it all? Because that's the kind of scenarios you're going to have with these affordable housing subsidies. If someone is paying market rates, they want to live in a building with neighbors like them. Subsidizing the Palmer Park apartment district as an affordable housing zone is not going to gentrify this neighborhood.
Yep, perhaps not so sweet to point it out, but for the most part it is true. When you have neighbors on similar paths, with goals, non-destructive lifestyles and similar income levels it works better. I don't want to head out to work only to have the neighbor-'hood' watch coming into my place as a standard behavioral mode. Been there done, done that.
And it's not always the specific tenant originally on the lease breaking in, often it's their friends and associates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
One of the things that baffles me about some of these old buildings is most don't a have a parking lot. Therefore, you can't fence in a parking lot with a gate. The people would have to park on the street. A working person with a decent car isn't going to want to park on the street, their car would be broken into or stolen. For this reason, I think it will be hard to get non-low income people to move into these units.
Yes, parking was always a problem when I lived in PP 30 years ago. My second building there, Palmer Lodge did have a parking lot. Some of the buildings have parking, but not all and what about guest parking? In the early 1980s the park crime scene was horrible. All of my friends eventually left. I left 1983.
I am certain current renovations will include alarm systems and much improved entrance security than the old buildings had. Also, my guess is that available parking lots will be secured better. When I lived there there was no security and if you had an assigned space there was nothing to prevent someone from parking there while your car was gone which happened to me at times.
One of the larger buildings even had it's own underground garage, maybe it was 850 Whitmore? So there is some parking available but not enough parking lots for all residents.
The city should build a parking structure on parkland.
Let's not forget that Stroh River Place had to have subsidized units as well.
Does anyone think those have gone to hell in a handbasket?
As has been alluded to, if you get the right kind of lower income people in there, then it will be successful.
Appealing to recent college grads who have low incomes, but whose income will likely increase is a good way to go.
People aren't kicked out of those subsidized units once they reach a certain income level.
Pick candidates who are most likely on their way up the income ladder.
The LaVogue will have gated parking. Model D says the developers have purchased a lot on McNichols, behind the building, for that purpose.
Yes, I can see that perhaps. Very thorough background and reference checks. Too bad it has to be that way but otherwise you really have more problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by middetres
Do you have a reference for that? When I go to their homepage, it says "...upscale living" http://strohriverplace.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by middetres
But, I could find no reference to any affordable housing program. I find it hard to believe that if the feds gave them millions of dollars for rehabs under this program that there would be no reference about it anywhere on their website. Maybe Stroh's had such a hard time with it that they paid all the money they got from the feds back to get out of it.
If I click on search on their webpage, I end up on this page
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q...p-a=sp10020332
I type in "affordable housing" and it comes back
"Sorry, no matches were found containing affordable housing."
I think Woodbridge Estates was mixed market-rate and affordable housing. Anybody know how it's doing?
when I lived there I went to a couple of meetings held about security in the PP area. I proposed an idea that closing Second and Third Sts. might cut down on some of the traffic and make room for some additional parking for the residential buildings. Or possibly leave Second and Third open and close the Merton entrances. A little less through traffic would not be bad in that area.
In my opinion if there is a plan to try to revive the area it might include working with the city to close some of the access, those street closures could be coordinated with planners or traffic consultants.
All of the buildings needed better security when I lived there as well as the individual units. We were sitting ducks for break-ins, and the crooks knew that and break-ins were a frequent occurrence. You can't attract middle class singles or couples and expect them to stay if their apartments and neighboring apartments are often broken into and if cars are stolen and broken in to on a frequent basis.
Dave- I can only confirm from firsthand knowledge of someone's living there under the program...well over 15 years ago.
This from the MSHDA website:
How the Tax Credit Program Works
The maximum tax credit a project may receive is based on a percentage of the portion of rental housing [[whether the housing is newly constructed or rehabilitated) that the owner agrees to maintain as both rent and income restricted for a period of at least 18 years. At a minimum, either 20 percent of the units must be for residents whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income or 40 percent of the units must be for residents whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the area median income [[as determined and adjusted annually by HUD). The rents on the units must also be restricted. An annual credit equal to roughly 9 percent of the qualified basis of construction or rehabilitation costs is available to developments not utilizing federal or tax-exempt financing. An annual credit roughly equal to 4 percent of the qualified basis is applicable where federal or tax-exempt financing is utilized and, in certain cases, for acquisition cost associated with rehabilitation.
Given that the complex opened nearly 25 years ago, they haven't had to offer subsidized units for years