University of Michigan grad students map out future of development in northern Macomb

Quote:

---

According to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the number of Shelby households with no children will reach 71 percent by 2035 and seniors’ representation in the population will reach one-third.

The U-M students’ research reached this conclusion: Many homebuyers are “not going to want a yard that looks like it’s big enough to play a game of catch.”

---

Quote:

---

To meet the needs of the new crop of home buyers, the U-M recommendations say the township should alter zoning laws to allow 50 percent more homes per subdivision. In exchange, greenspaces and more attractive landscaping would be provided for each neighborhood.

The change would require smaller minimum lot sizes and smaller frontage requirements.

Shelby officials on hand for the presentation were taken aback by the 50 percent increase in homes per acre, saying it is probably unrealistic.

---

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles...mode=fullstory

This would amount to reducing the average lot sizes by 1/3. On the one hand, the notion that this is "unrealistic" is kind of funny. On the other hand, I don't really think it addresses an actual issue that homebuyers have; once you have to maintain a yard and the exterior of a house, how much less work/expense does a 1/3 smaller lot get you? Do people actually object to having a bigger yard that looks like you could play catch in it?

I'm well aware of the problems with large lot zoning, but I don't see how a change of this limited magnitude would "meet the needs" of anybody whose needs aren't being met now, except maybe land costs being a bit lower.

I guess they have never visited Orlando, home of the zero lot line sub divisions,bigger houses with a yard that you can cut with a hair clippers in one pass, if you want to get your neighbors attention reach out your window and knock on theirs.

This concept has been happening elsewhere for over 15 years now.

Ummm.... the article doesn't discuss this, but has anyone factored in the growing landscape services industry in metro Detroit?

A lot of retirees hire out their lawn and yard care to landscape services. And as long as those fees undercut monthly Condo association fees... I don't see much changing here...

Their theory seems pretty detached from reality. The smaller yards and houses already exist - in the inner-ring burbs and much of the city. Instead of doubling the number of households in Shelby, why not preserve and rebuild Detroit? There is block after block with available vacant lots. Seems easier than building in between or in the back yard of a mcmansion. Detroit already has a grid plan and new buildings can easily be built on those empty lots or even behind existing houses, and existing alleys could become small streets.

Northern Macomb will never offer the "most diverse housing options in the state." Detroit already has that, despite being dominated by single-family homes [[a stark contrast to older cities that grew fast during the 19th century), there is still many more options besides single family homes than in the suburbs. Duplexes, townhouses, apartment buildings and lofts can be found in the city, even though there are far few of them than in older cities.

And although Detroit has been largely striped of business in the neighborhoods, and in many areas half or more of its people, commercial districts could be revived and offer a walkable lifestyle to residents, where groceries, restaurants and retail would all be accessible in a short walk. The central city could become a hub of employment, entertainment and retail and connected via rail transit built to connect to the neighborhoods. This would benefit seniors because they wouldn't have to travel far from home to get everything they need, including doctors and hospitals.

Quote:

---

A lot of retirees hire out their lawn and yard care to landscape services. And as long as those fees undercut monthly Condo association fees... I don't see much changing here...

---

I don't see how it could cost less to hire out maintenance of a bunch of separate yards than to hire out maintenance of a shared yard--the condo association has less to maintain per person and more bargaining power. If the condo fees are higher it is because they are providing other services. I speak here as a former member of a condo board--our owners paid way less for landscaping than they would have if they lived in houses. They probably paid less in total than they would have paid for one house with substantial grounds. They also got a lot of free landscape design work from the landscape architect on the board.

To me, this is a terrible idea, and essentially the worst of both worlds.

When I go to places like Orlando or Phoenix, the sprawl looks 100 times worse than our sprawl. Basically all the soul-deadening ugliness of outer exurbs combined with the cheek-by-jowl incovenience of more traditional living.

Sprawl has its issues, but it's laughable to think that a reduction in average lot size would make much of a positive difference. This would just lead to more congestion, reduced property values, and crappier schools. Folks looking for a "Shelby" type experience would be out in Romeo before the ink were dry on these new regulations.

While I agree with you about this, your objections kind of miss the point. The assumption here is there that fewer people will be looking for a "Shelby" type experience in the future. Older people and people without kids under 18 aren't going to be very worried about the schools, and presumably if they are buying they prefer lower property values. The problem is that a 33% lot size reduction wouldn't transform Shelby township into a place that was actually attractive to such people. It would make more sense to do this type of development [[or more intense, for that matter) someplace else where you have an appropriately dense existing infrastructure.

The actual argument for doing something like this is that older people might want to switch to more appropriate living quarters [[low maintenance, no stairs, smaller) but remain in a community where they have ties. I suppose childless people who grew up in Shelby might be in the same position. Certainly there are many communities where they have permitted age 55+ developments which are zoned much denser than the towns in general and I haven't seen this cause much problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

Their theory seems pretty detached from reality. The smaller yards and houses already exist - in the inner-ring burbs and much of the city. Instead of doubling the number of households in Shelby, why not preserve and rebuild Detroit?

---

The short answer, their particular school project probably partnered with Shelby Twp to come up with a plan for the community.

Another group may have been working with Detroit or a neighborhood in Detroit.

How is this a new concept? They want to create something that is more like a city neighborhood.

The answer for what to build in northern Macomb County is simple.

Nothing.

Stop building.

We have an OVERSUPPLY of that kind of housing. End the madness.

Most seniors also don't need the 4 bedroom McMansion style homes, this is particularly true if they number over 70 percent of the total population. Its better to switch towards looking at smaller lots with two bedroom homes.

Larger homes cost a lot more to maintain than just lots the size to play catch in. If the house needs to get repainted, a 1,500 sq ft home costs a lot less than a 3,000 sq ft one. Roofing? the same issue applies. Not to mention the monthly utility costs of heating, electrifying, and watering a big lot opposed to a small one. Seniors are also going to have less disposable income than they had in the past thanks to all of the cutbacks on medical, pensions, and 401k drops.