Printable View
It’s really worth taking a look at in person. Every house is different and not at all what you would expect to see. Not really sure what the point is but they’re really cool! Way smaller then the surviving Lumpkin Street houses.
Check it out, you’ll be happy you did.
^ Hey.... since you didn't leave a link... I just did a Google search on "Richton Monterey Street Development".... and it returned 1 link.... to right here.... :eek:
Is this the development encouraged by Rev. Faith Fowler?
Thank you. What is the exact location in Detroit?
Richton between Woodrow Wilson and the Lodge. Can’t miss it.Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
Thanks for posting... that was worthwhile to watch!! :)
I seriously in all honesty hate to be this guy, but:
A couple observations:
In Detroit, supply for homes outstrips demand. Over one in five homes is currently vacant.
Given the eras of surviving housing stock [[1910s - early 1950s, mostly), the living space is relatively small [[900 - 1500 sq ft), aside from a few formerly posh areas like IV, SF, PW, etc. Nowadays a McMansion in Macomb Township is at least 2000 sq. foot for today's, *ahem* discerning buyer.
...would it not make more sense to rehab existing vacant homes and then turn currently vacant parcels into something like [[saleable) greenspace? I mean, rather than adding to an oversupply [[at least in areas outside of the 'green zone').
I love small spaces, but never fully understood this "build shit that is kinda different for some reason" in a market like Detroit's, other than it is cute and hip. My disclaimer is that I fully understand that demand is entirely different at, say, Canfield and Second [[build whatever) compared to say, Linwood and Davison[[may God have mercy upon your immortal soul). Unfortunately, the proverbial Linwood and Davison is still most of the city, where they're building this stuff, and where demand is nonexistent.
I'm worried that it will end up like this:http://www.detroiturbex.com/content/...nte/index.html. Oh, how I remember that.
I mean, why do we do this shit? It is like the trolley to nowhere.
You do realize that these weren't built for the market? They were financed by people who wanted to do this for a specific target population that isn't in the market. In my opinion, they could have spent their money better, but there's no "we" doing something stupid here. It isn't like there is a shortage of vacant lots in the city either.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
My first thought was the same, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
- It would be hard to acquire a number of contiguous houses to build a community like this. Any place with that much stock is probably occupied.
- The remaining houses in Dexter/Linwood are pretty large - probably more than the targeted folks would want to take on.
- The smaller houses tend to be farther out - away from jobs and needed services.
There may be a need for a charity that gathers volunteers, refurbishes a house [[like this one) and gives/rents it to a deserving family. It doesn't sound like who the Cass Community is trying to help.
The "Tiny House" movement is somewhat more popular in the northwest
than in the East. The Rev. Faith Fowler has published a book about this movement and her efforts to create moderately or low priced small homes
in Detroit: Tiny Homes in a Big City.She secured foundation funding to support operation of a health clinic in the neighborhood of small homes we are discussing.
If anyone is at all interested, I would encourage a visit to those streets to see it in person. The pictures are great but it takes a first hand look to capture the non-enormity of the development!
Again, I’m not sure what the point is but there are some pretty interesting, pretty funky designs. Definitely a departure from anything else in the city.
It does sound interesting. I'll try to look @ the development in the next day or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
Wonder how 'tiny' the Rev. Faith's estate is.
"Tiny is as tiny do"
Frank Zappa
Doesn't it defeat the purpose to not subdivide the lot? Why build a tiny home on an oversized lot?
I agree with Poobert that this is pointless. This would make sense in a place with land constraints and affordability issues, like San Francisco. But in San Francisco they wouldn't be able to buy cheap empty lots to play Sim City.
Cute, but stupid, I say.
1953
These homes are meant to give low income individuals the chance to own the property after renting for a number of years. They don't need 900-1500 sq ft of space nor could they probably afford the upkeep/utilities. The project isn't pointless or stupid it's imo one of the most innovative things going on in the city
https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...hip/835553001/Quote:
As Fowler explains it, residents pay a monthly rent of a dollar a square foot [[for the smallest homes this is $250 and the largest, $400), attend homeownership classes, meet with financial advisers and complete eight hours of community service a month. After seven years, the house becomes theirs outright. They can continue living in it and accrue equity, sell it or give it to a family member. It's theirs to decide.
"There is no mortgage, there is no other payment, it's meant to make sure once they get the home, they are able to keep it," Fowler said, noting that the only other bill that occupants must pay is electric or heat, which she estimates to cost roughly $35, as the homes are both tiny and well-insulated
In a city that has had negative home equity for the past several generations... hence, all the empty lots on this block... I don't see why this is a good idea. Those people would be better off putting that money into a low-interest savings account.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSUguy
How would they have that money to put into a low-interest savings account? Even with Section 8 and other help available, most if not all would be paying $250-400 a month or more in rent. And at even at the high end of $400 a month they would end paying a total cost [[interest free) of around $34,000 to live at a place that after 7 years they own outright and then perhaps that could put the money into a low-interest savings account. But even if that $400 a month place is worth only half of the $34,000 at the end of 7 years, that's a pretty amazing deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I agree with MSUguy and Bartocktoo...
I don't think many of the rest of you have really thought this thru....
First of all... there are a bazillion empty lots in the city... I don't think they are going to miss a few!
Second... these lots are already configured for all the underground utilities [[sewer, water gas, etc). No one is getting a $10K house if these all have to be replaced at great cost. Plus think about all the lot title work if these lot sizes were reconfigured. Each lot would look like one of those narrow ribbon farms we had in the 1700s.
Third... these folks can't afford a full sized home. Sure they can be had for nickels on the dollar... but what good are they if you can't afford to fix any problems they will eventually have due to age. 75% of all the garages in the city of Detroit need to be replaced... none of the existing homeowners can afford the $10K+ to replace them, why do you think one of these folks would be able to do so if they got a larger house for next to nothing. Then there's furnaces, roofs, windows, driveways... is this starting to make sense?
Fourth... many of the people who are getting these houses have little credit, no credit, or bad credit. Their only option would be to have low income apartments. Maybe they've had to live with loud neighbors/music all their lives, or aren't safe if they enter their hallway.
Fifth... as has been mentioned they NEVER have an opportunity to get any home equity. This is their only chance.
Perhaps I was a little harsh. I'll take back some of what I said. It does have value in providing a low income person a place to live without the overhead of rent/mortgage in a few years. But the same thing could have been done by just buying up existing empty homes and turning them over to low income people.Quote:
Originally Posted by bartocktoo
I drove by that Northpoint project today. It looks like 20 to 30% of those houses are occupied. A few of those houses actually look okay. I couldn’t believe how the roof coverings on some of those houses are totally worn out after 15 years. What kind of terrible building materials did they use? $120,000.00 for that crap, in that area?Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert