Printable View
Anybody know what's up with those tiny brick houses on that block? They're one bedroom, one bath nicely built homes. I paced one off from the outside, seems like less then 400 square feet. Those are some of the smallest houses I've seen anywhere in the city. Obviously post war construction, can't understand why they were built so tiny.
cute, but I know nothing.....
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19...88452862_zpid/
I vaguely recall a discussion here [[or maybe on the old forum) about a group of houses that were built especially for little people. Maybe these are the same houses? I don't know.
I don't know, but they sure are decent looking. It almost looks like the houses on the east side of the street are a bit bigger. Kind of hard to tell, though.
They were built by the Detroit Department of Public Works in the 1930s but I don't know why. Maybe part of a depression era stimulus project? Search the Virtual Motor City for construcion photos.
Still can't understand why they would build one bedroom 400 square foot homes - they're too small for anyone with any type of a family. I don't know who that type of construction would appeal to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeM
Maybe the residents of Connant Gardens during the depression?
Yeah these houses probably should have never been built in the first place. Like many areas in Detroit, this area was built to fail.
The market for one or two bedrooms can be easily filled with apartment buildings, flats and carriage homes. There is no reason for single-family homes with two bedrooms or less.
I think our neighborhoods wouldn't see so many abandoned buildings if there weren't so many single-family homes. An apartment building can loose more than half of its tenants before being shuttered. But a single family house is stripped within weeks, if not days, after being unoccupied. We could have lost half our our population without loosing many buildings if multi-units were dominate over single-family. But since we are a city of primarily single-family/duplex housing, loosing half of our population means loosing half of our buildings, and therefore, half of many neighborhoods.
^I agree. Chicago has miles of 3 story and under appartment building surrounding the city. Don't know why Detroit wasn't built like that.
Mr. Corridor
Your assertion that "I think our neighborhoods wouldn't see so many abandoned buildings if there weren't so many single-family homes", may not be true. The neighborhood of Dexter-Davison has a plethora of abandoned apartment buildings - in fact maybe 50% or greater are abandoned. Almost 2 years ago, I started a thread wherein I posted pictures of many of the abandoned apartment buildings in that neighborhood.
http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1210098239
Also, the older near-west neighborhoods and Highland Park have various apartment buildings scattered throughout single-family and two-family house neighborhoods - many of these are abandoned or have been torn down.
http://www.realestateone.com/homes/2...troit-MI-48202
http://www.realestateone.com/homes/2...troit-MI-48206
http://www.realestateone.com/homes/2...troit-MI-48204
Most of the homes in the Denby area were one and one-half story bungalows built with living room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms, and one bath. The "half story" was attic and was later finished as one or two additional bedrooms as family expansion required. people also finished their basements into a family room or rec room.
You have to remember that these houses were built prior to the passing of the constitutional amendment that each child was entitled to their own bedroom and most families followed a one bedroom for all of the boys and one bedroom for all of the girls rule using bunk beds.
Most of the "income flats" on the east side were two bedrooms per unit.
With all due respect, I can't agree with the above. I remember distinctly back in the 1970's there were twice as many apartment buldings as remain now. I'm not saying Detroit ever was as apartment rich as New York or Chicago. I'm saying whatever apartments we had we lost half of. Buildings would have a fire that damaged a unit or two, or a floor or two and they never got repaired. Or dope dealers would move in and the decent tenants would move away. Large buildings in particular are very difficult to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
Some do remain. I'm not how or why. I drive by some buildings that have been standing for decades in terrible areas of the city of and they seem like they're doing fine. Mabe the owners live there, or they have great live in management. There must be some secret I'm not aware of.
The reason behind the Lumpkin St. mini-houses could be similar to the east side 'cabbage patch' homes. They were built by or for new immigrants from Belgium who wanted a small home that could later be replaced by a larger one but could in the meantime contain enough land to have a vegetable garden. Many of the original homes still existing in the early 1990's.
After the war there was a healthy market for small 'starter' homes with two bedrooms. Detroit was known for large lots [[well, larger than most other cities but small by modern standards), so the homes could be expanded up or out to accomodate growing families. many never did that so there are still many two bedroom homes around.