Brewster site now sellable? Midtown growth has some optimistic

**begingri** · July-19-11, 04:15 PM

By Nancy Kaffer

The tall brick towers of the Frederick Douglass Apartments look as if they've been abandoned for decades, looming over the junction of I-75 and I-375, a well-traveled route for commuters from the city's northern suburbs. But despite the tall grass, glassless windows and air of general neglect, the towers were occupied as recently as 2008.

The Detroit Housing Commission has been trying to sell the towers for renovation -- or, more likely, demolition and redevelopment -- since the buildings were vacated. But so far, no developer has emerged. At least, not one with the credibility to satisfy Eugene Jones, executive director of the Housing Commission, or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which must sign off on the deal.

Now, with Detroit's Midtown booming, thanks to years of steady growth, bolstered recently by business-offered housing incentives, Jones hopes the site's location -- close to the economic development successes in Midtown and a major commuter artery -- will generate new interest.

When the housing projects at the Brewster Douglass site opened in 1938, it was a signal achievement -- because of restrictive covenants and other discriminatory housing practices, black Detroiters often were forced into substandard housing.

Continued at: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ome-optimistic

Or click here and go to the first link if you don't have a Crain's subscription.

**Detroitnerd** · July-19-11, 04:20 PM

It's funny. Ain't it ironic that this cluster of buildings, which would find few champions for preservation, might be retained?

**Bham1982** · July-19-11, 04:43 PM

This is a public housing property, and any prospects for redevelopment require rehousing the former public housing tenants on the same site. So market rate housing will not be the primary driver of this development.

My guess is that HUD hasn't found any interested parties for the same reason that these public-private partnerships have foundered in other cities like Chicago and New Orleans. The real estate market sucks, and few folks with money want to live next to lifetime welfare recipients. It worked when the economy was strong [[see former Jeffries) but not at this moment.

And how is Brewster in Midtown? Isn't it a hell of a lot closer to downtown? Wayne State area is suddenly everything in Detroit north of I-75?

**BrushStart** · July-19-11, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

And how is Brewster in Midtown? Isn't it a hell of a lot closer to downtown? Wayne State area is suddenly everything in Detroit north of I-75?

For the past few years, I think Midtown and Downtown were sort of "neck-and-neck" in terms of urban renewal, however, I think that Midtown may be starting to pull away. We'll have to see what Gilbert has planned, which could really push downtown ahead in the race. Also, let's not neglect New Center in this discussion, which has made some major strides as well. The rail line is going give a huge boost to all of these neighborhoods. Corktown, Woodbridge, E. Riverfront, Eastern Market, the Villages, and to a lesser degree, Mexicantown-Southwest are also progressing. Lafayette Park seems stable. Someday, I hope to see everything within the Grand Blvd loop [[the city's original boundaries) rejuvenated, and then some.

**dtowncitylover** · July-19-11, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

And how is Brewster in Midtown? Isn't it a hell of a lot closer to downtown? Wayne State area is suddenly everything in Detroit north of I-75?

Chrysler to the east, Fisher to the south, Lodge to the west, Ford to the north=Midtown. Not all of that is Wayne; in fact only the northwest part of the neighborhood is. You got DMC, the cultural institutions, Masonic Temple, Cass Tech/Cass Park, the Majestic, etc.

**wolverine** · July-19-11, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

This is a public housing property, and any prospects for redevelopment require rehousing the former public housing tenants on the same site. So market rate housing will not be the primary driver of this development.

I never knew it had to be the same site, rather replace lost "promised" units somewhere within the vicinity. There was some very small pushback when remaining residents were evicted from the Cabrini towers in Chicago and a portion of the site will have a Target Store built on it. Most of the area never replaced all those lost units, rather scatter the lower income residents as well as locate them in single family or multi-units dwellings in wealthier neighborhoods.

The policies to replace lost low income units with new income units in the same place is a failing policy. It should never be done, even if at it worst it means never rebuilding demolished units. Of course this shouldn't even be an issue in Detroit. No one lives at Brewster. The property should go to developers and be entirely market rate.

**Bham1982** · July-20-11, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I never knew it had to be the same site, rather replace lost "promised" units somewhere within the vicinity. There was some very small pushback when remaining residents were evicted from the Cabrini towers in Chicago and a portion of the site will have a Target Store built on it. Most of the area never replaced all those lost units, rather scatter the lower income residents as well as locate them in single family or multi-units dwellings in wealthier neighborhoods.

I'm pretty sure that most Cabrini Green residents still live in the area, in the new housing. HUD requires that the former residents are rehoused in the new housing, usually at a 1:1 level.

And I think that only about half of Cabrini is planned to be demolished. 100% of the lowrise project townhouses are permanent.

As for Brewster, HUD will almost certainly require on-site replacement units, same as everywhere else where federal housing funds are used to demolish a federal housing investment. Usually, the former residents are given first dibs on the new public housing units.

**Brian1979** · July-20-11, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

As for Brewster, HUD will almost certainly require on-site replacement units, same as everywhere else where federal housing funds are used to demolish a federal housing investment. Usually, the former residents are given first dibs on the new public housing units.

Replacement units for what? This is an abandoned building we are talking about, so they are suppose to replace an abandoned building with another abandoned building? That makes no sense at all.

**j to the jeremy** · July-19-11, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

This is a public housing property, and any prospects for redevelopment require rehousing the former public housing tenants on the same site. So market rate housing will not be the primary driver of this development.

My guess is that HUD hasn't found any interested parties for the same reason that these public-private partnerships have foundered in other cities like Chicago and New Orleans. The real estate market sucks, and few folks with money want to live next to lifetime welfare recipients. It worked when the economy was strong [[see former Jeffries) but not at this moment.

And how is Brewster in Midtown? Isn't it a hell of a lot closer to downtown? Wayne State area is suddenly everything in Detroit north of I-75?

Dude, it's vacant. Has been for quite some time.

**Bham1982** · July-20-11, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

Dude, it's vacant. Has been for quite some time.

Dude, a public housing project won't be demolished with folks living inside. I'm pretty sure homicide isn't part of the Hope VI guidelines.

Again, Hope VI requires on-site replacement of housing units.

Whether it's been vacant for one day or 100 years, you can't use federal housing money to demolish a federal housing investment, without specifically agreeing to replace the lost affordable units.

**Brian1979** · July-20-11, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Dude, a public housing project won't be demolished with folks living inside. I'm pretty sure homicide isn't part of the Hope VI guidelines.

Again, Hope VI requires on-site replacement of housing units.

Whether it's been vacant for one day or 100 years, you can't use federal housing money to demolish a federal housing investment, without specifically agreeing to replace the lost affordable units.

When a building is vacant that means no one is living there, why do you continue to think that anyone is living in the Brewster-Douglas projects?

**Bham1982** · July-20-11, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Brian1979

When a building is vacant that means no one is living there, why do you continue to think that anyone is living in the Brewster-Douglas projects?

Obviously no one is living in the Brewster projects, and I never claimed otherwise.

I said that whatever redevelopment occurs must include some significant proportion of public housing units, approved by HUD.

This is still a HUD site, and those vacant units are still federally subsidized units. A vacated HUD complex remains on the books as having "x" number of units, which must be accounted for prior to replacement.

And former Brewster families or other folks on Detroit Housing Commission waitlist will occupy some of those units.

**Brian1979** · July-20-11, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Dude, a public housing project won't be demolished with folks living inside. I'm pretty sure homicide isn't part of the Hope VI guidelines.

Again, Hope VI requires on-site replacement of housing units.

Whether it's been vacant for one day or 100 years, you can't use federal housing money to demolish a federal housing investment, without specifically agreeing to replace the lost affordable units.

What purpose would there be to replace the lost units? Do you not realize that Detroit lost a quarter of it's population in the last ten years? Where are these people living in the Brewster-Douglas projects that you think live there?

**Bham1982** · July-20-11, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Brian1979

What purpose would there be to replace the lost units? Do you not realize that Detroit lost a quarter of it's population in the last ten years? Where are these people living in the Brewster-Douglas projects that you think live there?

You're right that Detroit is losing considerable population, but this does not relieve Detroit of its affordable housing obligation.

Detroit took federal funds to build public housing units. Detroit is probably requesting federal funds to redevelop public housing sites.

These funds will not be approved unless there is a plan in place to house needy folks. And, unless something has changed in the last two years [[when I last had specific numbers), there are thousands of families on the housing waitlist.

Many families would LOVE to have public housing, even in Detroit. Much of it is decent [[the senior complexes are all quite good), and often "public" housing means a mobile Section 8 voucher, to be used in the private market.

**Brian1979** · July-19-11, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

And how is Brewster in Midtown? Isn't it a hell of a lot closer to downtown? Wayne State area is suddenly everything in Detroit north of I-75?

Because it's north of the Fisher Freeway, that's how it's in Midtown.

**stinkytofu** · July-19-11, 07:05 PM

Does that article really say anything?

**DetroitPlanner** · July-20-11, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by stinkytofu

Does that article really say anything?

Yes it says it would be a good idea for yuppies and hipsters to renovate and move into the projects.

**casscorridor** · July-20-11, 09:09 AM

The article says density was a problem with the Brewster projects. I think what they mean is density of the buildings themselves. Hundreds of tiny units crammed together, not to mention everyone is low income. A social experiment was exactly this.

But the overall site could be more dense. The site consists of high-rises, a couple mid-rise buildings and a bunch of low-rise townhouses, with lots of empty space in between. I would demolish the low-rise buildings, and renovate the rest [[with far fewer units in each building), and build new medium-rise buildings [[4 stories or so) in between on a restored street grid. There would also be ground-floor retail on Wilkins and perhaps a few other streets. This pattern could extend into the rest of Brush Park.

Hopefully the Gratiot ramp and 1-375 can be removed, and additional bridges built over 75 so to increase connection between surrounding neighborhoods.

**brizee** · July-19-11, 07:41 PM

One of my many goals whenever I'm a gabizillionaire is to turn the old rec center into a skating rink/arcade/basketball courts.

**Gannon** · March-02-12, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by brizee

One of my many goals whenever I'm a gabizillionaire is to turn the old rec center into a skating rink/arcade/basketball courts.

I'll help! I've got some serious childhood memories in that building...LOL, I wonder if the high dive is as frightening now. Almost chopped my thumb off in the wood shop, the summer before winning the Kennedy Square model sailboat regatta.

That had to be at least thirty seconds of my fifteen minutes...heh. Perhaps we can find the ol' director Mr. Wilson, or at least his son Tammy, to remind us how it used to be.

Cheers!

**Rocko** · July-19-11, 08:09 PM

It's too bad they won't be able to do a similar kind of development as the Cornerstone Estates rehab along the Lodge. I've heard that has been a successful venture and it's too bad it can't be mimicked at the Brewster site. If they do demo, I hope they try to tie in whatever they do with what remains of adjacent Brush Park. I hope the burgeoning Midtown developments will soon spur the kind of rehabilitation and restoration in Brush Park that was going in the first half of the last decade. Sadly, several houses have fallen in or been demoed since that time.....

**BVos** · July-19-11, 09:22 PM

There is no need to replace units for a purchaser of the Douglass Homes property. HOPE VI didn't require 1 for 1 replacement of units and in fact HUD greatly discouraged that. The density of former public housing projects was one of it's big problems.

There's no real desire to save the towers and reusing them would be very difficult. The old rehabbed towers at Woodbridge [[former Jeffries) are not very popular, especially when compared to the brand new units right across the parking lot.

Market rate housing wouldn't entirely drive the redevelopment of this project, but it would be a big part of it. I'd estimate around 40 to 50%, at the minimum.

If DHC had the money to demolish the towers they would do so, but all of their available funds have been put into the three major rebuilding projects underway.

**Bham1982** · July-20-11, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by BVos

There is no need to replace units for a purchaser of the Douglass Homes property. HOPE VI didn't require 1 for 1 replacement of units and in fact HUD greatly discouraged that. The density of former public housing projects was one of it's big problems.

None of this is true.

First, public housing tends to be lower density than surrounding neighborhoods. It tends to be characterized by Corbusian ideas of open space. Very low ground coverage and low housing density.

Towers in the park housing isn't dense housing. Lowrise rowhomes, for example, are usually much denser,

Second, the problem in old public housing was the concentration of poverty, not the density of housing units. Big difference.

Third, HUD specifically requires the replacement of housing units. Why would they do otherwise?

Why would a federal agency pay a municipality to destroy a federal investment in affordable housing, and then discourage the municpality from replacing the housing?

**Danny** · July-20-11, 10:38 AM

I agree with Bham1982. Housing projects in Detroit [[ Especially Brewsters) were made to contain poor families with less dense space. An urban closet but for a better living conditions. This was created along the mid-depression era workers' program thanks to President Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

bartock · July-20-11, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

None of this is true.

First, public housing tends to be lower density than surrounding neighborhoods. It tends to be characterized by Corbusian ideas of open space. Very low ground coverage and low housing density.

Towers in the park housing isn't dense housing. Lowrise rowhomes, for example, are usually much denser,

Second, the problem in old public housing was the concentration of poverty, not the density of housing units. Big difference.

Third, HUD specifically requires the replacement of housing units. Why would they do otherwise?

Why would a federal agency pay a municipality to destroy a federal investment in affordable housing, and then discourage the municpality from replacing the housing?

Do they really have to replace housing where the demand for it isn't there? Don't projects like Gardenview act to offset housing that might be torn down in the future?