Dilapidated mansion turned into apartments. Others may follow.

**brizee** · November-09-12, 11:56 AM

This is pretty cool.

It's my belief Brush can very easily be turned into a location just as nice as some of the older areas around Wayne State.

Some actual transportation options could help that along too.

**cman710** · November-09-12, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

This is pretty cool.

It's my belief Brush can very easily be turned into a location just as nice as some of the older areas around Wayne State.

Some actual transportation options could help that along too.

If I recall correctly, the grand opening of the condominum project here was back in 2006. I guess they were unable to sell the condos and decided to go back to apartments, which makes sense given the tightness of the rental market downtown.

It would be great to see more projects like this. Brush Park may currently have a fair number of owner-occupied houses, but rentals are where any growth will come from right now. So I hope this does spur more projects. It is certainly preferable to having more and more of the boarded up houses fall apart and be lost forever.

**Danny** · November-09-12, 12:38 PM

Turning historic mansions in Brush Park into apts. is a great ideal. Since some of these homes like the Lucien Moore Mansion haven't attract a lot of buyers due to its property tax rates and a blighted area. other homes along Alfred St. including the Ransom Gills Mansion would make good fancy apts. for up and coming hipster young professionals who want to work close to Downtown Detroit and gain walkable distances to other entertainment venues, resturants and shops. This real estate venture would help out most of Midtown and make Detroit a historic living area for everyone.

**iheartthed** · November-09-12, 12:41 PM

Was there an ordinance on the books that prevented these houses from being split before? You'd think this would've happened a long time ago.

**Wheels** · November-09-12, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Was there an ordinance on the books that prevented these houses from being split before? You'd think this would've happened a long time ago.

Most of these homes were spit into apartments and eventually flop houses as far back as the depression. It was the demise of a once elegant area. Now it could be the savior. Go figure.

**Vic01** · November-09-12, 01:30 PM

help me out here... "starting at $1100." for a 1 bedroom apartment?

How realistic is this?

**p69rrh51** · November-09-12, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Vic01

help me out here... "starting at $1100." for a 1 bedroom apartment?

How realistic is this?

The going rate right now with 90% plus occupancy in the area.

**Spartan** · November-09-12, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Vic01

help me out here... "starting at $1100." for a 1 bedroom apartment?

How realistic is this?

If the places are nice, it's about right. Broderick Tower was renting in that range. I think the base line was $1050 for 1br there.

**Bham1982** · November-09-12, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

The going rate right now with 90% plus occupancy in the area.

I have no doubt that isn't the overall going rate in the area, though it may be for luxury new construction/new renovation. You can easily find a decent one bedroom for $700 or less.

And 90% occupancy is pretty poor. I would hope it's higher. National rental occupancy levels are well above 90%.

**cman710** · November-09-12, 03:20 PM

As Wheels suggests, the area became blighted in the first instance because the houses were broken up into apartments. I am not sure about the history of ordinances, but I suppose there is no such ordinance right now.

**p69rrh51** · November-09-12, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I have no doubt that isn't the overall going rate in the area, though it may be for luxury new construction/new renovation. You can easily find a decent one bedroom for $700 or less.

And 90% occupancy is pretty poor. I would hope it's higher. National rental occupancy levels are well above 90%.

I know you can find lower rates if you shop around. I was quoting 90% just to be on the safe side, but its more like 95%-98%, but then there are quite few uninhabitable buildings in the area. Last the rate was for a newly rehabbed unit.

For a little history, the final report produced for the Local historic designation.

**iheartthed** · November-09-12, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by cman710

As Wheels suggests, the area became blighted in the first instance because the houses were broken up into apartments. I am not sure about the history of ordinances, but I suppose there is no such ordinance right now.

Uh, that is not why it became blighted, lol.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-09-12, 04:00 PM

Kind of ironic. Old literature pointed to the splitting up of these old mansions into apartments was the original downfall of Brush Park. As it fell out of fashion, the rich folks moved to greener pastures such as along Chicago or Rosedale Park.

Granted these apartments are much more luxurious than the last time when they were used as workers rooming houses.

**p69rrh51** · November-09-12, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Kind of ironic. Old literature pointed to the splitting up of these old mansions into apartments was the original downfall of Brush Park. As it fell out of fashion, the rich folks moved to greener pastures such as along Chicago or Rosedale Park.

Granted these apartments are much more luxurious than the last time when they were used as workers rooming houses.

If you look at at where most of the original inhabitants moved some did end up in Boston-Edison, Palmer Woods and on to Birmingham/Bloomfield. Most though headed east to Indian Village and Grosse Pointe.

**Spartan** · November-09-12, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I have no doubt that isn't the overall going rate in the area, though it may be for luxury new construction/new renovation. You can easily find a decent one bedroom for $700 or less.

And 90% occupancy is pretty poor. I would hope it's higher. National rental occupancy levels are well above 90%.

Places in and around that price range are all very close to 100% capacity [[downtown at least). Broderick, Millender, DCA, Lofts of Merchant Row, Lofts at Woodward Center, Kales, etc. You can definitely get a lower rate and there are places with vacancy, but the 800-1200 range is pretty full downtown. Can't speak to Midtown, but I know occupancy rates are over 95% for the neighborhood as a whole.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-09-12, 04:13 PM

I'm a West Sider, I gave my examples based on my complete bias.

**DetroitHabitater** · November-09-12, 05:40 PM

I love historic restoration and think this is awesome and all....but WHY THE HECK did they mess with the original design? The house was super well documented and really deserved to have it's original roof IMHO. The Developer really dropped the ball on being faithful to the house design.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50788895@N00/5417136782/

**softailrider** · November-09-12, 05:41 PM

I think that's fantastic! It's the best thing I've seen / heard of all day. If the rents are too high then they'll come down, management is entitled to ask whatever they feel the market will bear.

**Gistok** · November-09-12, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitHabitater

I love historic restoration and think this is awesome and all....but WHY THE HECK did they mess with the original design? The house was super well documented and really deserved to have it's original roof IMHO. The Developer really dropped the ball on being faithful to the house design.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50788895@N00/5417136782/

Well in this instance the tower was already missing... and it served no function, besides being an architectural centerpiece. I suppose it would have been very expensive to rebuild. So I'm not as upset about it as you are.

I get more upset when original features are destroyed during a rehab, rather than missing parts not replaced.

In this instance the replacement tower [[a neo-Second Empire mansard roof) does not look that bad... although it would look better with some lattice work Victorian Gingerbread around the top edge.

**Jimaz** · November-09-12, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Well in this instance the tower was already missing... and it served no function, besides being an architectural centerpiece....

From the article:

Incidentally, in the last picture the tower on the left side appears to have been removed. It is actually still there and just didn't show up here because of the low angle.

Two different towers?

Edit: Oh. I guess so. My mistake.

**DetroitHabitater** · November-09-12, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Well in this instance the tower was already missing... and it served no function, besides being an architectural centerpiece. I suppose it would have been very expensive to rebuild. So I'm not as upset about it as you are.

I get more upset when original features are destroyed during a rehab, rather than missing parts not replaced.

In this instance the replacement tower [[a neo-Second Empire mansard roof) does not look that bad... although it would look better with some lattice work Victorian Gingerbread around the top edge.

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning. They obviously had to add/replace hundreds of bricks for this project anyhow so it wouldn't of been that many more. Plus the replacement roof looks artificial. While it is a period roof line, I have never seen a second empire with that style roof/tower without a window or clock in it. It seems so artificial looking at it. Where there should be the pinnacle focus of the design of a very decorated building is just an empty plain roof. Very anti-climactic. Or maybe that is only because i've see the before picture.

Maybe someone in the distant future will do it justice.

**royce** · November-10-12, 12:35 AM

Isn't the mansion at the northwest corner of Edmund and Brush called the "Edmund" or "Edmund Place?" I remember it was going to be condos. Also, there was a restaurant called Edmund Place on the same block, but it mysteriously burned down.

**wolverine** · November-10-12, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Vic01

help me out here... "starting at $1100." for a 1 bedroom apartment?

How realistic is this?

Damn what a lousy deal.

But I agree with Bham 90% occupancy for rentals is definitely not all that great. Actually...that's scary. Heck below 95% is where developers start switch back to condo.

**Vic01** · November-10-12, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Spartan

If the places are nice, it's about right. Broderick Tower was renting in that range. I think the base line was $1050 for 1br there.

Yes, "management is entitled to ask whatever they feel the market will bear"... however, I question why anyone would be willing to pay $13,000-15,000 per year in rent for a 1 bedroom apt, anywhere in Detroit or Metro-Detroit.

For that $$$$ I want ownership...

**Honky Tonk** · November-10-12, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Vic01

Yes, "management is entitled to ask whatever they feel the market will bear"... however, I question why anyone would be willing to pay $13,000-15,000 per year in rent for a 1 bedroom apt, anywhere in Detroit or Metro-Detroit.

For that $$$$ I want ownership...

If people are willing to pay that, more power to them. If you ask that and get it, good for you. This is yet another repeat of a previous trend, [[rememeber housing in 2001?, how about the Crosswinds?), and a lot of people are getting on the band wagon, especially the younger ones. In the larger scheme of things, it's money spent for an experience, a good tome, sans commitment. I hope 5 years from now this one doesn't end up like the other trends.