How many "yuppies" have actually moved to Detroit the past couple of years?

[Bham1982]

But because that report supports something Bham1982 doesn't believe in, it's just propaganda about the fictitious revival of Detroit.

If you believe that there really is some great demand for housing downtown, why hasn't a single building been built or renovated absent significant subsidies?

That's all the proof I need. Not a damn thing gets built without taxpayer dollars. There just isn't sufficient demand right now.

And you should call up the big downtown property owners, because strangely they have lots of advertised vacancies. Lafayettte Park has highrise doorman rentals available from $575, which is extremely affordable and not remotely indicative of some huge shortage of living space.

In a thriving city a downtown highrise doorman building will have rents starting at 3k a month or higher not $575. In a thriving city you don't have taxpayer subsidized buildings like Book-Cadillac that haven't sold out after nearly 10 years of marketing and price cuts.

[Lowell]

If you believe that there really is some great demand for housing downtown, why hasn't a single building been built or renovated absent significant subsidies?

That's all the proof I need. Not a damn thing gets built without taxpayer dollars. There just isn't sufficient demand right now.

And you should call up the big downtown property owners, because strangely they have lots of advertised vacancies. Lafayette Park has highrise doorman rentals available from $575, which is extremely affordable and not remotely indicative of some huge shortage of living space.

In a thriving city a downtown highrise doorman building will have rents starting at 3k a month or higher not $575.

Just because subsidies are obtained does not mean the project would not have happened.

It can also can mean that subsidies are available for whatever encouragement reasons and a developer would be stupid to not take advantage of it. We see this corporate welfare doled out by MEGA and other state agencies all the time for all over the state.

[Eber Brock Ward]

If you believe that there really is some great demand for housing downtown, why hasn't a single building been built or renovated absent significant subsidies?

That's all the proof I need. Not a damn thing gets built without taxpayer dollars. There just isn't sufficient demand right now.

And you should call up the big downtown property owners, because strangely they have lots of advertised vacancies. Lafayettte Park has highrise doorman rentals available from $575, which is extremely affordable and not remotely indicative of some huge shortage of living space.

In a thriving city a downtown highrise doorman building will have rents starting at 3k a month or higher not $575. In a thriving city you don't have taxpayer subsidized buildings like Book-Cadillac that haven't sold out after nearly 10 years of marketing and price cuts.

I lived at 445 E Ohio for a spell [[a downtown highrise doorman building) in Chicago, and it was $1132/mo. Same with 1. E. Delaware, where it was ~$1700/mo. The former was about $1.50/ft2, while the latter was about $2.30/ft2.

Now if you want to argue Chicago's not "thriving," sure I'll buy that.

[motz]

If you believe that there really is some great demand for housing downtown, why hasn't a single building been built or renovated absent significant subsidies?

That's all the proof I need. Not a damn thing gets built without taxpayer dollars. There just isn't sufficient demand right now.

And you should call up the big downtown property owners, because strangely they have lots of advertised vacancies. Lafayettte Park has highrise doorman rentals available from $575, which is extremely affordable and not remotely indicative of some huge shortage of living space.

In a thriving city a downtown highrise doorman building will have rents starting at 3k a month or higher not $575. In a thriving city you don't have taxpayer subsidized buildings like Book-Cadillac that haven't sold out after nearly 10 years of marketing and price cuts.

I was specifically referring to the Midtown area and the current housing crunch that seems to be taking place. If you notice, there are a fair amount of projects getting pushed through in Midtown that include residential options, and for good reason.

[Bham1982]

I was specifically referring to the Midtown area and the current housing crunch that seems to be taking place. If you notice, there are a fair amount of projects getting pushed through in Midtown that include residential options, and for good reason.

There are a fair number of taxpayer-funded residential conversions, yes, ahd the activity is certainly positive. This doesn't seem to be indicative of some sort of claimed apartment shortage, though.

[Bham1982]

I lived at 445 E Ohio for a spell [[a downtown highrise doorman building) in Chicago, and it was $1132/mo. Same with 1. E. Delaware, where it was ~$1700/mo. The former was about $1.50/ft2, while the latter was about $2.30/ft2.

Now if you want to argue Chicago's not "thriving," sure I'll buy that.

Chicago, as a whole, is most certainly not thriving. It's possible the weakest major metro area after Detroit.

The Chicago core has always been vibrant, and those rents you quote aren't accurate, at least not in 2014. A newer highrise building with doorman will rent for at least $1,500-$2,000. A spacious apartment, anywhere in a prime neighborhood will be closer to 3k a month.

[motz]

There are a fair number of taxpayer-funded residential conversions, yes, ahd the activity is certainly positive. This doesn't seem to be indicative of some sort of claimed apartment shortage, though.

In late July/early August, go find a decent 1BR in Midtown. There is a shortage in Midtown pretty much year round, but it's especially bad at the beginning of spring and the end of summer. The struggle is real, Bham1982.

[313WX]

In late July/early August, go find a decent 1BR in Midtown. There is a shortage in Midtown pretty much year round, but it's especially bad at the beginning of spring and the end of summer. The struggle is real, Bham1982.

Well see, "decent" is the operative word here.

There may very well be a shortage of desirable housing in downtown/midtown.

Meanwhile, Bham1982 is saying there's plenty of undesirable housing available, thus I'm assuming the basis of his argument about downtown/midtown NOT experiencing a housing shortage at this time.

[Bham1982]

Well see, "decent" is the operative word here.

There may very well be a shortage of desirable housing in downtown/midtown.

Meanwhile, Bham1982 is saying there's plenty of undesirable housing available, thus I'm assuming the basis of his argument about downtown/midtown NOT experiencing a housing shortage at this time.

If there were a housing shortage, then there wouldn't be such a thing as "undesirable" housing. Obviously the less nice housing is filled in markets when there's a housing shortage, because obviously people have no other choice but to rent the less-than-ideal housing.

[313WX]

If there were a housing shortage, then there wouldn't be such a thing as "undesirable" housing. Obviously the less nice housing is filled in markets when there's a housing shortage, because obviously people have no other choice but to rent the less-than-ideal housing.

Well, the bolded depends on:

1. Who's keeping a tally on the availability of housing. People can cook stats to their liking.

2. The demographic that's looking for housing. Given that's downtown/midtown's "boom" is still in its infancy, the people who are looking for housing don't desire to live in downtown/midtown enough to settle for less than ideal housing just yet.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Chicago, as a whole, is most certainly not thriving. It's possible the weakest major metro area after Detroit.

The Chicago core has always been vibrant, and those rents you quote aren't accurate, at least not in 2014. A newer highrise building with doorman will rent for at least $1,500-$2,000. A spacious apartment, anywhere in a prime neighborhood will be closer to 3k a month.

Agreed with you re Chicago not thriving, which is why I ended my original post how I did. They're probably actually worse off than Detroit, since Detroit is finally having its day[[s) of reckoning and no longer can-kicking down the road.

That said, you can get a 1 br in 445 e ohio for $1400-1500 right now, and they're offering a $1000 subsidy [[so about $1320-1420/mo): http://www.lakeshoreplaza.com/chicag...vailability/1/. Also just texted someone at 1 e delaware, and he's paying $1805 for the same 1/1 floor pattern I had. Not to mention, there are tons of others available: http://apartmentpeople.com/find_apar...der/ASC/page/0

While I'll agree with your $1500-2000 [[even if you can get in for around $1300 if you look), I think it's a far cry from your original statement that "[i]n a thriving city a downtown highrise doorman building will have rents starting at 3k a month or higher"

[Eber Brock Ward]

i actually think truly thriving cities might be cheaper, other than SF and NY and DC.

http://www.apartmentfinder.com/Texas...use-Apartments

weird dynamic. glad i got into detroit while it was still a pretty good bargain.

[Bham1982]

Well, the bolded depends on:

1. Who's keeping a tally on the availability of housing. People can cook stats to their liking.

2. The demographic that's looking for housing. Given that's downtown/midtown's "boom" is still in its infancy, the people who are looking for housing don't desire to live in downtown/midtown enough to settle for less than ideal housing just yet.

Well ok. If that's all true, then there's no housing shortage, and no reason to subsidize any more housing, since the existing stock has yet to be fully utilized.

[Bham1982]

While I'll agree with your $1500-2000 [[even if you can get in for around $1300 if you look), I think it's a far cry from your original statement that "[i]n a thriving city a downtown highrise doorman building will have rents starting at 3k a month or higher"

Well, ok, point taken. I was thinking of the really high demand coastal markets. If you want a one bedroom doorman highrise building in a NYC or SF, then you're paying at least 3k a month.

[Jason]

If you believe that there really is some great demand for housing downtown, why hasn't a single building been built or renovated absent significant subsidies?

That's all the proof I need. Not a damn thing gets built without taxpayer dollars. There just isn't sufficient demand right now.

That's because it takes time for rental rates to catch up with demand, and right now despite there being demand for new units the rental rates are not yet high enough to actually build the new units without subsidies. However, rates are rapidly rising and you should expect to see developments with fewer or no subsidies soon. I'd have to go check but I don't recall there being any subsidies mentioned with the developments announced in the spring, so this point might have already happened.

And you should call up the big downtown property owners, because strangely they have lots of advertised vacancies. Lafayettte Park has highrise doorman rentals available from $575, which is extremely affordable and not remotely indicative of some huge shortage of living space.

A better way of phrasing that is that despite essentially being owned by a slumlord, the building is still managing to get $575. Meanwhile the nearly identical building that has less amenities [[no parking garage) but is properly managed is getting 700-900 for a studio and 900-1200 for a one bedroom.


Now, there is a shortage of hard stats about the population, but it's factually known that rental rates have been rapidly increasing, and it's factually known that vacancy rates are very low. There's no question about demand.

The only remotely legitimate discussion here is how much of the demand is translating into population growth.

[maverick1]

Well, the bolded depends on:

1. Who's keeping a tally on the availability of housing. People can cook stats to their liking.

2. The demographic that's looking for housing. Given that's downtown/midtown's "boom" is still in its infancy, the people who are looking for housing don't desire to live in downtown/midtown enough to settle for less than ideal housing just yet.

IMHO the bolded is one of the key signs that things have really turned around. When people are willing to settle for less than ideal housing or people are flocking to the inner ring suburbs to be close to Downtown and Midtown as possible w/o having to pay the price for the limited space and cost of actually living in those areas.

[313WX]

IMHO the bolded is one of the key signs that things have really turned around. When people are willing to settle for less than ideal housing or people are flocking to the inner ring suburbs to be close to Downtown and Midtown as possible w/o having to pay the price for the limited space and cost of actually living in those areas.

Exactly.

For example, I found an on Craigslist today in Midtown [[on Alexandrine Street) where 1 & 2 bedroom apartments are available for $440 and $500 per month respectively, including heat and water.

I also know someone as recently as 2011 who was living in an apartment in Lafayette Park for no more than $500 per month, also including heat and water.

Of course, the problem is these apartments welcome Section 8 tenants and are in badly need of renovation, which of course the yuppies prefer not to deal with.

[ABetterDetroit]

I would think traditional financing might be a little tight with the strings until the bankruptcy is final. Then one would have a clearer picture of what exactly the finacial future of the city and its services is going to be.

[Bham1982]

A better way of phrasing that is that despite essentially being owned by a slumlord, the building is still managing to get $575. Meanwhile the nearly identical building that has less amenities [[no parking garage) but is properly managed is getting 700-900 for a studio and 900-1200 for a one bedroom.

These are nonsense excuses. $700 for an apartment is absurdly cheap, and whatever building I bring up with vacancies and low rents you'll just say "the landlord is a slumlord", "the location sucks", "there are Sec. 8", "the apartments are ugly" etc. In a thriving city, it wouldn't matter. The character of the landlord would have no bearing on whether apartments sit vacant.

Now, there is a shortage of hard stats about the population, but it's factually known that rental rates have been rapidly increasing, and it's factually known that vacancy rates are very low. There's no question about demand.

There is no evidence for any of this. The Freep articles and Gilbert propaganda machine are useless for actual comparative stats. Downtown landlords know that rents have grown slowly over time, and if you rented 5 years ago, things haven't changed that much. And I can show you the same breathless Freep articles about a downtown "boom" from the 1980's, 1990's and 2000s.

In the 1980's, there was actual new construction highrise towers going up [[Millender Center, Trolley Plaza, Riverfront Apartments, Harbortown, Stroh River, etc.) If that happened today can you imagine the posts on DYes? There would be a ticker-tape parade and people would be claiming Detroit was the next Dubai. And that was the 80's, an era the same people will claim was a time of severe downtown decline.

Riverfront Apartments were built by serious institutional investors through Taubman, and were planned as a mini-city of condos. Can you imagine that happening today, and the resulting reaction? It would be like the Lions winning the Super Bowl. There was a complex east of the RenCen called Port Atwater, that would have resulted in something like 4,000 apartments.

Now people have a parade when an abandoned building is renovated for $900 a month apartments at a taxpayer cost of 150k a unit. What a deal. You could just give every tenant a house and be done with it.