All affordable or mixed income? Debate rages on Seward

[animatedmartian]

In New Center [[now considered apart of Midtown), there's a vacant apartment building on 59 Seward St. a mere couple of blocks just north of where M-1 rail currently ends.

LC Consultants is in the process of closing a deal to buy the building and rehab it into a senior citizens complex with 98 units. The rehab is estimated to cost $30 million part of which will be covered by public housing and historical tax credits.

LC Consultants and Kathy Makino Leipsitz, president of Detroit-based Shelborne Development Group Inc, are also in talks to buy 3 other apartment buildings on Seward and rehab them into market-rate apartments with some affordable units.

Though Sue Mosey of Midtown, Inc. says that with the size of 59 Seward St., the number of affordable units will negatively impact the area and won't help to bring retail into the area. Though in reality, it will more than likely just limit what type of retail will move into the area [[it's not like senior citizens are big cash spenders).

However, the developers of 59 Seward argue that market-rate apartments aren't economically viable for this building and they would need to charge $2,000 per month for rent. Which itself lends the question that should gentrification be allowed to spread into Detroit's neighborhoods or should this area be relatively kept affordable? Should 59 Seward be a senior citizen's complex or market-rate with some affordable units?

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...dtown-concerns

[Zacha341]

This building [[the Wellington) in its heyday was awesome. Solid structure, nearly sound-proof high rise. It was once even a hotel. The Woodward end of Seward scars the whole block which is markedly much better beyond that corner, such as near the Lodge down thru Merrill st.

I am sick of seeing it in ruins. All such buildings are havens for crime. And it would cost to tear is down. See link below for added info and to see the structure as it has sat for some time [[and the selling of the building):

http://detroiturbex.com/content/downtown/wellington/

http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...114?source=web

[maverick1]

It'll be interesting to see how this works out. It seems like senior citizen apartments are the only apartments that get built in Detroit.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I'm not really sure what to make of this article. I respect Sue Mosey for her work in midtown; I also respect Kathy Makino Leisitz for the great renovations of derelict buildings that her firm has been doing [[such as in the Palmer Park district).

I would agree with Sue Mosey that a 100% "affordable rate" building is less than ideal. And if Midtown, Inc. is willing to work with developers to achieve a mixed-income building, I would tend to think that is feasible. I doubt that many people have a better feel for what is or is not doable in the Midtown/New Center Area than Sue Mosey and Midtown, Inc.

The potential developer states that a "market-rate" building is not feasible; that may be but why would a "mixed-income" building not be? The choice doesn't have to be 100% market rate vs. 100% affordable, and Midtown, Inc. and the neighborhood group seem to be proposing something in between - the mixed-income model. I wonder if its simply easier and quicker to do the 100% affordable and that's why the developer prefers that route?

That being said, keeping it blighted and vacant is obviously the worst outcome. That's something that we can all agree on. I know if I had a house on Virginia Park, I'd hate having to look at that rotting hulk, and it has to be a drag on the whole neighborhood. That stretch of Seward, with quite a few residential buildings still standing, could really be a high density neighborhood once again.

[ABetterDetroit]

98 Rent controlled senior apartments are not going to hurt the neighborhood but empty boarded up windowless buildings will. Buildings with people in them living or working in close vicinity is what makes market rate even possible. If there is a deal that has the financing to get the building back in the people business, take it. There is no shortage of land close by that new market rate apartments/condos could be built on with all the amenities that higher income types find desirable.

[Khorasaurus]

If they've found a way to finance the rehab of that building, go for it. When it's done, no one will care that the residents are low-income seniors. But everyone in that neighborhood [[hell, everyone who drives that stretch of Woodward) will be glad to see that building rehabbed and not blighted anymore.

There are a ton of attractive apartment buildings on Seward. Gentrification there is only a matter of time. I don't have a problem setting this building aside for low-income seniors.

[Khorasaurus]

There is no shortage of land close by that new market rate apartments/condos could be built on with all the amenities that higher income types find desirable.

Additionally, thereis no shortage of existing buildings on Seward that will be targeted very soon by higher income types that can't find anywhere in the tight Midtown rental market. Especially if 59 Seward is fixed up [[no matter who lives inside it).

[Zacha341]

Particularly Seward between Woodward and Second [[known as the 'scary' end of Seward), there are few sketchy buildings and another apartment unoccupied right next to the Wellington and an apartment boarded up further down by Third.

Otherwise Seward has well occupied apartments and property: onward between the Lodge and Merrill on down to Poe street. Only a few unoccupied homes that are not blighted [[windowless etc.) so far.

[Mackinaw]

Mosey's message seems a bit muddled and it is coming off as 'we need more wealthy people.' True enough, but we also need to preserve affordable housing on the Woodward corridor, and I am sure she agrees with that too. Yes, she mentions 'mixed income' but I'd like her to be clearer and more forceful. She should clearly articulate that:"We do need more affordable housing but we also need more integration. Too often, the poor or the elderly are put into silos, sequestered from everyone else. Using subsidies to the maximum, as this development proposes, only continues that trend. The better solution is mixing affordable, subsidized units in with market rate units. Wouldn't it be better if the elderly shared walls with young families? Wouldn't it be better [[and safer) if the poor weren't cordoned off in certain buildings? Now is an ideal opportunity to create an integrated neighborhood because we have massive new demand for market rate housing but continuing need for quality affordable housing."


Sue, if you're reading this, feel free to plaigerize.

[ordinary]

The better solution is mixing affordable, subsidized units in with market rate units.

This seems like a good idea but has it been done? Would it work or would people in the market rate units not want to be in with the subsidized units?

[Dan_the_man]

It's been done plenty of times all over the country. It's a relatively new concept for Detroit, but that's just because we tend to be behind the times. It is generally considered to be the best practice for low-income housing these days. The Strathmore renovation is doing the same thing, having a certain percentage of low income units.

[Wesley Mouch]

Mosey's message seems a bit muddled and it is coming off as 'we need more wealthy people.' True enough, but we also need to preserve affordable housing on the Woodward corridor, and I am sure she agrees with that too. Yes, she mentions 'mixed income' but I'd like her to be clearer and more forceful. She should clearly articulate that:"We do need more affordable housing but we also need more integration. Too often, the poor or the elderly are put into silos, sequestered from everyone else. Using subsidies to the maximum, as this development proposes, only continues that trend. The better solution is mixing affordable, subsidized units in with market rate units. Wouldn't it be better if the elderly shared walls with young families? Wouldn't it be better [[and safer) if the poor weren't cordoned off in certain buildings? Now is an ideal opportunity to create an integrated neighborhood because we have massive new demand for market rate housing but continuing need for quality affordable housing." ...

I'm glad Ms. Mosey is willing to discuss the issue instead of avoiding it because its politically dangerous.

The real issue is whether [[or perhaps how much) we can control the market. Ms. Mosey's comment that we shouldn't create ghettos for the elderly and poor seems spot on. Jane Jacobs would want a diverse neighborhood with people young/old in buildings new/old to help create a vibrant neighborhood. We should intervene as little as possible, but where we do we shouldn't cluster our interventions.

[Khorasaurus]

The real issue is whether [[or perhaps how much) we can control the market. Ms. Mosey's comment that we shouldn't create ghettos for the elderly and poor seems spot on. Jane Jacobs would want a diverse neighborhood with people young/old in buildings new/old to help create a vibrant neighborhood. We should intervene as little as possible, but where we do we shouldn't cluster our interventions.

I don't think this is going to end up as a cluster of affordable housing. There are a bunch of apartment buildings up and down Seward that are absolutely ripe for rising rents and "gentrification." Many of them are already occupied, so all it would take is a hike in the rent, some paint, and some new fixtures, and boom, people will pay Midtown-like rates. Others are vacant, but not in bad shape, so financing a renovation would be relatively easy, and again the rents will be high.

But 59 Seward is a scrapped shell that probably needs more creative financing. So using the subsidies here makes sense. Sure, the low-income seniors wouldn't share walls with market rate renters, but they would share a block and a neighborhood.

Frankly, I think 59 Seward is what is holding gentrification back. As someone said, that's the "scary" end of Seward because of the hulking blight. Clean it up and the rest of the street quickly increases in desirability.

[Khorasaurus]

It's been done plenty of times all over the country. It's a relatively new concept for Detroit, but that's just because we tend to be behind the times. It is generally considered to be the best practice for low-income housing these days. The Strathmore renovation is doing the same thing, having a certain percentage of low income units.

Yeah, it's done through Low Income Housing Tax Credits, mostly. The developer gets a tax credit that increases the more units are set-aside for low-to-moderate income residents. I believe you get more tax credit money for lower incomes, but you can set aside units for people making as much as the regional median income [[which is $64,000 - certainly not dirt poor).

Most developers don't need that much of a tax break, so they sell the tax credits to a company that has a huge tax burden [[like a bank) for something like 70 or 80 cents on the dollar. So the tax credits become free cash, which allows them to borrow less for the development, which allows them to charge the required lower rents.

It's a great system that works all over the country, including in Detroit. As you said, the most recent example in the Strathmore.

[belleislerunner]

"The better solution is mixing affordable, subsidized units in with market rate units. Wouldn't it be better if the elderly shared walls with young families? Wouldn't it be better [[and safer) if the poor weren't cordoned off in certain buildings? Now is an ideal opportunity to create an integrated neighborhood because we have massive new demand for market rate housing but continuing need for quality affordable housing."

The higher the rents/prices go up in an area, the less the affluent people want to share walls/proximity with those in affordable housing. You'll always be able to attract the affordable crowd, getting the affluent in will be the problem.
This is the same reason people live in million dollar subdivisions in Scio Township, Oakland Township, Indian Village or Grosse Pointe Farms. They don't want the trailer from New Haven, Inkster or Garden City next door.

People feel much more comfortable segregating themselves based on socioeconomic status than any other characteristic.

[ordinary]

The higher the rents/prices go up in an area, the less the affluent people want to share walls/proximity with those in affordable housing.
People feel much more comfortable segregating themselves based on socioeconomic status than any other characteristic.

That's what I was thinking.

[animatedmartian]

People feel much more comfortable segregating themselves based on socioeconomic status than any other characteristic.

No one for this apartment building is suggesting the 1%ers have to snuggle up with the less than minimum wage crowd.

It's more along the lines of having the whole apartment building pretty much market-rate but for a certain number of units, you can't make over a certain income in order to rent them. I don't know what the exact level is, but lets say it's $12,000 a year. The average college student, not including financial aid and such, makes around $14,000. A college graduate with a bachelor's degree is a lot higher at around $30K but on average, people don't reach that income level until at least a few years after college. So pretty much, you can fill this apartment with college and non-college attending residents and not have such a wide income disparity.

After resolving the economic part of it, then the other issue is simply social.

Imo, having the whole apartment under one income level pretty much reinforces economic segregation and the concentration of those with a specific income to a specific spot or building[[s). Income limited developments haven't had the best track record, even when considering senior housing. And actually, even if this particular apartment building was still limited to just senior housing, it still should be mixed-income. Or like, market-rate but open to a number of those on financial assistance like so many other apartment buildings.

There's a solution here, but I think the bigger factor is just whether the developer wants that easy public financing rather than anything specific to the above points.

[ABetterDetroit]

No one for this apartment building is suggesting the 1%ers have to snuggle up with the less than minimum wage crowd.

It's more along the lines of having the whole apartment building pretty much market-rate but for a certain number of units, you can't make over a certain income in order to rent them. I don't know what the exact level is, but lets say it's $12,000 a year. The average college student, not including financial aid and such, makes around $14,000. A college graduate with a bachelor's degree is a lot higher at around $30K but on average, people don't reach that income level until at least a few years after college. So pretty much, you can fill this apartment with college and non-college attending residents and not have such a wide income disparity.

After resolving the economic part of it, then the other issue is simply social.

Imo, having the whole apartment under one income level pretty much reinforces economic segregation and the concentration of those with a specific income to a specific spot or building[[s). Income limited developments haven't had the best track record, even when considering senior housing. And actually, even if this particular apartment building was still limited to just senior housing, it still should be mixed-income. Or like, market-rate but open to a number of those on financial assistance like so many other apartment buildings.

There's a solution here, but I think the bigger factor is just whether the developer wants that easy public financing rather than anything specific to the above points.

I would agree with you on any other low income housing.

Old folks do pretty well together, shop, exercise, get each other to the doctors etc. My mom lives in a over 50 [[most are in their 70s and 80s) place and her neighbors over the years have made her life easier and mine without a doubt.

[Hypestyles]

make it mixed, and market it it heavily toward everyone. let different types of folks see each other on a recurring basis.

[detroitsgwenivere]

The reason someone might be quick to jump on comments like the ones voiced by Ms. Mosley, is because they read like an elitist espousal depending on the tone, especially coming from a publication like Crain's. Even if it's really not the case.

[Mackinaw]

Imo, having the whole apartment under one income level pretty much reinforces economic segregation and the concentration of those with a specific income to a specific spot or building[[s). Income limited developments haven't had the best track record, even when considering senior housing. And actually, even if this particular apartment building was still limited to just senior housing, it still should be mixed-income. Or like, market-rate but open to a number of those on financial assistance like so many other apartment buildings.

There's a solution here, but I think the bigger factor is just whether the developer wants that easy public financing rather than anything specific to the above points.

Absolutely 100% correct. Having studied the LIHTC trends [[and I am guessing comparable subsidies are at hand here), I can say that it's hard to avoid the segregation described in your first paragraph because of the fact you describe in the second. A small minority of developers have been willing to mix income levels, and their developments are often successful, but most are too risk averse to try it, or they are in urban markets where the rents aren't high enough as a general matter so they want to max out their subsidy.

[Mackinaw]

People feel much more comfortable segregating themselves based on socioeconomic status than any other characteristic.

Also completely correct, but isn't a central city environment the ideal place to start breaking that down? I'd say yes. And isn't it possible that the divides are much more subtle that people think, such that someone making 150k/year could share a wall with someone making 50k/year but neither would feel out of place? It's not like you go around surveying your neighbors about their income.

[sumas]

Also completely correct, but isn't a central city environment the ideal place to start breaking that down? I'd say yes. And isn't it possible that the divides are much more subtle that people think, such that someone making 150k/year could share a wall with someone making 50k/year but neither would feel out of place? It's not like you go around surveying your neighbors about their income.

You have never lived in GPP. your address places you in what strata your income is. We did fine, two incomes.

"Life will kill you". Situations change. Will stay in Detroit but life situations change. You do not not denigrate seniors nor other minorities. So much richness, so much real art, brains and talent.

[Wesley Mouch]

Also completely correct, but isn't a central city environment the ideal place to start breaking that down? I'd say yes. And isn't it possible that the divides are much more subtle that people think, such that someone making 150k/year could share a wall with someone making 50k/year but neither would feel out of place? It's not like you go around surveying your neighbors about their income.

Behavior such as choice of where you live is not something to 'break down'. People can choose any day of the week to live in one place or another. The idea that central planners should what communities should look like is a mistake.

Build your own great community as you want it to be, and if you do more people will choose to live in your community. Let go of the idea that the ideas and behaviors of others are something to be 'fixed'.

You might want to read this about attempts at creating walkable communities:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...sprawl/385741/

[Mackinaw]

Behavior such as choice of where you live is not something to 'break down'. People can choose any day of the week to live in one place or another.

What part of my post suggests telling people where to live? Your response is a non-sequitur detached from market reality. Of course people choose where they want to live. This is a discussion about the government's role in creating and fostering neighborhoods. Here, it's about Seward St. The government, representing the people, is playing a role through furnishing public funding to developers. Meanwhile the City government, by and for the people, might also have some say, under its basic land use powers. The discussion is whether tax credits should be furnished in an unlimited fashion, or perhaps limited [[if that is even possible under relevant regulations). If they are, then the developer is likely to build a building that does not permit socioeconomic and/or age diversity. If they are limited, i.e. a condition of their availability is that the developer is capped at, say, 60% subsidized unit, then the building does permit people who aren't poor or aren't old to live there. If you've read closely, you'll know that I am in favor of the later. So I am in favor of giving people more options as to where they may choose to live.

Thanks for mischaracterizing. Read closer.