Brush Park Development

[mikeg19]

Looks like Gilberts Brush Park development has grown from 300 to 400 residences. Starting spring 2016.

http://www.mlive.com/business/detroi...art_river_home

[bust]

That's great news. And I think it's a smart move to scale up.

There was a lot to like about the initial designs, but so many two-story buildings didn't make sense to me.

I'm more excited about this development than any other in the works right now, for the possibility it will become the kind of dense, human-scaled, mixed-use community [[I think) the city needs.

It seems to me Orleans Landing has a lot of potential too, for the same reasons. And both are in great locations.

Here's hoping they follow through to create an urban fabric conducive to community. A few items on my wishlist:

1) A range of apartment sizes, from studios to 3BR;
2) Some small ground floor commercial and/or flexible spaces to provide an opportunity for every-day conveniences and work spaces within walking distance;
3) Stoops, balconies, roof decks, well-designed pocket parks to encourage community;
4) A few residences with private or shared enclosed yards [[for doggies and gardens).
5) Good construction. Doesn't have to be luxury, but please don't build cheap.

Wishing the developers the best of luck!

[Chicago48]

Looks like Gilberts Brush Park development has grown from 300 to 400 residences. Starting spring 2016.

http://www.mlive.com/business/detroi...art_river_home

If he builds it -- will they come?

[Danny]

Gilberttown has really annexed Brush Park. And the poor will be left out. Here comes "Little Seattle" in Detroit.

[emu steve]

Gilberttown has really annexed Brush Park. And the poor will be left out. Here comes "Little Seattle" in Detroit.

Yep, all of this building will lead to hundred and hundreds of thousands of rich folks [[okay, people of middle class means or higher) moving to the city, crowding out the poor.

This could happen by 2165, I predict...

In the meantime, I see no problem with new housing going up in areas which are devoid of it.

[mikeg19]

Gilberttown has really annexed Brush Park. And the poor will be left out. Here comes "Little Seattle" in Detroit.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why is it Dan Gilbert's responsibility to come up with accommodations for the poor?

He's building market rate homes for people working near downtown. There's 139 square miles in the city, and you wanna single out 1 development for not catering to the poor. If that's the case, then you should condemn basically every development that's happened in the city in the past 10 years for not doing the same. Did you post in the Ransom Grilles thread about Nicole Curtis not giving away the building to the poor? Did you post in the Orleans Landing thread about the development not catering to the poor? How about Harbortown/The Broderick/Lee Plaza/the Hudson site development?????

I do agree, there need to be developments in every city that specifically help the homeless/poor/plain down on their luck people. But to lambaste a housing development in the city that sorely needs it because of the influx of people to downtown is just idiotic. I assume if it was up to you, we should just leave the land as a prairie. Then the poor AND rich could enjoy it.

[southen]

I am assuming nobody read the article where it said that 20% of the development will be affordable housing for at least the next 30 years. I think that is the best way of doing things going forward. To move this city in the right direction it needs diversity otherwise we are just creating another city-vs-suburbs fight but between downtown/midtown and the neighborhoods.

[mikeg19]

I am assuming nobody read the article where it said that 20% of the development will be affordable housing for at least the next 30 years. I think that is the best way of doing things going forward. To move this city in the right direction it needs diversity otherwise we are just creating another city-vs-suburbs fight but between downtown/midtown and the neighborhoods.

Southern, I did see that, but "affordable housing Rate" definition according the DetNews is "80% of the median income of the surrounding area." I highly doubt that any of the poor people in Detroit make 80% of the median income of that area.

[Mackinaw]

That's great news. And I think it's a smart move to scale up.

There was a lot to like about the initial designs, but so many two-story buildings didn't make sense to me.

I'm more excited about this development than any other in the works right now, for the possibility it will become the kind of dense, human-scaled, mixed-use community [[I think) the city needs.

It seems to me Orleans Landing has a lot of potential too, for the same reasons. And both are in great locations.

Here's hoping they follow through to create an urban fabric conducive to community. A few items on my wishlist:

1) A range of apartment sizes, from studios to 3BR;
2) Some small ground floor commercial and/or flexible spaces to provide an opportunity for every-day conveniences and work spaces within walking distance;
3) Stoops, balconies, roof decks, well-designed pocket parks to encourage community;
4) A few residences with private or shared enclosed yards [[for doggies and gardens).
5) Good construction. Doesn't have to be luxury, but please don't build cheap.

Wishing the developers the best of luck!

Agreed completely, especially about the need for outdoor space and/or livable/usable roofs. Anything less would be a disappointment.

And yes, cheapness shows, so these better be solid. In 10 years people are going to have a lot of options for living in the central city, including character-rich historic ones. The new construction needs to be done right to succeed.

[southen]

Southern, I did see that, but "affordable housing Rate" definition according the DetNews is "80% of the median income of the surrounding area." I highly doubt that any of the poor people in Detroit make 80% of the median income of that area.

Yeah, hopefully surrounding area takes into account some areas other than downtown.

[emu steve]

I hope no one misinterprets this:

I have long felt that housing near the downtowns or CBDs should be geared toward those who work in the downtown.

If someone work in the 'burbs, then living in the 'burbs makes sense. Makes for a short commute.

I assume that these housing units will appeal to those who work downtown or midtown. It makes sense.

Does it make sense for someone on public assistance, e.g., to live one mile from downtown? half mile from Comerica? Ford Field? They do not have the financial resources to partake in those kind of activities which are pricey.

The 'target' population for Brush Park 'should' be those who work [[or study locally at WSU, etc.) and play in downtown, midtown, New Center, etc.

[Mackinaw]

I hope no one misinterprets this:

I have long felt that housing near the downtowns or CBDs should be geared toward those who work in the downtown.

If someone work in the 'burbs, then living in the 'burbs makes sense. Makes for a short commute.

I assume that these housing units will appeal to those who work downtown or midtown. It makes sense.

Does it make sense for someone on public assistance, e.g., to live one mile from downtown? half mile from Comerica? Ford Field? They do not have the financial resources to partake in those kind of activities which are pricey.

The 'target' population for Brush Park 'should' be those who work [[or study locally at WSU, etc.) and play in downtown, midtown, New Center, etc.

I cannot interpret this. It assumes that the working poor do not work downtown. Please be aware that vast numbers of people who work, including downtown/midtown, are still poor and entitled to public assistance or subsidized housing. So your statements are either fantastically unaware of this, or implicitly state that such persons should not live in the desirable areas close to downtown. "Why should those folks get to walk to work?! They should be bussing it in from the NE/NW corners of the city!" <<-- even if we had world class transit like NYC, where 90% of the working poor are in the outer boroughs, this would still be a dubious statement. The other way to read your statement is "The white collar workers downtown ought to live in the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown." Not the nicest sentiment.

[401don]

I hope no one misinterprets this:

I have long felt that housing near the downtowns or CBDs should be geared toward those who work in the downtown.

If someone work in the 'burbs, then living in the 'burbs makes sense. Makes for a short commute.

I assume that these housing units will appeal to those who work downtown or midtown. It makes sense.

Does it make sense for someone on public assistance, e.g., to live one mile from downtown? half mile from Comerica? Ford Field? They do not have the financial resources to partake in those kind of activities which are pricey.

The 'target' population for Brush Park 'should' be those who work [[or study locally at WSU, etc.) and play in downtown, midtown, New Center, etc.

I'm not sure what "geared toward those who work in the downtown" means either. If I was young and single I would want to live downtown. The trade-off of a 20 minute drive to Troy or Dearborn against the benefits of enjoying all that downtown offers evenings and weekends would make if well worthwhile. Check out Toronto sometime. There are thousands of people living in downtown condos who reverse commute to the burbs.

[Junjie]

I cannot interpret this. It assumes that the working poor do not work downtown. Please be aware that vast numbers of people who work, including downtown/midtown, are still poor and entitled to public assistance or subsidized housing. So your statements are either fantastically unaware of this, or implicitly state that such persons should not live in the desirable areas close to downtown. "Why should those folks get to walk to work?! They should be bussing it in from the NE/NW corners of the city!" <<-- even if we had world class transit like NYC, where 90% of the working poor are in the outer boroughs, this would still be a dubious statement. The other way to read your statement is "The white collar workers downtown ought to live in the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown." Not the nicest sentiment.

Not piling on at all - thanks for this comment. Made it clear for me as well. I'm embarrassed to admit how easy it is to gloss over the retail workers, food service workers, janitorial staffs, etc. etc. who make downtown work every day.

The question which needs to be answered is whether, assuming growth in greater downtown continues, Detroit will be able to transition to a city that actively manages development in a positive way rather than just doling out incentives and seeing any project as a good one. There needs to be a real strategy. The market is going to continue to raise prices if people continue to move in, and even set-asides for "affordable housing" only go so far [[though of course that makes a difference). At some point you have to invest in good transit or car-free transportation, especially, because with sustained success downtown business/entertainment districts will tend to price out even the middle class. But attention to mixed income housing and encouraging the maximum density feasible on main roads and at transit stops will help.

[emu steve]

I didn't want to sound insensitive to those who may work downtown for modest wages and have difficult commutes, pay for parking, etc.

What I was getting at was Detroit and most other big cities I'm familiar basically had a mass exodus of people from the older parts of the city near the downtowns as suburbanization marched on.

In cities like Detroit they then built public housing there. Moved "Skid Row" from Michigan Ave. to Cass. All the while folks who worked downtown lived and commuted from the suburbs.

That makes no sense to me.

All I was trying to say is that with major employment centers in downtown and mid-town, New Center, those areas should be prime re-development areas because what is better urban planning than to have folks live near where they work.

I did not address the affordable housing issue, although affordable housing seemingly is provided in most new housing development/re-development projects.

[mikeg19]

I think if you look at the United states, even internationally, areas near a CBD or downtown rarely ever cater to the poor. NYC, Miami, Chicago, LA, and on and on, all of the development in these cities is marketed for the wealthy. Hell, even people making decent wages would be very hard pressed to find "affordable" housing in a downtown area. All those nice shiny towers in NYC or Chicago are occupied by wealthy patrons or investors. The "regular" people are the ones on the train riding 40 minutes to work. Why? Simply not affordable to live closer.

[DeLemur]

I think if you look at the United states, even internationally, areas near a CBD or downtown rarely ever cater to the poor. NYC, Miami, Chicago, LA, and on and on, all of the development in these cities is marketed for the wealthy. Hell, even people making decent wages would be very hard pressed to find "affordable" housing in a downtown area. All those nice shiny towers in NYC or Chicago are occupied by wealthy patrons or investors. The "regular" people are the ones on the train riding 40 minutes to work. Why? Simply not affordable to live closer.

It isn't about catering to the poor. Its about having a unified, inclusive Detroit. History in this region has been defined by segregation and people wanting to move far away from each other. In remaking the city we have an opportunity to include the working poor [[largely black Detroiters who've always been here) as part of the equation). Gilbert is a private business person, but Government that looks after everyone overseas some policy. That policy should keep mixed income housing rather than a downtown of extremely high expense and wealth and poor neighborhoods that surround them. Its disappointing to see the 20% affordable housing expire in 30 years or that there is no low income housing included. The city is being remade. Why not make modest asks of new development to include units that someone making 25/30K a year could live in?

[mikeg19]

It isn't about catering to the poor. Its about having a unified, inclusive Detroit. History in this region has been defined by segregation and people wanting to move far away from each other. In remaking the city we have an opportunity to include the working poor [[largely black Detroiters who've always been here) as part of the equation). Gilbert is a private business person, but Government that looks after everyone overseas some policy. That policy should keep mixed income housing rather than a downtown of extremely high expense and wealth and poor neighborhoods that surround them. Its disappointing to see the 20% affordable housing expire in 30 years or that there is no low income housing included. The city is being remade. Why not make modest asks of new development to include units that someone making 25/30K a year could live in?

I see your point, but if I asked you to take a major loss on 20 out of 100 units in a building you own that directly affects your bottom line, would you be cool with that?

In order to get that all important $2.00 per sq foot average, a developer would need to price other units in their building WAY over market rate to compensate for the units on the low end, probably making it even more difficult to sell/rent them out.

[mwilbert]

I see your point, but if I asked you to take a major loss on 20 out of 100 units in a building you own that directly affects your bottom line, would you be cool with that?

In order to get that all important $2.00 per sq foot average, a developer would need to price other units in their building WAY over market rate to compensate for the units on the low end, probably making it even more difficult to sell/rent them out.

Which is why the developers of these project are typically compensated, usually in terms of either financing or by tax or zoning abatement. You can be reasonably sure that when people start building stuff in Detroit without subsidies, there won't be a mandated affordable component. However, as of now, I don't think there is anything significant that isn't being built without subsidy, although it isn't all related to affordability.

[DeLemur]

Yes that's the key here. These projects get public support in tax revenue [[like Ilitch's stadium/housing/restaurant complex) or lower rate financing. Thus then they provide units at an affordable rate. That only makes sense. If we're helping Ilitch expand his business into housing, restaurant and retail then make a portion of this project be for the public good. Who really knows if they actually lose money on an affordable rate rental.

[Junjie]

Which is why the developers of these project are typically compensated, usually in terms of either financing or by tax or zoning abatement. You can be reasonably sure that when people start building stuff in Detroit without subsidies, there won't be a mandated affordable component. However, as of now, I don't think there is anything significant that isn't being built without subsidy, although it isn't all related to affordability.

Just for perspective - not suggesting Detroit is anywhere near this point - it actually works the opposite in some really high-value real estate areas. For instance where I live outside DC [[Arlington), developers trade additional affordable housing units for the right to to build more total units. The county says "typically we'd only allow a ten-store building here and we'd mandate X affordable units, but if you add Y additional affordable units you can build 14 stories" and almost inevitably the developer takes that deal because there's so much more money to be made overall. This is possible mainly near transit [[metro), where the land value and demand to live in that particular spot is so high that the county can freely mandate all sorts of community benefits [[parks, affordable housing, new sidewalks or trails, new school buildings, etc.) and expect developers to simply say "ok" for the chance to charge all those $2000-$3500 per month rents or sell all those $750K condos.

Basically, if there's enough demand that developers want to build without any subsidy, then you can charge them some fraction of their expected profits for the right to build in the form of mandated affordable housing [[or other things). Again, Detroit is obviously nowhere near that point yet. But as demand rises, a city should gain leverage, not lose it.

[hybridy]

Architectural firms named for $70 million Brush Park development

The firms are:

• Detroit-based Hamilton Anderson Associates
• Grosse Pointe Park-based Christian Hurttienne Architects
• http://www.cha-c.com/current/
• Los Angeles-based Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects
• ​http://loharchitects.com/
• Boston-based Merge Architects
• http://mergearchitects.com/
• Chicago-based Studio Dwell

[DeLemur]

Just for perspective - not suggesting Detroit is anywhere near this point - it actually works the opposite in some really high-value real estate areas. For instance where I live outside DC [[Arlington), developers trade additional affordable housing units for the right to to build more total units. The county says "typically we'd only allow a ten-store building here and we'd mandate X affordable units, but if you add Y additional affordable units you can build 14 stories" and almost inevitably the developer takes that deal because there's so much more money to be made overall. This is possible mainly near transit [[metro), where the land value and demand to live in that particular spot is so high that the county can freely mandate all sorts of community benefits [[parks, affordable housing, new sidewalks or trails, new school buildings, etc.) and expect developers to simply say "ok" for the chance to charge all those $2000-$3500 per month rents or sell all those $750K condos.

Basically, if there's enough demand that developers want to build without any subsidy, then you can charge them some fraction of their expected profits for the right to build in the form of mandated affordable housing [[or other things). Again, Detroit is obviously nowhere near that point yet. But as demand rises, a city should gain leverage, not lose it.

good angle

[Brooklyn to Detroit]

I would also like to add that I don't think 20-30 year subsidies for affordable housing are enough to create a unified inclusive Detroit or frankly any city. I am in New York and this is similar to the housing policy we have here for some buildings. What I have seen time and again is that the people who stuck through the city in rough times are evicted when rates change to market levels. I think diverse communities bring richness. I think it is good that low, moderate, middle, and high income neighbors are mixed and mingled. I think it would be amazing if after the history Detroit has had that the City steps forward and really sets a plan that ensures inclusive communities beyond any 20-30 year cap.

[emu steve]

Looks like Gilberts Brush Park development has grown from 300 to 400 residences. Starting spring 2016.

http://www.mlive.com/business/detroi...art_river_home

I wonder if the start date has been delayed because of:

a). Design changes, e.g., adding more units,

b). Desire to come online after M-I is finished and construction at the new arena is mostly complete on the outside.

c). Other reasons such as approvals, financing, etc.

My take: it would be harder to market the units today than say 12 months from today after Woodward and the arena site are all cleaned up.