Brush Park Development

[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.

[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.

[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.

[mwilbert]

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.

Sure, which is why I specifically mentioned zoning exemptions as a way cities get affordable units. You are certainly correct that those exemptions become more valuable as land gets more expensive, while the cost of building an additional unit doesn't really go up much, so you can bargain for more affordable units in that situation. Of course, you need them more too.