Which premier town is on the downfall? (Detroit, Pontiac: rental, how much)

[uchi90]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

How long ago was this written? Many or most of the tax credits are expired

The person above you just said only *TWO* new residential buildings have gone up in Midtown/dtown in the last 25 years.

[belleislerunner]

Here's pictures of 37 developments in downtown/midtown in various stages. A far cry more than "two".

Detroit Renderings - Album on Imgur

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by uchi90

The person above you just said only *TWO* new residential buildings have gone up in Midtown/dtown in the last 25 years.

That is true. Someone did say that. I think it is inaccurate, or maybe just an exaggeration (or whatever the opposite of exaggeration is - when people neagaively exaggerate by understating something - is there a word for that?). ,They have finally stopped destroying our legacy architecture and are converting buildings rather than razing them and building new ones. However that may be somewhat misleading because there are many new residential buildings during that time (new in that they were just empty shells before).

Broderick, David Whitney, Book Cadillac, Fort Shelby, Kales. .. There are more, but I would have to look them up to refresh my memory. There are also a lot of "new" residential buildings on the upcoming list. The coolest of which, that I am aware of, are the David Stott building and the Leeland Hotel. (It is not entirely clear what use Stott will have, but apparently it will be at least partially residential. Millander Center is supposedly also scheduled for a major overhaul. There is a list of the major buildings currently scheduled for rehab/conversion it has about 40 buildings on it. Funding is in place for some, work has started on some and others are still in the funding/planning stage, but they are all underway. It takes 5 - 7 years from "Let's do it!" to "open for Business" for most of these projects.

If you want new, you will get new in the stadium district. There is little worth saving there, so you can have your new buildings and I can have my irreplaceable classic architecture and we can all be happy.

Incidentally, Los Angeles' downtown's rebirth as a residential place was also primarily conversions of unused office buildings. Building new is out of date. Today's cities recycle their irreplaceable architecture rather than tearing down and building new. It is smart business, better for the city, and environmentally more responsible.

[usroute10]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

That is true. Someone did say that. I think it is inaccurate, or maybe just an exaggeration (or whatever the opposite of exaggeration is - when people neagaively exaggerate by understating something - is there a word for that?). ,They have finally stopped destroying our legacy architecture and are converting buildings rather than razing them and building new ones. However that may be somewhat misleading because there are many new residential buildings during that time (new in that they were just empty shells before).

Broderick, David Whitney, Book Cadillac, Fort Shelby, Kales. .. There are more, but I would have to look them up to refresh my memory. There are also a lot of "new" residential buildings on the upcoming list. The coolest of which, that I am aware of, are the David Stott building and the Leeland Hotel. (It is not entirely clear what use Stott will have, but apparently it will be at least partially residential. Millander Center is supposedly also scheduled for a major overhaul. There is a list of the major buildings currently scheduled for rehab/conversion it has about 40 buildings on it. Funding is in place for some, work has started on some and others are still in the funding/planning stage, but they are all underway. It takes 5 - 7 years from "Let's do it!" to "open for Business" for most of these projects.

If you want new, you will get new in the stadium district. There is little worth saving there, so you can have your new buildings and I can have my irreplaceable classic architecture and we can all be happy.

Incidentally, Los Angeles' downtown's rebirth as a residential place was also primarily conversions of unused office buildings. Building new is out of date. Today's cities recycle their irreplaceable architecture rather than tearing down and building new. It is smart business, better for the city, and environmentally more responsible.

I said there was 2 new construction apartment buildings in the CBD. DOWNTOWN. This uchi guy has an agenda - to downplay the resurgence of downtown and the surrounding areas. I am just trying to relay facts.

There is plenty of repurposing of older buildings in downtown into mixed use/residential, but concerning new construction, the only 2 buildings are "the Griswold" on Michigan Avenue and the micro-apartments building being built at the corner of Griswold and Grand River. Before them, the last new apartment building in downtown was the 1991 construction of the 3rd tower of the Riverfront Apartments.

In midtown, I count 5 newer luxury condo places - The Auburn on Cass, Studio One on Woodward, the "Nine on Third" on Third Street, The Ellington at Woodard and Mack, and the still in construction "The Scott". There have been several other townhouse developments over the last decade or two in midtown, but those mostly cater to working class/lower middle class. An example of this, is this development at Brainard and 2nd.

[Coldjensens]

The point is NEW construction is not the measure of growth/rebirth. In fact for a City like Detroit it is generally a bad thing. Tearing down our legacy architecture and putting up cheap new buildings is not the way to make a city great again. One of the best things Detroit had going for it is its existing architecture and history. Re-purposing what we have is the key. They can infill with new stuff later. If the focus was on building new while allowing our legacy building to continue to decay, Detroit would lose its identity and appeal. We have done far too much of that already.

Perhaps Gilbert's new planned 60 Story tower will appeal to you as "New" (Since it will be entirely new). Detroit offers something for everyone.

[734accountant]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

The point is NEW construction is not the measure of growth/rebirth. In fact for a City like Detroit it is generally a bad thing. Tearing down our legacy architecture and putting up cheap new buildings is not the way to make a city great again. One of the best things Detroit had going for it is its existing architecture and history. Re-purposing what we have is the key. They can infill with new stuff later. If the focus was on building new while allowing our legacy building to continue to decay, Detroit would lose its identity and appeal. We have done far too much of that already.

Perhaps Gilbert's new planned 60 Story tower will appeal to you as "New" (Since it will be entirely new). Detroit offers something for everyone.

We've been hearing about Gilbert's 'planned' towers for what, 8 to 10 years? Chicago and DC throw up towers every other month. Heck, even Ann Arbor has thrown up a dozen towers over the last decade. I do not buy the Detroit rebirth. I think downtown might stabilize, but the rest of the city is a pit, and the inner ring burbs will get get worse and worse. It's zero sum.

[usroute10]

Originally Posted by 734accountant

We've been hearing about Gilbert's 'planned' towers for what, 8 to 10 years? Chicago and DC throw up towers every other month. Heck, even Ann Arbor has thrown up a dozen towers over the last decade. I do not buy the Detroit rebirth. I think downtown might stabilize, but the rest of the city is a pit, and the inner ring burbs will get get worse and worse. It's zero sum.

Well, Mr. Gilbert is building a new apartment building currently at the corner of Griswold and Grand River



And to say the rest of the city is a pit is hyperbole.

And for the umpteenth time for you cynical, negative suburbanites and other outsiders, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THE WHOLE CITY OF DETROIT IS ON THE UPSWING, just the small area of the greater downtown.

[Coldjensens]

On an evening walk this week I noted something I had not really realized before. There are a huge number of small apartments/offices being renovated in smaller buildings. I counted 18 6-10 story buildings with the upper floor apartments/office being renovated on my half hour walkabout. Normally I do not pay any attention to those smaller buildings, but there are dozens and dozens of them and it looks like every third one if being renovated. I wonder if there wil be a market dip when all that space becomes available.

[Samantha7V]

Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie

As a slightly-older Millennial (30), with a same-aged partner, growing family, and moderate income - I can assure you that a McMansion in the exurbs appeals to us about as much as an extended cable package, a Lincoln Town Car, and Hillary Clinton. We've probably started our family 5ish years earlier than most people of our generation will, but I think we're a better representation of what to expect from a Millennial family than the transient, urbane hipster or your 29 year old basement-dweller. Though I admittedly have no sources to back this up, unless you want to hang out?

Regarding the Millennial "Brain Drain" of the Late-00s, these are a couple of recent studies that largely refute the claim that this still exists:
Is "brain drain" a myth? Study suggests Metro Detroit leads nation in college grad retention | Michigan Radio
5 Surprising Cities Rapidly Attracting Millennial Job Seekers

We are also a millennial family with young kids. When looking for a place to move to be closer to my husband's job near Detroit everyone older than us told us to stay in Livingston county. They would drive from Howell/Fenton to Detroit every day!! I cannot believe people do that drive just to have a huge house and yard. You couldn't pay us to drive that far. I much prefer my new house in the Pointes. Even the people are friendlier here surprisingly.

Yes, I know some that moved away but most of them aren't married. Most of the pre-2010 grads I knew stayed and I know of many who did move and are now back in Michigan once getting married.

[Coldjensens]

So far 2 of our 5 kids have moved away. One is planning t move away, 1 is still in college and on in high school. However, the issue to me is not whether they move away. Kids do that, they want to find their own place or try something new.

To me the issues are 1. Whether they will eventually come back; and 2. whether we can attract kids from other areas who are looking to get away from their home venue and make their own place/try something new - and ten whether they will stay for more than a few years.

We do draw some people from elsewhere. Not as many as say Austin or Denver or Portland, but we are on the radar screen. This is the place of opportunity, a place where you can make a difference, and a place of rebirth that is in the process of shaping itself into what it will be later. That appeals to a segment of young people, not all, but a number. we cannot say they are flocking here, but there is a trickle where there was once none.