U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2017, 12:08 PM
 
2,173 posts, read 2,823,425 times
Reputation: 2104

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkeith View Post
Why not bi or tri-level homes? I know they usually are older homes, but what's perceived as the problem? Not currently living in one, but raised a family in a quad level. It worked out really well.
Constantly going up and down stairs, having a lot of living space underground, their overall appearance...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2017, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,938,536 times
Reputation: 3554
Can confirm, when we were house shopping, the bi/tri-level homes were the layouts we specifically avoided.

The layout doesn't appeal to my wife or I at all, both because of the constant stairs and personally, I don't think they're very attractive homes. We didn't particularly jump at ranches, but would look at them if they caught our eye, and did see some especially nice ranches. Bungalow/Cape-Cods and Colonials were the preferred style for us. I prefer the colonial, but colonials were typically out of our price range unless we were to look in the more car-centric mid-century suburbs, like Farmington Hills or Livonia, so we ended up in a Cape Cod. It's old, so age isn't the problem with the Tri-Levels, but rather that their layout didn't age as well as other dated layouts. I may feel differently if I grew up in one, but I didn't, and I don't like them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2017, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,289 posts, read 1,079,160 times
Reputation: 1608
Ours looked a lot like a colonial. The only living space underground was the basement play area, which was just a short flight down for the kids. It was perfect for us; we lived there when our first three were young. There are a lot of different configurations. Different strokes...
Our bedroom was a couple of steps up from the kids' bedrooms, and was very generously sized. Loved the privacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2017, 03:22 PM
 
142 posts, read 118,155 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
Personally I love the bungalow layout for a small family. Upstairs is like a nice, private parental retreat. We have a bedroom, office, bathroom, and the kids rarely come up. Then downstairs the kids have their own bedrooms and a bathroom to share. Throw in the fact that so many bungalows have been customized or modernized with additions for a kitchen/family room and you have a solid low-to-mid budget home with staying power and an ability for a person to live there for 5 years or 50 years (assuming maintenance is kept up).

The division in what us 20-30-somethings are looking for is often on a bit of a lifestyle/ethos divide. Those who embody the more stereotypical Millennial communal ethos of Instagram this and GoFundMe (the Bernie Sanders crowd) are going to be drawn to the Berkleys, Ferndales and Royal Oaks of the world. They want social interaction and artistic shared spaces. Those who subscribe to a more individualistic, libertarian lifestyle (the Rand Paul crowd) are going to prefer what was popular with a majority of their parents, privacy and space for their projects. There's definitely a spectrum, but the majority of urban-dwelling millennials are more communally minded than individually minded, so when one states older inner-ring layout is more popular among young people, they're not wrong, but if someone were to imply that ONLY that kind of layout was popular among young people - they'd be wrong. Naturally if you were to interview millennials who grew up in Armada Township you'd find the majority of them value space over community, but we're getting at the rural/urban divide here, which is present across all generations.

Downtown Berkley has seen quite the renaissance over the last 10 years or so. Viewing an image of 12 Mile in 2007 vs. 12 Mile in 2015 really paints a picture of what's going on there. An observation I've seen is that some of the more established residents are not happy with the number of trendy bars and restaurants opening up. I'm not really sure why this is a problem, but I suppose for some who grew accustomed to the dull Downtown Berkley of prior generations would have an issue with it. Personally I fully support all of the redevelopment. I would put Downtown Berkley at the same level as Downtown Ferndale when it comes to activity or things to do. It's not as hipster or trendy as Ferndale, but it's more upscale and family-friendly. Neither approach the cool-factor and broad appeal of Downtown Royal Oak though.
In your opinion, whats the ratio? What percentage of the under-40 crowd, who will in time make up a majority of home buyers, prefer the inner-ring layout to the more suburban style? My inkling is 60-40 to 70-30. In 30 years, unless tastes change again, i would not be surprised if 60-70% of US-born homebuyers want the more communal feel. Right now, one of the reasons for Troys continued growth is an influx of Indians arriving on work visas. sterling Heights is aided by middle-eastern and Albanian immigrants. Many kids born in the exurbs grow bored and want the downtown nightlife. If 60% avoid a suburbanized area and stability is reliant heavily on new immigrant arrivals, then I do think places like Farmington Hills face a challenge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2017, 03:31 PM
 
142 posts, read 118,155 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
Personally I love the bungalow layout for a small family. Upstairs is like a nice, private parental retreat. We have a bedroom, office, bathroom, and the kids rarely come up. Then downstairs the kids have their own bedrooms and a bathroom to share. Throw in the fact that so many bungalows have been customized or modernized with additions for a kitchen/family room and you have a solid low-to-mid budget home with staying power and an ability for a person to live there for 5 years or 50 years (assuming maintenance is kept up).

The division in what us 20-30-somethings are looking for is often on a bit of a lifestyle/ethos divide. Those who embody the more stereotypical Millennial communal ethos of Instagram this and GoFundMe (the Bernie Sanders crowd) are going to be drawn to the Berkleys, Ferndales and Royal Oaks of the world. They want social interaction and artistic shared spaces. Those who subscribe to a more individualistic, libertarian lifestyle (the Rand Paul crowd) are going to prefer what was popular with a majority of their parents, privacy and space for their projects. There's definitely a spectrum, but the majority of urban-dwelling millennials are more communally minded than individually minded, so when one states older inner-ring layout is more popular among young people, they're not wrong, but if someone were to imply that ONLY that kind of layout was popular among young people - they'd be wrong. Naturally if you were to interview millennials who grew up in Armada Township you'd find the majority of them value space over community, but we're getting at the rural/urban divide here, which is present across all generations.

Downtown Berkley has seen quite the renaissance over the last 10 years or so. Viewing an image of 12 Mile in 2007 vs. 12 Mile in 2015 really paints a picture of what's going on there. An observation I've seen is that some of the more established residents are not happy with the number of trendy bars and restaurants opening up. I'm not really sure why this is a problem, but I suppose for some who grew accustomed to the dull Downtown Berkley of prior generations would have an issue with it. Personally I fully support all of the redevelopment. I would put Downtown Berkley at the same level as Downtown Ferndale when it comes to activity or things to do. It's not as hipster or trendy as Ferndale, but it's more upscale and family-friendly. Neither approach the cool-factor and broad appeal of Downtown Royal Oak though.
I think whats going on in Berkley is the new bars attract a younger, hipper crowd and the older blue-collar workers who have been there for 30 years feel like they are being pushed out or that the city has ignored the "old-timers" in favor of people who arent originally from there, havent shared their experiences, and maybe dont fully understand the old-timers . Its a form of gentrification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2017, 09:27 PM
 
142 posts, read 118,155 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTWflyer View Post
I still think for every millennial type that wants the close-in, small lot houses, there is another one that still desires larger lots and suburban living. Can't paint everyone with a broad brush as so.

I have friends in the 27-30 bracket that are indeed buying 1960s-1970s era colonials and ranges in Rochester Hills and Troy. They want the space/yard, garage for their workshop and toys, etc.

I think the biggest problem that many have the inner-ring bungalows are the ones that are both functionally and cosmetically obsolete. The biggest issue with many is the ones that still only have 1 bathroom, or the upstairs master but only a single bathroom on the main floor, or ones that still have unfinished basements, or dilapidated garages. I've seen some really nice, well maintained and updated bungalows and they are a nice house. I lived in one in Royal Oak for 3 years.
On the flip side, those bungalows SHOULD be more affordable. Not all young homebuyers can afford a $300,000 house.
I very much apply to this. I have one of those obsolete homes. 750 square feet, no basement, limited closet space, extremely dilapidated garage, 1 tiny bathroom. I was 23 and couldnt afford a house in Berkley, Royal Oak or Clawson in 2002. My income, and loan that I was approved for, couldnt get me anything livable north of 11 mile. Im still here. My mortgage is cheap and manageable. There are a lot of people in the service industries, home/yard maintence or construction, light industrial, etc who do not make large wages and right now they cant afford anything anymore. The single mom of 2 kids working at a cleaners and McDonalds in SE Oakland now has to commute farther. She would love an old bungalow but its out of her reach now. Hazel Park, Oak Park, maybe south Madison Heights have a few houses left that fit those incomes, but theyre drying up. The issue isnt that the houses are obsolete, its that the neighborhoods have gone up so high in value that the houses are overpriced to the point where demolition and rebuilding becomes viable. which, in turn, continues jacking up the values farther and farther out of reach from the buyers to whom these houses are useful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2017, 09:37 PM
 
981 posts, read 1,122,220 times
Reputation: 1099
Here's the thing - we are witnessing the gentrification of Royal Oak, Clawson, and Berkley.
Part of the reason is the lack of suitable single-family homes and decent schools in the city of Detroit proper.
Royal Oak has been turning over for almost 20 years now and now we are seeing it in Berkley and even Clawson now.
The home buyers of the new construction aren't the twenty-somethings, most of these are dual-income thirtysomethings.
You are seeing the spillover effect into Madison Heights and Oak Park as they are more affordable options compard to much of the Woodward corridor.

Birmingham is continuing to gentrify as well - the original bungalows are a fast-disappearing species it that town. Its a whole different echlon though the tear-downs are turning into $800k - $1.2 M + homes.

The inner-ring suburbs are filled with bungalows and diffferent cities are more affordable than others. I don't see this as a bad thing at this point. We've come a long way from where we were 7-8 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2017, 03:16 AM
 
1,856 posts, read 2,301,156 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
Personally I love the bungalow layout for a small family. Upstairs is like a nice, private parental retreat. We have a bedroom, office, bathroom, and the kids rarely come up. Then downstairs the kids have their own bedrooms and a bathroom to share. Throw in the fact that so many bungalows have been customized or modernized with additions for a kitchen/family room and you have a solid low-to-mid budget home with staying power and an ability for a person to live there for 5 years or 50 years (assuming maintenance is kept up).

The division in what us 20-30-somethings are looking for is often on a bit of a lifestyle/ethos divide. Those who embody the more stereotypical Millennial communal ethos of Instagram this and GoFundMe (the Bernie Sanders crowd) are going to be drawn to the Berkleys, Ferndales and Royal Oaks of the world. They want social interaction and artistic shared spaces. Those who subscribe to a more individualistic, libertarian lifestyle (the Rand Paul crowd) are going to prefer what was popular with a majority of their parents, privacy and space for their projects. There's definitely a spectrum, but the majority of urban-dwelling millennials are more communally minded than individually minded, so when one states older inner-ring layout is more popular among young people, they're not wrong, but if someone were to imply that ONLY that kind of layout was popular among young people - they'd be wrong. Naturally if you were to interview millennials who grew up in Armada Township you'd find the majority of them value space over community, but we're getting at the rural/urban divide here, which is present across all generations.

Downtown Berkley has seen quite the renaissance over the last 10 years or so. Viewing an image of 12 Mile in 2007 vs. 12 Mile in 2015 really paints a picture of what's going on there. An observation I've seen is that some of the more established residents are not happy with the number of trendy bars and restaurants opening up. I'm not really sure why this is a problem, but I suppose for some who grew accustomed to the dull Downtown Berkley of prior generations would have an issue with it. Personally I fully support all of the redevelopment. I would put Downtown Berkley at the same level as Downtown Ferndale when it comes to activity or things to do. It's not as hipster or trendy as Ferndale, but it's more upscale and family-friendly. Neither approach the cool-factor and broad appeal of Downtown Royal Oak though.
Is there another term you could use besides "communally minded" to distinguish the mindset of the streetcar suburbs from the classic suburban sprawl cities, cities like Troy and Farmington Hills. I think those sprawl cities have great pride in community, and are community-minded - that's why they have great schools, recreation centers, libraries, parks, programming, festivals, etc.

Downtown Ferndale is larger and has a lot more going on than Downtown Berkley, but I perceive that Berkley appeals to a different demographic. Four example, there are two 4-story mixed use projects being built in downtown Ferndale right now, I don't think that Berkley will see something like that because it appeals more to families.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DTWflyer View Post
Here's the thing - we are witnessing the gentrification of Royal Oak, Clawson, and Berkley.
Part of the reason is the lack of suitable single-family homes and decent schools in the city of Detroit proper.
Royal Oak has been turning over for almost 20 years now and now we are seeing it in Berkley and even Clawson now.
The home buyers of the new construction aren't the twenty-somethings, most of these are dual-income thirtysomethings.
You are seeing the spillover effect into Madison Heights and Oak Park as they are more affordable options compard to much of the Woodward corridor.
In general, Detroit has better housing stock than those trendy cities in SE Oakland County. Whereas, 90% of the houses in Royal Oak, Clawson, Ferndale, are generally unremarkable, Detroit has many such houses as well, BUT also has many blocks such as below that those 3 don't have much of:

Aviation Subdivision

Schaefer/McNichols

It's the schools and safety that is keeping back Detroit, not the housing stock.

Last edited by usroute10; 07-19-2017 at 03:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2017, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,938,536 times
Reputation: 3554
Lots of really good discussion in the last few posts. Great points made about the gentrification issues of old vs. young. This is certainly a thing, and I can completely understand the frustration for an established resident as hair salons, corner markets, and repair garages get replaced with upscale novelty shops, Irish pubs, and pizza/wine patios. Is the new store better for the city? Well, it can pay higher rent and attract higher rent residents to its proximity, but this is a biased definition of "better" and the established resident likely doesn't subscribe to it. Another issue is that the established resident bought their house when it was an affordable working-class suburb. Their kids may now be working class and unable to afford to buy in their old neighborhood. This is a real, and problematic issue with gentrification. Both from the obvious poor to upper middle class issues in Greater Downtown Detroit and the less obvious working to professional class being seen in SE Oakland. Now I get that this is a whole different topic, but is gentrification really bad for the established resident? Prop A protects their taxes, new-build tax revenue will increase city services, new stores will increase property values; however, if you're a renter it would be a financial nightmare.

There is lots of new development occurring in Berkley right now, and while the majority of it comes in the form of 2,200 square foot houses replacing 800 square foot ones (42 last year alone), there's currently a decent townhome development on Coolidge and a project proposal on the table right now for a 138 unit fancy-pants apartment/condo/townhome complex. I'm one of the vocal activists in calling for mixed use, and I'm hoping we get that. While Ferndale may eventually hit Royal Oak status with its downtown and Berkley certainly never will, right now, I'm really never any more entertained when I visit 9 Mile than when I visit 12 Mile. That being said, I'm also in my 30's and have kids; and different amenities appeal to different demographics. It's also true that nearly all of the new-builds are being bought by people who are 35+, but these communities are still probably 75% 1920s-1950s housing stock, so there's plenty of options for the < 35 crowd.

Actually I stick by the communally minded term. Note, I didn't say community minded, but rather communally minded. That is people who want to live more collectively by using the neighborhood park rather than their quarter acre yard, or who would rather spend their expendable money dining at an upscale pub with friends and strangers, rather than working on their four-wheeler and sharing a beer with their tight group. Both can be great, strong communities - as Troy and Farmington Hills both demonstrate quite well. Again, these are stereotypes and there's crossover all over the place, but the stereotypes are anchored in my observations.

And that's tough to say just what percentage of the 20-40 crowd fits each, because of the spectrum. I also have a biased perspective where probably 90% of my friends would take the streetcar suburbs over the strip mall suburbs, but this is because over the last 10 years I've lived primarily in older, established areas. There's certainly demand for mid-century suburbs and exurbs from the younger crowd, but it's no where near as strong as it was from the Gen-X homebuyers of the 90s-00s, and even that was no where near the demand for it from the Boomers of the 70s-80s. I'd say slowdog's estimations are in the ballpark for a more diverse crowd. It certainly shows a shift from the last 40-50 years, that's for sure. Hopefully this preference for densification applies to all inner-ring areas though. I would hate to see perfectly good towns like Warren hollow out because we're all a bunch of snobs who demand Royal Oak, or move clear out to Milford if we can't have it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2017, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,289 posts, read 1,079,160 times
Reputation: 1608
My three oldest millennials love their homes in the large suburbs, and want their 1/4 acre (or much larger, in the case of one of them) yard. No one has a 4x4, lol. The youngest dreams of a place in Detroit someday. So far none of them has expressed interest in the communities mentioned above for a place to live. Some of this has to do with where they work; they like a short commute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top