Jump to content

Two new residential projects for East Hills


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

As far as I know, there is nothing that says something in a Historic District has to look historic. Yes, historic buildings need to be (and should be) maintained to keep their original look, but to stop different architectural styles from "polluting" the district is just stupid. Even Heritage Hill was built up over many years, with many architectural styles. I'm sure some people were not at all pleased when Frank Lloyd Wright built house(s) in the Hill. Totally out of character from the existing structures. Was it "wrong"? No.

 

This stuff drives me nuts. Architectural styles change. I'm 100% for preservation. But new structures on vacant lots should be able to reflect the architecture of the time.

 

Joe 

 

It isn't fair to blame people for doing their jobs.  I don't know how this was surprising.  I doubt the HPC's denial had anything to do with the placement of the driveways.  A project needs to be compatible with the existing architecture, and I don't think anyone could agree that this was with a straight face. They took a flyer on this one and it didn't work.  It would not be hard to redesign this and get it passed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As far as I know, there is nothing that says something in a Historic District has to look historic.

 

This stuff drives me nuts. Architectural styles change. I'm 100% for preservation. But new structures on vacant lots should be able to reflect the architecture of the time.

 

The standards require new construction to be "compatible".  That's subject to interpretation, but we already had that discussion and I don't particularly care to revisit it again in any degree of detail.  As for Wright, the early Prairie style was little more than an innovation within the Craftsman and Arts and Crafts styles, which in turn were adaptations of existing styles. It clearly built on established precedent, even if it was different.  A succinct description of Modernism which I located on the web reads as follows: "an interest in exploring new materials, a rejection of historical precedents, and a simplification of forms by a reduction of ornament."  To me, that seems incompatible with traditional architecture by definition, but I suppose others might see it otherwise.  I would also disagree that this is the architecture "of the time".  It's simply one style of architecture that some people like.  It is no more "of the time" that a an attractive Craftsman project would be. 

 

Personally, if someone proposed building this across the street from my house, I would be furious.  Would they ever allow a brand new Queen Anne in a historic district established renowned for its Bauhaus, International, and Modernist architecture?  Not in a million years.  But we're supposed to roll over, suck it up and let them dump this stuff anywhere?  Like I said before, if East Hills wants this stuff, they can get to work getting rid of that historical designation and go nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, there is nothing that says something in a Historic District has to look historic. Yes, historic buildings need to be (and should be) maintained to keep their original look, but to stop different architectural styles from "polluting" the district is just stupid. Even Heritage Hill was built up over many years, with many architectural styles. I'm sure some people were not at all pleased when Frank Lloyd Wright built house(s) in the Hill. Totally out of character from the existing structures. Was it "wrong"? No.

 

This stuff drives me nuts. Architectural styles change. I'm 100% for preservation. But new structures on vacant lots should be able to reflect the architecture of the time.

 

Joe 

 

Exactly Joe. Silly obstructionists. Must be interesting to live in a world that is so black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any projects in East Hills that received historic preservation tax credits, other than ICCF. Wealthy Street was its own Ren Zone for a while, but I think that expired didn't it?

 

It used to be a very simple process to receive State of Michigan credits on your personal income taxes, and a lot of people took advantage of them.  Basically, if you spent more than 10% of the SEV, the State picked up 25% of the cost.   Typically, a decent paint job, rewire, and a few photos would qualify you to deduct 25% of the cost.  And this worked on your own house.  Why do you think these districts were all created?  :)  Snyder killed that off around 2012.  Federal credits of 20% are available to most non-residential properties in a historic district where an amount equal to the building's adjusted basis is being spent, so rental properties being rehabbed would qualify, although it's a little more of a pain in the neck than state credits.  Combined credits could often net you 40%.  RenZone is completely separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historic districts are created for a number of reasons, be it to preserve a very specific type of building material, maintain neighborhood density, or to guard property values. Places like Beacon Hill, Boston are like a museum in many respects; the architecture, setbacks, parkways, public furnishings, and density have been preserved such that it can feel like a time warp (though the horses have been replaced with horsepower). Kerrytown, Ann Arbor, on the other hand, was designated a historic district when bland apartment buildings began to replace older housing stock and citizens were concerned an important part of the city might be forever altered. The district doesn't feel like a complete time capsule, but it preserves some great urban elements and a housing stock the City believes to be a positive force.

The extent to which new developments are "matched" to a historic district varies greatly and is ultimately up to the citizens who created the district. "Matching" new structures to Heritage Hill is problematic in that the district was founded, in part, because of the diversity of the housing stock. Many a home in Heritage Hill was constructed by a successful Grand Rapids immigrant wishing to display pride for their homeland and/or "one-up" their neighbor; as a result homes with Greek, Spanish, Victorian, and Prairie roots are represented. And yet, I don't believe any and all potential Heritage Hill developments should be accepted with open arms. The neighborhood has a good thing going, and people understandably want to maintain it.

Especially along its borders, East Hills has a diversity of building styles, so I think it can handle modern designs well enough. I'm surprised this latest proposal wasn't accepted, but maybe the parcels are seen as prominent enough that the HPC wants to make sure they get it right. I don't think it's as simple as saying "we will / will not accept modern buildings." The "architecture of our time" varies greatly in quality, and renderings have a way of masking or exaggerating certain elements.

maxresdefault.jpg

Verne%20Barry%20Photos%20by%20Pioneer%20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more food for thought, from a paper for the Congress for New Urbanism by Steven Semes.  A lot of this debate centers around urbanism and how we further the development of an existing place designated as a historic district.  These excerpts adeptly address both concerns far more eloquently and succinctly than I am able: 

 

"But why would one work to conserve examples of a traditional architectural culture only to deny their validity as models for the design of new structures in their midst? How does surrounding historic structures with alien forms help us to understand and value either the historic structure itself or the now-vanished urban context that originally gave it meaning? It seems that the current stylistic debate prevents many architects, urbanists, and preservationists from drawing together the urban scale and the individual building scale, historic structures and new ones, into a vision of the city as a place of continuity and harmony, instead of contrast and disruption."

 

"Since the Charter [for the New Urbanism] and Standards [for Historic Preservation] were written, modernist architecture has become increasingly transgressive in its attitude toward traditional environments. Modernist architects, unable to remove historic landmarks entirely, seem driven to put their 'contemporary stamp' on every one they can find. Andres Duany has characterized this compulsion as essentially parasitic, seeking to compensate for the semantic emptiness of the new work by juxtaposition with older buildings whose visual richness acts as a 'foil' for forms which, if placed on a suburban lot, would be far less impressive. (16) But an architectural culture dedicated to producing unique gestures that refuse to form relationships with surrounding buildings on any basis other than confrontation is antithetical to the objectives of both preservation and New Urbanism."

 

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/semess_cnu18.pdf

 

I probably don't need to detail who Andres Duany is for the regulars, but for any visitors, he is a principal of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) (http://www.dpz.com) which is the largest and most successful New Urbanist town planning outfit in the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more food for thought, from a paper for the Congress for New Urbanism by Steven Semes.  A lot of this debate centers around urbanism and how we further the development of an existing place designated as a historic district.  These excerpts adeptly address both concerns far more eloquently and succinctly than I am able: 

 

"But why would one work to conserve examples of a traditional architectural culture only to deny their validity as models for the design of new structures in their midst? How does surrounding historic structures with alien forms help us to understand and value either the historic structure itself or the now-vanished urban context that originally gave it meaning? It seems that the current stylistic debate prevents many architects, urbanists, and preservationists from drawing together the urban scale and the individual building scale, historic structures and new ones, into a vision of the city as a place of continuity and harmony, instead of contrast and disruption."

 

"Since the Charter [for the New Urbanism] and Standards [for Historic Preservation] were written, modernist architecture has become increasingly transgressive in its attitude toward traditional environments. Modernist architects, unable to remove historic landmarks entirely, seem driven to put their 'contemporary stamp' on every one they can find. Andres Duany has characterized this compulsion as essentially parasitic, seeking to compensate for the semantic emptiness of the new work by juxtaposition with older buildings whose visual richness acts as a 'foil' for forms which, if placed on a suburban lot, would be far less impressive. (16) But an architectural culture dedicated to producing unique gestures that refuse to form relationships with surrounding buildings on any basis other than confrontation is antithetical to the objectives of both preservation and New Urbanism."

 

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/semess_cnu18.pdf

 

I probably don't need to detail who Andres Duany is for the regulars, but for any visitors, he is a principal of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) (http://www.dpz.com) which is the largest and most successful New Urbanist town planning outfit in the world. 

 

 

This discussion reminds me of suburban developments that have "Architectural Review Committees" that determine if you can even build there. Usually found in the Forest Hills Eastern and Central areas of town. They won't ever tell you what they want to see, only what they don't want to see. It's pretty aggravating.

 

So yes, I see no difference between urban elitists in historic districts like HH and people who have a gated home within a gated community (like some people in Catamount for instance). Either way it's more about keeping people out than bringing people in. Even if that isn't the intent (but secretly wink wink it is the intent, just the same reason why East Grand Rapids is happy to raise its property taxes every chance it gets to keep the unwanted out).

 

The difference between Forest Hills Eastern is that people are paying upwards of $250/sf for construction, and $250,000 for a 1/2 acre lot. In East Hills, there's no market for that. You're lucky to get $168/sf (which is about what Fairmount Square went for). You tack on 10 - 15% for architectural drawings to a project and the numbers gets squeezed, squeezed, squeezed to where a project is insurmountable and infeasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be very rare, maybe even a first, but I agree with everything x99 has said so far here.  For one, the commission was interpreting the code they have.  It's not NIMBYism, it's doing their jobs.  Second of all, the code is written to maintain a fabric and an atmosphere, not just the structures already there.  Placing a modernist building in such and environment does to the atmosphere of the place what placing a selection of tacos and burritos would onto the menu of a chinese restaurant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be very rare, maybe even a first, but I agree with everything x99 has said so far here.  For one, the commission was interpreting the code they have.  It's not NIMBYism, it's doing their jobs.  Second of all, the code is written to maintain a fabric and an atmosphere, not just the structures already there.  Placing a modernist building in such and environment does to the atmosphere of the place what placing a selection of tacos and burritos would onto the menu of a chinese restaurant.

 

I guess my issue with historic districts is that they are classist. Believe me, I love old architecture and the fabric that was created back before the automobile became dominant. But it seems to me that modern historic districts have become the way to separate the haves and the have nots. Even in Heritage Hill, you basically have the landowners and the serfs. Single family homeowners are usually fairly well off, or the house is a rental that is occupied by Stella's servers and GRCC students. There's no in between. You'll rarely find a middle class hispanic family in Heritage Hill.

 

Ann Arbor is like a large scale historic district. Ypsillanti is like its more economically and racially diverse second cousin.

 

This is an oldie but a goodie by Urbanophile:

 

http://www.urbanophile.com/2007/04/15/why-i-hate-historic-districts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an unfortunate side-effect resulting from difficulty of establishing new development (in regards to demolishing old for new.)  The value and maintenance of the properties leads the property ownership to fall in the hands of wealthier people even if the demand for housing in the area is high for others.  I think the best way to counter that is size and location of such districts.  As much as I'd love to see the current fabric all between HH and EGR remain as it is, it can't all be maintained as historic districts.

But there's two different kinds, are there not?  In HH, demolition of existing structures is a giant no.  In Heartside, it's permitted, but the new structure has to respect the environment, right?  Heartside is doing quite well at keeping a balance of peoples.  Which is East Hills?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an unfortunate side-effect resulting from difficulty of establishing new development (in regards to demolishing old for new.)  The value and maintenance of the properties leads the property ownership to fall in the hands of wealthier people even if the demand for housing in the area is high for others.  I think the best way to counter that is size and location of such districts.  As much as I'd love to see the current fabric all between HH and EGR remain as it is, it can't all be maintained as historic districts.

But there's two different kinds, are there not?  In HH, demolition of existing structures is a giant no.  In Heartside, it's permitted, but the new structure has to respect the environment, right?  Heartside is doing quite well at keeping a balance of peoples.  Which is East Hills?

 

The question of demolition applies to all historic districts in Michigan in the same way, as far as I know. But demolition of existing structures is not what the East Hills projects got hung up on. It was that they did not fit the character of the district, apparently.

 

Heartside has economic diversity because of low-income tax subsidized housing. It's not organic. It might even skew too much to the low income side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my issue with historic districts is that they are classist. Believe me, I love old architecture and the fabric that was created back before the automobile became dominant. But it seems to me that modern historic districts have become the way to separate the haves and the have nots. Even in Heritage Hill, you basically have the landowners and the serfs. Single family homeowners are usually fairly well off, or the house is a rental that is occupied by Stella's servers and GRCC students. There's no in between. You'll rarely find a middle class hispanic family in Heritage Hill.

 

tSlater is right here.  It isn't the historic district that is the issue.  It's the houses that are in it.  Most of the houses in Heritage Hill are large, elaborate, and were never designed for affordable upkeep. Painting bills can be $10,000 to $40,000.  Boilers are $10,000.  Roofs are anywhere from $20,000 to $70,000.  Heating bills can be $300 to $500 a month unless you have $5000 to re-insulate the place.  Maintenance on a 2600sf $160,000 house in the Hill eventually will financially ruin someone making $40,000 a year unless they are very, very handy.  In a lot of the foreclosed houses in the Hill, not only was the mortgage not paid, the houses tended to need at least six figures in repairs. 

 

If someone with limited skills wants to live in or near a historic district with a $40,000 family income and not lose everything to the house, they probably need to stick to around 1200 square feet.  From that perspective, I really do think it is a shame they won't allow new construction with attractive vinyl siding and vinyl windows.  Those products have come a long way, but it has been an uphill struggle to get them permitted for new builds.  If they did that, it would not surprise me to see nice, new single family or duplex houses on these lots in East Hills instead of apartment complexes.  Edwin Allen or some other mass builder could easily come in and put up very nice looking, cheap stock plan houses for middle class families.  To me, that makes perfect sense and is what this district was about in the first place and is very "compatible" with the district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tSlater is right here.  It isn't the historic district that is the issue.  It's the houses that are in it.  Most of the houses in Heritage Hill are large, elaborate, and were never designed for affordable upkeep. Painting bills can be $10,000 to $40,000.  Boilers are $10,000.  Roofs are anywhere from $20,000 to $70,000.  Heating bills can be $300 to $500 a month unless you have $5000 to re-insulate the place.  Maintenance on a 2600sf $160,000 house in the Hill eventually will financially ruin someone making $40,000 a year unless they are very, very handy.  In a lot of the foreclosed houses in the Hill, not only was the mortgage not paid, the houses tended to need at least six figures in repairs. 

 

If someone with limited skills wants to live in or near a historic district with a $40,000 family income and not lose everything to the house, they probably need to stick to around 1200 square feet.  From that perspective, I really do think it is a shame they won't allow new construction with attractive vinyl siding and vinyl windows.  Those products have come a long way, but it has been an uphill struggle to get them permitted for new builds.  If they did that, it would not surprise me to see nice, new single family or duplex houses on these lots in East Hills instead of apartment complexes.  Edwin Allen or some other mass builder could easily come in and put up very nice looking, cheap stock plan houses for middle class families.  To me, that makes perfect sense and is what this district was about in the first place and is very "compatible" with the district.

 

You have to be kidding. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be kidding. :)

 

I am not.  How can I complain about, say, http://www.allenedwin.com/img/cls/8445_3209ORIGINAL.jpg or http://www.allenedwin.com/img/cls/8447_3210ORIGINAL.jpg without being a completely hypocritical jerk?  Move that garage around back, break up the mass of siding on the side of the house a bit with a bump out to avoid vinyl seams, and you're there.  What is wood but a substrate covered in a thin coat of vinyl, anyway? Modern quality vinyl does not have to be the beige, cupped and sagging j-channel disaster of 20 years ago. Stuff like this revolutionized what is possible: http://www.certainteed.com/resources/cts154.pdf.  Honestly, I would rather see this with a heavy gauge narrow exposure vinyl than that 8" exposure cement board (my best guess) that was proposed for the so-called "clapboard" sections of this project. 

 

Based on recent sales, there is a definite market for a new $180,000 home of about 1800-2200 finished square feet.  Never thought I would see the day.  With a coherent argument for the vinyl, I think the HPC is at a point where you could probably make single family houses fly at Cherry and Eastern if a multi-family development doesn't rematerialize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my issue with historic districts is that they are classist. Believe me, I love old architecture and the fabric that was created back before the automobile became dominant. But it seems to me that modern historic districts have become the way to separate the haves and the have nots. Even in Heritage Hill, you basically have the landowners and the serfs. Single family homeowners are usually fairly well off, or the house is a rental that is occupied by Stella's servers and GRCC students. There's no in between. You'll rarely find a middle class hispanic family in Heritage Hill.

 

Ann Arbor is like a large scale historic district. Ypsillanti is like its more economically and racially diverse second cousin.

 

This is an oldie but a goodie by Urbanophile:

 

http://www.urbanophile.com/2007/04/15/why-i-hate-historic-districts/

 

It depends on what you consider affordable to the middle class.  there are quite a few homes that sell from the mid 200k's and below.  these are homes in the 2-3000 sq. foot range with comparatively affordable upkeep relative to the larger homes, which I agree are not affordable to maintain for the average middle class family.  the larger issue, why middle class families aren't moving into these homes is the distrust of the local school district.  what middle class families can not afford is to send their kids to private school on top of maintaining a home in the district. 

 

the problem with what x99, you suggest with low cost builders entering the heritage hill market, from the builders perspective, is that there are no large tracts of land that are attractive to these types of builders.  I really doubt that any large builder is going to want to pursue foreclosed properties to tear down and purchasing the few empty lots that aren't for sale in an effort to build half a dozen cheap homes.  

 

From the resident's perspective, I don't really care if my neighborhood is affordable to someone making 40k per year.  no everyone can live where ever they want to live.  Heritage hill is still relatively affordable to people compared to a place like EGR and I wouldn't consider it a wealthy district.  the homes do not require a lot of maintenance if they are cared for properly but the problem is that many of the homes have a ton of deferred maintenance which is expensive to bring up to speed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not.  How can I complain about, say, http://www.allenedwin.com/img/cls/8445_3209ORIGINAL.jpg or http://www.allenedwin.com/img/cls/8447_3210ORIGINAL.jpg without being a completely hypocritical jerk?  Move that garage around back, break up the mass of siding on the side of the house a bit with a bump out to avoid vinyl seams, and you're there.  What is wood but a substrate covered in a thin coat of vinyl, anyway? Modern quality vinyl does not have to be the beige, cupped and sagging j-channel disaster of 20 years ago. Stuff like this revolutionized what is possible: http://www.certainteed.com/resources/cts154.pdf.  Honestly, I would rather see this with a heavy gauge narrow exposure vinyl than that 8" exposure cement board (my best guess) that was proposed for the so-called "clapboard" sections of this project. 

 

Based on recent sales, there is a definite market for a new $180,000 home of about 1800-2200 finished square feet.  Never thought I would see the day.  With a coherent argument for the vinyl, I think the HPC is at a point where you could probably make single family houses fly at Cherry and Eastern if a multi-family development doesn't rematerialize.

 

 

I agree there's a market for new homes like that. Eastbrook's Fairmount Square is essentially that with the homes connected to each other. But if you ever get a chance to go through an Allen Edwin home, you might change your perspective. :) There are a number of production builders who build a really nice home though, in a category above AE or Sable Homes, etc..

 

I wonder how much Project Rehab wants for that corner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there's a market for new homes like that. Eastbrook's Fairmount Square is essentially that with the homes connected to each other. But if you ever get a chance to go through an Allen Edwin home, you might change your perspective. :) There are a number of production builders who build a really nice home though, in a category above AE or Sable Homes, etc..

 

I wonder how much Project Rehab wants for that corner?

 

I've been fairly impressed by the AE homes on the last few Parade tours.  The square footage is good for the price, and the designs have drastically improved.  Sable needs to redesign their exteriors.   Granted, there probably aren't enough lots for a major production builder, but like you imply, there just might be enough space here for a smaller production builder to come in and put up enough houses to make it work.  Problem is, I don't think any of them realize just how marketable they would be. 

 

Fairmount Square concerns me a little.  It never made sense why they needed to put out such a bunch of identical condo schlock just to make that work.  Probably the inability to use vinyl siding and windows and lack of a decent single family market in the area at the time.   Beats me.  But even since then, I think the market for single family houses has probably improved quite a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been fairly impressed by the AE homes on the last few Parade tours.  The square footage is good for the price, and the designs have drastically improved.  Sable needs to redesign their exteriors.   Granted, there probably aren't enough lots for a major production builder, but like you imply, there just might be enough space here for a smaller production builder to come in and put up enough houses to make it work.  Problem is, I don't think any of them realize just how marketable they would be. 

 

Fairmount Square concerns me a little.  It never made sense why they needed to put out such a bunch of identical condo schlock just to make that work.  Probably the inability to use vinyl siding and windows and lack of a decent single family market in the area at the time.   Beats me.  But even since then, I think the market for single family houses has probably improved quite a bit. 

 

Absolutely, if you can find lots in good areas it's a no brainer. I know a couple of builders who are interested in building the city. But as I said, "if" you can find lots.

 

There was this one on Union recently. Sold for more than asking price of $229K.

 

http://www.atproperties.com/13003357/444-s-union-avenue-grand-rapids-michigan-49503

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, if you can find lots in good areas it's a no brainer. I know a couple of builders who are interested in building the city. But as I said, "if" you can find lots.

There was this one on Union recently. Sold for more than asking price of $229K.

http://www.atproperties.com/13003357/444-s-union-avenue-grand-rapids-michigan-49503

 

That was an unbuilt spec house for a very long time.  The increase in the sales price was due to upgrades.  It's sort of a weird house--pricey (I'm guessing $50,000) kitchen, horribly expensive true divided light double pane windows, and fairly expensive trim, but the rest is cheap builder-grade hollow core doors, flat 1x8 trim, wire closet shelves, etc.  It was definitely on our "least loved" list for the price, to be honest. 

 

I think you've got to get 3-4 beds and 2-1/2 baths at 200k or less to be viable in East Hills for anything other than a one-off.  The key to me is the exterior finish. Very few of us have worked with the old materials to a significant degree, particularly those trying to "sell" the HPC on something other than "wood" finishes.  Calling modern "wood" a matching material for the 400 year old tight-grained pine trees that built 100 year old houses is laughable.  That stuff cuts and wears like iron.  Sashes, doors, and exterior trim made from this new "matching and acceptable wood" are rotted in 25-30 years or less.  You wind up with paint covering sawdust and wood filler.  New wood siding is fine when painted correctly, but it typically looks like a good vinyl job because the installers use storyboards and snap chalk lines when they install it so the spacing is uniform and level to the 1/16 of an inch.  Old jobs were eyeballed, with variations up to 1/2 an inch.  Once you lose that variability and ditch the J-channel, whether styrene, wood, or cement is the substrate under the uniform, flat, and smooth protective layer of vinyl, acrylic, binders, fillers, titanium dioxide, and pigment doesn't matter that much.  Getting the HPC to understand this stuff and allow it for new construction is going to be key for a new, affordable single family development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was an unbuilt spec house for a very long time.  The increase in the sales price was due to upgrades.  It's sort of a weird house--pricey (I'm guessing $50,000) kitchen, horribly expensive true divided light double pane windows, and fairly expensive trim, but the rest is cheap builder-grade hollow core doors, flat 1x8 trim, wire closet shelves, etc.  It was definitely on our "least loved" list for the price, to be honest. 

 

I think you've got to get 3-4 beds and 2-1/2 baths at 200k or less to be viable in East Hills for anything other than a one-off.  The key to me is the exterior finish. Very few of us have worked with the old materials to a significant degree, particularly those trying to "sell" the HPC on something other than "wood" finishes.  Calling modern "wood" a matching material for the 400 year old tight-grained pine trees that built 100 year old houses is laughable.  That stuff cuts and wears like iron.  Sashes, doors, and exterior trim made from this new "matching and acceptable wood" are rotted in 25-30 years or less.  You wind up with paint covering sawdust and wood filler.  New wood siding is fine when painted correctly, but it typically looks like a good vinyl job because the installers use storyboards and snap chalk lines when they install it so the spacing is uniform and level to the 1/16 of an inch.  Old jobs were eyeballed, with variations up to 1/2 an inch.  Once you lose that variability and ditch the J-channel, whether styrene, wood, or cement is the substrate under the uniform, flat, and smooth protective layer of vinyl, acrylic, binders, fillers, titanium dioxide, and pigment doesn't matter that much.  Getting the HPC to understand this stuff and allow it for new construction is going to be key for a new, affordable single family development.

 

Yes, it was a "to-be-built" spec I believe, which those rarely sell. In other words, a builder partners with the listing agent and throws up a hypothetical "plan" on the lot. It was only once the house was started that it got more attention, and I think it sold at drywall?? I was keeping an eye on it to see how it did. :)

 

You are exactly describing some of the lower end builders in GR in your first paragraph, but their homes are built with even less quality. No trim at all around windows (just drywall wrap), 2x10 floor joists instead of 2x12, very little if any overhangs on the roof, 4/12 or 6/12 roof pitches, very little energy efficiency rating, some even regularly do 24" on-center exterior walls, which leaves you with exterior walls that show siding warp. I've even seen some low end builders start to do poured concrete walls in walkout basements, and then the fir/side the concrete wall. I don't even get that.

 

Wire closet shelves are pretty common at that price point. You have to get up to about $350,000 for melamine shelves and built in closet organizers to make sense (unless a specific buyer wants to do them custom and pay the huge upgrade).

 

I guarantee you wouldn't like the looks of a 3/4 bedroom, 2.5 bath home for under $200k. Backing out the lot price of at least $50,000, you're looking at $150,000 to spend on about 2000 square feet ($75/square foot). With current codes and the amenities that most homeowners want, you can't build anything of qualify for under $100/sf these days.

 

All wood siding, even Smart Side or cement board, including painting, will run you at least $20,000 - $30,000 depending on the size of the home. And it will need $8000 - $10,000 of paint every 7 or 8 years.

 

Not to pick on this particular builder (because they have a niche and are a decent builder who has been around for a long time), but here's what sub $100/sf homes look like:

 

http://sablehomes.com/move-in-ready-homes

 

So yes, it's next to impossible to build a new home that people will accept in the city of GR for under $200,000. And you don't want to overbuild a house in a neighborhood that won't support a $250,000 home (won't appraise). But there are some people trying. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example. I'm sure most people would agree that Joel Peterson builds a great new home that fits well in an urban setting. You see a lot of them in East, with a lot of the finishes you would expect in a Heritage Hill home. These homes, however, start at about $170/sf, or about $400,000 for 2200 sf.

 

http://www.joelpetersonhomes.com/#projects

 

 

Same with Mosaic's "Village Homes" at the back of Celadon. They start ABOVE $400,000.

 

http://www.celadonnewtown.com/residential/collections

 

This isn't due to builders "gouging" or overpricing, this is the economic reality of building costs today. Besides, you can't get away with overinflating a price because you'll get hung at closing because it won't appraise. Unless you're lucky enough to get a cash buyer, but that's not generally seen in a typical middle class new home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example. I'm sure most people would agree that Joel Peterson builds a great new home that fits well in an urban setting. You see a lot of them in East, with a lot of the finishes you would expect in a Heritage Hill home. These homes, however, start at about $170/sf, or about $400,000 for 2200 sf.

 

http://www.joelpetersonhomes.com/#projects

 

 

Same with Mosaic's "Village Homes" at the back of Celadon. They start ABOVE $400,000.

 

http://www.celadonnewtown.com/residential/collections

 

This isn't due to builders "gouging" or overpricing, this is the economic reality of building costs today. Besides, you can't get away with overinflating a price because you'll get hung at closing because it won't appraise. Unless you're lucky enough to get a cash buyer, but that's not generally seen in a typical middle class new home.

 

I've been in quite a few of each of those.  There are two factors at play here:  First, the lot costs are astronomical where Peterson is building in EGR, so you have to price that out.  Secondly, the interior finishes are more than a few steps above the norm.  I mentioned Edwin Allen because the houses are a decent size, and the design is attractive and suitable for a historic district (apart from the garage).  And dear God how it bad hurts to say that.  Sable sells comparable houses, but the designs are plug ugly.  I don't think I could ever stand to live in one of those hideous cubes.

 

For $187k, you could sell this all day long in East Hills:  http://www.grar.com/property/mls/14052463  Lot costs are the wildcard.  And I don't know who is building them, but there are also some nice urban designs in the Holland area at the $200k point for 2000sf:  http://www.grar.com/property/mls/14055764 and http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Kensington-2100_Kensington-Place_South-Kensington-Drive_Holland_MI_49423_P414091463126?source=web. [EDIT:  Allen Edwin built this stuff too, it turns out]  I am fairly convinced this would sell easily in GR, but the problem is there just isn't a lot of proof for someone to take that leap, and no one wants to gamble with the HPC.

 

I have to eat my words on the vinyl siding somewhat though.  The premium vinyl stuff actually costs the same as or more than Hardi, so the difference isn't that big.  Not that any of this matters, I'm sure we'll see more multifamily apartment stuff or condos.  Oh well.  We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been in quite a few of each of those.  There are two factors at play here:  First, the lot costs are astronomical where Peterson is building in EGR, so you have to price that out.  Secondly, the interior finishes are more than a few steps above the norm.  I mentioned Edwin Allen because the houses are a decent size, and the design is attractive and suitable for a historic district (apart from the garage).  And dear God how it bad hurts to say that.  Sable sells comparable houses, but the designs are plug ugly.  I don't think I could ever stand to live in one of those hideous cubes.

 

For $187k, you could sell this all day long in East Hills:  http://www.grar.com/property/mls/14052463  Lot costs are the wildcard.  And I don't know who is building them, but there are also some nice urban designs in the Holland area at the $200k point for 2000sf:  http://www.grar.com/property/mls/14055764 and http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Kensington-2100_Kensington-Place_South-Kensington-Drive_Holland_MI_49423_P414091463126?source=web. [EDIT:  Allen Edwin built this stuff too, it turns out]  I am fairly convinced this would sell easily in GR, but the problem is there just isn't a lot of proof for someone to take that leap, and no one wants to gamble with the HPC.

 

I have to eat my words on the vinyl siding somewhat though.  The premium vinyl stuff actually costs the same as or more than Hardi, so the difference isn't that big.  Not that any of this matters, I'm sure we'll see more multifamily apartment stuff or condos.  Oh well.  We'll see.

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall. :)

 

I could go on and on about that builder (who is not based here but in Kalamazoo) but I will concede on the basis of maintaining professionalism. However, if you would like to know the skinny, I would be happy to spill all over a few beers with no recording devices present. :)

 

No decent builder in the area can build anything decent for under $100 a square foot. And the city of GR should not allow schlock homes within its boundaries either. Even Habitat builds homes that would market above $100/sf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall. :)

 

I could go on and on about that builder (who is not based here but in Kalamazoo) but I will concede on the basis of maintaining professionalism. However, if you would like to know the skinny, I would be happy to spill all over a few beers with no recording devices present. :)

 

No decent builder in the area can build anything decent for under $100 a square foot. And the city of GR should not allow schlock homes within its boundaries either. Even Habitat builds homes that would market above $100/sf.

 

I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of a house that costs only $100 per square foot.  Still, the houses still need to meet minimum modern code, and at the end of the day, you still have a new house with an 8' basement and a lot less problems than the 100 year old housing stock we currently have.  My point is simply that it is possible. 

 

It would be great if people would pay $300k for a high end 1800sf custom house in GR, but it won't happen.  That is exactly why we keep getting condos and apartments:  You need huge economies of scale to make construction in Grand Rapids work.  Even if they aren't they luxury houses, if even a few were built and sold, it would be a huge step forward and provide some evidence that people would actually buy a new house in GR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.