The "Affordable Housing" Discussion in GR

[whitemice]

2 hours ago, Ted said:

Everyone wants it just not enough to do anything to achieve it.
Our city has it as a goal but actively hinders it though policy.

We certainly agree on that.

[ModSquad]

3 hours ago, Ted said:

Right. Everyone wants it just not enough to do anything to achieve it.

Our city has it as a goal but actively hinders it though policy.

I think our desires are clear through our actions and our policy.

My Dad always said you can tell a person or organization’s priorities by looking at their check book.

In other words you pay for the things that are important to you.

In my opinion, aside from the all of the institutional barriers in place to get affordable housing built in GR (a point on which I am in 100% agreement) the City also fails to use their financial ability to support affordable housing.

[ModSquad]

On 2/3/2020 at 8:00 PM, organsnyder said:

My ADU project (quite a bit larger, but still...) was over $200k. Construction ain't cheap, especially in a seller's market.

And no, we're not anticipating recouping the investment (if it can be called that) any time soon.

At this year's International Building and Supply Show in Vegas, Champion Homes (our modular manufacturer) made this major ADU announcement.  Its a pretty cool partnership between Skyline Champion and Grand Rapids own Urbaneer.  We had an actual model on site for folks to tour.  The response was overwhelming, albeit mostly from markets on the coast.  Primarily Virginia, Bay Area, and Seattle.

We are able to bring these in at a price point that is WAY under $200K.  The problem is, zoning regulations, and the fact that you have to run separate water and sewer lines to the unit, you cant tie into the water and sewer lines from the house.  That is a huge expense.

What I would like to see is something very creative like several acres of smaller homes built with this method, kind of like a cottage court.  How cool would it be for the City to purchase some of the woefully underutilized dead commercial space along 28th street, clear the site completely and then use it as an area to experiment with creative housing types.  It would be a "Zoning Free Zone."  I don't know we have to think outside the box.

[walker]

32 minutes ago, ModSquad said:

. . . Its a pretty cool partnership between Skyline Champion and Grand Rapids own Urbaneer.  . . .

Dave,

Is Urbaneer / Genesis Homes at all related to the local Genesis non-profit organization for affordable housing or are their similar names just a strange coincidence? 

[ModSquad]

14 minutes ago, walker said:

Dave,

Is Urbaneer / Genesis Homes at all related to the local Genesis non-profit organization for affordable housing or are their similar names just a strange coincidence? 

Strange Coincidence.  Genesis was an older line of homes made by Champion.  When they decided to launch an ADU line they resurrected the name,

[Chisox]

Off topic I suppose, but...

Based on my limited experience in GR, I get the feeling that everyone wants to become inclusive, to grow, but it wants to stay at current DENSITY and CHARACTER with little to no change.

Anyone see that?

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Chisox

[The ATX]

24 minutes ago, Chisox said:

I get the feeling that everyone wants to become inclusive, to grow, but it wants to stay at current DENSITY and CHARACTER with little to no change.

Anyone see that?

 

Ha.  That seems to be a common theme in a lot of cities. 

[whitemice]

4 hours ago, Chisox said:

I get the feeling that everyone wants to become inclusive, to grow, but it wants to stay at current DENSITY and CHARACTER

Yep, hence my "Everyone wants a life changing experience, so long as nothing changes." quote.
Honestly, it would be easier if people just hated change or just didn't want to build things like [affordable] housing.  Then you could really argue with them.  It's the confounding desire that really mucks it up - because they earnestly want to do the right thing - they just want to do that other thing more.   It is very Head+Desk.

7 hours ago, ModSquad said:

at a price point that is WAY under $200K.  The problem is, zoning regulations, and the fact that you have to run separate water and sewer lines

And you easily get back up towards $200K. Once your done, and you have to manage other parts of the site as well.  My building did not cost $200K (or $194K), the whole project did.  There is also sidewalks and trees and...  don't forget parking!

7 hours ago, ModSquad said:

How cool would it be for the City to purchase some of the woefully underutilized dead commercial space along 28th street,

Once you purchased property and cleaned a site the value is probably lost.  The big price advantage of the ADU is zero land cost. 
A dozen stand alone ~500sq/ft units on purchased property just doesn't make any sense.
Why not build a small apartment/condo building with lots of shared infrastructure?

Edited February 7, 2020 by whitemice

[Chisox]

2 hours ago, whitemice said:

Yep, hence my "Everyone wants a life changing experience, so long as nothing changes." quote.
Honestly, it would be easier if people just hated change or just didn't want to build things like [affordable] housing.  Then you could really argue with them.  It's the confounding desire that really mucks it up - because they earnestly want to do the right thing - they just want to do that other thing more.   It is very Head+Desk.

And you easily get back up towards $200K. Once your done, and you have to manage other parts of the site as well.  My building did not cost $200K (or $194K), the whole project did.  There is also sidewalks and trees and...  don't forget parking!

Once you purchased property and cleaned a site the value is probably lost.  The big price advantage of the ADU is zero land cost. 
A dozen stand alone ~500sq/ft units on purchased property just doesn't make any sense.
Why not build a small apartment/condo building with lots of shared infrastructure?

I figured this much after speaking with a major home builder in the area. 

The character that everyone has grown to love and appreciate about Grand Rapids is literally a prototypical suburb of the early 20th century. It was an answer at that time, but I don't see that being an answer in today's context, especially with affordability and growth as a concern. That's just not the way forward in a city that wants the kind of growth that turns heads especially ones with unchanging boundaries or inclusivity of all lifestyles and tastes. Can anyone here imagine the city growing another 25-50k people in its current boundary and doing it affordably?

Expectations in these neighborhoods have to change. Houses may have to come down. Schools transformed. Transit expanded. Towers erected. Tracks laid, etc.

In my experience if you don't keep moving/changing/adapting/growing you get ran the fudge over (pardon my language) and left behind. Maybe Grand Rapids is different?

Edited February 7, 2020 by Chisox

[whitemice]

6 hours ago, Chisox said:

Can anyone here imagine the city growing another 25-50k people in its current boundary and doing it affordably?

Yes.  Easily, no problem.
My little neighborhood - 0.681 sq/miles, ~3,500 souls, or 4,900souls/sq/mil - could grow to house 4,157 people.  (+657 souls, taking your middle, the city of 200K adding 37.5K, or +18.75%)
No problem, easy.

We are basically guaranteed to add ~70-75 people next year in a new Affordable development.  That's 10% of that goal right there.
Done.
Only 537 more to go!

Looking at vacant and underused properties and then large lots (mostly +5,000sq/ft).   I doubt most people recognize how much vacant land there still is in Grand Rapids - and I can see the downtown towers from my bedroom window.
Hand me a pen, I can find room for 537 more people.  What, that's only ~400 households.

And I could add the housing for those 537 people and you'd walk down 9 out of 10 streets and never notice the difference.

Quadplexes, triplexes, and ADUs could absorb a lot of that - and you'd never notice them. 

Aside: duplexes are easy, but the math barely works. Discarding those.  Unfortunately that's about the only multi-family it is reasonably easy to build on a neighborhood level.

This ain't rocket science.
The problem is governance, or IMNSHO, the lack of it.  Will that change?  I have no idea.  I want to be hopeful, but that's just not my nature.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by whitemice

[Allison Slater]

22 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

And your comment about control is spot on. Urbanists poke fun at suburban communities and HOA's but there is no HOA that I've worked with that is a stringent as what people in the city are asking for, and policies being put into place. Look at all the fights over chickens and backyard firepits. And the extra layers of bureaucracy, inspections and fees for rental homes.  It's crazy.  I own several rental homes, none of which are in the city. Life is too short to deal with all of that BS.

This is why I'll be soon looking to own a home outside of the city. I want to live in the city, but I think I value my freedom to have my home as I see fit more. And the numbers are just so much better outside the city.

Edited February 7, 2020 by tSlater

[GRDadof3]

14 hours ago, Chisox said:

Off topic I suppose, but...

Based on my limited experience in GR, I get the feeling that everyone wants to become inclusive, to grow, but it wants to stay at current DENSITY and CHARACTER with little to no change.

Anyone see that?

 

Yes. There was an "article" in GRNow about all of the new projects going on and some commented on the FB page and said the growth was "scary."  I get it that some people complain about parking and traffic, but scary? 

I get it, growth and change can sometimes seem scary. But damn the opposite is way more scary to me. Being a lifelong Michigan resident, you don't have to go very far from GR to see the opposite. And we're talking 40 - 50 years of the opposite that I've seen in my lifetime, cities and communities just dying a slow death in front of your eyes. 

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, whitemice said:

Yes.  Easily, no problem.
My little neighborhood - 0.681 sq/miles, ~3,500 souls, or 4,900souls/sq/mil - could grow to house 4,157 people.  (+657 souls, taking your middle, the city of 200K adding 37.5K, or +18.75%)
No problem, easy.

We are basically guaranteed to add ~70-75 people next year in a new Affordable development.  That's 10% of that goal right there.
Done.
Only 537 more to go!

Looking at vacant and underused properties and then large lots (mostly +5,000sq/ft).   I doubt most people recognize how much vacant land there still is in Grand Rapids - and I can see the downtown towers from my bedroom window.
Hand me a pen, I can find room for 537 more people.  What, that's only ~400 households.

And I could add the housing for those 537 people and you'd walk down 9 out of 10 streets and never notice the difference.

Quadplexes, triplexes, and ADUs could absorb a lot of that - and you'd never notice them. 

Aside: duplexes are easy, but the math barely works. Discarding those.  Unfortunately that's about the only multi-family it is reasonably easy to build on a neighborhood level.

This ain't rocket science.
The problem is governance, or IMNSHO, the lack of it.  Will that change?  I have no idea.  I want to be hopeful, but that's just not my nature.

 

 

The only challenge with your hypothesis is you assume even distribution across all parts of the city. As you and I know, growth doesn't happen that way, in any sized city.  Growth happens in clusters, it's almost "tribal" (not trying to use a racially charged word, just saying people like to live by other people like themselves). 

One thing that has piqued my interest is that they are rebooting the discussion about the lack of TOD's along the Silver Line route, and are restarting neighborhood info sessions (charette-lite I guess) to discuss ideas particularly in areas south of 28th Street.  As I mentioned to someone involved with the project, the main reason in my opinion that projects have not happened along the route is that the housing stock within a block of either side of Division is in really poor shape. It's not even well built, and was only meant to be workforce housing back when it was constructed. That has led to a lack of good quality retail and businesses along South Division, and the cycle continues.  Who wants to live in an expensive apartment complex overlooking some of GR's worst looking neighborhoods, on a burned out 70's era commercial corridor, with very few grocery stores or other businesses around. 

But perhaps with the housing crunch we're facing in the metro, the timing may be better to start some of those projects. "Hunger makes good sauce" my MIL used to say. Developers are taking notice of the future Laker Line and using it in their marketing, why not the Silver Line? (I'm actually going to say that some of those reasons may be racially biased). 

Thoughts? 

 

[demhem]

On 2/6/2020 at 8:56 AM, GRDadof3 said:

 

And your comment about control is spot on. Urbanists poke fun at suburban communities and HOA's but there is no HOA that I've worked with that is a stringent as what people in the city are asking for, and policies being put into place. Look at all the fights over chickens and backyard firepits. And the extra layers of bureaucracy, inspections and fees for rental homes.  It's crazy.  I own several rental homes, none of which are in the city. Life is too short to deal with all of that BS.

 

 

I routinely work with HOA's that have far stricter rules than that of the communities that they are located in. The comment usually goes something like: "Can we get rid of the HOA and just comply with the City/Village/Township rules?" Not sure how our experience is so much different. 

[GRDadof3]

9 minutes ago, demhem said:

I routinely work with HOA's that have far stricter rules than that of the communities that they are located in. The comment usually goes something like: "Can we get rid of the HOA and just comply with the City/Village/Township rules?" Not sure how our experience is so much different. 

Obviously they are stricter than the communities where they are located (ie an HOA in Georgetown Township will have stricter bylaws/restrictions than the township itself). But the "meddling" that people fear in HOA's to me in the suburbs seems to be far less evasive as the meddling in other people's business that seems to happen specifically within the boundaries of the CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN.  That as well as the NIMBY'ism. 

Granted, much of this is I'm hearing from the many people I know who live in the city. Maybe my impression is wrong. 

[demhem]

1 minute ago, GRDadof3 said:

Obviously they are stricter than the communities where they are located (ie an HOA in Georgetown Township will have stricter bylaws/restrictions than the township itself). But the "meddling" that people fear in HOA's to me in the suburbs seems to be far less evasive as the meddling in other people's business that seems to happen specifically within the boundaries of the CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN.

This also includes my comparative experience in the City of GR. As a renter for 6 years and homeowner for 4 (in GR), the HOAs that I have worked with (mostly in the suburbs of West Michigan) have largely been more meddlesome than the City, with a few exceptions. Further, as someone who had landlord issues when I rented (roof leaking, landlord not doing anything about it), I was incredibly happy with the meddlesome bureaucracy and inspection when I couldn't get my landlord to take care of the issue.  My experience is just different than yours. 

[whitemice]

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

The only challenge with your hypothesis is you assume even distribution across all parts of the city.

A speculative scenario, as proposed, has to take libertys. 

I doubt an equal share of growth would actually end up in my neighborhood.  Yet, physically, it certainly could; even in a early-century-suburban context.

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

As you and I know, growth doesn't happen that way, in any sized city.  Growth happens in clusters

Certainly.  And, IMNHO, the regulatory scheme amplifies rather than abates that trend.

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

One thing that has piqued my interest is that they are rebooting the discussion about the lack of TOD's along the Silver Line route, and are restarting neighborhood info sessions (charette-lite I guess) to discuss ideas particularly in areas south of 28th Street.  As I mentioned to someone involved with the project, the main reason in my opinion that projects have not happened along the route is that the housing stock within a block of either side of Division is in really poor shape

Agree.  Grand Rapids is not honest with itself about the reality of our housing stock: it is contains a whole lot of obsolete crap.

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

But perhaps with the housing crunch we're facing in the metro,

My fear is that the progressive contingent is so drunk on their gentrification narrative that nothing meaningful can survive the commission.  Add that to the desire - expressed privately but carefully never in public during Housing NOW - to preserve Single Family Homes.  What we could end up with is a policy death sandwich; that seems to be where most cities are currently.

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

"Hunger makes good sauce" my MIL used to say. 

That's how I suspect we got the not-as-horrible-as-most Master Planning / Zoning we have today.  What happens with the next iteration is the question.  I'm not hopeful.

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

'm actually going to say that some of those reasons may be racially biased

Without a doubt.

1 hour ago, demhem said:

As a renter for 6 years and homeowner for 4 (in GR), the HOAs that I have worked with (mostly in the suburbs of West Michigan.... Further, as someone who had landlord issues when I rented (roof leaking, landlord not doing anything about it), I was incredibly happy with the meddlesome bureaucracy and inspection when I couldn't get my landlord to take care of the issue.  My experience is just different than yours. 

Agree.  If someone is going to rent I always advise them to stay within the city for that reason.  At least someone has your back.

Edited February 7, 2020 by whitemice

[whitemice]

1 hour ago, demhem said:

This also includes my comparative experience in the City of GR. As a renter for 6 years and homeowner for 4 (in GR), the HOAs that I have worked with (mostly in the suburbs of West Michigan) have largely been more meddlesome than the City, with a few exceptions. Further, as someone who had landlord issues when I rented (roof leaking, landlord not doing anything about it), I was incredibly happy with the meddlesome bureaucracy and inspection when I couldn't get my landlord to take care of the issue.

As a homeowner and a landlord  (all in GR) - aside from the unjustifiable zoning garbage - my experience with the city is almost entirely positive.  They are consistently helpful, or at least reasonable.  If someone is a single family home owner they are immensely privileged by the current regulatory scheme so I don't really understand what the complaint is there.

[Chisox]

As someone mentioned above about the SL and development… Back in 2018 I commuted on the SL for a solid year from the 60th st station.   

Not one of my coworkers knew about SL. I'd say half of them lived in the city. I'm not shocked, after all it's a bus line. I met people who lived along the line that didn't even know about it. I'm not even from Grand Rapids so it felt awkward being the one to explain it in someone's backyard.

From my own eyes there's not a lot of clamouring to live along the line to necessitate the kind of development people think should be there. So anything that goes is going to have to be spec with a lot of marketing outreach and lifestyle vision boards to drive interest. 

The one area I do think really could flip is around the 54th St station. The neighborhood is probably solid and ready to go.

[GRDadof3]

8 hours ago, whitemice said:

 

Agree.  If someone is going to rent I always advise them to stay within the city for that reason.  At least someone has your back.

Lol, I tell people the opposite.    Unless you're renting in a large complex that's owned by a real company (and not by the Becketts or some other shady outfit). 

[GRDadof3]

20 hours ago, Chisox said:

As someone mentioned above about the SL and development… Back in 2018 I commuted on the SL for a solid year from the 60th st station.   

Not one of my coworkers knew about SL. I'd say half of them lived in the city. I'm not shocked, after all it's a bus line. I met people who lived along the line that didn't even know about it. I'm not even from Grand Rapids so it felt awkward being the one to explain it in someone's backyard.

From my own eyes there's not a lot of clamouring to live along the line to necessitate the kind of development people think should be there. So anything that goes is going to have to be spec with a lot of marketing outreach and lifestyle vision boards to drive interest. 

The one area I do think really could flip is around the 54th St station. The neighborhood is probably solid and ready to go.

That's one of the "focus" areas that they are looking at. I agree it's ripe for development now. And there's a lot that can be torn down near that corner. You can also walk to Wal-mart from there (yuk yuk).

[ModSquad]

In case anyone is interested this link will take you on a virtual 3D walk through of the Genesis/Urbaneer ADU.  

Genesis/Urbaneer ADU 3D Walkthrough

[whitemice]

The Housing Next needs analysis was presented to the Committee of the Whole on 2020-07-21.
http://urbangr.org/housingnext20200721COW

Key Take-Aways

• There is an inadequate supply of housing; this drives up prices.
• A need for at least an additional 5,340 rental units and 3,548 owned units by 2025.
  • Rental: 1,031 units @ 0-30% AMI, 895 units @ 30-50% AMI, 966 units @ 50-80% AMI, 1,469 units @ 80-120% AMI, 979 units @ 120%+ AMI
  • A total of 8,888 units.
  • Production of more "Market-Rate" is critical to success.
• High-income households, 120%+ AMI, expected to increase by 30%, creating competition of housing.
  • These are households earning $86,000/year or higher.
  • "Step-Down" from higher income households is real for both for-sale and for-rent properties; "Step-Down" is when higher income households purchase or rent units which cost less than 30% of their income.
• 52% of Grand Rapids renters are "Cost-Burdened", 19% of Home Owners.
  • 17,052 renters
  • 7,914 owners
• With current policies the number of low income households will be reduced ~15% by 2025, due to a combination of consolidation, crowding, and displacement.
• 75% of rental units are in small buildings, of less than 10 units.
• There is a shortage of small units (studio & 1 bedroom) and large (3-4 bedroom) units.
• 87.3% of Owner-Occupied units are Single Family Detached Units, aka: Houses.
• A healthy for for-sale market is ~3% of existing housing stock, Grand Rapids has less than 1/3 of that share on the market.
• A healthy for-rent market has occupancy rates ~95%; the occupancy rate in Grand Rapids is 97.1%. There is effectively zero vacancy in for tax-credit ["affordable"] units.
• Current "Market-Rate" rents are not high enough to support new construction [without subsidy/incentives].
  • Break even for new development is ~$1,500/mo for a one bedroom apartment primarily due to construction costs.
• If 5% of all singe-family homes - that's 1 in 20, or ~1 per block - in Grand Rapids were to add a secondary/accessory dwelling unit that would create 3,400 new rental units. 3,400 units is ~64% of expected demand.
• LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) remains one of the best tools to producing Affordable housing. The city needs to push for getting ~400 LIHTC units into the pipeline every year.
  • Tax-Credit units produced has dramatically fallen.

 

[walker]

Interesting story on WOODTV.  A couple have their own one house at a time infill project in 49507.   They offered neighborhood renters the first chance to buy the first house they built but had no takers.  I suspect despite its smaller size, the house is not competitive in the neighborhood.  They sold it to someone moving from out of town.

WOODTV: small-homes-create-big-opportunity-for-se-gr-residents

 

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by walker
fix typo

[joeDowntown]

Very nice. The house is really cute. I hope they build more of them!

Joe