The "Affordable Housing" Discussion in GR

[AG3]

11 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

We had those, they spray painted A's (anarchy) on a bunch of buildings in East Hills, threw bricks through windows at Winchester and other businesses, and torched a garage at Fairmount Square. Turned out not to be disenfranchised African Americans, but a bunch of white kids squatting in a house in Grandville with too much time and too much entitlement on their hands.

Not saying that gentrification doesn't happen or has not happened in Grand Rapids. In fact, someone who used to post here purchased 40+ properties in a single neighborhood, jacked up the rents on residents, and even joined the neighborhood association and heavily pushed an area specific plan that would benefit his "dream" development projects. Those things happen.

Just like residents on the West Side who are (were) part of the Challenge Grants Scholarship program started at Harrison Park Elementary, guaranteeing funding for a college degree if the kids stayed all the way through high school, put in place by the Grand Rapids Community Foundation. Now the investors/landlords on the West Side in that area have jacked up rents to where the residents can no longer afford it, and are now losing out on the challenge grant scholarships, even though their kids did everything asked of them and have made it into their Junior and Senior years of high school with good grades. 

Gentrification does happen, and is happening. But to say that a new restaurant opening in an defunct East Hills building is dangerous to people's health? C'mon.

One of the items proposed in the new Housing Now! initiative is increased efforts to foster homeownership. If you're a renter, you're a victim when rates start to rise. If you own your home, on a fixed rate mortgage, you're much more in control. Proposal A passed over 20 years ago in Michigan caps your property tax rates (to inflation or 3%) so that you don't get hammered by rising property values around you. 

So I think to say that all small neighborhood businesses moving into an area like Wealthy or Bridge Street is not only wrong, it's irresponsible. 

Im back already.   To early for a beer..      ''Not saying that gentrification doesn't happen or has not happened in Grand Rapids. In fact, someone who used to post here purchased 40+ properties in a single neighborhood, jacked up the rents on residents, and even joined the neighborhood association and heavily pushed an area specific plan that would benefit his "dream" development projects''  

 

Okay . GrDad you have to get your facts straight .

Obviously your talking about me . But you couldn’t be more wrong in your outside looking in assessment. Yes I put together a group of people and purchased a large number of homes in belknap over a long period of time. And I did it with basically no money . I was 23 at the time and at the time Belknap was not at all a very desirable neighborhood. To me, it was the only way to get rid of the the one hundred different llc owners so that we could eventually do what is happening in the neighborhood today. It’s why development has happened so rapidly in such a small geographical area in Belknap. No guarantee it would, but I didn't give up.  For 8 years from 2001 we renovated well over 60 Homes that were in such poor condition you wouldn’t let your dog live in them. Having lived through actual gentrification in Humboldt Park Chicago I understood what it would take to participate when that neighborhood came back. So I made sure a group of minorities, felons, and people who grew up hanging and dealing drugs on Clancy were able to own homes in belknap. Yea - people you probably wouldn’t associate with . These people own at least a home or more in a few cases on just about every block in belknap. And now they can benefit from the growth. 

I also to this day still rent to people in belknap who cannot afford to live in the neighborhood if I charged what I could actually get for rent. With that said, the high rent phenomenon is happening all over the country not just in Grand Rapids.  The City didn’t get out in front of it in time and now it’s an issue.  Our new commissioners are on it !!!

As far as the ASP goes . The city mandated that we do that. And of all the ASP's  done to date and I have reviewed them all, I believe ours was by far the most thoughtful and meaningful of all of them . Because it included everyone no matter how much money you had or didn't have and all voices can see tangible aspects that were important to them that speak to that within that document. It has teeth and it’s not just worth the paper it’s written on.

But while we’re at it -

I spearhead an effort to get permit parking for our neighbors and helped draft ordinance - first in city .

I helped raise over 150k for our linear park

I helped raise over 80k and we did the construction management for free for our building at 700 Clancy that now serves as a center for all.

I helped raise 27k and single handily succeeded in the effort to move Charles to his new home

I was part of a small group between the city, gvsu, and NOBL that helped to draft and implement an MOU that was hailed as a first and unprecedented in the state of Michigan .

My wife and I have personally helped with resources, our efforts and our finances to see that numerous people from within our community purchased a home.  So while your taking about it, we are doing it. 

And that was just as a neighbor because of passion and love for community - Noting else. But you always have those people who when you succeed on your own,  it had to be through some form of illegitimacy.  ALL GOOD. NOT  FIRST OR LAST TIME THAT WILL BE THE CASE. 

As a company - The Gateway project, Trowbridge lofts, and numerous other small projects I put together in that neighborhood. 

One guy . All that while being a minority and an outsider who was being accused of being a drug dealer, who had his windows broken out, his home tagged on with hate speech, and on and on, all the while dealing with people like _ _ _.

What you call gentrification, I call making our community better. Theses neighborhoods that are coming back fell into despair long ago and the moment they did, the day when they would become healthy again was inevitable. So I don’t believe the word gentrification is at all an accurate word to be used to describe what’s happening. The greater issue is the missed opportunity for those who live in these poorer neighborhoods and how do they participate and benefit when improvement occurs .

In my Puerto Rican community in Chicago after being pushed out of Lincoln park in the 60’s and 70’s - when we then landed in Humboldt Park - most had a sense that they needed to own there homes. And moving to the least desirable of neighborhoods was how to achieve that . Then came the boom in the 90’s. And Homes went from being worth 50k to 400k in a matter of years . And then for the first time in any of our generations our parents had financial resources they had never had .

We benefited. And our parents had something to give us . That’s how it should be !

Gentrification today is still debated in Humboldt and in fact in recent years it’s probably become the most divisive - to a degree where business are posting signs saying you are not welcome .

However, when you really take a snap shot, it’s more about identity than anything else . Our community feels as if it’s loosing its identity and who it is. No one complains about the financial gains, unless you didn’t own a home or business. But even those who didn’t own were somewhat insulated because it was our parents or cousins or fellow minority’s who owned. Maybe a false sense of comfort, but none the less it helped.

If we’re thoughtful, then the neighborhoods that are still rough and where home values are still low in Grand Rapids, we have an opportunity. As I have learned. You can be known as Tattoo Tommy on the block and become a homeowner and a proud one. You just needed someone to give you the time of day and help to teach you a skill and then show him through action and means you believe in him. Let’s ask him if what’s happening in the neighborhood is a bad thing.   Beers on me !

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by AG3

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, AG3 said:

Im back already.   To early for a beer..      ''Not saying that gentrification doesn't happen or has not happened in Grand Rapids. In fact, someone who used to post here purchased 40+ properties in a single neighborhood, jacked up the rents on residents, and even joined the neighborhood association and heavily pushed an area specific plan that would benefit his "dream" development projects''  

 

Okay . GrDad you have to get your facts straight .

Obviously your talking about me . But you couldn’t be more wrong in your outside looking in assessment. Yes I put together a group of people and purchased a large number of homes in belknap over a long period of time. And I did it with basically no money . I was 23 at the time and at the time Belknap was not at all a very desirable neighborhood. To me, it was the only way to get rid of the the one hundred different llc owners so that we could eventually do what is happening in the neighborhood today. It’s why development has happened so rapidly in such a small geographical area in Belknap. No guarantee it would, but I didn't give up.  For 8 years from 2001 we renovated well over 60 Homes that were in such poor condition you wouldn’t let your dog live in them. Having lived through actual gentrification in Humboldt Park Chicago I understood what it would take to participate when that neighborhood came back. So I made sure a group of minorities, felons, and people who grew up hanging and dealing drugs on Clancy were able to own homes in belknap. Yea - people you probably wouldn’t associate with . These people own at least a home or more in a few cases on just about every block in belknap. And now they can benefit from the growth. 

I also to this day still rent to people in belknap who cannot afford to live in the neighborhood if I charged what I could actually get for rent. With that said, the high rent phenomenon is happening all over the country not just in Grand Rapids.  The City didn’t get out in front of it in time and now it’s an issue.  Our new commissioners are on it !!!

As far as the ASP goes . The city mandated that we do that. And of all the ASP's  done to date and I have reviewed them all, I believe ours was by far the most thoughtful and meaningful of all of them . Because it included everyone no matter how much money you had or didn't have and all voices can see tangible aspects that were important to them that speak to that within that document. It has teeth and it’s not just worth the paper it’s written on.

But while we’re at it -

I spearhead an effort to get permit parking for our neighbors and helped draft ordinance - first in city .

I helped raise over 150k for our linear park

I helped raise over 80k and we did the construction management for free for our building at 700 Clancy that now serves as a center for all.

I helped raise 27k and single handily succeeded in the effort to move Charles to his new home

I was part of a small group between the city, gvsu, and NOBL that helped to draft and implement an MOU that was hailed as a first and unprecedented in the state of Michigan .

My wife and I have personally helped with resources, our efforts and our finances to see that numerous people from within our community purchased a home.  So while your taking about it, we are doing it. 

And that was just as a neighbor because of passion and love for community - Noting else. But you always have those people who when you succeed on your own,  it had to be through some form of illegitimacy.  ALL GOOD. NOT  FIRST OR LAST TIME THAT WILL BE THE CASE. 

As a company - The Gateway project, Trowbridge lofts, and numerous other small projects I put together in that neighborhood. 

One guy . All that while being a minority and an outsider who was being accused of being a drug dealer, who had his windows broken out, his home tagged on with hate speech, and on and on, all the while dealing with people like _ _ _.

What you call gentrification, I call making our community better. Theses neighborhoods that are coming back fell into despair long ago and the moment they did, the day when they would become healthy again was inevitable. So I don’t believe the word gentrification is at all an accurate word to be used to describe what’s happening. The greater issue is the missed opportunity for those who live in these poorer neighborhoods and how do they participate and benefit when improvement occurs .

In my Puerto Rican community in Chicago after being pushed out of Lincoln park in the 60’s and 70’s - when we then landed in Humboldt Park - most had a sense that they needed to own there homes. And moving to the least desirable of neighborhoods was how to achieve that . Then came the boom in the 90’s. And Homes went from being worth 50k to 400k in a matter of years . And then for the first time in any of our generations our parents had financial resources they had never had .

We benefited. And our parents had something to give us . That’s how it should be !

Gentrification today is still debated in Humboldt and in fact in recent years it’s probably become the most divisive - to a degree where business are posting signs saying you are not welcome .

However, when you really take a snap shot, it’s more about identity than anything else . Our community feels as if it’s loosing its identity and who it is. No one complains about the financial gains, unless you didn’t own a home or business. But even those who didn’t own were somewhat insulated because it was our parents or cousins or fellow minority’s who owned. Maybe a false sense of comfort, but none the less it helped.

If we’re thoughtful, then the neighborhoods that are still rough and where home values are still low in Grand Rapids, we have an opportunity. As I have learned. You can be known as Tattoo Tommy on the block and become a homeowner and a proud one. You just needed someone to give you the time of day and help to teach you a skill and then show him through action and means you believe in him. Let’s ask him if what’s happening in the neighborhood is a bad thing.   Beers on me !

 

Thanks for the insight and some of those things I did not know.  I agree that the word "gentrification" gets thrown around by some people at every chance they get. And I also know that for some neighborhoods, doing nothing isn't the answer either. I also know that people throw around the term "white flight" and then complain that white people are moving back in, forgetting that some neighborhoods never had a big population of white people, and those white people who fled in the 60s and 70s are probably dead now. It's whole new generations who most likely NEVER lived in an urban area, they were born in suburbia. Is that wrong that they want to live an urban life?

I go to Saginaw quite a bit and the opposite of gentrification is going on, and has been for the 20+ years I've been going there. Entire swaths of neighborhoods losing population every year, big beautiful homes burned out, schools boarded up and graffiti covered but left standing, vacant churches, only businesses are liquor stores and check cashing places. 

I bet the remaining residents would love to get a bit of gentrification in their neighborhoods. Or at least some businesses moving back. So how to make it equitable and to give opportunities to entrepreneurs already in those neighborhoods. They talked at the speaker series event about all kinds of incentives going to business that don't benefit the neighborhoods. What incentives are those? Most incentives go to huge businesses and institutions downtown. I don't know of any hair salon on Wealthy Street or coffee shop in Midtown that got any incentives. 

So peace and I apologize for being a prick earlier. 

[AG3]

10 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Thanks for the insight and some of those things I did not know.  I agree that the word "gentrification" gets thrown around by some people at every chance they get. And I also know that for some neighborhoods, doing nothing isn't the answer either. I also know that people throw around the term "white flight" and then complain that white people are moving back in, forgetting that some neighborhoods never had a big population of white people, and those white people who fled in the 60s and 70s are probably dead now. It's whole new generations who most likely NEVER lived in an urban area, they were born in suburbia. Is that wrong that they want to live an urban life?

I go to Saginaw quite a bit and the opposite of gentrification is going on, and has been for the 20+ years I've been going there. Entire swaths of neighborhoods losing population every year, big beautiful homes burned out, schools boarded up and graffiti covered but left standing, vacant churches, only businesses are liquor stores and check cashing places. 

I bet the remaining residents would love to get a bit of gentrification in their neighborhoods. Or at least some businesses moving back. So how to make it equitable and to give opportunities to entrepreneurs already in those neighborhoods. They talked at the speaker series event about all kinds of incentives going to business that don't benefit the neighborhoods. What incentives are those? Most incentives go to huge businesses and institutions downtown. I don't know of any hair salon on Wealthy Street or coffee shop in Midtown that got any incentives. 

So peace and I apologize for being a prick earlier. 

No not wrong at  all.  What is wrong is when those people are made to feel like it is wrong. We have all these new catch phrases these days that are suppose to tell us how messed one group is or another. Implicit bias is the newest one - basically its a safe way to tell someone that deep down your an A-hole.  Usually when the word gentrification is thrown out its thrown out to shame someone or something.   I personally think it takes us from where the conversation should really be and prevents us from tackling the real issues.   I would agree on the incentive front too.. Lots of people in our communities who are capable, but not enough resources to sustain them for long enough  to become a viable operation for whatever they do. 

[GRDadof3]

12 hours ago, AG3 said:

No not wrong at  all.  What is wrong is when those people are made to feel like it is wrong. We have all these new catch phrases these days that are suppose to tell us how messed one group is or another. Implicit bias is the newest one - basically its a safe way to tell someone that deep down your an A-hole.  Usually when the word gentrification is thrown out its thrown out to shame someone or something.   I personally think it takes us from where the conversation should really be and prevents us from tackling the real issues.   I would agree on the incentive front too.. Lots of people in our communities who are capable, but not enough resources to sustain them for long enough  to become a viable operation for whatever they do. 

4 out of 5 businesses fail in the first 5 years, and probably should fail (not propped up if they are not a good business model). That's tough too when trying to foster minority owned businesses in these neighborhoods. 

It's a hugely complicated issue. Hard to type it out. 

[EastownLeo]

Thoughts on these new Modular home systems that are starting to be installed?

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2018/01/modular_homes_being_installed.html

$250,000 New construction, No garage, no attic, fits a urban lot and have reasonable Sq. footage.

Price is still high but for new construction is this affordable?

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, EastownLeo said:

Thoughts on these new Modular home systems that are starting to be installed?

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2018/01/modular_homes_being_installed.html

$250,000 New construction, No garage, no attic, fits a urban lot and have reasonable Sq. footage.

Price is still high but for new construction is this affordable?

$250,000 is around the lowest local builders can get now, on $50,000 - $60,000 lots (fully improved, water/sewer, etc).  And that's with a two-stall attached garage, unfinished basement, no landscaping.  If you go way out to the outer fringes you can find less expensive suburban lots. 

They only paid $7500 for these lots. Something seems off. Why didn't they just build stick-built homes? A 1600 square foot two story home with no garage with some pretty nice finishes should land somewhere around $180,000 without the lot.   

Probably to deliver them to the market quicker and not have to fight over finite construction crews in the area. 

But still... 

Here are the listings:

https://www.grar.com/property/mls/17022376

https://www.grar.com/property/mls/17042582

https://www.grar.com/property/mls/17042800

Reserving judgment, just curious.

What do other people think about the pricepoint? 

[MJLO]

I don't know a lot about real estate, but from my impressions i'm failing to understand how an average size house even built new would fetch $250k in that location.  What am I missing?

[jthrasher]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

$250,000 is around the lowest local builders can get now, on $50,000 - $60,000 lots (fully improved, water/sewer, etc).  And that's with a two-stall attached garage, unfinished basement, no landscaping.  If you go way out to the outer fringes you can find less expensive suburban lots. 

They only paid $7500 for these lots. Something seems off. Why didn't they just build stick-built homes? A 1600 square foot two story home with no garage with some pretty nice finishes should land somewhere around $180,000 without the lot.   

Probably to deliver them to the market quicker and not have to fight over finite construction crews in the area. 

But still... 

Here are the listings:

https://www.grar.com/property/mls/17022376

https://www.grar.com/property/mls/17042582

https://www.grar.com/property/mls/17042800

Reserving judgment, just curious.

What do other people think about the pricepoint? 

I worked with this guy on a project I had and supposedly it's cheaper and faster to do a manufactured home than it is to build stick built.  I didn't find that to be the case.  According to him it is.  It probably did cost him around 180,000 though.   Lumber costs are up.  They've come down a little in the past couple months but haven't come back down to where they were before the big hurricanes hit.  Labor is up too because there just aren't as many workers. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by jthrasher

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, jthrasher said:

I worked with this guy on a project I had and supposedly it's cheaper and faster to do a manufactured home than it is to build stick built.  I didn't find that to be the case.  According to him it is.  It probably did cost him around 180,000 though.   Lumber costs are up.  They've come down a little in the past couple months but haven't come back down to where they were before the big hurricanes hit.  Labor is up too because there just aren't as many workers. 

I didn't mean cost to the builder, cost to the consumer. Retail. A 1600 sf 2 story with no garage, unfinished basement should run about $180,000 retail. Stick built, standard finishes. Not including the lot. 

[SupercityGR]

When me and my wife were looking to build it was around 150 per sq ft. Modular's were running 110 per sq ft.  Simple math at 1600 sq ft is $240,000 for a stick built house. That does not include property, driveway or garage  

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, SupercityGR said:

When me and my wife were looking to build it was around 150 per sq ft. Modular's were running 110 per sq ft.  Simple math at 1600 sq ft is $240,000 for a stick built house. That does not include property, driveway or garage  

I work in residential construction, $150 sf is way too high for a small home like that, without the lot. ESPECIALLY if it doesn't include a driveway or a garage. Where have you been shopping? 

Go to Eastbrook's site (I don't work with them). They're sort of a run-of-the-mill builder as far as price goes, probably a bit lower than a small custom builder would be. 

https://eastbrookhomes.com/west-michigan-new-homes-for-sale/

Pull out $60,000 on any of these homes for the lot (an average), then figure out the square footage cost. I'm guessing you'll find it's about $110 - $118/sf....

 

 

[GRLaker]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

I work in residential construction, $150 sf is way too high for a small home like that, without the lot. ESPECIALLY if it doesn't include a driveway or a garage. Where have you been shopping? 

Go to Eastbrook's site (I don't work with them). They're sort of a run-of-the-mill builder as far as price goes, probably a bit lower than a small custom builder would be. 

https://eastbrookhomes.com/west-michigan-new-homes-for-sale/

Pull out $60,000 on any of these homes for the lot (an average), then figure out the square footage cost. I'm guessing you'll find it's about $110 - $118/sf....

 

 

I'm meeting with three  builders this weekend (Eastbrook included) to discuss building a home. I can ask them what the current cost per square foot is currently for construction.

EDIT: Just realized you said you work in residential construction. No need for me to report back on that. Although, I'm still curious what the current rate is.

Edited January 26, 2018 by GRLaker

[ModSquad]

7 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I work in residential construction, $150 sf is way too high for a small home like that, without the lot. ESPECIALLY if it doesn't include a driveway or a garage. Where have you been shopping? 

Go to Eastbrook's site (I don't work with them). They're sort of a run-of-the-mill builder as far as price goes, probably a bit lower than a small custom builder would be. 

https://eastbrookhomes.com/west-michigan-new-homes-for-sale/

Pull out $60,000 on any of these homes for the lot (an average), then figure out the square footage cost. I'm guessing you'll find it's about $110 - $118/sf....

 

 

Jeff,

I do not disagree with you at all.  Let me point us back to the title of the topic, "Affordable Housing."  While Eastbrook Builders is certainly able to deliver at $110-$118/sf, they are able to do this on land they control where they can build critical mass, and bring in a sales price north of $200K as a baseline.  The KCLBA has brought Eastbrook Builders, along with at least 6 other large scale developers through the City to tour our 100+ buildable lots to see if there was any interest.  There was none, even from Sable Homes who builds very basic entry level homes in the region at a price point less than $200K.  So, we turned to local smaller builders and our price per square foot ballooned quickly to $150/sf at the min to a high of $185/sf.   Even when we exclude the cost of the land because we own it outright, we are still looking at $225-$250K sales prices for 1,300-1,500/sf homes.

This brings me to modular.  I will try to use as much restraint and grace as I can in this next comment.  The KCLBA had a lot of hope with Bossardet's modular concept.  All we were told was that his concept would  deliver to the urban in-fill market  a price that would fit the neighborhood.  The $249K sales price blew our hair back.  Frankly we wish we were  not mentioned in the article about his project as we don't want to be associated with it...Oh well.

Here is the good news.  The KCLBA has partnered with Champion Homes, one of the largest modular home builders in the country.  They have vast experience in the urban environment using modular for in-fill new construction at a neighborhood level.  They are working on specific designs finishes, and floor plans for the KCLBA.  I posted a draft rendering of one design here. 

[Side note on the photo: A3 -before you tear into this design or use of materials we are making some substantial changes so it does not look so suburban, changes to pitch, gables, porch post materials, etc.]

What you see here is a 1,400 square foot 3 bed, 2.5 bath.  We also have a couple of REALLY cool long narrow front to back ranch homes.

Based on substantial meetings last week with the Champion executive team, we are pretty confident we can deliver these completely finished with appliances at the $159-$189K price point and not lose money.  To be fair, the KCLBA does not have to worry about cost of land, and we do not need to build in huge mark up due to our funding model.  That being said, I do not think there is a neighborhood in GR that couldn't support these price points.

Now that I understand costs for modular, it leaves me a significant question about the price point on the Race Street modular home.  The land was purchased for a very low cost.  What I see looks like two very simple modular boxes stacked on top of each other.  I find it hard to not imagine there is a rather hefty mark up on this project at $249K.  Although, there was one little pearl in the article that did make me pause a bit.  The manufacturer that built this home state they did 77 homes last year.  Champion has two plants making our homes and each plant produces 350 units a month!

Stay tuned, there is a lot more to come from the KCLBA on this front.  I am hoping it will be a game changer when it comes to affordable home ownership in the City.  As we get more details, I will post them here.

Edited January 27, 2018 by KCLBADave

[Raildude's dad]

Trivia tidbit, the transit wrapping on one of the units (bottom one I'd guess) was loose and "hit' the 100th St bridge. The news media's "2nd hit in a week" hot news flash.

Anyone remember in the 80's? Cardinal Homes bringing in modular units by rail to build the Knights Inn and the homes on Woodmeadow east of Breton Ave?

[GRDadof3]

12 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

Jeff,

I do not disagree with you at all.  Let me point us back to the title of the topic, "Affordable Housing."  While Eastbrook Builders is certainly able to deliver at $110-$118/sf, they are able to do this on land they control where they can build critical mass, and bring in a sales price north of $200K as a baseline.  The KCLBA has brought Eastbrook Builders, along with at least 6 other large scale developers through the City to tour our 100+ buildable lots to see if there was any interest.  There was none, even from Sable Homes who builds very basic entry level homes in the region at a price point less than $200K.  So, we turned to local smaller builders and our price per square foot ballooned quickly to $150/sf at the min to a high of $185/sf.   Even when we exclude the cost of the land because we own it outright, we are still looking at $225-$250K sales prices for 1,300-1,500/sf homes.

This brings me to modular.  I will try to use as much restraint and grace as I can in this next comment.  The KCLBA had a lot of hope with Bossardet's modular concept.  All we were told was that his concept would  deliver to the urban in-fill market  a price that would fit the neighborhood.  The $249K sales price blew our hair back.  Frankly we wish we were  not mentioned in the article about his project as we don't want to be associated with it...Oh well.

Here is the good news.  The KCLBA has partnered with Champion Homes, one of the largest modular home builders in the country.  They have vast experience in the urban environment using modular for in-fill new construction at a neighborhood level.  They are working on specific designs finishes, and floor plans for the KCLBA.  I posted a draft rendering of one design here. 

[Side note on the photo: A3 -before you tear into this design or use of materials we are making some substantial changes so it does not look so suburban, changes to pitch, gables, porch post materials, etc.]

What you see here is a 1,400 square foot 3 bed, 2.5 bath.  We also have a couple of REALLY cool long narrow front to back ranch homes.

Based on substantial meetings last week with the Champion executive team, we are pretty confident we can deliver these completely finished with appliances at the $159-$189K price point and not lose money.  To be fair, the KCLBA does not have to worry about cost of land, and we do not need to build in huge mark up due to our funding model.  That being said, I do not think there is a neighborhood in GR that couldn't support these price points.

Now that I understand costs for modular, it leaves me a significant question about the price point on the Race Street modular home.  The land was purchased for a very low cost.  What I see looks like two very simple modular boxes stacked on top of each other.  I find it hard to not imagine there is a rather hefty mark up on this project at $249K.  Although, there was one little pearl in the article that did make me pause a bit.  The manufacturer that built this home state they did 77 homes last year.  Champion has two plants making our homes and each plant produces 350 units a month!

Stay tuned, there is a lot more to come from the KCLBA on this front.  I am hoping it will be a game changer when it comes to affordable home ownership in the City.  As we get more details, I will post them here.

I like the looks even of this one. 

[x99]

Another encouraging recent development I've been following:  The city is finally trying to do something about increasing density and addressing the "missing middle" in the near-downtown neighborhoods.  A few zoning changes are proposed:  Make it easier to "build" an accessory dwelling unit.  Also known as a "granny flat".  CityLab has a good article.  https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/01/the-granny-flats-are-coming/550388/.   The second change is allowing duplexes by right on corner lots.  The third change is allowing multifamily by right within 500' of commercially zoned areas.  The discouraging development?  Blowback from the neighborhood associations (all city funded, ironically), who seem to be complaining about ALL of this.  It will be interesting to see how this plays itself out.  Sure, item #3 is probably a bridge too far (originally it was 100 feet, but then the PC cranked it up to 500 feet ... probably as a reaction to the intense griping...), but making granny flats easier seems reasonable, and some limited two unit permitting seems reasonable too.  No, the regs they drafted are not perfect and in some cases are just stupid.  It's too bad there hasn't been any constructive feedback from the neighborhoods associations other than NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY.  Disappointing.

This being UrbanPlanet, maybe we have some actual good idea about how to get this right.  Any good ideas out there? 

 

[whitemice]

Yeah, the 500ft thing seems to have really set the "conversation" (such that it is) on fire.  At the planning commission meeting Ms. Schulz warned about that - that making the proposals stronger would inflame opposition.  That happened.  I wish the planning commission had sent these proposals up one-by-one rather than as a package, then maybe some of them could have survived [doing it in a streamlined fashioned didn't actually help as the cit commission is now looking like it will do the slow-roll-to-oblivion on these].  I have tried having conversations about how much it costs to build anything in the city - even a garage - relative to elsewhere, how onerous the SLU process is to an individual or small developer;  but the entire conversation is now about "preserving" single family houses [a sacred third-rail in America].  The conversation has nothing to do with affordability.

I live in a neighborhood of big lots and was hoping to build an ADU to provide some affordable housing to family.  Had the survey done, talked to a contractor, etc... 
It looks like that idea is out the window.   Now what to do?

[Pattmost20]

13 minutes ago, whitemice said:

Yeah, the 500ft thing seems to have really set the "conversation" (such that it is) on fire.  At the planning commission meeting Ms. Schulz warned about that - that making the proposals stronger would inflame opposition.  That happened.  I wish the planning commission had sent these proposals up one-by-one rather than as a package, then maybe some of them could have survived [doing it in a streamlined fashioned didn't actually help as the cit commission is now looking like it will do the slow-roll-to-oblivion on these].  I have tried having conversations about how much it costs to build anything in the city - even a garage - relative to elsewhere, how onerous the SLU process is to an individual or small developer;  but the entire conversation is now about "preserving" single family houses [a sacred third-rail in America].  The conversation has nothing to do with affordability.

I live in a neighborhood of big lots and was hoping to build an ADU to provide some affordable housing to family.  Had the survey done, talked to a contractor, etc... 
It looks like that idea is out the window.   Now what to do?

Are ADUs dead in GR or do you think they could separate them out of the package and try to get them passed? I have a really worthless garage I would love to turn into a studio apartment. Having stayed in a converted garage in other cities, I think it one of the best and simplest ideas to add housing stock to the city.

[GRDadof3]

53 minutes ago, Pattmost20 said:

Are ADUs dead in GR or do you think they could separate them out of the package and try to get them passed? I have a really worthless garage I would love to turn into a studio apartment. Having stayed in a converted garage in other cities, I think it one of the best and simplest ideas to add housing stock to the city.

I think you can do them but it sounds like the restrictions are so onerous that you basically can't do them? The fact that you have an existing detached building might work, as you're not trying to build a new structure. 

Here's a website the city has set up with a lot of the draft changes:

https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-Initiatives/Housing-Now

 

[whitemice]

Correct.  The current limit is 25% of the primary structures floor area.  So with a 1350sq/ft house - pretty normal for the neighborhood - the size of the ADU is limited to 337sq/ft.  Minimum size in 400sq/ft living area.  And you haven't put in a stairway yet.  A stairway to the second floor of a garage is ~24 feet long.  The math is impossible unless you have a ~2,500+ sq/ft house - you can't get anything that isn't so strange that nobody will want to live there.

The "new rules" would have made the ratio 40% - which is would allow a ~540 sq ft building @ 24x22.5.  Which is about the size of one of the several double-stall garages that already exist in the neighborhood; which you would not be allowed to erect today (I assume they are grandfathered).

Under the new rules you would still have the 40% green space requirement and other rules which prevent a neighborhood from ending up as a piled up heap of buildings.

[whitemice]

1 hour ago, Pattmost20 said:

Are ADUs dead in GR or do you think they could separate them out of the package and try to get them passed?

They are a separate recommendation.  But the conversation that is occurring is lumping everything together.  Which is why I said I wished the planning commission had passed this up one by one;  our community does not have the civic bandwidth to discuss four things at a time.

1 hour ago, Pattmost20 said:

I have a really worthless garage

As do I.  It is falling in, and a lead hazard.  My neighborhood is filled with dilapidated garages which are not even providing parking.  In part because construction is so expensive;  this was an opportunity to make these structures worth investing in.

[GRDadof3]

3 minutes ago, whitemice said:

They are a separate recommendation.  But the conversation that is occurring is lumping everything together.  Which is why I said I wished the planning commission had passed this up one by one;  our community does not have the civic bandwidth to discuss four things at a time.

As do I.  It is falling in, and a lead hazard.  My neighborhood is filled with dilapidated garages which are not even providing parking.  In part because construction is so expensive;  this was an opportunity to make these structures worth investing in.

The other nice thing about those garages is many are served by an alley, which makes it convenient for a rental. Although then you'll have alleys blocked with cars.  (probably what the NA's were thinking)

[x99]

2 hours ago, whitemice said:

Correct.  The current limit is 25% of the primary structures floor area.  So with a 1350sq/ft house - pretty normal for the neighborhood - the size of the ADU is limited to 337sq/ft.  Minimum size in 400sq/ft living area.  And you haven't put in a stairway yet.  A stairway to the second floor of a garage is ~24 feet long.  The math is impossible unless you have a ~2,500+ sq/ft house - you can't get anything that isn't so strange that nobody will want to live there.

The "new rules" would have made the ratio 40% - which is would allow a ~540 sq ft building @ 24x22.5.  Which is about the size of one of the several double-stall garages that already exist in the neighborhood; which you would not be allowed to erect today (I assume they are grandfathered).

Under the new rules you would still have the 40% green space requirement and other rules which prevent a neighborhood from ending up as a piled up heap of buildings.

Right.  Even with the new percentages, you still needed a HUGE house to get the full 850 square feet since it was keyed to I think 40% of the area of the PRIMARY dwelling.  So you're still talking at least a 2000+ square foot primary residence to hit 800 square feet.  It was stupid.  Then, don't forget you also have to pay nearly $2000 just as an "application fee" for an ADU, and it may or may not be approved.  The most sane proposal would have been to life off the size cap on the ADU entirely and boost it to 50% of the total floor area.  Basically this allows an up/down split two unit with an owner occupant requirement.  

The 500 foot thing was truly stupid.  I have no idea why they did that.  It would basically trash huge parts of traditional single family areas.  By bundling it with that, I think it's going to be a poison pill that kills the whole thing.  But I'm not sure it would have made a difference regarding opposition, the neighborhood associations would have screamed NIMBY about anything.  They want a seat at the table, but I'm not sure what any of them have done to show the city they deserve one.  They claim to be concerned about rising rents and affordability, but what they really mean is that they want a bunch of LIHTC housing for poor people stuffed into someone else's neighborhood.  Heaven forbid anyone put up a traditional four-unit or even a duplex in their neighborhood.  

The real problem is that the building code and zoning code have basically conspired to make existing housing stock far less useful than it ought to be.  Want a real fix?  Here's one:  Allow conversion to a 3 to 4 unit of ANY house in excess of 3000 square feet, and 2 unit for anything over 2000 square feet, provided that not less than 900 square feet is owner occupied, and that adequate off-street parking is provided for additional units.  Easy to judge  owner occupant compliance by the principal residence exemption filing.  Then modify the building code to provide certain limited fire and building code waivers to make the conversions actually possible/affordable without gutting the house.  Allow wirelessly interconnected but hardwired smoke detectors and blown cellulose or fiberglass in the walls or between floors to act as a permitted substitute for other fire measures that normally would be required.  What you need to be able to do is to use existing housing stock more intelligently with shrinking family sizes.  That would do it.

[whitemice]

2 hours ago, x99 said:

The 500 foot thing was truly stupid.  I have no idea why they did that.  It would basically trash huge parts of traditional single family areas.  By bundling it with that, I think it's going to be a poison pill that kills the whole thing.  But I'm not sure it would have made a difference regarding opposition, the neighborhood associations would have screamed NIMBY about anything.  They want a seat at the table, but I'm not sure what any of them have done to show the city they deserve one. 

Agree completely.  Their talk of community engagement, etc.. is bogus.  I went to one of the several meetings.  It was a Neighborhood Association talking over everyone, interrupting everything, and one of his cohorts mumbling under her breath while the Planning Commission tried to explain things.   And during one short break three of them were joking about which houses they thought should get torn down.   There is no evidence of an interest in real conversation.  It has been a very off-putting and disheartening process to observe.

All the NA's seem to care about is protecting Single Family Homes.  Their interests pretty much begin and end there.  Nevermind that they live in a city.

2 hours ago, x99 said:

Even with the new percentages, you still needed a HUGE house to get the full 850 square fe

A 500-600sq/ft space is quite rent-able.  More smaller spaces would take some of the pressure of larger "family size" units.  For example a four bedroom house next to mine is rented by four college students;  because that is cheap, when they could be renting 2 or 3 smaller units.  But the neighborhood is essentially forbidden from supplying those.

And in the last several **years** Highland Park has added **two** housing units.  Two.

Edited February 14, 2018 by whitemice

[Pattmost20]

6 hours ago, whitemice said:

Correct.  The current limit is 25% of the primary structures floor area.  So with a 1350sq/ft house - pretty normal for the neighborhood - the size of the ADU is limited to 337sq/ft.  Minimum size in 400sq/ft living area.  And you haven't put in a stairway yet.  A stairway to the second floor of a garage is ~24 feet long.  The math is impossible unless you have a ~2,500+ sq/ft house - you can't get anything that isn't so strange that nobody will want to live there.

The "new rules" would have made the ratio 40% - which is would allow a ~540 sq ft building @ 24x22.5.  Which is about the size of one of the several double-stall garages that already exist in the neighborhood; which you would not be allowed to erect today (I assume they are grandfathered).

Under the new rules you would still have the 40% green space requirement and other rules which prevent a neighborhood from ending up as a piled up heap of buildings.

My garage is a mere 216 sq/ft, so I kind of doubt they would ever let that fly, which is a bummer, because with a lofted bed could be a decent studio.