  Jhartmich Member Username: Jhartmich Post Number: 110 Registered: 04-2006 |
I drove by what use to be the housing units at the Lodge service drive and Mack ave. The buildings are all tore down with just trees and some small piles of concrete remaining. The trees looked awesome! As a resident of Cass Corridor I am very pleased to see that torn down so fast. Anyone know who the mover and shaker was behind that? Was it Motor City Casino? Are there any plans to build anything there? It would make a nice park but I think Detroit is trying to decrease the number of parks, not make more of them. | ||
Leland_palmer Member Username: Leland_palmer Post Number: 510 Registered: 08-2004 |
It's going to be public and affordable housing. | ||
Jhartmich Member Username: Jhartmich Post Number: 111 Registered: 04-2006 |
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're kidding? GOD I hope not. That new affordable housing at Third and Mack/Seldon is already making havoc for the neighborhood. My friend with WSU police department tells how much of the crime in the WSU neighborhood traces back to those new low income housing. NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE???? Thanks for ruining my day. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3067 Registered: 04-2006 |
You mean MLK and the Lodge? | ||
Matt Member Username: Matt Post Number: 1261 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm pretty sure the housing that is going in there is the same as Woodbridge Estates. | ||
Bussey Member Username: Bussey Post Number: 655 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually it would be either MLK, as Iheartthed said above or Myrtle. Mack ends at Woodward. The little swing you have to take once going west bound across woodward was historically never present and is a more modern development. Davenport was the street just above Myrtle, where the Milner Arms Apts are and Myrtle eventually was renamed MLK. | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2008 |
Public/subsidized housing (for low-income, working-class people, not luxury lofts disguised as "affordable") are not bad in and of themselves. So much bad has been said about public housing, both true and untrue. But I think its safe to say one major reason for the failure of the big public housing projects in the 1960's was not that they were low-income, but rather that their construction and design were so that incomes are segregated (these projects are huge, and very visible, when you see them, you know... this is a "project"), and the buildings themselves are out of place with the surrounding area. They usually destroy the street grid, they usually build tall buildings, or more suburban style buildings. A better strategy is to integrate public/subsidized housing into the non-public/subsidized housing. Lower income folks should be able to live side-by-side with upper and middle income folks. Building design should be just like the buildings surrounding it, and the street grid should be left untampered, or in the case of Detroit, rebuilt. I think this is what is sort of happening though. This project should look like woodbridge estates, and hopefully flow nicely into the surrounding city. Hopefully no one will even know this is public/subsidized housing. Hopefully there will be a balance to the loft developments that are out of reach to most low-income and working-class people. I love Detroit because there is so much potential. There is potential to double our population, and build on all this empty land we have everywhere in the city, without displacing one single person. I hope this is what happens. There is a difference between development and gentrification!••• | ||
Blueidone Member Username: Blueidone Post Number: 217 Registered: 03-2007 |
If it's subsidized low income RENTAL housing, then the key to success, low crime and good residents is a good management company. I lived in a subsidized rental community for 30 years. The crime was lower than the surrounding area. Residents took pride in their neighborhood.. planting flowers and such in their yards...and doing some self-policing. But all of that was encouraged by the management people, who told incoming residents what was expected of them. And those who didn't live up to expectations (set forth in the rules and regulations) were asked to leave. The city needs all kinds of new housing...for all incomes and social strata, because that's who makes up the city. Just because people live below the poverty line (for whatever reason) doesn't mean they should have to live in sub-standard housing...or have nowhere to live. IMHO | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 215 Registered: 11-2007 |
Public housing is certainly not bad in itself, but Detroit already houses far more than its share of the region's low-income people, and has far too much housing for its current or likely population. By building public housing in the city, you build housing for disadvantaged people who are then pretty much guaranteed to be further disadvantaged by living in a city with inadequate schools and policing, which are likely to be more of a problem for the poor than for the better-off. I think you could make a case that we shouldn't be building new low-income housing in the city--it isn't only the responsibility of the city to find places for people to live. | ||
Blueidone Member Username: Blueidone Post Number: 219 Registered: 03-2007 |
There is a MAJOR difference between "public"housing and low-income housing. It is not necessarily true that the low income people will be continually disadvantaged. There are several low income housing communities in the city that are thriving. I know many many people who came from low income housing, improved their lives and moved on to buying a home and becoming very productive members of society. And if we can't help our fellow citizens have a roof over their heads, where should they go? To the streets? To the overcrowded shelters? There was a time in my life when I needed a helping hand. I got it. I improved my education and employment. Then I turned and helped others behind me that were also trying to climb their way up. Casting them off into the darkness helps no one. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 222 Registered: 10-2006 |
There is nothing wrong with public housing. The problem is the administration and tenancy of public housing, which has generally been (in the U.S. at least) abysmal. This is why the demolition of public housing in places like Chicago and Detroit is so stupid. It ignores the problem, which is not the buildings, but the tenants. If you build new housing and put the same tenants in the housing, you will have the exact same problems. BTW, New York has (by far) the largest and most dense, tower-in-a-block public housing in the U.S., yet it is regarded as easily the best major public housing agency in the U.S. Locally, Ann Arbor has very good public housing. The problem isn't the buildings. You are not solving problems; you are just transferring them into new buildings. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4725 Registered: 02-2005 |
Are you sure about that [A2's public housing], Crawford? They have a great agency that helps low income people get off the street, which I happen to be affiliated with (Avalon Inc.), but I'm pretty sure the city has little/no public housing. I was recently talking to a homeless lady I know pretty well (I often work outdoors at my job site and see a lot of people on the street), and she said that section 8 housing is basically nonexistant in A2. She was considering going to Battle Creek just to find something. Re: low income/affordable housing in general, I support the creation of it, and I'm fine with the government taking steps to ensure that it is available, but the problem comes when you group everyone together. That is socio-economic segregation, and it breaks up a city just as modern suburbs are broken up according to price-range of the houses within the subdivisions. The better, more sophisticated answer is to give developers major incentives for mixing affordable housing into their apartments, townhouses, etc. This can easily be done by offering some smaller apartments within the development, or by renting certain apartments instead of seeking buyers. The government incentives or tax breaks could be good enough to allow them to still profit after major rental rate cuts for certain units in their development. The result of all of this is that people mix together better, and the "poor" aren't concentrated together, marginalizing them and automatically making an entire neighborhood become stigmatized as being "unsafe" or "crime havens" or simply undesirable places to live near [however unjustified that may be]. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 223 Registered: 10-2006 |
Ann Arbor has lots of public housing, and it's quite good: North Maple Estates Hikone Maple Meadows Green Baxter Court Hillside Manor Upper Platt (Colonial Square) Lower Platt Mallet's Creek Oakwood Miller Manor Baker Commons Broadway Terrace Evelyn Court White/State/Henry South Seventh West Washington http://www.a2gov.org/services/ OtherServices/Housing/Pages/Lo w-IncomePublicHousing.aspx | ||
Shark Member Username: Shark Post Number: 362 Registered: 12-2003 |
Little to no public housing? The Ann Arbor Housing Commission has over 355 properties for Public Housing. There is a waitlist. Section 8 is a different program. *Crawford beat me to it. (Message edited by Shark on May 04, 2008) | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4728 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks for the info. I guess the problem is the high demand (and apparent lack of Sect. 8?). Most of those names don't really ring a bell (except the last three)...are these mostly on the outskirts of town? I'm actually surprised that there are that many units, but I also know that A2 residents are big NIMBY-type complainers [definitely not something that is unique to them], so I'm interested to know where these places are, and how they are organized. Thanks again for the correction. | ||
J_to_the_jeremy Member Username: J_to_the_jeremy Post Number: 60 Registered: 03-2007 |
Hikone is on the Southeast side by Eisenhower, North Maple is also on the edge of town. I think lots of those are spread evenly through the city though, which is how it should be. | ||
Jhartmich Member Username: Jhartmich Post Number: 113 Registered: 04-2006 |
Excellent post Mackinac. I guess that is the crux of my bitch, the fact that they usually end up putting all low income families in in spot which more often than not, brings crime. I could accept mixed housing with high, middle, and low priced housing. Unfortionately, very few builders want to build those type of places. I guess if the project at MLK and the Lodge look like Brewster of Woodbridge Estates I could live with it. but that garbage shit shacks they built at MLK and 3rd/Seldon are an eye sore. I ride my bike through there and the buildings are already getting shitty looking. We don't need more of that kind of structure. | ||
Genesyxx Member Username: Genesyxx Post Number: 891 Registered: 02-2004 |
Yeah, I just saw this yesterday. Did they just evict everybody or did they find everybody a place to relocate? | ||
Jcole Member Username: Jcole Post Number: 471 Registered: 04-2005 |
Weren't they vacant already for quite a while? | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1274 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am waiting for the govt. to supply me with middle income housing. Preferably something with a wet bar in the den | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 602 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: I still have no clue to what you are referring. There is nothing at the corner of Third and Selden. Maybe you mean Brainard? |
