Suggested Solutions

Existing solutions for the Arena District suggest infill development in the direct vicinity of the Central Business District as the appropriate land use. Specifically, the cropped image above from Detroit Future City's "50 Year Comprehensive Land Use Plan suggests that our area of focus continues to act as a Cultural District and as an example of a traditional Detroit neighborhood. To maintain and improve the quality of these culturally rich and historic districts, new infill development is regularly being proposed to increase neighborhood density and to reduce vacancy in the area. For example, Utile Design Inc. has partnered with the Detroit Planning Department in designing elements to revitalize the Brush Park Neighborhood. In doing so, new developments in the historic neighborhoods of Cass and Brush Park must ascribe to specific design criteria derived from public engagement sessions and proposed planning actions by Utile Design Inc. The current development proposals can be viewed at:

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/Planning/Brush%20Park%20Form%20Based%20Code/2017-07-05%20Brush%20Park%20Public%20Meeting%20%232%20copy.pdf?ver=2017-07-13-084420-610

The information provided in the following sections are investigative results from a Masters of Urban Planning and Design studio at University of Michigan's Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. The course was instructed by Marc Norman and the graphics and explanations below were created by Lindsey Barret, Kate Blessing-Kawamura, Michael Borsellino, and Pam Schaeffer. The studio investigated the costs of implementing a specific building type proposed by the Brush Park Form-Based Code (referenced above) and proposed alternatives to the development in order to increase neighborhood density and diversity.

The following section, "Designing Affordability" provides suggestions to increase the number of affordable units in developments proposed in the Brush Park Form-Based Code. Initially the plan proposes adding 5 units to the constructs by retrofitting the garage to increase the number of available units. The initial changes (10 year) would slightly increase the square footage while reducing initial costs due to increased rental and property incomes.

"Future Proofing" extrapolates on the expansion of the development at a later stage and proposes the addition of units on top of existing structures and the expansion of the carriage home's footprint through the addition of accessory dwelling units on the site's interior. The latter expansion would provide an additional 10 units to the development and an increased number of available bedrooms. Additionally, the future improvements to the site aim to diversify potential users through flexible and varied floor plans and possible unit expansions in order to generate additional incomes reducing the overall development costs.

Ian's Wallenberg Project

In the last semester of the Undergraduate Architecture program at the University of Michigan students are allowed to propose projects based on their specific interests as they relate to the overall studio theme. For the Winter 2018 Wallenberg Semester, that theme concerned Agency and Identity as they pertain to designers.

My response to the theme and my proposed project focuses (similar to the example above) on increasing density and availability of heterogeneous living options in central city neighborhoods. To combat the negative effects of gentrification in Detroit's revitalized neighborhoods, I propose a joint operation between potential developers (subscribing to Brush Park's Form-Based-Code) and a non-profit Co-Operative housing entity that provides affordable units in wake of increasing real-estate values brought on by developments in and around the Arena District. Conditions that could enable the longevity of affordable units include:

• Incorporating a Limited-Equity clause in the formation of the Co-Operative entity:
  • Dwellings are acquired by purchasing shares in the Co-Op entity.
  • Improvements to the dwelling by the occupant are tax deductible (improvements funded through mortgage equity/maintenance costs)
  • Increases in real-estate values for the dwellings during the period of occupation are neglected upon selling shares back to the Co-Op (funds non-profit organization.)
• Incorporating affordable housing tax-credits into initial unit pricing:
  • By providing affordable housing options the Co-Op is eligible for tax exemptions which can be sold to the joint developer to reduce initial costs.
• Co-Operative Mortgage interest tax-deductions and maintenance fees:
  • The initial borrowing by the non-profit acts similarly to a single-family mortgage, where the co-op can deduct its mortgage interest payments from property taxes owed.
  • Monthly maintenance fees paid by occupants (often deductible up to 50%) contribute to the Co-Ops property taxes and operating costs.
• Single Family Mortgage interest tax-deductions
  • Initial conventional mortgages for occupants purchasing shares in the co-op act as traditional single-family mortgages, therefore interest payments are deductible.
• Acquiring Adjacent lots (minimum four)
  • Maximizes efficiencies of scale regarding building costs.
  • Limiting additional construction costs by using shared interior walls and utilities hookups
  • Increasing the initial building footprints by forgoing lot setbacks
  • Forgo zoning requirements for suburban parking restrictions (increase buildable area)
• Separate ownership of original development constructs and additional Co-Op owned units. Units initially proposed in the Form-Based Code are available at market rate whereas units controlled by the Co-Op remain affordable.