Dearborn Continues to Strengthen Neighborhoods
If there was ever any doubt about the positive impact that Dearborn’s Operation Eyesore and Neighborhood Stabilization programs are having on city neighborhoods one need not look any further than these photos.
A new home on Parker after Operation Eyesore.
Operation Eyesore, which started in 1960 was developed so Dearborn could acquire and remove buildings and then sell the land to private developers so new buildings can take their place. Operation Eyesore continues to work with owners of substandard homes and, in some cases, commercial properties in Dearborn.
Since Operation Eyesore was initiated, 1,288 buildings have been removed and 585 new dwellings have been constructed by private developers.
“The goal of the program is to keep the neighborhood at a higher level,” said John Nagy, Dearborn City Planner. “The importance of this is that there is a new interest in the neighborhood and it encourages improvements in existing homes.”
Dearborn’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program was launched by Mayor John B. O’Reilly, Jr., in May 2008 and since then the city has been buying marginal or undervalued foreclosed homes with the intention of reusing the property in ways that bolster the surrounding area. To add even more strength to the program, Dearborn will receive $2.4 million in federal neighborhood stabilization funding in 2009.
The home on Parker Street before demolition.
“We’ve earned those dollars because we earned the trust and respect of local, state and federal officials with our vision, our progress, and our fiscal responsibility,” O’Reilly said. “We’ve made great strides, quickly becoming a respected and innovative leader in this area. We’ll continue to buy marginal homes and clear the land to assemble larger, more desirable lots for resale or split them to combine with adjoining homes.”
O’Reilly said the city is looking at renovating and reselling some of the better houses it purchases as a way to give the city a chance to welcome more first-time home buyers in Dearborn.
Some quick facts:
– Dearborn in 2008 purchased 67 properties through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Operation Eyesore and a special HUD program.
– Dearborn purchased all of the parcels for just 17 percent of their total value.
– Through Operation Eyesore, 22 marginal homes were demolished and nine modern ones built, including before and after photos here of a home on Parker Street.
Dearborn property owners who feel they may have a building that is not up to standards and would consider selling the property to Dearborn should contact the City Plan Department at 313-943-2170.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:29 am
It is great. But what isn’t so nice is the bigfoot homes that go in that don’t blend in the existing neighborhoods. some look just horrible.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I guess not everyone will ever be pleased with every decision the city makes, even when the city makes some good decisions.
We had one home removed from our block that was not in sellable condition and the neighbor bought it and created a much larger yard out of it and it looks nice.
We also had three vacant lots sold to builders who built homes on them. All three homes are much larger than the rest of the homes in the neighborhood but they are very nice homes and I think they enhance the neighborhood and thankfully they are owner-occupied. No neighbors were happy to see some beautiful landscaping and oak trees cut down to build those homes. But since everyone in the neighborhood had the option to purchase those lots and chose not to do so, I cannot fault an owner or builder building whatever they want on that lot since it is is their property and providing the city authorizes it.
Fortunately, even though Dearborn has very old housing stock in most areas, the city through all the administrations has done a much better job keeping homes up to or above code than many other cities. Unlike many other older cities that have plenty of decaying homes, Dearborn does not have all that many and I am glad to see that the city takes pride in their housing stock. When a home falls into disrepair and there are no consequences for the owner, the neighborhood decays as well. There are many examples of this in surrounding cities, especially Detroit.
Lastly, I just hope that most of this new housing that is going up is owner-occupied because the amount of rentals in Dearborn is rising and rising rentals means lowered housing values and a lowered quality of life for everyone left owning in the neighborhood. This usually ends up in higher crime and citizens that can afford to move, moving out and this is not good for any city.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:41 am
As RoberB mentions the bigfoots are a problem. They’re littered throughout my neighborhood and many are almost as unsightly as some of the neglected homes in the neighborhood.
Another problem is that the city thinks dedensification of already low density neighborhoods will be the solution. It’s a shortsighted and backward looking approach to the problems we are having. Also, at a time when densifying neighborhoods is becoming more important this opposite approach says welcome to the 1980s instead of the 21st century.
It’s funny that even places like Canton are starting to get it, even if just a little. They have been putting in more dense developments in the last few years. They even added the new urbanist Cherry Hill Village and despite how much I detest new urbanism the idea of a more dense and closely knit neighborhood is a good idea.
Elsewhere Portland is promoting using its existing 25 foot lots (much narrower than the 35 foot lots the city has a problem with here). They have streamlined the approval process for building on those lots by offering pre-designed structures that meet all the requirements. Although I think having houses that you pick out already designed is not the best I do think a way of streamlining and simplifying building on narrow lots is a more forward looking and long sighted approach to the problem.
Also I think a better idea would be to start allowing more mixed use development to creep into the edges of neighborhoods. Right now we have these giant tracts of strictly zoned neighborhoods based on decades old principles. Allowing mixed use on some of the more major neighborhoods streets could also help make the neighborhoods more appealing, walkable and vibrant.
And from the pictures in this article I have to say the new home on Parker is pretty sterile and hideous. It’s basically a garage with with a house stuck on.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
The new house certainly is spectacular..but am I alone in thinking the old house looked very charming on that lot–at least from the photo shown.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
School Mom, I agree that the previous home looks charming and appears to have been well-maintained. It was probably a “garage home”, set near the back of the lot giving it a large front yard and practically no back yard. This is an example of the type of structures that the City has been tageting with Operation Eyesore – even though it really is not a dilapidated building. Rather, they get rid of the garage homes because they are small and incongruous with the rest of the block.
In order to attract the attention of a builders (i.e., bidders for the vacant lots), the City occasionally will join together a few smaller lots into fewer larger lots. This allows the builders to construct larger homes which may be easier to sell. Unfortunately, the bigfoot homes have the same effect on the neighborhood. They appear radically out of place and do nothing to reinforce the continuity of the block. But the City is not so concerned since the new structure inevitably carries a higher taxable value.
An eyesore can be anything that departs significantly from the norm- as this example almost certainly does.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Well, let’s hope the new home actually is occupied and if so, by people who can afford the taxes in this continuing downward spiral of economics–especially in the real estate sector.
Cranbrook used to have a funded program called “Design Michigan” that specialized in projects such as taking the original house on such a piece of property and designing a replacement that would preserve the original appeal/asthetics of the setting, etc., perhaps by blending elements of the existing house into a new one. The most glaring feature of the new bigger house is that it appears to sit on a lot devoid of trees and other greenery-but of course the photo was taken in winter.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“And from the pictures in this article I have to say the new home on Parker is pretty sterile and hideous. It’s basically a garage with with a house stuck on.”
Paul, you NAILED IT!
A tacky, common Dearborn/Dearborn Heights box on box with the ever-present ethnicity inspired front porch arch. This taxpayer-funded program in Dearborn is truly, appropriately named Operation Eyesore.
Mr. Roark, just the passing thought. Upon my examining the before and after photo’s, I’d be led to believe that the new construction has almost no backyard, contrary to what you suggest. Look for yourself and note that the face of the garage or front, on the new home is inline with the existing older dwelling next to it on the left in the photo. This suggests to me that in appearance the new garage built to the dimensions would be 24×24 for a today’s standard 2-car. The house appears to connect approximately where the garage would terminate in depth. Where the garage begins, this alone establishes a horrendously huge setback to begin the actual living space of the house.
Unless this is some freakishly deep lot that I’m unaware of on Parker and my figuring is wrong, this is just like most of the new homes that have been built in Dearborn that have no backyard of any meaningful value. The bulk of the green space in this example is in the front and the condition appears even worse than as you’ve suggested with what was the dwelling as photographed in the before.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“with the ever-present ethnicity inspired front porch arch.”
Romans are moving into the neighborhood?
The new house looks fine. Some trees would be nice, though.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:18 am
LX and Paul: Clearly the two of you were sleeping during your high school finance class. Let’s do a little math. The white clapboard house on Parker was probably built in the 1930s or 1940s. Let’s say it had an assessed value today of $40,000. Now, let’s build an all brick house on that same lot in 2008 with an assessed value of about $125,000. Which one will provide more tax revenue to the City of Dearborn and maybe even draw new residents? House 1 (white one) or House 2 (all brick one)? You have a 50 percent chance of getting it correct but I’m not holding my breath. LX, aka Oscar, you can go back into your trash can and sleep if this kind of math is too difficult for you.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Lewis, I’m not saying the older house should not have been torn down and replaced. My comment at the end was just my disapproval with the generic subdivision garage with a house junk that was put up here and seems to be going up often. Very car oriented rather than people and neighborhood oriented and in that sense offputting.
My point was about the idea of merging lots with the neighborhood stabilization program. Why not streamline the process of building on the smaller lots and get 3 brand new homes on 3 lots that go toward creating a cohesive neighborhood rather than 2 monster homes with garages as fronts. Seems 3 homes with an assessed value of say 100,000 is better than 2 with an assessed value of 125,000.
And those bigfoots do look like monsters. There are a few near me that cover nearly their entire merged lots (40-50 foot lots) and are truly eyesores. There have been non bigfoots non garage fronts put up in my area, too, on existing 35 foot lots. They’re assessed at about 70 to 90 per cent of the big foot homes but look much better in the neighborhood with more thought put into them than a junky subdivision spec home design. I have no problem with them. They fit into the existing structure and are good for the tax rolls in comparison to what they replaced.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:37 am
The picture of the oversized house on a lot in Dearborn which replaced a perfectly decent house – is disturbing. For one the new house is gross – pail bricks, big garage greets the visitor, used all possible yardage for home. Why does the city of Dearborn allow these big foot homes to go up? Build something that enhances the existing architecture not clashes or more importantly aims to over take the neighborhood one lot at a time. Sure Dearborn needs to look attractive to entice buyers yet lets keep it tasteful. An over use of columns and cement doesn’t do that. Perhaps helping struggling homeowners buy some flowers would be an interesting idea. Or getting neighborhoods together to do clean-ups for elderly citizens? Not buy rip down and rebuild oversized structures where homes used to be.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am
What is most disturbing about this trend of replacing modest houses with McMansions is that we are committing a form of residential genocide–getting rid of affordable housing for senior citizens on fixed incomes and others of working class means to fill the coffers of the municipalities that really are not that talented at spending our money anyway.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Just doing a little bit of research into this lot I found out it is an 80×222 foot lot. So apparently they do get their backyard on this house. The garage front is set back about 50 feet from the sidewalk with the house front setback maybe 70-75 feet. Probably the back of the house is somewhere around 120 feet from the sidewalk. So in this case that still leaves another hundred feet. However, may other places in the city similar sized homes are being put on 70×100 and 50×100 foot lots made from former 35 foot lots.
However, on a lot of the size of this one on Parker, there is absolutely no reason they had to put such a pronounced garage on the front like that. It really is just some schlock from some random outer subdivision placed completely out of context on Parker St. It may have added to the city coffers but, like Vicki said, it certainly doesn’t do much for the neighborhood it’s in. If the previous home was a garage home that needed replacing they should not have built another garage with a home as an afterthought.
Old All Day School Mom makes a good point as well. Right now the city has a one size fits all solution to the problem. There should really be a more mixed use approach and also one based on neighborhood (and even within neighborhood), existing lot sizes, etc., not this single approach. They need to become more creative with how they deal with the differing neighborhoods from these 80 foot lots on Parker to 100 foot lots elsewhere and to the 35 and 30 foot lots in the east end as well as the wide range of homes from a million dollars to 50 thousand dollars. The city may see some increase in the coffers now but in the long run this single minded approach may be more detrimental to the city than good.
And Vicki, sadly we can’t legislate taste, or lack thereof. I find those pale bricks so prevalent in cheaply built spec homes like this one to be disgusting as well. The oversized columns I find gaudy, silly and humorous at the same time. Actually, I should say it could be legislated but I don’t think we should legislate it because a lot of good designs may get thrown out along with these bad ones.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Paul, I totally agree with you that big attached garages on large houses like this in a smaller home neighborhood were not all that well thought out. I also agree with you that another option the city might want to consider in 2 or more combined lot areas is to build smaller, attractive homes that fit the neighbor hood better. I think your simple math example of 3 homes paying far more in taxes versus one large home is a wise suggestion and perhaps something the city should consider on some lots.
Either way, despite some homes not being kept up as much as in the past, I still think that most of our property owners take much better care of their homes and properties than most surrounding communities. But I too am concerned about rentals, not only because renters don’t have the investment in the city as much as owners do, but because statistics prove that the more rentals there are in any type of housing unit, whether it is homes or any type of housing accomodations, the higher the crime is and the lower the property values become.
Dearborn once a city that had mostly owner-occupied homes now has well over 30% of rentals and those are only the rentals that where the owner has complied with the building codes and thus notified the city. How many more are out there that the city is not aware of at all. We also need to realize that there are far more condos and apartments in Dearborn than there were long ago and this is another contributing factor that has increased the amount of rentals, but it’s not the only reason.
Anyhow, it’s great to read that even if some of us disagree that most all writers here are passionate about this issue and want to see the city address it in a way that is more fair across the board. Let’s hope that despite the terrible economy where cities, including Dearborn are struggling for any type of revenue, that Deaborn leaders take note of what we’re writing here and on other sites and possibly address this issue.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
wow!
you people continue to amaze me with the “logic” and concerns that are voiced here,
Everyone should be glad that anyone in their right mind would want to spend by my quesstimation 300,000 to 350,000 in this city!
If one has that amount for for a new build, we are lucky they don’t spend it in northville, novi or even brownstown for gods sake.
I suppose the alternative is another 1200 ft aluminum sided bungalow????
Better yet, 3 individual homes of this makeup, because man their selling like crazy now right????????
The same people who suggest legislation I hope didn’t vote republican, (you know with the whole bullshit big government involvment statement)
February 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Confused, while I agree with your comment applauding someone who would invest in a home in the City, I think the concerns of many of us goes beyond the building by itself.
There is a neighborhood to be considered here as well, and all of the homes on the block help make up the fabric of that neighborhood. Typically, as Dearborn has been developed, blocks of homes have been fairly cohesive; even though there may be some variation between the homes on a given block, no one house varies wildly from its neighbors. As an aside, some communities now require new homes to vary from those around it – but not too much! The intent and result is to develop a character for a block; the houses are not “cookie cutter same” but not egregiously different either.
As this replacement home is obviously part of a neighborhood, there should be some attempt (Paul and School Mom have cited excellent examples) to design within the character of that neighborhood. If this home had been an English Tudor, a Mediterranean Villa, or a Post-modern monstrosity, we would have all been screaming about how it doesn’t fit in. We should not be any less critical about this example just because we are more familiar with its style (love it or hate it). The bottom line is that this doesn’t fit in.
And what is irritating is that it would not be that difficult to design a home that would respect the style of its neighborhood and neighbors.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Thanks, Howard, for saying what I was trying to say well.
Confused, I will also add I’m not talking about all 3 lots being built on immediately. But rather than combine them only for short term goals the city should also be looking at long term growth. Maybe only 1 of the 3 hypothetical adjacent lots will be built on now but in the future those 2 extra lots may be needed. With the stabilization program as is those 2 lots wouldn’t exist to be built on 10 or 20 years from now.
I’m also only applying that to official city policy. I’m not against an individual purchasing two lots on their own and combining them. I just don’t think it should be official city policy. But then what’s built on those two lots needs to be thought out. Like Howard said it’s not that hard to do.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Why does everyone who isn’t in any position or financial means of building a new home, offer all their opinions simply because they don’t like the design of a “new build”??
It must be really wierd to go through life like that
This a classic example of ” If I did it, I would, blah blah” and trying to mandate what others do with THEIR money!!
This area as well as the state are finsished , Again be happy the tax dollars on a property this size are still rolling in, as opposed to 2 empty single family homs that sit empty on the market.
that aluminum sided piece of shit home on parker isn’t what dearborn need more of. If thats what your clammering for, may I suggest dearborn heights, taylor or inkster.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
When the city seizes a house that it considers an “eyesore”- a subjective term at best– there are no guarantees that whoever buys it, tears it down, and builds on that property are going to pay property taxes.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Confused you are confused. I don’t think any of us ever said it has to be another aluminum sided bungalow. Like I said homes near me have been built that actually fit into the character of the neighborhood. They aren’t 1200 square foot aluminum sided bungalows. They’re nice 2 story brick homes for the most part of about 1800-2000 sq. feet so a little larger than their neighbors but fit well on their 35 foot lots. They aren’t anything special but they fit into the neighborhood despite being a little different and are better than the out of place spec home on Parker.
But according to your way of thinking people should be able to do whatever they want? So if someone bought a lot next to you and built a house with 2 full floors that covers 80% of the lot and towers over your house with a brick wall feet away you’d be ok with it and not care? Would you care when you try to sell your house and prospective buyers see it sits constantly in the shadow of its giant neighbor and all your windows on that side have fantastic views to a brick wall less than 10 feet away? Because that’s how many of these homes have been getting built.
Like I said people should be able to combine lots privately but not as an official policy of the city. I also said people should be able to build what they want and that taste should NOT be legislated. However, what should be a policy of the city is to promote building homes that enhance the neighborhood and look toward long term growth and not just the here and now. Something has to counter the developer’s process of build, make a quick buck and move on and let those back in the neighborhood deal with the results. The city needs to have a more long term approach rather than the quick, short term, approach, because these bigfoot homes may become obsolete money sucking pits in the next 20-30 years that will be hard to sell. Then what? Waste money and time dealing with the same problems all over again at your expense and my expense but not the developer’s because he’s long gone.
And, actually, confused I have thought about building on an extra lot. I’ve already spent the time developing 2 designs. It just doesn’t seem justifiable at the moment because there’s nothing wrong with the current house.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
In my ‘hood—the highest taxed in Dearborn, we already have a few McMansions/Bigfoot homes(whatever you prefer to label them) that were built on the sites of what “confused” might classify as “piece of sh—” homes which were torn down by the new builders/owners and replaced with these dazzling abodes, THAT already are in foreclosure and/or delinquent in property taxes.
So, what did our neighborhood gain? Uhmm..nothing.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
We can sit and debate this all we want but as long as the person or developer owns the property it is their right to do what they want with it. Talking about the shouldas, wouldas and couldas without any of us being the property owner is just plain fruitless.
If some don’t want the city to regulate this or expect the property owner or developer to do what we want, then this is just plain silly too. There has to be some kind of city regulation and planning that most agree upon, because it does affect the other property owners in the neighborhood to have it any other way.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
More hotair bullshit of “i was gonna do this, gonna do that and in the end blah blah blah and zero action!!, it doesn’t matter what is built here or next to you, because none of you are moving anyways!
I love this mindset of cetain people who talk about resale and property values that were never moving in the first place.
By the way do any of you even live even near that new house?????
Stop asigning drama to situations that really dont involve you, yes I know u pay taxes, join the club! wait another yr. when all the hillbilly auto workers packages have run out, then see what the change that comes to dearborn, you wont have to worry about anything being built or sold1
At least the new owners of the minmasion that is “keeping you nutjobs up at night” put their money where their mouth is and built!
Foreclosure can hit any demographic regardless of size of mortgage, a large majority of them are happening because many fail to take action and be pro-active or even reactive with their lenders,
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
To see what all the fuss was about I drove by the home you see in the picture at the beginning of the story. This block of Parker is not far from where I live and while the block is more bungalows than anything, there are also a significant number of other homes on that block that are as large or larger than this home that were built earlier than this home. There are also a few homes that were altered from their original ranch style homes or bungalows where owners put on huge dormers and additions that make them look more like huge colonials.
The house in debate is a pretty darn nice house and it sits on 2 lots the owner purchased. If one knows the Pardee subdivision as I do, there are many homes on other streets in the area that also have had double width lot homes for decades and they all look very nice and fit in well with the neighborhood. While I understand the desire of many of us to have conformity in a block or neighborhood, conformity in some cases makes the neighborhood look like many subdivisions out west where I lived for 25 years and these type of subdivisions I thought looked nowhere near as nice as neighborhoods with homes that were unique from each other.
I don’t care for mini-McMansions towering over standard size ranches or bungalows in Dearborn either, but this house is not a mini-McMansion. In my opinion this house enhances the neighborhood on Parker far better than that little bungalow ever did. Therefore, I have no issue with this house and I think if anyone who does not like this house would actually visit the block it sits on you perhaps might agree with me.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
If I’m not mistaken, I belive the real impetus for Operation Eyesore was Hubbard’s agenda to “Keep Dearborn Clean” (I think we all know what that meant in Orvie’s day). Was it under the guise of Operation Eyesore that a large residential section of the South End was demolished, never to see housing again? I know that Dearborn’s strict, if wildly inconsistent, code enforcement has done plenty for the greater good of the city & it’s tax base, but I suspect that so many nitpicking ordinances were mostly crafted to give legal grounds to punish or harass almost anyone. In the olden days, this may have been motivated by one’s ethnicity or political loyalties, but now I think it’s only about the money. It takes so little for a house to be “elgible for demolition” or “dangerous”, with a creative building inspector (belive you me, some of these guys are very creative) ANY structure can be condemned in this town if somebody wants it to be. Did you know that under state law, if a building sits vacant for over 6 months, local government does not have to adhere to the state building codes? They can make up their own & they do.
The FBI has been going over the Building & Safety Dept. w/a fine tooth comb, so if there was any wrong doing recently, like say, builders “encouraging” houses to be condemned & demolished at the expense of the city, I think it will come to light soon.
For the record, esthetically speaking, I despise most all of the McMansions built in Dbn, especially the house-attached-to-the-back-of-the-garage & those tacky entrances where the glass goes up 2 stories. The best reason to build new is energy efficency & I don’t think the 100’s of wasted square feet around a grand staircase is the way to go green. It’s just conspicous consumption, like so many other things that I don’t care for,( but seemed to be doing our economy good). But I am a bit of a curmudgeon & I just like what I like, that’s why I chose a Craftsman bungalow.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
There’s another thing that is irritating about bigfoot homes, from the standpoint of someone who owns an old house–apparently, when you’re spending enough dough for new construction, the codes are relaxed. I almost had to remove several square feet of an existing narrow walkway in my modest back yard, because it supposedly put me slightly over the allowed percentage of paved space. I almost had to get a variance over that!
Ever see how little grass is left when some of these houses are built? Do they make mowers narrow enough?
And why is it that you’re allowed to build a much larger garage if it’s attached? Detached garages are much less likely to become living space.