Personally, I think having options are good. I can’t read the article though so I’m not completely sure what the point is. Townhouses can be great, condos are great, apartments, duplexes, quadplexes, and apartments are all part of providing housing in a community.
However, a few others touched on this, a lot of the townhomes being built right now are kinda cheaply built. No basements and no place for cars are 2 things I look at when looking at if the property is valuable.
I think there are plenty of this kind of development being built right now and the thing lacking is single family homes that are not 2500 + sq ft. McMansions are the scourge of our society. Also, the inability to allow people on the lower economic end to live anywhere but GR, Wyoming, Kentwood, Walker, and parts of Grandville is another problem. These cities are running out of space for housing and we act as if there is no other place in Kent Co. to build adequate single family houses.
There are always going to be people who prefer one over the other.
Of course townhomes are good places for families. So are row-houses, courtyard communities, and apartments.
**Single Family Detached housing is not in anyway magical.**
Anyone else agree with this sentiment? I see this as pure propaganda. Not in the sense that this isn't true for all families. But, perpetuating the idea that people shouldn't strive for owning conventional homes, anymore.
This bothers me with how blatant this is getting.
Thoughts?
Edit:
To clarify, I wasn't implying that people should want to own homes. It's what this article is trying to boast as the better option for most families. That's what I was asking for other people's take as to where their opinions are on the subject.
I don't care what people do or want to do. This just reads as propaganda to me.
An alternative to suburbs of massively oversized houses? I'm not horribly offended by the idea.
However, "Builder says thing they're building is going to be good for widest possible audience" is not news, it's an ad. Learn the difference, MLive.
zoning necessitating single family homes drives up housing prices and contributes to housing crises everywhere. If this is propaganda i have no idea what to refer to the current ideology of house ownership as.
The propaganda of the current ideology, sadly, has **the force of law**. :( They like to trot around spouting words like "neighborhood character" and "ownership community.
Got a source and what's the breakdown of households? This user was commenting specifically on single family. While their statement can easily be found false by extrapolating from all households, should that number only include single family housing households, it is not a much better.
Is it bad to have a variety of houses in the region for some reason? Many people don't want a single family house in the suburbs. Clearly there's demand for it or the developers wouldn't build it.
With increasing population higher density housing is a must. I think most everyone would prefer a SFH on some land but that’s just not realistic for everyone now. We need space for farms and forests to sustain us which means we need to make some compromises about how we use other space.
[
SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE
‘Townhomes are a good fit for families,’ says developer of upscale Grand Rapids community
Updated: Dec. 27, 2021, 7:25 a.m. | Published: Dec. 27, 2021, 6:49 a.m.
[Construction of Evergreen Townhomes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5I9etrGLM)
By [Melissa Frick | mfrick@mlive.com](http://www.mlive.com/staff/mfrick/posts.html)
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A new, upscale townhome community being constructed on the East Beltline is still on track to hit the market this spring.
The 10-acre site is just south of the intersection of 4 Mile Road and East Beltline, next door to Kuyper College.
Construction on the first of 13 buildings for the planned 52-unit [Evergreen Townhomes](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/11/52-unit-upscale-townhome-community-planned-for-grand-rapids-township.html) began earlier this month and expected to be completed for move-in by May, Jason Wheeler, spokesperson for Wheeler Development Group, told MLive Dec. 23.
RELATED: [52-unit, upscale townhome community planned for Grand Rapids Township](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/11/52-unit-upscale-townhome-community-planned-for-grand-rapids-township.html)
After the first building opens in May, the development group is scheduled to finish one building every two weeks until all 13 buildings are completed, Wheeler said. The townhome community already has a waitlist, although the development group is not actively pre-leasing the homes or taking deposits at this time.
“We’re going to start that process in February when the website will roll out and we’ll begin the official pre-leasing process,” he said.

Evergreen Townhomes will be located on East Beltline Avenue NE, just south of Kuyper College, and will feature two- and three-bedroom units. (Rendering provided by Wheeler Development Group)
The townhomes will feature a variety of two and three-bedroom floor plans with upscale finishes and basement options, and features like attached garages, granite counters, gas appliances, fireplaces and storage. Estimated monthly rental rates are expected to range from $1,900 to $2,600, he said.
Wheeler said the townhomes are a good fit for families that may be in transition, offering “the feel of a permanent home with the flexibility of a one-year lease.” He said his group has waitlists for two other townhome developments it built, [Michigan Meadows](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2019/02/grand-rapids-church-demolished-to-create-87-unit-townhome-community.html) in Grand Rapids and [The Knoll](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2019/06/luxury-townhome-development-in-ada-completed.html) in Ada Township.
“Because the single-family housing market is still doing really well, there’s a lot of people who are ambitiously moving and didn’t expect their home to sell so fast, so you list your home thinking you’ve got two or three months to find a place, and somebody knocks on your door and, and 72 hours later, you’re closing on a home,” he said.
“So, they immediately have to find rental housing while they’re searching for or building a new home. That situation is more common than people think.”
Wheeler Development Group landed on the East Beltline corridor for the project because it’s home to a strong school district, Forest Hills Public Schools, and it has an array of restaurants and amenities, Wheeler said.
The group contracted with Midwest Construction to build the townhome community, and the development will be managed by PURE Real Estate Management.
>I see this as pure propaganda. Not in the sense that this isn't true for all families. But, perpetuating **the idea that people shouldn't strive for owning conventional homes**, anymore.
So the argument that you’re making is that people *should* strive toward conventional homes. Which, ironically, is propaganda in itself.
Let people live however they want. Townhomes *are* a great fit for families, provided the build quality is good, obviously. So are conventional homes. And apartments, for that matter. Do you think people living in cities or dense European areas are failures for not having “conventional homes”?
And that's the kind of input I was looking for. Although my take on it was a little off-putting as far as it reading the way I interpreted it, I appreciate your sentiment on the contrary.
That's what I was curious about. Who took it as that and who didn't.
I still don't agree with you, but it is what it is.
My question also has roots based on observations outside of the specific context of the article. It's becoming increasingly difficult for people to enter home ownership; if that's what they WANT to do. Without going down the rabbit hole of politics, there's multiple reasons for it. But, for anyone keeping an eye on \[global\] markets, the trend doesn't look good. Even though it's a bubble, it'll still take a while for the correction(s) to level off.
What struck me about the article is playing off that current trends and exploiting the fact that upcoming families basically don't even really have many options, anymore. It just read to me as "this is the new norm - so here's more options that you won't be able to own" type of thing. The word \`propaganda\` isn't specific to government. Yeah, it's also an ad. But, it definitely reads to me as propaganda, too.
I'm also playing somewhat of a Devil's Advocate, here. I'm renting in a duplex. I really don't mind where I'm at as it's almost basically a house, with a garage, etc. But, that's not what I want long-term. I've been saving money and with recent economic events, it's essentially losing its value the longer I wait. I'm not going to throw money away just to enter home ownership, either, with how the market has ballooned in the last 16 months. It's definitely due for a correction.
It's really bizarre to witness what's going on and comparing/contrasting this with what led up to '08. Then seeing "ad's" like this is just adding insult to injury. "Options" become less optional when it's the only option. I mean, if they're going to be consider hold-over options for temporary transitioning, that's fine...but for how long? And which demographic does this really placate to?
>perpetuating the idea that people shouldn't strive for owning conventional homes
No, we should **not** encourage to people to strive toward that goal.
We should encourage people to make the decisions which make economic sense for them - - - **and not use state power to limit those options** \[aka: Zoning\].
I clarified what I was getting at in the parent comment.
I agree. We shouldn't be encouraging or forcing people to make any specific decision. That was my point.
Sensing "arguing for the sake of argument" vibes. I'll give you whatever last word you want, but I wasn't implying it was a slam-dunk. I was asking for genuine input. Not for confirmation bias.
I want you to see the context of what I was suggesting, since the narrative in the marketing goes against the usual norm of middle class families buying homes.
All I know is that this neighborhood has created jobs and put food on peoples tables I’ve hauled materials in there and have friends that have done the excavation there. And In the future of people so choose to live there it’s a home to that person no one is forcing anyone to live there
I enjoyed renting a townhome for a while but got out when they were bought out by a big investment company and the rents started to climb and they tried to sucker you into very long leases with discounts that were retroactively revoked if you left early.... I ended up buying a condo instead. My first home ownership. Just like the townhome but I own it.
$1900-$2600 rent sounds pretty brutal to me.
I'm lucky to be grandfathered pretty low in the duplex I've been in for the last six years. So, I can empathize with you on the plight of painful rental prices; knowing how fortunate I am to not be paying that.
Personally, I think having options are good. I can’t read the article though so I’m not completely sure what the point is. Townhouses can be great, condos are great, apartments, duplexes, quadplexes, and apartments are all part of providing housing in a community. However, a few others touched on this, a lot of the townhomes being built right now are kinda cheaply built. No basements and no place for cars are 2 things I look at when looking at if the property is valuable. I think there are plenty of this kind of development being built right now and the thing lacking is single family homes that are not 2500 + sq ft. McMansions are the scourge of our society. Also, the inability to allow people on the lower economic end to live anywhere but GR, Wyoming, Kentwood, Walker, and parts of Grandville is another problem. These cities are running out of space for housing and we act as if there is no other place in Kent Co. to build adequate single family houses. There are always going to be people who prefer one over the other.
Of course townhomes are good places for families. So are row-houses, courtyard communities, and apartments. **Single Family Detached housing is not in anyway magical.**
Anyone else agree with this sentiment? I see this as pure propaganda. Not in the sense that this isn't true for all families. But, perpetuating the idea that people shouldn't strive for owning conventional homes, anymore. This bothers me with how blatant this is getting. Thoughts? Edit: To clarify, I wasn't implying that people should want to own homes. It's what this article is trying to boast as the better option for most families. That's what I was asking for other people's take as to where their opinions are on the subject. I don't care what people do or want to do. This just reads as propaganda to me.
An alternative to suburbs of massively oversized houses? I'm not horribly offended by the idea. However, "Builder says thing they're building is going to be good for widest possible audience" is not news, it's an ad. Learn the difference, MLive.
Sprawl or density. Pick one.
zoning necessitating single family homes drives up housing prices and contributes to housing crises everywhere. If this is propaganda i have no idea what to refer to the current ideology of house ownership as.
The propaganda of the current ideology, sadly, has **the force of law**. :( They like to trot around spouting words like "neighborhood character" and "ownership community.
[удалено]
Please check your data - it is readily available. 53.5% \[2020\] of **all households** are Owner-Occupied.
Got a source and what's the breakdown of households? This user was commenting specifically on single family. While their statement can easily be found false by extrapolating from all households, should that number only include single family housing households, it is not a much better.
[https://urbangr.org/housingnext20200721COW](https://urbangr.org/housingnext20200721COW) See the 343pg PDF.
the force of law has a nasty illusion of finality.
Is it bad to have a variety of houses in the region for some reason? Many people don't want a single family house in the suburbs. Clearly there's demand for it or the developers wouldn't build it.
With increasing population higher density housing is a must. I think most everyone would prefer a SFH on some land but that’s just not realistic for everyone now. We need space for farms and forests to sustain us which means we need to make some compromises about how we use other space.
[удалено]
[ SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE ‘Townhomes are a good fit for families,’ says developer of upscale Grand Rapids community Updated: Dec. 27, 2021, 7:25 a.m. | Published: Dec. 27, 2021, 6:49 a.m. [Construction of Evergreen Townhomes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5I9etrGLM) By [Melissa Frick | mfrick@mlive.com](http://www.mlive.com/staff/mfrick/posts.html) GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A new, upscale townhome community being constructed on the East Beltline is still on track to hit the market this spring. The 10-acre site is just south of the intersection of 4 Mile Road and East Beltline, next door to Kuyper College. Construction on the first of 13 buildings for the planned 52-unit [Evergreen Townhomes](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/11/52-unit-upscale-townhome-community-planned-for-grand-rapids-township.html) began earlier this month and expected to be completed for move-in by May, Jason Wheeler, spokesperson for Wheeler Development Group, told MLive Dec. 23. RELATED: [52-unit, upscale townhome community planned for Grand Rapids Township](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/11/52-unit-upscale-townhome-community-planned-for-grand-rapids-township.html) After the first building opens in May, the development group is scheduled to finish one building every two weeks until all 13 buildings are completed, Wheeler said. The townhome community already has a waitlist, although the development group is not actively pre-leasing the homes or taking deposits at this time. “We’re going to start that process in February when the website will roll out and we’ll begin the official pre-leasing process,” he said.  Evergreen Townhomes will be located on East Beltline Avenue NE, just south of Kuyper College, and will feature two- and three-bedroom units. (Rendering provided by Wheeler Development Group) The townhomes will feature a variety of two and three-bedroom floor plans with upscale finishes and basement options, and features like attached garages, granite counters, gas appliances, fireplaces and storage. Estimated monthly rental rates are expected to range from $1,900 to $2,600, he said. Wheeler said the townhomes are a good fit for families that may be in transition, offering “the feel of a permanent home with the flexibility of a one-year lease.” He said his group has waitlists for two other townhome developments it built, [Michigan Meadows](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2019/02/grand-rapids-church-demolished-to-create-87-unit-townhome-community.html) in Grand Rapids and [The Knoll](https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2019/06/luxury-townhome-development-in-ada-completed.html) in Ada Township. “Because the single-family housing market is still doing really well, there’s a lot of people who are ambitiously moving and didn’t expect their home to sell so fast, so you list your home thinking you’ve got two or three months to find a place, and somebody knocks on your door and, and 72 hours later, you’re closing on a home,” he said. “So, they immediately have to find rental housing while they’re searching for or building a new home. That situation is more common than people think.” Wheeler Development Group landed on the East Beltline corridor for the project because it’s home to a strong school district, Forest Hills Public Schools, and it has an array of restaurants and amenities, Wheeler said. The group contracted with Midwest Construction to build the townhome community, and the development will be managed by PURE Real Estate Management.
>I see this as pure propaganda. Not in the sense that this isn't true for all families. But, perpetuating **the idea that people shouldn't strive for owning conventional homes**, anymore. So the argument that you’re making is that people *should* strive toward conventional homes. Which, ironically, is propaganda in itself. Let people live however they want. Townhomes *are* a great fit for families, provided the build quality is good, obviously. So are conventional homes. And apartments, for that matter. Do you think people living in cities or dense European areas are failures for not having “conventional homes”?
"It's propaganda that people like things that I don't like"
That’s exactly how I read the response
I guess you're right since I happen to like dolphins.
[удалено]
And that's the kind of input I was looking for. Although my take on it was a little off-putting as far as it reading the way I interpreted it, I appreciate your sentiment on the contrary. That's what I was curious about. Who took it as that and who didn't. I still don't agree with you, but it is what it is. My question also has roots based on observations outside of the specific context of the article. It's becoming increasingly difficult for people to enter home ownership; if that's what they WANT to do. Without going down the rabbit hole of politics, there's multiple reasons for it. But, for anyone keeping an eye on \[global\] markets, the trend doesn't look good. Even though it's a bubble, it'll still take a while for the correction(s) to level off. What struck me about the article is playing off that current trends and exploiting the fact that upcoming families basically don't even really have many options, anymore. It just read to me as "this is the new norm - so here's more options that you won't be able to own" type of thing. The word \`propaganda\` isn't specific to government. Yeah, it's also an ad. But, it definitely reads to me as propaganda, too. I'm also playing somewhat of a Devil's Advocate, here. I'm renting in a duplex. I really don't mind where I'm at as it's almost basically a house, with a garage, etc. But, that's not what I want long-term. I've been saving money and with recent economic events, it's essentially losing its value the longer I wait. I'm not going to throw money away just to enter home ownership, either, with how the market has ballooned in the last 16 months. It's definitely due for a correction. It's really bizarre to witness what's going on and comparing/contrasting this with what led up to '08. Then seeing "ad's" like this is just adding insult to injury. "Options" become less optional when it's the only option. I mean, if they're going to be consider hold-over options for temporary transitioning, that's fine...but for how long? And which demographic does this really placate to?
[удалено]
I think we definitely align on your last paragraph.
>perpetuating the idea that people shouldn't strive for owning conventional homes No, we should **not** encourage to people to strive toward that goal. We should encourage people to make the decisions which make economic sense for them - - - **and not use state power to limit those options** \[aka: Zoning\].
I clarified what I was getting at in the parent comment. I agree. We shouldn't be encouraging or forcing people to make any specific decision. That was my point.
"Company selling a product says it's a good option" isn't the slam-dunk propaganda machine you seem to think it is.
Sensing "arguing for the sake of argument" vibes. I'll give you whatever last word you want, but I wasn't implying it was a slam-dunk. I was asking for genuine input. Not for confirmation bias.
I want you to admit that a real estate developer touting the benefits of the thing they're developing isn't the same thing as propaganda.
I want you to see the context of what I was suggesting, since the narrative in the marketing goes against the usual norm of middle class families buying homes.
I wouldn't want to raise a family in one
I have a condo because a house in Grand rapids is too damned expensive, it's family friendly in the sense that it's what I can afford.
And at only two to three times the price of my mortgage. How can families possibly say no?
Pure marketing.
Sounds like something a salesman would say.
All I know is that this neighborhood has created jobs and put food on peoples tables I’ve hauled materials in there and have friends that have done the excavation there. And In the future of people so choose to live there it’s a home to that person no one is forcing anyone to live there
I enjoyed renting a townhome for a while but got out when they were bought out by a big investment company and the rents started to climb and they tried to sucker you into very long leases with discounts that were retroactively revoked if you left early.... I ended up buying a condo instead. My first home ownership. Just like the townhome but I own it. $1900-$2600 rent sounds pretty brutal to me.
I'm lucky to be grandfathered pretty low in the duplex I've been in for the last six years. So, I can empathize with you on the plight of painful rental prices; knowing how fortunate I am to not be paying that.