A historic brick structure will be rehabbed and expanded under plans by Lakeshore Behavior Health, Inc. The adaptive reuse project at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and Michigan Avenue will create a sixteen-bed homeless housing facility. BHNT Architects is designing the project.
Lake Shore Behavioral Health promotes self-sufficiency, mental wellness and recovery, and an enhanced quality of life for all individuals with mental illnesses and chemical abuse disorders by providing effective, accessible and culturally sensitive services.
The existing 2½-story brick structure at 108 Sycamore Street, the victim of remuddling over the years, will be renovated to contain the major living and dining areas and a new commercial-grade kitchen. A two-story, 2800 square foot wood framed addition to the rear will contain most of the living areas. It will feature 16 single-occupancy rooms, multiple common baths, two sitting areas, a living room, dining area and kitchen. There will be two offices for facility staff and two exterior porch areas.
The site includes seven off-street parking spaces. A large landscaped lawn area and statue are planned.
BHNT made efforts to respect the historic nature of the existing property by restoring the original arched window openings and repairing the damaged brickwork. The addition was designed as a complement to this structure that is respectful of the proportions, rhythm, and detailing of the original building, but does not detract from its historicity. Significant effort was made to upgrade the energy efficiency of the entire facility.
Funding for the $1.4 million project has been provided by the US Department of Housing, New York State Housing Assistance and the John R. Oishei Foundation. Savarino Construction Corporation has been selected by Lakeshore Behavioral Health Inc. to build the facility. Work is expected to start in May.
Get connected: BHNT Architects, PC, 716.836.1522
Glad to see a sensitive redo. It will benefit the area to have a $1.4 retrofit. The neighbors, if there were more, might object to a homeless shelter, but this one is nice.
Still, a little bit of sticker shock endures: 16 beds for $1.4 large = $87,500/bed. You could easily buy an existing rooming house for the cost of each room here. Instead of taking 16 people off the street, you could house ten times that many. Not sure this is society's most efficient allocation of resources.
I'm not criticizing Lakeshore here so much as the funding stream which encourages expensive homeless housing in a city with abundant vacant housing. I'd prefer Lakeshore to buy a street full of existing rental properties and fix them up reasonably well--not gut rehabs, just responsible landlord stuff (good furnaces and roof, safe electrical, etc.). At the end of the day, much of this is taxpayer money. Let's get the most bang for the buck.
Maybe I'm misreading. I'm assuming that the commercial kitchen and offices are for the operation only of this property. If they serve some broader mission goals, my criticism would be moderated.
bini>"16 beds for $1.4 large = $87,500/bed. You could easily buy an existing rooming house for the cost of each room here. Instead of taking 16 people off the street, you could house ten times that many. Not sure this is society's most efficient allocation of resources.
I'm not criticizing Lakeshore here so much as..."
Great points, but why isn't Lakeshore to be criticized most? Apparently a project lead they're who decided to try having the money spent that way, $87.5K per bed. Even if the federal govt and other parts of the funding stream makes that possible, I doubt the funding stream mandates that inefficient allocation of resources.
Good project and the design is fine considering the situation. I don't think this organization is terribly focused on resale value but I agree that the vinyl siding and window makeovers are less than ideal. As to your assertion that more homeless people could be housed under a different allocation of that money, I could trump that by suggesting a tent city but I don't think the objective here is to serve the most people but rather to engage fewer people more intensively and that that quality of service would have more impact on each recipient. I think the best approach is to have a few more such projects so that more people can be reached the same way.