Tag:Plymouth
Housing Density Answers from the Past
This is an interesting video with examples of multifamily housing on small lots (3 Flats) as seen in Chicago, Boston and San Francisco. It discusses some of the benefits as well as some of the drawbacks to this type of construction. It also briefly discusses some of the zoning barriers that were put in place to prevent this kind of construction.
It’s interesting that both Culver and Plymouth are looking into how to increase housing density right now, but are facing some pushback on the zoning changes that would be necessary to make this viable. Both communities seem to have active CAVE societies. I’m pretty sure every community has it’s own chapter. Years ago Erik Freeman and I proclaimed Culver’s unofficial motto to be, “Change is Bad; Even if it is Change for the Better”. Cast that as counterpoint to the underlying drumbeat for affordable housing.
Along with the basic zoning barriers, there are are other social and regulatory barriers that would increase challenges. Three story apartment construction would likely force the installation of fire sprinklers. Accessibility might need to be addressed due to the “walk-up” configuration with half a flight or more of stairs. Fire resistant construction between buildings would conflict with escape window requirements for bedrooms. All of these things would make the units safer and universally accessible, but would also drive up the cost. Meanwhile the three examples discussed are still in use in their respective cities; sometimes revered due to their place in the city’s history.
Greater density, even with the cost-increasing challenges listed above, does reduce costs of infrastructure, another big factor in housing affordability. Fewer linear feet of infrastructure is needed per dwelling unit. When this is done for infill properties, it makes better use of infrastructure, including roads, water lines and sewer lines. The one caveat to that is it may well increase impervious surface, further taxing storm water systems, though that is not a given. (They don’t have to be built cheek to jowl as was done historically, particularly in an infill situation.)
Reinventing the wheel can result in some improvements, but also can create some difficulties that were solved in the past. Looking back on what worked, may be part of our solution to the housing shortage problem as we move forward.
Water Street Townhomes Groundbreaking Article from Pilot News 12-19-24
Plymouth Streetscapes
I attended a meeting last Tuesday night at The Rees where there was discussion of possible renovations to the downtown streetscape. They were mainly looking at the area from the railroad viaduct on the south end to Jefferson Street on the north end. Updating the streetscape is one of the initiatives of City of Plymouth‘s new Mayor, Robert Listenberger. Several concepts were presented and there was time for public input on those concepts. There was also the opportunity to put forth other ideas. There was a fairly diverse crowd of around 50 people there for the presentation.
The last streetscape was created around 40 years ago. Many aspects of downtown Plymouth have changed since then, not least of which include the turnover in businesses and the shift towards making the downtown more of an entertainment district. This began with the Wild Rose Moon and has continued with River Park Square, The Rees and the new Yellow River Brewery planned just south of The Rees. A fairly recent State Law allows for the creation of districts like this which would make it easier to have street festivals. The main change here would be the ability to have “open container” alcohol use throughout the district. Right now, alcohol served outside of licensed venues can only be done in “beer gardens”, which usually amount to snow fence pens containing those who choose to imbibe.
As always the parking issue was front and center. Very few people there would say there was too much parking downtown, and most were very concerned about reducing the number of street spaces. Some were concerned that new development downtown was being encouraged without adding parking. The counterpoint to that are two traffic studies that have been completed, one by Andrews University and one by MACOG. MACOG’s is the most recent, which showed a surplus of 500+ spaces. Shopkeepers were mainly concerned about the number of street parking spaces directly adjacent to their business.
Several interesting concept drawings were presented showing various traffic calming measures for Michigan Street. There were also opportunities to provide additional green space along the sidewalks, outdoor dining for restaurant patrons and overall improved traffic controls. There was a lot of initial skepticism, but some minds were won over with the possibilities that could be unlocked.
There was also a concept changing the first block of Garro Street west of Michigan Street to an intermittent street festival site. This section is currently used this way, but with saw horse barricades. The revised concept would enhance this, with decorative pavement patterns and decorative removable bollards. The Garro Street enhancement received nearly 100% positive feedback.
A major stumbling block remains, with this area of Michigan Street existing as an extension of S.R. 17, thus the R.O.W. belongs to the State of Indiana. Any negotiation would require accommodations between INDOT and Plymouth. This would include any changes to curbs, sidewalks, speed limits and traffic control measures such as stop lights. That brought up a side conversation of relocating S.R. 17. The consensus was that it made the most sense to relocate it to Pine Road, but I had to bring up the Culver’s Sycamore Road initiative. (Previously mentioned in a post here.)
The conversation was similar to what has been discussed in Culver (Previously mentioned in a post here.) with some of the same conflicting arguments. Culver’s Town Council somewhat surprised the downtown merchants with the street improvements. They won a grant for the work that they really didn’t expect to get. They didn’t do their standard education ahead of the project, leading some to feel left out of the loop. In this case, Plymouth seems to be taking the correct tact, by gathering input before the project proceeds too far into planning.
I think the goals are laudable and I hope Mayor Listenberger is successful with the revitalization changes he would like to make. He is approaching it as a businessman, which gives him more empathy in why the change will be hard, but ultimately will be a change for the better. I look forward to more discussion on how this can be moved forward.
Deposit Dilemma
One of the issues facing entry level workers is the issue of deposits. There is a deposit required for a rental unit. (In the case of a new home buyer, it’s the down payment.) There is a deposit required to get water turned on. There is a deposit required to get the gas turned on. There is a deposit required to get the electric turned on. For someone just starting out, this can be daunting. When someone moves, theoretically they’ll get their deposits back from the previous rental, but not before they have to put them down for the new place.
These have come about due to landlords, municipalities and utilities getting burned by tenants and homeowners skipping out on bills. For that reason, the justification for deposits is there. But… how often is this an issue in the first month when all the deposits are required? I would venture to say that 9 times out of 10, this is an end of occupancy issue, not a starting problem. Theoretically, the landlord renting to the tenant or the bank making the loan on a new purchase have vetted the tenant’s ability to afford their housing choice at least initially.
The new housing in Plymouth at Riverside Commons is geared towards lower wage earners. People that are good workers with steady income, but not at a level to afford good housing. These units are 100% electric and on city water and sewer, so there are only three deposits required. Unfortunately, Plymouth’s deposit requirement for water is $150. REMC, which provides the electric, has a deposit of $350, plus a $10 membership fee for the co-op. That’s $500+ in deposits without counting the rental deposit. This does not make it easy for a renter to move from substandard housing to the new units. The Paddocks in Culver runs into similar issues qualifying tenants, though I don’t think the start-up costs for water, sewer and electric are quite as high.
So, here’s what I would like to suggest for municipalities:
- Municipalities create an account for delinquent and non-payed utilities. To put a number at it, I would suggest $10,000. In lieu of just being a line item, put this into an interest bearing account, so there is some modest growth. (Placing it with Marshall County Community Foundation would be a way to double down on doing good and possibly earn a bit more.)
- Set the deposit rate at a number easily divided by 12. For example $120 in lieu of Plymouth’s $150.
- Ask for the full deposit at hook-up as done now, with an option for half down and the remainder paid as a surcharge on the first 6 water bills. A convenience fee of a couple dollars could be added if deemed necessary.
- The Clerk would be better able to answer this, but I would assume that non-payment rarely happens in the first couple of months, but is more likely at the end of service when the tenant or homeowner has moved. By then, the deposit would have been fulfilled.
- Put ALL utility deposits in the above interest bearing account.
- According to this site, there are 3,868 households in Plymouth. So, theoretically, there is an escrow account managed by the Clerk holding $580,200 in water & sewer deposits. If you reduced that to $120, as I suggested, then there’d still be $468,160 at any given time. Ignoring the current interest rate hovering around 5% (MCCF should be better), a 1% return would be $4,642 a year. That could cover quite a few no pays.
- According to this site, there are 592 households in Culver. (I think that’s pretty low and must be only counting fulltime residents.) Culver only has a $75 deposit, which is only about half again the cost of a minimum water/sewer bill. So, theoretically, there is an escrow account managed by the Clerk holding $44,400 in sewer & water deposits. Under the same conservative 1%, the return would be $444 per year. That’s not going to cover as much, but it would still cover some.
- I don’t know this, but I assume the current practice is to just mingle this money in the General Fund. That means the initial deposit is tracked for repayment, but any return (interest) on the General Fund account just goes back in the General Fund. If tracked separately, then that interest helps defer any non-payment costs. Obviously less effective in lower population municipalities, but still a factor.
- I also assume there are older accounts that had smaller deposit requirements, where the deposit has never risen. I’m just using round numbers, so the associated Clerks would probably want to set that straight, but I think the concept is reasonable. While I know that the utilities are supposed to be self-sufficient, every residential unit pays taxes to the municipality and over time, there is some reasonable cost of doing business.
- Put all late fees in this account as well. This would act as an additional hedge.
The above isn’t a panacea, but it would help low-income workers with a hand up that shouldn’t hurt the municipality much, if any. If the same principles could be applied to private utilities and maybe even rents, then it would be an equitable way of solving the insurance provided by deposits, while reducing the penalty those deposits put on low income individuals and families. This is just the beginning of a thought on a possible solution… But I think it is something worth consideration and refinement.
Our Customers Say…
MacKenzie Ledley - Executive Director, Pulaski County Public Library
Post Frame Housing
September 8, 2025
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Plymouth, Politics, Rants, Tips
Community, Culver, government, housing, Plymouth, Rants, Tips, Trends
A few years back, there was an effort to ban post frame (also known as timber frame) housing in Plymouth. A similar ban has been floated a few times in Culver and resurfaced at the August Plan Commission meeting. In both cases, the rational has been that the style doesn’t fit the community. As near as I can discern, (and I could be missing something) it doesn’t have much to do with the post frame construction, but more about the look of vertical metal siding, since these homes can be indiscernible from homes built using standard framing.
Post frame construction is most often associated with the “Shade & Shelter” functionality of Pole Buildings. Where post frame barns are designed to protect farm equipment, post frame homes are generally better insulated, stronger structurally, sealed tightly and have a different aesthetic. It’s just a different framing technique that has recently had a resurgence in popularity.
The main difference in this style of construction is the use of posts (poles) to provide the frost protection and uplift protection in lieu of the footings and frost walls used in standard construction. They are nearly always slab-on-grade (SOG) for the first floor. (Many standard construction homes are SOG as well, but standard homes could also have crawl spaces or basements.) Standard construction will use 2×4 or 2×6 studs at 16″ or 24″ on center to form the shell. Post frame buildings have posts spaces as much as 8′ on center with horizontal 2x4s girts to support the siding. Standard construction will have trusses or rafters at 24″ on center, where post frame buildings space out the trusses to bear on the posts and then use 2×4 purlins to support the roofing materials.
For a pole building, the big advantages are the ease and speed of construction. The construction is very forgiving. It is generally a big box to provide the most cubic feet of storage with the minimum of effort. They tend to leak and creak over time, but provide the basic shelter function needed. For a post frame home, there are a lot of enhancements:
While some of these homes embrace the barndominium style, such as the one to the right that even includes a simulation of a silo, they often are hard to distinguish from their neighbors. It’s not the framing that determines the exterior aesthetic, and in many cases you wouldn’t know the framing style if you didn’t see it under construction. Three of the apartment buildings at The Paddocks have a definite barn aesthetic, yet they were stick-built.
Stating that the style doesn’t fit the community seems a particularly curious thing to say about a home in Culver. Culver has a myriad of building styles ranging from traditional to bungalows to A-frames to geodesic domes. Culver has exterior finishes ranging from siding to painted concrete block to limestone to fieldstone. The siding breaks down to various styles including vertical, horizontal and diagonal. We have buildings with vinyl, steel, aluminum and wood siding. Culver is allowing new construction to expand in size to the point that they encourage replatting/combining of small lots to accommodate the larger construction.
Some communities establish aesthetic requirements. Culver doesn’t have these. As it stands, they’re zoning decisions are based mostly on safety. Post frame verses traditional framing is more of an issue for building codes and as of this time it is allowed. Many would object to the use of vibrant colored residential standing seam roofs as not fitting the traditional aesthetic, but nothing has been said about banning those. Personally, I’m fine with the diversity. Culver shouldn’t stoop to the level of a group of Karens. A flock of Karens is known as an HOA. Culver shouldn’t go there. (Neither should Plymouth…)
0 comments