Image Source: "White House with Black Shutters and White Picket Fence." Photo. Shutterstock.com 16 Jan. 2012.
Image Source: "Urban Decay, Old Apartment Block." Photo. Shutterstock.com 16 Jan. 2012.
What do we give up (or give up on) in pursuit of the American Dream? For decades, the typical American Dream has centered around individual homes with white picket fences and a yard for children to play in. While the American Dream and average house size are continuously growing, and new homes and neighborhoods are constantly popping up all over the place, the high-poverty areas, and the hard working families living in those areas, are quickly spiraling out of control. In an effort to grasp individual dreams of having a big, new house in a nice, new neighborhood, we are allowing existing homes to sit vacant. Why aren’t we (as a society) trying to care for existing homes and neighborhoods as well as helping to revitalize poverty stricken neighborhoods? If we continue this current trend, will these nice new homes and neighborhoods eventually turn into the run-down areas we were trying to initially escape?
PLEASE READ ENTIRE ESSAY. CLICK HERE.
PLEASE READ ENTIRE ESSAY. CLICK HERE.
this question was chosen more for the opportunity of a more focused question. the question itself is perhaps to vague in its inception and allows for TOO LOOSE of a discussion. but once you are embedded in the essay response, we see that kim is really talking about a comparison of the outer ring with the inner ring. the older [but once new suburbs] becoming unwanted and deserted for newer suburbs.
ReplyDeleteone key components are really brought out when the question that was framed was answered in kim's writing. REVITALIZATION. there seems to be a need due to home VACANCIES stated and established in a number of this weeks readings, but also HOW CAN NEW HOME OWNERS [ECHO-BOOMERS] BE CONVINCED TO REVITALIZE RATHER THAN RENT OR CONTINUE THE PUSH OUTWARDS?
While thinking about the question, "How can new home owners be convinced to revitalize rather than..." I ran across a non-profit organization, Restored Homes HDFC, which restores REO properties in the NYC area and re-sells those properties at affordable prices. This organization is awesome due to the fact that they are rehabilitating housing in the slums of Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and other areas. By doing this, they are cleaning up the areas and inviting new lifestyles into the neighborhood. According to their website (http://www.neighborhoodrestore.com/accomp_rh.html), so far this organization has been extremely successful in housing restorations.
ReplyDeleteThis type of organization is a great example of ways that new home owners would be given the opportunity to purchase already revitalized homes. Although this seems ideal, I can't imagine the efforts that it took to create this organization- and it was created in an area that hasn't really had the room for new large suburban expansions. This same type of organization can probably be found in more areas but it would be more difficult to implement in areas that have the option to just expand (as we've already seen in the past decades). It would be a great improvement to see something like this within all of the urban areas and to further promote the importance of revitalizing urban neighborhoods, as Kim has thoroughly discussed.
On the contrary, the idea of this organization doesn’t allow potential home owners to do their own restorations on older housing, but it encourages and promotes an interest in older housing restoration by seeing how they can be improved and revitalized, even on a budget.
Restored Homes HDFC seems to be an awesome organization and run-down urban areas could greatly benefit from more organizations like that. You make a good point that this organization was created in an area that doesn't have much of an opportunity for suburban expansion. That could be a reason that the organization is so successful. They don't have anywhere to expand, but there are more and more people moving there, so they are more or less forced to improve and take care of existing areas.
DeleteKim, yes I agree, this organization was most likely created and brought to life because of fewer options to be explored unless they tore down and rebuilt entire neighborhoods! It would be so nice to see more of this throughout the nation, however a concern could be that other areas won't consider or emphasize this until they too run out of room- this is very scary to think of and a long way off but the point is that revitalization should be emphasized starting now and not after it's too late (in more parts of the country).
DeleteIn order for new home owners to be convinced to revitalize rather than rent or push outwards I think there are certain pieces to this equation that need to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteFirst, cost. People need to see the revitalization as an opportunity--that their property taxes and resale value are going to increase. They need to see this as a better value than building new and in the burbs--the amenities and options that new homes have need to be available. With increasing gas and food prices, this could begin to drive people back to the cities to help them save.
Secondly, time. The renovating timeline needs to be on the same timeline or quicker for homeowners to gain ownership.
Lastly, continued efforts. People will not invest their time or money in something that won't succeed or that isn't being regulated throughout the area. Currently, some people are not spending the money to revitalize because of factors such as gang violence, graffiti and lack of respect from the community they are in. It is unfortunate but it is a reality that has to be dealt with.
Krystal brings up a great point about the HDFC, I know that here in Nebraska commercial developers can receive tax incentives for revitalizing downtown. Also, habitat for humanity is helping those low income families afford nice housing and in turn is helping spruce up the neighborhood with these new, modern well-kept homes they are building.
Unfortunately, to some degree this trend may not begin until there is no more land to develop in the burbs and for some moving to another city or state is not an option, so they have to just face this at some point whether they are ready to or not.
I completely agree with your points. I think your first point is the main concern for homeowners and those looking to purchase homes. The problem with investing in run-down homes in run-down neighborhoods is that even when your home is improved, the rest of the neighborhood is still run-down, which will continue to turn typical investors in homes away. The first step has to start somewhere though. I think the type of organizations Krystal was talking about would be a good place to start.
DeleteAt what point do you think that revitalizing cannot occur and that tearing down a home and rebuilding is a better option? Would there be a stronger benefit to revitalize a block or neighborhood at a time? Do you think that more resources would need to be in place to help this trend not only get started but be the most successful? Perhaps a crew of people to take on yearly repairs, painting, yard work, etc. to maintain the properties and help bring life back to these areas.
DeleteI agree with you, it has to start somewhere!
i think that all of you are thinking of great points. at times i feel that it is up to the government [whether local, state, or national] to set new parameters and expectations of home construction. i agree that to count on the individual private owner to take initiative and a risk to revitalize rather than build, especially in the older neighborhoods left from flight to outer rings and usually as rentals. therefore i think the answer may be to look at contractors and developers, those with the ability to purchase entire blocks at a time, revitalize and resale. therefore the greater change occurs at a time.
Deletedespite the trend of renting i think the key would be to turn these revitalized homes [low income to high income areas] into opportunities to OWN. perhaps tax incentives when buying revitalized homes in areas denoted as blighted or "at risk". i believe when you OWN there is a tendency to take more pride and accountability in your property than when you rent.
as for complete demolition, at times, this may be the best answer, but think about re-using the foundation when possible.
DO YOU ALL THINK THAT DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS ARE MISSING OPPORTUNITIES OF REDESIGNING THEIR BUSINESSES TOWARDS REVITALIZATION RATHER THAN SPRAWL?
Lindsey-
DeleteWhat you mentioned hadn't really been on my radar. I think it is a missed opportunity for contractors. It would be interesting to see teams of contractors, designers and real estate agents get together with funds and rebuild a neighborhood using those foundations and turn around and make them rent-to-own properties. I think this could help those low income areas develop home ownership, establish credit and help to be successful. I often think that they end becoming renters(often taken advantage of by landlords)because of their financial situation.
Sometimes I feel that Omaha, for example, chooses to push this issue away. They don't want to face the reality and try to fix it. Tax credits, incentives and programs to help people get on the right track and help them see the value of their properties could really turn things around. (just my opinion)
I think there is great potential for the echo-boomers to purchase and renovate an older home in an urban area, instead of buying a home in the suburbs.
ReplyDeleteTwo reason are: aesthetic value of an older home, and non-child rearing years. Many people appreciate the charm of an older or historic home. I think this appreciation is increasing as our "Gen Y" is becoming more artistic and less eager to conform (as in follow their parents' footsteps to suburbia). For this reason, as long as a neighborhood is safe (and many times closer to employment opportunities), these future homebuyers will look toward revitalization if they can afford it.
The safety concern brings me to my next point. Consumers primarily purchase a home in the suburb due to choosing a school district for their children. For a young single adult and/or young married with no children, this factor does not matter as much. However, parents will not choose a home to renovate(although aesthetically that may be where they heart lies in a 'dream home') in a neighborhood that needs work if the school system is subpar. It was mentioned in our readings that education, community, opportunity and housing all go hand-in-hand due to funding in each area.
In order for true revitalization, all areas of a lacking neighborhood need to be raised, socially. Companies like Restored Homes, that Krystal mentioned, are off to a great start because as we know, perceptions through outward appearance have a major impact.
I completely understand and empathize with both points you made. I personally appreciate unique, historic homes instead of the "cookie cutter" homes that line many suburban streets. I also realize that if I ever decide to have kids, I will want them to have access to the best schools and highest forms of safety possible. For many areas, that would mean living in the suburbs. Maybe it's not just the homes that need to be revitalized, but also the sense of community and school systems in those areas.
DeleteCan anybody articulate key differences between historic homes and cookie cutter homes? what are their properties/characteristics that one could think about marketing in key and strategic ways that perhaps would communicate and resonate with echo-boomers as "consumers"?
DeletePerhaps historic homes could be strategically marketed as a good investment for three reasons:
Delete1) Historic homes (and especially if they are on the historic registry) could become a lifelong home and a family heirloom to be passed down.
2) Many have interior upgrades that you cannot find in 'cookie cutter' newer homes. Mouldings/ many times larger doors and rooms (depending on the era), and loads of character. Charming exteriors, etc. Comparing the costs of 8" moulding on a new home, one could see the investment value.
3)Location/Value. Established neighborhoods with large trees in mid-town areas (not long distances from city centers) or those on the fringe will maintain their value. I'm sure we can all think of neighborhoods in our town or city that most citizens know by name. Unlike new suburban neighborhoods, the value could easily decrease as 'cookie cutter' homes are a dime a dozen.
There are concerns though, as mentioned, with the value of the area, safety, etc. But with strategic planning, these historic homes could be snatched up by new homebuyers and become great investments.
The "M Streets" in Dallas are a great example of this. Realtors have built businesses of buying and selling in this area alone.
Deletehttp://www.m-street-dallas.com/
I find it interesting how the intro. compares suburban living to this area of single family homes within the city loop. It has yet to lose value (homes start at $400k, though..not affordable), but I wonder how we could implement these strategies of long-term living into existing suburbs.
http://www.m-street-dallas.com/slideshow_mstreets.htm
Deletethis slideshow was very interesting.."casual visits with neighbors on the front porch"..
I might also add the lots the properties sit on (larger, established trees (like you mentioned), privacy) are another asset to the older homes.
DeleteOne of things that I think is occurring too is that restoration costs and often renovation costs end up costing a homeowner more than just buying a new home and in some cases you can build a new home with more square footage cheaper!
School districts I think will remain a discussion and unfortunately unless they offer a 'learning community approach' where families can opt in to schools, it may divide the suburban vs. city home options. From this point I can see the older generation remaining to look for those character neighborhoods before younger couples.
also erica, if they think of these revitalized homes in the long term, they will be there perhaps and raise children there, and in turn revitalize the school district, etc. the concern for school placement would be lessened.
Deletecandace...but then this reflects who you are and what you value as a consumer. more space built with poorer materials for the individual, or less space with greater quality in order to be a part/member of a COMMUNITY...a PLACE.
DeleteTo talk about a point Kim brought up in her essay, what is going to happen to neighborhoods in the suburbs as people continue to move outward. I see this as a real concern, especially in huge exurban areas like North Dallas. I have friends that live in neighborhood in Frisco (where a new highway was formed as a partial 'second ring' to connect these suburbs) that is only about five years old. Recently, they have mentioned moving again, only because they have seen a decreased value in their home as newer neighborhoods have been built north of them. In my opinion, the stigma of moving to the next big thing in the suburbs needs to change. We should take cues from those happily living in mixed-income urban or "mid-town" areas. I think the only way to stop the sprawl and abandoned houses is to figure out how to encourage mixed-income living, maintenance and acceptance of our neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteErica.
Deletethis is EXACTLY right!!! i think that much of this conversation talked about the city fringe...but even those developments developed only 20-30 years ago are falling into disrepair due to foreclosure voids...when homes foreclose near your own, your property value decreases and then you are tempted to build new. Often these properties for sale aren't being bought and owners have moved on into a new ring. these homes then become rentals, which often slowly fall into disrepair and further bring down the value of the neighborhoods. we are talking middle-class hear, not the low-income...the problems are at every level.
i also often think about the McMansions...those that could actually afford to be the second owner of these McMansions, have enough money most likely to build their own, NEW, shiny home, so what would convince them to buy one that is 10 years old?
To see the echo-boomers or perhaps the baby boomers buy these homes built in the 80's and early 90's that need revitalized would be an interesting prospect as well. baby boomers could revitalize the ranch homes into a more "aging in place" condition.
sometimes i think all it takes is a few good examples of stripping the vinyl siding and strategic interior renovations and reconstruction published in the media with some hard $ values/costs to get the interests of future home buyers and start a trend of renovation.