 |
| the new york times. damon winter. october 13, 2007. [click here] |
Though Levittown, USA invited an infestation
of suburbia to
control the nation, it also introduced something of
unappreciated brilliance, the ADAPTABLE starter home. A report by The New York Times which was commemorating the 60 year anniversary of Levittown, reveals an investment into the standardized prefabricated homes by their original owners, and at times second generation home owners. Naturally, the unfinished attic space became a starting point for the home owner to add to their own home as the needs of the family changed and financing would allow. Levittown focused his house plan as one that could be mass produced for the target market of returning veterans and their newly established family whose primary intention was to own their own land and conform to social norms. These starter homes often became much more than the "starter homes" we know today.
Today, the starter home as a concept does not encourage an a long term investment by the buyers. However, is it wrong to believe that a well thought out design and the direct intention for expansion should be a concept that could save many modern and current housing crisis today? could a new generation of starter homes and the innovation of the home owners from Levittown be a source of innovative change and the root to the solution of suburban sprawl? How could this renewed notion of starter homes benefit developers, contractors, and home owners? Since Levittown, affordable housing is
fading fast, how can a renewed design for a starter home become more affordable,
yet also sustainable, for families today?
[expanded & modified levittown homes today.]
 |
the new york times. damon winter. october 13, 2007
Traditionally, American housing has been grouped into various categories, such as "starter" home and "forever" home, which are led by location, cost of the home, and size of the home. Many of consumers purchasing starter homes are preparing themselves for their next move- their next home upgrade to something they believe will be long-term.
ReplyDeleteLauren brings up a great point. How can home design curb this 'move-up' mentality by providing buyers with a long-term picture? Thoughtful planning and designing could spark thoughtful purchases and good investments. Then, perhaps the young buyers such as the echo-boomers would not jump into just any affordable housing in order to achieve the American dream, but would consider plans that support family growth and changes.
After some searching, it seems several suppliers of house plans available for private purchase market "expansion" plans, and suggest information on affordability in a custom plan.
http://www.archwaypress.com/65/ten_tips_for_choosing_a_truly_affordable_house_plan.html
As for builder/developers of subdivisions, expansion-capable plans would need to be offered and marketed in order for the stigma of starter vs. forever homes to change.
well said erica. i also think that this should be something supported by governmental initiatives. this idea would have to be also change the mentality of contractors & home builders to see this practice as a potential second market type of business.
Deletei think that the echo-boomers will be a new "brand" of home owners in the future that perhaps will be more thoughtful about the home purchasing due to what they are currently witnessing in the housing market. this is supported by the shear numbers of those that are renting vs. earning within the last 5 years. a trend that has completely switched from one end of the spectrum to the other.
I think you are right about future homeowners being more thoughtful when it comes time to consider the M word- mortgage, or even saving and buying outright (which more and more times cash is being used over credit for everything). People are learning the freedom of owning rather than financing.
DeleteTo have governmental support of this idea of loving ones home and not referring to it as a stepping stone in the housing rat race, would be pivotal. Contractors and builders would surely, hopefully, follow this lead.
Speaking to the adaptability of the homes in Levittown, I thought it was interesting that these homes were designed to be appealing from the outside, and unfinished on the inside. This design process may have very well been a marketing and business strategy. The idea that a family could customize the home to their own needs, it was cheaper to build the houses and the families living in them would become attached was appealing to Levitt and Sons. They figured that if people took the time and money to mold the house into a home that works for them, there was a better chance that the family would purchase the house once the Levitt's decided to sell them instead of continuing to rent them (Hayden, 2003). It's interesting to note that these neighborhoods appealed to middle class families (due to the affordable price, etc.) but not the affluent families of the time. Why is this business of building developments of extremely similar houses now appearing in present day affluent neighborhoods?
ReplyDeletekim i think the more interesting point is a strategy about letting the occupants be active participants in defining their home. i'm not sure that levittown is an example of this, because in the readings it states that despite the five different "options" [which really were just slight facade compositional changes] each and everyone of the interiors were exactly the same...the same flooring, the same cabinets, the same railing for the stair, the same appliances. there was NO modification from one plan to the next. however...the ATTIC was somewhat of a "blank slate" for the owners to decide and occupy as they wish and as money allowed. the attic could be an additional bedroom, social space, perhaps even a den for the man...in concept...but due to the lack of storage...this space was often used to house all the extras.
Deletei think there is strong theory though...for owners to be instrumental in determining how their family's lifestyle values are portrayed in program and spatial representations in NEW construction. in the meantime, what could be done with existing homes, having trouble selling, sitting on the market with 20 others houses of the same character, quality, and options? how can we as designers be instrumental in adding value to these homes within established neighborhoods comprised of 3-4 variations of plans, each having slight variations in their elevations?
Homeowners have reached a point of laziness. People expect their homes to sell for top dollar when they have not put a dime into renovations or even just basic upkeep. People don't want to spend the money on a designer to have them come in and help sell the home (shows like designed to sell offer good insight to people to help demonstrate what can help make a difference, not break the bank and actually sell the home) but are not taken as seriously as they probably should be. With these issues not being addressed those homeowners delete a market from checking their homes out, as a typical first time home buyer doesn't want to dump tens of thousands of dollars to have a home that will only need more repairs the next couple of years versus something that is completely new!
DeleteLevitt's "do-it-yourself" was an interesting way to see a homeowner a unique design. He was also quite slimy by threatening to raise the monthly rate if someone did not purchase their home, crooked!!
The concept of the starter home is one of affordability, reduced size and quick construction time.
ReplyDeleteLevitt prided himself on the do-it-yourself Cape Cod and made some strides to improve the choices and amenities of the exterior as he moved into the 1949 ranch plan. He definitely was in this business to make a profit and by limiting the plan design but providing space within for expansion was a brilliant marketing strategy. It kept people in their homes, helped to sell them to the tenant all while keeping that outside facade consistent.
It is interesting that while the mass production has continued today, there hasn't been too much change in the design process. The tie to the prefabrication and quick build method is still in place, the limited 4-5 elevation choices exist and people are still buying them at the same rates each year.
What happens when areas have run out of land? What becomes a 'starter' home? What will break the mold of cookie cutter neighborhoods? The neighborhood in Lincoln that we discussed last discussion board seemed 'original' but we haven't seen that take shape and are their prices reasonable for a first time home buyer?
In Omaha, at least, there is still a demographic divide and to some degree it still exists in income levels. The starter home for some cannot be in the cookie cutter neighborhood. How can this be made more affordable for these groups? (Outside of a program for Habitat for Humanity). Does this refer us back to a previous conversation about tearing down some of the rundown areas and starting a fresh renovation project of starter homes?
I agree with you Candace that it was smart marketing strategy to limit the plan design. I think that it is a good that there are 4-5 elevation choices, but at the same time I think the same amount of choices for an interior could be available. The one thing I noticed was that Levitt and Sons concentrated on the exterior and less on the interior, but were also mass producing these homes.
DeleteA different idea of a starter home would prove beneficial, as you are right, not everyone can be part of the cookie cutter neighborhood as it is not in their price range. Is there a way to create these homes to uphold quality and use of materials while keeping the price down for those in that target market. Does it become the fact of tearing down the rundown areas, putting some out of their homes to start a new renovation project? The affordable housing for that lower income bracket is necessary, no matter which community decision is made to where a group of starter homes should be.
i think the idea of density & row houses is an interesting one. reduced yards...these intermixed with variation of single family homes that are also owned...if you have a mix of socio economic owners with row housing the chances of the renter's neighborhood and property values going down is less.
ReplyDeletefirst time home owners most likely do not have the extra time and money to spend on the lavish yards.
That is a great point. First-time homeowners traditionally purchase a home as a means to achieve equity and do something worthwhile with what would be rent money each month. However, because society and the housing industry has stuck with the same picture of a "single-family home" with yard, dog, children, and picket fence, the housing industry and economy have suffered as a result. Like you said, Lindsey, these first time buyers in a lower tax bracket and typical inexperience with home maintenance do not have the time or money for upkeep..thus creating the vicious cycle of neighborhoods losing value, foreclosures, and inability to sell property.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense for residents to go from an apartment to a row house, townhouse, or other attached housing with little to no exterior maintenance (to retain value on appearance alone), an alley with a garage in the back, and shared greenspace. This last feature is crucial to drawing buyers with pets and/or children that need some sort of functional land. But value increases with any connect to nature, as we learn more and more buyers seek this feature.
Interesting points. I think that this term varies as we look geographically in terms of what is deemed successful. For example, the row houses caught on and work very well on the East and West coasts where property and land are at a premium. In the Midwest though the row houses are not catching one like a Hearthstone, Celebrity (in Omaha) or Pulte (Kansas, Missouri and maybe others)single family home. The maintenance argument I will agree with--first time buyers are in it for the equity and the conveniences.
DeleteIt is unfortunate that we are letting people make the decisions and in essence make us conform to what the 'ideal single family starter neighborhood is like'. I like to think that we are in a different state of mind that those of the 40s and 50s but it sure doesn't seem that way. People just follow, they don't really want to be the standout (Hidden Creek is a great example of something different and efficient, yet the 13 house development isn't full and there are no other projects like this going on else where in the city.