[image on the left]
Image Source: "Levittown in 1948." Photo. The New York Times 24 Jan. 2012.
Image Source: "Levittown in 1948." Photo. The New York Times 24 Jan. 2012.
[image on the right]
El Mirage, AZ, 2011. Photographer Alex S. MacLean / Landslides Aerial Photography.]
El Mirage, AZ, 2011. Photographer Alex S. MacLean / Landslides Aerial Photography.]
Levitt & Sons: Savvy Real Estate Developers or Greedy Businessmen?
President of Levitt & Sons, Inc., William Levitt, was described as a “cocky, rambunctious hustler with brown hair, cow-sad eyes, a hoarse voice (from smoking three packs of cigarettes a day), and a liking hyperbole that causes him to describe his height (5 ft. 8 in.) as “nearly six feet” and his company as the ‘General Motors of the housing industry.’ His supreme self-confidence – his competitors call it arrogance – is solidly based on the fact that he is the most potent single modernizing influence in a largely antiquated industry” (Joseph, 1950). Bill (son of William) was the family extravert who quit New York University because he “wanted to make a lot of money.” Alfred (son of William) was more reserved and loved to draw. He also quit New York University after telling the dean that there was nothing more they could teach him. Bill handled the selling and organizing of Levitt and Sons while Alfred handled the designs (Joseph, 1950).
Together, they created one of the largest, most successful real estate developments of the era, Levittown. Their success can in large part be contributed to the combination of the need for single family housing and their business savvy, but it is up for debate about whether Levitt and Sons were savvy real estate developers who were responding to the wants and needs of society at the time, or greedy businessmen who created cheap, poor quality residences to make the biggest bang for their buck.
Together, they created one of the largest, most successful real estate developments of the era, Levittown. Their success can in large part be contributed to the combination of the need for single family housing and their business savvy, but it is up for debate about whether Levitt and Sons were savvy real estate developers who were responding to the wants and needs of society at the time, or greedy businessmen who created cheap, poor quality residences to make the biggest bang for their buck.
 |
| The New York Times, Damon Winter, October 17, 2007. [click here] |
In a way, it seems Levitt and Sons happened upon a gold mine, and any smart businessman in the building industry would have responded to such a high demand for homes. From the readings, we learned many builders took advantage of the economical advancement and support from the government in order to answer the demands. Because the homes in Levittown were low-cost to build and affordable to inhabit, it might be easy to conclude Levitt designed them for the "biggest bang for the buck" without considering the needs of the buyers. On one hand, one could debate this notion by considering a few features such as the expansion aspects of the floor plans, or the village greens worked into the neighborhood. These were both unique and innovative at the time, and were planned with the homeowners in mind. Looking at the longevity and success of Levittown, one could argue that the houses have maintained and many are still standing today, thus suggesting smart material choices. But the suburb of Levittown has remained a historical development since its development by offering a snapshot into American post-war living and the birth of suburbs. Most of the original homes have been modified and expanded upon so greatly, it would be difficult to determine today if Levitt cut corners at the get-go. Location and historical significance have sustained Levittown, making it a success.
ReplyDeleteerica i think that you have made a compelling argument that seems to be sympathetic toward the levitt brothers correct? be sure that you clearly state an argument to the question...and then support it with fact. be sure this is not just an opportunity to summarize your reading, but use the reading to formulate innovative opinions and justify with references.
Deletei think that there is something to be said about existence of the community today and its adaptability...i think to ask one to buy what they can afford, live in, and then define a more unique spatial quality to their home at the core has some strong theory to housing...i'm not sure if levitt was thinking about expansion as a strong theoretical base to their design and construct. from what i gather, it seems most decisions were truly made for an economy of means. for example, the windows of the house were not placed for reasons relating to exterior or interior [furniture layout etc.] advantage, but rather due to the 4' modular dimension of 4'x8' drywall. [any extra cuts = extra potential waste + more labor = economic disadvantage]. this starts to raise questions of when economy of means begins to have an unhealthy balance/relationship with quality of living, space, and design, no?
Lindsey,
DeleteMy original thoughts were torn because I didn't feel enough evidence thus far was provided to account the Levitt brothers as greedy crooks, to put it bluntly, but was aiming to consider the viewpoint of that development as it stands today. I agree that, due to lack of planning and involving professionals to ensure a healthy "balance with quality of living, space, and design" was a real problem at Levittown and still plagues suburban development today. That we can thank developments like Levittown for. Like you said, a "quick-fix" was a short-term answer to housing (with all the marketing of the American Dream wrapped up in it), that has not been an answer for long-term. Really, the only defense I have for Levittown, and probably the only reason it is still inhabited and has maintained value and buyers have decided to stay in and adapt the homes is for the historical value alone.
Erica makes a good point that the location and historical significance of Levittown contributes to its continued success. I also think homes (and buildings in general) were built for longevity at that point in time (as opposed to some of the poor quality of work that passes in today's society). Levittown was not without it's share of failures though. The readings inform us that Levitt and Sons tended to cut corners in regards to the developments infrastructure and sense of community. Some of these failures include the lack sewage disposal, that could cause future problems of polluted water and spread of disease, as well as the lack of planning for services like trash removal or the building of schools. Once the communities were developed and families moved in, it was left to the government to bail out the communities.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to note that a development like Levittown, when it was first developed, was an innovative and smart answer to a very difficult problem of so many families needing homes when there were not many available. This begs the question of why are the development strategies that worked for society in the 40's and 50's still the standard approach to developments in our time when society has completely changed?
In one year, Levitt put up 5,900 houses and moved to a 'pre-fabricated' process where the lumber was precut to size, plumbing fixtures and stairs were preassembled and only 20% needed to be skilled labor (J. Kelly 70). Many of these same numbers and practices are still in place today. Could an argument be made that the quality of the homes going up today are indeed just as sound as then, given the process? I would be interested in finding a schedule and exact materials that were used at that time. Kim, I am not doubting your statement (In my opinion houses are going up with a lack of care like you mentioned).
DeleteWith the articles mentioning the metaphors of conformity and the war, I am surprised that the communities didn't abandon Levitt's concept, especially as he manipulated them into buying their leased homes. Levitt seemed to have quite the pull and respect from his tenants.
candace, in regards to the community and their loyalty to levittown, i think we have to think about the culture of the late 40s and 50s mentioned in the kelly readings as well. it was a culture of conformity. at first, levitt i am sure was viewed by many as a hero...the media definitely portrayed him that way as well. and in a "short-term" and "quick-fix" sense he was. he provided affordable homes for veterans/war heroes quickly, flexibly [renting options].
Deletebut my critique is this, it was merely a quick-fix. as suggested by his lack of investment in the infrastructure. he wasn't aiming to create a community, but rather made decisions based on a market interest only, and got by with a minimal amount of modification even when trends began to shift, phase 2 was essentially the exact same house only rotated and having 50 extra sq. ft added on.
i agree with the sentiment though of what side of the argument would you chose. its hard to argue with providing a service for a needed target market, but isn't this also what the tobacco companies did during the same time too? although it may seem drastic to compare, think about the trends he established that have been mindlessly carried out still today. monotonous boxes, placeless communities, repetitive plots, the same of the same...sometimes i think it seems more socialists than democratic, even though the single family home represents the democratic dream. i also think the intentional manipulation of curving streets in phase two to give the illusion of uniqueness and richness in landscape is calculated as a false sell of community, just like the "gates" into communities today with fancy signage and faux "nature".
I agree with you completely, I was just trying to play devil's advocate with Kim. I personally think Levitt was slimy and deceiving. His product could not have been of quality given the turn around time. He took advantage of the veteran's and brainwashed people into believing he was a hero. He didn't think about the plumbing, the landscape of the neighborhoods. He wanted instant gratification and that is what he got. Like I mentioned in my post below, this still exists today and unfortunately people are still buying into it, but if you read comments about builders people are voicing that the products are poor, the customer service is lacking and the care isn't there. People (especially first time home buyers) need homes that don't require immediate renovating or costs, which is why these cookie cutter neighborhoods appeal to that market. Anymore people are not the do-it-yourself type and buying a 'used' home is not appealing and even the 2nd adn retirement home buyers are helping to surge the new construction.
DeleteFrom the readings, it would appear that Mr. Levitt was at first the Savvy Real Estate Developer. Page 63 confirms this by stating “Mr. Levitt solved the housing shortage, he provided a good house, the area did not become a slum, and any criticism of Mr. Levitt or his ways is therefore tantamount to an attack on the American way of life. His original Cape Code had 5 different variations among the models and this resulted in “a minimalist version of the prewar suburban home. Levitt had disassembled the standard package of living room, dining room, kitchen, pantry, bath-and-a-half, three bedrooms and a garage, which the firm had been building proper to the war (Kelly 65).” He understood the markets and target buyers and tried to make changes to his plans to allow for changes, growth and exterior beauty. This was seen in the ‘expansion attic’, the do-it-yourself push for men to renovate their homes and the added shrubbery to the plans.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once he began to profit what he was and seen how quickly he could put up houses (partially because cutting out the union workers) his confidence quickly went up. His competitors called it arrogance. ( He was the “potent single modernizing influence in a largely antiquated industry (J. Kelly 69).” ) Whether it is arrogance or confidence, this process of mass production still exists today. Eventually though this trait would begin to taint his building practices and he became demanding. For example, “his greatest coup was forcing manufacturers to sell to him direct, a practice traditionally frowned on by them (J. Kelly 71).” He did this because he realized how he would save $1000 per home each time he cut out the middleman. While he would never outright say what he was making for a profit on a house, he did make it well known that he doesn’t “like to be associated with anything that doesn’t make money (J.Kelly 68).” When his push for his renters to buy their homes, began to grow stale, he decided to make the tenants decision for them by proposing a raise on rents at the end of their lease. His switch to the 1949 ranch was “solely for the sales market (Kelly 77).” Another example is how he made the homeowners of Levittown conform to his preferences. He did not like the wash-lines and so his floor plans did not have a designated space for a automatic dryer so he recommended that women use a “portable, umbrella like collection of lines (Kelly 68)” to hang their laundry to dry while understanding that they were to dismantle it on the weekends and Holidays despite what was convenient for the homeowner.
Despite cost and “the restrictions on wash-lines, fences and shrubbery imposed by the Levitts in the lease agreements, and later covenanted into the deeds, as well as the introduction to the family hearth, reinforced Levittown as a document for what most Americans believed a home and community should be. The young, nuclear families, in their similar (but distinct), privatized (but conforming) houses, living in their do-it-yourself domesticity, were the ideal model for the young, American family of modest means in the postwar era (Kelly 87).”
The readings also hinted at the idea of developers building newer model homes every year so families would be compelled to "upgrade" and buy new homes (similar to upgrading to a newer car). Can you imagine the profit developers would have made if that idea caught on? Let alone if that idea was still popular today? Moving every year...no thank you!
Deletebut kim, in a way don't you think that that idea still exists with the notion of the starter home communities?
Deleteand candace...well stated, i think more than anything it makes me think about what little has changed for middle-class [$50,000-100,000 annual income homes] community developments. the concepts remain virtually the same. the plans remain virtually the same, only the addition of an extra bedroom. the site relationships are the same. but as we know do to readings from week 2, the nuclear family really makes us less than 50% of actual homeowners today. we also know that most homes consists of two earning incomes, and the housewive is a rarity. we know that we spend less and less time at home and even seem to invest in it as a since of upkeep and pride in a much different manner than that of the 50-60 mentality. the target market has changed drastically in demographics, but apparently we still want the same as those 60 years ago? the only drastically different demand seems to be the front loaded garage, which is by no means an improvement upon a previously existing artifact.
I agree. The Hidden Creek neighborhood in Omaha is a great example of what I wish 'cookie cutter neighborhoods' would become. http://www.moderneco-homes.com/Default.aspx look at the plans, read the amenities. With the growing populations and the resources we are beginning to lose and the need to conserve Nature, these would be a great solution. I wish that the resources (geothermal, green roofs, trex decking, and photovoltaic cells) were affordable or could be made that way so that our middle-class families could have a sustainable house and could have a house that eventually paid for itself. The hardiplank siding is said to last 50 years. I wonder if it would be possible to eventually recycle this and reuse. As a society I think we are stuck in the instant gratification and money hungry war. People want things now and people want to make as much money as possible. They are not thinking about future generations, something that needs to start to occur.
DeleteLindsey, I think that overall idea still exists in starter home community, but when an individual or family upgrades from a starter home, it's normally to a bigger, better home in a better neighbor. From the reading, it seemed to me that they were thinking about having families move into the newer version of the same house in the same type of starter home neighborhood.
DeleteCandace, I wish cookie cutter neighborhoods would be more like that too! The amenities offered were not the typical amenities of a washer/dryer and dishwasher, but a lake, biking/walking trails, and my personal favorite, flourishing wildlife with deer, turkey and squirrels. Those are the types of amenities you can't buy for yourself once you're settled into a home. Maybe these types of homes with green roofs and photovoltaic cells are the homes and neighborhoods of the near future (although I still don't understand why builders/homeowners and in this case an architect have such a fixation on the garages protruding and inadvertently becoming the focus of the home). I'm sure homeowners would snatch the homes in these neighborhoods right up, but it might be more difficult to persuade the developers to build neighborhoods like this. I'm sure many developers would see all the open space dedicated to trails, parks and nature as a waste of their money.
Kim-
DeleteI agree with your comment from above. I couldn't imagine being encouraged to move every year. I think about our friends that are in the military and the wife's complaint is that she never feels she can be 'settled'. Each time they move they debated buying a home or renting, and when they rent they feel they are throwing their money away. As far as the Hidden Creek neighborhood goes, I too wish to see this catch on. I am a firm believer that with architects, designers there could be a great mix of styles and that the neighborhoods could accommodate the need/desire for smaller lots (based on the last few weeks debate and the argument that people are too busy and don't have time for yard work and what not) but still be able to offer amenities that we are no longer seeing as 'value' for neighborhoods My largest concern is the price--why isn't the government trying to get involved in this process like they have been with cars--didn't they make a law that cars have to get XXX mpg by 2014 or something like that? As much as I hate the government having the final say, this may be the opportunity needed to drive costs down of the materials needed to make these developments and also to change the tune of the money hungry developers.
I think that Levitt and Sons wanted to rake in money and so, they only aimed to gain maximum profit by minimizing cost and quality of construction. They solved their failure but, not for society interest. The firm was protested because of their shortage by some health organizations or institutions and the reason of demonstrating against the firm, Levitt and Sons had to figure out their deficiency for protecting their own reputation. Otherwise, they could never go up in real estate environment. Also, on pg 136, we can pick out another reason of their greedy businessman. They had to build roads but, the roads were dedicated to the towns by the firm for getting rid of maintenance costs. Consequently, this situation shows that they did that for promoting their company and protecting connection with the government and so, they only purposed making money from construction.
ReplyDeletesafak. i like your clear and confident position to the argument. i agree that they were less interested in societal needs and building community and offering richness in space. i also find myself wondering, due to the "conforming" nature of our post-war society aiming to go back to its roots of family, hard-work, ethical ideals, and gender roles that if these homes truly provided a sense of "control" "predictability" and "comfort" to a new generation of young families? was the fact that it was new, different, and simple enough?
Deletei'm eager for all of you to read this upcoming weeks article on usonia, which was a development happening at the exact same time as levittown, only frank lloyd wright served as the community planner & designer upon the request of the community founders.
It's hard to have a good perspective of a company that only looked at the side of maximizing profit but lacking in quality. Their concern was not for the community, but for themselves and their business. It is unfortunate that this idea of quality was lost in the evolving of business. I think to create a better sense of customer service Levitt and Sons could have found a balance between the concept of making money but maintaining the quality that they had lost as their business grew.
DeleteWith the apparent community knowledge of poor material choices, why did no one challenge Levitt? What started out to be a 'temporary fix' really turned into a large money making debacle. I went on youtube.com and found all kinds of videos on Levitt and even the advertisements drew people in, masking the flaws (just like the ads today do). Young couples being able to change out their 'foam core models' doors, elevations and even add on made it seem like quite the unique project. I wonder if any of the people that purchased these homes felt 'slided'. There was an article that I read online that talked about Levitt's neighborhoods and what business it brought local businesses. When someone bought one of his homes, they would have 3-4 vendors come to their home and offer free samples and a warm welcome. With the notion that people just kept buying, it became apparent that he was content with what his company was doing and only wanted to make it go even faster and turn even larger profits.
DeleteBrittnie, I agree that maximizing profit was Levitt's #1 goal, due to the statement made by Bill Levitt himself, "I don't like to be associated with
Deleteanything that doesn't make money" (potato fields article). It is hard to look past that and have a good perspective on the Levittown development. I then re-read the Time magazine article and there was mention of the amount of people hired when the houses were built through assembly lines. However, they kept their own staff around 400 people (relatively small) and hired 80 people to do the sub-contracting. Yes, they did provide job opportunities to the community, but still, that wasn’t their objective (displayed by the goal to keep their employee numbers down). If the main objectives of this business were ordered in priority to 1) providing jobs, 2) providing quality homes at affordable pricing, 3) and then generating profit, the whole idea of Levittown and the way it was built (and every suburban development after that) may have had a more positive reputation.
Candace brought up a great point…why didn’t anyone challenge the Levitts? Or did they? If anyone would have, how would they have done so? Mass produced homes at a faster rate than the Levitts? If it was possible to do so. Or would they have tried to provide better quality home and more desirable communities? The Levitt’s development almost seemed like a monopoly, because people didn’t know any different, they were just seeking housing readily available to them.
DeleteThe lenience of the Government allowed Levittown to happen. Levitt and Sons were not designers, so there should be no credit given to that aspect of the story. They simply wanted to take this concept of cheap, prefabricated homes and make a high profit. Having said this, Levittown seemed to be another one of their experiments in which successful prediction took favor and allowed it to boom. The main question here is, where was local government and community planning, who clearly should be have been involved in the phases of Levittown?
ReplyDeleteI agree Lauren. Planning was needed from the start but the US government understood that they could not keep up with the need for housing. They opted out for private industry and unfortunately local governments could not keep up with the housing boom either. Levittown was completely privatized until houses were built and the streets and inadequate sewers were handed over to the local government.
DeleteWith thorough planning Levittown may have been structured better and have adequate road and sewer networks; however, the planning process would require much more time than private business owners would wait for.
I agree Lauren. Planning was needed from the start but the US government understood that they could not keep up with the need for housing. They opted out for private industry and unfortunately local governments could not keep up with the housing boom either. Levittown was completely privatized until houses were built and the streets and inadequate sewers were handed over to the local government.
DeleteWith thorough planning Levittown may have been structured better and have adequate road and sewer networks; however, the planning process would require much more time than private business owners would wait for.
lauren & dan...very well said and a point i was waiting for somebody to make, as a way to apply previous readings and knowledge from the class as a way to support arguments and build upon the complexity of suburbanism.
Deletedue to the marketing state of mind...and the shift of perceiving and honing the lifestyle and culture of americans as consumers of products, rather than citizens of a community...successful home building is one where the homes are sold quickly. post occupancy reports & truly analyzing suburbia beyond that does not exists until...the something severe like the housing crisis exists.
if anything, levittown should be an opportunity to learn about the role of governmental policy and the need for the strong voice and leadership of planners.
I agree that planners are vital in creating strong communities. I also agree that there should have been government policies put into place so developments like Levittown didn't spin out of control and leave homeowners to deal with all the problems they faced once they moved in. I am a little leery as to what extent the government should be involved in issues like this. What works well for one city, or one part of a city, is not necessarily what is best for another (that's where the city planners are needed). From previous readings, I remember that it was government policies that restricted the use of mixed-use dwellings, but the idea of mixed-use dwellings enhances the community aspect that is so vital. I think governmental polices are created with the best intentions, but when they become too overbearing, sometimes these policies aren't in the best interest of communities.
DeleteUp to this point I don't think the government had even thought about regulating housing, did they? Obviously they stepped in to make sure that the veteran's were given the best treatment, but I do not recall them feeling like they need developers to under lock and key in making large decisions. There were statistics showing the major decline of home renting and building during the depression, so the Levitt idea may have been one that the government viewed as great because it sent those numbers in the opposite direction and seemed to be the solution to the problem.
DeleteThe result of Levittown and other developments is a lot due to the fact that the boom in housing wasn’t predicted in time to take action. The government couldn’t keep up with it, and it seems that perhaps the private industries didn’t have time to discuss alternatives or to weigh options either. And as noted by Lindsey, post occupancy reports don’t reveal important aspects until there is something severe enough to motivate an analysis on it. This is very sad to think about, a lot of times, things changed until damage is already done. This makes me wonder, are there recent improvements on pre-planning, forecasting, and predicting housing trends so better choices can be made before-hand? Or is it impossible to predict what will happen in the next ten years because of the ups and downs of the economy?
DeleteKrystal, I think precedents have allowed for our government and citizens to be more readily available for booms such as the Levittown development boom. By precedents I mean baby boomers, housing booms technology booms. These all occured due to the ending of war. When peace is in site our consumerism explodes and the market is then saturated with people with a high demand and manufacturing companies that cannot keep up. This trend has been worldwide and ever present. This pattern is one way that these happenings can be predicted. Once everyone gets pulled out of Iraq the housing market will boom once more (I foresee) as will weddings, pregnancies, etc...
ReplyDeleteI also feel that a consumer philosophy should be respected when it comes to new conditions and sprawl. Never accept the first generation. This is true with all electronics, cars, even food products. The first generation of these products always has severe faults. If the consumer would have stayed cautious of suburban living when Levittown sprang up the issues that it has caused today may have been diverted.