'We're losing mixed-income neighborhoods'

 

 

Monday, March 27, 2006; Posted: 3:04 p.m. EST (20:04 GMT)

 

DELRAY BEACH, Florida (AP) -- Livia Landry likes life the way it is in this quaint tree-lined neighborhood a few blocks from downtown -- front porches with wind chimes and potted plants jutting out into sunshine-filled, perfectly groomed green yards.

 

Young mothers push sporty three-wheeled strollers up sidewalks past century-old homes, chatting with neighbors about the day's events.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/27/mcmansions.ap/index.html

This is "good" mcmansion growth. I rather have it be a teardown and swollow up a whole small lot, than plow under woods/farmland on a big lot. I have seen pictures of ths same thing going on in chicago, its not bad. Its elimination of antiquated housing stock. People dont complain when you put an monsterous addition, carve out new rooms, or a deck on your old house. I agree with the statement of a sense of community is not driven by the design of the structure but by demographics. If the whole street gets gentrified with McMansions in this same manner, we end up with 'brownston-esque' rowhouses. Poor taste and design is just that (and mcmansions sure can look fugly), but filling out a lot fully isnt nessisarly poor design or taste.

But those "antiquated" houses are like, you know, affordable and stuff.  I guess everyone is rich these days, huh?

Housing stock is allways "affordable" somewhere. If McMansions are raiding your street/neighborhood, its obvious that your house/land is not as "affordable" as it once was.

A 1200 sf house is a heck of a lot more affordable than a 4200 sf monstrosity on the same land.  What happens to the younger or less affluent people in such a neighborhood--should they be forced to move because wealthier people want their land?

 

...and if you think housing is always affordable somewhere, it's obvious you haven't left Ohio lately.

 

 

Nobody told anyone they had to leave, and nobody is being forced out of their home for the rich people. This is NIMBYism just because their neighborhood is gentrifying and the neighbors dont like it, and they are looking for any way to fight it.

 

Yes housing is allways affordable somewhere, and affordable is allways a relative to the buyers. Take San Fransico, totoally unaffordble to most people, but somehow people still manage to buy and live there. It is "affordable" to the people that live there. If you consider this to be unaffordable, perhaps you shouldnt be looking in San Fransico in the first place.

Umm am I the only one that would be happy about my property suddenly being worth a lot more? lol. I doubt the homes they're demolishing are that great. Honestly, I think these people just feel threatened and uncomfortable with the class of people moving in. I'd much rather have expensive housing sprout up in my hood (Mcmansion or not) as opposed to section 8 or other forms of public housing. You don't want people to sprawl out and you don't want them to tear down buildings in inner cities, well something has be given up with a growing population.

I have to agree with smackem81 on this, nobody is being forced out unless you rent.  If that is the case you should have bought some property.  This is far better than people building 3500 sq ft siding homes in the farmlands.

I think some of you are missing the point, this probably isn't an area of run down homes.  I am guessing it is a nice upscale neighborhood in a prime location...that's why people want to build a new huge house there.  In this situation you usually aren't talking about someone wanting to build a big mansion in a run down poor neighborhood on a brownfield.  The residents in the article are talking about character and scale of the neighborhood....the developer quoted is the one that puts the gentrification spin on it.  I imagine that this is already a pretty affluent neighborhood of modest homes.

 

To put it into context...I think this would be similar to people buying up the 'modest' mansions along Lakewood's lakefront and tearing them down to build a house double the size that looks like it belongs in Strongsville.

 

If sprawl suburbs can require a minimum square footage, why can't an older established community limit it?

 

Because if you do limit it people will just move to the exurbs to build a home of the square footage they want, why not allow them to do so in established neighborhoods?

I understand that rationale...however 99.9% of the press that I see on the "tear-down phenomenon" involves perfectly good homes in generally nicer or affluent neighborhoods that are 'built out' and don't have available land.  The residents believe that the value of the neighborhood will be compromised if the quaintness or scale is lost.  I don't think the response on the thread would be the same if say....Walgreen's wanted to build an oversized store with a parking lot in the Mariemont or Shaker Square business district and tear down an older structure that is in the scale/architecture period of the rest of the district.  Isn't that kind of the same thing?  It begins to erode the exact reason why the area is valuable.

 

 

How would you all feel if developers started knocking down OTR to put up Mcmansions?

Woah we are talking about apples & oranges...

 

Building a Walgreens vs residential are totally two different things, bad anology.  Mov2Ohio makes a better point but again I still think we are talking about two different things.  OTR is an historic treasure not just another everyday affluent neighborhood.  Blue Ash is a better example since it is actually happening there.  The homes they are tearing down are more than likely perfectly fine homes but there is nothing really lost from tearing down 1950's/60's tract homes in a suburb/neighborhood for a newer bigger home.  It is a win win for all parties.  It is a win for the resident that wants to live in a new home but want to live in an established community.  It is a win for urbanites because at least this is one less resident that would move to the exurbs and it is a win for the community because this is a reinvestment into the neighborhood which will raise the surrounding homes property value. 

 

Lastly in Cincinnati's case, there is no shortage of "affordable homes".  Cincinnati is one of the most affordable cities in the country to live.  Mt Lookout has done a great job of incorporating new McMansions into the existing historic housing stock which is attractive to people that what the newness.  Cincinnati needs that.  New homes are a disease and Americans can't help but be attracted to "new".  This is one way for inner ring suburbs to re-energize themselves. 

How would you all feel if developers started knocking down OTR to put up Mcmansions?

I'd be like hell yeah I can finally walk through here without getting shot or robbed or called a cracker for once :) Although it would be strange seeing new mansions that close to downtown.

Woah we are talking about apples & oranges...

 

Building a Walgreens vs residential are totally two different things, bad anology. 

 

In your opinion it is 2 different things because you value those areas, as well as OTR .  The residents of the neighborhoods where this is happening value the feel and scale of the neighborhood they live in and are passionate about it just like you are about the aformentioned areas...so at the root it is the same thing.  Someone with lots of money comes in and thinks they can do whatever they want with no regard to the neighbors or community.  I also find it interesting that people are assuming that because these people live in a 1,200 sq foot home they are obviously poor and don't have the means to live in a larger house.

 

A higher profile case, but noteworthy for this discussion:

 

House of famed columnist Mike Royko to be torn down

 

The Associated Press

 

November 12, 2004 - The house where legendary newspaper columnist Mike Royko once penned his takes on Chicago life is being torn down by its current owners despite the pleas of preservationists who believe it has historic value.

 

Chicago Tribune, died in 1997. His wife, Judy, sold the house earlier this year to neighbors for $1.8 million.

 

 

 

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=2379018

 

 

 

 

I never thought they were poor.  I just cited Blue Ash as an example and Blue Ash isn't poor.  I think you are assuming that the reason they care about these big homes being built in their neighborhood is because they value the "scale" of the neighborhood.  In all honesty I think that is a load of bull.  It is nothing more than envy, jealousy & fear of change.  People get very comfortable with the way things "were" and don't like anything that deviates from it.  It is a reason why someone can work at a job for 20 years while hating the job, because they fear change.  Hey it is a natural instinct, but you need to think outside of the box.  As someone who wants to see the inner ring strenghten itself, this is an important step.  This is another reason why I was 100% behind the Calhoun Street remodel by the University of Cincinnati.  It is great to see new mix with old.  These new homes get assessed based on market value and have to pay higher taxes to the city.  It is even a win for the city without having to give a handout to someone for investing into their city.

We live in a capitalist world (thank God!) and if someone can afford a house, tear it down, and put up a brand new home, all the power to them.  I think it is ridiculous to have other people telling me what I should do with my own home.  Sorry, I paid/paying for the thing and it should be the way I want it.

Someone with lots of money comes in and thinks they can do whatever they want with no regard to the neighbors or community. 

 

Not really, as long as they comply with the existing zoning and community laws, then by definition the new house is not a nuisance.....IMHO it just revolves around someone saying the "house is too big for my taste"..your property rights cannot trump another's property rights. When you make your community desirable -- you will have the unintended consequence of folks actually wanting to move there ;-)

 

what hasn't been mentioned yet is that the teardown trend is causing densification, witness the 2-4 house "subdivisions" going into old 1 acre or so lots with the ranch house, esp. in Blue Ash and Montgomery in Cincy

While I agree that one should be able to do as he pleases with his own property, property rights end at the property line.  Once you start changing the scale character of the entire neighborhood by your actions, you've violated the precedent established by the entire community.

 

This is not difficult.  If you want a big house, then buy a big house in a neighborhood of big houses.  Otherwise, find a way to blend it in with the existing character of the community.  Many townhouses from the turn of the century are in excess of 3000 sf, but fit in context just fine with smaller homes and even multi-story apartment buildings. 

 

The problem that Bigfooting presents is someone will try to build a chateau on a block of low-slung ranch homes, which is nothing short of pretensious and ridiculous.  How is it that builders were able to build homes of varying sizes in the same neighborhood 100 years ago, but we cannot do this now without transforming the block into a cartoon?

 

 

trouble is, scale and character are subjective ;-)

 

^property rights end at the property line..

any both ways too...property rights pertaining to such noxious things as dog kenneling etc do not end at the property lines (nuisances and such) -- yes its a slippery slope

Scale is not subjective--it's geometric.  Even if it were subjective, any moron can tell you that a 4200 sf wanna-be castle built to the curb does not belong on a block with 1950s vintage ranch houses.  Suggested rule of thumb:  all bigfoot houses require approval of a third-grader.

 

Prior to World War II, zoning regulations actually had pictorial guidelines to make it very clear what was appropriate construction given dimensions of the street, lot sizes, neighboring buildings, and such.  Since then, we've adopted idiotic zoning regs that rely on numbers, which are meaningless without the context.  The illustrations and graphical standards are gone in favor of machinated pre-fab housing. 

We live in a capitalist world (thank God!) and if someone can afford a house, tear it down, and put up a brand new home, all the power to them.  I think it is ridiculous to have other people telling me what I should do with my own home.  Sorry, I paid/paying for the thing and it should be the way I want it.

 

I suggest you never live in a suburban subdivision with a home owners assocation else you will be in for a rude awakening.  As for the homes in question, they more than likely are building newer/larger homes in neighborhoods without HOA's.

When I lived in PRidge (Cincinnati) my brother left his car that he bought at an auction for 11 dollars, parked in front of our house. Since it was an older car, and just sitting there, someone on our street reported it to city hall. They fined him and required that he move the car because it was an "eyesore". I found out which neighbor did it and I told her I was going to city hall to have her fined and removed because her face is an eyesore.  Grass height is a major issue too.  I know that in Golf Manor they will take a measuring stick to check if it's under the limit of length. Golf Manor...that's one neighborhood in need of diversification in architecture, not extreme lawn care :]