In Defense of “Teardowns”
One of our frequent readers – and commentators on
This Council has a solution in search of a problem. The solution is regulation to limit the size and appearance of your home – but what is the problem? Is there a problem, or is the tear-down phenomenon, which is happening in the
Some say the new homes coming in to the older neighborhoods are not affordable for teachers, police officers and fire fighters. The fact is, the neighborhoods inside the Beltline have never been affordable for public sector employees! The land is expensive – location, location, location. The only way to bring affordability into these areas is through density. Duplexes, townhomes or other attached housing products maximize the buildable area of these expensive lots, making each unit a more reasonable price. Should affordable mean small, old and obsolete, with potentially substandard electrical work and plumbing, or crumbling foundations? Why not take down the old and replace with new – and better – and safer?
But the same neighbors/city councillors who are against tearing down obsolete small homes on large lots are against bringing attached housing to their streets. This isn’t about affordability – but it is about class envy, and the changing demographics of these areas. The new people moving in to these new, larger homes have more money – and different political views, than the people who are so dead-set against infill and tear-downs. We all invest in our homes over the years, redecorating and relandscaping – these new homes are the updating, enhancing and redecorating of our neighborhoods, protecting our major investments for our future. So what is the problem? Who thinks these old, obsolete houses are worth preserving? And who should decide the “character” of a neighborhood – shouldn’t it be the people who live there, present and future? And why fix something that isn’t broken?
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.
In Defense of “Teardowns”
One of our frequent readers – and commentators on
This Council has a solution in search of a problem. The solution is regulation to limit the size and appearance of your home – but what is the problem? Is there a problem, or is the tear-down phenomenon, which is happening in the
Some say the new homes coming in to the older neighborhoods are not affordable for teachers, police officers and fire fighters. The fact is, the neighborhoods inside the Beltline have never been affordable for public sector employees! The land is expensive – location, location, location. The only way to bring affordability into these areas is through density. Duplexes, townhomes or other attached housing products maximize the buildable area of these expensive lots, making each unit a more reasonable price. Should affordable mean small, old and obsolete, with potentially substandard electrical work and plumbing, or crumbling foundations? Why not take down the old and replace with new – and better – and safer?
But the same neighbors/city councillors who are against tearing down obsolete small homes on large lots are against bringing attached housing to their streets. This isn’t about affordability – but it is about class envy, and the changing demographics of these areas. The new people moving in to these new, larger homes have more money – and different political views, than the people who are so dead-set against infill and tear-downs. We all invest in our homes over the years, redecorating and relandscaping – these new homes are the updating, enhancing and redecorating of our neighborhoods, protecting our major investments for our future. So what is the problem? Who thinks these old, obsolete houses are worth preserving? And who should decide the “character” of a neighborhood – shouldn’t it be the people who live there, present and future? And why fix something that isn’t broken?
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.