Teardowns: Good or Bad?
By: Leslie Pandey, Senior Content Writer/Editor | October 24, 2007
Today’s Wiki Wednesday Feature: The Teardown Page
In my neighborhood, I’ve recently watched at least five run-down, but decent homes be torn down and replaced with large new houses that dwarf the small Craftsman homes that surround them. And I’m certainly not alone: This “teardown” phenomenon is increasing across the country.
Wherever you stand on this contentious issue, there are specific reasons why it’s becoming more popular to tear down and rebuild than to buy an already built home. As Real Estate Guide contributor Cher Wyskielof Teardowns.com noted in her article, The Teardown Page, there are two main reasons for this phenomenon:
1. The desire to live in well-established communities is increasing.In coveted communities, homes for sale and vacant lots can be hard to come by. With more people clamoring to move to these communities, and looking for newer and larger homes, more of them are turning to teardowns.
2. Many older houses do not meet today’s standards for the modern home. Fueled by demand from homeowners, the size of the average newly built home has increased 53% since 1970. These new, bigger homes also have different amenities than the homes of old: great rooms, spa bathrooms, multi-car garages.
Yes, but are teardowns good for the community? Well, this is up for debate. The articleargues that teardowns are good: They frequently breathe new life into old neighborhoods and discourage suburban sprawl. But shouldn’t these old homes be preserved? In her own words, Cher says, “Local government, residents and other non-profit organizations are working closely together to ensure that truly historic homes are preserved and maintained and that zoning regulations guarantee the scale compatibility of new construction to the existing historic neighborhood.”
Yet skeptics, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, say that teardowns decrease livability and destroy the historic character of old neighborhoods.
It’s an argument that can be fought from both sides with passion. It just all depends which side you’re on.
Ed: Wiki Wednesdays is a weekly feature that highlights helpful or interesting articles from the Real Estate Guide.
- Stumble it!
- Categories: Real Estate, Wiki Wednesdays, Zillow
Comments
5 Comments so far
Enjoy this post? Subscribe to the Zillow Blog feed or get updates via e-mail
Michael Tarabotto on October 28, 2007 8:11 am
Hello Leslie,
I think it’s difficult to fight mansionization when land appreciates dramatically. Many economic principles come in to question when this happens i.e. highest and best use, regression/progression, life cycles, etc. Nevertheless, markets determine preservation. One example is Windsor Square in the Hancock Park area of Los Angeles. This area - comprised of 1100 homes - was built-up in the early 1900’s and today remains 90% intact. But only recently was it registered as the 21st HPOZ in 2004. This indicates that its residents (the market) were good stewards of its history. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the California Ranch and post WWII Bungalow in the San Fernando Valley were production houses that served an economic function. While I love the California Ranch for its notoriously cheap construction and bare bones simplicity, the neighborhoods you find them in often benefit (economically) from low-level “masionization”.
To the point made that tear-downs discourage urban sprawl… One-by-one spec building does not relieve the social demand of mass production tract housing. They have two totally different functions in the market.
Leslie Pandey on October 29, 2007 10:43 am
All good points, Michael. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
T.G.I.B! 11/03/07 | TheLocoMono on November 4, 2007 5:05 am
[…] Teardowns: Good or Bad?It is good to read an argumentative article about tearing down an existing home to take advantage of the opportunity to develop a newer home in an established neighborhood. I myself am an advocate of historic homes but will not hesitate to tear-down an older home with no historic value when it could raise the value of the neighborhood. […]
Cher Wyskiel on January 4, 2008 11:28 pm
There are valid arguments on both sides of the teardown controversy. Redevelopment is not only eminent in many areas, but in changing demographics it makes sense. From a market perspective, it is usually preferable that new houses be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, even though in some areas, we are not quite seeing that balance yet. However, restricting teardowns and infill development also restricts the rights of property owners and may devalue property .
Tighter constraints on teardowns further narrows the potential market for your property. I believe that property owners and the market, rather than zoning boards, should determine housing aesthetics and size. In a country founded on private property rights, wouldn’t that be more in line with our national historical character?
Or do we want to allow those rights to be chipped away at, one regulation at a time?
Boston’s Biggest Mansion | Zillow® Blog on August 12, 2008 11:18 am
[…] buildings by making expensive repairs and renovations. It’s quite refreshing to hear, given the teardown boom that’s been happening across the […]