When urban planners talk about infill, they make it sound so benign. “We’ve identified some vacant lands, and we’ll direct growth there instead of sprawling at the urban fringe.”
Portland builders often demolish one home and replace it with four “skinny houses” like this one.
Though it levitra online cheap http://djpaulkom.tv/cash-for-absolutely-absolutely-nothing-confessions-6/ would be nice to believe that all it takes to treat erectile dysfunction is an organic male enhancer product. Overdose ought to be stayed away from it, believing that brand viagra online there’s a more suitable approach. However, the sexual dysfunction cheap viagra from uk found to be quite effective in treating erectile dysfunction. Failure of penile cialis properien in more than 50 percent of the population being obese in US and 15 percent in Europe.
In reality, infill can mean a complete transformation of neighborhoods, one house at a time. Hundreds of homes are being demolished each year to be replaced with either larger houses (such as this one that is four times the size of the house it replaced) or multifamily housing. Either way can be way out of character for the neighborhood.
This is happening in wealthy neighborhoods as well as working-class neighborhoods. The Antiplanner doubts that this is what people thought they were signing up for when they agreed to give a regional planning agency authority over their zoning codes. Residents of other regions need to beware of local officials offering the bring them the wondrous benefits of Portland-style planning.
The Antiplanner wrote:
When urban planners talk about infill, they make it sound so benign. “We’ve identified some vacant lands, and we’ll direct growth there instead of sprawling at the urban fringe.”
I still think you put too much blame on planners (and I concede that many of the plans they produce are unrealistic and in some cases very damaging to established neighborhoods), and not enough blame on the elected officials that are supposed to be providing oversight of the planners.
And even if the planners (who usually work for county or municipal governments) succeed at limiting growth at the fringe, they usually cannot prevent “leapfrog” development further-out.
The Antiplanner doubts that this is what people thought they were signing up for when they agreed to give a regional planning agency authority over their zoning codes.
Even Portland Metro (much admired by planning groupies all over the United States) cannot prevent growth and development on the north side of the Columbia River in Washington – I have mentioned that to groupies here in the East of that, and the response is sometimes denial.
What I find funny about infill, is that in my brother’s neighborhood they are literally building houses in the front yard.
infill development begins by and large due to a private sale. the buyers seek the lowest prices, so the smallest houses in the worst condition are generally the first to get demolished. you can also look at this whole process as the free market creating housing that more closely meets demand. a 2br house with a crumbling foundation becomes two new 3br 2ba houses.
the way the planners change the market is by loosening government control over development. in portland, generally its shifting R5/R7 to R2.5 zoning. (one unit per 5000/7000 square foot lot, to two/threeish units).
the largest subsidy that exists right now in portland is the waiver of system development charges for additional dwelling units. this puts two units on an existing lot without demolition.
So sad to see this. I would appreciate some insight from those
who know more about home energy use. Seeing these big houses replacing
small single family homes makes me wonder: why are we permitting these big houses that
will strain our energy resources? How is a fancy 3 bedroom 3500 sq. skinny house going to
save energy over a small, rehabbed house? People will be fanning their selves with
LEED certifications to stay cool this summer.
The house pictured will need AC on that top floor- trust me. No trees. Why is that house “green?”
It is what they agreed to. They agreed that a select few would be able to decide what sort of things can and can not be built. It may not be the exact result they had envisioned but it is what they agreed to. It’s a flawed paradigm and not consonant with the right to property whether it’s used to create density or prevent it.
English Major, my parents lived in an old house. When I was in high school they built a new one. Despite having 3 times the square footage, it still used less energy than the old house. I’m not saying that all new construction is built to the same standards. I’m just using it as an example of how important building techniques can be in increasing energy efficiency.
C. P. Zilliacus: “Even Portland Metro (much admired by planning groupies all over the United States) cannot prevent growth and development on the north side of the Columbia River in Washington”
Indeed. My in-laws live in the Vancouver area, and I first visited their development in 2005. When the wife and I went down for Thanksgiving, I almost didn’t recognize the immediate neighborhood. Driving all over Vancouver that weekend, the story is the same through out the sprawling ‘burb: Residential, commercial, and road development everywhere. Fields and farms are disappearing quickly.
English Major: “How is a fancy 3 bedroom 3500 sq. skinny house going to save energy over a small, rehabbed house?”
If you click on the first link in the article, it’ll take you to the Oregonian article titled “Home demolitions skyrocket in Portland, neighbors demand advance warning”. There you’ll see a photo of a neighborhood with a small mid-century (late 1940s, just after WWII) house next to a mammoth new house. I’ve been in many estate sales in these mid-century homes, and I also took a class in public history, which involves researching the history of houses and other buildings.
Those small houses are typically 750 to 800 square feet, often with no basement. . They’re coming on the market more frequently as the original inhabitants are passing away now in larger numbers. Not many want to live in such cramped conditions, especially families with children. Modern tastes also prefer open concept design, and the rooms in these houses are sectioned off and tiny. The bathrooms are just large enough for a toilet, sink, and tub, and you can easily turn on the water for the sink and toilet while sitting on the john. Typically when these houses have been occupied by the original owners, the insulation and windows have never been upgraded. Some appliances may have been swapped out, typically in the 1970s. Many still have oil heating. In the long run, it is more cost effective to rebuild with energy efficiency in mind, and over the life of the home, there is likely a net gain in efficiency, especially in homes specifically designed to be highly efficient.
Here’s an interesting quote from the Oregonian article linked:
A comment on the article reads in part: “This type of development is EXACTLY what we voted for when we voted for the Urban Growth Boundary, and Land Use Management.”
Another writes, “The conspicuous casualty has been exterior spaces for kids. Infill is the consequence of trying to bound urban growth, but one of the consequences has been urban spaces that are less and less family friendly.”
Finally, “Like it or not, this is the trade-off for the urban growth boundary. The places available to build housing has not kept up with the population growth. …Those who can afford will build in-fill housing, while the masses will be forced into high-density properties.”
It’s interesting to read these perspectives on the Urban Growth Boundary. There’s been much debate on this site about the UGB’s effects on housing prices, and I’m no longer certain it’s not a significant driver of prices.
in terms of housing prices and the UGB, it is going to be hard to disentangle the national trend of upward prices at “close in” locations.
i think its just a cultural phenomena: there are lots of professional DINKs and families and single high wage earners that vastly prefer being as close as possible to a city center– even if they are “reverse commuting”. its happening in nearly every west coast city. i would believe this is the primary driver of the price increases.
in Portland, take away the UGB and keep the restrictive R5 zoning, and i would guess that close in prices would increase MORE. instead of demolishing a $200k 2br house, and putting up two $400k new 3br/2ba houses, you would see demolition followed by selling one $500-$600k home.
The targets for redevelopment are usually when the house is valued less than the land. When this happens and you can purchase several parcels together, then you get an infill development. That’s how it works most of the time. Planners don’t come in with bulldozers and randomly plow under decent houses owned by patriots. And old houses in marginal neighborhoods come down – old houses in good neighborhoods are gutted, insulated, windows replaced, etc.
So yes, the headline is true: existing homes are demolished in infill. It is false to assert We’ve identified some vacant lands, and we’ll direct growth there instead of sprawling at the urban fringe.
HTH
DS
“It is false to assert We’ve identified some vacant lands, and we’ll direct growth there instead of sprawling at the urban fringe.”
As in planners and elected officials aren’t making this an official policy? It’s happening because, as eeldip asserts, of a “cultural phenomenon”; people want to live close in, so provides a financial incentive to those who own empty or larger lots to infill?
“why are we permitting these big houses that will strain our energy resources”
The real question is why are we permitting totalitarian fascists like you to exist, when clearly your highest and best use is swinging by your heels from a lamp post. The day will come when we round up every person who has opined on what the rest of us should be ‘permitted’, and we will give you the Mussolini treatment.
The Fred_Z trollbot sez:
The real question is why are we permitting totalitarian fascists like you to exist, when clearly your highest and best use is swinging by your heels from a lamp post. The day will come when we round up every person who has opined on what the rest of us should be ‘permitted’, and we will give you the Mussolini treatment.
Another trollbot that makes fascist terrorist threats, too! And HATES the U.S. Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment.
Hey, Freddie, for your information, not all of us “liberals” or “progressives” agree with the gun control efforts of some of our associates; in fact many of us AGREE with the right wing gun nutters about the threat of fascist government action, if different like government(s) controlled by the fascists and racists who make up too much of the Tea Party and other right wing nutjob groups.
Frank, thank you ever so much for that valuable comment. It pushed the conversation forward!
Next, tell us how planners lie about being soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much vacant land that nooooooooooooooooooooo houses need to come down. Because that is the implied premise…the premise – you know, from Coursera.
DS
Somebody’s over-compensating. What a tiny little coward you are. Fred Z. Must be depressing in your mom’s basement. Big talk from a little boy.
Actually, Dan, those weren’t rhetorical questions, there was no implied premise, I’m pretty unsure about the causes, and I was asking you if you agreed with eeldiand for you insight on the matter. Thanks for the snarky reply, though.
“…agreed with eeldip and for your….” Stupid swipe and autocorrect. *Braces for an assault from the “Typo Troll” (sic).*
Frank, apologies. Of course directing growth inward is policy in many areas. So what? Lots of people are purchasing that product – its not sitting there idle. The redev of homes is due to what I wrote upthread.
What is false and misleading is the implied premise that development will only occur on vacant land, and then telling a story of houses coming down. Remember: in a normal economy 2% of developed property in a normal, functioning city is redeveloped a year. The properties that have structures worth less than Ricardian rent are the properties ripe for redev. Developers aggregate them into something they can do something with.
DS
i am not seeing a lot of aggregation in close-in portland. developers like renaissance and everett are typically buying single parcels. you can go to their websites and find addresses and research the history on portlandmaps.com.
just as a random check i went to the everett site and researched the first listing. was built on a 25 wide lot previously used as an amateur auto repair shop. http://goo.gl/maps/eEWFm
Likely in places with growth boundaries, the aggregated parcels were bought years ago when they were cheap – only onesies-twosies available for the most part. Cities in the west and sunbelt are more likely to do this than in, say, NE Corridor. Big news here maybe 18 months ago a monastery came up for sale – big parcel and lots of units breaking ground soon – big find for the happy developer.
DS
Here’s the $85,000,000,000 question: Would this development be occurring at its current rate without monetary policy that includes ultra low interest rates, QE1&2, and ongoing QE in the form of toxic asset (many from the days of toxic, sub-prime mortgages) purchases by the Fed?
The Fed just hints at tapering, and US stocks post worst weekly drop since August.
Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
The idea that the government can just take your property, if doing so will improve the common good of the community? Anyone interested should read the book “the Little Pink House”. Suzette Kelo was just trying to rebuild her life when she purchased crappy Victorian house perched on the waterfront in New London, Connecticut. The house wasn’t particularly fancy, but with a little hard work Suzette was able to turn it into a home.
Little did she know that the City of New London, desperate to revive its flailing economy, wanted to raze her house and the others like it that sat along the waterfront in order to win a lucrative Pfizer pharmaceutical contract that would bring new business into the city. Kelo and fourteen other neighbors refused to sell, so the city decided to exercise its power of eminent domain to condemn their homes, launching one of the most extraordinary legal cases, a case that ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court but lost by one. The Kelo decision opened the door for eminent domain abuse all across the country. As for New London, the benefits city leaders promised would follow had yet to materialize. It had been 10 years since demolition of “blighted” properties, but the new hotel, upscale housing and conference center remained blueprints. It stood as 90 acres of dirt for 10 years.
I don’t get it. Isn’t this what an anti-planner would want? The municipality loosens rules on what kinds of houses can be built, and then owners choose to tear down old houses to build newer, larger multifamily houses. That sounds like freedom to me. What’s not to like?
I don’t get it. Isn’t this what an anti-planner would want?
That’s exactly right: the market rushes in where the market is underperforming, and a developer builds what they determine the market wants. It doesn’t get much better than that.
DS
Sure infill housing is great, development is great, But when the “planning” include systematically dismantling the road, and utility infrastructure, inhibiting residents from pursuing opportunity, along with passing punitive laws and regulations meant to increase the cost of living, it no longer works. Portland also has chased families away the population of Portland is 4 times what it was after WWII, but the youth population is what it was before WWII, meaning Portland Public Schools is supporting an infrastructure meant to educate 85K yet enrollment is about 44K. Families choose to not live in the Portland Central Core, because they can’t afford it, and most likely those children will chose to not live there because they will no be able to find a job that would support the cost of living. If Portland were a “well rounded” community the youth population would be close to 125K – 250K if we were using post WWII as a guideline.
You would think the basic definition of a “sustainable” community would have lots of children in it. But alas, that is far from the idea of liberal “sustainability”.
that is far from the idea of liberal “sustainability”.
The earth’s population of humans is already past “sustainability” at current consumption levels, so adding more humans won’t make human population sustainable.
DS
“The earth’s population of humans is already past ‘sustainability’ at current consumption levels, so adding more humans won’t make human population sustainable.”
Says the guy who reproduced.
Says the guy who reproduced.
Asserts the guy who makes up stuff as he goes along. We’ll add this one to the list.
DS
Congratulations on the adoption of your daughter!
BTW, those fences at Muir Woods are there to protect the trees, according to MUWO: For your safety we ask that you remain on established trails while visiting the Park. Poison oak and stinging nettles are common. By staying on the trails you will not only prevent your exposure to poison oak and stinging nettles but you also help us preserve an old growth forest ecosystem in which these coast redwood trees need to survive.
Way to teach your non-progeny ecological respect! Mad props!