An earlier series of Antiplanner posts looked at the recent financial crisis and the role the housing market played in that crisis. This has led the Antiplanner to look deeper into the history of housing and home ownership.
The Census Bureau began tallying homeownership rates in the 1890 census; before that, American homeownership rates can only be guessed at by the fact that the vast majority of American lived in rural areas and most–roughly two-thirds in 1890–American farmers owned their farms and, by extension, their homes. Between 1890 and 1940, census data found that about 40 to 45 percent of Americans owned their own homes. Then there was a sudden increase to 62 percent in 1960, after which it slowly crept up to 65 percent.
The Antiplanner has always assumed that the 40 to 45 percent of households that owned their homes represented middle-class (white-collar) families, and the 20 percent growth after 1940 represented working-class (blue-collar) families. But as Margaret Garb shows in City of American Dreams, reality is a bit more complicated.
In late nineteenth-century cities such as Chicago and Detroit, middle-class families didn’t have much interest in owning their homes, and so the great majority of them rented. In Chicago, you could lease a home for as long as 21 years, which was almost the equivalent of owning it. On the other hand, working-class families–largely immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Italy, and other non-Anglo countries–were strongly motivated to own their homes.
As these side effects are very viagra sales in australia common and goes off after sometime. Recently the American Physical Therapy Association has recognised the use of Electrotherapy for various purposes some of them have been listed as follows: * Avoid making overconsumption of such medicinal drugs. * The correct dosage of such medicinal products only after the consultation with the health expert so as to keep away from the harmful health hazards. discount viagra has been one of the best- seller medicinal. The vegetarian men are found to be more sexually active viagra price in india than the non-svegetarian men. There are varieties of treatment available, which can http://appalachianmagazine.com/2017/04/03/why-some-people-cut-their-hair-based-upon-the-moons-phases/ generic levitra online effectively cure your problem. There were a couple of reasons for this difference. For one, middle-class families regarded a home as nothing more than a place to live in; working-class families considered a home as a source of income. They grew vegetables and sold them; they took in borders; they ran small businesses out of their homes. They could also borrow against their homes when they needed extra cash, and frequently did so.
The second reason was that middle-class employees had lots of places to invest their money, starting with interest-earning bank accounts. Banks and other investments were almost completely inaccessible to working-class families–typical banking hours of 10 to 3 meant they weren’t even open when most working-class employees might be able to conduct business. So working-class families consider their homes to be their virtual savings accounts, something to pass along to their children when they retired or died.
In late-nineteenth-century Chicago, a small home might cost $800 to $1,000. People could buy such a house by making a 50 percent down payment and then paying a monthly fee representing the interest on the difference. This is what is known as a non-amortizing or interest-only loan. Most loan terms required a balloon payment of the principle after five or six years; most borrowers took out another loan to cover that. The loans were made by “real-estate entrepreneurs,” sometimes including the people who subdivided the land or built the house.
Two things changed in the early twentieth century to make home ownership the domain of the middle class and push more working-class families into rental. First, for public health reasons, cities installed sewer lines and sooner or later required all homes to be hooked up to those lines. Chicago also required homeowners to pay substantial hook-up fees; other cities such as Boston recognized that serious public health threats would continue until everyone was hooked up and so paid for the sewage systems out of general tax funds. But home owners still had to pay for indoor plumbing and fixtures, which at least doubled the cost of a small home.
The second change was zoning, which had two effects on the housing market. On one hand, by providing security that a neighborhood of single-family homes would not be invaded by industrial, commercial, or high-density residential uses, zoning increased the value of homes to middle-class families, leading more to buy rather than rent. But this increase in value also made housing less affordable for working-class families, especially in cities that explicitly zoned for amenities that made housing more attractive to the middle class but more expensive.
Over the next few weeks, the Antiplanner will review more books about the history of American home ownership. Ultimately, I hope to answer the question of how important home ownership is in our society. Is it important enough that we need to keep government policies like the mortgage-interest deduction? It is important enough that we should avoid government policies such as urban-growth boundaries that make housing less affordable? I have a pretty good idea of what my answers will be, but I am always ready to be surprised as I review the literature on a subject like this.
That’s a pretty house in the picture above. It’s not over complicated nor too simple. It’s elaborate. What a shame they cant introduce that to townhouses they build today. It’s funny how the old townhouses may have some wear and tear on the brickwork, perhaps small cracks or fading of it’s original color and yet it is interesting to look at. Today’s bricks are too smooth and feel like baby blocks. Guess we have to wait 100 years to rough em up a bit. Are there any architects left that still study and do the old stuff.
It’s hard to think people used to do this with bricks and stones.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Billbeee-hc.JPG
LazyReader asks: “Are there any architects left that still study and do the old stuff.”
I know a few. They are exclusively residential architects and are very frustrated with the AIA. But regarding your swooning of the picture on the cover, make that picture color and dress the residents in modern clothing and you have a poster for New Urbanism.
“Over the next few weeks, the Antiplanner will review more books about the history of American home ownership. Ultimately, I hope to answer the question of how important home ownership is in our society. Is it important enough that we need to keep government policies like the mortgage-interest deduction? It is important enough that we should avoid government policies such as urban-growth boundaries that make housing less affordable? I have a pretty good idea of what my answers will be, but I am always ready to be surprised as I review the literature on a subject like this.”
Did we ever get your conclusion on the financial crisis literature review?
LazyReader:
Its not so much architects to do things the old way, as finding builders who know how to make load-bearing masonry structures, and not simply brick/stone facades over a structure of 2×4’s or 2×6’s.
Antiplanner:
Look for “Suburb in the City” about the development of Chestnut Hill in Philadelphia. In Chestnut Hill, many middle class families still rent houses from the supply owned by the George Woodward Co. while they save up for a eventual purchase of a small manse once their ship comes in. The company uses their supply to control the character of people moving into the neighborhood and introduce young up and comers to the “right” sort of people and get them into the “right” clubs.
I’ve found some architects that still do this kind of work. Some famous like David Schwarz and Robert A.M. Stern. They do some expensive stuff. Still how hard is it to at least replicate those ornaments (that’s what those exterior elements were called back then).
I was watching an episode of “This Old House†where they were renovating a Shotgun house in New Orleans that had been damaged after Katrina. I forgot if the house was purchased by new tenants or if they lived there prior to the storm. I know houses like that are often associated with the poor but it was a really nice house and I don’t think the couple that bought it was actually rich, rich. You should see the before / after images.
In the past,local industries supplied elaborate but mass-produced brackets and other ornaments for shotgun houses that were accessible even to homeowners of limited means. It gave these people a sense of value to the community. Some company can give us nice, affordable ornament for our more bland houses.
The Antiplanner sez:
Over the next few weeks, the Antiplanner will review more books about the history of American home ownership. Ultimately, I hope to answer the question of how important home ownership is in our society. Is it important enough that we need to keep government policies like the mortgage-interest deduction? It is important enough that we should avoid government policies such as urban-growth boundaries that make housing less affordable?
I must assume the answer to this question is “no” and The Antiplanner would prefer to let the housing market fall where it may. Otherwise, I think he would be opening up his libertarian views to a form of “social engineering,” such as various government programs, tax preferences and policies that have favored home ownership for the last 70 years.
If so, we might for once be in agreement(!!), since evidence from Canada, where no such government preferences for single family housing ownership exist, the housing ownership rates (whether single family, condos, row houses, urban flats, etc.) are only marginally less than the U.S.
@6 hits on a key point: the little, quality details in residential construction mean a lot. But I disagree that some PVC trim slapped up by a hurried sub on a Pulte mass-produced house would be equivalent to the tradecraft seen prior to, say, the Korean War and abandoned afterward. I think NU tries to recapture some of this lost attention to detail to create place, but what’s missing is simply the pride of workmanship and detail that made the old places. Not sure you can design caring and attention.
DS
Dan is right. You can’t design caring but you can attempt to foster it. Still Vinyl is cheaper than sawing planks, it does last longer and you can make it so it sort of looks like wood. If the vinyl is white, only someone up close can tell the difference. It’s when it’s tan and brown and beige colored, people realize it’s vinyl siding).
I admit New Urbanism appeals to me slightly. One of the best examples is Kentlands, Maryland. So I looked it up on Google Earth & Bing maps and found it had a lot of single story big box stores, chain restaraunts, and parking garages and parking lots. Another example is the town Seaside, Florida. A master planned community………the town has become the topic of slide lectures in architectural schools and in housing-industry magazines, and is visited by design professionals from all over the United States and was featured in the movie “The Truman Showâ€. It’s very nice with architecture styles ranging from Victorian, Neoclassical, Modern, Postmodern and Deconstructivism. It’s wonderful, assuming you could afford it. Lots sold for 15,000 dollars in the early 1980s, and slightly over a decade later, the price had escalated to about 200,000 just for lots!!!!. Today, most lots sell for more than a million dollars, and some houses top 5 million dollars.
I rode the bike down a greenway yesterday to Stapleton. As soon as you got in the borders, it was different. Somebody thought a lot about a lot of things, and you can tell. You can also tell by how much people pay to live there to have those amenities.
DS
I share ROT’s apparent opinion that home mortgage deductions are bad and should, at the very least, be capped.
On to what other people are talking about:
I’m so tired of the faux architectural styles of NU. I think NU needs to express itself more as a movement about scale and placement of streets and buildings rather than pure style.
Get over this cutesy stuff and over-exaggerated forms. Due to the parcel-ization of the suburbs and disconnected streets, I feel that NU developments tend to build its blocks way too small and cram as much urbanism into a small amount of land.
Also, regarding craftsmanship of homes, so many traditional neighborhoods were built from kit homes.
http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/
Craftsmanship can come from streamlined labor.
I’ve heard of those houses and seen them. Some of them are actually on historic registries and the butt of jokes in the 1920 silent film “One Week” starring Buster Keaton. Early mortgage loans were typically for 5–15 years at 6–7 percent interest. Sears’s use of “balloon style” framing systems did not require a team of skilled carpenters, as did previous methods. Balloon frames were built faster and generally only required one carpenter. This system used precut timber of mostly standard sizes (2″x4″ and 2″x8″) for framing. Precut timber, fitted pieces, and the convenience of having everything, including the nails, shipped to you. It also pioneered modern innovations like drywall (instead of plaster) and asphalt shingles (as opposed to tin roofs which are noisy and unattractive). It wasn’t until the rise of modern housing codes and the complexity of modern construction made kit homes less desirable, and sales were cancelled.
ws says: “I think NU needs to express itself more as a movement about scale and placement of streets and buildings rather than pure style.”
I second that! In all truthfulness, I think that this is the primary mission of NU, but it’s easy to get distracted.
I’m so tired of the faux architectural styles of NU. I think NU needs to express itself more as a movement about scale and placement of streets and buildings rather than pure style…Get over this cutesy stuff and over-exaggerated forms.
Yup.
DS
“I rode the bike down a greenway yesterday to Stapleton. As soon as you got in the borders, it was different. Somebody thought a lot about a lot of things, and you can tell. You can also tell by how much people pay to live there to have those amenities.” -DS
Or to be able to have a modern house that’s only 6 miles from downtown or because it has easy access the I70 / Pena Blvd corridor which has been adding jobs hand over fist. I wouldn’t assume it’s just the amenities. After all, Franktown isn’t Stapleton and people are paying just as much for housing there.
Franktown is 4000sf homes on 2-5-10 acres with a fake barn and a $45k well with $10k wellhouse. Not quite the same, but I definitely agree on the proximity argument, even though you have to drive I-70.
DS