Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[Fallout from the Housing Slump, Part I]
Many established neighborhoods are concerned about the “tear down” phenomenon, in which a small house is replaced by a much bigger one. Tear downs have become more popular in recent years with the high prices of houses; a family wishing to “move up” will often find it easier to stay, avoid the high cost of land and transactions costs, and take advantage of relatively moderate costs of construction by building a new house on their old property.
Neighbors are not so thrilled with having a bigger house nearby, of course. National Public Radio broadcast a segment this morning about complaints in Kenilworth, an affluent suburb outside Chicago, where little old houses now exist next door to giant McMansions. One neighbor is unhappy at the loss of her view, privacy, and shade from a now-torn-down tree that was once in her neighbor’s yard. Of course local governments should check their zoning laws to ensure that new houses aren’t “too big” for the area (no three-story houses, for example, in a neighborhood of one-story bungalows) and don’t come too close to property boundaries.
Other than this, however, I assert that tear downs are a fairly healthy phenomenon. They are the quintessence of infill –- new construction in already built-up areas, as opposed to development “sprawl” in greenfields and exurbs.
Why is there so much pressure for sprawl when there are so many old urban and suburban areas in which higher density and infill could be tolerated? The reason is that American families don’t want to live “just anywhere” –- they demand neighborhoods with “good schools” (I’ll let you figure out precisely what they mean by this) and other community amenities. Many older areas simply don’t make the cut. And they demand more space than generations past to fit their huge vehicles, their big-screen TVs, and their new expectations of high-square-footage in the affluent society.
Accordingly, land use law shouldn’t make it too hard for families to tear down and rebuild. We might hope that more people would want to stay in their old houses. But if law makes it too difficult to rebuild, families will simply move to the exurbs. Neighbors may not like it, but tear-down-and-rebuild is a “second best” option for land use policy.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances