|
Out With the Old, in With
<br />The Cost of Teardowns
<br />By Lane Kendig
<br />
<br />the
<br />
<br />New:
<br />
<br />Teardowns destroy an exist/n§ structure to build another.
<br />
<br />Usually that ~"eplacement building is
<br />much larger and often of a different
<br />character than the original, affecting
<br />both adiacent landowners and the
<br />neighborhood--sometimes positively,
<br />but most often negatively.
<br />
<br /> From a re§ulatory perspective, it is
<br />important for planners to know that the
<br />economic conditions leading to a tear-
<br />down result from social'issues unre-
<br />lated to desi§n. Teardowns often occur
<br />in desirabie neighborhoods where the
<br />housing stock is sound, but dated. A
<br />variation of the teardown can occur in
<br />neighborhoods where the housin§
<br />stock is deteriorated· Many deteriorat-
<br />ing neighborhoods would benefit from
<br />teardowns and replacement buildings,
<br />especially if the loss is not to I~uildin§s
<br />with significant historic value.
<br /> Obsolescence is'a maior reason for
<br />teardowns. Houses in an aging neighbor-
<br />hood may be a minimum of 3o to 50
<br />years old. 8athrooms, kitchens, bed-
<br />rooms, and storage areas are too small -
<br />for modem tastes. St,ties, co/ors, equip-
<br />merit, and materials are also dated. Age-related
<br />problems, including cracks, heating, air condi-
<br />tioning, plumbing, and general restoration often
<br />need attention. Less frequently, structural prob-
<br />lems can lead to a teardown, especially in
<br />undesirable areas. The perfect setting for a tear-
<br />down (s where the home is out of sync with the
<br />perceived needs of the indiv(dua[s interested in
<br />purchasing the propert%
<br />
<br />ECONOMICS AND TEARDOWNs
<br />Economic conditions differentiate the teardown
<br />from a newly built too-big house. A lot with a
<br />potential teardown has a very high land value rel-
<br />ative to the existing house. For new housing, the
<br />§eneral rule is that Jot vaiue should be no more
<br />than 25 percent of the tota( va[ue of the property,
<br />although this will not necessarily remain con-
<br />
<br /> slant overtime, For teardowns, the lot is
<br /> likely to be 50 percent or more of the
<br /> value ofth~ property, and in many cases,
<br /> the ~and value wilt exceed the va(ue of the
<br /> house. If a purchaser can buy a vacant
<br /> in a similar location, it makes little sense
<br /> to spend substantial(y more for a tear-
<br /> down [or. The market mu'~t support the
<br /> teardown as a rational investment
<br /> because the total cost will include the (at,
<br /> the init/a( house, demolition costs, and
<br /> the cost of the new house.
<br /> The economic conditions that lead
<br /> to teardowns also have an impact on
<br /> ne(ghborin§ property owners. As land
<br /> values inflate and.taxes dso (a condition
<br /> accelerated by teardowns) current resio
<br /> dents-many of whom are [on,time
<br /> neighborhood residents-may oppose
<br /> teardowns if they feel they are being
<br /> taxed out of their homes. Others may
<br /> look at the increase as an opportunity to
<br /> profit and move up to more modern
<br /> homes. Suc.h disparate views make con-
<br /> sensus difficult,.
<br /> Neighborhood character.is reflected
<br />in (or size, house size and height, and vegeta-
<br />tion. In new subdivisions filled with too-big
<br />houses, the community as a whole may react
<br />negatively to this characterization, but most res-
<br />idents of those subdivisions will see l/rUe threat
<br />from the house next door. On the other hand,
<br />I:eardow~s alter the e;~isdng character of the
<br />neighborhood. For planners, this physical alter-
<br />ation, in combination with the resulting' eco-
<br />
<br />Editor's Note~ Few issues define the modern planning dilemmo like residential teardowns. Fhe number of research inquiries on teat'downs logged.by
<br />APA's Planning Advisory Service reflects planners' concerns that teardowns are a clear and present threot to communiq/ character, housing a['fordabfl.
<br />iO/, and historic preservation. There is also no si~ortoge of medid coverage on this/ssue os it plagues older suburbs, gentr/fying urban neighborhoods,
<br />~nd resort communities. In a sense, communities at risk for te¢rdowns are victims of their own success. But are teardowns a symptom o[a throwaway
<br />culture or a necessary byproduct of modernization? In this issue of Zoning Practice, planning consultant Lane/¢end/g exarn/nes the nature of this land-
<br />use phenomenon and provides help[ui zoning tools [or planners grappling with it. An in-depth dna[ysis ol: teardowns and simfldr deveiopmenr potterns
<br />is ava/robie in Too gig, Boring, or Ugiy: Piannin~ and Oesign Tools to Combat Monotony, the Too-Big House, and 1'eardowns, (PAS Report No. 528).
<br />
<br />204 ZONINGPRACTICE 6.06
<br /> A,~ERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATiON I p~ge 2
<br />
<br />
<br />
|