Comments on: The collapsing suburbs

By: Seth Ben-Ezra

Seth Ben-Ezra — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:22:45 +0000

Michael,

See, this just goes to show that house construction is not my forte.

Additionally, as I was thinking about it, there’s something of a filtering process for older structures. Basically, an older building has more time to fall apart than a new building. Therefore, the remaining buildings probably have a higher incidence of quality, simply because the bad buildings that were built at the same time have already fallen apart.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0000

The problem with big homes in the burbs being turned into chop jobs with many rental units is that code does not allow for this. Areas such as the new burbs of Dunlap are zoned for single family housing R-1 = no more than 2 unrelated people. Your area of University east is zoned for no more then 3 unrelated people making a modern chop against code. Your home was choped pre-code and now that it has been converted back to a single unit you could not turn it back to a triplex.

As for the new homes being of lower quality line it is worth noting that new homes are of a uniform quality, good enough if the home is taken care of. Old homes were built to many standards from great to poor. One of the old homes I rebuilt years ago had wall studs and roof rafters spaced from 10-26 inches on center. That home today would never pass code no matter how drunk or crooked the inspector.

By: Barb

Barb — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:16:03 +0000

Houses are only as well-built as the building codes require. Therefore, if the building codes are lax (or the building inspector is not an honest person) then the houses are not so great. However, Seth, your point “As the working class moves into the suburbs, are they also going to be trapped in rapidly decaying buildings?” is not as much a matter as the soundness of the structure, but the ability or willingness of the owners to pay for the upkeep. Historically speaking, rental units are not normally kept as well as owner-inhabited homes. This is not a slam against the renters. They may keep their homes neat and tidy, but the fiscal responsibitly lies with the lanlord who’s chief motivation for ownership is to make money. And how does one maximize profits but by curbing expenses.

By: mortonmalaise

mortonmalaise — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43:16 +0000

Suburban homes are built to stringent building codes. Just because they’re built quickly, doesn’t mean they’re built poorly. In today’s world of licensing, liability, and tort law, contractors can’t afford to cut corners.

Gentrification in Peoria will never become the issue it is in NYC because there just isn’t enough money in the city, nor are there enough real estate developers to drive out the working poor.

Remember, most of the working poor in the inner city are renting from slumlords who live in the outlying areas. The last thing a slumlord wants to do is live close enough to his tenants for them to visit his home when they have a problem.

By: Seth Ben-Ezra

Seth Ben-Ezra — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:06:04 +0000

Hey, Isaac!

You may be right; my assessment of the construction quality of these houses may be a bit pessimistic, although I stand by my general assessment that the materials and quality of construction are inferior to the older buildings. These weren’t McMansions that were being thrown up at a ridiculous pace, as are many suburban houses.

And you may be right about public transit adjusting to address newer needs. It’s been so long since I’ve taken the bus that I honestly hadn’t considered it. Seeing public transit adapt itself to suburban sprawl should be…interesting.

However, I don’t think that this is just a regular, predictable cycle. At least, not in the way that you mean. The suburban boom of the 50s and 60s was driven by specific technological advancements (e.g. the automobile), creating a new sort of living environment that didn’t really correspond to previous living arrangements. So, as I look at this movement of people, I interpret it as the slow failing of a way of life that probably wasn’t sustainable. Now, maybe I’m overstating this, but suburbia is a fairly recent phenomenon, as compared to city, village, or farm life. Maybe it just didn’t work.

By: Isaac

Isaac — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:09:34 +0000

It seems like this is just a cyclical pattern. Your house is standing proof… not to mention the houses in the neighborhood just across Main St. from your place. First, they were built as McMansions. Second, they were transferred into 3-4 family dwellings. Finally, they were (sometimes) returned to the original single family homes.

People may rent out their Dunlap homes as multi-unit dwellings, but eventually it’ll swing back and people may start moving back into the suburbs to get away from the city.

Also, I don’t think the homes that are being built today are QUITE as cheaply constructed as you portray them to be. And as we’ve seen with Grand Prairie and ICC - if there is a market, CityLink will probably put a bus route in to service the area. So, it doesn’t really seem like an issue of “no cars and a decaying house” as much as a regular, predictable cycle of the economy of a growing urban area.

Anyway, I do really like this idea of urban renewal and agree that it would/will be fantastic.