Ooops. You’re right, there is a missing NOT is that sentence.
Correct, urban designers create the plan and city planners implement it. However, the real responsibility rests with elected officials who allocate or withhold the tax dollars and city resources necessary to implement the plan as designed.
Ooops. You’re right, there is a missing NOT is that sentence.
Correct, urban designers create the plan and city planners implement it. However, the real responsibility rests with elected officials who allocate or withhold the tax dollars and city resources necessary to implement the plan as designed.
To understand gentrification, we need a little urban history. Up until the mid-1950s, cities grew from the ground up. Back then people bought a piece of land, and built their own homes and shops, or hired someone to do it for them. Each home was custom designed and built. Since people were skilled, the craftsmanship was excellent. But the building materials were different. Since wood flooring, cabinetry, mouldings, etc. came from old growth forests, the wood was denser, harder, and more durable. Cement was a much poorer grade back then, so it was less durable. Since people used lathe and plaster, instead of drywall, the walls were much more durable. Insulation was often newspaper or old clothes, so homes were drafty. Wiring was expensive and used sparingly. Heating was iffy. Tiles were used instead of laminate, again a more durable material. Plumping used lead pipes (bad stuff).
Today, the high-quality features in old homes are so rare, they are highly desirable and very, very expensive. Conversely, electric, plumbing and cement foundation up-grades on old homes, can be very expensive.
My daughter and I are currently building our own homes. Like my grandparents, we have no labour costs, and we are skilled craftsmen, so we can afford to put our money into high quality materials, and lots of land and still have custom cabinetry, millwork, details etc.
Back in the old days, people liked to live near their jobs, or their companies. For that reason, neighborhoods were filled with huge mansions on huge lots, big and small homes on good sized lots, townhomes with shared walls, small apartments in back yards and over garages (aka granny flats), apartment buildings with landscaped courtyards, plus shops, restaurants, bakeries, banks, etc. Lots of shops had rental offices or apartments on the second and third story or owners lived above their shops. Doctors, lawyers, florists, etc. built homes with home offices in them and a small rental unit in their backyards (to generate additional income).
As a result of city’s tight Job-Housing relationships, people really cared about the public realm that they shared with their neighbors, who might be their boss, their employees, their customers, their co-workers, city councilman, bankers, attorneys accountants, dry cleaner, grocers or bakers. Today, we call this urban-arrangement Mixed-Use development.
Take note. America’s city tax revenue structure was built around these traditional urban environments. Thanks to the mix of businesses, and rich, poor and middle-class residents in the same neighborhoods, these “collective tax bases” could support urban amenities like neighborhood schools, tree-lined sidewalks, parks, community centers, etc. Today, these neighborhood amenities are very rare and highly desirable.
By the mid-1950s, state and federal governments were offering cheap loans for housing construction and corporations jumped in with their big predatory feet. Typical corporate thinking led to “development corporations” where profit came first - at the expense of high-quality housing.
Custom homes were replaced by cookie-cutter designs – four configurations of the same plan for each development. Bulk buying reduced material costs of everything from cement. to pipes, and wiring, to moulding, doors, cabinetry, roofing, flooring, etc.. Instead of craftsmen, labor costs were reduced by unskilled labour - one group of workers would pour cement for 100 homes, another group would frame, another work group would plumb, another would wire etc. and so on. If one group messed up, the next group would work around it, and flaws and defects got covered up. New homes got larger and larger, while the quality of materials and construction quality went down, down, down. Built in obsolescence took over the housing industry. Instead of homes built to last a hundred or more years, new homes were built to last the length of the mortgage (30 years).
Worse yet, the city tax revenue structure never changed. Bottom line, property taxes on housing cannot pay for anything more than a road and police and fire services – period. Commercial property taxes, resale taxes, income taxes, and various fees assessed businesses, pay for almost all city amenities.
Once housing and commercial property was segregated, old residential neighborhoods entered decline. Cities moved tax dollars out of maintenance in old neighborhoods to build streets, and sidewalks in new neighborhoods.
The mass dis-investment in old residential neighborhoods left sidewalks, streets, landscaping, etc. to decay. Trees died and were removed. Streets were left with potholes. Bus service was eliminated. Police services were reduced. Community centers were boarded up. Since old residential neighborhoods had the most amenities, they were hit the hardest. Surrounded by visible decay, home and property owners had a hard time selling, and subdivided their old homes into multiple rental units. From big old mansions, to tiny granny flats, poverty moved in. Businesses were gone, policing was gone and drugs and crime moved in.
As new housing quality declined, everywhere, the quality of old homes and apartments in old city neighborhoods with huge trees and large lots grew in value. At some point, it’s cheaper to refurbish an old home, than it is to build a new one of similar quality. When realtors see that tipping point, they start marketing old homes and neighborhoods and lobbying city hall to re-invest in an old neighborhood. Gentrification begins when cities start re-investing in an old, run down neighborhood – for the sole purpose of increasing property taxes from that neighborhood.
Take a block with 20 homes for example. Refurbish just 2-4 homes and the property values of the whole effing neighborhood goes up and so does all 20 property owner’s tax bills – go up. One block can raise property values and taxes for several blocks in all directions. And so, more than anything else, it’s property taxes that drive poor people out of homes they’ve owned for generations, maybe even built with their own two hands. These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, but will never see a dime of their home’s increased value, because they can’t afford to pay more taxes.
To answer your last question, you got it. If you want to identify the beginning stage of gentrification look for a newly restored building or two, and improvements in the public sphere – new sidewalks with handicap corners, tree plantings, landscaping, road repair or widening, striping (cross walks, bike lanes, etc), the greening of public spaces like medians and parks, and new street furniture (benches, trash cans, planters, etc.). Look also for minor zoning changes, from residential only, to residential/light commercial for example.
That said, the best way to identify an area ripe for gentrification is to find out where artists, designers, architects, musicians, artisans, techies, and other creatives have set up shop. Our businesses are super-interconnected, so we like to work in the same area. Thanks to our taste, skills and social activities, we turn old neighborhoods into vibrant hot spots. Gentrification priced my company out four different times.
If I understand you, anything which raises the market value of a home (like improvements in nearby homes, or desirable businesses, or a revitalized city park) will raise the assessments on that home, and thus proportionately the taxes. All fine reasoning. But then you say:
> These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, but will never see a dime of their home’s increased value, because they can’t afford to pay more taxes.
I don't follow your reasoning. If your home is now worth three times was it was a while back because of nearby improvements, such that you cannot afford three times the taxes and need to sell, why wouldn't you receive three times a much when selling it?
Not only that, the described increase in home value in this scenario comes from the investments of other people, rather than being earned by something the homeowner did. I had a friend years ago with a rotting old farmhouse near the freeway in a semi rural area; when an interchange was put in nearby by taxpayers, their property suddenly increased in value 15 fold (as a potential location for a business - basically just a bonanza which fell out of the sky for them. Of course their property tax would have gone way up, but they sold the property for a couple million and moved to a cheaper location. As best I understand you, this would be considered a bad thing for the owner, because their taxes would have gone up without their seeing a dime - but that was far from the case. What am I missing?
I also hear that older houses may have some positives but also some serious negatives which many people may not be be able to afford to fix. The praise for their generational wealth aspect seems a little shakey, if that "wealth" has deteriorating concrete, bad insulation, bad plumbing, bad electrical. That sounds as if the actual loss of generational wealth has already occurred long before gentrification or city disinvestment could be blamed. There might be some good elements, but if the bad elements are too prevalent, it's not really wealth - any more than a rusted out old Porche with a blown engine but some good parts would be highly valuable to later generations.
To have value would require major investment from somebody who can not only afford to buy it, but also to fix it up, and to pay the yet further increased taxes.
Ooops. You’re right, there is a missing NOT is that sentence.
Correct, urban designers create the plan and city planners implement it. However, the real responsibility rests with elected officials who allocate or withhold the tax dollars and city resources necessary to implement the plan as designed.
To understand gentrification, we need a little urban history. Up until the mid-1950s, cities grew from the ground up. Back then people bought a piece of land, and built their own homes and shops, or hired someone to do it for them. Each home was custom designed and built. Since people were skilled, the craftsmanship was excellent. But the building materials were different. Since wood flooring, cabinetry, mouldings, etc. came from old growth forests, the wood was denser, harder, and more durable. Cement was a much poorer grade back then, so it was less durable. Since people used lathe and plaster, instead of drywall, the walls were much more durable. Insulation was often newspaper or old clothes, so homes were drafty. Wiring was expensive and used sparingly. Heating was iffy. Tiles were used instead of laminate, again a more durable material. Plumping used lead pipes (bad stuff).
Today, the high-quality features in old homes are so rare, they are highly desirable and very, very expensive. Conversely, electric, plumbing and cement foundation up-grades on old homes, can be very expensive.
My daughter and I are currently building our own homes. Like my grandparents, we have no labour costs, and we are skilled craftsmen, so we can afford to put our money into high quality materials, and lots of land and still have custom cabinetry, millwork, details etc.
Back in the old days, people liked to live near their jobs, or their companies. For that reason, neighborhoods were filled with huge mansions on huge lots, big and small homes on good sized lots, townhomes with shared walls, small apartments in back yards and over garages (aka granny flats), apartment buildings with landscaped courtyards, plus shops, restaurants, bakeries, banks, etc. Lots of shops had rental offices or apartments on the second and third story or owners lived above their shops. Doctors, lawyers, florists, etc. built homes with home offices in them and a small rental unit in their backyards (to generate additional income).
As a result of city’s tight Job-Housing relationships, people really cared about the public realm that they shared with their neighbors, who might be their boss, their employees, their customers, their co-workers, city councilman, bankers, attorneys accountants, dry cleaner, grocers or bakers. Today, we call this urban-arrangement Mixed-Use development.
Take note. America’s city tax revenue structure was built around these traditional urban environments. Thanks to the mix of businesses, and rich, poor and middle-class residents in the same neighborhoods, these “collective tax bases” could support urban amenities like neighborhood schools, tree-lined sidewalks, parks, community centers, etc. Today, these neighborhood amenities are very rare and highly desirable.
By the mid-1950s, state and federal governments were offering cheap loans for housing construction and corporations jumped in with their big predatory feet. Typical corporate thinking led to “development corporations” where profit came first - at the expense of high-quality housing.
Custom homes were replaced by cookie-cutter designs – four configurations of the same plan for each development. Bulk buying reduced material costs of everything from cement. to pipes, and wiring, to moulding, doors, cabinetry, roofing, flooring, etc.. Instead of craftsmen, labor costs were reduced by unskilled labour - one group of workers would pour cement for 100 homes, another group would frame, another work group would plumb, another would wire etc. and so on. If one group messed up, the next group would work around it, and flaws and defects got covered up. New homes got larger and larger, while the quality of materials and construction quality went down, down, down. Built in obsolescence took over the housing industry. Instead of homes built to last a hundred or more years, new homes were built to last the length of the mortgage (30 years).
Worse yet, the city tax revenue structure never changed. Bottom line, property taxes on housing cannot pay for anything more than a road and police and fire services – period. Commercial property taxes, resale taxes, income taxes, and various fees assessed businesses, pay for almost all city amenities.
Once housing and commercial property was segregated, old residential neighborhoods entered decline. Cities moved tax dollars out of maintenance in old neighborhoods to build streets, and sidewalks in new neighborhoods.
The mass dis-investment in old residential neighborhoods left sidewalks, streets, landscaping, etc. to decay. Trees died and were removed. Streets were left with potholes. Bus service was eliminated. Police services were reduced. Community centers were boarded up. Since old residential neighborhoods had the most amenities, they were hit the hardest. Surrounded by visible decay, home and property owners had a hard time selling, and subdivided their old homes into multiple rental units. From big old mansions, to tiny granny flats, poverty moved in. Businesses were gone, policing was gone and drugs and crime moved in.
As new housing quality declined, everywhere, the quality of old homes and apartments in old city neighborhoods with huge trees and large lots grew in value. At some point, it’s cheaper to refurbish an old home, than it is to build a new one of similar quality. When realtors see that tipping point, they start marketing old homes and neighborhoods and lobbying city hall to re-invest in an old neighborhood. Gentrification begins when cities start re-investing in an old, run down neighborhood – for the sole purpose of increasing property taxes from that neighborhood.
Take a block with 20 homes for example. Refurbish just 2-4 homes and the property values of the whole effing neighborhood goes up and so does all 20 property owner’s tax bills – go up. One block can raise property values and taxes for several blocks in all directions. And so, more than anything else, it’s property taxes that drive poor people out of homes they’ve owned for generations, maybe even built with their own two hands. These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, but will never see a dime of their home’s increased value, because they can’t afford to pay more taxes.
To answer your last question, you got it. If you want to identify the beginning stage of gentrification look for a newly restored building or two, and improvements in the public sphere – new sidewalks with handicap corners, tree plantings, landscaping, road repair or widening, striping (cross walks, bike lanes, etc), the greening of public spaces like medians and parks, and new street furniture (benches, trash cans, planters, etc.). Look also for minor zoning changes, from residential only, to residential/light commercial for example.
That said, the best way to identify an area ripe for gentrification is to find out where artists, designers, architects, musicians, artisans, techies, and other creatives have set up shop. Our businesses are super-interconnected, so we like to work in the same area. Thanks to our taste, skills and social activities, we turn old neighborhoods into vibrant hot spots. Gentrification priced my company out four different times.
If I understand you, anything which raises the market value of a home (like improvements in nearby homes, or desirable businesses, or a revitalized city park) will raise the assessments on that home, and thus proportionately the taxes. All fine reasoning. But then you say:
> These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, but will never see a dime of their home’s increased value, because they can’t afford to pay more taxes.
I don't follow your reasoning. If your home is now worth three times was it was a while back because of nearby improvements, such that you cannot afford three times the taxes and need to sell, why wouldn't you receive three times a much when selling it?
Not only that, the described increase in home value in this scenario comes from the investments of other people, rather than being earned by something the homeowner did. I had a friend years ago with a rotting old farmhouse near the freeway in a semi rural area; when an interchange was put in nearby by taxpayers, their property suddenly increased in value 15 fold (as a potential location for a business - basically just a bonanza which fell out of the sky for them. Of course their property tax would have gone way up, but they sold the property for a couple million and moved to a cheaper location. As best I understand you, this would be considered a bad thing for the owner, because their taxes would have gone up without their seeing a dime - but that was far from the case. What am I missing?
I also hear that older houses may have some positives but also some serious negatives which many people may not be be able to afford to fix. The praise for their generational wealth aspect seems a little shakey, if that "wealth" has deteriorating concrete, bad insulation, bad plumbing, bad electrical. That sounds as if the actual loss of generational wealth has already occurred long before gentrification or city disinvestment could be blamed. There might be some good elements, but if the bad elements are too prevalent, it's not really wealth - any more than a rusted out old Porche with a blown engine but some good parts would be highly valuable to later generations.
To have value would require major investment from somebody who can not only afford to buy it, but also to fix it up, and to pay the yet further increased taxes.