With the booming of the condo market across the states, more and more rentals are being converted, and more and more new condo construction is taking place.
My ultimate worry is that this massive influx of higher priced condos, along with the loss of rentals and cheaper housing will destroy neighborhoods new condos call home.
This is american consumer culture how ever. People want new condos, and the consequence of these actions 20 years down the line is not as important as the 300,000$ in the pockets of owners, investors, speculators etc... When the new condos go in, the property values go up, the lower income families get pushed out. The condos age, people move out, and a once thriving neighborhood is no longer. (granted, this is not always the case, but it is a common case)
The question is rejuvination vs gentrification (sp) of urban neighborhoods. Is it possible that middle income neighborhoods can maintain thier identity while being rejunivated by an influx of new housing construction?
If so, what is architectures place in this? How can we begin to re-establish economically sustainable neighborhoods?
a huge topic. don't know that 'condo' as a real estate situation has much to do with it so much as the physical thing built and how it supports or doesn't support the continuing/evolving activity of the neighborhood.
gentrification, while an issue as well, is as much a product of owner/occupant improvements of existing structures as it is the construction of new buildings, condo or otherwise. it is a symptom of inattention or ad hoc approaches in the redevelopment of a neighborhood. if a strategy is in place for keeping a mix of housing types and renting/buying choices and the neighborhood's existing residents are included in the process of the neighborhood's renovation, this might be less of a problem.
i taught a studio last semester in which we looked at two adjacent neighborhoods, both at the edge of downtown and somewhat depressed, and attempted to make proposals which would reinvigorate the neighborhood, help it take advantage of a good location relative to city economic engines and public amenities, but still try to maintain the existing neighborhood dynamic, i.e., not allow neighborhood improvement to raise the property values and chase out long-time residents. over the course of a semester with 15 students we did a lot of research, talked to a lot of people, and came up with some proposals which might just work.
architecture is critical in the sensitive infill and redevelopment of neighborhoods. attention to the life of the street, traffic (both pedestrian and auto), fostering of local business, celebration of a neighborhoods' unique history and culture, and a good and holistic understanding of the relationship between neighborhood and infrastructure: all of these come into play.
here in austin this is a major concern, as it was when i lived in chicago.
in both places the property taxes seem to be what drives the middle- and low-income households out. property appreciation alone doesn't hurt longtime owners, it's the property tax assessments that arise from appreciation. if we as a society/government could find another mechanism for funding our cities, counties and schools then the adverse effects of gentrification might be halted.
well, the condos do two things that I can think of right off the top of my head- 1) it changes the demographic of the neighborhood by bringing in older, more established people, often with families, and getting rid of the younger professionals and people in blue-collar trades. This definitely contributes to gentrification, and certainly worsens the situation of those former residents who can no longer live there. 2) it gets the neighborhood better cared for because there are more permanent residents there who take pride in the place, versus apartment dwellers who are often more transient. These new owners will not only take better care of their property, but they will be more likely to be active in regards to planning boards, councils, voting, etc. to get the neighborhood better taken care of from that end. Of course, all of this will raise property values, and eventually rents in whatever apartments are left. This will certainly result in gentrification if a neighborhood was saturated with newly converted condos.
On the other hand, pride of ownership is a good thing for neighborhoods, because it results in people looking out for each other more. You make more of an effort with permanent neighbors than you do with the people in the next apartment. Because of this, these neighborhoods will be cleaner and safer because people are looking out for each other more. So this is definitely a good thing. To balance these issues properly, I think it's about saturation point. A building or two on a block being converted is a good thing- five or more buildings is definitely too much. The key is balance, and a good mix between owners and renters in a neighborhood will produce the maximum benefit.
You know what I'm talking about though right? They are all over the eastside from 6th street to Town Lake. You can tell the eastside is changing when two of your neighbors drive Audi's and one is a brand new A6.
funny, though, the process takes a long time. my wife and i were looking at a house over on west 10th street in clarksville -- $109K at the beginning of 2004 -- and there was a mobile home in the backyard of the next house. and supposedly clarksville is fully gentrified.
i dunno, i have a lot of mixed feelings about the whole process in austin.
I'm still working on gentrifying my bungalow. I gutted it so that I could bring it completely up to date. My neighbors love me because I am transforming blight. My favorite person to talk to about gentrification in Austin is Joey over at Azul Cafe. He'll tell it straight.
the very essence of neighborhoods and cities is to change and evolve, and it's hard to defend any restriction on one property owner's right to improve his/her property unless it physically harms its neighbors and/or the public in general.
we need mixed-use/income neighborhoods. the new suburbs are grouped according to income level.
there is the 150k suburb where you can't live if you make 75k, and the 200k suburb where you can't live if you make a measly 150k.
it is called monoculture and it is not good for long term.
I don't think this is always true: "pride of ownership" = "people looking out for each other more ... Because of this, these neighborhoods will be cleaner and safer ..." Particularly with those HOA (homeowners association) communities, that strawbeary mentions, I sense there's a shared looking out for appearances and real estate more than looking out for each other. So is it that owners care for each other and end up with higher property values, or care exclusively about higher property values/being exclusive and end up with higher property values?
I love my neighborhood, but I don't think I'll be owning any property here soon unless I get real lucky in an economic downturn. My rent might be enough to pay a mortgage ... in another city. But that's another topic.
I'd like to hear the proposals your class came up with, steven ward. Especially bc gentrification/rejuvenation is a fact of life, I think those strategies would be valuable to share amongst all of us.
unfortunately it would be not so much hearing as seeing, mintcar.
the projects each relate to specific conditions in these neighborhoods: gateways to downtown, approach from the interstate ramp and the accommodating/leveraging relative speed of traffic through the neighborhoods, better access/usefulness of park spaces, commercial nodes (including a variety of approaches to increased density and scale) at corners supporting existing residential in between, infill (no "missing teeth"), awareness and celebration of neighborhood landmarks (not necessarily the conventional landmark buildings, more those that the neighborhood itself feels are impt)...i could go on.
the point is, if it's done as part of a larger strategy, introduction of new construction, multi-family or single, condo or rental or owner-occupant, doesn't have to change the dynamic of the neighborhood and can allow the good aspects of gentrification (improvement) without the bad (displacement).
I think Austin is taking some good steps by having incentives for condo units that require them to have a certain number of affordable housing units in a development to get tax credits in return. These properties are capped at $125k for a condo where in the same development other condos are pushing $250k.
I like the idea of focusing on improvement without displacement.
Most of the protest in East Austin center on new developments that out price the existing demographics, such as a 900 sf loft/condo for $215k. So far though I think Austin planning has been quite sensitive to the issue as just a quarter mile away there is a gigantic lower income condo project going up thats scale far surpasses the upper scale lofts going up in the same area. I'm very excited for how the mix will develop. There will be lofts, condos, there are the projects too, single family housing, homeless outreach centers, and gourmet sandwich shops. Quite a mixed bag.
i am moving into such a development on far south congress, where the unit next door is a SMART unit which sold at a below-market price to someone whose income fell below a certain maximum.
incentives, not requirements, get the job done. because if you think about it, a developer with X amount of cash to plunk into a project can take his/her money wherever s/he wants. if you give that developer an incentive that either allows him/her to make THE SAME amount of profit in a "more challenging" setting (i.e., an established neighborhood with passionate, vocal residents who care about their neighborhood) that s/he would in a greenfield -- or if you even allow that developer to make MORE money -- then the development will come and it will be responsible.
the best neighborhoods, anyhere, combine all incomes, all races, all kinds of occupations, all kinds of uses. edgewater, my old 'hood in chicago, had high-rise condos across the street from section 8 housing and a payday loan shop across from the pier 1. and right behind the dominick's and a cheap motel was a golf club whose members supposedly included oprah winfrey and michael jordan. and then, dear lord, there was lincoln park and the lake.
last time i checked they were setting up the batten boards to pour slabs. we're supposed to go in next week to pick out our options...now i know what it's like to be a client...the waiting...the wondering...
Congratulations. It looks like a very interesting project. I almost bought a Pedernales, but decided to look for a house to remodel. Kind of wish I had just bought a condo...this remodeling is just too much work...
Sep 21, 05 1:43 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Degradation of Neighborhoods
With the booming of the condo market across the states, more and more rentals are being converted, and more and more new condo construction is taking place.
My ultimate worry is that this massive influx of higher priced condos, along with the loss of rentals and cheaper housing will destroy neighborhoods new condos call home.
This is american consumer culture how ever. People want new condos, and the consequence of these actions 20 years down the line is not as important as the 300,000$ in the pockets of owners, investors, speculators etc... When the new condos go in, the property values go up, the lower income families get pushed out. The condos age, people move out, and a once thriving neighborhood is no longer. (granted, this is not always the case, but it is a common case)
The question is rejuvination vs gentrification (sp) of urban neighborhoods. Is it possible that middle income neighborhoods can maintain thier identity while being rejunivated by an influx of new housing construction?
If so, what is architectures place in this? How can we begin to re-establish economically sustainable neighborhoods?
a huge topic. don't know that 'condo' as a real estate situation has much to do with it so much as the physical thing built and how it supports or doesn't support the continuing/evolving activity of the neighborhood.
gentrification, while an issue as well, is as much a product of owner/occupant improvements of existing structures as it is the construction of new buildings, condo or otherwise. it is a symptom of inattention or ad hoc approaches in the redevelopment of a neighborhood. if a strategy is in place for keeping a mix of housing types and renting/buying choices and the neighborhood's existing residents are included in the process of the neighborhood's renovation, this might be less of a problem.
i taught a studio last semester in which we looked at two adjacent neighborhoods, both at the edge of downtown and somewhat depressed, and attempted to make proposals which would reinvigorate the neighborhood, help it take advantage of a good location relative to city economic engines and public amenities, but still try to maintain the existing neighborhood dynamic, i.e., not allow neighborhood improvement to raise the property values and chase out long-time residents. over the course of a semester with 15 students we did a lot of research, talked to a lot of people, and came up with some proposals which might just work.
architecture is critical in the sensitive infill and redevelopment of neighborhoods. attention to the life of the street, traffic (both pedestrian and auto), fostering of local business, celebration of a neighborhoods' unique history and culture, and a good and holistic understanding of the relationship between neighborhood and infrastructure: all of these come into play.
here in austin this is a major concern, as it was when i lived in chicago.
in both places the property taxes seem to be what drives the middle- and low-income households out. property appreciation alone doesn't hurt longtime owners, it's the property tax assessments that arise from appreciation. if we as a society/government could find another mechanism for funding our cities, counties and schools then the adverse effects of gentrification might be halted.
like a state / local income tax, all you texans.
well, the condos do two things that I can think of right off the top of my head- 1) it changes the demographic of the neighborhood by bringing in older, more established people, often with families, and getting rid of the younger professionals and people in blue-collar trades. This definitely contributes to gentrification, and certainly worsens the situation of those former residents who can no longer live there. 2) it gets the neighborhood better cared for because there are more permanent residents there who take pride in the place, versus apartment dwellers who are often more transient. These new owners will not only take better care of their property, but they will be more likely to be active in regards to planning boards, councils, voting, etc. to get the neighborhood better taken care of from that end. Of course, all of this will raise property values, and eventually rents in whatever apartments are left. This will certainly result in gentrification if a neighborhood was saturated with newly converted condos.
On the other hand, pride of ownership is a good thing for neighborhoods, because it results in people looking out for each other more. You make more of an effort with permanent neighbors than you do with the people in the next apartment. Because of this, these neighborhoods will be cleaner and safer because people are looking out for each other more. So this is definitely a good thing. To balance these issues properly, I think it's about saturation point. A building or two on a block being converted is a good thing- five or more buildings is definitely too much. The key is balance, and a good mix between owners and renters in a neighborhood will produce the maximum benefit.
Ochona, are you the one wheat pasting 'stop gentrifying the east side' on those blueprints?
40% of every vacation house i do is affordable.
You know what I'm talking about though right? They are all over the eastside from 6th street to Town Lake. You can tell the eastside is changing when two of your neighbors drive Audi's and one is a brand new A6.
But the other neighbor still has 4 cars in the backyard and another neighbor is a condemned house.
funny, though, the process takes a long time. my wife and i were looking at a house over on west 10th street in clarksville -- $109K at the beginning of 2004 -- and there was a mobile home in the backyard of the next house. and supposedly clarksville is fully gentrified.
i dunno, i have a lot of mixed feelings about the whole process in austin.
south austin is the same way, although i somehow doubt 78745 will ever become the next 78704.
I'm still working on gentrifying my bungalow. I gutted it so that I could bring it completely up to date. My neighbors love me because I am transforming blight. My favorite person to talk to about gentrification in Austin is Joey over at Azul Cafe. He'll tell it straight.
the very essence of neighborhoods and cities is to change and evolve, and it's hard to defend any restriction on one property owner's right to improve his/her property unless it physically harms its neighbors and/or the public in general.
we need mixed-use/income neighborhoods. the new suburbs are grouped according to income level.
there is the 150k suburb where you can't live if you make 75k, and the 200k suburb where you can't live if you make a measly 150k.
it is called monoculture and it is not good for long term.
I don't think this is always true: "pride of ownership" = "people looking out for each other more ... Because of this, these neighborhoods will be cleaner and safer ..." Particularly with those HOA (homeowners association) communities, that strawbeary mentions, I sense there's a shared looking out for appearances and real estate more than looking out for each other. So is it that owners care for each other and end up with higher property values, or care exclusively about higher property values/being exclusive and end up with higher property values?
I love my neighborhood, but I don't think I'll be owning any property here soon unless I get real lucky in an economic downturn. My rent might be enough to pay a mortgage ... in another city. But that's another topic.
I'd like to hear the proposals your class came up with, steven ward. Especially bc gentrification/rejuvenation is a fact of life, I think those strategies would be valuable to share amongst all of us.
unfortunately it would be not so much hearing as seeing, mintcar.
the projects each relate to specific conditions in these neighborhoods: gateways to downtown, approach from the interstate ramp and the accommodating/leveraging relative speed of traffic through the neighborhoods, better access/usefulness of park spaces, commercial nodes (including a variety of approaches to increased density and scale) at corners supporting existing residential in between, infill (no "missing teeth"), awareness and celebration of neighborhood landmarks (not necessarily the conventional landmark buildings, more those that the neighborhood itself feels are impt)...i could go on.
the point is, if it's done as part of a larger strategy, introduction of new construction, multi-family or single, condo or rental or owner-occupant, doesn't have to change the dynamic of the neighborhood and can allow the good aspects of gentrification (improvement) without the bad (displacement).
I think Austin is taking some good steps by having incentives for condo units that require them to have a certain number of affordable housing units in a development to get tax credits in return. These properties are capped at $125k for a condo where in the same development other condos are pushing $250k.
I like the idea of focusing on improvement without displacement.
Most of the protest in East Austin center on new developments that out price the existing demographics, such as a 900 sf loft/condo for $215k. So far though I think Austin planning has been quite sensitive to the issue as just a quarter mile away there is a gigantic lower income condo project going up thats scale far surpasses the upper scale lofts going up in the same area. I'm very excited for how the mix will develop. There will be lofts, condos, there are the projects too, single family housing, homeless outreach centers, and gourmet sandwich shops. Quite a mixed bag.
i am moving into such a development on far south congress, where the unit next door is a SMART unit which sold at a below-market price to someone whose income fell below a certain maximum.
incentives, not requirements, get the job done. because if you think about it, a developer with X amount of cash to plunk into a project can take his/her money wherever s/he wants. if you give that developer an incentive that either allows him/her to make THE SAME amount of profit in a "more challenging" setting (i.e., an established neighborhood with passionate, vocal residents who care about their neighborhood) that s/he would in a greenfield -- or if you even allow that developer to make MORE money -- then the development will come and it will be responsible.
the best neighborhoods, anyhere, combine all incomes, all races, all kinds of occupations, all kinds of uses. edgewater, my old 'hood in chicago, had high-rise condos across the street from section 8 housing and a payday loan shop across from the pier 1. and right behind the dominick's and a cheap motel was a golf club whose members supposedly included oprah winfrey and michael jordan. and then, dear lord, there was lincoln park and the lake.
sniff...kinda miss it right about now...
The Belair?
yessir
Is that under construction yet? Is it down there by Hills Cafe?
last time i checked they were setting up the batten boards to pour slabs. we're supposed to go in next week to pick out our options...now i know what it's like to be a client...the waiting...the wondering...
Congratulations. It looks like a very interesting project. I almost bought a Pedernales, but decided to look for a house to remodel. Kind of wish I had just bought a condo...this remodeling is just too much work...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.