Responsible architects and building designers have always incorporated the concepts of adaptable reuse into their work. Commercial buildings have been designed to accommodate multiple uses and residences have been designed so they can grow gracefully in place. Examples of this can be seen in every corner of the globe. Those with a stomach for renovation have even devised business plans to take advantage of this inherent quality. Stories of people buying a 2/1 and adding on making it a 3/2 abound. This practice of intentionally adding value to a property has largely been lost in the recent real estate frenzy. What has also been lost is the ability to improve a structures station [caste?] over time. The process of renovation rewards the installation of better quality windows, better interior finishes, roofing material, etc., to a point. Once that point has been reached then all further enhancements and improvements will not provide further increases in value. This is to be expected as starter, move-up, and luxury housing markets have been well defined for quite some time. Yet this upward mobility for existing structures has applied mainly to older neighborhoods. The newer subdivisions do not allow for graceful additions. Part of the problem is that the houses are maxed out on their lots. The only place to add space is typically to the rear of the house or by cannibalizing the garage. Eliminating the garage in a standard suburban home usually has an adverse impact on the value of a home, and the gained space is typically difficult to condition, is poorly insulated, and lacks enough windows to provide adequate lighting. The loss of the garage usually means reduced parking capacity and/or loss of storage space. Adding space to the rear of a home in a typical suburban development usually entails blocking of the view and natural light of the main living area of the house. I've seen that happen more times than I care to recall. The net result is a dark house with an awkward floor plan that doesn't live well. The homeowner trying to sell the house then has the nerve to ask for $200 per square foot, or more, for the additional space which will have to be knocked down in order to make the home livable. I will give these misguided individuals credit for actually trying to add value to a home instead of just expecting the house to appreciate magically through the beneficence of the equity fairy. The net result of both techniques is a compromised plan with compromised aesthetics. This is one of the main factors leading to the disposable house phenomenon where it's easier and more cost effective to sell and move than it is to grow in place. A combination of urban form and 'disposable house' design has conspired against the suburbs in this regard. Upgrading the interior finishes and enhancing the exterior envelope will have some impact, but only up to the highest level of its perceived market segment. Once that point is reached the homeowner can no longer profitably add value to their investment. They are no longer drivers, but merely passengers riding the wave of market forces. Their neighborhoods will be stuck in time and slowly devalue until such point that the price differential between the derelict structure and the renovated comparable home is enough to attract investors. The business model is then contingent upon the erosion of value as opposed to the addition of value. This business model is not new either, as any slum-lord will tell you. The net result is blight. This is the fate awaiting much of the unsold housing stock in the US. Those waiting to build new until the unsold stock has been absorbed by the market are misguided. The imperiled units will sit until they rot. To prevent blight, not only should buildings be able to age in place, they should be able to mature in place. Give it good bones. Take the bare vernacular and raise it to the next level. Add a layer of detail that is more than just make-up. Let the sqaure posts graduate to turned, let the turned give way to proper columns. Turn every maintenance cycle into an upgrade cycle. Let this value be added gradually, over time, by the home owner. They can change the caste of their home incrementally, as it suits their budget, as it suits their time-line. Allow for this to happen along a street and the value proposition of the street changes dramatically. Same for the neighborhood, same again for the town. Buildings can be designed that meet the budget requirements mandated by the current economic climate. They need not be consigned to that station until they are left to rot and are scraped, per the current model. Every fiber of their being should be imbued with the ability to rise above their current station. Within every stone lies the potential for greatness, it need only be released.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
EX, DX, LX :: Raising the Bar
Responsible architects and building designers have always incorporated the concepts of adaptable reuse into their work. Commercial buildings have been designed to accommodate multiple uses and residences have been designed so they can grow gracefully in place. Examples of this can be seen in every corner of the globe. Those with a stomach for renovation have even devised business plans to take advantage of this inherent quality. Stories of people buying a 2/1 and adding on making it a 3/2 abound. This practice of intentionally adding value to a property has largely been lost in the recent real estate frenzy. What has also been lost is the ability to improve a structures station [caste?] over time. The process of renovation rewards the installation of better quality windows, better interior finishes, roofing material, etc., to a point. Once that point has been reached then all further enhancements and improvements will not provide further increases in value. This is to be expected as starter, move-up, and luxury housing markets have been well defined for quite some time. Yet this upward mobility for existing structures has applied mainly to older neighborhoods. The newer subdivisions do not allow for graceful additions. Part of the problem is that the houses are maxed out on their lots. The only place to add space is typically to the rear of the house or by cannibalizing the garage. Eliminating the garage in a standard suburban home usually has an adverse impact on the value of a home, and the gained space is typically difficult to condition, is poorly insulated, and lacks enough windows to provide adequate lighting. The loss of the garage usually means reduced parking capacity and/or loss of storage space. Adding space to the rear of a home in a typical suburban development usually entails blocking of the view and natural light of the main living area of the house. I've seen that happen more times than I care to recall. The net result is a dark house with an awkward floor plan that doesn't live well. The homeowner trying to sell the house then has the nerve to ask for $200 per square foot, or more, for the additional space which will have to be knocked down in order to make the home livable. I will give these misguided individuals credit for actually trying to add value to a home instead of just expecting the house to appreciate magically through the beneficence of the equity fairy. The net result of both techniques is a compromised plan with compromised aesthetics. This is one of the main factors leading to the disposable house phenomenon where it's easier and more cost effective to sell and move than it is to grow in place. A combination of urban form and 'disposable house' design has conspired against the suburbs in this regard. Upgrading the interior finishes and enhancing the exterior envelope will have some impact, but only up to the highest level of its perceived market segment. Once that point is reached the homeowner can no longer profitably add value to their investment. They are no longer drivers, but merely passengers riding the wave of market forces. Their neighborhoods will be stuck in time and slowly devalue until such point that the price differential between the derelict structure and the renovated comparable home is enough to attract investors. The business model is then contingent upon the erosion of value as opposed to the addition of value. This business model is not new either, as any slum-lord will tell you. The net result is blight. This is the fate awaiting much of the unsold housing stock in the US. Those waiting to build new until the unsold stock has been absorbed by the market are misguided. The imperiled units will sit until they rot. To prevent blight, not only should buildings be able to age in place, they should be able to mature in place. Give it good bones. Take the bare vernacular and raise it to the next level. Add a layer of detail that is more than just make-up. Let the sqaure posts graduate to turned, let the turned give way to proper columns. Turn every maintenance cycle into an upgrade cycle. Let this value be added gradually, over time, by the home owner. They can change the caste of their home incrementally, as it suits their budget, as it suits their time-line. Allow for this to happen along a street and the value proposition of the street changes dramatically. Same for the neighborhood, same again for the town. Buildings can be designed that meet the budget requirements mandated by the current economic climate. They need not be consigned to that station until they are left to rot and are scraped, per the current model. Every fiber of their being should be imbued with the ability to rise above their current station. Within every stone lies the potential for greatness, it need only be released.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Plenty of developers want to be the first to be second. In other words they want somebody else to blaze the trail, and pay for all the res...
-
As someone who has been working in the planning profession for over a decade I can honestly say I had never heard of Agenda 21. The first...
No comments:
Post a Comment