Reference no: EM132300210
Case study : The housing demolition derby
At first glance, developers make ideal homebuyers. They can pay cask, ensure a quick closing, and almost always outbid individual purchasers. No wonder sellers are often eager to negotiate deals with homebuilders. However, neighbors complain that they pay the long-term costs of these negotiations. In popular urban neighborhoods, developers tear down existing homes and replaced them with bigger, more expensive houses. A $300,000 home may be replaced with $600,000 homes. The new houses completely fill lost that once provided green space and privacy. Those living next door can find themselves living in the perpetual shadow of these McMansions.
Since 200, Portland, Oregon, has experienced more urban infill than any other of the largest 50 cities in the U.S. developers in Portland target small house on large lots or homes that are not well maintained. Many of these homes were constructed in the 1930s or earlier and may have historic values. Knocking then down changes the character of the area; the neighborhood becomes more expensive, driving lower-and middle-class homeowners out in a process called gentrification. As one resident caught in the gentrification process put it, this neighborhood is under attract. Then too there is concern about the demolition process. In one six-month period, each demolished house generated 58,558 pounds of landfill waster.
Driven by complained from neighbors, the city of Portland adopted new rules stipulating that developers won’t be issued demolition permits until 35 days after resistant are notified. Developers can one received grants for demonstration. Neighborhood and preservation group are urging the city to adopt even stronger measures like those in other cities. Vancouver, British Columbia, requires $15,000 deposits for a demolition permit for pre-1940 residential dwellings or structures considered to have character. In San Francisco, dwellings over fifty years old have to undergo a Historic Resource Evaluation before demolition approval. Settle required builder to meet reuses and recycling requirement.
Portland area developers and real eatable brokers assert that urban infill benefits the community by employing construction workers an by providing additional housing to meet the city’s housing shortage. This, they believe keeps homes more affordable overall. Other observers note that some houses scheduled for demolition are poorly made and hard to upgrade. A few dwellings have deteriorated beyond repair. Demolition is the best option in these cases.
Should Portland follow the lead of Vancouver, British Columbia, Seattle, and San Francisco and put additional restrictions on home demolitions? Why or what not?
What solutions might benefits sellers, developer and neighbors?