PrairieMod Monday

Teardowns are a huge threat to communities all over the United States. The epidemic is so widespread that the National Trust for Historic Preservation added “Teardowns in Historic Neighborhoods” to its list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places. Tearing down an existing house to make way for a larger, new house on the same site (sometimes more than one house) means a loss of historic and aesthetic character and ultimately has an overall negative impact on a community. It’s become a widespread breakdown in adherence to the principle of “Consider The Cost."

I was reminded of this teardown problem last week while walking around downtown Glen Ellyn, Illinois; window shopping and enjoying the crisp soon-to-be-Autumn weather. I was trying to think about what I would post about for the next PrairieMod Monday column, when a sign posted in a shop window grabbed my attention. The sign was posted by a local group called “Citizens For Glen Ellyn Preservation” and was calling attention to a historic Sears Catalog Home that was potentially in danger of being torn down. That was the “sign” I needed to help me decide the subject of my post.

Teardowns have become so common place around my county, that I almost forget a time when I didn't see large bulldozers knocking down bungalows or American Four-Squares. I'm sure many other people have become almost oblivious to the reshaping of their neighborhoods because of the commonplace appearance of work crews tearing down and putting up. It's not until the giant, out-of-place house is practically finished that people start to realize the negative effects it has on their street, in their town, etc. The National Trust for Historic Preservation's website sums it up best by stating:

"As older homes are demolished and replaced with dramatically larger, out-of-scale new structures, the historic character of the existing neighborhood is changed forever. Neighborhood livability is diminished as trees are removed, backyards are eliminated, and sunlight is blocked by towering new structures built up to the property lines. Community economic and social diversity is reduced as new mansions replace affordable homes. House by house, neighborhoods are losing a part of their historic fabric and much of their character."

So why do residents and town leaders allow this to happen? Many are swayed by the assumptions associated with the myths of new vs. old. These myths, as paraphrased from the Glen Ellyn Preservation website, include:

1. Older homes don’t have all the amenities desired in a new home today. MYTH!
[Many older homes across the country] have been updated to include modern kitchens, baths, family rooms, master bedroom suites, and more.

2. It’s cost prohibitive to update an older home. It’s much less expensive to build new. MYTH!
The cost of rehabilitating old structures generally runs 25-33% less than comparable new construction. With the technology that exists today, most restoration, rehabilitation, and remodeling projects including room additions, can be done for a fraction of the cost of building a new home. In addition, individual landmark homes or homes located in a historic district may qualify for a property tax freeze based on the percentage of dollars that the homeowner spends on their project.

3. You won’t be able to find anyone to remodel, re-rehabilitate, or restore your older home. MYTH!
There are dozens of talented, reputable firms that can handle everything from the simplest remodeling jobs to the most sophisticated room additions.

4. New homes have much more to offer than older homes. MYTH!
Older homes offer classic detailing that either isn’t available in new homes, or if available, is often cost-prohibitive. These details include such things as plaster walls, cove moldings, built-in cupboards and buffets, pocket doors with matching period woodwork, fancy baseboards, solid wood doors, handsome wood-burning fireplaces with attractive surrounding trim and moldings, built-in bookshelves, beautiful hardwood floors, large, usable front porches, and the irreplaceable warmth, charm, and character that can only be found in an older home.

5. New homes are a better investment. MYTH!
Property values of historic buildings significantly outperform the appreciation rates of non-historic properties. In cases where a historically or architecturally important home is listed as an individual landmark or is part of a local or national landmark historic district, values have increased way beyond the norm!

6. Tearing down older homes and building new makes a positive contribution to the local economy. MYTH!
Restoration of an existing home is more labor intensive AND therefore creates two to five times as many jobs as new construction. New construction uses a much higher percentage of materials than labor so the income goes to the lumber companies in Oregon; or the window manufacturers in Wisconsin rather than to local laborers, who in turn spend their wages on housing, groceries, etc. in the local economy. Furthermore, the actual cost of new construction in terms of the wear and tear of truck traffic on the existing infrastructure, construction debris hauled to ever diminishing landfill sites, the environmental impact, and energy cost is rarely taken into account when measuring the cost of new construction.

Builders and developers are tearing homes down and putting McMansions up at a breakneck speed. It’s not because they are nefarious or evil; it’s because they are catering to a perceived desire by the American home buyer to “Live Large!”  Our fast-paced, ignore the past and live-like-there’s- no-tomorrow lifestyles have sanctioned this rape and pillage of our Main Street American towns. Very few people stop to consider the costs associated with that giant house they’ve been conditioned to think they need. It’s costing all of us the identities of our neighborhoods; the essence of what makes towns like Glen Ellyn, or Elmhurst, or Kenilworth, or my town or your town unique. It’s time to “Consider The Cost” before our streets, our towns, our very country becomes a land of “Too Big, Boring, or Ugly.”

Comments

[Jon Wallace]

I believe Glen Ellyn with 100+ year old structures and large stable neighborhoods is right to enact zoning controls that constrain over built home sites.

However, as counter-point to your list of reasonable arguments for remodeling: I have a mid-60's built split level in Glen Ellyn, with 1800+ square feet. I am now considering a tear-down! I don't want a McMansion, but I would like a completely different architecture (Eurosytle - with more glass and double-height living spaces). I'm considering a design that is 2100 sq ft, 2-story, 40 ft. wide by 54 deep ... with a foot print that is 15% of the area of my lot.

I believe that Glen Ellyn now has ordinances in place to protect its neighborhood from overbuilt homes (excessive height and relative footprint on lots). Individual homes can also be classed as historical landmarks and protected from modification.

I read there were about 60 tear-downs in Glen Ellyn last year out of a community of 7000 homes. That is a current turn-over rate of under 9/10ths of a percent per year. I would argue that not all tear-downs are equal (in their negative impacts).