The elimination of single-family zoning called for in the ForwardDallas plan would diminish the desirability of Dallas neighborhoods and the ongoing success of the city of Dallas. This Dallas Morning News op-ed brings attention to the threat of ForwardDallas and also identifies places where more density could be added while still protecting the Dallas neighborhoods.
Harper Belmont Media interviewed Douglas Newby for a documentary they were doing on short-term rentals (STRs). Here are 20 video clips taken from that interview where I am discussing additional dwelling units (ADUs) and STRs and what happens when density is added to single-family zoned neighborhoods. Included in the conversation are the reasons why adding density lowers the property values in a single-family zoned neighborhood and also why reducing density increases property values in a neighborhood. When STRs originally became a threat to neighborhoods, few realized that STRs were just the tip of the spear trying to pierce the protection of single-family zoning for homeowners.
Conventional wisdom of the 1960s had it that Old East Dallas, from Lakewood to Baylor Hospital, from Central Expressway to Interstate 30, was to be razed.
Most of the area was zoned multi-family. Streets had been widened as businesses and apartments sprang up on Ross, Live Oak, and Gaston Avenues. Many fine, old homes were demolished or destroyed by suspicious fires; others were cut up into rooming houses. Tenants, rather than homeowners, were the rule. Absentee landlords allowed properties to deteriorate while the City of Dallas ignored the rapidly declining area. Banks “red-lined” East Dallas, refusing loans to homeowners. Properties were abandoned; vacant lots sprouted weeds and trash. The inner city was left to the poor as white, middle-class residents fled to the suburbs, in part due to fear of school desegregation.
By 1970, the situation was desperate. Census and survey figures revealed that, compared to the rest of Dallas, East Dallas had a disproportionate number of sub-standard structures, half-way houses, dangerous bars, and inadequate schools. The tenant population was largely white, male, low income, and transient. Those few, elderly homeowners who remained in Old East Dallas felt hopeless, helpless, and trapped. They could take little pride in a neighborhood that was essentially a slum.
As East Dallas reached a tipping point of blight and neglect, three organizations emerged with separate agendas for change in Old East Dallas. In 1972, homeowners on Swiss Avenue were approached by a young, visionary new-hire at the Dallas Department of Planning and Urban Development. Weiming Lu suggested that Swiss be declared a local historic district. Excited by the possibility, these residents formed the Historic Preservation League to pursue that goal. Also in 1972, a group of activists called “The Bois D’Arc Patriots” created a Tenants Alliance and set out to improve housing conditions. An umbrella organization known as the East Dallas Community Design Committee was formed by the City of Dallas to get citizen input on directions for change. These three organizations frequently overlapped and occasionally collided.
It was on Swiss Avenue that action to stop the march of deterioration began in earnest. Zoning allowed the building of the high-rise apartments on Swiss in 1971; that prospect alarmed some homeowners who could visualize the stately homes being demolished, as was happening at the time on Gaston Avenue. A group of residents hurriedly circulated a petition to save Swiss from a similar fate. Among them were key players: former Dallas mayor Wallace Savage and his wife, Dorothy, who had connections at City Hall and the Lakewood Bank; their daughter, Virginia McAlester (then Talkington), who belying her quiet appearance was fearless and tenacious; and Lyn Dunsavage, who became the “voice” of East Dallas and was a whiz at marketing and publicity. Delay tactics staved off development while Robin McCaffrey, another
architect/planner on the recently energized city staff, drew up a zoning overlay which made Swiss Avenue and adjacent Bryan Parkway Dallas’ first local historic district. Swiss activists realized almost immediately that they wanted to protect other neighborhoods; thus the newly formed Historic Preservation League (HPL, now Preservation Dallas) expanded its focus beyond Swiss Avenue.
A major concern was that few realtors showed property in East Dallas. To raise awareness of the area’s potential, McAlester and Dunsavage drove folks around on tours. A banker commented, “I would have left here long ago,” and a journalist asserted, “This isn’t going to work. Too much is gone . . . everything is trashed.” City planners doubted that East Dallas was salvageable. Planning staffer Janet Needham reflected, “Few believed at the time that people would want to buy old, cut-up, dilapidated houses, and live in the inner city.” Even preservationists held differing opinions on what properties were worth saving.
One exception was realtor Fred Longmore. A steadfast believer in East Dallas who had grown up in the area, Longmore talked passionately about the history and value of the “heroic” old houses. Charmed by the neighborhood’s mature trees and sturdy houses, lured by the idea of owning a large home close to downtown for less than $20,000, undismayed by the lack of financing and need of repairs, a trickle of newcomers began to buy houses in Old East Dallas. They dubbed themselves “Urban Pioneers.”
The newcomers joined old-time residents of East Dallas. Mostly they purchased houses that were owner-financed and renovated them on the cheap, doing the work themselves. These were the early risk takers, who reveled in the area’s diversity. They included some important artists, journalists, and college professors. This first wave of urban pioneers settled into the colorful milieu of Old East Dallas, which featured fires, murders, drug busts, prostitutes, and panhandlers by day; random gun shots, sirens, and searchlights from police helicopters by night. The neighborhood bonded around their shared experience remodeling old houses. They held fundraisers, Fourth of July picnics, open houses, street parties, and pinata parties for the kids.
Charlie Young, Liz Stewart and others who believed in direct action first began to organize East Dallas tenants around the issue of pest control. They called themselves “Bois D’Arc Patriots” after the tough Texas wood which was the foundation of many East Dallas homes. Passing out leaflets door to door, the organizers soon had tenants coming to them for help. From their office on Collett Street, the Tenants and Small Homeowners Alliance worked closely with Dallas Legal Services on tenant issues, including lack of utilities or repair, unfair rental contracts, eviction, and arson. They published newspapers called variously: Four Walls, Inside East Dallas, and People’s Voice, as well as a handbook on tenants’ rights. Taking an adversarial stance toward slum landlords and often the City of Dallas and State of Texas, the Bois D’Arc Patriots pushed their agenda and raised the level of noise coming from East Dallas. They established a food co-op, free legal and health clinics, and neighborhood clean-up campaigns but were better known for protests, lawsuits, and guerrilla theater, including the release of cockroaches in the City Council chamber.
The Tenants Alliance shared many goals with the HPL and the Design Committee. Their common enemy was the absentee landlord who “milked” his deteriorating properties. The three organizations also agreed on the need for better city services, improved streets, curbs, and sidewalks, code enforcement that preserved neighborhoods, and the need to eliminate dangerous bars, demolition of housing, and arson. Although his focus was on tenants’ rights, Charlie Young viewed the Design Committee with interest because of its potential for grass-roots input and information sharing. The Bois D’Arc Patriots participated, co-operated on some issues, and monitored the rapidly evolving situation as change came to Old East Dallas. Everything hung in the balance. Nothing was for certain.
The East Dallas Community Design Committee (EDCDC) was the most significant of the organizations of the 1970s since it brought together all elements of East Dallas. It was created by the city’s Planning Commission to get active citizen participation in shaping change. Momentum came from former mayor Erick Jonsson’s “Goals for Dallas” and a desire to improve the city’s image after the Kennedy assassination. At the behest of independent mayor Wes Wise, city manager George Schrader and Planning Department chief Jim Schroeder set out to develop a comprehensive land use plan for orderly growth.” Starting in 1970, architect/planner Susan Murphy organized citizen groups all over Dallas, but her attention and that of city planners focused on East Dallas because of its diverse population and severe problems. An East Dallas Demonstration Project received strong support from all city services and served as a model for other neighborhoods.
The city created a map of the targeted area in East Dallas and divided it into five neighborhoods, four residential (A, B, C, and D) and one non-residential (E). Each neighborhood sent delegates to the EDCDC based on population, with the largest (Neighborhood C) receiving the most delegates. [See map above] At-large delegates with special expertise were appointed by the Plan Commission and included bankers, clergy, landlords, and educators. By-laws written by the city allowed participation by anyone over the age of 18 who lived, worked, or owned property in East Dallas. The Design Committee had 27 members, seventeen elected from the neighborhoods and ten at-large. The City provided a meeting place, chairman, and clerk to take minutes. Anyone could attend the public meetings and speak during the Town Hall portion of the agenda. While the purpose was to reach consensus on land use plan, the Design Committee looked at thoroughfares, parks, schools, hospitals, crime and all aspects of needs in crumbling Old East Dallas.
Meetings of the Design Committee (often called the “Big Committee”) were usually packed, often with standing room only. City staff was present, including Susan Murphy, John Gilchrist, and Ron Morris, as well as Plan Commissioners Raymond LaPere, Glyn Strother, and Cathy Schoellkopf. Although it was the creation of the city, the Design Committee was never a rubber stamp. Members were not overwhelmed by slick slide shows on land use. Dynamic meetings elicited a variety of ideas and opinions; passions rose and strong personalities clashed, sometimes leading to shouting matches and angry walkouts. Present at almost every meeting were George Reeves, a landlord protecting his interests, and gadfly Ken GJemre, founder of Half-Price Books, who had a strong opinion on every issue. Jim Ball, publisher of the East Dallas Banner, was a virtual idea machine, throwing out a steady stream of suggestions. One might leave a raucous meeting with a headache, but most stakeholders hesitated to miss the fray.
The real work of the EDCDC was carried out in committees. In addition to monthly meetings of the Design Committee, each of the neighborhoods held monthly meetings. The EDCDC officers had an executive meeting, and there were meetings of the issue-related standing and ad hoc committees: Human Development, Finance, Physical Development, Coded Enforcement, Public Relations, Education, Justice and Law Enforcement, Thoroughfares, and Honky Tonks (beer halls). There were informal, behind-the-scenes meetings as well. Such a demand on time and energy speaks of the commitment of many dedicated citizens.
In its statement of purpose, the EDCDC expressed its “desire to create a ‘model inner-city community’ where residents . . . would find an enjoyable place to live and work.’” They aimed “to find a consensus on directions the community would take.” Pledging to work with all groups, they sought to arrest decline in East Dallas and bring its needs to the attentions of appropriate city agencies. The Design Committee was empowered to investigate and debate any situation or topic relevant to the neighborhood, issue public statements, adopt resolutions, and petition public officials. Since the organization had the ear of the city, there was the potential for great influence.
The Education Committee was very active in 1973, reacting to the Springer Report (1972) which showed nine of East Dallas’s thirteen schools to be inadequate. The schools were overcrowded, had high pupil to teacher ratios, transient student enrollment, and low test scores. The committee, led by Janice Maddox and later Yolanda Guerra, recommended bilingual teachers who lived in East Dallas and called for after-school programs to help working mothers. A prolonged desegregation case in federal court was a major issue from 1973 to 1976. Talk of closing East Dallas schools, including Woodrow Wilson High School, drew the attention of the education committee. A group of East Dallas parents filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief with the desegregation court. Because of careful demographic research proved that East Dallas schools were already naturally integrated, the court was urged not to close Woodrow or bus students to North Dallas. School closures would have devastated hopes for an urban renaissance. A sigh of relief went up in 1976 when Judge William Taylor ruled in favor of retaining East Dallas schools.
Another committee active early on was the Public Relations Committee, headed by Lyn Dunsavage, who also did publicity for the Historic Preservation League. Dunsavage churned out press releases emphasizing a favorable image of Old East Dallas. Lyke Thompson of The Dallas Morning News was praised for his positive coverage of the area. Channel 8 television did stories on East Dallas as did D Magazine. Since the Design Committee had no budget, the HPL often took the initiative with publicity. First, there was a successful Swiss Avenue Home Tour, which attracted thousands of Dallasites to admire its impressive home; in 1975, the HPL sponsored an “Urban Pioneer” tour showcasing East Dallas, Oak Cliff, Oak Lawn, and South Dallas homes under renovation. Bumper stickers reading “I’m An Urban Pioneer: I live in Old East Dallas” were sported by area homeowners. Virginia McAlester and Lyn Dunsavage authored a booklet, “Buying a home in historic Old East Dallas,” which was distributed to potential buyers, banks, and realtors. The Public Relations Committee was determined to change the image of East Dallas, help residents take a sense of pride in their homes, and attract new homeowners to the area.
A Human Development Committee proposed ambitious goals for a neighborhood ombudsman, a health management organization, job training for the unemployed, a labor pool and craftsmen guild, and outreach to senior citizens, female heads of households, and disadvantaged youth. Since funding at the time was limited, these proposals were more hopeful than realistic.
In the fall of 1974, the city relinquished control of the Design Committee, cutting it free to pursue its many goals. The Plan Commission “felt it was time for the EDCDC to become a separate entity,” elect its officers, and revise its by-laws as needed. The city’s interim land use plan was approved, so a major goal of the Plan Commission was achieved. By this time the committee was meeting at the Old Lakewood Library, located at Abrams and LaVista, which became a sort of community center. Attorney Carol Barger was elected chairperson with Fred Longmore, vice-chair. Barger, quoted in a newspaper story, felt the EDCDC was a strong lobby at City Hall and was “more sophisticated than the typical neighborhood improvement association, not reacting to a single issue … This is a deteriorating neighborhood.” She stated, “We’re trying to turn the tables.” Susan Murphy and city staff continued to attend, keep minutes, and advise the committee. Staff was invaluable in clarifying procedure, explaining city positions, and questioning hasty resolution.
Getting loan money for purchase and repair of East Dallas homes was a basic problem dealt with by the Finance Committee led by Willis Tate, Jr. The Lakewood Bank played a key role in the solution of this problem: officers Don Wright and Artie Barnett served as at-large members of the Design Committee. Banks considered East Dallas a risky, unstable area and refused money for single-family residences in an area zoned multi-family. The secondary money market, including the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Veterans Administration, would not purchase or insure inner city loans. Lakewood Bank led the way, followed by Merchants State Bank and Comerica Bank, in making loans to Swiss Avenue and Munger Place residents. By 1976, federal money became available when FNMA (Fannie Mae) chose Dallas for its first inner-city loan program.
During the summer of 1976, the HPL acquired twenty-two houses on Munger Place for a two-year “Revolving Fund” program. A grant was received from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Several individuals donated money for a line of credit at the Lakewood Bank. Virginia McAlester directed the program. Energetic young realtor Doug Newby identified absentee landlords willing to sell blocks of houses that had been divided into apartments. Dorothy Masterson helped tenants to relocate, and the HPL sold the houses to new homeowners for rehabilitation. As each house sold, the proceeds went back into the fund for purchase of more houses. A Sunday newspaper story with a sketch of houses on Victor Street left the impression that these specific two-story houses could be purchased for $15,000, causing a traffic jam and alarming homeowners whose doorbells were rung so they might be asked if their home was for sale. This program to attract private investment to East Dallas was wildly successful.
In 1974, the federal government decided to get out of the public housing business, passing the Housing and Community Development Act, which provided block grants to cities. This act emphasized local control and citizen input and was aimed at improving housing for low income families. Dallas received $27 million in Community Development (CD) funds over the next two years; as required, the city held public hearings, including one at Spence Junior High in East Dallas, but the meetings were poorly publicized and poorly attended. The Design Committee offered its suggestions on use of the money. Jim Ball thought East Dallas should be first in line for the funds; he stated hopefully, “This is probably going to be where we really take off.” Carol Barger commented that the public hearings were a mere formality and the city was not really interested in public opinion. In the end, the City of Dallas spent most of the CD money on capital improvements – lights, sidewalks, and curbs. East Dallas benefitted from these expenditures, but the Tenants Alliance was infuriated. Little of the money benefitted low income residents as Congress had intended. Charlie Young, angered by the use of an Army Reserve unit to survey housing stock in East Dallas, charged that the city was using CD money for condemnation of housing so that developers could profit.
Code enforcement, condemnation (red-tagging), and demolition were hot topics dealt with by a committee led by Marian Gibson and later Bruce Boardman. Code enforcement was difficult since absentee owners were often hard to locate. Some owners preferred to tear down or burn a structure rather than bring it up to code. Two to five percent of East Dallas houses were demolished each year. The Design Committee called for “gentle” code enforcement with a special code for older houses. Basically, the EDCDC wanted to eliminate high weeds, trash, and junk cars, but they strongly opposed “tear-downs.” Calling for a freeze on demolition, the committee passed a resolution in 1974: “That no structures within Old East Dallas be torn down by Urban Rehabilitation until proper study be given to their possible architectural and historic value and to the possibility of saving and restoring those found to be either significant or noteworthy.”
Out of the Physical Development Committee, an ad hoc committee on thoroughfares looked at the city’s traffic plan, which called for widening several East Dallas streets to six lanes. The city was intent on moving heavy traffic in and out of the Central Business District to the suburbs; East Dallas activists were concerned that “expressways” divided neighborhoods. The Design Committee mitigated the widening of Columbia/Abrams to preserve Lakewood Shopping Center, and it prevented widening of Abrams north to Mockingbird and of Greenville Avenue through the M Streets. The committee lobbied for off-street parking and left turn lanes on Live Oak and Ross Avenues, which were already widened. The EDCDC also strongly opposed creation of couplets (Fitzhugh/Collett, Bryan/Live Oak, Greenville/Matilda) to carry fast, heavy traffic through East Dallas. The Design Committee successfully opposed an expressway northeast to Garland and gained a tremendous victory in defeating the Roseland/Munger Crosstown Parkway.
Newspaper publisher Jim Ball called himself a “civic watchdog;” his particular interest was insuring adequate police coverage and crime reduction in East Dallas. His Committee on Justice and Law Enforcement urged well-equipped police beat patrols. Ball’s newspaper gave crime statistics for the area and announced neighborhood meetings. Since the Design Committee did not have nonprofit status and could not sell advertising, it was slow to publish its own newspaper. After nonprofit status was achieved, the EDCDC published the Old East Dallas Journal in 1975, edited by Mary Riffe.
An offshoot of the Law Enforcement Committee was the ad hoc “Honky-Tonk” committee, led by apartment owner Bob Logan. This group worked with police and code inspectors to close dangerous bars in East Dallas. They shut down bars with inadequate parking, those too close to schools or churches, or sites of felonies. Finally, in late 1976, the East Dallas Beer and Wine Ordinance provided that closed beer parlors not be reopened until they got a much more expensive liquor license, with a $10,000 bond and state oversight. In the next year, forty bars shut down. A major source of crime was eliminated. However, there was a strong backlash from bar owners who claimed their property rights were denied.
Fred Longmore, though he was called “The Mayor of East Dallas,” proved to be a weak chairman in 1976. Committees proliferated; debate degenerated into minutiae; meetings ran overtime. Frustration levels rose as nit-picking increased. Neighborhood D (East Side, Santa Fe, Mount Auburn) was defunct. Susan Murphy warned the Design Committee that its lack of cohesiveness and subsequent waste of time damaged its credibility. Perry Gross demanded that the committee “quit changing bylaws, cut out the nonsense, and get something done.”
Speaking before the Dallas City Council on zoning change, Longmore claimed, “We can attract high-income persons to our neighborhood without displacing low and moderate income groups.” The issue of stability versus diversity was a key ethical question which divided the community. When a second wave of newcomers bought property in Old East Dallas, they paid more for their houses, hired contractors, and were highly interested in protecting their substantial investment.
Zoning was the issue which broke the back of the Design Committee. It was clear that the blanket zoning to multi-family must be corrected. A very active Physical Development Committee led by Virginia McAlester pushed for rezoning early on. After a small demonstration project on short streets around Lipscomb Elementary School proved that back-zoning to single family was feasible, the EDCDC circulated a petition and gathered signatures to rezone most of East Dallas. In the fall of 1976, Perry Gross was elected chairman. Soon, he took the leadership on rezoning, removing that issue from the Physical Development Committee then chaired by Doug Newby. Though the land use plan called for planned development districts (PDs) with “mixed use” where each property was zoned for what it had been built to be and none would be “nonconforming,” Newby was convinced every property in Neighborhoods B and C should be zoned “single-family.” (R7.5)
Newby and Bob logan struck out on their own; calling themselves “Property Owners for Single-Family Zoning,” they gathered signatures from 800 of the 1,200 property owners in the areas. Such blanket rezoning was opposed by planning staff, the Plan Commission, and the Preservation League, all of which favored mixed use. Charlie Young urged owners not to sign approval cards which would make apartments nonconforming and drive out tenants. It was surprising to find the Tenants Alliance and the HPL on the same side of an issue. A public meeting on February 7, 1977, at Woodrow Wilson High School turned into a heated, noisy debate. Confusion reigned over what the petitions said and what area was covered. Despite the opposition, Newby and Logan gained the support of Mayor Bob Folsom, the Apartment Owners Association, and both Dallas newspapers. After a seven-month delay, on April 26, 1978, the Dallas City Council approved the largest back-zoning in Dallas history; a massive area from Haskell to Lakewood, Gaston to Columbia (100 city blocks, 700 acres) was rezoned single-family residence. If apartments burned or were demolished, they would be replaced with residences. Proponents felt the rezoning of this large “critical mass” would assure stability in Old East Dallas. Charlie Young saw the change as gentrification, with low income tenants being displaced by “yuppies” (young upwardly-mobile professionals).
City planners were devastated when the same pro-development mayor and city council failed to approve their comprehensive land use plan for orderly development of the city. Morale in the city plan department plummeted. The department was reorganized, its staff cut by a third. Schroeder was reassigned and Weiming Lu returned to Minnesota. Still, the eight-year effort of the planners did not go unrewarded; historic, conservation, and planned development districts proliferated over ensuing years.
Don Criswell was the Chairman of the Design Committee in 1977 and 1978. He imposed order on the committee, which had become almost dysfunctional. Disruptive activists left to pursue other interests. Many of the EDCDC goals had been accomplished. East Dallas was well represented in city affairs with Lee Simpson on the City Co0uncil, Lyn Dunsavage on the Plan Commission, and Harryette Ehrhardt on the School Board. However, the consensus was fractured.
Charlie Young gave up on the Design Committee, which he said was controlled by “heavy-handed bankers and high-minded preservationists.” If the EDCDC was not “an authentic forum for all the people ... then the hell with it,” declared The People’s Voice. Young allied with disgruntled property owners angered by the bar ordinance and rezoning. Tenants packed the neighborhood meetings at election time and gained a majority in several of them. In the fall of 1978, Legal Services Lawyer John Jordan was elected chairman and the tenant-dominated committee voted to decrease representation from Neighborhood C, whose delegates then walked out and refused to participate. The Design Committee collapsed and weas replaced by a tenant group, the East Dallas Neighborhood Association.
Representatives from Neighborhood C formed the Munger Place Homeowners Association; its “Texas style Prairie Homes” received recognition from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1979; and, in 1980, Munger Place became Dallas’ fourth historic district. Junius Heights, Peak Suburban District, and other parts of Old East Dallas organized active neighborhood associations that were the natural outgrowth of the Design Committee experience.
In summary, urban decay and gentrification were national phenomena in the 1970s; the East Dallas Community Design Committee was part of the Dallas response to urban blight. Susan Murphy drew together a group of vocal, savvy activities who shouted their way to the city’s consciousness. The Design Committee provided a platform, a forum for live debate on ideas which percolated up to change the city’s plans on housing and transportation. Like most democratic organizations, meetings were often uncomfortably contentious. Individuals, frustrated by the limitations of the EDCDC, sometimes acted on their own to accomplish the goals of the committee; but without the existence of the Design Committee, it is difficult to imagine how the city would have focused services to bring improvement to East Dallas. It was a rare instance of city planners not only listening, but nurturing and facilitating a community easter to shape its own destiny.
Californians escaping high taxes dominate the real estate news. Yes it is true, leaving California because of high city, county and state income tax for Dallas and Texas, with no income tax, is a motivation, but last on my list of seven reasons why people are moving from Los Angeles to Dallas. People will pay more to live where they like living, whether that means higher taxes, higher home prices or higher cost of living. People will leave a place they do not enjoy if they can afford to. This is the case with Angelenos. Residents have found Los Angeles increasingly unpleasant.
For generations California offered sunshine and blue skies, opportunity and greater freedom. The skies became grayer, opportunities became increasingly restricted and basic freedoms curtailed. Subtle regulatory incursions like delaying construction of a home for a few years, to the overt oppression such as shutting down schools and restaurants long after other parts of the country successfully reopened breed discontent. A trickle of clients moving to Dallas became a wave. The pandemic brought everything into hyperfocus. Californians now want to live in Dallas, a city their family would enjoy. Now the skies in Dallas are bluer, the grass is greener, the parkway trees taller, freedom more profound and opportunities more robust.
I have left for last this tax advantage, which is the most obvious economic reason Fortune 50 companies and individual families are moving from Los Angeles to Dallas. A fourth generation Angelenos family who belongs to the most prestigious Los Angeles beach club, have their children in the finest preparatory schools, and live in a beautiful home told me they will enjoy escaping the high taxes, but it is the quality of life Dallas offers that they are really seeking. They are excited about schools that are open, restaurants they can go to, friendly, optimistic neighbors, blue skies, a sense of freedom and robust opportunities.
The pandemic brought everything into hyper-focus. Californians who a few years ago were tempted to leave for economic reasons decided to leave now to live in a city their family would enjoy. Those arriving in Dallas are not coming here with doubt or trepidation, but with excitement and enthusiasm to begin life in Dallas that offers so much of what California offered families moving there a generation or two ago.
For the next 30 years Dallas will be the city that leads the way in Organic Urbanism and the aesthetic and economic opportunities it provides. The pattern of migration to and from cities has evolved for 200 years. Technology increases the fluidity of where people live and simultaneously allows a greater intimacy and connectivity with neighbors and the community.
The recent rapid evolution of migration patterns and a heightened sense of how technology changes our living patterns put many cities in peril and reward other cities that make people a priority over outdated policy.
Welcome to Dallas!
I would recommend to a homeowner designing a modern home to keep in mind that the modern homes that continue to make homeowners happy have excellent proportions rather than the latest modern ornamentation and design accouterments. Rooms with views of other rooms and the outdoors in many directions is much more pleasing than an exaggerated modern window or tricky modern façade. A simple home on a difficult site is much more interesting than a difficult home on a simple site. Remember, it is much more important for a home to live and feel modern than look modern.
Read entire article, How to Design a Tasteful Modern Home.
“Homes have, of course, always been important.”
Says Douglas Newby, and agent who specializes in Architecturally Significant Homes.
“But buyers are now making the home a greater priority than it has ever been. They’re being a lot more thoughtful about the kinds of spaces they need and about the things that make them happy at home.”
"Rooms now need a purpose, even better, multiple purposes. No one is going to see value in a ‘bonus’ room without a purpose,” says Douglas Newby.
The coronavirus is forcing us to shelter at home and think of our homes in whole new ways. Traditionally, when buyers look for houses to purchase, they are usually thinking about practical and financial criteria, including square footage, the cost of the investment, how much house can they afford, and the latest and most stylish counter tops and appliances. The style of the house and whether the right public school is nearby are usually major priorities.
But under a virtual house arrest, one thinks about the home in a whole new way. Does it make us happy? Usually, when a family buys a home they are thinking about specific amenities, such as slate floors, a great room and a three-car garage. But they aren’t thinking about whether the home itself will make them happy.
When buyers house-shop, they seldom discuss the fundamental aspects of a home that will make them happy. Few think about whether their families will love living in the homes they tour. Can you see sunlight in three or four directions in the main rooms? If you were living and working in the house for an extended period, would the rooms make you happy?
People choose homes for specific needs, but most do not consider daily needs. Often I see homeowners who live as if they are guests in their own homes. After being away, the homeowner returns to a house prepared by the housekeeper. The home is not inhabited as the ultimate destination, but as a residence to accommodate intermittent needs. It is almost as if people schedule their time in the home. Space is set aside for the occasional family dinner. Even larger space is set aside for the once- or twice-a-year grand entertaining.
In many luxury homes, the kitchen is designed with two or three of every appliance — refrigerators, ovens and dishwashers with ample space for catering and staff to serve large parties. Closets are as large as early Craftsman bungalows. A home might have room for every family member to entertain friends in separate parts of the home. Often backyards are filled with elaborate hardscaping of stone terraces, fountains, kitchens, verandas, pools, gazebos, patios and outdoor kitchens.
How does the equation change when people are forced to live and work and spend all their time in this luxury home? When across the city and country people are self-quarantined, the housekeeper is not there to prepare the home. No one’s entertaining in the massive great rooms because entertaining has been eliminated. Clothes that hang on the closet racks look like they are slowly aging and going out of style, without being worn, because there is no place to go.
The neighboring expensive houses that help make a home look like a solid and desirable investment can start to close in on a family. These three-story houses that replace tall trees only seem to block the sun and blue sky that are so desperately desired by the housebound. Those cold, hard surfaces in the backyard are no longer animated by cavorting, happy guests, and the homeowner longs for nature, to just dig in the garden or watch something grow.
And what is the point of living within walking distance of the closest public school if your children are not even allowed to go to school? Even in normal times, with expanded options like magnet schools, charter schools, homeschooling and online learning, the geographic location of the home is less important.
When people are required to stay at home, it becomes very obvious if the home creates joy or distress. A home that might have seemed perfect when used for a sequence of events, might now seem disjointed when trying to integrate a family’s everyday life. Just trudging great distances across seldom-used empty rooms looking for a family member might become annoying. Having to dust and clean without staff might become dreary. It’s always a joy to work in a home office or study that is the prettiest space in the home with the most gorgeous natural light. But many home offices are relegated to unappealing, leftover space, hardly magnets for productivity.
Being housebound in the right house feels like vacation. In homes that make one happy, design triumphs over style. A well-designed room that relates to the site and the house is an enjoyable space regardless of its use. A dining room with windows looking over a garden is as desirable a space for dinner as it is for children doing their homework, or parents creating spreadsheets for work. Open spaces that still have the intimacy of individual rooms that allow sight lines into several rooms and the ability to see sunlight in three or four different directions offer a serenity that does not come from empty, cavernous spaces.
Eventually, life will return to more familiar patterns. Some people will love their homes more than ever after this crisis. Others will wonder why in the world they chose amenities with only transient and occasional benefits over a home with the characteristics that would make them happy every day.
I have helped people find homes they have lived in for 20 or 30 years, that they enjoyed living in before, during and after they had children living at home. I have seen other homeowners (not my clients) churn homes every few years, not because of geographic changes or material changes in their life, but just trying to find a home they would enjoy living in more.
This is a good time to reflect on what you love about your home and how it makes you happy living and working and sharing it with your family every day.
Douglas Newby is a Realtor in Dallas and the owner of Architecturally Significant Homes. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.
The recent challenges from the coronavirus force us to shelter at home and think of our home in whole new ways. Traditionally, when a buyer looks for a house to purchase, they are usually thinking about practical and financial criteria, like the square footage cost of the investment, how much house can they afford, are there large enough rooms for grand entertaining, and does the home have the latest and most stylish counter tops and appliances. The style of the house and whether the right public school is nearby is usually a major priority.
Home Arrest
When one is under a virtual self house arrest, one thinks about their home in a whole new way. Does our home make us happy? Usually, when someone buys a home they are thinking about amenities that will make them happy, not if the home itself will make them happy.
When buyers house shop, the fundamental aspects of a home that will make them happy are seldom discussed. Sure, the buyer thinks about their likes and dislikes, but a home that would generate holistic happiness and a home they will love living in is not in the forefront of buyers’ minds. A buyer is more apt to discuss the rooms they would like to have in a home rather than the fundamental quality of a home that would make them happy if they were to be living, working, and spending 24 hours a day in the home for an extended period of time.
Home for Specific Needs or Daily Needs?
Homes are chosen for specific needs, but not daily needs. Often I see homeowners who live as if they are guests in their own homes. After being away, the housekeeper prepares the home for the homeowner’s return. However, the home is not inhabited as the ultimate destination for the homeowner, but a residence to accommodate their intermittent needs. It is almost as if they have scheduled time in the home. Space is set aside for the occasional family dinner together. Even larger spaces have been set aside for the once or twice a year for grand entertaining.
A kitchen has been designed with two or three of every appliance—refrigerators, ovens and dishwashers with ample space dedicated for catering and staff to prepare or serve a large party or event that is hosted in the home. Luxurious closets are as large as early Craftsman bungalows. A home might have room for every family member to entertain friends in separate parts of the home. Often backyards are filled with elaborate hardscaping of stone terraces, fountains, kitchens, verandas, pools, gazebos, patios and outdoor kitchens.
Equation Changes When Forced to Spend 24 Hours Every Day in Home
How does equation change when people are forced to live and work and spend all their time in the home? When across the city and country people are self-quarantined, the housekeeper no longer prepares the home every day for the homeowner’s return because the homeowner is not leaving the home, and the housekeeper is not coming anyway. No one’s entertaining in the massive great rooms because entertaining has been eliminated. Clothes that hang on the closet racks look like they are slowly aging and going out of style, without being worn, because there is no place to go.
Changing Impact of Neighboring Home
Surrounding expensive homes can make a home look like a solid and desirable investment. Now these imposing homes can start to close in on a home and a family. These three-story homes that replace tall trees now only seem to block the sun and blue sky that are so desperately desired when someone is housebound. In the backyard where one now longs for nature, to just dig in the garden or watch something grow, one is forced to look at cold hard surfaces that are not animated by cavorting and happy guests in normal times.
And what is the point of living within walking distance to the closest public school if your children are not even allowed to go to school? With expanded options like magnet schools, charter schools, homeschooling and online learning, the geographic location of the home is less important.
A Home Creates Joy or Distress
When people are required to stay at home it becomes very obvious if one’s home creates joy or distress. A home that might have seemed perfect when used for a sequence of events, might now seem disjointed when trying to integrate a family’s everyday life. Just trudging great distances across seldom used empty rooms looking for a family member might become annoying. Having to take out a feather duster and personally try to keep the home in tiptop shape without staff might become dreary. It’s always a joy to work in a home office or study which is the prettiest space in the home with the most gorgeous natural light. However, many homes offices are relegated to unappealing, “leftover” space, and aren’t magnets for productivity.
When Home Bound - Good Design Triumphs Over Style
Being housebound in the right house feels like vacation. In homes that make one happy, design triumphs over style. As I said in my TEDx talk), “Style comes and goes, but good design lasts forever.” A room well-designed that relates to the site and the house is an enjoyable space regardless of its use. A dining room with windows looking over a garden is as desirable a space for dinner as it is for children doing their homework, or a parent creating architectural plans or spreadsheets for their profession. Open spaces that still have the intimacy of individual rooms that allow sight lines into several rooms and the ability to see sunlight in three or four different directions offers a serenity that does not come from empty, cavernous spaces.
Homes Will Never Be Thought About in the Same Way
Eventually, life will return to more familiar patterns, but homeowners will never think about their homes in the same way. Some people will love their homes more than ever after this crisis. Others will wonder why in the world they chose amenities with only transient and occasional benefits over a home with the characteristics that would make them happy living in the home every day.
Many People Love Their Home
I have helped people find homes they have lived in for 20 or 30 years, that they enjoyed living in before, during and after they had children living at home. I have seen other homeowners (not my clients) churn homes every few years, not because of geographic changes or material changes in their life, but just trying to find a home they would enjoy living in more.
When people, as they do now, have more time to reflect and plan for the future, this is a good time to reflect on what you love about your home and how it makes you happy living and working and sharing it with your family every day.
Photo Credit: Douglas Newby, the author.
Douglas Newby is a real estate broker who gave the TEDx talk Homes That Make Us Happy. He initiated the largest rezoning in Dallas—2,000 properties primarily in use as multi-family to single-family zoning, creating an environment for successful revitalization. In 1979, he created the nation’s first Restoration House of the Year Award, and at the end of the 20th century for the Dallas Chapter of AIA organized a city-wide survey of architect-designed homes. His website is ArchitecturallySignificantHomes.com. Blog is DallasArchitectureBlog.com.
New Urbanism is like a virus. For 50 years it keeps coming back in mutated forms. It needs a cure.
First, the only thing new in New Urbanism is the new construction that tears down the organic city. A form of New Urbanism has been around for 50 years. Like I said, it is a virus that keeps coming back in mutated forms. But the scheme, of more density, new mixed-use construction, and fixed rail transit, replacing existing homes remains constant. The desire of planners to determine where you live and where you work also remains constant. New urbanists increasingly do not like single family homes, which most Americans prefer.
There is a growing New Urbanism movement across the country that says single-family zoning is bad. There are some cities like Minneapolis that have banned single-family zoning that had made up over 50% of Minneapolis. Some states, like Oregon, are considering abolishing single-family zoning. Even the Dallas City Council unanimously voted to allow two-story backyard rental houses in single-family neighborhoods. Former Dallas City Councilperson, Philip Kingston, said that single-family neighborhoods like Preston Hollow are no longer relevant. If this trend continues, your grandchildren or great grandchildren might never have a chance to live in a single-family zoned neighborhood, with front or back yards to play in, streets to ride bikes on, or familiarity with longtime neighbors.
In contrast, what I call Organic Urbanism works with people’s preferences, particularly those of families. It protects, preserves, and nurtures the city, allowing the creativity of individuals and neighborhoods to shape the direction of the city. This includes the single-family homes as well as a diversity of housing types.
Organic urbanism supports what people want in their diverse neighborhoods. In contrast new urbanism, particularly their allies in the planning profession, oppose such housing and favor density to support public transit and claim they make homes more affordable.
In contrast, organic Urbanists think denser apartment development makes neighborhoods less walkable and less desirable. Organism Urbanism strives to preserve, protect, and rejuvenate the existing housing stock of diverse sizes, styles, and conditions that is conducive to a mix of incomes and lifestyles. Organic Urbanism also favors zoning for less than what is already built. Less dense zoning provides the incentive to preserve and revitalize the existing housing stock, or lose the privilege of higher density on a lot if an existing multi-family building is torn down. For example, if a duplex or apartment house is zoned single-family and it is torn down, it can only be replaced by a single-family home. This gives the owner incentive to maintain the existing duplex or apartment house or lose their privilege of multi-family.
Organic Urbanism approaches the city like a garden. There is an understanding that the evolution of buildings and uses should evolve rather than being plowed under and planted like an industrial farm. In a garden that is nurtured, one might plant a sapling with sun-loving plants around it. Once the tree grows, one might plant, shade-tolerant flowers under the tree. There is a natural ebb and flow of decay, rejuvenation, and new construction in an organic city. Neighborhoods fall in and out of favor, creating opportunities for those of all incomes.
New Urbanism has a goal of creating diversity by diluting good parts of the city. Organic Urbanism strives for diversity by improving out-of-favor neighborhoods.
I will describe eight key differences of New Urbanism and Organic Urbanism.
Here is a historic duplex of two 500 sq.ft. apartments within three blocks of $2.5 million historic mansions that could have been renovated. Instead, because it is zoned multifamily, it will be torn down and the land added to the entire block of three-story new apartments being erected.
In contrast, Organic Urbanism creates income diversity in neighborhoods by rejuvenating inexpensive single-family homes, protecting middle-class neighborhoods, and encouraging expensive neighborhoods for high-income homeowners.
This Organic Urbanism approach emphasizes emerging middle-class neighborhoods and protecting the middle-class residents that are disappearing in cities across the country.
Organic Urbanism recognizes that diverse sizes and conditions of older homes allow diverse incomes in older neighborhoods. Old East Dallas is a good example. In Mount Auburn, you will find $150,000 cottages, in Junius Heights $400,000 bungalows, in Munger Place $700,000 prairie style homes, and on Swiss Avenue $2 million historic mansions. All four of these neighborhoods are within six blocks of each other. I have had friends and clients that owned an 1100 square foot home, and then moved to a 2400 square foot home, and then to a 5000 square foot home, all which were within 4 blocks of each other and in three different historic districts.
This historic Prairie style home is part of a natural progression of home ownership in an organic urban neighborhood. The homeowner's first home was an 1,100 sq.ft. cottage in the Peak Suburban Historic District, then they purchased a 2,400 sq.ft. home in the Munger Place Historic District a few blocks away, and ultimately they purchased a 5,700 sq.ft. Swiss Avenue Prairie style home which is only four blocks away from their first two homes.
Also, Organic Urbanism want to entice people to walk by creating a pleasing environment, not forcing people to walk.
Organic Urbanism recognizes that diverse sizes and conditions of older homes allow diverse incomes in older neighborhoods. Old East Dallas is a good example. In Mount Auburn, you will find $150,000 cottages, in Junius Heights $400,000 bungalows, in Munger Place $700,000 prairie style homes, and on Swiss Avenue $2 million historic mansions. All four of these neighborhoods are within six blocks of each other. I have had friends and clients that owned an 1100 square foot home, and then moved to a 2400 square foot home, and then to a 5000 square foot home, all which were within 4 blocks of each other and in three different historic districts.
Organic Urbanists see things much differently. They know the economic viability of the city is dependent on the sustained value of single-family homes and a prosperous middle class who tend to live in them. Organic Urbanists also understand the middle class is the strongest lobby for good schools, good police, fire departments, and parks.
Organic Urbanists think a better solution than subsidizing rent would be for the city to require a developer to subsidize the interest on a home mortgage loan to help a low or moderate-income person to buy a home. This expands homeownership in the city.
For example, Organic Urbanists would prefer that a developer not spend $1000 a month subsidizing one expensive apartment for a low-income renter, but instead the developer spending that $1000-a-month subsidy to pay for interest-free mortgage loans to three families, so each family could afford to purchase a $100,000 home. Or instead of a $1000-a-month rent subsidy for one apartment, the developer could provide six interest-free mortgage loans on six $50,000 homes for six low-income homebuyers.
Organic Urbanists understand the greatest economic disparity between black and white families is wealth. Black families earn 70 cents on the dollar for what white families earn, but black families only have 4% of the comparative wealth of white families, because of the lower rate of home ownership and subsidizing rent on apartments does not create wealth for low-income families.
Organic Urbanists also are opposed to subsidizing developers for their purchase of inexpensive homes that these developers will tear down so they can build new affordable housing. Organic Urbanists are in favor of preserving the existing housing stock that allows low income families the opportunity to purchase a home.
Organic Urbanists understand that if a lot in an expensive neighborhood cost $500,000 and a lot in a deteriorated neighborhood cost $50,000, the same number of affordable homes could be built on either priced lot. However, if the affordable homes were built on the inexpensive $50,000 lot, there would be $450,000 left over to spend on new sidewalks, curbs, parkway trees, attractive street lights, and internet connectivity, which would improve the desirability of the neighborhood and attract people who would now want to live in this neighborhood.
Maybe the best example of the difference between New Urbanism and Organic Urbanism is their respective position on granny flats.
The New Urbanism idea of granny flats is sweeping the country. The mantra used in Dallas is that granny flats provide more affordable housing and allow senior homeowners to remain in their homes. A few months ago, the Dallas Assistant Director of Housing made a presentation to the Dallas Architecture Forum. She repeated this economic justification for granny flats, that they will create more affordable housing and allow senior homeowners to remain in their homes. When asked what the projected square footage cost of a granny flat was, she said she had no idea as there had been no discussion of the cost of a granny flat and this question had never come up within the housing department or City Council.
Organic Urbanism, on the other hand, looks for the best economic ways for the city to evolve for senior citizens and those needing affordable homes. If a nonprofit in Dallas spent $300 a square foot to build the 400 square foot Crossroads cottages for the homeless, it becomes obvious to an Organic Urbanist that renovating existing houses is a more cost-effective means of providing affordable housing than building new granny flats. Using the homeless cottage cost figures, building a 600-square foot apartment over a garage might cost $200,000.
This does not make a one-bedroom granny flat apartment affordable or lower the cost for a senior homeowner.
In the meantime, a two-story granny flat removes a canopy of trees, looms over the neighbor’s property, lines the front curb with on-street parked cars, and creates more transience in the neighborhood.
Here on one side of the alley you see New Urbanism granny flats blocking the sun and breezes that replaced towering trees. On the other side of the alley you see the layered canopy of trees that include mature pecan trees, tall cedar trees, crepe myrtles, and understory Japanese maples in the backyards of single-family homes that are still dedicated to nature, not rentals.
Conclusion
New Urbanism wants to create a city where people are forced to walk, forced to take fixed rail, forced to live in buildings shared with subsidized renters, and forced to live jammed together in dense neighborhoods in the name of vibrancy.
Organic Urbanism represents an alternative to the top-down tyranny of the new urbanist mantra. We recognize that the cycles of deterioration and rejuvenation create environments that people desire and where they can afford to live and work. Organic Urbanists would rather nurture a city where people enjoy living and walking in a diverse neighborhood, a city that entices Millennials and the middle class to stay in the city and raise their families.
Organic Urbanism allows creativity and self-expression can be manifested. Embracing Organic Urbanism, every person can impact the significance and stewardship of their city, their neighborhood, and their home.
Hopefully, Organic Urbanism can eradicate New Urbanism in our lifetime and reintroduce the concept that cities are not for planners or trains, but people.
Douglas Newby is a real estate broker who initiated the largest the largest rezoning in Dallas - 2,000 properties primarily in use as multi family rental properties to single family zoning. In 1979, in Dallas he created the first Restoration House of the Year Award, and for the Dallas Chapter of the AIA organized a city wide survey of architect designed and Significant homes. His TEDx talk is Homes That Make Us Happy. His website is: ArchitecturallySignificantHomes.com. Blog is DallasArchitectureBlog.com
Should the direction of Dallas urban growth continue to grow north? Does inserting low-income housing in North Dallas create an inclusive urban growth direction for Dallas? Does the direction of Dallas and its current goal of moving low-income wage earners closer to higher wage jobs in North Dallas increase or decrease wealth for low-income families? The SMU/George W. Bush Institute Conference, Policies to Promote Inclusive Urban Growth, was a meaningful conference on the direction of Dallas and cities and gave clues to all these questions.
The information and insights provided built on and went beyond the New Cities Conference held a few years ago in Dallas, the Festival of Ideas Conference in Dallas, and the 2.0 Cities section of talks at the main TED Conference. Cullum Clark, Director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative and adjunct professor of Economics, along with Joel Kotkin, Executive Director, Center for Opportunity Urbanism, and Joseph Cahoon, Professor, Director of Folsom Institute of Real Estate, did a remarkable job of curating the speakers and participants along with presenting a preview and summary of the key points of the discussion regarding urban growth and the direction of Dallas. I have always thought that the success of Dallas came from the city pursuing best policies for growth rather than replicating other cities’ best practices for bad policy. This conference reconfirmed this thought.
Here are some of the ideas that resonated with me, provoked questions, or validated my previous ideas about the direction of Dallas and how best to achieve inclusive urban growth.
Middle-Income Neighborhoods are Fragile and Should be the Highest Priority
I have been very aware that all city neighborhoods are fragile. This conference made me even more acutely aware of the fragility of middle income neighborhoods.
Having been raised in Hinsdale, a village west of Chicago, the first session featuring Chicago was of particular interest to me and a good starting point for discussion of cities and the direction of Dallas.
From 1990 to 2010, the number of low-income neighborhoods in Chicago rapidly expanded, high-income neighborhoods expanded and stayed strong, and middle-income neighborhoods almost disappeared. An economic neighborhood map of Chicago was the perfect way to begin the conference. It was the foundation of a subtle theme expressed throughout the day. Middle-income neighborhoods are the most fragile, the most difficult to create, and the most important to a city. It is the middle class neighborhoods that are the lobby for schools, parks, services, and amenities, areas often ignored by those in the poor and rich neighborhoods. Middle income neighborhoods are made up of people that make a city run: shopkeepers, small business owners, tradespeople, school teachers, firemen and police. It is interesting that Chicago is third in the nation behind New York and Seattle for its number of construction cranes, but in my mind still a failing city.
Gentrification
I think the most misunderstood urban concept is gentrification. When I was initiating revitalization of a very distressed Dallas inner city neighborhood, the chairman of the SMU Real Estate Department periodically had graduate students call me as they were working on a paper or a thesis about gentrification in Dallas. They were wanting to identify and interview tenants who were displaced. I offered each graduate student that called $100 if they could find a single displaced tenant in Old East Dallas, the neighborhood in which I was working. I never had to pay $100 because they were unable to find one. Weekly tenants paying $20 per week rent with no deposit and staying an average of two or three weeks with not paying their rent before they moved on to any number of vacancies on the same block or the same neighborhood was an economic and transient environment that did not cause displacement. Over forty years later, there are still some low-income vacant apartments. Further, within a six-block area, there is economic diversity of single-family homes including those over $2 million on Swiss Avenue and under $200,000 in Mount Auburn. There is also a wide variety of small apartment units, duplexes, and fourplex apartment units in the same neighborhood.
Many speakers throughout the conference had many different opinions on gentrification, but they all agreed it was misunderstood as a concept and in some cases did not even exist as reported.
A speaker stated about one city, “Low-income persons were pushed in and pushed out.” It was also pointed out that in one city 100,000 low-income people were added to the city while only 60,000 high-income people were added to the city. The gentrification voices had been able to keep the conversation solely on the 60,000 high-income people added to the city, not the greater 100,000 of low-income people that had been added to the city.
Vicki Been, professor and former New York City Housing Commissioner, mentioned that 100 neighborhoods in New York had a 10% increase in low-income residents and only 60 neighborhoods had an increase in high-income residents.
Detroit and San Francisco have opposite problems. San Francisco has a dearth of low-income housing and Detroit has an overabundance of low-income housing.
The myth of gentrification and emotional appeal of showing concern and discussing gentrification can be seen in comments made by developer Jack Matthews, someone whose preservation and revitalization work I admire greatly. He knows as much about land acquisition, appreciating land prices and city subsidies as anyone in Dallas. Still, he described a heartbreaking story of potential gentrification if an affordable housing developer bought 50 lots around a $10,000 home owned by a little old lady. He said if once he started building $50,000 homes on these 50 lots, her land value might go up $100,000 to $150,000 over ten years, but she would be forced out in two years because of higher taxes and not realize this profit on her land because her taxes would go up so much in two years she would not be able to keep her house 10 years. This is a sad story, but not true.
Direction of Dallas Determines Wealth Creation for Low-Income Families
My experience is that the Dallas Central Appraisal District keeps very close tabs on the increase and value of $10 million homes, but is not near as interested in constantly reappraising $10,000 homes or lots. The Dallas County Appraisal District usually only reevaluates an entire neighborhood every three years or so. This in itself would mean there would be no tax increases for three or four years. Further, if the developer is buying 50 houses and lots in the neighborhood of this little old lady, presumably he would be buying the property at the same price as her $10,000 house. In the event the appraisal district reappraised the properties in the entire neighborhood before three years, they would find 50 comparable sales of $10,000 further submitting the value of her home at $10,000. Even with new $50,000 homes built around her, the appraisal district cannot compare new $50,000 homes to a $10,000 old house and land. If, however, in two years prices of land soared, the state law could not allow more than 10% increases annually in taxes or a 30% increase over three years. In the third or fourth year after the developer started building houses, if the little old lady’s lot was appraised for a much higher price, the most she could pay that year would be tax on a $1,000 increase in property value. Her increase in taxes for the year would be $30. However, since she has a senior citizen exemption, she is only required to pay half of those taxes or $15 per year. Obviously, the little old lady will not have to move out in two years when the taxes have not gone up, or in three to four years when she is required to only pay an extra $15. If her property went up as Jack Matthews hypothesized, to $100-$150,000, her average annual tax increase over 10 years would be less than $50 per year, hardly enough to make her move.
On the other hand, in 10 years, she would have $100,000-$150,000 equity in her house. Her return on 10 years of slightly increased taxes would be 10,000-20,000%.
All middle-income and even many high-income property owners are burdened by added taxes when their property appreciates in value. However, a low-income person benefits the most by rapid appreciation. We should be rooting for the prices of properties to go up for low-income homeowners because it creates wealth for them. Too many policy makers and politicians want property values in low-income neighborhoods to stagnate so low-income people will remain in these low-income neighborhoods. Projecting potential gentrification horror stories about higher taxes forcing little old ladies out of their homes if new housing is built in their deteriorating neighborhoods discourages politicians to promote or builders to build new homes in deteriorated neighborhoods. Sad stories like this make decision-makers even more reluctant to create new middle-income neighborhoods in Dallas that is good for Dallas and creates real wealth for low-income wage earners.
Density
Every session had thought-provoking comments and ideas about density including the following: “Cities cannot densify their way out of problems” and “California has become a renter society.”
One landlord in California does not rent rooms—he rents a fleet of 1,000 minivans with mattresses in the back at $400/month. This reminds me that architect and city councilperson Pedro Aguirre was onto something when he wrote in the 1973 Dallas Housing Report that Dallas needed to lower building codes for low-income housing. He gave as an example the simple metal structures found in Mexico that were better for people than living under bridges. Politicians’ squeamishness about $400/month 1,200 square foot single-family homes with dirty carpet and rotted boards were still probably better housing for a family than a minivan with a mattress.
Many speakers said that adding density itself does not solve urban problems – “Adding crappy density just makes dense crap.”
Speakers suggested that added density needs to be accompanied with green space and other amenities that offset the debilitating effect that density generally adds to a neighborhood.
While not mentioned at the conference, the most important thing to remember about density is that both renters and homeowners would rather live next to a single-family home than another apartment.
Cities are Fragile
San Francisco is choking from a concentration of wealth and homelessness. Detroit is gasping from once being a city of two million people to becoming a city of 800,000 people. Detroit is my favorite example of the fragility of cities. It is also the city I compared Dallas to in my 1976 thesis on the economic incentives to reverse migration and the inner city neighborhood. In the 1950s and 1960s, Detroit was the strongest city in the nation. It had music, industry, banking and philanthropy. Then from 1968 to 1974, Detroit was in such a decline that the city fathers hired an urban economist to propose a way not to revitalize the city but just to stem the decline. During this period Detroit had the highest safety net of social benefits and the highest unemployment rates\ while Dallas had the lowest social safety net benefits and the lowest unemployment. Over the next 40 years, Detroit continued to plummet while Dallas soared.
Rental Society
The popular avant-garde thought is that millennials, the next generation, love living in apartments and in dense cities, not single-family neighborhoods. Single-family zoned neighborhoods are so out of political and urban planning fashion that they are beginning to be outlawed in cities such as Portland and Minneapolis. Even Dallas, with no neighborhood hearings or notices, blanket-zoned every single-family neighborhood in Dallas with ADU/backyard rental house zoning. Joel Kotkin led the thought that was mentioned by several others, that millennials are about to grow up, have families, and seek homes that come with a yard. The growth in the population of the economic elite and hipsters moving to the city is in decline.
Renters don’t accumulate wealth. Renters are transient and don’t contribute to the stability or long-term sociability of a neighborhood. The more low-income renters are pushed to high-income neighborhoods, the further they are moved away from the potential wealth creation of owning a home.
It is interesting that there is so much preoccupation with gentrification and the resulting displacement of people from their longtime neighborhoods. At the same time, the anti- gentrification voices advocate a rental society of moving low-income residents across town to high-income neighborhoods which removes people from their long term neighborhoods. And a rental society is based on the very notion of transience rather than stable long term neighborhoods.
Parking Requirements
Twenty-seven years ago, I wrote an op-ed post in the Dallas Morning News that called for parking requirements in downtown Dallas to be eliminated. I argued that a developer spending $20 million on a building had a better idea of what parking requirements their building needed rather than a $40,000 per year planner. I also suggested that the “mom and pop” owner of a dry cleaner who had seven parking spaces that were mostly empty were unable to expand their business because of a city requirement of additional parking spaces, inhibited the vitality and the economic growth of a city. One was able to see how sacrosanct parking requirements in Dallas and across the country were by the Letter to the Editor that the Dallas City Planning Director wrote to the Dallas Morning News. Her written response to my op-ed was so vicious that the City Manager at the time, John Ware, required her to send me an apology.
How things have changed. It was music to my ears to hear the Santa Monica mayor Rick Cole explained that there are seven parking spaces for every car in Santa Monica. So they recently eliminated all parking requirements in downtown Santa Monica. He used the same argument that owners have a better idea of their parking needs than do planners. Eliminating parking requirements would positively impact the direction of Dallas and its efficient growth.
Wealth Versus Income
Dedrick Asante-Muhammad, Chief of Equity and Inclusion, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, provided an important economic insight. Everyone is focused on income inequality and that blacks make only 65 cents on the dollar of what whites earn. However, the much more disturbing statistic is that the average white family has an average wealth of $110,000 while the average wealth for black families is $4,000. Creating wealth for minorities and low-income persons should be one of the highest priorities of a city. However, almost every current urban policy curtails and diminishes the possibility of wealth creation for minorities and low-income families. Moving low-income families to high-income areas in order them to be close to jobs and higher wages requires they become renters. This is a wealth killer. Density is created by apartments that by definition create transience. Transience is also a wealth killer. The cost of a move from one apartment to another apartment costs more than the total wealth of most of these minority renters. Escalating rent throughout a lifetime is also a wealth killer. Urban planners advocating density and apartments in high-income areas are imprisoning low-income families in a no-wealth state of poverty regardless of their income.
Prissy Standards for Affordable Housing
Politicians, planners, and policy experts predictably call for better housing conditions for low-income persons. The mantra is they should have at least minimum housing standards. The problem is minimum housing standards have been set for middle-income and rich families. I think of the artists, academics, and young professionals who in past decades purchased and moved into substandard, falling-down houses and on weekends cleaned them up and fixed them up. Many low- or middle-income families would prefer a comfortable apartment over a deteriorated house. The deteriorated house, however, provides an opportunity for wealth creation and neighborhood creation. The more low-income people can buy homes in any condition, the better their economic prospects become and the better the prospects for the neighborhood become.
Income Groups Are Becoming Further Segregated
Klaus Desmet of SMU mentioned that income groups in Dallas are growing further apart to the north and to the south. The current vision is to move low-income families to high-income neighborhoods rather than as Cullum Clark suggested in his remarks that jobs should be created in low-income areas.
Urban Restrictions
For centuries urban growth restrictions and policies have been either in favor of more density and less sprawl or less density which has prompted people to move further away from the city center. Highly restrictive and regulated cities are seeing neighboring cities and towns with explode with growth. Planners often propose regulations and politicians pass laws because they sound good without considering any of the obvious consequences.
ADUs/Backyard Rental Houses
There were only passing references to ADUs and how they that might be part of the solution to inclusive urban growth. It is my opinion that ADUs disrupt the very neighborhoods that should be coddled. There are dozens of reasons why ADUs are harmful to neighborhoods. They are also unnecessary when additional apartments and dwelling units can be placed nearby or in areas in need of redevelopment.
Urban Hippocratic Oath: “Do No Harm to Urban Neighborhoods”
This Urban Hippocratic Oath should be the foundation of any urban policy. While no one from the main stage of the conference mentioned this Urban Hippocratic Oath, many said that beautiful neighborhoods and middle-income neighborhoods should be protected to give continuity for the future. Making existing neighborhoods and their success a priority should be a central theme for the future direction of Dallas.
Affordable Housing Subsidies
One of the most interesting points made was that developers need to intentionally add human dignity to their low-income housing projects. A beautiful playground at the front of an affordable housing project saves the school child embarrassment when the school bus drops them off because their classmates think they live in a cool place. Visible amenities and green spaces also make the project more palatable and beneficial to the neighborhood.
Affordable housing developers all agreed that it was very hard to double up on local, state and federal subsidy programs. The red tape on acquiring multiple government subsidies usually exceeds the economic time limit for a project.
An interesting point was made about urban opportunity zones that provide incentives to developers to build in these zones. If a developer receives a $10,000 project subsidy, the sellers of the land quickly recognize this and raise the price of their land $10,000. This leads me to believe that opportunity zones should be large enough that the owners still feel like there is a lottery effect and they cannot immediately raise their prices by the cost of the subsidy.
The conference also included discussion on how much money from the government was going into the pockets of developers to create affordable housing or other projects desired by the city. Dallas is fortunate to have quality, well-intended developers receiving city money. However, this topic reminds me that most of the public corruption in Dallas has centered around housing subsidies for developers. I recall in the 1980s, a key city planner was privately steering zoning in Deep Ellum to benefit one developer in Deep Ellum to the detriment of several hundred other Deep Ellum owners. The city planner, right after the zoning passed, was hired by the developer. Within a year the court by summary judgment overturned the zoning, Dallas passed an ethics law, and the developer was investigated and eventually went to jail for falsely receiving government housing subsidies.
I continue to think there are many ways to provide or encourage affordable housing beyond what is built by developers who receive money from the government. This flow of money from the government to developers that has caused Dallas public officials and housing developers to continue to go to jail since the 1980s. The higher the price of the neighborhood where low-income housing is built, the more government money has to flow to developers. Projects outside of government subsidized housing also has the benefit of possibly being more interesting and less disruptive.
One of the affordable housing developers at the conference encouraged an architect who was in the audience to design and build interesting one-off affordable homes. This was a comment and idea I very much appreciated.
Alternatives to Government Paying Developers
The government will always be paying developers to build low-income housing. However, there are alternative ways to provide low-income housing. For decades in Dallas, there has been an abundance of very inexpensive homes. Many of these homes were inherited from family members and then torn down because they were in bad shape and there was not a marketplace to match up these homes with potential buyers.
Over 20 years ago I wrote an op-ed published in the Dallas Morning News that suggested the creation of a database of every home valued under $10,000 owned by an absentee owner. In today’s economy, now the price of these tracked homes might need to be adjusted to homes valued under $50,000. Nonprofits and churches could create a list of potential homeowners who live in the zip codes of these inexpensive homes and help match up these potential homeowners with these inexpensive homes. Professionals, like accountants, attorneys, and real estate agents that help build Habitat for Humanity houses might help identify and coordinate owner financing from some of these absentee owners who own these inexpensive homes. The churches and nonprofits might also help the home buyers fix up the home. I have seen firsthand the positive result of a church coordinating owner financing on a $10,000 home 50 years ago. My next door neighbor purchased such a home, continues to live in the home, and has subsequently had four generations of children also periodically live in the home that is surrounded by renovated homes in a historic district.
Building one-off affordable homes is another approach. Dallas has many people interested in affordable housing and investing in Dallas. Here are some exciting possibilities of how this could be accomplished.
1) Architects, either by themselves or teaming up with a friend, design, build, and invest in a single affordable home or duplex for low-income families. While interesting architecture for an affordable home might not be practical for an affordable housing development company, it could be a great project for an individual and make a great impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Besides individuals making a philanthropic contribution, because Dallas is an economically vibrant city, it could possibly even be a good economic investment.
2) Individual investors, not reporting to shareholders, could renovate a home or two or adapt a small commercial building for affordable homes. This one-off building of affordable homes would also provide low-income families and the individual investors with personal interaction that would be mutually beneficial. Banks, as Pegasus Bank in Dallas has done, might invest in an affordable home to fix up and rent out to a family, or invest in small apartments and specifically rent to low-income working families.
3) For decades there have been small clubs or groups of friends investing in stocks. Why not have affordable home clubs? Small investments from club members could be pooled to buy and fix up a single family home to rent or sell specifically to a low-income family.
4) High-end homebuilders might hire the architect of their expensive spec homes to design a small affordable home that the homebuilder rents out or sells to a low-income family.
The city, rather than subsidizing developers, would invest in specific neighborhoods where these one-off projects might thrive. New curbs, sidewalks, streets, streetlights, and mowing overgrown vacant lots could create a pleasant environment for both low-income families and middle-income families and be a place where people would like to invest in or donate to affordable homes.
The Dallas Advantage
Dallas has a great advantage over any other city because it is economically thriving and it has an abundance of cheap underused land. Currently, city politicians and city planners are looking to throw away that advantage and direct affordable housing to the most expensive land and neighborhoods.
Inspired Idea
I have been involved in successfully revitalizing a neighborhood. As a result, I understand the steps and dynamics needed for revitalization efforts to be a success. Most of these initiatives can be easily replicated in southern Dallas. However, I remain puzzled by neighborhoods that are made up of mostly vacant land or have housing without much potential emotional or aesthetic appeal. Recently, the solution came to me when I read about cities like Minneapolis and Portland that are beginning to do away with single-family zoning. When Dallas joined this anti-single-family zoning hysteria by blanket-zoning the entire city for backyard rental houses, deliberately diluting single family neighborhoods, the solution came to me for these architecturally uninteresting neighborhoods in South Dallas.
The solution is for some of the distressed neighborhoods in southern Dallas to offer precisely what is being banished in the other neighborhoods across the city: protected single-family neighborhoods. Specified southern Dallas neighborhoods could be a safe haven for single-family homes. The property owners in these neighborhoods could place 50-year deed restrictions on a critical mass of contiguous land that restricts the lots to strictly single-family homes. Even if the city changed the zoning from single-family, the deed restrictions would let the homeowners and future homeowners know their single-family neighborhood would always be protected from multi-family intrusions.
Rather than these neighborhoods being perceived as distressed, they would be the beacon for long term stability and the security of protected neighborhoods. These once distressed areas might become some of the most desirable places in Dallas. People moving into Dallas from high-density cities would find these neighborhoods with single-family homes and yards charming, quiet, and relaxed for their families. We need to remember renters and homeowners both prefer to live next door to a single-family home rather than a multi-family apartment. The city could also support the effort of single-family deed-restricted neighborhoods by providing new sidewalks, curbs and streetlights.
Conclusion
Dallas has outperformed other cities because it did not copy best practices of bad policies. Dallas should continue to create the best policies that allow the city to thrive with inclusive urban growth.
This piece originally appeared on Dallas Architecture Blog.
Douglas Newby is a real estate broker who initiated the largest the largest rezoning in Dallas - 2,000 properties primarily in use as multi family rental properties to single family zoning. In 1979, in Dallas he created the first Restoration House of the Year Award, and for the Dallas Chapter of the AIA organized a city wide survey of architect designed and Significant homes. His TEDx talk is Homes That Make Us Happy. His website is: ArchitecturallySignificantHomes.com. Blog is DallasArchitectureBlog.com
Photo: (From Left) Cullum Clark, Henry Cisneros, Peter L. Scher and Joel Kotkin, part of a panel at the Policies to Promote Inclusive Urban Growth conference.
The Dallas Morning News editorial, A Blow to Affordable Housing, illuminates the opposition to the affordable housing apartment complex by the historically Black neighborhood, Hamilton Park. They are joined by the ethnically diverse neighborhood area of Stults Road in their opposition to this proposed apartment complex named Cypress Creek at Forest Lane. The Dallas Morning News should be complimented for keeping the focus on the need to chip away at the Dallas shortage of 20,000 affordable homes. The Dallas Morning News should be lauded even more for opening up the discussion of the potential benefits versus the potential detriments of inserting developer subsidized housing in neighborhoods that don’t want them, including the historic black neighborhood of Hamilton Park.
Are Low-Income People Better Off Being Relocated to a More Expensive Neighborhood?
The Dallas Morning News editorial begs the question: Are low-income people better off being relocated to subsidized apartments in more expensive parts of town, or would they be better off having even less expensive rents in new affordable housing built on less expensive land in their current neighborhood? Would low- and moderate-income families receive a greater benefit if government money went to improve the infrastructure of their low-income neighborhoods rather than to improve the bottom line of affordable housing developers?
Single Family Homes Are Often Less Expensive Than the Affordable Housing Apartments That Replace Them
Half of the single-family homes in Hamilton Park are valued under $100,000 with some of these single-family homes having a market value as low $60,000. The charming home pictured at the top of the article at 12004 Hoblitzelle Drive is a good example of a single-family home in Hamilton Park. This 918 square foot home has a market value of $77,000 which is $83 per square foot.
The average construction cost of a new 3-story apartment complex is $150 – $225 per square foot. At the lowest end of this construction cost, a new 1,000 square foot apartment would cost $150,000 to build at Cypress Creek at Forest Lane. The neighborhood homes at Hamilton Park that are 1,000 square feet would generally cost less than $100,000.
The mortgage payment of a 100% fully financed $100,000 home is only $550 per month. If the cost of owning a single-family home can be the same or less than the cost to build an affordable apartment, shouldn’t the focus of affordable housing be on making single family homes more accessible and attractive for purchase by low- and moderate-income homebuyers?
Low-Income Homebuyers Have to Compete With Affordable Housing Developers, Subsidized By the Government, To Buy a Home
Currently, the government is subsidizing developers purchase of low-income houses that they will tear down so they can build affordable apartment units in their place. Low- and moderate-income homebuyers are not receiving government subsidies to buy these same inexpensive homes to fix up and to live in themselves. Can you imagine how annoyed a middle-income or high-income homebuyer would be if they had to compete for the purchase of a home with a developer whose bid for the home was being subsidized by the government? The price of affordable single-family homes should not be driven up artificially by the subsidies developers receive to buy those homes out from under willing homebuyers.
Single-Family Neighborhoods Are Beneficial to Black, White, and Mixed Neighborhoods
My friend, Dale Long, who I first met when we were classmates in Leadership Dallas 30 years ago, discussed with me the single-family neighborhood where he grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. While Birmingham was so segregated, he could not even go to school a block away from him, he lived in a stable good neighborhood. He said when a large affordable housing apartment complex was built across the street from him, at first it was shiny and new, but it quickly deteriorated. Dale told me that it deteriorated to the point that he never would have let his own children get near that apartment complex if he still lived in Birmingham. Dale, instead, has lived for years in a single-family neighborhood in Dallas where he brought up his children.
Adding Affordable Housing Apartments and Density Destabilizes A Neighborhood
Usually, it is middle income white homeowners who are villainized for objecting to low-income apartment developments found in their neighborhoods. While affordable housing apartment complexes might not cause problems, there is certainly a preponderance of evidence that adding residential density to a neighborhood can destabilize the neighborhood and foster problems. When there were destructive protests in Dallas earlier in the year, the police set a curfew and added extra police for an area that stopped at the boundary of single-family zoned neighborhoods. Even the police recognized density causes problems. A better solution would be to improve the infrastructure in the neglected neighborhoods and encourage the renovation of the inexpensive housing stock for rental housing or, even better, for home ownership. The monthly cost of owning a home is often less than the cost of renting a new affordable apartment in an affordable housing apartment complex. The cost of an existing inexpensive home is routinely less than the cost of building one new apartment unit in an affordable housing complex.
Free Uber Tokens to Transport People to Jobs Is Cheaper than Relocating People to Live Near Jobs
There are those concerned that the higher paying jobs are found in the better neighborhoods and they suggest that is why we need to build low-income apartments in expensive neighborhoods. Free Uber tokens for the 15- or 20-minute commute costs a lot less than relocating residents from their neighborhood to subsidized developer affordable housing complexes in expensive neighborhoods.
Being Good Stewards of Our Neighborhood Is the Answer
Organic Urbanism allows neighborhoods and people to flourish. In contrast, cities routinely try to plan and push people to places to fit a narrative. Subsidizing developers is not the answer. The city of Dallas being good stewards of our stable neighborhoods and good stewards of our neglected neighborhoods is the answer.
Douglas Newby is a national award-wining real estate broker who writes about real estate, cities, architecture and Organic Urbansim. He gave the TEDx Talk Homes That Make Us Happy. You can read more about him and his work on his website Architecturally SignificantHomes: DougNewby.com and on his blog DouglasNewby.com.
The Dallas city manager and housing director are proposing a devastating blanket zoning change: allowing ADUs (additional dwelling units), better known as backyard rental houses, in single-family zoned neighborhoods. This change would allow a 44-foot wide by 30-foot tall rental house to be built on the back of a standard 50‑foot wide by 150-foot deep lot. Backyard rental houses would deforest the older neighborhoods, undermine neighborhood stability, accelerate gentrification, reduce diversity of housing, and diminish attainably priced opportunities for homebuyers.
The Older Neighborhoods of Dallas Are Green While Other Cities Are Dense
The life force of Dallas is its original neighborhoods, which have layers of towering trees, lush landscape, gardens, and a natural habitat for wildlife and singing birds. This is in contrast to most cities where urban planners strive to make cities denser and grittier, with neighborhoods geared towards mass transportation. In Dallas life is more pleasant. One can still stroll through shaded neighborhoods and easily drive five or ten minutes to favorite destinations.
Dallas continues to rapidly evolve in a positive way. However, allowing backyard rental houses to be built would derail the distinguishing characteristics and lovely momentum of Dallas’ older neighborhoods. The city manager and housing director are soft-pedaling backyard rental houses as just adding “gentle density,” “granny flats,” “mother-in-law suites,” and “ADUs” to increase affordable housing in Dallas’ finest neighborhoods.
Backyard Rental Homes Will Replace 80′ Trees
This 40-foot two-story structure replaced an 80-foot tall, 100 year old tree. It is a several bay garage with a large storage space above. It is not a rental house, but shows the mass on a 50-foot wide lot.
This option is not gentle. There are no proposed limits on the number of these backyard rental houses allowed in any neighborhood. They will replace 80-foot tall pecan trees and other mature trees in backyards and disrupt the positive direction of older neighborhoods.
Adding Density Erodes Prices of Homes
5011 Junius Street sold for $10,500 in 1907 and after density was added to the neighborhood it resold 70 years later, in 1977, for $7,500.
Over the decades, economic studies have shown that adding multi-family zoning and density decrease the prices and stability of neighborhoods. While absentee owners find two houses on a lot more attractive, homeowners find this less attractive.
Density Was Added to Munger Place – Value Subtracted
An interesting case study is Munger Place. In 1905, it was the finest residence park in the South, at a time when Highland Park was struggling. “Gentle density” was added—rooming houses, apartments carved out of single-family homes, and ultimately apartment zoning. By 1974 the City of Dallas Housing Report identified Munger Place as the worst neighborhood in Dallas with the highest disease rate, the highest murder rate, the greatest number of homes being demolished, the most transient population, the highest crime rate, and no building permits issued for new homes for the past several years. The added density and resulting transience had a profound negative effect. A home at 5011 Junius in Munger Place that sold in 1907 for $10,500 resold in 1977 for $7,500—a 30% decline over 70 years.
City Planners Have Love Affair With Density for Density’s Sake
Despite the economic havoc that adding density and increasing multi-family zoning has had on older neighborhoods, the call to add density in the inner city neighborhoods is not new. For 75 years urban planners have been pushing for more residential density in cities. Rooming houses became common in the 1940s. In the 1970s, mixed use zoning became the zoning du jour. In the past several years, ADUs in backyards have been the latest academic, avant-garde, urban planner movement.
Backyard Rental Houses Accelerate Gentrification
Craftsman cottages are small houses framed by large backyard trees. Neither will likely not survive with backyard rental house zoning in place.
Urban planners claim that by adding backyard rental houses gentrification will be slowed, there will be more affordable housing in improving neighborhoods, and seniors will be better able to afford to stay in their homes. An example of this national infatuation for increased neighborhood density is seen in the recent New York Times June 13th op-ed column by Diana Lind, Bring Back Rooming Houses. Lind writes, “We need to disrupt the model of single-family homes.” She also says, “A font of affordable housing exists.” She explains, “It is the wasted space of single-family homes … backyards … that could be zoned as shared space.” Lind mentions that some forward-thinking cities get it.
Backyard Rental Houses Encourage Landlords to Replace Homeowners
I, on the other hand, do not think her ideas are forward-thinking. While she thinks backyards are wasted spaces, I think they are an oasis of trees. Rental houses built in the “wasted spaces of backyards” will deforest the older neighborhoods and accelerate gentrification.
Backyard rental houses and increased density encourage landlords to replace homeowners and concrete to replace streets. This has a domino effect. Neighborhoods have either a positive or negative effect on each other. For instance, Highland Park has even benefited from the resurgence of the bordering Dallas tree-lined neighborhoods.
Attainably Priced Houses Are Reduced, Gentrification Increases
In addition to economically and aesthetically disrupting the neighborhoods, backyard rental houses accelerate gentrification and reduce the attainable priced options for homebuyers.
Rental House Loans Hurt Seniors, Not Investors
The city planners claim that seniors can offset the cost of their homes and remain in their homes longer by building backyard rental houses. This is not economically accurate. First, building a small rental house is very expensive per square foot. We have seen this on the cost of the 400 sf homeless cottages built in Dallas. Their construction cost was well over $200/sf. The 700 sf backyard rental house would cost approximately $200,000 or $300,000 if it was built over a three- or four-car garage.
Seniors Want Simpler Lives, Becoming Landlords Complicates Lives
Seniors, who probably want simpler lives, would become landlords with all the accompanying headaches that it entails, responsibilities, liabilities, and pressure of keeping it rented to pay off their $200,000 to $300,000 loans.
Backyard Rental House Removes A Senior Tax Freeze
But that’s not the worst of it. Once a new rent house is built, the tax freeze is taken off the house. The original house is reappraised for its full value and the value of the backyard rental house is added. A new senior tax freeze is reset but at a much higher amount. If seniors want to get into the rental business to offset their own home costs, they would be better off keeping the tax freeze in place on their homes and buying $200,000 rent houses nearby. If they had any cash flow beyond the cost of their loan, they could then apply that to the operating costs of their own home.
Backyard Rental Houses Lower Number of Affordable Rents
Also, the backyard rental house plan does not net more affordable apartments for renters. For instance, Mt. Auburn is a neighborhood just eight blocks away from the $2 million homes on Swiss Avenue. Here, one can purchase a 1,150 sf home for $175,000. These homes are 50% larger than a new 700 sf backyard rental house which would have a higher monthly rental rate because they are new. There will also be investor pressure to buy the $175,000 Mt. Auburn house because they can now build two houses on its lot.
Small Houses Will Be Torn Down for Investor Template of 2,800 sf Main House and 700 sf Rental
Investors would be given an incentive to tear down the existing home and build a 2,800 sf $700,000 house. This is the minimum square footage they would need in order to build a 700 sf rental house in the backyard. The result is a $700,000 home replaces an attainably priced $200,000 home, and the backyard rental house costs more to rent per month than did the original $175,000 home. In fact, there would be an incentive to make all the neighborhoods a template of 2,800 sf main houses and 700 sf backyard rental houses.
Junius Heights-Style Homes With 1,800 sf Also In Jeopardy
Junius Heights cottages will be candidates for expansion to 2,800 sf to allow 700 sf backyard rental houses, replacing trees as pictured.
In Junius Heights, adjacent to Swiss Avenue, the 1,800 sf houses cost $300,000 to $450,000—still attainable prices for many homeowners. By allowing backyard rental houses, these Junius Heights homes would also become targets for investors. Investors would add 1,000 sf to these 1,800 sf. homes to make them 2,800 sf, allowing them to build the maximum 700 sf rental house in the backyard.
City Planners’ Template of 2,800 sf Main House/700 sf Rental Destroys Diversity of Housing
The backyard rental house proposal, if enacted, would make all the older Dallas neighborhoods susceptible to the investor/builder template of 2,800 sf main houses and 700 s. backyard rental houses. Along with mature trees, the rich diversity of housing, sizes, prices, and architectural styles is lost forever.
Backyard Trees Soften Retail Streets
The backyard rental house proposal does more than just disrupt the economic stability and housing diversity in the older neighborhoods known for their tree-lined streets, such as Old East Dallas, North Oak Cliff, and South Dallas. They are also known for their even larger trees that are clearly visible behind the houses, and it is not just the residential neighborhoods that benefit from these tall trees, but the retail streets in these neighborhoods.
From Houndstooth coffee house one can see Louie’s Bar with 70 foot tree in neighbor’s backyard.
Henderson Avenue Benefits From Backyard Trees
Henderson Avenue is a vibrant street of retail, restaurants, and grocery stores that leads to Ross Avenue and Lower Greenville Avenue. Softening this neighborhood commercial street are 80-foot tall trees, like those one can see from Houndstooth Coffee, located on Henderson Avenue. These are found behind the 100-year-old residences beyond Henderson, like this one on Monarch Street behind Louie’s Bar and Restaurant. The mature trees in the backyards of the houses abutting the commercial uses are what give Henderson a neighborhood feel. Otherwise, we might as well be in the commercial districts of the West End, Deep Ellum, or Uptown.
Global Warming, Pestilence, Neighborhood Ecosystem Disrupted
The loss of trees is more than just an aesthetic loss. Backyard rental houses contribute to global warming, invite pestilence, and disrupt the environmental ecosystems of the neighborhood urban gardens.
Global Warming
A canopy of trees keeps homes cooler, requiring less air conditioning. Shaded backyards with unblocked breezes cool the yards and porches, encouraging homeowners to spend time outside, and reducing the amount of air conditioning needed inside. The rooftops and concrete that replace these backyard trees collect heat and radiate that heat outward to the neighboring homes, neighborhood and city.
Pestilence
West Nile Mosquitoes Do Not Like Density
The summer breezes that flow through the trees have more than just a cooling effect. Breezes are the best defense against the small West Nile Virus-carrying mosquito. The large field mosquito can fight through the wind. The West Nile mosquito likes still air in highly developed areas, breeding in bottle caps and other small amounts of water. The breezes and open areas make East Dallas much safer than neighborhoods like North Dallas, with larger footprints of homes and development. Backyard 40-foot wide rental houses on 50-foot wide lots block any breeze. These backyard rent houses invite the West Nile mosquito.
Environmental Impact
Cooper’s Hawks in backyards cause an ebb and flow with a variety of songbirds that return when hawk leaves.
In the older neighborhoods of Dallas, with layers of flowering trees, one will see Cooper’s hawks, egrets, and owls. Also seen are songbirds of many varieties, pollinating hummingbirds, bees, and butterflies, along with much wildlife. This natural environment and rich ecosystem is eradicated with backyard rental houses.
Density Creates Dire Consequences
Adding backyard rental houses might sound like a short-term solution, but it would have negative short-term and dire long-term consequences. As cities around the world become more prosperous, they become less dense. Both homeowners and apartment renters prefer to live in single-family home neighborhoods.
People Are Flocking to Cities Without Density
The people in denser cities like New York and Chicago are flocking to less dense cities like Dallas. Every city has a distinct personality that should be further developed. Dallas is an open, green city that is easy to move around. Also, it is full of potential.
Employment and Housing Now Have More Flexibility
One half of the geographic area is on the south side of the Trinity River which houses only 10% of the Dallas population. This geographically beautiful part of Dallas has unlimited possibilities for affordable homes, expensive homes, and new jobs. Autonomous transportation and delivery systems will be implemented in a few years, eliminating congestion and changing development patterns and removing the need to live near places of employment. Further, 50% of workers even now can work remotely. The future evolution of technology and development will eliminate any benefit of inserting rent houses in backyards of single family homes.
Dallas Should Celebrate Its Strength – Revel in Low Density
Rather than undermining the economic and aesthetic stability of Dallas’ finest neighborhoods, inviting disease, accelerating global warming, and eradicating the rich natural ecosystem, Dallas should celebrate its strengths and potential. The finest neighborhoods are like gardens that should be tended and nourished, so they can continue to flourish. The Dallas city manager, housing director, and planning director should concentrate even more energy on revitalization, conservation, and development of the distressed neighborhoods. Rather than diminish the neighborhoods north of the Trinity River, the southern half of the city should be cultivated, planted and nourished so it, too, can flourish.
South of the Trinity River Should Be City Planners’ Playground
It is in the southern half of Dallas where there is an abundance of vacant property, deteriorating neighborhoods, and development opportunities. Many of the current avant-garde housing ideas from the 1940s can be explored—shared housing, rooming houses, adding extra kitchens and apartments within single-family homes, and allowing rent houses in backyards—in the neighborhoods that are deteriorating, being abandoned and that are ripe for new development.
It is essential we protect the positively evolving neighborhoods from more density. We do not want to destabilize the good neighborhoods by adding more apartment zoning. We do not want to return to the Dallas housing policy of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s that wreaked havoc on the single family neighborhoods. Has the city of Dallas conducted a study to see how many more rental units can be built under the current zoning? How many more can be built near single-family homes?
Dallas Had Largest Multi-Family Zoned Area Rezoned Single-Family in the Country
In 1976, the largest rezoning case in Dallas history consisted of rezoning 100 blocks of 2,000 mostly rental properties from multi-family zoning to single-family zoning. This single-family rezoning was in an era when urban planners, including the award-winning ones in Dallas, were calling for more density, not less. The property owners, with the support of the property rights mayor and developer Robert Folsom, prevailed. The largest single-family rezoning in the nation passed.
FNMA Selected Munger Place for Its First Inner City Loans
Because of this single-family rezoning, FNMA selected Munger Place and Old East Dallas for its first inner city lending demonstration project. Old East Dallas gradually became more single-family. Many years later, FNMA called this neighborhood their most successful inner city lending revitalization project. Rather than return to the bad housing policies of more density and rental zoning that devastated the finest old neighborhoods of Dallas, we should embrace the single-family zoning that revitalized them and made them stronger.
Dallas Neighborhoods Become Increasingly Attractive
Our single-family zoned neighborhoods, many of them now also historic and conservation districts, are increasingly attractive to residents in Dallas and residents in the denser cities across the country that are moving to Dallas to find a home that will make them happy and to enjoy a lovelier way of life.
This piece first appeared on Dallas Architecture Blog.
Douglas Newby is a real estate broker who initiated the largest the largest rezoning in Dallas - 2,000 properties primarily in use as multi family rental properties to single family zoning. In 1979, in Dallas he created the first Restoration House of the Year Award, and for the Dallas Chapter of the AIA organized a city wide survey of architect designed and Significant homes. His TEDx talk is Homes That Make Us Happy. His website is: ArchitecturallySignificantHomes.com. Blog is DallasArchitectureBlog.com
I found this project particularly interesting because an accomplished Dallas architect designed this Texas modern home for another architect, one that is the president CEO of the second largest architecture firm in the country.
Many people called me when it was discovered there was notification sent to the Texas Historical Commission of intent to demolish 10 Nonesuch Road, the home Stanley Marcus built. I expressed to these callers that the Lovvorns were a lovely family, deeply committed to Lakewood, where Mark Lovvorn grew up, loved the home, its history and architectural pedigree.
As a real estate broker in Dallas, Texas, the question inevitably comes up, where are the president and first lady buying a home in Dallas? More often the question comes in the form of “Is it true the President and Mrs. Bush have purchased a specific property?” and then they state the location of a mansion or an incredibly expensive lot.
George and Laura Bush are moving to Mayflower Estates, a little known Preston Hollow estate area neighborhood of just over 100 houses.
Somehow, when you walk into an old home with tall ceilings, hand-crafted and carved wood details, and original hardware and light fixtures you find that time begins to slow down and you can almost remember a Christmas in an era you are way too young to remember.
While cities across the country crumble economically, Dallas will emerge as the nation’s strongest and most exciting city in 2009. In these gloomy times, while the country seems to have so little to cheer about, the nation will notice the great achievements and celebration taking place in Dallas.
While it has always been counterintuitive, when the economy is down, the best residential real estate projects get better. Homeowners and homebuyers turn from quick, speculative investments to properties with solid, long-term aesthetic and architectural value.
Turtle Creek Park is a secluded, 39-house neighborhood across the stone bridge from Turtle Creek. It is framed by Turtle Creek and the Katy Trail, with Rock Creek plunging down the center of this topographically delightful neighborhood of winding streets.
A spectacular home designed by Highland Park and Preston Hollow architect Hal Yoakum just came on the market, only one estate home away from the Bushes.