It’s happening a lot. I’ve seen in it Foster-Powell. I know it’s going on in Mt. Scott-Arleta. And from the gist of this article, many other neighborhoods are experiencing a spate of demolished homes being replaced with shiny, new versions, too.
While many of the new homes have better appeal than what previously existed—I’ve seen neighbors clap at the word of vacant, boarded up homes being demolished—the process of demolishing old homes for newer, denser construction has apparently raised some concerns. Or so says this Oregonian article.
In general, the concern seems to stem from lack of notification by developers, specifically in regards to notice of demolition. The secondary concern, as reported in the article, arises from what’s being built in place of the demolished homes: sometimes bigger homes that dwarf neighboring houses and/or don’t mix with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Oh, and then there’s that sticking point of increased property values…and the can of worms that comes with that discussion.
On the flip side—and this is purely based on observation—many of the newer homes are replacing dilapidated structures that A) pose safety issues, B) create nuisance concerns (i.e. overgrown yards, piling trash, squatters) and/or C) sit vacant and create the dreaded “ghost town” effect. In the case of nuisance issues, many people have become overjoyed when the bulldozer arrives and permits for new development are filed.
This isn’t always the case, though. And not all demolished homes were dilapidated, housing squatters, or creating distaste in the neighbors. And a lot of the infill development is a speculative play by developers hoping to cash in on a semi-lucrative real estate market.
But is that necessarily a bad thing? This is a sticky issue, for sure. What has been your experience with new construction in the neighborhood, especially as it pertains to infill housing and the razing of old homes?