Neighborhood Life Cycles

[Guest danax]

We talk a lot about how some neighborhoods are turning "ghetto", while others appear ghetto but are moving out of that state, while a few live a sheltered existence forever, either never seeing a decline or never rising above their original state. Is there a "typical" cycle that neighborhoods must go through? What factors are triggers that cause these states to change from one to the next? Which stage is your neighborhood in? Can we accurately predict where neighborhoods are headed next?

I think the factors that cause neighborhoods to change are both real and perceived. Real, as in homes becoming older and more obsolete with time, maybe the 30-40 year mark is typical which might put a neighborhood in a danger zone of being passed over by the original class of buyer and seeing prices decline in relation to newer houses, therefore becoming more attractive to lower income people and investors, who buy them to install renters. Perceived factors might be things in the street that scare off potential buyers; a few shabby yards and houses, graffiti, sneakers hanging from powerlines, cars parked on lawns, etc. Then, if people perceive the area to be bad or declining, it becomes that way even if it's really not. To use a biological analogy, the individuals that cause the negative appearance to begin might be looked at as decomposers who break down the ecosystem and, if not stopped, attract other decomposing organisms.

We have a lot of neighborhoods around Beltway 8 built in the 70s and 80s that could be headed for declining cycles. Also, we have some close-in neighborhoods that seem to have gone through a complete cycle, including death, and are being re-born as a completely new incarnation. Rice Military comes to mind.

Any thoughts?

[travelguy_73]

We talk a lot about how some neighborhoods are turning "ghetto", while others appear ghetto but are moving out of that state, while a few live a sheltered existence forever, either never seeing a decline or never rising above their original state. Is there a "typical" cycle that neighborhoods must go through?  What factors are triggers that cause these states to change from one to the next? Which stage is your neighborhood in? Can we accurately predict where neighborhoods are headed next?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first thought that came to mind was the effect of road/freeway development. The fastest way to "kill" a neighborhood is to either cut through it with a freeway or widen a traditionally two-lane neighborhood road into a full-fledged parkway.

This takes the "typical" cycle you noted above and accelerates it tremendously.

Granted, there are exceptions (Buffalo Spdwy through West U, Kirby through River Oaks), but in general freeway development is responsible for the decline of more at-risk innercity and early suburban (30's-60's) neighborhoods than I care to think about.

[Subdude]

That is a good description of how neighborhoods decline. I have heard that typical residences are "engineered" to have a lifespan of about 40-50 years. It would be hard to verify that, but it seems that besides physical condition, neighborhoods get less fashionable as they age, plus older houses aren't as well suited to current expectations for houses (large kitchens, media rooms, bigger garages, etc.). Another factor is demographics. Older neighborhoods sometimes have a high concentration of older people, who may be less willing or able to spend money on significant upgrades. When West U was filled with those little bungalow houses they were often lived in by elderly people who had bought in when new. So it makes sense that typical neighborhoods will decline at some point. What I wonder is why some neighborhoods are reborn and others, as danax said, stay in sub-optimal condition. In Houston, the reborn areas seem to be inside the loop (Heights, Bellaire), but other areas inside the loop (Third Ward), haven't had as much of a comeback. Maybe it's just a matter of time.

[Casual Observer]

I think the only way 3rd ward could ever make a comeback is with a gentrification movement like 4th ward. I know its not popular - but what are your other choices?

[sevfiv]

so many factors running together - all concluding with money.

the cycle would begin again with the:

condemn-seize-rebuild-homogenize-sell and make craploads of $$ formula.

look at bellaire...the original homes were built in the early fifties. most if not all of the lower income (not low income by any means) families are out. developers tear down and pop up a new house within seconds (relative to the community) and shiny new people move in.

an aside - an old neighbor of mine has lived in her house since the fifties. she can barely afford the taxes on her fixed income, so she will have to move soon. and she gets fliers on her door EVERY day from developers.

so in conclusion, i might have to agree with casual observer about gentrification. most people are unwilling to make do with what is already there.

[HeightsGuy]

I think location and original quality of an area's homes are very important. Danax, take West U versus your area. In West U, the location was more important than the original construction, so most became teardowns. In Eastwood, I believe fewer will be torn down in the coming years as the area won't support teardowns of well-built older homes. Bellaire has a good location, but much of the original immediate post-war housing was not built to last like West U's and Eastwoods brick bumgalos.

I think Houston's future problems will be in the homes built in the 70s-80s that ring the beltway and to a certain extent 1960/highway 6. Those areas are far enough to not be centrally located, and also far enough where people making homebuying decisions will just decide to go farther out to the newest subdivisions. I think those areas are destined to become Houston's 21st century slums.

[jghall00]

I think location and original quality of an area's homes are very important. Danax, take West U versus your area. In West U, the location was more important than the original construction, so most became teardowns. In Eastwood, I believe fewer will be torn down in the coming years as the area won't support teardowns of well-built older homes. Bellaire has a good location, but much of the original immediate post-war housing was not built to last like West U's and Eastwoods brick bumgalos.

I think Houston's future problems will be in the homes built in the 70s-80s that ring the beltway and to a certain extent 1960/highway 6. Those areas are far enough to not be centrally located, and also far enough where people making homebuying decisions will just decide to go farther out to the newest subdivisions. I think those areas are destined to become Houston's 21st century slums.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Heights guy. Location, location, location is the mantra. A neighborhood has to attract continous investment in order to thrive. Otherwise, the housing stock will decline, people will move, and only those unable or unwilling to move will remain, while people with little connection to the neighborhood come in. Jane Jacobs' book "The Life and Death of Great American Cities" deals with this topic in great detail, and is available at the library.

I think the critical feature that is missing from many Houston neighborhoods is 1) a connection to something other then a roadway and 2) variety in the housing stock. As people age, they tend to look for housing with more amenities. Houses in the surburbs while newer, usually don't cut it, except for young families such as my own. When the kids go their own way, families move and a critical part of the foundation of the community is lost. Variety in the housing stock is crucial because it allows people to maintain that connection to the community; it provides an option to maintain a connection to the community by simply changing homes in the same general neighborhood.

As far as I'm concerned, most Houston neighborhoods between 610 and the Beltway are slums in the making. My wife already disdains these areas, because they just don't look very nice. We'd faster look in 3rd ward, because of its proximity to amenities. Many of the newer communities in Spring and out west, I just don't see them aging very well at all.

In summary, continuous investment is necessary to maintain the quality of a neighborhood, and I believe location provides the strongest incentive for that investment.

[HeightsGuy]

Back in the mid-70's when my family first came to Houston, we rented an almost brand-new house in Aldine for a year while our home was being built. Back then the area wasn't perfect, but by no means was it unsafe. Well, about 5 years ago I had to go by the area, and while there I drove by the old neighborhood and was absolutely shocked at what I saw. Being a hard-core inner-looper, there are few places I am afraid to drive through; the wards don't scare me a bit, however, driving through that neighborhood scared the crap out of me.

[YakuzaIce]

As far as I'm concerned, most Houston neighborhoods between 610 and the Beltway are slums in the making.  My wife already disdains these areas, because they just don't look very nice.  We'd faster look in 3rd ward, because of its proximity to amenities.  Many of the newer communities in Spring and out west, I just don't see them aging very well at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I am just thinking of a different area but I would say that the areas somewhat outside 610 have been on the upswing, while the areas slightly further are transitional and the areas around the beltway may soon be on the downswing.

[jghall00]

Maybe I am just thinking of a different area but I would say that the areas somewhat outside 610 have been on the upswing, while the areas slightly further are transitional and the areas around the beltway may soon be on the downswing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only areas in Houston that I can think of between 610 and Beltway 8 that are well maintained and will probably stay so are those near westheimer and Braeswood. Of course, that's a pretty large area to cover, so perhaps I should'nt have generalized so strongly. Anyone know of any other nice areas in that zone? My wife and I have visited the areas adjacent to South Main, Stella Link, and off 290.

[HeightsGuy]

jghall00, don't forget Memorial from 610 to the beltway. However, it's a little transitional in areas with people who haven't added the "multi" to their millionaire tag yet;)

[rps324]

Um, yeah, that's pretty vague.

[Guest danax]

I've sold in Willowbend and Westbury, recently doing a deal on a 2 bedroom with no garage and a pool in Westbury for the low 200's.  Bought by a childless couple driving a Lotus.  The "faux-Meyerland" neighborhoods of Willowbend, Willow Meadows, & Westbury have their appeal now with more "urban-minded" buyers (which I have outlined my definition of that in another thread).   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like anything in a neighborhood that starts with a "W" is hot right now

Westwood would fit in there too. They're experiencing some Phase 1 McMansioning.

That 50s-60s layer midway between the loop and the belt seems to be already well into a first wave of an improving cycle. These neighborhoods were fortunate in that they never really hit much of a low bottom and now appear to be safely beyond the potential for further decline. I think that can be attributed to both the recognized quality of construction of that era home (other than the slab foundations) and the unusually early appreciation for the "Mod" style. Eventually maybe Sharpstown will ride their coatails and perk up too.

[YakuzaIce]

Eventually maybe Sharpstown will ride their coatails and perk up too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if just judging by home values, they have more than doubled in the past ten years.

[rps324]

I'm curious what people's opinion is on which neighborhoods/areas might see the best potential jump in prices over the next say 5 - 7 years.

If we get a real downturn in the economy, a lot of potential might go unrealized, but lets say if we don't get a bursting bubble or significant downturn in the economy. What areas do you think might be ones 5 to 7 years from now you wished you had (or had the money to have) invested in back in 2005?

[SpringTX]

I'm curious what people's opinion is on which neighborhoods/areas might see the best potential jump in prices over the next say 5 - 7 years.

If we get a real downturn in the economy, a lot of potential might go unrealized, but lets say if we don't get a bursting bubble or significant downturn in the economy.  What areas do you think might be ones 5 to 7 years from now you wished you had (or had the money to have) invested in back in 2005?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This won't come as a surprise to anyone, but The Woodlands (aka The Whitelands) can seemingly do no wrong right now. Everything in a 10-mile radius around it seems to be relatively stagnant, yet TW keeps creeping upward and upward in housing values. It's starting to get to the point where being inside TW (as opposed to anywhere in the surrounding area) unto itself adds 20% or more to the value of the property. They're going run out of room to build soon, but they still have 1 more village to go, and that'll keep them busy for the next handful of years. Plus this new town center thing. I'd say TW is a safe bet for a long-term, steady but small, return on investment. I'm sure Sugar Land, Clear Lake, and Katy are looking at the same kind of thing, but TW is what I know best on this side of town.

[Guest danax]

I'm curious what people's opinion is on which neighborhoods/areas might see the best potential jump in prices over the next say 5 - 7 years.

If we get a real downturn in the economy, a lot of potential might go unrealized, but lets say if we don't get a bursting bubble or significant downturn in the economy.

[sevfiv]

it is interesting - i have never really seen it looked at from a non-stock market view.

[Guest danax]

I'm curious what people's opinion is on which neighborhoods/areas might see the best potential jump in prices over the next say 5 - 7 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another very generalized and simplified trend is that of "ring swap", where people that once lived within one area are moving to a different general area. The inner-city people ("minorities") that lived in the inner-city in the 60s and 70s are now moving to the affordable older suburbs. Will theses suburbs then take on the characteristics of the old inner-cities; crime, declining schools, run down conditions? White flight is still alive and well as many of these residents of the older suburbs are fleeing to the "exurbs" for bigger and better homes. The inner-city is drawing all kinds of new people but, in general, will continue to appreciate due to proximity.

So, see where the concentration of whites are going and prices should go up too, deserved or not. Before anyone throws a knee-jerk racist remark at me, I'm just stating an observation. Perhaps statistics might show this to be more myth than reality.

[museum chick]

How about the area between Patterson and Yale, north of Washington Ave? Do you think this area has the potential to become as developed as Rice Military?

[RedScare]

Oh yeah. They're building dozens of home there as we speak. And they are relatively inexpensive. A friend of mine just bought one there for $175,000. And there is a 3 block complex at the corner of Yale and Center called Bonner Street Townhomes that's already been cleared.

When they are done, there won't be any old homes left in there.

[VicMan]

Regarding Westbury, did Westbury High School get uniforms back again?

I wonder how long it will take for Westbury High to come back to its former glory...

[HeightsGuy]

Danax, your point regarding rings is a very good and timely question for Houston. All the population statistics you see say that Houston is going to pick up a huge number of people in the coming decade(s). A measurable percentage of that increase is going to be international immigrants looking for low-cost housing. They are going to find that housing in the second and third rings around Houston. How that plays out in regards to crime will be a question that needs careful thought and action, though I don't know if anyone is even looking at it now.

[Heights2Bastrop]

And there is a 3 block complex at the corner of Yale and Center called Bonner Street Townhomes that's already been cleared.

I

[RedScare]

I don't remember either, but I remember it was nasty. It's always a tough call, following industry with a homesite. I'm sure there sre rquirements for remediation, aren't there?

[dbigtex56]

danax, what I find interesting is the changes that have come about in the way that neighborhoods are being revitalized.

"Birth, youth, midlife, decline, death?" is the pattern for many neighborhoods, which used to be reversed in much the same way.

The "rebirth" used to come about through three different actions (off the top of my head):

*Wholesale demolition, followed by low-income government housing projects (very popular in the 50's and 60's), usually with terrible results.

*Historic preservation, historic protection, appreciation of value, followed by appropriate infill.

*"The Creative Class", who would congregate in rundown residential neighborhoods (such as Montrose), or abandoned industrial/commercial areas not on anyone's radar (think SoHo in NYC, or the Warehouse District in Houston), often mixed-use. Sometimes this sort of rehab was initially a form of civil disobedience, as residential use of these buildings was prohibited by city code.

The second two examples usually took years, and a great deal of grass-roots effort. Legal battles had to be fought before any serious investment took place.

The change I've noticed (at least in Houston) is that new development is going up without the interim steps. Townhomes and apartments are springing up in slums that hardly could even be called neighborhoods.

The mantra used to be "Location, location, location". Now it seems to be "Location, Proximity, Speculation".

It'll be interesting to see which neighborhoods in Houston have best held their value ten years from now.

[SpringTX]

All the population statistics you see say that Houston is going to pick up a huge number of people in the coming decade(s). A measurable percentage of that increase is going to be international immigrants looking for low-cost housing. They are going to find that housing in the second and third rings around Houston. How that plays out in regards to crime will be a question that needs careful thought and action, though I don't know if anyone is even looking at it now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to get us off onto a sociology-related tangent, let me just say that I think the crime rate among these groups has traditionally been lower than many other low-income groups here.

[Guest danax]

Not to get us off onto a sociology-related tangent, let me just say that I think the crime rate among these groups has traditionally been lower than many other low-income groups here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The immigrants from Latin America can, in some instances, reduce crime in certains areas as they tend to be composed of intact nuclear families. A lot of them will end up in the same areas where they are already concentrated and, at the same time, are areas that are not appreciating rapidly, such as the NorthEast side of town between the Loop and the Beltway east of 45. Some of those formerly African-American neighborhoods east of 59 are being converted to Hispanic.

The "decomposing" aspects of Latin immigrants tend to be more aesthetic; large groups of people in small houses, junk cars parked on lawns, home-based businesses, conducting yard sales constantly as a business, graffiti, litter, unattractive pruning and cutting down of trees etc. These things tend to keep other people from being interested in investing in the neighborhood and, as the homes become older, it can drive the neighborhood towards the final cycle, death, a la North Main and Magnolia Park.

Deed restrictions can keep a lot of this from happening and can add decades to the life of a neighborhood.

[Guest danax]

danax, what I find interesting is the changes that have come about in the way that neighborhoods are being revitalized.

"Birth, youth, midlife, decline, death?" is the pattern for many neighborhoods, which used to be reversed in much the same way.

The "rebirth" used to come about through three different actions (off the top of my head):

*Wholesale demolition, followed by low-income government housing projects (very popular in the 50's and 60's), usually with terrible results.

*Historic preservation, historic protection, appreciation of value, followed by appropriate infill.

*"The Creative Class", who would congregate in rundown residential neighborhoods (such as Montrose), or abandoned industrial/commercial areas not on anyone's radar (think SoHo in NYC, or the Warehouse District in Houston), often mixed-use. Sometimes this sort of rehab was initially a form of civil disobedience, as residential use of these buildings was prohibited by city code.

The second two examples usually took years, and a great deal of grass-roots effort. Legal battles had to be fought before any serious investment took place.

The change I've noticed (at least in Houston) is that new development is going up without the interim steps. Townhomes and apartments are springing up in slums that hardly could even be called neighborhoods.

The mantra used to be "Location, location, location". Now it seems to be "Location, Proximity, Speculation".

It'll be interesting to see which neighborhoods in Houston have best held their value ten years from now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The interim steps aren't needed anymore because those first steps have already been taken, long ago, by the 'creative class" mainly. They had to blaze the trails, fight the natives and brave the harsh elements for many years. As you know, living downtown in the 60s-70s was only for transients, desperate alcoholics, etc. (for anyone too young to remember these times, watch some old re-runs of Dragnet or Starsky & Hutch and see how many "urban" types you can find in those downtowns) The results were the first "lofts", which at the time just meant poor artist types living in industrial spaces because they were single, young, broke, adventurous etc.

Back to the wave theory, they represented the long, slow wave 1 on the macro scale that started the upward trend and reversed the downward one. They were mainly responsible for making the city core an attractive place to "normal" people. The previous trend on the macro scale, where city centers progressively became less and less attractive places to live, probably lasted, what, 75-100 years? Perhaps the last downtrend began about the time when they started demolishing the grand old mansions on Main and surroundings. Were those folks then able to recognize the initials whiffs of a new trend? The wave 3 of that trend would've been from about the time when the skycraper building was all the rage until maybe the time of "urban renewal" which, as you mentioned, failed because it was a counter-trend idea and did nothing to attract anyone to the city.

So now, can we expect the new upward trend to last at least as long as the previous downward one, 75-100 years? Probably. So since the big trend up is underway, for these townhome builders to come into an area that has declined for years and start building is no big risk. This is like the wave 3, where everyone jumps on board. This wave has just begun here in Houston and could last for many decades until it slows down due to.....super-high prices and/or the poly-centric development of our area. And where are the early pioneers? In a lot of big cities, they're probably gone as they can't afford to live there anymore but here, there's a lot over on the near East End where there are still lots of affordable old, inner-loop warehouses and homes.

I think in the next 10 years here, within the greater "inner-loop" area, we will see enormous amounts of teardowns and will lose a lot of our remaining 20th century housing stock as a lot of it was built as middle class, single family, free-standing housing, which is almost obsolete now.

[banking214]

I agree with Heights guy.  Location, location, location is the mantra.  A neighborhood has to attract continous investment in order to thrive.  Otherwise, the housing stock will decline, people will move, and only those unable or unwilling to move will remain, while people with little connection to the neighborhood come in.  Jane Jacobs' book "The Life and Death of Great American Cities" deals with this topic in great detail, and is available at the library.

I think the critical feature that is missing from many Houston neighborhoods is 1) a connection to something other then a roadway and 2) variety in the housing stock.  As people age, they tend to look for housing with more amenities.  Houses in the surburbs while newer, usually don't cut it, except for young families such as my own.  When the kids go their own way,  families move and a critical part of the foundation of the community is lost.  Variety in the housing stock is crucial because it allows people to maintain that connection to the community; it provides an option to maintain a connection to the community by simply changing homes in the same general neighborhood.

As far as I'm concerned, most Houston neighborhoods between 610 and the Beltway are slums in the making.  My wife already disdains these areas, because they just don't look very nice.  We'd faster look in 3rd ward, because of its proximity to amenities.  Many of the newer communities in Spring and out west, I just don't see them aging very well at all.

In summary, continuous investment is necessary to maintain the quality of a neighborhood, and I believe location provides the strongest incentive for that investment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know how you can say neighborhoods between 610 and Beltway are slums in the making. Absurd. So I guess all of those homes in Memorial and Tanglewood will be filed with vagrants soon?? I needed a good laugh today.