Historic Tract Homes - Wall Street Journal Article
At tonight's Vienna Town Council meeting Council Member Edythe F. Kelleher pointed out a recent article (PDF) about historic districts. Kelleher seemed to genuinely be offering information. An excerpt from the article:
"As the real-estate market begins to cool, a growing number of homeowners are seeking to boost their property values by getting their neighborhoods designated as historic districts. Local historic districts, which can trigger regulations on everything from window repair to demolitions, are proliferating across the United States. But the desire for historic designation has some communities touting characteristics with questionable preservation value. Homeowners in Denver say their neighborhood deserves historic designation because it is an early example of large front lawns. A Phoenix subdivision is seeking historic status because it says its ranch homes were the first in the city with central air conditioning."
After Kelleher noted the article (PDF) Maud Robinson chimed in for emphasis to say that historic districts are being created to make properties "more valuable". That's the reason du jour now for having a District? Let us get this straight. It's no longer about "Vienna's history", it's now about Maud Robinson helping members of Vienna's historic district to become millionaires? We should all just sit back and let Robinson continue to push a District with no rules and nothing historic in it all so we can become rich?
Mrs. Robinson, the jig is up. The citizens of Vienna all know you voted against one of the nicest and most expensive homes ever built in Vienna.
Comments
The article claims that homes are more likely to increase in value if they are within historic districts. It no more proves this than if you lived near a trailer park that you might experience a greater frequency of tornados and wrongly conclude that trailer parks attract tornados!
We are missing the forest for the trees: if you look into these communities you will see that these homes are more likely to increase in value simply because these homes are usually located in the more desirable neighborhoods in the first place. It follows that people are more likely to spend more to live in the more desirable areas within a community! This paper actually doesn't prove that historic districts are the cause of higher property values, but it does support the fact that more desirable areas are in higher demand, and buyers are more likely to pay more for them.
Do you think any intelligent person really thinks that large lawns and central air conditioning are sound reasons to designate homes as being historic? This is ridiculous.
As the article points out, many areas have simply made up any new reasons for historic designations, in efforts to control changes within their neighborhoods, and this is why people are more likely to pay more in these areas. They are sold on the idea of living in an area that they "think" will not change. But it never works as evidenced by the massive palace resembling the Taj Mahal that was built right next to a small single story rambler in Vienna's so-called historic district.
Simply put, these Historic Districts should be called what they really are: 'Homeowners Associations'!
Posted by: Matthew Stich | March 21, 2006 06:51 AM
This is all patently absurd. Look at the house on the corner of Lawyers and West. It has been for sale for several months and is still not sold. Obviously the home is not selling because it is run down. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is in a historic district.
Posted by: Give Me A Break! | March 21, 2006 07:10 AM