Wouldn't Want to Live There

"Fifty-nine percent of Long Islanders could never imagine themselves living in an apartment. Asked which type of neighborhood they preferred — one where you could walk to stores or one that required driving — 56 percent said they would rather drive. Meanwhile, only 7 percent agreed that 'creating ethnically and economically diverse neighborhoods' was the major advantage of building more affordable housing. Asked what the worst disadvantage was, 20 percent said 'bringing in the wrong kinds of people.'"

This is a quote from an op-ed piece in the New York Times on January 29, 2008, "The City is the Future of the Suburbs, and Other Heresies." In it, writer Lawrence Downes is protesting the optimism of some city planners about what suburbanites will accept as solutions to the housing crisis on Long Island. The survey that found the above statistics also found that "a significant number of Long Islanders (38 percent) said they could see themselves living someday in a downtown apartment, condo or townhouse, forsaking the old Levittown ideal for something walkable, interesting and, above all, affordable. Half of the respondents could imagine a child or parent doing so. Sixty-one percent supported building more homes and apartments in some downtowns, and 49 percent said they would favor taller downtown buildings — up to four stories, from two." Mr. Downes points out that these statistics hardly depict wholehearted support for the urban lifestyle.

What is really happening is that the two kinds of responses, pro and con, were given by people with radically differing views of urban living. Living in an upscale apartment building with security and maybe even a doorman is worlds apart from living in the projects. Being surrounded by theaters and art museums bears no resemblance to living in close proximity to drug houses. Gentrification adds a veneer of respectability to an urban neighborhood, but it also pushes out its former residents, begging the question: where do they go? To another "undesirable" urban neighborhood, of course.

City planners have long struggled to find a way to reconcile both types of urban dwellers. How do you provide affordable housing in city neighborhoods without bringing down property values? Is it even possible to get the poor and the rich to live side-by-side? In my experience, you can't. Oh, you can mix things up, but the poor and the middle and upper classes will never meet on common ground. Each group acts as if the others don't even exist. Some neighborhood civic associations are geared to attract homeowners; renters are not encouraged to participate. Others focus on the needs of the transient. The homeowners don't feel that these organizations apply to them. The needs and wants of the various groups rarely overlap.

But there are some things that everyone wants. One is to be safe. This doesn't just refer to crime, but also to unsafe and non-hygienic housing. And whether it seems like it or not, everyone wants surroundings that are pleasant and attractive. (We just differ at times about what constitutes "attractive.") But pleasant, attractive, safe--all require money: for repairs, a police presence and remodeling and landscaping.

Columbus, Ohio has a program called "Home Safe and Sound." Basically, the program provides no or low interest loans for home rehabilitation in targeted neighborhoods. A family has to make 80% or less of the HUD recommended income guidelines to qualify and the repairs needed must be to protect health and safety or prevent deterioration of the property. I live in such a neighborhood and qualify for the program, so I called and put in my application. I don't know if anything will come of it.

We're typical of a lot of the homeowners in the area. We're house-"rich" and cash-poor. We can keep up with some repairs, but not all. And in a house that was built in 1915, there are going to be a lot of needed repairs, most of which are not even cosmetic. For instance, we have missing soffits around the perimeter of our roof which make perfect homes for pigeons. Our sidewalk which lies under the roofline is encrusted with pigeon droppings, and the only way to get rid of the pigeons is to take away their home. We had an estimate of what it would cost to fix the soffits and some missing gutters and it was $2700. So we have to put it off for lack of money. It would take us more than a year to save that much money, if then, and that's assuming that other repairs or purchases will not be needed. With a combined income of $38,000, there's not a lot of wiggle room in our budget. We don't even have two cars and we just got the one we have two years ago (after five years of marriage). And we probably have it better than most in this area. Some bought their homes thirty or more years ago and might be able to make a good bit of money from their equity if they sold their homes, but then where would they live as cheaply? They're often on fixed incomes. There has been a little gentrification although there are signs that more is coming. We live just blocks away from some areas that have been highly gentrified and the property values reflect that. But we have the highest percentage of government-subsidized housing the in the city and that makes for a lot of instability both in property values and daily affairs.

These are the realities of the kind of urban living I live and write about. I'm sure this is not the kind of urban living that the survey respondents approved of. And yet this is the way to revitalize and reclaim neighborhoods instead of using up more resources building new ones. There are a lot of reasons why I live in an urban neighborhood, but that is certainly one of the major ones.