The Static Illusion: why new neighborhoods all look the same
Tactical and practical ways to engage with your public realm
Note: This week is going to be a little bit different. I wanted to have a formal book recommendation list, and one more fleshed-out thought.
All the same
A friend of mine recently introduced me to a concept which has totally altered how I look at buildings. Even old familiar neighborhoods have become exciting to walk through again now that I can look at them with fresh eyes. The idea essentially is this: buildings are meant to grow, and the best way to see this is to look at old neighborhoods.
One of the quintessential things people love about old neighborhoods is the inherent variety. New neighborhoods often try—but fail—to capture the character of old neighborhoods by building in multiple different styles. They fall short and end up in the uncanny valley; something just doesn’t quite feel right about it.
![Trilith - New Homes Division Trilith - New Homes Division](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F70992a5b-fd8b-4569-80a4-20c9023c3b85_2560x1814.jpeg)
Not all at once
The reason houses in old neighborhoods have such variety—in part—is because they are from different eras. This is different from contemporary development patterns where we see entire pre-planned communities go up at the same time.
Houses which no longer served the needs of the community were neglected, destroyed, or retrofitted to fit the community’s needs. This gives us an illusion that we disproportionately made quality houses in the past. In reality, it’s more of a survivorship bias; only the good ones made it.
Lastly, buildings themselves were allowed to change and evolve to fit the needs of the community. Buildings, at least ones meant to last a long time, grow. Once you understand this concept, you'll start noticing signs of growth in buildings individually and see how these patterns repeat throughout the community, reflecting broader trends and development
Growing buildings
Even identical buildings, given time, will evolve to take different forms. In his book, How Buildings Learn, Stewart Brand points out that the permanence of architecture is an illusion. The cover image of the book (below) shows an image of two Georgian townhouses built in 1857 next to an image of the same townhouses in 1993.
Each house made it to the 1990s in part because it stayed relevant and continued to meet the needs of its ever changing occupants. One grew vertically, but maintained its small courtyard and increased outdoor space with the typical New Orleans iron balconies.
The other grew towards the street, consuming the courtyard, which naturally provided space for a balcony, and grew to the side to increase volume as well.
Why is this significant? Buildings, like plants, are in the process of growing or dying. Even if the outside changes slowly, it is constantly changing on the inside; we move walls, paint, rearrange furniture. And asking a building not to change is similar to expecting a tree not to grow; it’s not in its nature and often has deleterious effects.
Incremental change
Instead, houses should be allowed to change. A young family, only able to afford a small house, may prefer to increase their current home vs. uproot their family to find a bigger one.
In modern America, we often have self-imposed regulations which turn our houses into hermit crab shells—when we outgrow, we are forced to find another bigger one.
Similarly, a neighborhood of large, well-to-do homes might experience an economic downturn, and instead of growth, the houses may need to be subdivided into more affordable individual apartment units. Either way, allowing for incremental change is less shocking to a community, increases adaptability, and makes for a more charming and lively neighborhood.
Now, as you walk through an old neighborhood, pay attention to the buildings. Where is the symmetry off? Where does the material not quite line up? It’s fun to start to see how the building was added to, and changed over time.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F25e735d9-4af8-463f-897a-e27237538a8b_1497x898.jpeg)
Because of these changes, not in spite of them, many old buildings were allowed to survive. Imagine if you were not allowed to change from your initial career. How easy would it be for you to become irrelevant? It’s important that we are able to change and go in different directions with our careers. How much more important, then, is it for a building (which will outlive us) to be able to change? Stasis is a form of a slow and painful death.
![The Ultimate Edinburgh Guide by Blubale The Ultimate Edinburgh Guide by Blubale](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa882bd63-6b45-4ede-a241-aa06ddc4f20d_800x600.webp)
Artificial static
Now let’s consider a brand new subdivision; built at once in a relatively short time based on what the developer and city thinks is ideal. From the moment it’s completed, it will be as good as it’s ever going to get.
Each building will begin fighting entropy and, depending on the shifting market, may become inhabited by an owner who cannot maintain the house out of necessity.
What’s more, with all houses finishing at once, they will begin aging at the same rate; in 25 years, all the sidewalks will be cracked similar amounts, roofs need replacing, and fences rotted.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7b4584c3-e187-4a32-ae02-c21289a2b10a_557x380.jpeg)
This stasis is artificial and has consequences. A blighted neighborhood cannot adapt and repurpose empty houses or lots to create business opportunities. Popular neighborhoods cannot shift to a denser housing model to alleviate the economic pressure of affording a big house.
Imagine inheriting a house where the furniture cannot be rearranged, the walls cannot be painted a different color, and every aspect is fixed. This is similar to what we try to do with the structures of homes and neighborhoods as a whole.
Neighborhood evolution
C.S. Lewis once pointed out that Jesus turning water into wine wasn’t a miracle of changing substance. After all, nature, he notes, turns water into wine all the time. The miracle was one of acceleration; the water became wine instantly.
Similarly, many of us long for neighborhoods to be healed immediately. This desire often leads to plans for leveling neighborhoods to create pre-planned, mixed-use, walkable communities.
However, prescribing such solutions can be the very problem. It’s foolish to assume we know exactly what an entire community wants and will need in the future.
Instead, we should embrace change by simply allowing it. The best way to understand community needs is to unlock change at the smallest possible level. What if a homeowner with some equity could build a backyard cottage to rent cheaply to a nearby hourly worker? An old abandoned building might become a small bakery, or a corner house a general store.
Or perhaps an elderly couple, no longer needing a large home, decides to stay in their community and maintain social ties by turning their home into three separate units and living in one. This triples the efficiency of their lot and gives them more financial freedom in retirement.
![Stellina Pizza - Pikes Peak Small Business Development Center Stellina Pizza - Pikes Peak Small Business Development Center](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa97341be-8d6c-49e3-b898-227321eb4e6c_2560x1785.jpeg)
This process is what is known as incremental development; legalizing and incentivizing change at the smallest possible level. And unleashing a large group of small niche developers will not only make way for more affordable housing, preserve more buildings, and make more economically viable neighborhoods, it will do so in a way that displaces far fewer people. A process my friend Bernice Radle calls gentlefication.
What now?
What needs to change to unleash a small army of incremental developers in your city? Here are three things:
Upzoning: I mentioned this frequently, so I won’t go too far into it. Municipalities need to make building incrementally easier for regular people.
Switching from IBC to IRC: The International Building Code (IBC) covers all types of buildings, emphasizing safety and structural integrity universally. In contrast, the International Residential Code (IRC) specifically addresses residential structures, focusing on aspects such as fire safety and energy efficiency for homes. The IBC is significantly more stringent, encompassing many multi-family options. This makes sense for larger apartments and bigger buildings, but even smaller ones are held to this standard, in part because it has been weaponized to discriminate (see quote below).
This is a quote from a proceeding about how to limit types of housing solely using fire codes. From this article. End parking mandates: I know people right now that own property they cannot develop in part because they cannot comply with the parking minimums required to develop it. It’s cost prohibitive. And while big and small developers alike would find the end of parking mandates profitable, it’s the smaller developers that struggle to overcome these hurdles.
Resource:
Incremental Devolopment Alliance: The Incremental Development Alliance supports small developers with education and resources to revitalize neighborhoods through sustainable, community-driven projects nationwide.
Neighborhood Evolution: Neighborhood Evolution focuses on sustainable urban design and community development to create vibrant neighborhoods. My friend Bernice helped start this ( I quoted her earlier!) and absolutely love their work.
So many things that are needed to make our cities great would naturally develop if we simply removed barriers; this would do so much work over time. I'm not saying other interventions aren’t needed, but this is where we need to start 💜
Talk soon,
Jon Jon