What should happen to Charlotte's Vast 2nd ring suburbs

[atlrvr]

mcmontgo....you bring up an excellent point that I think is a huge factor in this question.

There is a generational difference in mindset about houses. The generation who is now elderly and selling thier places, saw houses as homes, not investments. They typically didn't move. This means they were deeply tied to their community, but not always investing a lot in their property. Now it's the exact opposite. People see their house as their investment. This typically means, people spend a considerable sum maintaining and improving their property. This could lead a major rehabilitation of most middle-ring suburbs, as people move into neighborhoods they see as undervalued, and try to improve their home, to make it a profitable investment. The flip side is, the current generation of 1st and 2nd time homebuyers are much more likely to move many times through their life to realize their investment profits, which means they will have little social ties to a neighborhood, which would have a negative effect. It will be interesting to see the net result of this new attitude towards homes from this new generation of buyers.

[graydog]

Thanks for such an informative reply! I have mixed feeling about the boxy little ranches. On one hand, I find them architecturally unappealing and sometimes rather drab. On the other hand, I feel like they may be the bungalows of their time (neglected for a generation or two, then suddenly appreciated for being a relic of earlier days). I think I'd like them better if they tended to feature a more inviting front side, especially with some kind of porch. That, to me, is a crucial element of Southern architecture in general.

[MZT]

Having lived in California and owned one of the quinessential post-war "ranch" or "prairie" homes (in a subdivision platted in 1948 and built out by 1952) - I would say that Charlotte was conservative to trends of the time.

The brick ranches here have gloomy, boxy little rooms, and small windows. My CA house had ceilings six inches higher with a double window for each bedroom - and 4-pane windows on two sides of both the living room and kitchen. It was NOT fancy, just a tract home of it's day among many clones.

I think builders here, were still stuck in a 1940's mindset, well into the 1960s. (8 foot ceilings, one colonial pane window per room)

[monsoon]

^I get a different impression from these houses as many of them remind me of the 1960s when America seemed to be much more optimistic about the future than it is these days. Maybe it was because I was a kid in those days. This was the era when the backyard BBQ replaced the formal dining room and casual living became a common concept. The houses of that time reflect that line of thinking.

Also a good point Atlrvr about the difference between a home and an investment. When I lived on Dunlavin, in the 1980s, most of the people living on that street were the original owners, who at that point, had been living there close to 25 years. Even the house I rented was owned by the original owner who moved from it because of a job re-location but she loved the house so much, she could not bear to sell it. That house did show a lot of "love" by that owner as she was always sending people over to to maintenance on it and over the years she had put a lot of upgrades into it. For one, such as myself who was just starting out, it was a great place to live.

[Charlotte_native]

I have an aunt who just moved to Dunlavin. She loves it there -- when I went over I was amazed at how well preserved most of the homes were.

[Justadude]

Charlotte's middle ring represents a piece of American history, just like the Craftsman bungalow and the mill house, and the Queen Anne before it. Some of it will be replaced for sure. Take a ride through these neighborhoods and you'll be amazed at the infill. Like everything, change will come. I hope we will hang onto some of these homes so we can remember and reflect on our history.