Crunch time

Teardowns -- modest homes replaced with mega-dwellings -- are a growing Triangle-area concern. Some limits are in order

That was quite an exercise in "creative destruction" on Pine Drive in Raleigh earlier this month. A homeowner intent on demolishing his 1959-vintage 2,300-square-foot rancher -- its replacement is to be a bit less than twice as big -- had to clear away some big pines near the house. So for efficiency's sake he had the tree men drop the heavy trunks smack onto the roof.

Readers of Sunday's Q section got a good look at this double dose of demolition, thanks to "before" and "after" photos. No doubt the little boy in a lot of us would have liked to have watched in person -- but what would the adult in us have thought?

That picture might be mixed. Even in a "disposable" society, houses aren't casually cast aside. There's something unsettling about seeing a serviceable dwelling bite the dust. Especially when, as in the Pine Drive demolition, nature takes a fall along with man's handiwork.

But there's another side to the teardowns increasingly common in inside-the-Beltline Raleigh and in parts of Cary and Durham.

Nothing man-made lasts forever, nor should it, necessarily. We junk our worn-out cars -- why not houses? Preserving historic structures is laudable, and remodeling can give an outdated building a whole new life. But if a homeowner wants to start over instead, why stop her?

New and improved houses can make older neighborhoods more competitive in the housing market. Bigger dwellings with up-to-date amenities attract young, growing families. And placing new homes on older lots near city centers counteracts suburban sprawl, particularly if it allows people to live closer to their jobs.

Off the scale

So why are teardowns so controversial? In large part, because they're out of control.

Take Anderson Drive in Raleigh, often cited as an epicenter of the trend. There, where the older houses are no match for the underlying land values, many have been bulldozed and replaced by much larger structures. The scale is all out of kilter -- relatively modest houses sit cheek by jowl with their supersized new neighbors. In some cases, the new dwellings literally overshadow the old. And they thrust their elbows toward the property lines and take up most of the space on their lots.

Raleigh, at least, is having some second thoughts. Mayor Charles Meeker, for example, favors "reasonable" limits on new houses in existing neighborhoods. "While teardowns are appropriate in many circumstances, the new home should have a reasonable scale in relation to the other houses nearby," the mayor told The N&O. The city is studying possible regulations.

Good neighbor policy

What form might they take? The American Planning Association recommends increasing the space required around houses to allow only a modest expansion, and setting height limits so new homes better match existing ones. Both measures are sensible -- in-town building has long been regulated to one degree or another, and size and height limits respect neighbors' rights to their own property and quality of life, which can be affected by what goes on next door.

(Another American Planning Association recommendation -- "protecting neighborhood character by requiring new construction to meet certain standards" -- could stray too far toward matters of taste, which cities are ill-suited to impose on citizens. The key issues for public policy are size and setbacks, not style.)

A parallel route to limiting teardowns is the rezoning request slated for a hearing tonight before the Raleigh City Council and the Planning Commission. Community SCALE has petitioned to rezone parts of the Fallon Park, Anderson Heights and Bloomsbury neighborhoods. The group's argument is that the areas' zoning, set in 1959 at R-6 and R-10, is too high, allowing excess density. The downzoning it seeks (R-4) would mandate greater setbacks from property lines.

No zoning change, up or down, should be granted lightly. But there seems to be substantial support for Community SCALE's requests, and Raleigh officials should weigh the group's petitions seriously. A downzoning could enhance the stability and appeal of these neighborhoods while not ruling out sensible housing-stock replacements. Or the city could focus on creating neighborhood "conservation overlays" to achieve a similar result.

One way or another, there's room for a livable compromise in the teardown debate.