pf_00145 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

concegt. �Tarious aspects of this concept are deeply ingrained in th� housing industry and lending field. Practically all lenders and FHA and VA officials believe in a highly segregated land use pattern, homogeneous neigk�borhoods--both in home value and in population chara�teristics, and the curvilinear street design. To a lesser ext�nt, the builder also con�iders elements of the neighborhood concept in laying out his sub- division and n�any of the local governmental bodies, such as plannin� commissions and their staffs or consultants do likewise. Th� consumer tenels to thin�C about, an� believe in, facets of this �oncept but in pr�� - tic� does not concern himself with some of the more fundarnental aspects of it. There is an enormous gulf betw�en the neighborhood concept �.nd what is being developed in the suburban areas. To a large extent, this has occurred because of econorriic and other condbtioris which the concept was not predicated on. In addition, lenders, FH1�i, and VA are apparently not adhering to their own standards. The lenders tend to use very general principles. Conversely, F'HA has specifically spelled out prin- ciples and standards which supposedly serve as �trong guide lines in their evaluation of mortgage appl.ications and, more importantly, sub- division a�,proval submissions. Where FHA has reviewed subdivisions, lenders usually rely quite heavily on that agency's judgrnent. In non "FHA" areas the typical lender relies on the judgment of the builder un the assumpt�on that he is complying with the local community regulations. Buildexs frequently build to FHA standards if they think that some of their homes may be financed through FHA,. The net effect has been that most subdivisions are constructed to the FHA minimum standards , and these standards typically have become the maximum as well as the minimum, The striking fact about the lenders' and FHA's use of the neighborhoad concept is tl�at most of them would agree it is not valid. Many lenders and governmental officials cling to this image, or at least to som�e as- pects of it, without apparently understanding the implications. Probably, the most obvious is the belief that curvilinear streets per se are better than some other form of street patterno This street pattern originated as an illustration of how through traffic might be discouraged. Curvi- � linear streets have now become the accepted norm from which all new subdivisions are evaluated whether the design serves the intended function or noi. Thus, if another type of street la.yout is proposed, ' which may well be superior to a curvilinear design in terms of providing local access but denying through traffic , it will most likely be mEt with resistance fr�m the lenders and the governmental officials simply be- cause it is not l.ike the typical subdivision. There are many other vestiges of the neighborhoad concept which hang on in a similar manner. Major questi�ns remain unanswered: Why do lenders and governmental officials profess this concept and its principles when they do not closely adhere to it? Why not alter it or abandon it in favor of one that may be more valid in today's situatiori? After discussing this question and other related ones with lenders and builders, two things became apparent. 41