Comments on: Denver’s Single-Family Homes by Decade: 1950s http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html News, ideas, and commentary about urbanism in the Mile High City Fri, 24 May 2013 18:21:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: Chad http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-21164 Chad Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:52:08 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-21164 Or better yet, those nasty asbestos shingles. Or better yet, those nasty asbestos shingles.

]]> By: Brett http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-21135 Brett Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:09:43 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-21135 These houses are the pretty ones! What happened to the ugly ones like my dad grew up in in Westwood? You know, the "crackerbox" style all done up in Johns-Manville siding? These houses are the pretty ones! What happened to the ugly ones like my dad grew up in in Westwood? You know, the “crackerbox” style all done up in Johns-Manville siding?

]]> By: Ken Schroeppel http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-21030 Ken Schroeppel Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:59:53 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-21030 That's interesting Chad. Thanks! That’s interesting Chad. Thanks!

]]> By: Chad http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-20971 Chad Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:18:16 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-20971 In an assessment 1950's homes I think one should also include perhaps one of the worst housing creations of the decade, what I call the "Forward-Rear off-set Duplex." These houses make up a huge portion of the NE Park Hill housing stock but can be found scattered throughout other older neighborhoods. Essentially instead of the side-by-side duplex common in the 1920's these homes divide the property into front and rear units slightly offset from each other so that each unit gets a street front entry. While this housing plan must have seemed a pleasant and affordable way to provide housing for lower middle class residents of the city in the 1950's (and for the most part remain affordable to this day) they have some major design flaws that make them less than desirable places to live. First, these units can be magnets for crime as the entry to the rear unit is hard to see from the street and usually lacks any surveillance from the front unit. The person in the front unit can't tell whether a person cutting across their front lawn and going to the back should or shouldn't be there (and if something does go down, they generally can't see it happening) Second, these homes can lead to conflicts among tenants. Since "ownership" of the front and back yards are often poorly defined there are questions of who is responsible for maintenance of essentially shared space which can lead to tension between owners or general disinvestment in landscape maintenance all together. Another issue is that there is usually not one straight line dividing the two units, rather the units nestle together in funny yin-yang sort of way. This makes exterior remodeling (desired by one tenant) even more difficult than side-by-side duplexes. Furthermore, the front unit's phone, cable and electrical service sometimes needs to go through the attic of the rear unit, creating a strange access issue between neighbors. Finally, these homes break the traditional front-yard back-yard roles of the majority of the american housing stock (that is presentation in front, and functional play and storage space in the rear). Since the front unit only gets a sliver of the back yard, their front yard often becomes their back yard complete with all the toys, furniture, garbage cans, etc. that are usually in the back. All this clutter up front can make the neighborhood look trashy and may not provide the kind of "presentation" that the owner of the rear unit might like (this may contribute further to the tenant conflicts mentioned above). Luckily, as with most of the homes built in the 1950's these duplexes are constructed with high quality craftsmanship and materials and have stood the test of time, rarely looking rundown. In that regard they will remain solid affordable housing units for a long time to come. Unfortunately they'll always remain less-than-desirable places to live, dragging down their neighborhoods with them. In an assessment 1950′s homes I think one should also include perhaps one of the worst housing creations of the decade, what I call the “Forward-Rear off-set Duplex.” These houses make up a huge portion of the NE Park Hill housing stock but can be found scattered throughout other older neighborhoods. Essentially instead of the side-by-side duplex common in the 1920′s these homes divide the property into front and rear units slightly offset from each other so that each unit gets a street front entry. While this housing plan must have seemed a pleasant and affordable way to provide housing for lower middle class residents of the city in the 1950′s (and for the most part remain affordable to this day) they have some major design flaws that make them less than desirable places to live.

First, these units can be magnets for crime as the entry to the rear unit is hard to see from the street and usually lacks any surveillance from the front unit. The person in the front unit can’t tell whether a person cutting across their front lawn and going to the back should or shouldn’t be there (and if something does go down, they generally can’t see it happening)

Second, these homes can lead to conflicts among tenants. Since “ownership” of the front and back yards are often poorly defined there are questions of who is responsible for maintenance of essentially shared space which can lead to tension between owners or general disinvestment in landscape maintenance all together. Another issue is that there is usually not one straight line dividing the two units, rather the units nestle together in funny yin-yang sort of way. This makes exterior remodeling (desired by one tenant) even more difficult than side-by-side duplexes. Furthermore, the front unit’s phone, cable and electrical service sometimes needs to go through the attic of the rear unit, creating a strange access issue between neighbors.

Finally, these homes break the traditional front-yard back-yard roles of the majority of the american housing stock (that is presentation in front, and functional play and storage space in the rear). Since the front unit only gets a sliver of the back yard, their front yard often becomes their back yard complete with all the toys, furniture, garbage cans, etc. that are usually in the back. All this clutter up front can make the neighborhood look trashy and may not provide the kind of “presentation” that the owner of the rear unit might like (this may contribute further to the tenant conflicts mentioned above).

Luckily, as with most of the homes built in the 1950′s these duplexes are constructed with high quality craftsmanship and materials and have stood the test of time, rarely looking rundown. In that regard they will remain solid affordable housing units for a long time to come. Unfortunately they’ll always remain less-than-desirable places to live, dragging down their neighborhoods with them.

]]> By: Chad http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-20926 Chad Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:09:02 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-20926 You neglected to include what I call the "Concrete Block Box." There are 12 houses on my street (1300 block of Perry) all built in the 1950's that are nothing more than a 30'x30' square home constructed entirely of concrete block; most don't even have siding on the exterior. There are many more are scattered throughout the southwest section of the West Colfax Neighborhood. These homes are completely devoid of any character whatsoever, but on the other hand they certainly couldn't be more durable. You neglected to include what I call the “Concrete Block Box.” There are 12 houses on my street (1300 block of Perry) all built in the 1950′s that are nothing more than a 30′x30′ square home constructed entirely of concrete block; most don’t even have siding on the exterior. There are many more are scattered throughout the southwest section of the West Colfax Neighborhood. These homes are completely devoid of any character whatsoever, but on the other hand they certainly couldn’t be more durable.

]]> By: Corey http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-20904 Corey Thu, 31 May 2012 16:49:28 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-20904 No Krisana Park "Eichlers" pictured? No Krisana Park “Eichlers” pictured?

]]> By: Brent http://denverurbanism.com/2012/05/denvers-single-family-homes-by-decade-1950s.html/comment-page-1#comment-20890 Brent Thu, 31 May 2012 12:39:11 +0000 http://denverurbanism.com/?p=1834#comment-20890 Yikes. Of course, all of that red is made more dramatic by the fact that a "typical" lot size in Harvey Park South is 8,000-12,000 square feet; doubled from a few decades prior. As always, thanks Ken (and Mark) for this great series! Yikes. Of course, all of that red is made more dramatic by the fact that a “typical” lot size in Harvey Park South is 8,000-12,000 square feet; doubled from a few decades prior.

As always, thanks Ken (and Mark) for this great series!

]]>