Award winning article

Housing in Urcea

From IxWiki
Revision as of 11:58, 4 September 2024 by Urcea (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "Concilium Daoni" to "Conshilía Purpháidhe")
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Housing in Urcea is a vital sector in the Urcean economy, with housing development and adjacent activity comprising approximately a tenth of all economic activity as of 2020. Urceans have strong social views on housing and housing strongly relates to Urcea's view of itself and its relationship with both private property and Catholic social teaching. Since the mid-20th century, disurbanist approaches have been popular in Urcea. Much of Urcea's housing stock was constructed in the form of low density suburban single family homes following the Second Great War, although since the 1980s the priority has shifted to even lower-density exurban development due to both environmental and social concerns.

In Urcea, housing policy issues are typically regulated by the Agency for Housing Development outside of cities and the Agency for Urban Development within cities. The Agency for Urban Development also works closely with the Agency for Royal Public Housing and Royal Dormitory Aid to identify and develop new public housing opportunities.

History and overview

Land ownership and availability of land

Urcea's modern housing environment was created as a result of widely available land held by the government made available to private developers in the 20th century. Urcea is unusual among Levantine nations for its land ownership (tenure) system and in some respects is more similar to former colonial countries, who made use of large amounts of lands made available to settlers.

Background and early efforts

Like most other Levantine states, medieval Urcea was divided largely into four types of lands: the commons, feudal estates (including those of the King), church lands, and lands part of a city. This situation began to change around the period of the Saint's War. During that conflict, large estates changed hands several times as they were stripped from and awarded to loyalist families of each branch of the Julian dynasty in the war depending upon who was in power. This had the effect of decreasing the legitimacy of these large feudal aristocrats as they could no longer claim continuous ownership until time immemorial, but also had the consequence of reducing land value as the conflict and legal disputes over land led to less profitable and productive estates. After the war ended and King Lucás II came to the throne, many of the most heavily disputed lands were taken by the Crown with de minimis compensation for claimant owners. At the time, these lands were simply added to the productive estates of the Crown and an effort to curb the nobility, but the decision was far-reaching, providing the basis for the amalgamation of land by the government in Urceopolis.

Religious war period

The second major wave of land reform and consolidation occurred during the period of the Great Confessional War. The Protestant King Riordan V attempted to seize monastic lands. This effort was largely unsuccessful due to the limited control the Crown had over the country during this period, but a handful of monasteries and their lands were seized by the Crown and not returned after the Catholic restoration. The greater land reform occurred at the end and after the war as part of the Dragonnades and other persecutions of Protestants. Large estates were seized from Protestants or allies of the deposed House of Ronan. Some of these were reallocated to Catholic aristocrats, as happened in Dericania, but significant other portions reverted to the Crown. Unlike earlier seizures, which were intended to simply provide revenues to the Crown, King Leo II envisioned that many of these lands would be retained for "some...useful purpose" and redevelopment, a concept that would found the basis of land-based economic development in later centuries. Legal changes made by Leo and his successors also made it easier for lands with no clear closely-related heir to default back to the Crown. Newly acquired lands available in Gassavelia and Ænglasmarch were particularly used for this purpose, and much of this land was parceled out to Catholic smallholder Ómestaderoi on 40 acre parcels. The Confessional War period also led to many nobles selling all or part of their estates to the Crown due to their unproductivity; in many cases this meant fringe parts of estates such as arid lands, jungles, mountains, swamps, or other parcels not in use in connection to the primary business of the manor.

Deliberate reforms

Parcelling and provincial land

Enclosure and the commons

Enclosure, the process by which land held in common is transferred to private ownership (especially within the context of the Feudal system) took place from approximately the end of the Saint's War in 1401 to the beginning of the Caroline Wars in 1740, during which time the vast majority of land held in common was enclosed for ownership. While much of the land was enclosed on behalf of local magnates, a great portion of it - especially following the weakening of the nobility during the Great Confessional War - was enclosed into relatively small parcels on behalf of the urban privilegiata. Unlike many other countries, however, anti-enclosure sentiments gained many successes in the period of the 17th century and onward. Balancing the various social classes became an increasing concern to the Apostolic King and His Governments in the wake of the social upheavel of the Great Confessional War and subsequent Gassavelian uprising. Accordingly, considerable amounts of common land began to be preserved beginning in 1620 onward, though these sentiments slowed rather than halted the process of enclosure. By 1740, further enclosure was prohibited by law, but conflicting and inconsistent land title deeds for enclosed lands existed, inaugurating more than two hundred years of legal disputes until land surveyance and commune reform efforts succeeded in in the 1950s.

Attitudes

Suburban rise and fall

Passage of the Family Living Act

Public housing

Public housing in Urcea is generally overseen by the Agency for Royal Public Housing and Royal Dormitory Aid or by provincial and local governments. Since the 1960s, the Agency has had specific policies for public housing, preferring to maintain single or multi-family rent controlled units within the same neighborhood within cities rather than tower blocks. The general prohibition on tower blocks came about largely as both an ideological one as well as problems encountered in constructing them in the Urceopolis borough of Campori following the Second Great War. The Agency is responsible for the general property maintenance of these facilities in conjunction with the occupants in the case of single family houses. Several "legacy" tower blocks public housing projects exist as well, especially in and around Urceopolis.

Private housing

Most Urceans live in a single family home or low-unit multi-family home according to surveys conducted over the course of the 2010s. Urcean society places a high value on home ownership, and private housing enjoys pride of place among types of housing in Urcea. As part of these efforts, the Agency for Royal Public Housing and Royal Dormitory Aid provides subsidies to lower income families as part of the Royal Dormitory Aid program in order to encourage ownership.

Urban

Urban housing in Urcea is generally considered to be the least organized form of housing development in the country. Unlike the specifically planned suburban and exurban developments which became common in the 20th and 21st century, urban houses were built as needed over the long span of human settlement of the country. Accordingly, in Urcea's oldest cities, homes are often widely varied in size, nature, and even conceptualization, with centuries old apartment flats coexisting alongside major apartment blocks and luxury apartment towers. Accordingly, this article covers only general characteristics of urban housing, with the nature and character largely varying by city.

Single family

For most of recent Urcean history, a single family urban house meant a rowhouse owned by upper middle class or affluent residents of major cities.

Single family detached homes within city limits are a newer part of the urban housing landscape of Urcea. The earliest versions of these houses were within formerly rural annexed districts of major cities. As cities expanded with annexation, the availability of land, combined with the rise of the railroad-based commute made it attractive for individual families to build small detached houses on the outskirts of cities. This began in earnest in most cities in the 1870s.

Multi family and apartments

Suburban

Suburban development was the primary form of housing development during the 20th century in Urcea and comprises a large plurality of the nation's housing stock. From the end of the Second Great War to the end of the century, government policy, economic factors, and social attitudes drove the creation of Urcea's suburbs. By the end of the century, suburban sprawl comprised most of the Valley, with relatively close together single family homes extending out from Urceopolis especially. Suburban development in other areas of the country also occurred but to a less sprawling extent given the population and relative population density of the Archduchy of Urceopolis and its surrounding provinces. Many social commentators by the 1980s had begun to grow concerned regarding suburban sprawl due to environmental concerns (including both waste and pollution) as well as social concerns, as many perceived a kind of isolation and alienation from the extended family and estate kinship groups on which Urcean society was traditionally organized. Suburban development began to wane during this time in favor of exurban development, which developed both due to public policy pressures and market forces interested in different models; this shift had the practical effect of causing massive disruption in Urcea's construction industry. The Family Living Act of 2003 essentially prohibited the construction of new, "core suburbs" and subsequent legislation has created large preservation areas around Urcea and particularly within the Valley. The preservation areas, which not only preserve existing natural areas but also has properties and homes default to the government for demolition in the event of no property heir or in the event of foreclosure, has had the unintended effect of decreasing the Kingdom's housing stock according to many policy analysts and non-governmental organizations.

Exurban

Exurban development has comprised the large part of Urcean real estate development since the mid-1980s reflecting increased distances from urban centers as well as changing social views.

In 2003, the Conshilía Purpháidhe led by Michael Witte enacted the Family Living Act (FLA), which establishes several rules governing the construction of multiple structures on a property by real estate developers intending to sell the land, known as subdivisions. Among other provisions, the FLA requires that contractors must first offer a condensed area within a development (intended to describe cul de sacs and other insular portions) to bidding by extended family groups before individually selling each house. In effect, this law has had the effect of making many portions of neighborhoods or even entire housing developments being comprised of related individuals. Since a considerable portion of Urcea's single-family housing stock has been constructed since 2003, the policy has had a large impact on Urcean housing and social relations, with many policy analysts calling the project a "major success" in restoring the proximity of extended families. Critics have said that the FLA has had the effect of artificially raising the price of homes and home ownership while suppressing housing stock and discouraging development.

Urban town and country

 
Marchts, a small town in Hardinán, exemplifies urban town and country design mostly utilizing older structures instead of new builds.

The primary design philosophy of exurban development in Urcea revolves around the notion of creating "urban town and country" (UTC), a design which has grown in frequency and popularity since the end of the 20th century. Though they existed prior to 2003, the Family Living Act of 2003 introduced significant economic incentives for the design and construction of this style of development. Urban town and country design creates areas of moderate density housing, typically one to two blocks of 5-over-1s (or earlier mixed use structures) surrounding a village green, town square, or roundabout park, surrounded by consistent low density housing with secluded cul de sacs and streets with large plots for homes separated by greenspaces and trees. This design is intended to allow individuals who can not own a home - either due to being short term transients to an area, lack of income, or some other reason - to live in rental units in and around the "central square" while simultaneously providing retail spaces - usually small businesses - in the central area. The "downtown area" is usually made up of several small retail outlets with restaurants in freestanding areas with parking, and this area is usually serviced by a rail-fed warehouse located on the periphery of town. Besides residential areas, churches schools, and libraries, and one to two large parking structures (depending on the size of the area) are intended to be constructed directly adjacent to the central square area for easy access to services by local residents. Since 2018 and 2019, most new UTCs are required to provide electric charging stations both in homes and in the public spaces, and many companies exist to transition existing UTC areas to electric compatibility on a large scale.

Most UTCs have only one or two major roads leading to the town square area, with small limited access urban neighborhood roads radiating outwards. The larger roads are typically multiple lanes in order to allow for commercial traffic to efficiently enter and exit the community. The major roads in UTCs typically led to other UTCs or to highway access, while most of them also have a degree of access to park and rides and mass transit options. These transit options were enhanced with direct government subsidies to local public transit corporations with the Connectivity Act of 2012.

Proprietor communes

Throughout Urcea, small parts of land which escaped enclosure exist. Efforts were made during the 19th and 20th century to create a stable legal framework for these entities to survive, and accordingly the distinction of a "proprietor commune" or PC exists within law. The creation of PCs was the result of massive land surveyance efforts conducted in the immediate wake of the Second Great War in the 1940s and 50s, as individuals living on ancestral communal land objected to encroaching real estate developers; the Government of Urcea issued a large number of charters for these lands in 1954. PCs are governed by the Alternative Housing Law. PCs are lands in which the title is held by a corporation consisting of all of the residents within it, and accordingly all lands under a corporate charter are owned in common. PCs can only be dissolved with a supermajority of members voting in favor. Most charters individually lay out the terms on which individuals and families can build structures within the commune, but most provide for an enforceable prohibition on trespassing, ensuring a kind of private property for homeowners. Charters also give the communes wide latitude to establish standards for structures within the PC while not totally exempting them from local and provincial zoning laws. In effect, PCs function in a similar manner to home owners associations and collect fees. Banks are prohibited by law from discriminating against PCs and mortgages for individual homes are often assumed by the entire commune, who then levy the costs on the individual home resident.