Can $1 Home Schemes Revive Urban Areas, or Are They Just a Quick Fix?
The concept of selling homes for $1 to combat urban decay has been tried in various cities for decades, beginning in the United States and extending globally. But the question remains: Do these schemes truly reverse urban blight, and who ultimately benefits?
One of the earliest adopters of this approach was Baltimore, where Judy Aleksalza bought an abandoned home in 1976 for just $1. Her property, located in the Pigtown neighbourhood, has since transformed from a dilapidated structure into a beautifully restored home. But it wasn’t easy – Aleksalza poured tens of thousands of dollars and years of effort into the renovation. Despite the financial and emotional strain, she takes pride in the stability of owning her home. “The stability of having your own home is everything,” she said.
Baltimore’s “urban homesteading” initiative, spearheaded by city housing official Jay Brodie, aimed to revitalize vacant properties by selling them at a symbolic price. The idea caught attention and made headlines, showing the potential of restoring neglected homes. However, the programme ended in the 1980s, only to see a resurgence in various forms over the years, including in other countries like Italy and Spain.
In 2013, Liverpool, UK, adopted a similar approach, selling derelict properties in the Wavertree area for £1. Despite challenges like rat infestations and structural damage, buyers like Maxine Sharples were undeterred. After months of hard work, Sharples turned her £1 purchase into her dream home, declaring, “It’s completely changed my life.”
While the schemes generate media buzz and provide opportunities for some homeowners, critics question whether they genuinely benefit marginalized communities. David Simon, creator of the acclaimed TV series The Wire, argues that Baltimore’s original programme mostly benefited those who could afford the costly renovations, doing little to uplift economically disadvantaged residents.
Efforts to address these concerns have been made in Baltimore’s latest $1 home programme. Applicants must demonstrate they have $90,000 for renovations and commit to living in the property for five years. Housing Commissioner Alice Kennedy acknowledges the challenges of past renewal efforts and emphasizes the importance of inclusive regeneration.
However, some fear gentrification could be an unintended consequence, driving up rents and pushing out low-income residents. As David Lidz of Waterbottle Cooperative, an affordable housing group, warns, “People on lower incomes get pushed out, and they end up moving to another decaying neighbourhood.”
Though $1 home schemes have had mixed results, they remain a driver for urban renewal. But as both Baltimore and Liverpool have learned, true regeneration requires more than just cheap housing—it needs to benefit the entire community.