I think this has more to do with the ownership/residence situation. There was a study done of a redlined neighborhood, mid-century, that was slated for razing as part of an urban renewal initiative. The residents were all working-class black families. The houses that were owned by the residents were well-maintained; the ones that were owned by landlords and rented out were of a condition stereotypically associated with urban decay.

This makes sense. Owners, even poor ones, will do their best to maintain their housing; less wealthy owners especially would know that they're likely stuck with their unit and should do their best to keep it comfortable. Renters have no incentive to (it might even be illegal for them to make improvements), and landlords are unlikely to cut into their profits if they can avoid it.

I would say that policy which encourages long-term renting - per-property, as well as per-renter - is deleterious to the socioeconomic fabric. The majority of a housing unit's life should be spent inhabited by its owners, and the majority of a person's life should be spent in a house owned by themselves or their family.

this is really dependent of the type of housing. midlife is when you start needing to replace things and the downsides of the housing become way more apparent.

To give the example, brownstones became unpopular as it became apparent their designs resulted in high heating and AC bills since they were pretty drafty and poorly insulated. Only when they blossomed into being "historic" did people start valuing them enough to start fixing the problems and restoring them.

I think you're talking past me. What does this reply have to do with gp?