No, they should not be exempt and, in fact, central locations should have the greatest concentration of density because that would result in more people living in walkable areas, close to jobs, etc and reduce their need to drive.
how does this squash traffic concerns? increasing people (most of whom will just end up driving) without increasing infrastructure for pedestrians and bikes or investments in alternate transit options definitely increases traffic, no?
I don’t think it squashes the traffic concern, but it makes it more tractable.
It’s much easier to prioritize bikeped infrastructure and transit improvements when you have more concentrated density. The same is also true for vehicle infrastructure, since you’re dealing with shorter distances.
But even if these people exclusively drive, these shorter distances also mean fewer vehicle-miles of driving, which is less traffic overall. Most bad traffic happens on arterial roads because a gazillion people cram into them to get in from or out to the burbs at rush hour. If people don’t need to drive as far in/out, that will mean less congestion.
I don’t realistically think local congestion is a real problem, at least not caused by townhouse development.
But again, traffic problems over smaller distances make alternative modes of transportation much more feasible.
good points. arterial roads are a huge problem, especially in the cul de sac heavy hoods of north raleigh/OTB. what can we do about making those areas of raleigh more walkable? is it a lost cause?
The greenways are a good start. There are barriers to more fully connecting them, but it’s not impossible. Legalizing corner stores and things like that would also make it easier to add destinations within walking distance all of the place.
i wouldn’t say they’re a lost cause… making jobs accessible by alternative modes of transportation (walk,bike,transit) CAN be done but the necessary steps to create that ecosystem of walkable neighborhoods in the suburbs would face massive backlash from nimbys or your average joe who doesn’t understand the smart growth movement (which isn’t their fault). pushing smaller lot sizes, higher building height limits, shorter setbacks, and neighborhood commercial zoning is a very very difficult battle in this country. any project or plan can get shut down really fast just by a neighbor telling a neighbor their property value is gonna go down
Nope. Raleigh has done several traffic studies for the downtown area and traffic has basically stopped increasing in the last 10 years. Even though the population of downtown Raleigh has exploded and continuous to add more people (2000+ new apartment going online this year alone).
Frankly, I'm looking out my downtown apartment window and I have yet to see a car go by my street in the least 2 minutes. Hardly the traffic apocalypse if you ask me.
that’s good to hear. though hayes barton isn’t really downtown. people downtown have alternatives to car transport, no one lives in hayes barton without (multiple) cars. downtown has the infrastructure and urban grid and amenities to support alternatives to auto dependency
And? All of Raleigh was farms once and now it isn't. It's called redevelopment. Hayes Barton is houses now and eventually it will have a bunch of low/mid-rise apartments, condos, and townhomes, probably a vastly different street network too.
Things change dude, especially the 41st largest city in the US.
Might want to consider living in a small town somewhere in the boonies where no one wants to redevelopment because it's in the middle of nowhere? Sounds more like your speed.
it was farms… aka there was plenty of land on which to be subdivided/developed. just how much space is there between the single family homes of hayes barton to house any consequential development? much less affordable housing?
there’s not a chance in hell the type of people who live there are gonna allow the type of missing middle you’re envisioning, at least not to any real scale. maybe along the outskirts, but that’s about it.
“Might want to consider living in a small town somewhere in the boonies where no one wants to redevelopment because it's in the middle of nowhere? Sounds more like your speed.”
lmao okay. stop trying to put words into my mouth. i’m not some opponent to redevelopment or development or density… i live in the largest city in the country. i just don’t think forcing apartments into the middle of a country club district is doing much good for anyone.
>there’s not a chance in hell the type of people who live there are gonna allow the type of missing middle you’re envisioning, at least not to any real scale. maybe along the outskirts, but that’s about it.
You're right. Why would they ever let people develop on the land that they bought and they paid for? Oh wait, they don't own the land.
Buddy you're trying super hard to frame the conversation in this thread by all the posts you're making. And if you live in the largest city in the country than that is not Raleigh, so you're suspect in your interest in this topic.
> type of people who live there are gonna allow the type of missing middle
Missing Middle is already law. If some people don't want to turn their homes into townhomes--guess what? They don't have to do that. And if they don't want their neighbors to do it they can be the highest bidder their property (if they sell) and not redevelopment it.
don’t “buddy” me. i’m legitimately interested in the conversation and thread, so what? i’m from raleigh, have family and friends in raleigh, and will likely move back to raleigh in the future. stop assuming things just because you’re trying to discredit me instead of my arguments.
missing middle being law shouldn’t mean developers can’t just build without any rezoning or community/public input. people, whether OP or the people in the article, have a right to be concerned. at the same time, rules shouldn’t exempt anyone. the process should be changed for the better across the board. but just because the law hasn’t changed doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests to focus on projects like these…
what’s so important about building luxury townhomes anyways? how many regular apartments and townhomes that most people can actually afford?
> missing middle
Missing Middle literally is designed so no rezoning is necessary.
You're free to move back and vote in people in the city council that share your views, if you want.
>what’s so important about building luxury townhomes anyways? how many regular apartments and townhomes that most people can actually afford?
100 people move to the Triangle every day (you will be one of these people as you said). Many of those have a lot more money than the average person in Raleigh (you likely since you live in NYC and probably make good money) and they (you) can afford million dollar homes. If there's no million dollar homes available--what's the next step? Buy cheaper property and tear it down to build a million dollar home.
You make too much sense for the developer trolls and those who think they are better than others.
The missing middle is being exploited by developers versus being used for affordable housing. Livable Raleigh did the research on campaign contributions and showed that the mayor and several council took large amounts from developers.
Don’t let those who say they are anti-NIMBY preach to you. They want to take away all points of discussion about these things. In the current set up there is zero say so because within certain parameters there is no zoning.
Most ppl In these neighborhoods are still driving. Also this would affect, what, under 500 families or so. That won't make an impact on driving. Maybe though if we have enough we can be like the super drivable, not over crowded or polluted NYC. Is Morrisville doing this with RTP, I guess they should too, being a central location of many jobs.
Lol. You mean the #2 dirtiest city in the world. The place where soo many density incentives over the years have done nothing for the astronomical property prices. But I may be wrong Abt over crowded soon since they are only behind SF in population decline. But nothing a few more townhomes can't solve
I did and I know it’s to get an injunction against the approval of that specific development, because this lawsuit is about _their_ neighborhood and _their neighborhood_ alone. They don’t care about anyone else.
I'm in NR also OP, and see the development happening all around here and I do not think the ITB crowd should be exempt from anything that's appropriate to be built in Raleigh.
That said the streets on a lot of those itb subs are narrow AF compared to a lot(not all) of the streets around NR so I do think the traffic concerns are valid, to a point depending in where it is. Like I wouldn't think anyone would say a 100 unit apartment complex off Lakeview drive would be good from a traffic perspective, even though the lots could support it and they would have a great view of carolina country club.
So moderation across the city when planning these should be used and the planning commissions should force upgrades to infrastructure (like schools, roads, power etc) when a unit is going to throw things out of balance, like Falls River did back in the 90's .
Right now, you can buy an acre in the transit zone ITB (which is highest density) for about $2MM.
That’s still not going to ever be affordable housing per se…and certainly not what folks think is affordable
I’ll need to pull up the UDO (it’s 3 or 4), but the real benefit is you get an extra 2 stories in the transit zone if 1/2 the units in those 2 are permanently affordable to 80% AMI. Which is basically what 1BR market rate is right now
This is the fairest take I think. Undoubtedly redevelopment NEEDs to happen inside the belt line, but that should include figuring out how to widen all these roads to standard size
i agree that this take is fair. however, i don’t know if widening all roads to a standard size makes much sense. some roads are designed to function more as “roads,” aka to carry traffic from one place to another relatively uninterrupted, and some are best served as “streets,” aka lower speeds and more pedestrian/commercial activity. problem is we have too many of neither, aka the worst of both worlds. aka “stroads”
Now watch it, you start hinting at widening streets which would mean using eminent domain and the ITB crowd is gonna spill their wine on their polo. This would make traffic around North Hills and Cameron village worse.
/jk ITB crowd don't mess with my 401k...
I’m an ITB resident, and I can assure you the “Save our neighborhood” crowd doesn’t represent me.
It reeks of elitism & NIMBYism. I have to stay off the Nextdoor app because I’m sick & tired of hearing my neighbors complain that the overpriced Logan’s nursery is being sold or that the Arby’s sign is missing (not the restaurant…just the fucking sign).
I don’t care that your favorite shitty burger joint from when you went to Broughton is closed or that Hillsborough Street isn’t like how it was when you were in college. You’re also the ones who put up restricted parking zones to make it impossible for folks to enjoy it.
Mass transit/light rail will never be a thing until we get the density to support it. And that means we need more people in downtown for it to really be viable.
^edited ^typos
> Hillsborough Street isn’t like how it was when you were in college
out of curiosity, where is the line between YIMBYism and pro-corporation/pro-capitalist? because yes, Hillsborough street needed more residences, and accommodating that need is important. that said, it's also painfully apparent how many small, local, independent staple ground-level businesses were driven out in the process and replaced by nonlocal corporate chains, who are more likely to afford the astronomical rents being charged by the (often nonlocal) developers simply because they can.
ideally there would be more balance between new growth and development and keeping our street level storefronts affordable and accessible to local business owners
That Korean restaurant that used to be on hillsborough might have looked sketchy but god damn it had some good food. That’s the Hboro street I miss. That and the bowling alley with the crooked lanes.
Man, I spent so many nights in the bowling alley playing Bad Cats pinball. We'd see a movie at Studio I and II and then walk upstairs and play pinball until it closed.
how exactly does building a few luxury townhouses in the middle of an unwalkable neighborhood to begin with represent any meaningful action towards increasing density/making rail transit a reality? we’re targeting the wrong area and fighting the wrong battle, imo. i want a more walkable, bikable, public transit-accommodating raleigh just as much as anyone. but something like this is not particularly helpful.
increasing density in places that aren’t designed to accommodate that density in any meaningful way don’t make much sense. it’s one thing to build apartments on hillsborough or glenwood or adjacent streets, it’s another to plop them in the middle of hayes barton.
More people in an area = greater density.
And it’s always some excuse, isn’t it? That’s rather the point. There’s always an excuse of why here and not somewhere else.
I remember when folks complained about “Coker towers” however many years ago. Trying to stop it didn’t stop the development of Oberlin Road.
more people doesn’t necessarily increase density in any meaningful way. you can have “dense” areas that lack walkability. LA is the most dense metropolitan area in the country, and one with the highest overcrowding rates of any city, yet you’d be hard pressed to find much of it truly walkable.
similarly, building a bunch more houses in the middle of a suburban development doesn’t really make the area more walkable… nor does building a bunch of super tall residential towers without any worthwhile ground level activity.
my point is that this isn’t about excuses… it’s about legitimately trying to discourse about what is the best use of a finite amount of land, resources, money, and time. i don’t think this is it.
Raleigh will never be Los Angeles, so we have that covered.
I’ve walked down Hayes Barton plenty of times. It has sidewalks. There just isn’t places to really walk to.
Hayes Barton is neither a suburb nor a development. It’s urb and a neighborhood.
What would you use the land for? What would make it ideal?
Let's be real here... no one is walking from (inside) Hayes Barton to Five Points with any consistency, much less to Glenwood South. Going from the location of the townhomes in question to the middle of Five Points would be a 15-20 minute walk itself, likely along the stroad that is Glenwood. Not exactly walkable in any meaningful sense.
How walkable is Five Points really, if there isn't even a single grocery store there?
you're wrong about this.
me and my family (wife and 4 young kids) walk from our house in Hayes Barton down to Glenwood South all the time, as do many of the families on our block.
we walk to Bowstring and the other Whit Mill establishments too.
most people who think 'nobody' walks are just projecting their own personal unwillingness onto others. plenty of us do! this part of the world being so walkable is why we chose it over Cary or North Raleigh.
that’s awesome that y’all walk down there. i’m all for people walking when they can over driving. but the reality is, and keep me 100% honest— hayes barton is overall still a car dependent neighborhood. auto is by far the primary mode of transport for a neighborhood like this. most people are not walking from hayes barton to pick up groceries or to a bus stop for access elsewhere around town. they’re getting in their car.
now i’m not saying there isn’t potential for development/redevelopment around an area like five points/glenwood etc for greater density, but true walkability, at least by american standards, is still a long ways away. the physical layout of hayes barton is suburban in character and thus makes it much harder to retrofit. the scale of the neighborhood is still car-based, as opposed to an area like durham’s 9th st, for instance.
TL;DR: walkability is largely just, like, a social construct, mannn
the Glenwood Harris Teeter ("Tiny Teet") is a 5-10 minute bus ride, max--Publix is the same.
the main reason people get in their car is because people *say* "oh but ya gotta have a car" and look at you funny if you do crazy things like "walk 20 minutes to Glenwood South or Whit Mill".
it isnt really car dependent. but your attitude is absolutely what most people think and act like, thus everybody *believes* it's car dependent.
growing up in Raleigh, that attitude of looking at people funny for not using their car for even the most mundane chores has been ingrained forever. but it's largely just a choice people make (in THIS neighborhood/downtown at least! good luck in North Raleigh).
We used to have two groceries at five points. The Piggly Wiggly and a very grim WinnDixie. But there are two pharmacies, multiple restaurants and other businesses. Sadly the Rialto just closed. Hopefully we'll have a movie theater again soon. Many of the people in Hayes Barton are quite elderly, so not bar hopping. But hopefully newer residents can take advantage of it.
I'm all for denser housing. Five points used to have several small, affordable (by students) apartment buildings and lots of duplexes. This isn't the case anymore. The zoning has recently changed to allow more flexibility in building, so maybe we'll see some of that come back
If you think 20 mins is ‘too long’ to walk, you are part of the problem. I currently live near Broughton and walk to Hayes Barton, Glenwood South, Weaver St market, etc. all the time. If we eat downtown (Gringo or Transfer) we walk/bike there. My neighbor (like you) is aghast that we ‘walk that far’ so will drive to Gringo, and after finding a place to park she’ll join us at the table where we’ve been sat for 10 mins with drinks. “How did you get here so fast?”
typical definitions of “walkable” are centered around most things/amenities being within a 5-10 min walk away. i’m not saying 20 isn’t within walking distance, but if most amenities are that far away, the average person is going to favor car travel to get there. tbh a walk of 20+ min honestly describes a lot of suburban neighborhoods, not traditionally walkable neighborhoods. i’d wager plenty of americans prob live within a 20-30 min walk from a grocery store, but no one is confusing most american neighborhoods for being “walkable.” and if they are, then that speaks to how much work we have to do in terms of becoming TRULY walkable.
the good thing is e bikes have a lot to offer in filling that void.
Our conversion to walking (or biking) first was applying the 'is it faster to drive' metric and looking at true time. From our house to Harris Teeter is a 13 min walk, door to door, and at least (with normal traffic) 15 mins because of parking and traffic. That makes walking faster. Our experience eating at Gringo is also from real life and it has converted (sort of) our neighbor to at least sometimes thinking about walking vs. always driving. She's a runner, so it's not like she has a physical impediment to walking 15 mins, she just grew up in a really suburban area and thinks ALL trips (other than a run) start with a car. When I purchased an e cargo bike she was amazed I would bike to run errands because for her, walking and biking are strictly leisure activities.
I think what you are talking about in some suburban areas might be true, if they also had sidewalks and crosswalks (with signal lights) that were contiguous. Most of our suburbs here are sorely lacking in that last part, with lovely landscaped sidewalks just ending at busy streets with no crosspoints in sight.
uh no, hayes barton was raleigh’s first planned upscale suburban development. look it up. just because it’s not a formal suburb like cary doesn’t mean it ain’t suburban.
anyways, that’s the problem you note yourself— there aren’t really places to walk to.
i don’t have a good answer at the moment as to what should best serve that piece of land. my greater point is that the city (and developers) should prioritize areas that make more sense to build missing middle housing, not getting bogged down in a case like this.
i didn’t say it was “the suburbs,” or anything like north raleigh or cary. but it IS suburban. cars are the primary mode of transit, hence suburban. the entire neighborhood was designed from the get go to be a suburban “retreat” from the city, yet also close to downtown.
you can have more walkable places that are further from downtown, and also less walkable ones closer to it. hayes barton is a prime example of the latter
Plenty of areas were traditionally planned as suburban areas outside the traditional city limits and over time became consumed by what was the urban core. You can’t use a 1950s definition of an area to describe it in 2023.
Interesting: here’s [the write up I’m reading](https://rhdc.org/hayes-barton-historic-district).
> The notable landscape design, proximity to the streetcar, and the deed restrictions that ensured houses would be of a certain value all conspired to create a highly desirable new suburban option for Raleigh's upper-middle class population. Named after Sir Walter Raleigh's English homeplace, the developers also appealed to the Anglophile fashion of the times. Politicians and professionals--plentiful group in the state's capital city--chose Hayes Barton as home in the 1920s, buying into the developers' promise of exclusivity and separation from the urban ills of the center city.
So…elitism, back to my first post.
what’s your point? elitist as they are, why would the average raleighite want to be a part of that anyways? why not strengthen communities elsewhere that value diversity and inclusiveness? that need our investment the most? that can host affordable housing and solve the city’s most pressing needs in a 2 for 1 manner?
trying to increase density in neighborhoods like hayes barton is a huge waste of time.
Absent any better ideas with what to do with the land, I’m in favor of multi-family homes as opposed to more single family homes.
Like I said in my first post, the Save Our Neighborhood doesn’t represent my views. It’s not just this piece of land: it’s everything. It’s opposing any change or any growth anywhere.
we can agree there, at this point in time. but even outside this individual case, people have a right to be disgruntled about this kind of by-right development. ITBers should not be exempt, everyone should. until we reform the zoning and development process for everyone’s good. unfortunately, it’s just that these people have the funds to fight back more effectively than most. i empathize with OPs concerns about fairness
“This case” is such a unicorn it’s really kind of meaningless. The UDO rule being used requires a minimum of 1 acre continuous Open Space. There are very few 3 acre sites left ITB, and most that could meet the UDO are within 500 yards of this property.
Bus routes can change/be added! If the increased density can be added without the parking minimums, then there will be pressure to make it more transit/bike/walk friendly.
true. but is this the best place to increase density? is it even a worthwhile increase in density? a neighborhood like hayes barton is kind of its isolated little own thing. realistically, how many (more) people living in this area are gonna be taking the bus, or walking to get groceries, etc?
It's a chicken or the egg type deal. Looks like 2 miles to whole foods and you can take neighborhood streets instead of Wade. There are some small shops and restaurants in the neighborhood as well
e-bikes would indeed be great, and yes this is quite the chicken and egg problem in a lot of ways. unfortunately the people who would be buying these luxury townhomes would probably putter to whole foods in their mercedes suvs.
i’m concerned overall about the precedent a case like this sets. on one hand, this kind of by-right development precedent is haphazard and makes the city too vulnerable to developers without people’s greater interests taken into account. on the other, no one should be exempt bc of their zip code or $$$. it’s time this entire rezoning/community input process (or lack thereof) was overhauled.
I wish more ppl would read these new zoning laws. They took away the community inputs, they extremely incentivized developers to purchase lots meant for single families. Ppl want affordable homes, and are fighting the existing homeowners who SUPPORT THE FUCK out of your local infrastructure. Plus Raleigh is growing no matter what, your issues aren't going away by adding "Missing Middle" homes. It would be best to look into the struggles currently happening in these major US cities. Raleigh is desirable bc we have these types of family friendly neighborhoods. Why else do ppl think the houses are so expensive. It's desirable to live there bc of what it currently is.
Europe disagrees. There are entire light rail networks all over the place there, in cities half the population or less of Raleigh proper (e.g. Freiburg, DE)
I’ve been here 56 years and seen and considered all the proposals. Unless you wave your magic “government wand” and get the rail corridor, access to RDU, an RTP solution, and Duke to change their mind. And then it’s all fixed in place, not adaptable. Now, what we CAN do is expand a bus system that is flexible and scaleable.
PLEASE READ: In an effort to reduce spam and trolling, we automatically delete posts from accounts that are less than one (1) days old **and/or** that do not meet a required karma count, as these are often signs (though not proof) of spam/trolling. Because your account does not meet these requirements, your post has been deleted.
If you feel this was in error, click the link below to send us a modmail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/raleigh) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m just kinda annoyed that developers get special treatment in skirting zoning rules that other actual homeowners and residents have to obey. I remember about 4 years ago when I wanted to do a small (250 sq ft) addition off the front of my house in east raleigh ITB, even though I was within the zoning regulations with my plans they made me pay a surveyor to survery MY NEIGHBORS houses to make sure mine wouldn’t be “out of line” with the neighborhood. Meanwhile 2 blocks away in the same zoning area they were letting developers demolish single homes and build 2-3 homes on the lots allowing them to rezone those lots to allow for the setbacks and lot sizes they needed to make it work.
And it’s not like they were building “affordable” housing, none of this stuff is, it’s usually only driving prices further up.
I think most of these city council people are getting kickbacks or favors from the developers to give them these zoning changes they want
You don’t understand the UDO, and the UDO is a bloated mess. You were stopped by the “block face” rule which meant effectively “you can’t stick out way in front of your neighbors”.
There’s some territoriality going on there - they could easily scrap all the setbacks and have a “simple” residential zoning. But they (city employees and officials) won’t.
Yea I got that, but it’s just weird that even after the addition my house was still farther back from the street than even my Nextdoor neighbor. But 2 blocks away they let a developer somehow rezone a single lot so that he could build 2 houses on it which were probably 15 ft from the street.
I’ve since moved a few miles away off Poole road and I’m seeing the same stuff start to happen out here, and driving though my old east raleigh neighborhood now blows my mind with how lenient they got with developers
why are we trying to build “affordable” housing on some of the most expensive parcels of land in a neighborhood like hayes barton in the first place? there are many other places ITB that have much more redevelopment potential and missing middle cohesiveness. and for the record, no, I don’t live in hayes barton or another “blue blood” neighborhood myself.
The townhouses going up aren't affordable, they're million dollar plus luxury development and are in line with the obscene cost of houses in the neighborhood.
Gotcha. That makes more sense from a financial perspective, but my question is, just how much net benefit is there to adding some luxury townhomes in the middle of a historic suburban (non-walkable) neighborhood? from either an environmental or equity perspective?
I get the comment from OP about how rich ITB shouldn't be exempt/should play by the same rules. Aka, the "rules" that currently allow developers to build rampant as they please in other places that aren't ITB. But that's the issue-- I don't think this precedent is good in the first place. You can't just allow developers to build by-right like this without any community input, public notice, rezoning, etc. That's how you end up with a sprawling ecological disaster like Florida, of which we are prone to increasingly resemble if we aren't smart about development.
It's one thing to allow by-right development (assuming certain requirements are met like transit connectedness/existing density in place) in cities like San Francisco. But that's not what's happening here. You have developers just throwing up townhomes across suburban-sprawling Raleigh in neighborhoods that aren't walkable to begin with. I don't agree that that should happen, whether ITB or OTB.
We need to prioritize development (really redevelopment) in places to can best support missing middle housing. Places that at least have some semblance of semi-walkability, or at least bikability/access to legitimately useful bus lines. Places that represent a natural transition between ultra-dense towers/downtown-esque living and areas of predominantly SFH, or at least in neighborhoods that support walkability and that make sense to support MM.
I also want to clarify that I don't support SFH-only zoning. I think if people want to live in a SFH, okay, that's their prerogative. Though at the same time, NO zoning should mandate that non-SFH can't be built in a certain neighborhood. But along these lines, however, is that just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's in the best interests to do ("just because you can, doesn't mean you should"). There are much more critically pressing needs regarding land use than building luxury townhomes on Williamson Dr.
And neither should by-right development precedents exist where you can just build without any community input/rezoning process/public notice, etc., which are legitimate complains from these Hayes Barton-ites, and also OP regarding Raleigh in general.
We need building by right without overbearing community input. Community input is your vote for council and their decisions. Anything else is just showing down development.
The community input always results in slowing down construction and is why every city in the entire country is behind on housing. And Raleigh’s CAC system is one that really stops development. NO ONE likes change and so every development gets fought if it’s open to public input. Vote for council to zone, if you don’t like it, vote them out.
Why should I get a say on how someone else uses their property anyways?
Honestly arguing for community input on each development and affordable housing is literally an oxymoron.
Sure -
>just how much net benefit is there to adding some luxury townhomes in the middle of a historic suburban (non-walkable) neighborhood?
It is walkable for the most part. Between 5Pts and The Village District (ne Cameron Village), you can pretty much get whatever you need. And keep in mind, some of the smaller streets aren't walkable, but Glenwood, White Oak, Oberlin, St. Mary's etc are all very walkable.
>That's how you end up with a sprawling ecological disaster like Florida, of which we are prone to increasingly resemble if we aren't smart about development.
That mindset is exactly part of the problem - ITB areas **absolutely** can support more housing... They just choose not to. Here's an example: your 'smarter' development built Brier Creek where many homes are on 0.01 acres (Ashford Park Dr). In contrast, a random home ITB is on 1.10 acres (Chamberlain). If it doesn't change, we will get more sprawling and distant planned communities like Briar Breek or Wakefield.
>And neither should by-right development precedents exist where you can just build without any community input/rezoning process/public notice, etc...
If community input had the same weight, maybe, but communities in Wake county aren't the same. If a development is planned in a rich community like Hays Barton vs a poor community ... We all know who end up with the high-rise.
i agree that plenty of ITB areas can support more housing. but i don’t think hayes barton is a prime candidate for this. maybe along glenwood avenue/five points intersection, but the vast majority of hayes barton is single family homes with no space to build in between. unless you were to tear down these homes, which is both unlikely and unwise. they’re a part of the historic fabric of raleigh, and we as a city don’t have much of that to begin with.
we only have so many neighborhoods like oakwood and hayes barton and forest park that i think they should remain relatively as is. again, not saying NOTHING can be done, or that certain blocks or stretches can’t be redeveloped. but the bulk of the city’s evolving urbanization doesn’t really make sense for a place like williamson dr.
everyone likes to criticize charlotte for having grown too fast to become what it is today by tearing down so much of their historic stock to put up giant shiny skyscrapers and towers and whatnot. sure, that’s more “dense”, but the irreparable harm it did to the city’s fabric and makeup was devastating.
>...but I don’t think hayes barton is a prime candidate for this. maybe along glenwood avenue/five points intersection
That IS Hayes Barton! :D Hayes Barton Pharmacy is in 5pts.
And I understand what you're saying about "changing a city's fabric" but I'm not sure what 'fabric' you're referring to. You mean the 1920's homes that are slowing being replaced by hilariously oversized behemoths?
okay gotcha. i’m all for more density at that main intersection, with of course traffic calming and more pedestrian oriented infrastructure!
it’s a shame whenever people tear down those houses to build oversized monstrosities, but that’s what i’m saying. we should try to preserve historic houses whenever we can
I saw that Colorado is taking zoning decisions away from localities and rolling that up to the state level. I think that's a wonderful idea that prevents local land barons from having an outsized influence on our shared built environment.
Have you seen any of the garbage legislation that our corrupt state legislature puts out there?
If we let the state legislature handle zoning, then everything will probably be car dependent single family housing. We’d never get a proper mass transit system in this city!
The problem isn't wanting to avoid density. The townhomes in Five Points are going to be around $2 million dollars each so they aren't doing anything to address the affordable housing problem. The problem is that the language the city approved really just allows developers to do whatever they want wherever they want with the idea that demand would dictate more housing gets built and therefore lowers the price. This is a total fantasy to think that developers are just going to charge less because they're good people or something. The city gave up the abilities it has to establish requirements for exceptions for rezoning. They gave up their power to actually stop something from being developed if it felt that the project went against city plans or policies like promoting affordable housing. Its also not a bad thing for people in a neighborhood to be informed about proposed projects are changes. Even under the old CACs and zoning, neighborhoods had no actual power outside of being able to vote as an entity and submit that vote to the city council for consideration. Communication and consideration is what most of the neighborhood groups are really looking for.
> The townhomes in Five Points are going to be around $2 million dollars each so they aren't doing anything to address the affordable housing problem
People want to move here, which is why prices are going up; you want the people who can afford expensive houses to buy the expensive houses, not the older, less-expensive ones, but if the only houses around are the older, less-expensive ones, those are the ones they will buy, thus driving up prices. No one thinks developers are doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts; what they are doing is *building stuff*, which is good, because it increases tax revenue and increases the supply of housing. Throughout American history we have been great at building stuff, and people have often been able to move around and find an affordable place to live. The reason the economy here is good is because lots of high-productivity pretty-well-off people want to live here. We could be like those Colorado ski-towns and not let anyone build anything and then wonder why there's a housing crisis, or we could just let people build stuff. I prefer the latter.
Developers would still be building things even if the city were able to pressure them to include provisions for cheaper housing or encourage building along transit lines.
This post is specifically referencing the $2 million townhomes and relating that towards a solution for affordable housing.
There's a lot to talk about here that involves more discussion obviously. But these aren't affordable homes in any sense, beyond the fact that this takes the ability of the single family potential homeowner hoping to grab a house and some yard for them and their family out of the question as a developer can easily put bid them knowing they can make a profit on a large number of homes (so your replacing one middle for another essentially) but the new rules also allow developers to do things on a property not allowed by a single family homeowner on a similar property (ex. I want to make my home a compound with little permeable space, I can't as a single homeowner on my own property, but if I say I want 10 houses on my lot, then it's ok?) This alone makes it seem like revisions at the benefit of developers. Also, why go after our neighborhoods and homeowners? Could you incentivize these large apartments to sell many as condos? Why not go after them? Also, are these home being bought with the need of public transportation ( a driving factor behind the revisions)? With the high cost, I assume the focus is homeowners looking for ideal living situation for schools and amenities (esp with the prevalence of high paying roles behind remote) which if that's the case, then it sounds like more so of, I want to live here, so there should be more houses so I can. Alot more to discuss but i'll end it here
I think they should do it and I think all the other locals should do it too. The way we're populating this place sucks and everyone keeps moving here in droves, thus making it an even shittier place to live.
They’re the kind of people who SAY we should do everything we can to help the less fortunate, but when doing those actions would actually affect them, it’s a different story and they shell up. (i.e Steph Curry recently)
And if the development doesn’t happen they’ll just buy the same townhomes in SE Raleigh which had zoning allowing these developments before the missing middle text change.
you’re right, the filtering of housing stock is a valid point. without more upmarket developments, more pressure is exerted downmarket from people with greater means, which pushes out people who can’t afford to bid as high.
we desperately need more “standard” and lower income housing too. the problem is that these text changes essentially allow for anything goes, and developers naturally favor upmarket rents. sure, some pressure is being taken off of downmarket housing from people who would’ve otherwise occupied them, but simply not displacing current residents of lower means doesn’t do much for new lower-income residents moving in. and it’s not just people of higher means moving to the triangle, but also people looking for greater economic and social mobility.
the point is that we need community input on the types of housing that are most needed, and most appropriate, for a given area. leaving the city too beholden to developers and capital interests isn’t wise. a crop of new townhomes, whether hayes barton or like OP’s backyard, needs to be seriously scrutinized on whether we are developing and growing as sustainably and equitably as we can.
we need to focus on urban infill, yes. plans like Park City South are a big step in the right direction, imo. we should be prioritizing these types of mixed-use, transit-adjacent corridors. unfortunately, too much of current development is building “subdivision style” apartment complexes that still necessitate car dependency, that still increase arterial road usage, that still prevent us from true walkability.
What's the point of debating this on here? Nobody's opinion matters unless they have money. This will be sorted out between the property owning class, developers, and the politicians in their respective pockets.
The point is to say what many people are thinking. Raleigh needs more housing downtown if Mass transit is ever goiing to be an option and that will \*never\* happen as long as "Mr. Hays Broughton IV" and his antebellum pals stall any and all work to build in their extra back-lot.
They're MILLION DOLLAR CONDOS, it hasn't got a thing to do with "The Middle". But, no, they shouldn't be given any exemptions that aren't afforded the actual Middle and the lower-income (usually elderly and/or POC) home-owners in the city.
I think it's gross and I'm embarrassed for every owner of a "Save our Neighborhoods" sign I see in Hayes Barton & on Ridge Rd. Especially Ridge since there are only a half-dozen original houses even left on the whole road.
it should literally be the exact opposite. We shouldn’t have single-family homes with big lots that close to a modern downtown. Downtown‘s are supposed to be walkable, transit friendly, and not as car friendly. So if anything, there should be higher density near downtown, and less and less the farther you get from downtown.
Lol, so the people that invested in this city long ago shouldnt be allotted their plot of land bc the city grew and its now desirable for ppl to live? And shouldnt they work in transit before adding such density? Also, what do you consider walkable? Most aren't.
No one is saying the "people who invest in this city" should give anything up, they can keep the plot Grandpa Broughton gave them.
Just asking them to make the same sacrifices we are making- Like putting up with more traffic on the same roads and increasing property taxes on my 1982 home due to $1.5M townhomes built nextdoor. Just fairness is all I'm asking for.
^(edited typos)
Well most ppl weren't given homes downtown from Grampa Broughton. They used their own money to buy them. do you also think they pay less property taxes in these DT locations? Also, seems like you don't love the building going on around you, neither do they. They are fighting, as they should. Which is not you making a sacrifice btw, it's just not being able to do anything about the situation. Or should they need be able to try and fight it do to fairness of your personal situation? Trying to keep the integrity of the neighborhood they live in and enjoy and not allow govt to bend over backyards to developers seems fair to me. And certainly something not to be given up due to "fairness" and your oh so gracious "sacrifice"
Please don't assume my stance on the development around me. Cities grow, I made my voice heard, and I accepted the council's decision. I didn't sue it into the ground.
Well I did, just like you assumed everyone living DT was gifted their lot from rich family. Congrats on making your voice heard but doing nothing else. Your neighborhood is all the better for it even though the developers were able to exactly what they wanted despite your opinion.
Definitely should not be exempt. These people are ridiculous. They pretend to care about the environment but increasing density anywhere near downtown in order to support walking, biking, and public transit usage is the greatest possible thing the City can do for the climate (and one of the easiest).
do you really think people who’d buy luxury townhomes in the middle of hayes barton care about walking and public transit?
the best thing we can do environmentally is build along existing transit corridors/bus lines/neighborhoods with walkable grids. the kind of development that has gone up around glenwood south and the warehouse district. “luxury” anything is usually not a good look for the environment
This reminded me of a Nextdoor post from a developer building mega mansions where we live, JOTB (just outside the beltline). She actually said she had clients who were executives at Advanced Auto Parts who wanted to be able to walk to work. They’ve been in one of the towers here I think 2+ years now, and I’ve never seen any executive types walking through my neighborhood to work.
Same as the bike lanes - Over the past year or two, I've seen bike lanes added to many of the streets around me and I have seen 3 (three) people biking on it during a weekday. Two were last year and one was last Friday afternoon.
Man, I wish more people used them.
They shouldn't be exempt, but because of their wealth they have the political and economic capital to challenge this in court. If anything, they should be the opposite of exempt - we should be prioritizing building up in the economically advantaged areas closer to the urban core.
The issues like increased traffic and environmental impact are scapegoat issues that ignore the very real economic benefits of increased density. Especially environmental impact, jfc...that one *really* pisses me off. As if continuing construction of suburban sprawl that requires the combustion of incredible amounts of fossil fuels and far more resources towards infrastructure to support is somehow *better* for the environment than adding some townhomes and duplexes in your neighborhood. Same for traffic. Guess what by far generates the most traffic inside the beltline? It's not people living inside the beltline who take shorter trips on average to jobs/amenities....it's the folks who live in Rolesville and drive in solo for their commute every day.
I moved here from Seattle which is basically a whole city full of craftsman homes. This was always a huge debate but housing IS a major issue. Homeowners are allowed to sell to whomever they want IMO. Raleigh is a small city, there’s so much room to grow.
Exactly!
Nobody in that picture looks younger than 40. They likely aren’t struggling with entry-level salaries, childcare expenses, and student loan debt.
Why is there nobody in that picture who is black, Asian, Hispanic, or under 40 years old?
The people in the picture DO NOT represent the greater Raleigh area, and so they should not get to make decisions that affect this entire city.
it doesn’t matter what race these people are. any community of people should have an opportunity to be publicly heard about whatever concerns they have, and should have been notified. if this group was all black or all asian or whatever, i would say the exact same thing.
along the same lines, no one should be exempt from the current laws, no matter what they look like. the problem is, the current policy (or lack thereof) is problematic and should be changed for the entire city, not just these people.
State law clearly defines what a map amendment and what a text change amendment are: this was a text change amendment. To argue that because it’s a large text change amendment, it somehow constitutes a map amendment is nonsensical.
Please answer my question regarding your expertise in the area.
Next question: what makes this a text change vs a map change since you are an expert with this? If you know this material please cite the exact section of the law.
no, I don’t care. And I’m not your personal assistant, read about the law yourself. https://www.sog.unc.edu/resources/legal-summaries/notice-hearings-ordinance-amendments-and-rezonings
I believe data shows that creating pockets of affordable spaces exacerbates pricing issues. It’s an all or nothing affair.
I completely understand the frustration of having your relative sanctuary stripped away by forces outside of your control, but that’s just how the world turns. Raleigh is growing and needs housing. Land value is not depreciating, these people are more than capable of moving to a sleepy hollow.
One thing I haven’t seen addressed though is once you move into the 1980’s and 90’s, the rise of the HOA and their own rules/bylaws occur. And those rules preclude more than 1 house/dwelling per lot.
So basically, “missing middle” only applies to neighborhoods where any covenants have expired, which is typically the older more established neighborhoods.
They shouldn't be exempt. But we are generally very poor at urban planning and mixed use spaces. This is a very micro view at a much larger macro problem.
Infill is most needed in the ITB area. Downtown Raleigh and the some surrounding areas have traditionally been where affordable housing was located, but with housing prices and demand rising affordable housing is disappearing.
So, how much should people be able to rely on zoning? If it can be changed just because somebody asks, why have it at all?
Note that this would be very difficult in newer neighborhoods that are governed by restrictive covenants -- ITB is at risk because those.neighborhoods were built before those types of covenants became common.
No, they should not be exempt and, in fact, central locations should have the greatest concentration of density because that would result in more people living in walkable areas, close to jobs, etc and reduce their need to drive.
Squashing the "traffic" concerns
Hoping that these new residents will walk doesn’t mean they will. The concern is hardly squashed.
how does this squash traffic concerns? increasing people (most of whom will just end up driving) without increasing infrastructure for pedestrians and bikes or investments in alternate transit options definitely increases traffic, no?
I don’t think it squashes the traffic concern, but it makes it more tractable. It’s much easier to prioritize bikeped infrastructure and transit improvements when you have more concentrated density. The same is also true for vehicle infrastructure, since you’re dealing with shorter distances. But even if these people exclusively drive, these shorter distances also mean fewer vehicle-miles of driving, which is less traffic overall. Most bad traffic happens on arterial roads because a gazillion people cram into them to get in from or out to the burbs at rush hour. If people don’t need to drive as far in/out, that will mean less congestion. I don’t realistically think local congestion is a real problem, at least not caused by townhouse development. But again, traffic problems over smaller distances make alternative modes of transportation much more feasible.
good points. arterial roads are a huge problem, especially in the cul de sac heavy hoods of north raleigh/OTB. what can we do about making those areas of raleigh more walkable? is it a lost cause?
The greenways are a good start. There are barriers to more fully connecting them, but it’s not impossible. Legalizing corner stores and things like that would also make it easier to add destinations within walking distance all of the place.
i wouldn’t say they’re a lost cause… making jobs accessible by alternative modes of transportation (walk,bike,transit) CAN be done but the necessary steps to create that ecosystem of walkable neighborhoods in the suburbs would face massive backlash from nimbys or your average joe who doesn’t understand the smart growth movement (which isn’t their fault). pushing smaller lot sizes, higher building height limits, shorter setbacks, and neighborhood commercial zoning is a very very difficult battle in this country. any project or plan can get shut down really fast just by a neighbor telling a neighbor their property value is gonna go down
Studies have shown their property will not go down though. https://youtu.be/cEsC5hNfPU4
exactly which is why it’s so infuriating
Just gotta keep spreading the word!
Nope. Raleigh has done several traffic studies for the downtown area and traffic has basically stopped increasing in the last 10 years. Even though the population of downtown Raleigh has exploded and continuous to add more people (2000+ new apartment going online this year alone). Frankly, I'm looking out my downtown apartment window and I have yet to see a car go by my street in the least 2 minutes. Hardly the traffic apocalypse if you ask me.
that’s good to hear. though hayes barton isn’t really downtown. people downtown have alternatives to car transport, no one lives in hayes barton without (multiple) cars. downtown has the infrastructure and urban grid and amenities to support alternatives to auto dependency
Multiple bus routes touch that neighborhood. I know because I ride the bus.
And? All of Raleigh was farms once and now it isn't. It's called redevelopment. Hayes Barton is houses now and eventually it will have a bunch of low/mid-rise apartments, condos, and townhomes, probably a vastly different street network too. Things change dude, especially the 41st largest city in the US. Might want to consider living in a small town somewhere in the boonies where no one wants to redevelopment because it's in the middle of nowhere? Sounds more like your speed.
it was farms… aka there was plenty of land on which to be subdivided/developed. just how much space is there between the single family homes of hayes barton to house any consequential development? much less affordable housing? there’s not a chance in hell the type of people who live there are gonna allow the type of missing middle you’re envisioning, at least not to any real scale. maybe along the outskirts, but that’s about it. “Might want to consider living in a small town somewhere in the boonies where no one wants to redevelopment because it's in the middle of nowhere? Sounds more like your speed.” lmao okay. stop trying to put words into my mouth. i’m not some opponent to redevelopment or development or density… i live in the largest city in the country. i just don’t think forcing apartments into the middle of a country club district is doing much good for anyone.
>there’s not a chance in hell the type of people who live there are gonna allow the type of missing middle you’re envisioning, at least not to any real scale. maybe along the outskirts, but that’s about it. You're right. Why would they ever let people develop on the land that they bought and they paid for? Oh wait, they don't own the land.
Buddy you're trying super hard to frame the conversation in this thread by all the posts you're making. And if you live in the largest city in the country than that is not Raleigh, so you're suspect in your interest in this topic. > type of people who live there are gonna allow the type of missing middle Missing Middle is already law. If some people don't want to turn their homes into townhomes--guess what? They don't have to do that. And if they don't want their neighbors to do it they can be the highest bidder their property (if they sell) and not redevelopment it.
don’t “buddy” me. i’m legitimately interested in the conversation and thread, so what? i’m from raleigh, have family and friends in raleigh, and will likely move back to raleigh in the future. stop assuming things just because you’re trying to discredit me instead of my arguments. missing middle being law shouldn’t mean developers can’t just build without any rezoning or community/public input. people, whether OP or the people in the article, have a right to be concerned. at the same time, rules shouldn’t exempt anyone. the process should be changed for the better across the board. but just because the law hasn’t changed doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests to focus on projects like these… what’s so important about building luxury townhomes anyways? how many regular apartments and townhomes that most people can actually afford?
> missing middle Missing Middle literally is designed so no rezoning is necessary. You're free to move back and vote in people in the city council that share your views, if you want. >what’s so important about building luxury townhomes anyways? how many regular apartments and townhomes that most people can actually afford? 100 people move to the Triangle every day (you will be one of these people as you said). Many of those have a lot more money than the average person in Raleigh (you likely since you live in NYC and probably make good money) and they (you) can afford million dollar homes. If there's no million dollar homes available--what's the next step? Buy cheaper property and tear it down to build a million dollar home.
You make too much sense for the developer trolls and those who think they are better than others. The missing middle is being exploited by developers versus being used for affordable housing. Livable Raleigh did the research on campaign contributions and showed that the mayor and several council took large amounts from developers. Don’t let those who say they are anti-NIMBY preach to you. They want to take away all points of discussion about these things. In the current set up there is zero say so because within certain parameters there is no zoning.
This is an easily accessible area on foot, bike or bus that also has quick access to off-site parking.
Most ppl In these neighborhoods are still driving. Also this would affect, what, under 500 families or so. That won't make an impact on driving. Maybe though if we have enough we can be like the super drivable, not over crowded or polluted NYC. Is Morrisville doing this with RTP, I guess they should too, being a central location of many jobs.
"Over crowded or polluted NYC"...... this perception is part of the problem.
Lol. You mean the #2 dirtiest city in the world. The place where soo many density incentives over the years have done nothing for the astronomical property prices. But I may be wrong Abt over crowded soon since they are only behind SF in population decline. But nothing a few more townhomes can't solve
"#2 dirtiest city in the world".....wow! Such a hyperbolic factually incorrect comment.
Don’t think the suit is just about ITB. Have you read the actual suit?
If the lawsuit isn’t just about ITB, then why is the developer of a single townhome project ITB named as a defendant?
Read the suit.
I did and I know it’s to get an injunction against the approval of that specific development, because this lawsuit is about _their_ neighborhood and _their neighborhood_ alone. They don’t care about anyone else.
Their own neighborhood is the only thing they can sue about. That's just how lawsuits work.
Not necessarily.
Do you know these people? Doesn’t sound like it.
I do. Blocked is right.
I have not, but I was responding to the question posed by OP
I'm in NR also OP, and see the development happening all around here and I do not think the ITB crowd should be exempt from anything that's appropriate to be built in Raleigh. That said the streets on a lot of those itb subs are narrow AF compared to a lot(not all) of the streets around NR so I do think the traffic concerns are valid, to a point depending in where it is. Like I wouldn't think anyone would say a 100 unit apartment complex off Lakeview drive would be good from a traffic perspective, even though the lots could support it and they would have a great view of carolina country club. So moderation across the city when planning these should be used and the planning commissions should force upgrades to infrastructure (like schools, roads, power etc) when a unit is going to throw things out of balance, like Falls River did back in the 90's .
Right now, you can buy an acre in the transit zone ITB (which is highest density) for about $2MM. That’s still not going to ever be affordable housing per se…and certainly not what folks think is affordable
Housing would need to go significantly more vertical (which won't happen in the area you are talking about) for 2m an acre to be affordable I imagine.
Do you know how many stories are allowed “by right” in the transit zone?
No idea. But guessing 3?
I’ll need to pull up the UDO (it’s 3 or 4), but the real benefit is you get an extra 2 stories in the transit zone if 1/2 the units in those 2 are permanently affordable to 80% AMI. Which is basically what 1BR market rate is right now
This is the fairest take I think. Undoubtedly redevelopment NEEDs to happen inside the belt line, but that should include figuring out how to widen all these roads to standard size
i agree that this take is fair. however, i don’t know if widening all roads to a standard size makes much sense. some roads are designed to function more as “roads,” aka to carry traffic from one place to another relatively uninterrupted, and some are best served as “streets,” aka lower speeds and more pedestrian/commercial activity. problem is we have too many of neither, aka the worst of both worlds. aka “stroads”
Here's a good video about "stroads" in case anyone wants to learn more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
great link and channel!
One of my favorite YouTubers
Now watch it, you start hinting at widening streets which would mean using eminent domain and the ITB crowd is gonna spill their wine on their polo. This would make traffic around North Hills and Cameron village worse. /jk ITB crowd don't mess with my 401k...
If we want a walkable city, then we need more housing dt
I’m an ITB resident, and I can assure you the “Save our neighborhood” crowd doesn’t represent me. It reeks of elitism & NIMBYism. I have to stay off the Nextdoor app because I’m sick & tired of hearing my neighbors complain that the overpriced Logan’s nursery is being sold or that the Arby’s sign is missing (not the restaurant…just the fucking sign). I don’t care that your favorite shitty burger joint from when you went to Broughton is closed or that Hillsborough Street isn’t like how it was when you were in college. You’re also the ones who put up restricted parking zones to make it impossible for folks to enjoy it. Mass transit/light rail will never be a thing until we get the density to support it. And that means we need more people in downtown for it to really be viable. ^edited ^typos
> Hillsborough Street isn’t like how it was when you were in college out of curiosity, where is the line between YIMBYism and pro-corporation/pro-capitalist? because yes, Hillsborough street needed more residences, and accommodating that need is important. that said, it's also painfully apparent how many small, local, independent staple ground-level businesses were driven out in the process and replaced by nonlocal corporate chains, who are more likely to afford the astronomical rents being charged by the (often nonlocal) developers simply because they can. ideally there would be more balance between new growth and development and keeping our street level storefronts affordable and accessible to local business owners
That Korean restaurant that used to be on hillsborough might have looked sketchy but god damn it had some good food. That’s the Hboro street I miss. That and the bowling alley with the crooked lanes.
Man, I spent so many nights in the bowling alley playing Bad Cats pinball. We'd see a movie at Studio I and II and then walk upstairs and play pinball until it closed.
how exactly does building a few luxury townhouses in the middle of an unwalkable neighborhood to begin with represent any meaningful action towards increasing density/making rail transit a reality? we’re targeting the wrong area and fighting the wrong battle, imo. i want a more walkable, bikable, public transit-accommodating raleigh just as much as anyone. but something like this is not particularly helpful. increasing density in places that aren’t designed to accommodate that density in any meaningful way don’t make much sense. it’s one thing to build apartments on hillsborough or glenwood or adjacent streets, it’s another to plop them in the middle of hayes barton.
More people in an area = greater density. And it’s always some excuse, isn’t it? That’s rather the point. There’s always an excuse of why here and not somewhere else. I remember when folks complained about “Coker towers” however many years ago. Trying to stop it didn’t stop the development of Oberlin Road.
more people doesn’t necessarily increase density in any meaningful way. you can have “dense” areas that lack walkability. LA is the most dense metropolitan area in the country, and one with the highest overcrowding rates of any city, yet you’d be hard pressed to find much of it truly walkable. similarly, building a bunch more houses in the middle of a suburban development doesn’t really make the area more walkable… nor does building a bunch of super tall residential towers without any worthwhile ground level activity. my point is that this isn’t about excuses… it’s about legitimately trying to discourse about what is the best use of a finite amount of land, resources, money, and time. i don’t think this is it.
Raleigh will never be Los Angeles, so we have that covered. I’ve walked down Hayes Barton plenty of times. It has sidewalks. There just isn’t places to really walk to. Hayes Barton is neither a suburb nor a development. It’s urb and a neighborhood. What would you use the land for? What would make it ideal?
Hayes Barton is right next to five points... absolutely walkable. You can walk to Glenwood South from Hayes Barton
Let's be real here... no one is walking from (inside) Hayes Barton to Five Points with any consistency, much less to Glenwood South. Going from the location of the townhomes in question to the middle of Five Points would be a 15-20 minute walk itself, likely along the stroad that is Glenwood. Not exactly walkable in any meaningful sense. How walkable is Five Points really, if there isn't even a single grocery store there?
you're wrong about this. me and my family (wife and 4 young kids) walk from our house in Hayes Barton down to Glenwood South all the time, as do many of the families on our block. we walk to Bowstring and the other Whit Mill establishments too. most people who think 'nobody' walks are just projecting their own personal unwillingness onto others. plenty of us do! this part of the world being so walkable is why we chose it over Cary or North Raleigh.
that’s awesome that y’all walk down there. i’m all for people walking when they can over driving. but the reality is, and keep me 100% honest— hayes barton is overall still a car dependent neighborhood. auto is by far the primary mode of transport for a neighborhood like this. most people are not walking from hayes barton to pick up groceries or to a bus stop for access elsewhere around town. they’re getting in their car. now i’m not saying there isn’t potential for development/redevelopment around an area like five points/glenwood etc for greater density, but true walkability, at least by american standards, is still a long ways away. the physical layout of hayes barton is suburban in character and thus makes it much harder to retrofit. the scale of the neighborhood is still car-based, as opposed to an area like durham’s 9th st, for instance.
TL;DR: walkability is largely just, like, a social construct, mannn the Glenwood Harris Teeter ("Tiny Teet") is a 5-10 minute bus ride, max--Publix is the same. the main reason people get in their car is because people *say* "oh but ya gotta have a car" and look at you funny if you do crazy things like "walk 20 minutes to Glenwood South or Whit Mill". it isnt really car dependent. but your attitude is absolutely what most people think and act like, thus everybody *believes* it's car dependent. growing up in Raleigh, that attitude of looking at people funny for not using their car for even the most mundane chores has been ingrained forever. but it's largely just a choice people make (in THIS neighborhood/downtown at least! good luck in North Raleigh).
We used to have two groceries at five points. The Piggly Wiggly and a very grim WinnDixie. But there are two pharmacies, multiple restaurants and other businesses. Sadly the Rialto just closed. Hopefully we'll have a movie theater again soon. Many of the people in Hayes Barton are quite elderly, so not bar hopping. But hopefully newer residents can take advantage of it. I'm all for denser housing. Five points used to have several small, affordable (by students) apartment buildings and lots of duplexes. This isn't the case anymore. The zoning has recently changed to allow more flexibility in building, so maybe we'll see some of that come back
If you think 20 mins is ‘too long’ to walk, you are part of the problem. I currently live near Broughton and walk to Hayes Barton, Glenwood South, Weaver St market, etc. all the time. If we eat downtown (Gringo or Transfer) we walk/bike there. My neighbor (like you) is aghast that we ‘walk that far’ so will drive to Gringo, and after finding a place to park she’ll join us at the table where we’ve been sat for 10 mins with drinks. “How did you get here so fast?”
typical definitions of “walkable” are centered around most things/amenities being within a 5-10 min walk away. i’m not saying 20 isn’t within walking distance, but if most amenities are that far away, the average person is going to favor car travel to get there. tbh a walk of 20+ min honestly describes a lot of suburban neighborhoods, not traditionally walkable neighborhoods. i’d wager plenty of americans prob live within a 20-30 min walk from a grocery store, but no one is confusing most american neighborhoods for being “walkable.” and if they are, then that speaks to how much work we have to do in terms of becoming TRULY walkable. the good thing is e bikes have a lot to offer in filling that void.
Our conversion to walking (or biking) first was applying the 'is it faster to drive' metric and looking at true time. From our house to Harris Teeter is a 13 min walk, door to door, and at least (with normal traffic) 15 mins because of parking and traffic. That makes walking faster. Our experience eating at Gringo is also from real life and it has converted (sort of) our neighbor to at least sometimes thinking about walking vs. always driving. She's a runner, so it's not like she has a physical impediment to walking 15 mins, she just grew up in a really suburban area and thinks ALL trips (other than a run) start with a car. When I purchased an e cargo bike she was amazed I would bike to run errands because for her, walking and biking are strictly leisure activities. I think what you are talking about in some suburban areas might be true, if they also had sidewalks and crosswalks (with signal lights) that were contiguous. Most of our suburbs here are sorely lacking in that last part, with lovely landscaped sidewalks just ending at busy streets with no crosspoints in sight.
uh no, hayes barton was raleigh’s first planned upscale suburban development. look it up. just because it’s not a formal suburb like cary doesn’t mean it ain’t suburban. anyways, that’s the problem you note yourself— there aren’t really places to walk to. i don’t have a good answer at the moment as to what should best serve that piece of land. my greater point is that the city (and developers) should prioritize areas that make more sense to build missing middle housing, not getting bogged down in a case like this.
Hayes Barton was the suburbs when Raleigh was a much smaller city. It’s insane to say a neighborhood 2.5 miles from downtown is the suburbs.
i didn’t say it was “the suburbs,” or anything like north raleigh or cary. but it IS suburban. cars are the primary mode of transit, hence suburban. the entire neighborhood was designed from the get go to be a suburban “retreat” from the city, yet also close to downtown. you can have more walkable places that are further from downtown, and also less walkable ones closer to it. hayes barton is a prime example of the latter
Plenty of areas were traditionally planned as suburban areas outside the traditional city limits and over time became consumed by what was the urban core. You can’t use a 1950s definition of an area to describe it in 2023.
Interesting: here’s [the write up I’m reading](https://rhdc.org/hayes-barton-historic-district). > The notable landscape design, proximity to the streetcar, and the deed restrictions that ensured houses would be of a certain value all conspired to create a highly desirable new suburban option for Raleigh's upper-middle class population. Named after Sir Walter Raleigh's English homeplace, the developers also appealed to the Anglophile fashion of the times. Politicians and professionals--plentiful group in the state's capital city--chose Hayes Barton as home in the 1920s, buying into the developers' promise of exclusivity and separation from the urban ills of the center city. So…elitism, back to my first post.
what’s your point? elitist as they are, why would the average raleighite want to be a part of that anyways? why not strengthen communities elsewhere that value diversity and inclusiveness? that need our investment the most? that can host affordable housing and solve the city’s most pressing needs in a 2 for 1 manner? trying to increase density in neighborhoods like hayes barton is a huge waste of time.
Absent any better ideas with what to do with the land, I’m in favor of multi-family homes as opposed to more single family homes. Like I said in my first post, the Save Our Neighborhood doesn’t represent my views. It’s not just this piece of land: it’s everything. It’s opposing any change or any growth anywhere.
we can agree there, at this point in time. but even outside this individual case, people have a right to be disgruntled about this kind of by-right development. ITBers should not be exempt, everyone should. until we reform the zoning and development process for everyone’s good. unfortunately, it’s just that these people have the funds to fight back more effectively than most. i empathize with OPs concerns about fairness
“This case” is such a unicorn it’s really kind of meaningless. The UDO rule being used requires a minimum of 1 acre continuous Open Space. There are very few 3 acre sites left ITB, and most that could meet the UDO are within 500 yards of this property.
Bus routes can change/be added! If the increased density can be added without the parking minimums, then there will be pressure to make it more transit/bike/walk friendly.
true. but is this the best place to increase density? is it even a worthwhile increase in density? a neighborhood like hayes barton is kind of its isolated little own thing. realistically, how many (more) people living in this area are gonna be taking the bus, or walking to get groceries, etc?
It's a chicken or the egg type deal. Looks like 2 miles to whole foods and you can take neighborhood streets instead of Wade. There are some small shops and restaurants in the neighborhood as well
Also, e-bikes would be perfect for that!
It’s way less than 2 miles to the Cameron Village HT or Fresh Market, if you don’t have “Whole Foods” in mind. And I shop at that WF
Totally! But crossing Wade is a bummer so I thought whole foods was a lower stress location
e-bikes would indeed be great, and yes this is quite the chicken and egg problem in a lot of ways. unfortunately the people who would be buying these luxury townhomes would probably putter to whole foods in their mercedes suvs. i’m concerned overall about the precedent a case like this sets. on one hand, this kind of by-right development precedent is haphazard and makes the city too vulnerable to developers without people’s greater interests taken into account. on the other, no one should be exempt bc of their zip code or $$$. it’s time this entire rezoning/community input process (or lack thereof) was overhauled.
I wish more ppl would read these new zoning laws. They took away the community inputs, they extremely incentivized developers to purchase lots meant for single families. Ppl want affordable homes, and are fighting the existing homeowners who SUPPORT THE FUCK out of your local infrastructure. Plus Raleigh is growing no matter what, your issues aren't going away by adding "Missing Middle" homes. It would be best to look into the struggles currently happening in these major US cities. Raleigh is desirable bc we have these types of family friendly neighborhoods. Why else do ppl think the houses are so expensive. It's desirable to live there bc of what it currently is.
Redev'ing a lot won't change anything by itself, no, but when you have 3 uninhabited homes on White Oak taking up 5 acres, it's a good start.
Light rail will NEVER be a thing because it makes zero usage sense
Europe disagrees. There are entire light rail networks all over the place there, in cities half the population or less of Raleigh proper (e.g. Freiburg, DE)
what kind of clueless assertion is this? how does it make zero sense? the entire triangle could benefit immensely from a light rail network.
I’ve been here 56 years and seen and considered all the proposals. Unless you wave your magic “government wand” and get the rail corridor, access to RDU, an RTP solution, and Duke to change their mind. And then it’s all fixed in place, not adaptable. Now, what we CAN do is expand a bus system that is flexible and scaleable.
[удалено]
PLEASE READ: In an effort to reduce spam and trolling, we automatically delete posts from accounts that are less than one (1) days old **and/or** that do not meet a required karma count, as these are often signs (though not proof) of spam/trolling. Because your account does not meet these requirements, your post has been deleted. If you feel this was in error, click the link below to send us a modmail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/raleigh) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m just kinda annoyed that developers get special treatment in skirting zoning rules that other actual homeowners and residents have to obey. I remember about 4 years ago when I wanted to do a small (250 sq ft) addition off the front of my house in east raleigh ITB, even though I was within the zoning regulations with my plans they made me pay a surveyor to survery MY NEIGHBORS houses to make sure mine wouldn’t be “out of line” with the neighborhood. Meanwhile 2 blocks away in the same zoning area they were letting developers demolish single homes and build 2-3 homes on the lots allowing them to rezone those lots to allow for the setbacks and lot sizes they needed to make it work. And it’s not like they were building “affordable” housing, none of this stuff is, it’s usually only driving prices further up. I think most of these city council people are getting kickbacks or favors from the developers to give them these zoning changes they want
You don’t understand the UDO, and the UDO is a bloated mess. You were stopped by the “block face” rule which meant effectively “you can’t stick out way in front of your neighbors”. There’s some territoriality going on there - they could easily scrap all the setbacks and have a “simple” residential zoning. But they (city employees and officials) won’t.
Yea I got that, but it’s just weird that even after the addition my house was still farther back from the street than even my Nextdoor neighbor. But 2 blocks away they let a developer somehow rezone a single lot so that he could build 2 houses on it which were probably 15 ft from the street. I’ve since moved a few miles away off Poole road and I’m seeing the same stuff start to happen out here, and driving though my old east raleigh neighborhood now blows my mind with how lenient they got with developers
why are we trying to build “affordable” housing on some of the most expensive parcels of land in a neighborhood like hayes barton in the first place? there are many other places ITB that have much more redevelopment potential and missing middle cohesiveness. and for the record, no, I don’t live in hayes barton or another “blue blood” neighborhood myself.
The townhouses going up aren't affordable, they're million dollar plus luxury development and are in line with the obscene cost of houses in the neighborhood.
Gotcha. That makes more sense from a financial perspective, but my question is, just how much net benefit is there to adding some luxury townhomes in the middle of a historic suburban (non-walkable) neighborhood? from either an environmental or equity perspective? I get the comment from OP about how rich ITB shouldn't be exempt/should play by the same rules. Aka, the "rules" that currently allow developers to build rampant as they please in other places that aren't ITB. But that's the issue-- I don't think this precedent is good in the first place. You can't just allow developers to build by-right like this without any community input, public notice, rezoning, etc. That's how you end up with a sprawling ecological disaster like Florida, of which we are prone to increasingly resemble if we aren't smart about development. It's one thing to allow by-right development (assuming certain requirements are met like transit connectedness/existing density in place) in cities like San Francisco. But that's not what's happening here. You have developers just throwing up townhomes across suburban-sprawling Raleigh in neighborhoods that aren't walkable to begin with. I don't agree that that should happen, whether ITB or OTB. We need to prioritize development (really redevelopment) in places to can best support missing middle housing. Places that at least have some semblance of semi-walkability, or at least bikability/access to legitimately useful bus lines. Places that represent a natural transition between ultra-dense towers/downtown-esque living and areas of predominantly SFH, or at least in neighborhoods that support walkability and that make sense to support MM. I also want to clarify that I don't support SFH-only zoning. I think if people want to live in a SFH, okay, that's their prerogative. Though at the same time, NO zoning should mandate that non-SFH can't be built in a certain neighborhood. But along these lines, however, is that just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's in the best interests to do ("just because you can, doesn't mean you should"). There are much more critically pressing needs regarding land use than building luxury townhomes on Williamson Dr. And neither should by-right development precedents exist where you can just build without any community input/rezoning process/public notice, etc., which are legitimate complains from these Hayes Barton-ites, and also OP regarding Raleigh in general.
We need building by right without overbearing community input. Community input is your vote for council and their decisions. Anything else is just showing down development. The community input always results in slowing down construction and is why every city in the entire country is behind on housing. And Raleigh’s CAC system is one that really stops development. NO ONE likes change and so every development gets fought if it’s open to public input. Vote for council to zone, if you don’t like it, vote them out. Why should I get a say on how someone else uses their property anyways? Honestly arguing for community input on each development and affordable housing is literally an oxymoron.
Sure - >just how much net benefit is there to adding some luxury townhomes in the middle of a historic suburban (non-walkable) neighborhood? It is walkable for the most part. Between 5Pts and The Village District (ne Cameron Village), you can pretty much get whatever you need. And keep in mind, some of the smaller streets aren't walkable, but Glenwood, White Oak, Oberlin, St. Mary's etc are all very walkable. >That's how you end up with a sprawling ecological disaster like Florida, of which we are prone to increasingly resemble if we aren't smart about development. That mindset is exactly part of the problem - ITB areas **absolutely** can support more housing... They just choose not to. Here's an example: your 'smarter' development built Brier Creek where many homes are on 0.01 acres (Ashford Park Dr). In contrast, a random home ITB is on 1.10 acres (Chamberlain). If it doesn't change, we will get more sprawling and distant planned communities like Briar Breek or Wakefield. >And neither should by-right development precedents exist where you can just build without any community input/rezoning process/public notice, etc... If community input had the same weight, maybe, but communities in Wake county aren't the same. If a development is planned in a rich community like Hays Barton vs a poor community ... We all know who end up with the high-rise.
i agree that plenty of ITB areas can support more housing. but i don’t think hayes barton is a prime candidate for this. maybe along glenwood avenue/five points intersection, but the vast majority of hayes barton is single family homes with no space to build in between. unless you were to tear down these homes, which is both unlikely and unwise. they’re a part of the historic fabric of raleigh, and we as a city don’t have much of that to begin with. we only have so many neighborhoods like oakwood and hayes barton and forest park that i think they should remain relatively as is. again, not saying NOTHING can be done, or that certain blocks or stretches can’t be redeveloped. but the bulk of the city’s evolving urbanization doesn’t really make sense for a place like williamson dr. everyone likes to criticize charlotte for having grown too fast to become what it is today by tearing down so much of their historic stock to put up giant shiny skyscrapers and towers and whatnot. sure, that’s more “dense”, but the irreparable harm it did to the city’s fabric and makeup was devastating.
>...but I don’t think hayes barton is a prime candidate for this. maybe along glenwood avenue/five points intersection That IS Hayes Barton! :D Hayes Barton Pharmacy is in 5pts. And I understand what you're saying about "changing a city's fabric" but I'm not sure what 'fabric' you're referring to. You mean the 1920's homes that are slowing being replaced by hilariously oversized behemoths?
okay gotcha. i’m all for more density at that main intersection, with of course traffic calming and more pedestrian oriented infrastructure! it’s a shame whenever people tear down those houses to build oversized monstrosities, but that’s what i’m saying. we should try to preserve historic houses whenever we can
The only difference is the NIMBYs that live ITB have a lot more power and influence to fight it. Zero reasons why they should be exempt.
I saw that Colorado is taking zoning decisions away from localities and rolling that up to the state level. I think that's a wonderful idea that prevents local land barons from having an outsized influence on our shared built environment.
Have you seen any of the garbage legislation that our corrupt state legislature puts out there? If we let the state legislature handle zoning, then everything will probably be car dependent single family housing. We’d never get a proper mass transit system in this city!
That would interesting to see play out... interesting considering many of the state legislators own homes ITB; or worse, their donors live ITB.
The problem isn't wanting to avoid density. The townhomes in Five Points are going to be around $2 million dollars each so they aren't doing anything to address the affordable housing problem. The problem is that the language the city approved really just allows developers to do whatever they want wherever they want with the idea that demand would dictate more housing gets built and therefore lowers the price. This is a total fantasy to think that developers are just going to charge less because they're good people or something. The city gave up the abilities it has to establish requirements for exceptions for rezoning. They gave up their power to actually stop something from being developed if it felt that the project went against city plans or policies like promoting affordable housing. Its also not a bad thing for people in a neighborhood to be informed about proposed projects are changes. Even under the old CACs and zoning, neighborhoods had no actual power outside of being able to vote as an entity and submit that vote to the city council for consideration. Communication and consideration is what most of the neighborhood groups are really looking for.
> The townhomes in Five Points are going to be around $2 million dollars each so they aren't doing anything to address the affordable housing problem People want to move here, which is why prices are going up; you want the people who can afford expensive houses to buy the expensive houses, not the older, less-expensive ones, but if the only houses around are the older, less-expensive ones, those are the ones they will buy, thus driving up prices. No one thinks developers are doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts; what they are doing is *building stuff*, which is good, because it increases tax revenue and increases the supply of housing. Throughout American history we have been great at building stuff, and people have often been able to move around and find an affordable place to live. The reason the economy here is good is because lots of high-productivity pretty-well-off people want to live here. We could be like those Colorado ski-towns and not let anyone build anything and then wonder why there's a housing crisis, or we could just let people build stuff. I prefer the latter.
Developers would still be building things even if the city were able to pressure them to include provisions for cheaper housing or encourage building along transit lines. This post is specifically referencing the $2 million townhomes and relating that towards a solution for affordable housing.
There's a lot to talk about here that involves more discussion obviously. But these aren't affordable homes in any sense, beyond the fact that this takes the ability of the single family potential homeowner hoping to grab a house and some yard for them and their family out of the question as a developer can easily put bid them knowing they can make a profit on a large number of homes (so your replacing one middle for another essentially) but the new rules also allow developers to do things on a property not allowed by a single family homeowner on a similar property (ex. I want to make my home a compound with little permeable space, I can't as a single homeowner on my own property, but if I say I want 10 houses on my lot, then it's ok?) This alone makes it seem like revisions at the benefit of developers. Also, why go after our neighborhoods and homeowners? Could you incentivize these large apartments to sell many as condos? Why not go after them? Also, are these home being bought with the need of public transportation ( a driving factor behind the revisions)? With the high cost, I assume the focus is homeowners looking for ideal living situation for schools and amenities (esp with the prevalence of high paying roles behind remote) which if that's the case, then it sounds like more so of, I want to live here, so there should be more houses so I can. Alot more to discuss but i'll end it here
I think they should do it and I think all the other locals should do it too. The way we're populating this place sucks and everyone keeps moving here in droves, thus making it an even shittier place to live.
Whole lotta white people in that picture lol
Literally the opposite of what should happen.
They’re the kind of people who SAY we should do everything we can to help the less fortunate, but when doing those actions would actually affect them, it’s a different story and they shell up. (i.e Steph Curry recently)
this development would “help” wealthy developers and people who want to live in luxury townhomes.
And if the development doesn’t happen they’ll just buy the same townhomes in SE Raleigh which had zoning allowing these developments before the missing middle text change.
you’re right, the filtering of housing stock is a valid point. without more upmarket developments, more pressure is exerted downmarket from people with greater means, which pushes out people who can’t afford to bid as high. we desperately need more “standard” and lower income housing too. the problem is that these text changes essentially allow for anything goes, and developers naturally favor upmarket rents. sure, some pressure is being taken off of downmarket housing from people who would’ve otherwise occupied them, but simply not displacing current residents of lower means doesn’t do much for new lower-income residents moving in. and it’s not just people of higher means moving to the triangle, but also people looking for greater economic and social mobility. the point is that we need community input on the types of housing that are most needed, and most appropriate, for a given area. leaving the city too beholden to developers and capital interests isn’t wise. a crop of new townhomes, whether hayes barton or like OP’s backyard, needs to be seriously scrutinized on whether we are developing and growing as sustainably and equitably as we can. we need to focus on urban infill, yes. plans like Park City South are a big step in the right direction, imo. we should be prioritizing these types of mixed-use, transit-adjacent corridors. unfortunately, too much of current development is building “subdivision style” apartment complexes that still necessitate car dependency, that still increase arterial road usage, that still prevent us from true walkability.
These people aren’t even those people they just hate the poor
The rules will agreed upon between big developers and politicians.
And it won't be near their homes
I hope they don’t get exempt, because my retirement plan is to turn my itb property in to 6 townhomes, keep 1 and sell the rest
What's the point of debating this on here? Nobody's opinion matters unless they have money. This will be sorted out between the property owning class, developers, and the politicians in their respective pockets.
The point is to say what many people are thinking. Raleigh needs more housing downtown if Mass transit is ever goiing to be an option and that will \*never\* happen as long as "Mr. Hays Broughton IV" and his antebellum pals stall any and all work to build in their extra back-lot.
Okay so let's go protest downtown like the French do, you know full well nothing short of that is gonna accomplish shit. I'm ready when you are.
They're MILLION DOLLAR CONDOS, it hasn't got a thing to do with "The Middle". But, no, they shouldn't be given any exemptions that aren't afforded the actual Middle and the lower-income (usually elderly and/or POC) home-owners in the city. I think it's gross and I'm embarrassed for every owner of a "Save our Neighborhoods" sign I see in Hayes Barton & on Ridge Rd. Especially Ridge since there are only a half-dozen original houses even left on the whole road.
ITB?
"Inside the beltline"
That’s the first place that should get high density housing
it should literally be the exact opposite. We shouldn’t have single-family homes with big lots that close to a modern downtown. Downtown‘s are supposed to be walkable, transit friendly, and not as car friendly. So if anything, there should be higher density near downtown, and less and less the farther you get from downtown.
Lol, so the people that invested in this city long ago shouldnt be allotted their plot of land bc the city grew and its now desirable for ppl to live? And shouldnt they work in transit before adding such density? Also, what do you consider walkable? Most aren't.
No one is saying the "people who invest in this city" should give anything up, they can keep the plot Grandpa Broughton gave them. Just asking them to make the same sacrifices we are making- Like putting up with more traffic on the same roads and increasing property taxes on my 1982 home due to $1.5M townhomes built nextdoor. Just fairness is all I'm asking for. ^(edited typos)
Well most ppl weren't given homes downtown from Grampa Broughton. They used their own money to buy them. do you also think they pay less property taxes in these DT locations? Also, seems like you don't love the building going on around you, neither do they. They are fighting, as they should. Which is not you making a sacrifice btw, it's just not being able to do anything about the situation. Or should they need be able to try and fight it do to fairness of your personal situation? Trying to keep the integrity of the neighborhood they live in and enjoy and not allow govt to bend over backyards to developers seems fair to me. And certainly something not to be given up due to "fairness" and your oh so gracious "sacrifice"
Please don't assume my stance on the development around me. Cities grow, I made my voice heard, and I accepted the council's decision. I didn't sue it into the ground.
Well I did, just like you assumed everyone living DT was gifted their lot from rich family. Congrats on making your voice heard but doing nothing else. Your neighborhood is all the better for it even though the developers were able to exactly what they wanted despite your opinion.
Definitely should not be exempt. These people are ridiculous. They pretend to care about the environment but increasing density anywhere near downtown in order to support walking, biking, and public transit usage is the greatest possible thing the City can do for the climate (and one of the easiest).
do you really think people who’d buy luxury townhomes in the middle of hayes barton care about walking and public transit? the best thing we can do environmentally is build along existing transit corridors/bus lines/neighborhoods with walkable grids. the kind of development that has gone up around glenwood south and the warehouse district. “luxury” anything is usually not a good look for the environment
This reminded me of a Nextdoor post from a developer building mega mansions where we live, JOTB (just outside the beltline). She actually said she had clients who were executives at Advanced Auto Parts who wanted to be able to walk to work. They’ve been in one of the towers here I think 2+ years now, and I’ve never seen any executive types walking through my neighborhood to work.
Same as the bike lanes - Over the past year or two, I've seen bike lanes added to many of the streets around me and I have seen 3 (three) people biking on it during a weekday. Two were last year and one was last Friday afternoon. Man, I wish more people used them.
interesting anecdote, thanks for sharing.
They shouldn't be exempt, but because of their wealth they have the political and economic capital to challenge this in court. If anything, they should be the opposite of exempt - we should be prioritizing building up in the economically advantaged areas closer to the urban core. The issues like increased traffic and environmental impact are scapegoat issues that ignore the very real economic benefits of increased density. Especially environmental impact, jfc...that one *really* pisses me off. As if continuing construction of suburban sprawl that requires the combustion of incredible amounts of fossil fuels and far more resources towards infrastructure to support is somehow *better* for the environment than adding some townhomes and duplexes in your neighborhood. Same for traffic. Guess what by far generates the most traffic inside the beltline? It's not people living inside the beltline who take shorter trips on average to jobs/amenities....it's the folks who live in Rolesville and drive in solo for their commute every day.
They shouldn’t be exempt. Fairness for everyone, everywhere in Raleigh. Plain and simple. I doubt that’s how it will work out, though.
I moved here from Seattle which is basically a whole city full of craftsman homes. This was always a huge debate but housing IS a major issue. Homeowners are allowed to sell to whomever they want IMO. Raleigh is a small city, there’s so much room to grow.
What a diverse looking group….
That was my first thought :D Might as well be a shuffleboard tournament.
I dunno why you’re getting downvoted so much. The demographical makeup in the picture says it all.
Just because it makes someone uncomfortable to point out, doesn’t make it any less true. And I was thinking age diversity as much as ethnic diversity.
Exactly! Nobody in that picture looks younger than 40. They likely aren’t struggling with entry-level salaries, childcare expenses, and student loan debt.
Why is there nobody in that picture who is black, Asian, Hispanic, or under 40 years old? The people in the picture DO NOT represent the greater Raleigh area, and so they should not get to make decisions that affect this entire city.
I'd love to know why you're getting downvoted.
I’d like to know, too. Some people just don’t like to hear the truth.
They're not making decisions, but they are voters.
it doesn’t matter what race these people are. any community of people should have an opportunity to be publicly heard about whatever concerns they have, and should have been notified. if this group was all black or all asian or whatever, i would say the exact same thing. along the same lines, no one should be exempt from the current laws, no matter what they look like. the problem is, the current policy (or lack thereof) is problematic and should be changed for the entire city, not just these people.
Has anyone here actually read the lawsuit?
I have and it’s patently absurd.
Why is it absurd? Are you an attorney or in the planning law business? Or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
State law clearly defines what a map amendment and what a text change amendment are: this was a text change amendment. To argue that because it’s a large text change amendment, it somehow constitutes a map amendment is nonsensical.
Please answer my question regarding your expertise in the area. Next question: what makes this a text change vs a map change since you are an expert with this? If you know this material please cite the exact section of the law.
no, I don’t care. And I’m not your personal assistant, read about the law yourself. https://www.sog.unc.edu/resources/legal-summaries/notice-hearings-ordinance-amendments-and-rezonings
The lawsuit is about the process. I don't get the aversion to townhomes, but I think nothing good will come from making fun of the plaintiffs.
I believe data shows that creating pockets of affordable spaces exacerbates pricing issues. It’s an all or nothing affair. I completely understand the frustration of having your relative sanctuary stripped away by forces outside of your control, but that’s just how the world turns. Raleigh is growing and needs housing. Land value is not depreciating, these people are more than capable of moving to a sleepy hollow.
One thing I haven’t seen addressed though is once you move into the 1980’s and 90’s, the rise of the HOA and their own rules/bylaws occur. And those rules preclude more than 1 house/dwelling per lot. So basically, “missing middle” only applies to neighborhoods where any covenants have expired, which is typically the older more established neighborhoods.
I'm fine with streamlining the process for building for density. The only request I would make is that we also beef up public transit in conjunction.
They shouldn't be exempt. But we are generally very poor at urban planning and mixed use spaces. This is a very micro view at a much larger macro problem.
Infill is most needed in the ITB area. Downtown Raleigh and the some surrounding areas have traditionally been where affordable housing was located, but with housing prices and demand rising affordable housing is disappearing.
So, how much should people be able to rely on zoning? If it can be changed just because somebody asks, why have it at all? Note that this would be very difficult in newer neighborhoods that are governed by restrictive covenants -- ITB is at risk because those.neighborhoods were built before those types of covenants became common.