RHA’s FAQ:
Somewhat clearer FAQ from Philadelphia about similar redevelopment there:
http://www.pha.phila.gov/housing/rad.aspx
3 Likes
I didn’t know the RHA put up that relocation plan policy summary. It’s awesome to hear that they’re deciding to honor all three options (vouchers, moving around within Heritage Park during construction, and moving to other RHA properties as available) rather than forcing residents down one pathway and that they’re providing current residents a right to return.
That’s a common demand from affordable housing activists, but I can’t think of any other time when I’ve seen a city seriously intend to commit to that. It’s a surprising (but awesome!) development, if you ask me.
2 Likes
Sounds like they listened to the community here and updated it to take into account a lot of the concerns. I still think the exceptions carved out in the “right to return” are going to still cause issues for the community (e.g., background check) as it’s not a full guarantee to be allowed to return. Really glad they’re doing this in phases and allowing people to move around within the community.
1 Like
I have told a few of them in person sometimes that they have a PR issue more often than a policy issue with lots of stuff. If there was a third party that just spread info about their policies and how things played out I think a lot of the suspicion on them would go away.
1 Like
Kind of a new thread in this topic, but I wanted to get some perspective from outside of my own opinions.
Does anyone think that the missing middle and allowing more density actions from this council are being sold as THE solution for affordable housing. Does it seem like it has taken away from subsidized, low income, kind of true affordable housing?
Where did your perspective come from on that?
If you disagree with the above statement please hold off, I would like to hear from people who see it portrayed this way to understand better.
2 Likes
Not at all, especially since the housing bond just passed with substantial new funds for subsidized “Capital-A Affordable” housing.
What missing middle housing does is open up more options for middle- and moderate-income people to access their own housing choices without subsidy. That means the city doesn’t have to spend its resources on that, and can instead focus more resources on “deeply affordable” homes for low-income residents.
9 Likes
Fantastic. Thanks! .
So… a better institution to educate and inform the public of things happening around them? Like a better local news/media landscape?
I think that’s important enough to repeat for the people who don’t pay extra attention to this issue: there are two separate, equally valid meanings of the phrase “affordable housing”. To put it in the language of classical/neoliberal economics and whatever, we have:
-
“lowercase-a” affordable housing where households with purchase power get access to a new market that includes new, cheaper types of homes.
-
“Uppercase-A” affordable housing where housing demand for low-income people exists, but public agencies inject additional capital to prevent that market’s failure.
5 Likes
Some food for thought: what if Raleigh pushes for more micro-unit apartments?
The TBJ published this article today about Atlas Durham apartments in the Central Park neighborhood. That’s walking distance from downtown proper, and is home to the Bulls’ old stadium as well as several warehouse-turned-local businesses.
They’re looking at having 171 market-rate units over 6 floors on top of retail space, with rent starting from $1243/mo for around 500 sq.ft. That seems ridiculous until you look at Liberty Warehouse one block over, where apartments.com is listing studio units shoot up to $1828/mo for just about 200 more square feet.
Should Raleigh’s developers and public housing leaders take ideas like this seriously to deal with our housing shortage?
4 Likes
The upcoming update to the City’s Affordable Housing Improvement Plan is going to look at these. And the planning department is already looking at them I believe. Good eye @keita
2 Likes
The problem that I’ve always found with small apartments and studios is that they are usually constructed without their small size in mind. Fixtures, construction methods (like building drywall closets instead of slimmer wardrobes, etc.), kitchens, bathrooms, etc., continue to be built as if the apartments have larger footprints.
2 Likes
Isn’t that the idea of microunits? I thought they’re intended to be extremely compact and space-efficient, unlike studio apartments that are supposed to just be “regular”-sized apartments with fewer walls.
1 Like
One would think, but I’m not holding my breath either. 500 square feet would be a rather gracious apartment in Paris or Tokyo, but I don’t trust developers in our market will be able to achieve something that even begins to feel similarly gracious. The building blocks of our “home industry” are just all super sized.
1 Like
Raleigh’s parking requirements used to make small apartments almost comically expensive to build (even though the RX zoning doesn’t have units-per-acre limits). But now that’s gone, hooray!
4 Likes
I think this is a cultural thing as well. Americans want big big big. I think thats changing with the younger generations and more of a minimalist perspective, save the earth, etc. I think the time will come and I bet there are enough buyers out there now, in a metro area to pull it off.
4 Likes
The $1243/month is actually for the 387sf units. And they don’t even have any available at that rate anymore; the remaining micro-units are going for up to $1450.
For 500sf, cost goes up to $1500-1700. 700sf is over $2000. These are some of the most expensive apartments in Durham.
The way this project has always read to me – and I could be completely wrong here – is that the developers marketed it as a way of keeping units affordable, when the reality is that they’ve just shrunk the unit size and still drastically increased rents compared to the current market. It’s just a way for them to pocket more money. I’d like to see an actual good-faith effort to use micro-units to reduce cost, but I don’t think this is it.
4 Likes
There are a lot of doctors that come to Duke that apparently need a crash pad in the city because they live somewhere else. perhaps???
1 Like
A developer on new bern just pitched micro units in a neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood was worried about parking because it’s 40 units with 15 spaces. All units market rate. One thing that stood out to me was someone saying that the idea that a tenant not own a car is ideal for a city but in Raleigh what person paying market rate near dtr would not own a car. And where would they park if the development was not going to provide spaces. And what would that mean for the walkability of the neighborhood? And why is it happening first in a historically black neighborhood?
The developer did not have good answers but I thought it was an interesting conversation. City of raleigh is certainly pushing density with removing parking restrictions. I think listening to and building with the current residents is a must.
6 Likes
Though not a drastic difference between units and parking spaces, 615 Peace doesn’t have 1:1 parking.
So, the developer didn’t talk about how New Bern was also getting Raleigh’s first transit solution that’s intended to reduce the need for cars? Clearly it would be an easier discussion if we were on the tail end of its implementation instead of at the beginning of it.
3 Likes
And then in 20 years they will combine four micro’s into a 2000 sq ft condo for a newer generation. Alas, will the bubble jacket come with the condo, lol.