Well, if Heritage Park is redeveloped, there should be at least a 1:1 replacement of the 122 affordable units. And a site that big should not be 100% affordable, because of concentration-of-poverty issues. So it needs to have market rate housing added.
This is a very common approach for public housing redevelopments.
For example, Lee Walker Heights is a dated downtown public housing complex in Asheville. 96 units. They are redeveloping it with 212 total units, 96 affordable and 116 market rate.
For Heritage Park, I would like to see them at least double the affordable units, while simultaneously making the development a 20% to 25% affordable complex, meaning 3-4 times as many market rate units as affordable. That makes my MINIMUM acceptable HP redevelopment project have:
122 * 2 = 244 affordable units,
And
244 * 3 = 732 market rate units
For a total of
244 + 732 = 976 units, or 8x what is there today.
MINIMUM. That is why I say 1000 units or go home.
Oh, and throw in some retail too of course.
It is quite possible this whole undertaking could happen through RHA issuing a RFP where the land will be leased to a developer for a below-market rate cost - $1 per year even, if thatās what it takes - in exchange for the developer including the affordable units. This could mean no actual cost to the public, for a net doubling of affordable units.
Agree on this mix of housing types. I also think Durham has some great recent examples of mixing affordable housing in townhomes and apartments along E Main St. The scale is relatable, but the scheme is still decent from an urban perspective. The corner park is not as bad a gap as it looks in this image now that the greenery has matured, and itās almost always packed by residents.
An unrelated idea that seems to be a bit of a pipe dream for our area, but still good food for thought in this NYT articleā¦ my office worked on one of the projects it features: Chicago Finds A Way to Improve Public Housing: Libraries
Each project includes a new branch library (āco-locationā is the term of art). The libraries are devised as outward-facing hubs for the surrounding neighborhoods, already attracting a mix of toddlers, retirees, after-school teens, job-seekers, not to mention the traditional readers, nappers and borrowers of DVDs.
[ā¦] The libraries share real estate with the apartments but maintain separate entrances. The apartment blocks are designed to command views from a distance; the glassed-in libraries, to command the street.
[ā¦] the co-location idea was partly strategic: the library helped sway community groups resistant to public housing in their neighborhoods. But co-location was also just plain good urban planning. In cities across the country, branch libraries, which futurologists not long ago predicted would be made obsolete by technology, have instead morphed into indispensable and bustling neighborhood centers and cultural incubators, offering music lessons, employment advice, citizenship training, entrepreneurship classes and English-as-a-second-language instruction. They are places with computers and free broadband access. (One in three Chicagoans lacks ready access to high-speed internet.) For longtime neighborhood residents and tenants of the new housing projects, the branches at the same time provide common ground in a city siloed by race and class.
These examples compare DT edge communities developed this century. Our subsidized housing should at least be as efficient as the least dense of our market rate housing. Frankly, I think that all new DT proper development should at least be townhomes/brownstones going forward, and our edges should be as efficient as possible.
BTW, all are the same scale.
Land costs are so high now that itās doubtful that anything market rate will ever be built suburban in the city center. Letās hope that the city follows suit.
I saw that story the other day, and like that idea a great deal. Its similar in spirit to having Boys & Girls clubs and gyms I believe. A sense of community and place always improves the lives of residents regardless of their income levels. A library as a hub for not just the affordable or public housing but the greater community breaks down isolation while up lifting everyone. I donāt think its so far fetched an idea to push for rebuilding or improving some of Raleighās public housing.
My initial response was just trying to explain why we ended up with these suburban type developments. Some people believe denser is better but there was a belief in the early to mid 2000s that height = blight. I heard the former Mayor say it on occasion. Unfortunately Walnut Terrace and Chavis are what they are; should they have been developed differently in hindsight? Most definitely but when they were built was a very different time and the powers that be werenāt blessed with the gift of foresight. I just think it doesnāt help matters much to look at redeveloping fairly young developments in what would essentially be throwing good money after bad. I think the way to go is mixing affordable units in with denser projects rather than stand alone ventures but thatās just me. I believe a more diverse city, socially, economically etc city is a better more vibrant city and I hope thereās a way to weave more affordable units into the cityās fabric going forward.
I really do appreciate the thoughtful and considerate lens from which you see, but I donāt agree that it was fundamentally a different time that warranted Walnut Terrace as an appropriate response then. When was that built? I went to street view and it seems as though weāre talking 2013/2014. Even earlier than this time, downtown housing was already being shaped in a much more urban model. My money is on an unaware and suburban thinking team that made the decision to build that suburban sprawl on an enormous and prime city parcel.
That was an Iāll conceived plan at any time. Iād like to see developer offer to put affordable city owned condos in a high rise in exchange for that property.
I hope that the plan there was to improve it as cheaply as possible so that in the future it can be redeveloped with density.
Let us keep in mind that Federal Regās have a lot of influence on public housing rebuilds. the HOPE IV program that began under the Clinton Admin is I believe the current blue print, and it does call for a mix of housing and incomes - that idea of not creating a ocean of poverty in certain locals. Now I am not sure how this played out in the rebuilds in Raleigh . . .
I donāt disagree as long as there is some flexibility. The one-size fits all rarely fits anyone. With money comes strings.
I canāt imagine living in a HOA neighborhood personally. I am either to rebellious or to libertarian to put up a bunch of regulations. Heck, I still donāt have the Christmas wreaths off the house - though one did fall off the other day, lol.
I know this is a really late reply, but Garner is your answer. You will find that price range today and easy access to 40 makes the commute very comfortable. Without traffic itās 15 mins (though I know if you work in RTP you will never see āwithout trafficā during your commute.)
To no one in particular:
There are places in Wake county with $500/mo rent. You will not live near 540 or ITB. It might be a trailer. Idk, there are options. I donāt live in Newport Beach, CA for a reason. People should stop trying to force there way into places where market rate doesnāt meet their paychecks. Iād be much more understanding if there was nothing affordable within a 30 min. drive of any given location, but thatās not the case.
The issue isnāt always that people are forcing themselves into a market itās that they are being forced out of a market. Perhaps one where theyāve lived a very long time or near where they work. Now they have to uproot their entire lives because there are no affordable alternatives in the areas near which they live.
I work in property management and have seen how prices have risen pretty high and with a quickness. I work at a property near downtown and I have seen prices go up around $200 a month just this year alone.
What about all the people who work downtown (restaurant workers, janitors, EMS personnel, firefighters, police, teachers, etc) that donāt make tech industry salaries?
Some of these folks canāt afford a car, so if they can only afford to live out in the hinterlands, it could be very difficult or time consuming to commute downtown. And donāt we want fewer people commuting long distances?
Itās a much more complex issue than āaffordable housing exists, just not near downtown.ā
I recommend reading " $2.00 A Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America" to get the real picture of the difficulties faced by less fortunate people in our country. Itās a vicious cycle that our society has made difficult to get out of.
Welcome to the free market as a city expands. Sometimes pure capitalism sucks. However, it would be naive to think that Raleigh can fix something that Denver, Austin, LA, SF, Seattleā¦(etc) have faced for years and have yet to fully crack the code when they went thru this (and are still trying to solve). The best we can do is implement a some balanced policy the mitigates instability as much as possible. People get priced out of markets. It happensā¦ however, people adjust and it is not necessarily the role of government to fix every aspect of it at the expense of the market. The market will self correct if development over shoots and prices will drop drawing people back in.
every person in this hypothetical market has the means to access those new developments
itās a closed-loop system (no one moves in/out the Triangle to āenterā or āleaveā the market)
everyone in the market is a rational thinker with a normal distribution for how (un)likely they are to behave in any given way
moving, job access, and other logistical opportunities are negligible
ā¦is it really fair to just assume that the invisible hand will magically make things better, when differences in jobs, employment opportunities (and access to training for them), racial and other socioeconomic factors, debt etc. easily prevent people from moving even if they want to?
I donāt think itās as easy as you put it. (or as the SJW-ey people would put it, you really should check your privilege.)
I checked it. Here is what I foundā¦ I want to move to five points, but I cannot afford it. So, while I wait for city council to create affordable housing there by enacting laws to force owners to lower their rent prices to fit my budget versus market demand, Iāll simply accept itās a slippery slope.
