That sounds like a good idea. Seems like you have more of a plan than the current council does.
2 Likes
Hereâs a story that could go in many other threads, but itâs particularly pertinent to this one. This is a ranking of all the âlargeâ central cities in the USA by a new urban crisis metric. Raleigh scores VERY well on this, and is arguably the highest rated central city on the list, as the few above it are arguably suburbs of their overall metroâs core urban area.
So, while the council treats affordable housing like itâs at a crisis level, the data that built this metric doesnât agree. That said, thereâs always room for improvement, and itâs better to be ahead of the game. Itâs just not at the crisis level like other central cities in Americaâs largest metros.
https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/08/cities-new-urban-crisis-economics-data-income-affordability/597040/
4 Likes
That ranking includes housing as just one of the factors. Iâd imagine if you broke housing affordability out Raleigh wouldnât be as high on that list as other studies have shown Raleigh to be experiencing some of the larger increases in home prices. Not as bad as other metros for sure, but still a big issue.
As for what the city can do, Jos touched on it, but relocation of existing residents is challenging because of the requirements that those moved be able to find similar accommodations, and right now there isnât that capacity because the private market has bought up (and often flipped) many of these properties already and the city already has existing tenants in every available unit of their own portfolio. So you often need huge projects (see also: lots of funding) to be able to do all of this efficiently.
And those who mention the city densifying their existing properties, the biggest obstacle are often NCODs that require that redevelopment sometimes be even less dense than the units that are already there.
2 Likes
I think that Raleighâs housing costs are actually quite reasonable when compared against many, many other core cities in which Raleigh competes. Believe me, there are a lot of peer cities with similar economies that make Raleighâs housing look affordable.
Keep in mind that even though Raleigh may be considered âaffordableâ compared to some of these other metros you mention, that doesnât mean that prices here havenât escalated just as much as many of those others, a lot of it just means that we started from a lower base. But this doesnât help people from this area - they arenât selling homes in more expensive markets before they move here like some, and certainly not those who rent.
1 Like
Iâm not arguing that we shouldnât pay attention. Read my post again with the story.
I am just saying that the data doesnât match the crisis level narrative thatâs being pushed.
I did read it. Thatâs why Iâm pointing out that the link you referenced has housing as just one piece of those rankings and to point to this article as evidence that housing here isnât a major issue seems faulty. I just saw an article a few weeks ago that the Raleigh market is one of the top 10 most gentrified in the country. Iâll see if I can find the link. Added: https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2019/07/17/raleigh-is-nations-9th-fastest-gentrifying-city.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search
Couldnât we try and get one denser affordable housing complex built and use that new capacity to âupgradeâ low-income residents from an aging site? Then, the old site is phased out and âupgradedâ, adding new capacity plus ability for others to move and the cycle starts over again as a way to upgrade all the sites in the city.
Not trying to be insensitive to those folks living there but if the housing conditions are quite old, itâs a way to get it done (simply put anyway) without evicting people. Plus, everyone should have access to decent housing, as in, safe, up-to-code, etc. (I donât mean amenities)
6 Likes
I believe thatâs what theyâre doing with the Brown Birch apartments off Garner Rd (just south of MLK) and also with Washington Terrace where theyâre doing it in stages. Other sites are still often in NCODs and neighbors have lobbied for lower density in their neighborhood while asking for more affordable housing somewhere (anywhere)else. That old chestnut
2 Likes
In theory they could take down an individual single story 6-plex building, build it back as a 4 story with 24 units, move 3 other single story buildings worth of people into the new units, build 72 units worth of apartments on those 3, rinse and repeat. It should only take the relocation of 6-8 units to get this started. They really could easily quadruple their existing capacity on some of these sites. Itâs really ironic that they ask for affordable housing in exchange for zoning density requests, but donât provide density in Most of their communities.
For places like Heritage and Kentwood, those are adjacent to the BRT corridor. If theyâre in NCODâs thatâs going to be a problem.
3 Likes
Ignoring history I think. They purposely do not want high density affordable housing areas. Historically that is what becomes slums. I think the better idea is to spread affordable housing around as much as possible.
2 Likes
Interesting zoning example from Miami. This is an example of using the carrot instead of the stick with developers, and I think itâs a much better way to leverage the private market for affordable housing. Miami, BTW, has a much more serious affordability crisis than Raleigh ever thought of having.
4 Likes
Heritage Park is downtown. Redevelop it as a mixed income complex and you can increase density, decrease the concentration of poverty, and provide more affordable units all at once.
Go big or go home though, I say. Currently there are just 122 units. The minimum project I would support would be to double the affordable units and increase the total units to 8x the current, for a total of almost 1000 units. This could be done in with six story buildings. Thatâs the minimum.
3 Likes
Why does it have to become slums? Historically the high rises were neglected. They were built, people had a place to live, and the cities didnât care about the conditions.
Iâve seen 4 story affordable housing thatâs nicer and in better condition than comparable garden apartments that are privately owned. DHIC has several examples of multi story affordable housing that you wouldnât know were affordable just by looking.
If the city commits to the quality of affordable housing, it doesnât have to become slums.
Iâm not saying you shouldnât spread it around, and I think I made the point earlier that the city hasnât done a very good job of spreading it around. I feel like the city has directed it to specific districts that have low political clout.
What I am saying, is that if they own a property in an urban setting, thatâs currently a suburban style slum, and they have a mass transit line being added in proximity of the site, they should consider redeveloping those sites and adding density at the same time. If they donât develop and manage their own properties in an efficient manner they donât get the moral high ground by asking individual developers to foot the bill.
1 Like
It doesnât have to become slums. But it nearly always happens anyway. Eventually the buildings require upkeep and major overhauls to maintain them as quality places to live. Government almost always never comes through for these kinds of things in a timely manner. It is what it is.
1 Like
This coincided with mass exodus from the cities by the flight to the suburbs. The timing is different because more people, who have choices on where to live, want to come back to the cities. You canât presume that higher (or high) rise living will automatically result in a failure when thereâs market investment all around you. Slums become slums when thereâs nothing but public investment in the bare necessities, and private money flees. Itâs not caused by building type.
2 Likes
Again I ask⌠and please someone inform me⌠I am open to listening. Why does there have to be so much affordable housing in the core of downtown? Why canât affordable housing be in locations beyond the beltline that are more affordable to be developed. These locations could have a dedicated bus stop for transportation, etc. Even being outside the beltline where areas are less expensive, is still only 10 min to the core of downtown. Why are we forcing Kane and others to put affordable housing in their developments? To keep local businesses, and restaurants active, we need people that will go and spend the money on a daily basis. The restaurants and retail shops around are not âaffordable shoppingâ they are typically slightly higher than places you find in the mall or in the suburbs. These tenants donât get âaffordable rentâ for their businesses. I highly doubt the majority of the people that currently live in or need affordable housing walk to work downtown⌠I would guess they either drive or more likely take the bus⌠so the bus stop can be in other locations other than the core of downtown. Forcing these developers to create affordable housing⌠In my opinion is preventing the city from growth. If we are going to force developers to do something⌠how about we force them to have to create half their development to commercial space (like the pnc âtowerâ) to get more businesses to come to downtown??
Also, in my opinion, we need to focus more on infrastructure to get everyone in, out and around much easier. An easy way to get to the airport, to a job maybe they have in durham, etc. Also, if you ever drive around here⌠the roads are terrible⌠need those fixed⌠not only for sanity⌠but wear and tear on buses, government vehicles,⌠etc.
5 Likes
We are forcing Kane to include affordable housing vs a contribution to a fund because much of our City Council is clueless. I completely agree with you that we shouldnât force affordable housing downtown but in more affordable locations with good transportation. No strategy is not a strategy which is what our current City Council has. 
4 Likes
I think forcing is really the incorrect term. Kane isnât being forced to do anything. They could have walked away from the agreement and built without the rezoning or walked away from the parcel altogether but they chose to accept the terms so Iâm guessing theyâll be ok in the long run.
The council (be it this one or a new one) would be well served to let it be known that this is the framework going forward on requests for rezoning (adjusting for size or something like that.)
The council needs to abide by these standards as well. They canât suddenly come up with other objections as a way to slow down development.
3 Likes
@JosABanks technically, maybe not âforcingâ but yeah⌠forcing. The fact that he had an overall vision and has started on both phase I and II and was planning to move forward with an actual tall building in Raleigh⌠but then the council is saying he can not unless he puts in affordable housing units⌠is forcing his hand for the development as a whole. If I didnât want development so bad⌠I would almost wish that he would walk away⌠but I have a feeling the council wouldnât care. As stated before⌠I wish they would âforceâ commercial office space to bring in business to Raleigh vs. Affordable housing in locations where it is not necessary. That would be an ideal location for another set up similar to the PNC âTowerâ. (Retail/Restaurant, Parking, Office space, then either condos or high end hotel)
4 Likes