Affordable Housing and Housing Affordability

Certainly many large urban areas (NYC, Chic) have torn down a number of high rise public housing units that had just become crime infested nightmares for the families living there. “Warehousing” the poor is not a good solution. The push for the less dense housing was, I believe, an effort to create housing and homes that were more familiar to most folks. Less density, better for knowing your neighbors and more pride of place leading to less crime and more success in education and economic advancement. But as is so often the case, there isn’t a “one size fits all” solution here. While I think the idea behind the new Chavis Heights was good, clearly there are to many parking spots and not enough density for a place so close to downtown. My belief is the solution will be found in the middle, a mix of higher rises - 4 & 5 stories - with townhomes and even single story buildings, at least as far as public housing goes.
How to get private developers building entry-level and affordable homes is a more difficult question. Cutting red tape and allowing for greater density is one part of the answer. So is new building techniques. CNBC did a story on Clayton Homes - I believe a NC company but now owned by Berkshire Hathaway - famous for mobile homes, bringing their prefabrication process to housing. The FHA is now going to finance these “pre-fab” houses, a change because they’ve the manufacturing style is so close to a trailers. That might help nationally solve part of the low-cost housing crisis. For many cities that will require a change in zoning laws.

1 Like

My bad too! This should go to affordable housing. We aren’t doing a very good job keeping our threads straight!!

1 Like

In Cary they used to require traffic studies at site plan which made the road improvements an administratively imposed, required component of site plan approval. This was based on the need to improve roads to provide adequate access to schools. The State addressed it and determined that it was a form of coercion and made it illegal to make those improvements site plan requirements. Cary moved those requirements to the rezoning process where they become conditions that are “freely offered” by the developer. The big problem I have with this is that Cary requires you to use one of their two approved traffic consultants, and you pay the Town to do this “voluntary” study. I have seen situations where a developer pays $35,000 to the Town for a traffic study for their rezoning, and then hires another traffic consultant to represent their interest and refute the results of the Town required traffic study.

If they can get away with that I don’t see any reason Raleigh couldn’t extort affordable housing commitments from developers seeking a rezoning.

I’d love to see more affordable housing, but if they want to do it through zoning they need to create zoning overlays for it. If there’s going to be an overlay applied to an area there would be public hearings, reports, meetings, and a comment period before it gets adopted. The whole city would get to weigh in on a strategy rather than leaving it up to 7 individuals who are only there for 2 years at a time. The overlay could have different criteria for different areas of the city, including areas that are completely exempt, and if a developer wanted to change something to eliminate affordable housing entirely they would need to include that in a rezoning petition. If there was an overlay requiring a percentage of AH then at least the property owners would know what they were dealing with and could plan for it. This could be part of a comprehensive plan where a developer could possibly contribute to an AH fund to meet their AH requirement. The reactionary process we have now with councilmen throwing darts at projects just creates uncertainty and is in no way a plan to deal with AH. It’s just a chance for campaign points.

2 Likes

I think every new residential project in Downtown should have at least 20% affordable housing. Also 35% of the suppliers and contractors shall be women or minority owned. Also 50% of the energy shall come for solar or renewable sources, or an equivalent carbon credit paid to the city. Roofs and ground surfaces shall be grass or other permeable materials and rain water shall be collected and recycled.
Bus stations shall be provided by the developer and shall be climate controlled and free wi-fi provided. (/jk)

3 Likes

True enough. The reconstructions also happened in a world VERY different from when they were 1st constructed as well!! Though I believe the racial mix might still reflect the early mandated segregation when the originals were built.

1 Like

Can you delete your post and add it here?

1 Like

To be clear, I am not advocating to “shove as many people…”, but the evidence is striking when you just look at it. IMO, providing suburban type development in a context where market rate housing is provided more densely is bad policy. If we want to prioritize a suburban type affordable housing solution for whatever reason, then move it to a more appropriate context.
I’ll add that, if a developer assembled 27 acres at the location of Walnut Terrace, and built this sparsely for wealthy buyers, I’d be livid. I mean, really, we sit on this site daily and bemoan 5 story “Texas Donuts” that provide way more housing than any of these affordable units per acre.
IMO, it’s insane for the city to push a narrative about needing more affordable housing downtown when their own actions do not reflect efforts commensurate with that narrative.
Density in and of itself is not the problem. If it were the problem, we’d have no high density housing in this country. Then again, it comes as no surprise that density was blamed as we are still fighting the presumption that suburbia is the answer to every question.

4 Likes

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 that’s 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.

5 Likes

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 it’s 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 article… 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 (“co-location” 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.

[…] 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.

[…] 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.

7 Likes

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 it’s doubtful that anything market rate will ever be built suburban in the city center. Let’s hope that the city follows suit.

4 Likes

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 don’t think its so far fetched an idea to push for rebuilding or improving some of Raleigh’s public housing.

1 Like

How ironic that the only folks who live in suburban style housing downtown will be those in public housing!! Good grief.

2 Likes

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 weren’t blessed with the gift of foresight. I just think it doesn’t 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 that’s just me. I believe a more diverse city, socially, economically etc city is a better more vibrant city and I hope there’s a way to weave more affordable units into the city’s fabric going forward.

6 Likes

I really do appreciate the thoughtful and considerate lens from which you see, but I don’t 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 we’re 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.

5 Likes

https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/06/cohousing-san-jose-room-for-rent-starcity-coliving-housing/590731/
Here’s an interesting twist on affordable housing.

2 Likes

That was an I’ll conceived plan at any time. I’d 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.

1 Like

That’s a very smart idea. More cities need to do this!

Let us keep in mind that Federal Reg’s 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 . . .

1 Like

And as they should. The market’s “invisible hand” and private investors haven’t exactly been the greatest advocates for equal opportunities…

https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/06/homeowners-association-fee-hoa-dues-housing-data-zoning-laws/590983/

3 Likes

I don’t disagree as long as there is some flexibility. The one-size fits all rarely fits anyone. With money comes strings.
I can’t 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 don’t have the Christmas wreaths off the house - though one did fall off the other day, lol.

2 Likes