This rendering reminds me of a prop in a Broadway play.
10 Likes
Agreed, I think this project and the 301 W. Cabarrus development should have nice (and similar) views of the DTR skyline.
14 Likes
Just because something works for you doesn’t mean it’s what the wider public demands. Per UVA’s demographics research center:
In 1950, over half of all households consisted of two married parents with children. By 2014 that portion had declined to less than a quarter of U.S. households. The actual number of households with two spouses and children was smaller in 2014 than in 1980, despite the total U.S. population growing by over 40 percent during the period. Given the scale of the change, the decline in family households is arguably one of the most significant demographic trends over the past few decades.
Specifically in the Raleigh City (South & Central) PUMA, which covers ITB, median household size is 2.2; 37% of households are “nonfamily” = singles or roommates. So, the median household easily fits into a 2-bedroom unit.
But the median number of bedrooms in RCS&C is about 2.9; 49% of units have 3+ bedrooms. There are almost as many (18.5%) units with 4+ bedrooms as 0/1 bedroom (21.4%). In fact, there are more 5+ bedroom houses (3,146) than studio apartments (2,952)!
Household size is shrinking, but houses themselves generally cannot – and most of Raleigh by land area is suburban detached houses. (Those can be subdivided, but until very recently Raleigh had lots of rules to prevent that, and many HOAs still do.) Instead, what happens is that when new housing units are built, they will meet the needs of household types that aren’t served well by existing housing. Again, in central Raleigh as all across America, that means building new small units for the now-majority of households which are singles and couples.
New construction, especially in high-rises, is waaaaaaaay more expensive than you think. Most of the market for new high-rise condos is rich empty-nesters. Young families (a) rarely can afford those prices, (b) rarely can qualify for jumbo mortgages, whereas empty-nesters have ample home equity. Townhouses cost less to build, so families have a chance with those – plus all those stairs reduce competition from empty-nesters. Good thing there are so many townhouses being built all around the edges of downtown!
A friend of mine lives in a downtown Vancouver high-rise, and put it this way: when every square foot of house costs $1,000 (yes, Raleigh is much cheaper), then requiring “family sized” (1,000+ sq ft) units is requiring million-dollar units. Large-unit requirements in high-rises are millionaire set-asides.
As we’ve covered upthread, this is an Opportunity Zone fund sponsor. The relevant tax code was intended to facilitate long-term investments, and so require that the sponsor build and own for 10+ years. They don’t qualify if they sell units off as condos.
13 Likes
not sure if this changes much but wiki says ‘wake county’ is “The average household size was 2.51, and the average family size was 3.06.” Wake County, North Carolina - Wikipedia.
1 Like
Raleigh really introduce that in terms of zoning, that could make council-developer relations much better.
These singles that initially move to downtown do not stay single forever. Once families are formed a majority move to a single family home somewhere in the Triangle. Demand for Raleigh downtown apartment living is concentrated in a certain demographic. Vancouver would obviously be different, as would New York, etc.
2 Likes
Nor do couples/families stay together forever. As I said before, most of the growth in small households is from aging, not “youthification.” Small units in high-rises are uniquely well-suited to aging in place.
Even if you just look within one individual (and assume that “typical” is heterosexual) lifespan, the number of years any one individual will need housing that fits a family with kids is shrinking, while the number of years spent in apartment-appropriate life stages (youth + old age) has increased dramatically.
Also from UVa, emphasis added:
The decline of the nuclear family is in large part due to changes in the way we live. In 1960, the typical American married at age 21 and became a parent within a year. Today, the typical American marries considerably later at 28 and doesn’t have children until age 30. In addition, while the average retirement age has not changed, the typical American lives a decade longer after retirement today than they did in 1960.
Because people are living longer and marrying later in life, the average adult American will spend two decades more living outside of a nuclear family than in 1960. By 2014, the portion of the adult population within the common age range to have a family (highlighted in the chart above) had shrunk to 32 percent from 61 percent in 1960.
4 Likes
I moved downtown after a separation/divorce and have stayed downtown since remarrying. Am I the exception? I don’t necessarily think so. There are a lot of variations to “single”, “married”, those with and without kids and desirability of suburban life vs convenience and lack of car dependency. I think it’s hard to put a majority into a box.
5 Likes
Do not confuse Wake County with San Francisco. Wake county is a magnet for families relocating.
1 Like
And single people, too. Just people in general, really. So we need all kinds of developments, including downtown rentals.
7 Likes
You beat me to it. I’ll add that as the city grows it becomes somewhat inconsequential that the majority of folks will pair up, move to the burbs and have kids because even a minority of folks who don’t fall into that category becomes a significant number when your county is approaching 1.2M people and is still rapidly growing. Off the top of my head, and inclusive of your example, here are the sorts of exceptions I’m talking about.
Divorced individuals with or without kids
Empty nesters
Long term singles
Widows/Widowers
Couples without kids
Smaller families with teens who’ve outgrown the need for a yard
Retirees (singles and couples)
Urbanists of all types (not everyone who gets married and has kids wants to be in the burbs)
Nomadic professionals
Those who don’t/can’t drive
It’s also safe to assume that the funnel of young people will replace themselves in urban areas as generations age out and are replaced by the next one. It’s also not unreasonable to expect that the younger generations aren’t going to aspire to the American dream of SFH ownership in the same way that previous generations did.
10 Likes
Empty nesters was a few of our neighbors at the Fairweather. Makes sense if you think about it.
1 Like
whew…when i was a teen with folks in a 1500sq ft two story i loved my small yard…hammock, tree limbs and birds above me, not having to listen to qvc and a mild buzz. it was great to have a yard.
2 Likes
I hated having a yard! I love my urban view and city amenities and walkability. To each his own.
2 Likes
That area is dense and environmentally safe.
Still a dream. Affordability is the problem. A vast majority of Americans prefer SFH, just can not afford them.
1 Like
Zero kids at any of the units in the Ware. Some retirees, but many have sold due to the stairs. Have to think about stairs and accessibility in urban environments .
But there a lot of SFH in that area.
1 Like
Yes, very popular because they are SFH. I just think the prices are crazy for some of these streets further away from downtown. I would not want to walk on Bragg st at 2am back from downtown.
1 Like
There are kids in The Paramount.
2 Likes