…they don’t though. Look at any densifying project on the New Bern corridor. We usually want MORE density.
1 Like
“Moreover, whatever value that this proposal may have towards reducing carbon emissions and providing a handful of additional dwelling units is grossly outweighed by the aesthetic damage that will be caused”
Some other choice points from the site indicate that this development “destroys” the Hayes-Barton neighborhood, and I think they even imply that it somehow sullies the legacy of women’s suffrage???
6 Likes
Seems this topic made it “national” with Steph on the front lines.
5 Likes
I’m all for the national shame.
That said, I did see it on Twitter via a friend in California. My biggest issue is how the thread gets so many details incorrect and seems to jump to all sorts of conclusions to (IMO) bolster their own narrative.
No surprise there. People driving these things realize readers don’t care about facts, just jumping on bandwagons and pulling out their pitchforks.
11 Likes
this sounds a lot like the “eAt ThE rIcH!” narrative that gets spewed in certain circles. How is that in any way a valid position to hold. The logic of not wanting development in your neighborhood due to externalities that you perceive as negatively impacting you is legitimate, regardless of income or wealth. These folks just have the resources to do something about it - and why wouldn’t they?? To UncleJesse’s point, Hayes Barton is a historical, estate sized neighborhood - and always has been (the latter point). Agree on wanting density but there is a balance. Do I think the residents are using some dubious claims to try and achieve their goals? yes. Do I think some are legitimate? Yes. To me this is battle between an affluent developer and affluent citizens - let the courts decide.
5 Likes
yea, it might impact like 4 or 5 houses right near it, construction will be a pain, but they’ll probably be used to it within a couple months of it being finished. it’s just going to be more rich neighbors.
??? it appears to be following the general rules. the rich people just don’t seem to think the rules apply to them.
12 Likes
Then 2 years from now when more townhomes or something are announced nearby, the residents of these townhomes will come out against them sighting traffic etc. People can have concerns, but the city overall needs to have good plans for growth and stick to them fairly across the city.
5 Likes
It’s also very close to downtown, where we desperately need more housing. Fact of the matter is, they own the lot, are following the rules, and should be able to do whatever they want with it as long as it falls within the parameters of the code. It’s not like they’re building a freakin’ high rise.
It’s funny… when developers try to increase housing supply in a neighborhood that isn’t considered “historic” or “affluent,” they complain about gentrification. When they try to increase housing supply in a neighborhood that does have money, it’s about character. Starting to think that maybe, just maybe, it was never about either. Guess we should just keep leveling trees to build subdivisions in the middle of nowhere, since there’s “no room” here in Raleigh.
These are such tired arguments, man. Either you’re for increasing housing supply, or you’re against increasing housing supply. Beggars can’t be choosers, and Raleigh’s very much in a begging state when it comes to housing options, for all income levels. It’s really not that complicated.
Edit: sorry for the rant, I’m just really tired of these same stupid arguments. It’s a supply and demand economy, the demand is currently outpacing the supply by a longshot, and we’re still arguing over what constitutes a “good” housing project. Meanwhile I’m working a tech job and still can’t afford to live ITB because rent is so high. So every time I hear someone (not anyone here, but I still see it a lot) say “Raleigh is full,” is basically reads to me as “screw you, I got mine.” That’s what 95% of these arguments boil down to.
24 Likes
There’s all this focus on character and history - when Hayes Barton’s character and history are the streetcar and racial segregation. Barring commercial uses and creating large open plots is a fairly modern idea, the “traditional” city is walkable and significantly more dense.
The desires of the original planners of the neighborhood were to create an extremely segregated neighborhood, both by race and class. The large plots increased sprawl, harming the environment. These ideals are, hopefully, not the ideals of the day, though a desire for green space and high quality architecture is understandable. Concept 8, the developers, have examples of their work on their website, and as far as I can tell, the architecture will be high quality, and they plan to preserve a large green common lot in the middle of the homes.
12 Likes
If David Johnson gets involved the neighborhood will win. Just saying…
What can the neighborhood do exactly? This is by-right, no? No council needed.
We focus so much on council and commission-related items, mainly rezonings, but the policy is in place and developers are building to the established policy. Can neighbors directly influence staff at some point? What does that look like? I’m curious.
9 Likes
Sue the developer into never-ending, expensive litigation about stuff like environmental reviews
2 Likes
I’m probably less picky than you - I generally want to keep high quality architecture and landscape design, even if the history has some skeletons in the closet - but I’m on the same page here.
This one is just kind of a nothing of a house, and that big private grass field doesn’t do anything for anyone. It’s all just generic.
2 Likes
Are you basically asking the difference between rich and poor people? LMAO
1 Like
NC doesn’t have an equivalent to CEQA, so I don’t see how they could sue if the project meets Raleigh’s site review standards.
3 Likes
Here’s my take on the Hayes Barton drama unfolding before us.
I neither have animosity (eating the rich) toward the residents of Hayes Barton, nor do I have an ultra protectionist viewpoint from the outside looking in. While I care about housing density to slow sprawl, I care much more about it when it can lead to less car dependency in people’s day to day life. At the end of they day, I understand that this is a rich on rich fight in which both sides desperately want us to align with them. Frankly, this project just smells like opportunity to make a buck, not like an opportunity to shape community. Even the site plan tells me that because these “townhouses” don’t even face the long road frontage. They are addressed by car primarily while largely ignoring the street and sidewalk.
That all said, and while I still don’t necessarily oppose this townhome project, it’s not the first parcel that I’d choose for densification because I don’t see how it does anything to take folks out of their cars. Unlike the nearby “Fairview Row at Five Points” that was completed 8 years ago, there’s literally nothing in its immediate surrounds that is walkable or has the real possibility to become walkable.
Sure, go ahead and put more rich people in Hayes Barton and generate more taxes out of that parcel of land, but don’t try to convince me that this is some sort of savior project that I’m willing to die-on-the-hill for. It’s just not that important of a development to me. Now, if we were discussing creating more density in the 5 minute walkshed of Five Points itself, I would die on THAT hill because it represents an opportunity to create fundamental change in how people live their daily lives outside of their cars.
6 Likes
I don’t disagree with your points. I actually live in a townhome development DT that probably faced very similar push back to these townhomes - I personally wasn’t arguing against them.
My point and rant was set off at the ‘screw the rich’ tone in the post I responded to originally. I don’t think that narrative is productive or frankly based on anything but personal animosity.
I also wanted to articulate the perspective of the neighbors and that whether we like it or not, they have a right to challenge this development in avenues that have been used in the past, regardless of how we feel about it.
Kind of a separate tangent but plays into housing access, I read an article in The Atlantic the other day discussing how millennial homebuyers of the past several years across multi markets are quickly becoming NIMBYs, opposing developments that they see as a threat to their property values. Read into that however you want. It plays into your comment on ppl giving the “screw you I got mine” line. I think more importantly it plays into basic human nature and the fact that more likely than not, when push comes to shove we act in our own perceived self interest.
3 Likes
I’m sorry did I say that the rich should have their homes confiscated and redeveloped into affordable housing? Because that’s what “eat the rich” would mean in this situation and if that’s what I meant, that’s what I would’ve said.
Again, it’s a valid position hold because their wealth means that any negative externalities from this project will be nothing more than minor inconveniences to them. No one will be displaced, no one will lose their job, and no one will lose their access to transportation. Their concerns are frivolous and the only reason they’re being given any consideration is that they’re rich and can afford to throw absurd amounts of money around to exercise an undue influence in our city’s democratic process.
Let the courts decide? This is a by-right project, our elected city council makes land use decisions, not the courts. If they somehow manage to get this project stopped in court, that would be outrageous, and yet another example of how the rich poison our democratic process; while the poor attend public hearings, where their voices are supposed to be heard and are largely ignored (even though I personally think the reasoning of most neighborhood and community activist arguments is flawed.)
3 Likes