Although very few blue-collar laborers or service industry folks could afford a new apartment in Smokey Hollow (hell, I can’t afford a new apartment in one of the new fancy buildings without becoming housing cost-burdened), it does offer a place for the pressure of gentrification to release some steam without bulldozing a historically affordable neighborhood.
This to me makes the most logical sense - that new luxury units release pressure on the whole system, and increase density and tax base (eventually) enough to justify additional investment in transit. One thing I don’t see in the conversation nearly enough is the transportation cost of housing. The real dollar figure attached to “drive til you qualify” for housing. As the city center becomes increasingly desirable, affordable homes for rent and sale are pushed farther and farther out, leading to higher transportation costs. So although homes may be cheaper in Knightdale than in Raleigh, if someone working in Raleigh has to move to Knightdale to find a home, how much are they really saving considering the increased frequency of gas fill-ups, oil changes, tire replacements, depreciation, parking expenses, and general maintenance.
Hopefully, by building densely in the city center even at market rate, we can justify additional transit investments for folks that are transportation cost-burdened whilst relieving gentrification pressure in surrounding tear-down neighborhoods.
I think for now it is what it is. Until supply catches up with demand and these current and planned projects come online, I think the price continues to rise for the foreseeable future.
There’s a lot of research on this generally (ie not with a triangle-data bent) that you can find without straining yourself, I like Bloomberg Cities as a source compiling those.
Obviously it would be better if developers just built a ton of affordable housing, but the economics of that model require massive subsidies that are not going to happen in this big dumb country without fundamental changes. Even your garden variety affordable project relies on layers of subsidized funding and tax credits that are very stingily allocated.
What you are likely to get are market rate units, which increase supply at higher price points and take pressure off of lower price points. Think of it this way: if I have a $800,000 budget and want to be in a general location like North Hills or downtown, but there aren’t units (either condos or houses) I want at that price point, I’m going to “have to” take a unit/lot that otherwise may have gone at a lower price point and spend money to get it where I want it.
That kind of decision is spread out over the market, such that builders and developers make lots of those decisions, but because housing is a relatively less flexible commodity - most people have to live close to family/work/school and can’t just live wherever is cheaper - demand imbalance in one segment of the market will put pressure on the other segments.
Frankly, you’re probably not going to see an a abrupt shift in prices because of increased supply because our demand is expanding with the area, but more housing helps slow pricing increases. And because denser housing like this uses less land, it doesn’t displace as many people as SFH would.
Searching for research that confirms high rises and luxury apartments actually help with gentrification and tamp down price increases in an area is easy to find. I’ve been reading that research my whole life. And it makes sense in theory.
What I’m saying is that I’ve been downtown Raleigh for almost 15 years now and that theory I subscribed to isn’t really playing out in real life. I’ve been to Austin, Nashville, Portland…and it doesn’t seem like it’s working out there either. Couple that with the fact that the theory sounds like something a developer might say to ward off local activists who oppose their big tall building for rich people. And it just is starting to be something I’m wanting to reset and rethink.
The article @evan.j.bost posted above was actually what I was looking for. I hadn’t seen that and it basically comes to the conclusion that there isn’t a clear answer to if the theory I’m questioning is valid or not.
Which begs the question as to why I was so sure that this theory was correct that I’d present the argument to friends of mine like it was some known truth. Even Harvard couldn’t come to a real conclusion. Was I just rooting for Raleigh? Was I just subconsciously hoping to cash in on my property value but felt guilty and wanted it to feel more like a win/win as the city grows? I don’t know, but this is the conversation I’ve been having all day in my head, and wanted to see if I could get some clarity from people who really pay attention to this stuff (you guys here at DTRal)
Thanks for humoring me. I’m going to keep digging in so I can have an opinion I feel is a little more nuanced and balanced…
I think when you look at those cities in particular, they’re absolutely booming, so prices are absolutely going up unless developers build a Beijing-suburbs amount of new tower blocks as fast as new people come in. Or they just turn the surrounding 100 square miles into greater Houston. And neither of those is exactly ideal.
Mayor McFarlane makes a great point about land use planning and having community input at that level. Ideally, we’d have deep-pocketed investors and developers - like Kane - that are able to build up those nodes all over the city and spreading that growth out more evenly. But right now we’ve got Kane and the seven dwarves. The city should also be investing more in downtown-like street grids to direct growth patterns, rather than leaving it all to private developers.
I don’t know the specifics of the existing NH area plan, but I’m sure towers were part of the conversation. I used to be a NH neighborhood resident, and to me, the difference between a 20 and 40-story tower is negligible unless it directly abuts single-family housing.
Finally, no development, whether it’s 5, 15, 25 or 40 stories on the Lassiter Mill-Six Forks corner, will be affordable. That land is too valuable and too in demand. So if it’s not affordable, wouldn’t it be better to have 200 expensive units versus only 50?
You have understand that Raleigh is waay behind in inventory, the supply here is pretty much low, because of the past Council of “NO’s” actions and keep in mind the super growth taking place here, there was just a report the Raleigh needed 45,000 apts, thats crazy so yes apts along with homes was going up $$ but thats slowly changing and you also have to look into this jacked up Comprehensive plan it was geared from the start to bring us to this Housing battle the city was zoned basically 80% single family homes that’s just not a good formula for affordable housing in a booming city like Raleigh. I Can tell you this if you think housing cost are high now, you would have seen prices swell to San Francisco levels if the former Council of NO Won again .
I get the argument for maximum density. And I 100% see how 200 expensive units are better than just 50. And I kind of get that if you don’t build inventory up, then, in theory, you turn into San Francisco.
I guess my concern is that if this theory is taken as gospel to be the one we follow, then what does the future look like for our city? Charlotte?
I don’t like Charlotte. I think it’s cold and void of character. I have no desire to live there and my fear is that Raleigh might be on that path.
I was hoping Raleigh would become one of the first new cities to figure out how to keep that small-town feel in a big-city vibe. The first city where families stick around instead of heading out to the burbs. I cheered growth and filling in the skyline. But now I’m wondering if Raleigh is now drunk off of all that growth and have handed the keys to developers who sees this town as nothing unique at all, just another hot opportunity.
I guess I never really understood the type of pressure a city takes on as it grows and becomes a destination. I always wanted Raleigh to grow, grow, grow. Now I’m stuck in between.
I love it here, but every block seems to be ready to go 40 stories. The old me would be hyped. More restaurants, more bars, more entertainment. But the father of 2 who wants to raise a family here isn’t sure it’s going to work out in the long run. I’ll have no trouble renting or selling my house if that’s what I decide to do, but I’m beginning to pump the breaks on my lust for Raleigh to be mentioned alongside the Austins and the Portlands.
A little. In Austin I learned there a design commission kit an appearance commission maybe reform that commission and turn it into that. Like look what there design commission has done for them and arc at the domain the towers there.
I been in Raleigh most of my life lived in California also, We have plenty room in my opinion to play mayberry in alot of areas in Raleigh but North Hills is a Density area in the city, its not like Kane is trying to build 40 story buildings directly in someone’s back yard lol, We only have a few areas in Raleigh for Density like this, but I will be honest I don’t want the small town feel if I wanted that I would have moved to Selma, NC or somewhere, I’m ready for this city to grow alot more and I will do everything in my power to promote High Density in areas designated as such and stop Nimbyism and thats what I see with this Rezoning process for North Hills and folks are welcome to feel the opposite its American but as one of the former ground pounders for California Yimby Organization Im not with any form of Nimbyism.
Yes I get that. That’s why I’m saying that I’m kind of stuck between. I’m really not arguing for myself here in a sense. I feel like I win either way because I took the early gamble on property downtown.
However I would be happier with less profit in a city with great infrastructure and amenities that can house people from all walks of life in all stages of life.
The more I think about it the more I see that vision is probably unattainable.
I don’t think city needs to input what developers build, at the end of the day it’s there building. I think opportunity zoning is something that can control affordable housing. Meaning developers get tax write offs if they invest in affordable housing. But I don’t think city should control what they build.
For the lazier people here, the resounding answer from literature is “yes it does, but it can’t do it alone” -at least, as long as you’re not looking at ideologically biased places like the Cato Institute or the John Locke Foundation.
Bloomberg CityLab’s historically had great articles and columns on this topic (here’s a random example). N&O also had a nice article about the complexity of this situation earlier this year, and then there’s this article that covers how density v. human-scaled developments are actually a nationwide conflict.
And just to cover all of our bases, academic papers (a random example here) and major nonpartisan think tanks like the Brookings Institute have written on this topic (see below), too.
I think this is why it’s important to take nothing as gospel; we need to take our time to soak in the nuance of each and every new development that comes up. Everyone who cares about where and how we live needs to become more mindful about a nitpicky, yet important thing: the difference between density for density’s sake versus thoughtful, intentional improvements to our communities. These are very different things.
Like @JFG implied about Kane and his fiduciary duty to his investors, developers are only invested in improving the built environment until certain means. Their actions are only one half of the equation: city and state policies to encourage (or even force) more cohesive communities are the other half. Unfortunately, that conversation often gets political and/or wonky -even though its successes could become sexier and more helpful for residents than any new skyscraper.
I don’t think “the future looks like” anything; it’s whatever we make of it. …and for the Triangle, in particular, I think we could become an inflection point to become that “one of the first new cities”, should we will it to be so. I think the issue is that most voters, leaders, staff, developers, community advocates etc. do not appreciate how complex and interconnected of a problem this is. It’s only recently that people are seeing road congestion and transit use as linked ideas, and the words “age-inclusive infrastructure” or “transit-oriented developments” are something your average person would still wouldn’t recognize or desire.
I think a Triangle that balances growth and scaling is possible -but it’s difficult because it would take a lot of sustained work across multiple fronts to achieve:
NIMBYs say “no” by instinct and build up their own echo chambers, but YIMBYs who just mindlessly say “yes” to every new proposal are not much better. Those are two obvious extremes of a spectrum, so… doesn’t that imply there’s a balance that we could hit?
Put another way: a smaller-scale version of this exact debate is happening in Harnett and Lee counties, as the TBJ wrote about earlier today, but we also know that places like Caswell County could flex their megasite muscles in the future. Is it really reasonable to expect them to just stick to one of those two counties’ examples -or is it more reasonable to think they’d learn some lessons and take the best parts of all of their neighbors as they eventually grow?
I find that offensive you call us YIMBYs extreme Im one the council obviously with the exception of Cox are identify as such. We don’t blindly say yes to everything sometimes we’ll go sharpen the pencil a little like with North Hills on the other side with the pedestrian sidewalks. I’m pretty sure Seaboard Station will come up and I know the train station is a concern I’m sure the mayor heard it they’ll say sharpen the pencil a little so it’s not exactly a no It’s a hey we need you to edit this.
Also I think we have presented some good ideas like
Opportunity Zoning - Developers build a building but have to invest in some poor areas for tax benefits. It’s a win win for both sides
Also NIMBYS like Cox who the most hated man in Raleigh, even William Shatner hates him. Don’t wanna work and save our neighborhoods and ridiculous propaganda that the council taken developer money which is not true nobody comments on Tim Niles BS.
One of Raleigh’s on-the-cusp charms has been that ‘will we, won’t we’ pressure around transforming from big town to city. Sounds like you’ve been here long enough to see that we’re in “the great game now and the great game is terrifying”. The name calling around NIMBY v YIMBY - as all name calling does - reduces the context around why, what and how we build and how we might make it better. The escalation of land valuation over the past few years along with the region’s prior predilection for SFH over mid-density build outs kinda has us pinned into a corner that it seems we have to build our way around.
We simply need more housing for the flood coming, which makes some of us not so picky about how we get there and makes others still want to pump the brakes even harder - these are the extremes. If we can get through this build boom and we take a breath, we’ll probably get the market to normalize enough that we’ll start to get some back-filling density in shoulder neighborhoods and all of that will yield some normalization of cost-basis. But the capital A-ffordable is not going to be built in Raleigh proper in the now, it will be created by the ripples through the shoulder zones over time as more dwelling inventory is built. Gonna be a pain point for a bit and, if we don’t attach some standards to execution of development and become more strategic in rezonings we’re allowing - we’ll lose more character while we fail to stem the loss of affordability. And that, is where the battle gets tricky.
that’s just not a good formula for affordable housing in a booming city like Raleigh. I Can tell you this if you think housing cost are high now, you would have seen prices swell to San Francisco levels if the former Council of NO Won again .
