Raleigh’s Climate Action

We should try to do as much as we can to prevent the situation from getting worse. We have already guaranteed a certain level of discomfort for ourselves in the coming centuries, but we haven’t set our extinction in stone yet. Let’s fight to prevent that.


What makes this even crazier is the fact that we would be heading towards or be in an Ice Age right now if we weren’t extreme polluters to the environment. So in a way it’s saved us as a species but it’s now getting dangerous.

There are so many impacts to life on earth that have been happening over the last couple of decades that will have a significant impact on our ability to live “comfortably” in the coming generations. You can focus just on the impacts to the ocean, and how that ecosystem supports our lives and the terrestrial ecosystems. The more you educate yourself around those topics, the more alarming our current situation really is. Having been born and raised in FL and now living in the Keys, there is such a stark contrast just in my lifetime to the ecosystems surrounding the FL Keys. There’s plenty of conspiracy and plenty of looking the other direction, but the science of it is clear.

It’s pretty sad, IMO.


Why do you say we would be in an ice age. First time I have heard this.

Apparently some recent ice core studies say that the climate system was trending towards a short or long term Ice Age before we started noticing significant warming.

Don’t take this as fact but it’s what’s I remember learning in college

(xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline)


Can we bring this back to Raleigh and what we’re doing about it? Thanks.


Hopefully planting a lot of trees, incentivizing rainwater harvesting, reducing sprawl and incentivizing infill development.


I don’t think anyone on this forum has mentioned the street tree planting program in SE Raleigh. Planting 1000 street trees over 3 years, and they are 600 trees in now. Super impressive program that drastically changes the landscape and aesthetic in the neighborhood. Raleigh has always prioritized tree planting and preservation, but this program takes it to another level. There’s a great map with every tree they are planting. Part of Lenoir is a great example of the difference; one side is planted and the other side gets planted next year. It’s awesome to see



But I don’t think this statement is accurate. I see trees going down right and left in my neighborhood. Nothing ever gets replanted.

Well I can tell you that currently any infill density requires street trees per the streetscape plan and typology. Tearing down a SFH and replacing it? Does not trigger review by urban forestry… An exempt application.

Flaglot or duplex? Full review, trees required


You know, I was walking north on Glenwood (south) from La Farm and I was thinking to myself how paltry and inconsistent the tree canopy was on that walk home.
The trees next to the Creamery in particular look pretty sad. Let’s get more trees planted! With Summers being consistently hotter now, we need all of the shade that we can get.


That’s just classic.

This is what I don’t understand as well. It seems to be thought out (somewhat) for Duplex, but SFH just get an automatic exemption? It should be easier for SFH to develop and have trees. The first thing that happens around me after buying an older home is tear down the house and all trees on the lot. This is before even having building plans, it is just an automatic get rid of all trees. I don’t want to stand in the way of progress, but there has to be some middle ground.


Exactly. SFHs in my neighborhood get torn down right and left in my neighborhood. Mature trees and beautiful yards get razed down and scrapped down to the red clay.

They might try to say a tree or two here or there. But usually it ends up dying and due to all the construction impacting the root zones. So they get cut down eventually as well.

1 Like

Chicago - curb extension & rain garden
• Doesn’t interfere with the existing storm drain
• Decreases length of crosswalk and drivers’ turning radius
Raleigh needs to have more of these, primarily in downtown neighborhoods

NACTO graphic - pervious bike and parking lanes with deep rain gardens
• Addresses parking while protecting bike lane
• Allows for stormwater filtration & decreases strain on hard stormwater infra.
Raleigh should follow this standard for ultra-wide stroads downtown

Paris, FR - street to trail conversion
• Allows for stormwater filtration through sand/gravel path and added greenery
• Improved air quality with the lack of vehicles
Raleigh should look for opportunities to do this everywhere, specifically dense areas with multiple alternative routes and trail connections (Dix Park)


It’s very clear in the UDO. All subdivisions are subject to full subdivision review process, which involves all city planning departments including stormwater, transportation, fire, engineering, etc. Only subdivisions that are exempt create lots that are larger than 10 acres. This is where the infraction lies. Most places have an exempt subdivision rule if it is of small scale subdivision, like producing three or fewer lots.

Single family homes are largely exempt because they are being proposed on existing single-family home lots that have already been subdivided, and in many many cases did not have to go through nearly the rigor of review that subdivisions have to go through nowadays. Most single-family lots inside the beltline were not subject to the insane streetscape improvements, storm water regulations, fire marshall whims, and other non-starters that flag lots, duplex lots, cottage courts, and small subdivisions have to go through nowadays

Which leads to the next logical question. Why aren’t tear downs subject to those improvements if they are going to completely scrape and reshape the lot?


Speaking of subdivision approval… Raleigh Fire Department laughs in this direction. Never mind that Chicago knows more about fire than they do.

1 Like

Here’s a good read on the relationship between parking requirements and urban heat islands.

One takeaway that is important to keep in mind is that “in a post-parking-minimums world, cities will still take decades to recover because new buildings will still be designed for an auto-oriented landscape” (Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking).


There has got to be at the city or county level a way to tax surface parking lots. Imagine assessing a surface parking tax, even if marginal, across every bloated parking lot in the city, and funneling that money into bike lanes and street trees? Think of all the shopping centers that are owned by Wall Street REITS that could easily absorb a $50/year per parking space tax. In some cases it may generate incentive to BUILD HOUSING on parking lots, or convert it back to green space.