I think market-rate. But no reason why you couldn’t build the same building and adjust the interior finishes/fixtures to whatever price point.
I agree. But my guess is that finding a developer to do it is a challenge.
We posed the question of including affordable units in the proposed Kane development on W Cabarrus at one of the neighborhood meetings. The answer was an unequivocal “no” because of financing constraints. So I guess the developer has to be willing to jump through some hoops and seek out financing options that would accommodate such uses.
And we’re not going to find anyone willing to do it cause it basically puts them at an business disadvantage. Why should one developer do it while others don’t?
If the council could get serious about affordable units in new developments, they could at least start discussing the idea of making it a requirement across the board and how the development approval process can equally accommodate this. (rather than make it more complicated leading to significantly higher costs)
Or something else, I’m open to it but we’re in a “sit back and hope” approach to affordable units.
It is my understanding that this 18 story building is an addition to the Cardinal at NH. I also get the impression that this is the premiere senior/retirement community in Raleigh. I am 100% positive this is a pure money maker, and not an altruistic development with affordable units included.
With plans starting at $4700 / month, this is by no means affordable to most.
Subsidized housing decisions have always been made within a financial context, since it’s funded with public money. In other words, subsidized housing of all types has typically been pushed to where “the market” was ignoring. In the past, this has meant abandoned/ignored buildings and neighborhoods downtown. Where land and buildings are cheaper, this is where public housing went. This has been true for Raleigh as it has been for cities across the country.
As neighborhoods change, and land/buildings become more valuable, both tension and an opportunity for a win-win arise. If land/buildings that where once “worthless” are now desirable, how can we balance the unleashing of that value, while fueling some of the resulting riches into programs that will support the most needy in our community? If the land that Glenwood Towers occupies is so valuable, how can we funnel money from that sale into a better situation for the seniors at a different location nearby so that the residents don’t lose their community? If the value of the Sir Walter is so great as an iconic hotel for Raleigh, how can we leverage it to the same end?
We can probably add Heritage Park to the list, as well.
The Sir Walter is different from Glenwood Towers and Heritage Park in that it’s owned by a private entity, so I’m not sure how money can be funneled from that other than at the owner’s own altruism. GT and HP are owned by the city, which gives the community an opportunity. I would hope that the city is thinking about land values of these properties and how they might be able to leverage sales at some point to upgrade and replace existing subsidized housing currently located at those locations.
Oh boy - here we go. The social justice warrior arrived. So blinded by indignant liberal moral outrage that you can’t recognize there might be better uses for this building than a flop house.
@Phil Let’s just not let that go anywhere.
As to any sentiment that we are “Putting a bunch of essentially homeless old people” in the Sir Walter or really anywhere, doesn’t matter, means you aren’t understanding the history behind the building and the conditions things were like in the 1960s (or whenever) when the idea to do this came out. See @John’s comment above for pretty much why it is the way it is today.
We’re already seeing this with a big affordable housing project just off the Beltline at Rock Quarry. I’d suspect most future developments will be in that SE Raleigh direction as well.
I’d hope that senior housing developments would take into consideration that a lot of these people do not drive.
I agree with you here – if the Sir Walter were to be converted back to a hotel and the existing residents were not taken care of, the resulting political backlash would be huge, and no developer wants to risk that.