The message that gives off is that as long as you are rich, your interests will be protected. That’s an absolutely horrible precident to set.
5 Likes
I don’t know exactly what the remedy is but it’s very unfortunate that this sort of high visibility, highly controversial (to the neighbors), and a highly funded resistance comes as the city is trying to embark on a journey to address missing middle housing. From a policy perspective, what can we learn from this? I don’t know the answers but I see “Danger ,Will Robinson” written all over it.
If we step back and look at it, what goals of MM housing are being achieved here? On the plus side, we are adding density within existing infrastructure, and we are adding to the tax base. On the opposite side, we are adding to car dependency since this location certainly isn’t walkable, and there isn’t anything affordable or inclusive about it.
The way this is playing out, it feels like the outcome may come down to policy makers “being right but not winning”. Frankly I’d rather focus on winning because that’s where change really happens.
2 Likes
Like you said, it’s not so much about this one development solving the missing middle problem. If it’s stopped, others might not happen. And the area is currently car dependent. (VD is within walking distance, but it’s at the high end of the range, and St. Mary’s @ Wade isn’t very pedestrian friendly considering volume and speed of vehicles.) But if something interesting happens with Old Rex, then the neighborhood becomes a little more walkable, allowing maybe 2 errands a week to be made on foot that might have required a car (SUV).
1 Like
I’m more in the camp of “these people can go fuck themselves” but your position is certainly a lot nicer than mine.
7 Likes
I bet the HB residents wouldn’t want the HD designation if it meant they can’t, at will, make changes to their homes. Seems like every few months there’s a construction dumpster outside a different house.
1 Like
So tank something designed for the whole city for their own convenience. Classy.
3 Likes
Not sure why everybody is all up against the wealthy. They have as much right as anybody to voice their preferences. If you want to get mad at anybody it should be the politicians who allow their power to be influenced by money. They forego doing the right thing often just to get reelected.
2 Likes
…because the wealthy are the ones influencing said politicans with said money? lmao
9 Likes
Because the Hayes-Barton residents are the ones currently suing the city over a law most of us support.
15 Likes
Maybe you should be doing a better job of electing politicians that cannot be influenced with said money. If I could keep out MM out of my neighborhood for a $100 I would do it in a heartbeat. Probably go as high as $1000. Definitely not more than that. I guess if I was wealthy I would put up more $$$. I think most people don’t want change.
2 Likes
It is an interesting time to be alive. Everything, everywhere, all at once at the extremes. Shock and awe, fear and dread, ignorance amidst infinite access to information.
This case seems more of an outlier - it’s certainly not the intent of MM and has become an easy potshot for ‘gub’t over-reach that benefits the dasterdly developer’. A whole lotta noise coming from this because the neighborhood can pursue legal recourse and has the stones / pockets to go the distance - which is their right. Of course they don’t want the density of the townhomes, the neighborhood was built on exclusionary tactics / realities ( one of which is the COST of access…) and someone is bucking their expectations and ‘slipped it past them’ so they’re pissed. Truth. Let 'em battle it out BUT, let’s also not let this be the dog whistle for the ‘dangers’ of missing middle…It’s all so much more nuanced than that.
*BTW - I live in a 70’s suburban style neighborhood that is bound on some edges by apartment complexes, two edges have townhomes - some developed in the 90s, others in the mid-2000s, yet still predominantly SFHs. 10% of the homes on my street are rentals (has been as much as 25%), the remainder resident owners like myself. There’s two short term rentals down the street. It’s also a neighborhood that allows traffic to ‘cut through’ from one arterial north / south roadway to another by zig- zagging through the network of streets - IYKYK. All the things so called NIMbers might find pause or fear around growth / density ACTUALLY make up a pretty vibrant place to live. I wish more people would just embrace commonalities rather than fear the differences will tear us apart.
12 Likes
I don’t live in Raleigh and HB is not downtown where I work so I don’t have a real opinion. Just on my street in Cary are homes about 40 years old. Most are smallish by Cary standards (mine is 1250 sq ft). Near Bond Park and greenway trails. Two miles from downtown Cary. Most homes have single stack driveways and there are few garages (single car garages with about half converted to heated space). Relatively narrow street with no sidewalks. Cars are parked on both sides of the street which leaves about a foot or two on each side to pass. Pedestrians with strollers and pets are walking on the street. My neighborhood street is about a mile long with no stops. Curvy and hilly in places. I just wonder how more parked cars and more pedestrians will fit on this street. Plus the homes now are some of the most affordable in Cary. Increasing in density will only result in the removal of these affordable homes and any additional new homes probably starting at prices twice the current average. Yes I realize that density is ultimately necessary, but it has its negatives. It’s not all good by any means.
2 Likes
Isn’t the fact that the politicians aren’t budging proof that they’re NOT being influenced by money?
Incorrect. Absolutely incorrect. The whole point of missing middle is that increased density leads to MORE OPTIONS (including affordable) for everyone. Read any book or article on the subject. Strongtowns has a ton of them:
This is the worst argument that I somehow see repeated ad nauseum by those fighting against housing density. That somehow adding more supply of houses to the market is bad for affordability. Goes against all natures of economics and supply and demand.
This is either argument in bad faith or you heard the argument originating from someone who was arguing in bad faith.
10 Likes
Lol. Thanks David for your kind input. You are exactly the kind of person who needs to hear differing opinions more often so that you can possibly learn to be more tolerant of those with said differing opinions. I guarantee you that if they were to tear down two homes in my neighborhood and build 7 townhomes they would probably each be twice as much as the houses they replaced. Cary doesn’t really do affordable much nowadays. But admittedly that is my opinion.
4 Likes
You’re argument isn’t wrong, it’s just not as clear as you make it seem. Notice that @TedF said the homes are about 40 years old on his street. You are right that adding more homes to his street fights affordability for the entire area but you are wrong that those specific new homes will be the ones driving the price tag down. They are new so will command new product prices.
We can’t build new, 40-year-old homes on his street and then price them accordingly. What we need overall is to build at a higher rate (more supply coming online) and then, over time, we have MORE homes starting to age leading to MORE homes coming down in price and becoming affordable.
The struggle here is that which neighborhood is going to start the process? The city shouldn’t pick which ones and I support a city-wide implementation of the MM housing. Right or wrong, that’s my take.
21 Likes
I didn’t value high density and had your opinions until my mind was changed. I have a pretty good idea of what you mean. I’m not intolerant of other ideas. I am intolerant of blatant and oft-perpetuated lies with no basis in reality. You are absolutely allowed to have an opinion that 2+2=5, but it’s still mathematically incorrect.
It’s not black and white. You’re absolutely right in that creating new homes fights for affordability in the aggregate but doesn’t fight for it on that specific parcel. His argument goes against the spirit of the actual argument. If the argument is for homes in Cary to be more affordable, then those townhomes help. If his argument is for the property on that specific parcel to be more affordable, then he’s correct in that it likely won’t be.
I think it’s pedantic at best and deceptive at worst.
The issue with Cary and the possibility of implementing this is that there are a lot of HOAs with governing docs. There would have to be a lot of incentives coming from Raleigh to have them change their governing docs, or just allow these to be built. As for the other Neighborhoods that don’t have those governing docs, they knew what they were buying when they bought it.
Anyone interested in the subject, here’s a good video on it:
3 Likes
If we keep the same density, it still results in the removal of the affordable homes. We are seeing this a lot. If you look at the house at 4300 Camelot Dr, it sold in 2021 for $650k. The house was torn down and rebuilt; It now lists for just under $5 Million. The zoning is still the same.
902 Shelley Rd
2018 sold for $625k
It was torn down and now lists for $1.4 Million
There are many more examples out there. The main point is that holding back density will not prevent the removal affordable homes and adding in new homes.
15 Likes
100% you can’t only talk about what missing middle would do without a knowledging what SF only zoning does. It’s not like we are in a utopia of affordability and Missing Middle might mess it up. We are headed in an unaffordable direction already.
9 Likes
Yeah, I’m not piling on you. Totally understand - *my house / most of the neighborhood was built in '73, bought at 1400sq ft. Not many garages. Varied homestyles - ranches, splits, colonials. Same ‘snug’ streetscape. Sidewalks made it onto some streets and not onto others, so we’ve got the same street walkers, runners, bikers, etc. We’ve gone through some renovation, adding a room, sweat equity and love to our home. Hope to ride it into retirement…
The nuance with affordable housing really lies in the space between our resistance to change and the lag in building that restrictive zoning has created while we’ve become a ‘boom market’. It’s a tough pinch and its change is coming for most of us in some way, shape or form…
1 Like
I was stunned by the # of new builds along Shelly.