I dont live downtown so I’m having a hard time visualizing this particular configuration. I was merely saying if I lived, say… along the row of big old homes along St. Mary’s or somewhere a few blocks off Glenwood, for example, that I would object if my neighbors started tearing down homes to build 3 story multifamily residences next door to what for 100+ years has been beautiful yards with single family homes on them…
…UNTIL the neighborhood immediately adjacent had already done that such that my backyard neighbors homes had already transformed. It’s bound to be a slow process transforming, probably taking several decades, rather than an opportunistic owner who decides they can make a real estate play “because they can.” Poof goes the single family home and in comes a row of shotgun townhouses right next door.
NO!!
I’m all for logical growth and more housing but this kind of scenario like I’m describing would NOT be what I signed up to live amongst… if I lived there. Being told by urbanist bloggers “well you should move because tHiS iS a CiTy AnD yOu ShOuLd EmBrAcE cHaNgE” would have me running into the arms of the NIMBYS.
Sorry I know that doesn’t answer your specific geographic situation you asked, but I’m unfamiliar with that spot so I’m not able to answer.
So if a city is growing at Raleigh’s pace, it should be essentially be doomed to sprawl out to Clayton because of the wishes of a small group of inner-ring neighborhoods?
I’m all for logical growth and more housing but this kind of scenario like I’m describing would NOT be what I signed up to live amongst…
This is logical growth. It brings more people to a job center. It puts downward pressure on the housing prices. It condenses utilities. It puts more people closer to places they want to be. What you seem to be describing is selfishness at the expense of everyone else.
The only thing you signed up for was the right to control the property you live on and what goes on there. The deed to the property you own does not extend to your neighbors, their neighbors, or the planned park a fifth of a mile away from you. You signed up for what happens on that plot of land, and that plot of land alone.
Being told by urbanist bloggers “well you should move because tHiS iS a CiTy AnD yOu ShOuLd EmBrAcE cHaNgE” would have me running into the arms of the NIMBYS.
I’m not an urbanist blogger, I just post comments on a forum. However, what you’re describing isn’t “logical growth”. If you want an absolute say in the future of a property that you don’t own, then buy it, join an HOA, or run for city council.
Also-- this will be hard to hear–but lawns are not an especially efficient use of space. Not everyone needs a personal grass field to call their own. That’s what public parks are for. Average lot size in North Hills is insanely large for an “urban” neighborhood very close to DTR. Other cities have preserved the single family home model but reduced lot size with good results.
You know what really sucks? Buying property and then being told what you can and cannot do with your own property you literally own. If you want to live in a growing city but also want to complain and object when the growing city you purchased a home in… grows, then you never actually wanted to live in a growing city to begin with, and you should go ahead and move out. Full stop.
My neighbors are tearing down homes to build 3 story single family residences next door to what for 60+ years has been beautiful yards with single story homes on them…
tHeY aRe RuIninG The ChAraCteR of MY NEIGHBORHOOD! HoW DaRe tHeY! ThE HoRror oF THE SHADOWS!
Here’s where I disagree with the Strong Towns ideology. The way things evolve in nature isn’t gradually, a little bit over a long time – it’s “punctuated equilibrium,” with periodic jolts of jarring and sudden change. We should not expect any differently of how our cities evolve.
Before zoning, neighborhoods went through periodic jolts of jarring and sudden change. Here’s the Gold Coast in Chicago, one of America’s few rich-for-all-time urban neighborhoods, where the 1920s and 1950s both saw big bursts of high-rise apartments amidst the original townhouses:
“The next increment” of development isn’t just a bit bigger, it’s much bigger. The value of any new building is mostly in the building; redevelopment has to keep the acquisition cost to a small fraction (10-25%) of the project budget. So the new building has to be 4, 5, 10X more valuable (usually bigger, sometimes nicer) than what preceded it. And that’s doubly true in places where zoning laws have stifled outward change for too long.
Yes, many people have a subjective aesthetic preference may be for slight and slow change, or for no change at all. Yet as anyone who’s ever tried to keep a garden can attest, maintaining the appearance of stasis in a living system requires much more work than allowing things to change.
I 100% agree with this. The same property is never going to go up slowly over 4 decades. It’s not going to go from 2 stories to 3 stories to 4 stories. It’s going to go from 2 stories to 10 or 20 stories quickly.
That’s why I’m incredibly bullish about the short-term prospects of Raleigh when it comes to development. A lot of us here have talked about how slow things take to get going in Raleigh. Most of that appears to have been stalled due to interest rates ballooning (per what @JonathanMelton said a few months ago)
I’m seeing it here, and I’m seeing it on Reddit. I think a lot of people are taking an interest in local politics and understanding the real problems that not developing has been causing. Just take a look at the comments in this thread that was posted a couple of weeks ago, specifically about David Cox:
I think we’re right at that tipping point here where the rubberband is about to snap. And I think what you wrote is incredibly important to let people know. Change isn’t something that takes decades. It happens pretty quickly.
I know we’ve talked about this before, that Strong Towns tends to view cities through a decline/non-growth lens, but I do think that even a high growth area like Raleigh should embrace the next increment of development intensity for 80% of the neighborhoods, because frankly even that is a huge stretch with the culture.
My neighborhood is 1.5 miles from Dix and it’s not valuable enough yet for 4x to 5x value leaps. Personally I love that, and could easily see our density doubling with gentle incremental development. But near downtown, North hills, etc…that’s the other 20%
No argument there. Just saying if it’s __ distance (fill in the blank with a subjective number neighborhoods and cool kids on here will argue about) away from where the SFHs are getting torn down for high density taller, it should gradually transition. I never said “within a block” as you did in your strawman.
I’ve Got no problem with a SFH tear down to replace with a McMansion or whatever. By your own argument, YOU don’t get to complain about THAT either since it’s not YOUR property.
I never implied @xdavidj that you’re an urbanist blogger. I was referring to the urbanist blogger who makes videos that @John linked. Sorry if that wasn’t clear what I was referring to. It’s what started my whole reply here.
The interesting thing is that if it’s land or a tear down that neither of us own, but I live on the street and you don’t, (or vice versa), the elected political leaders who vote on zoning (and has to win votes to remain said political leader), have to factor in what the neighbors affected WHO VOTE ME THEM IN OFFICE think of the politician pushing the boundaries hard and fast vs the incremental changes @evan.j.bost mentioned below and who I quoted.
So yeah, i don’t get to control the land use but NEITHER DO YOU. We can both have different opinions even if they’re just degrees of speed of change, etc. So we have commissions and boards and people exhange ideas, but i guarantee you’re not winning people to your viewpoint telling them
I’m not complaining about the growth. It’s where and how it grows. Hilarious that you would think that wanting a plan that differs from someone else’s opinion means I never wanted to live in a growing city. Really, that’s what it means if I disagree with you? C’mon, be better.
I’m 100% sure the area already is sprawled out to Clayton!
YES 100% Agree with this. I love this idea.
Unfortunately the more vocal posters on here likely will bristle at length of time being “after a generation”
You do you, bubba, as far as your yard aesthetic and design goes. But it’s not “hard to hear” your opinion. I respect it as different than my own and that of a lot of homeowners. It’s just that: an opinion. If I want a lawn, as inefficient as you deem it to be, I’m gonna have a lawn.
More of this utopian “do something for the greater good” attitude because you’re “downtown” is really tone deaf to winning people over to the growth idea. More of this “greater good, we have a park so you shouldn’t have a yard” attitude that leaves a lot of us just shaking our head. Maybe not the most vocal people on here but DEFINITELY a lot of us.
Some people have kids and they want/need a place to play outside NEAR THE HOUSE they can look out the window and know their kids are safe and having fun with neighbor kids playing. Maybe they don’t their kids playing in Moore Square and have to learn how to deal with the crazy homeless aggressive panhandling we adults learn to handle.
For those who aren’t parents, they may not understand that aspect of quality of life. Some may pat themselves on the back and say “we ARE parents and we don’t need that.” Again, fine, do what works for you. Don’t require everyone to COMPLY with some scientific model an urban planning guru thinks is demanded.
Remains to be seen what kind of “job center” our downtown is post-COVID. I truly want it to be booming downtown and get offices full again so we’re needing more towers. But we are HIGH on the list of metros with work from home and LOW on the list of downtowns whose workers are back downtown working. It’s not good, and with the crime and fleeing merchants, it’s not great. Yes new businesses are opening, but tons are closing.
But to call what I’m saying “selfish” goes back to me saying what YOU want everyone else to do gives some commie vibes, or at least “fall in line and shut up, it’s for he great good.” Oh, and if you don’t like this plan, MOVE. Perhaps we are both senstive to others not 100% in agreement with what we want or think, but it’s ok to agree to disagree without denigrating those on the other side.
Overall i love learning about Raleigh’s incredible growth, and while this is the dtraleigh.com forum, we have threads for TONS of things that are in the metro area that are part of that growth.
I do wish that the atmosphere here was a little more tolerant of different opinions. It’s easy to feel ganged up on by people who are kind of “my way or the highway” and it’s somewhat off-putting and frankly not that welcoming, if I’m 100% honest. Just because someone isn’t 100% on board with an idea here doesn’t make them a member of livable raleigh or whatever other group. I’ve learned a lot the short time i’ve been on here and look forward to learning more and seeing Raleigh grow…but this is plenty long.
Correct. If someone wants to keep their property that they own a single family property, I will not complain. Not sure why you think I will.
The interesting thing is that if it’s land or a tear down that neither of us own, but I live on the street and you don’t, (or vice versa), the elected political leaders who vote on zoning (and has to win votes to remain said political leader), have to factor in what the neighbors affected WHO VOTE ME THEM IN OFFICE think of the politician pushing the boundaries hard and fast vs the incremental changes
Yes, also correct. Political leaders will listen to the people that voted them into office if they’re considering a zoning change. That includes all of the people in their district, not just the neighbors. Including the property owner. Potentially including me.
The difference between us is that I’m not trying to control the land. You are. If the person that owns the land wants to keep it a single family home, I have zero problem with that. I’m not complaining about people not tearing down their properties, and it’s weird and incorrect that you claim that I am.
But to call what I’m saying “selfish” goes back to me saying what YOU want everyone else to do gives some commie vibes, or at least “fall in line and shut up, it’s for he great good.”
Again, I’ve never said that. You are the only one in here telling other people what to do with the property they own. If you’d like to point to a quote where I said I’m going to force someone to tear down their own property to build townhouses, feel free to point me to it.
And if you’d like to get on the communism argument argument again, I’d be happy to educate you. The first thing that comes up when googling and asking the difference between capitalism and communism:
The primary difference explained in capitalism vs communism is that capitalism is an economic system that allows private ownership and promotes the idea of a free market; in contrast, communism favors collective ownership and restricts the free market with government intervention portraying a planned economy
Which one sounds more like capitalism and which one sounds more like communism?
A property owner being able to turn the property they own into townhouses because they want to
A property owner being forced by their neighbors to keep the property they bought and live in the same because the entire neighborhood has a collective sense of ownership of the property they don’t own while also restricting the free market from being able to build new homes for people that desire them through methods of government intervention (zoning)
I suggest buying in Oakwood or Boylan Heights because everything else downtown will have drastic change. The only way to guarantee a SFH and a yard is to live in a historically protected neighborhood. It’s one of the reasons the prices in these neighborhoods are so high.
are there sprawl paradigms that blend green space, density, housing variety and various commercial and light industrial that would not need, 1400 sq foot boxes piled on top of each other in town, to have to drive to the edges of town for employment…that can also work with keeping commute times at 30 minutes or less each way? ancedotally, for a while I lived in Clayton and worked in rtp, late 90s. if I had found housing at similar price near rtp I would have been interested in the shorter drive
i kind of see selfishness on all spectrums of the development issue…I’m not sure all that density or offers much choice or affordability. several rowhomes near clayton with a job at amazon and a spouse at a tire-plus in south raleigh may be a better fit…and cheaper?
We have a text change pending to fix these issues, requiring pedestrian and bike connections even when a full street connection isn’t required. Folks in more suburban neighborhoods near shopping that now have to drive out and around won’t have to in the future.
i have watched a fair amount of the bicycle dutch stuff… https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/ as bollards are placed to keep non-neighborhood traffic regulated somewhat. i don’t have issue with a neighborhood or people desiring a car-centric neighborhood with whatever lack of walkability they want or don’t want. maybe these people in the cul de sac areas just gobble-shop at bj’s on the way home in their car and have two weeks worth of stuff to cook on hexclad pans (via delivery) and they also drive to the gym and are ok with that? i don’t have issue with that syle of planning, many may like it. i just wouldn’t live there.
perhaps simple bike and pedestrian “connections” that would reduce an extra mile of foot travel to a destination as Mr. Melton mentioned wont encourage noise or traffic or bad things in these semi-closed off neighborhoods and would add some diversification of mobility?
