Ridgewood Apartments

[RALNATIVE]

New apartments, retail, and offices coming to the Ridgewood shopping center on Wade Ave.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/real-estate/2015/03/wade-avenue-ridgewood-shopping-center-raleigh-nc.html

 

 

[Jones_]

The people flipping out negatively about this on newRaleigh is unbelievable. Parking parking parking. The suburban mentality ITB is nuts. 

[RALNATIVE]

People in Raleigh might as well get used to this new reality. Things are going to become cramped. Land is now at a premium ITB (as it should be).

 

Mass transit planning needs to closely follow the dense development patterns.

[orulz]

I fail to see how parking could be even the remotest issue with this development in that respec. It supposedly will have 150 units and 600 parking spaces! That's 4 spaces per unit, people. More parking for Whole Foods. 600 spaces is even excessive in my opinion.

[RALNATIVE]

The article also mentions the Raleigh Appearance Commission being involved in the plan approval. Didn't know there was such a committee, but nonetheless, where have they been all of this time? They must have overlooked the Edison, the Hue, etc...

[Jones_]

I fail to see how parking could be even the remotest issue with this development in that respec. It supposedly will have 150 units and 600 parking spaces! That's 4 spaces per unit, people. More parking for Whole Foods. 600 spaces is even excessive in my opinion.

I didn't even know the numbers but assumed nobody would build apartments out there and not have enough parking spaces. They were also flippog out about losing Tripps. Tripps? Not sure why people love a place so much that to me is about like an Applebees, but at least the parking and love of Tripps mentality seem to line up 

[RALNATIVE]

I didn't eve know the numbers but assumed nobody would build apartments out there and not have enough parking spaces. They were also flippog out about losing Tripps. Tripps? Not sure why people love a place so much that to me is about like an Applebees, but at least the parking and love of Tripps mentality seem to line up 

 

Not sure if its actually the lose of Tripps or the actual idea of change that people are objecting to. The ITB crowd is not big on change.

[orulz]

Clarification: the 600 parking spaces is the total that will be there for both the apartments AND the existing strip mall.

[BHennington]

The comments on New Raleigh's facebook posts about the upcoming development projects are truly eye opening. It has always disturbed me that residents ITB have an expectation of little to no growth within a city that is currently one of the fastest growing places in the United States. What is the logic? I expect that the city council is well aware of the continued divide of urban-suburbanites and will move forward with most of the projects regardless.

 

With all of the anti-development advocates it makes sense that we try and form a pro-development group that seeks to provide a voice to combat these potentially development altering groups.

[RALNATIVE]

The comments on New Raleigh's facebook posts about the upcoming development projects are truly eye opening. It has always disturbed me that residents ITB have an expectation of little to no growth within a city that is currently one of the fastest growing places in the United States. What is the logic?

 

You must be new to NC and Raleigh? This sentiment is nothing new and reflects the views of those who wish to keep Raleigh small to benefit their own selfish needs and desires. Most of these growth opponents are over 50, and see growth as an interruption to their cushy lifestyle and will do anything to stop it. Just attend some of the more contentious zoning meetings held by the city and you'll see this group out in full force.

 

When you really think about it, it's actually quite sad. Raleigh is a city with rapidly changing demographics, and is becoming progressively younger, wealthier, and more educated. That is the trend and the city needs to focus more on developing the city around these groups rather than people who are stuck in the olden days. Sorry if my statements have offended anyone, but I suspect that they express the feelings shared by many others.

[ctl]

Be careful with demographics. Per the City's own website, from 1990 to 2000 the city saw an increase in the share of children 14 and under, as well as an increase in the share of adults aged 45 to 64. In other words, the demographics went in the direction of bimodality. During that decade the median age of residents did decrease, but it was driven more by inbound families with children/teens than by large numbers of 20-somethings and 30-somethings. What you see in those numbers reflects the fact that more Raleigh residents are OTB than ITB.

 

Yes, ITB residents are split into numerous camps. There are the people who live within a mile of the Capitol. There is a predominantly wealthy community from 9 o'clock to 1 o'clock, outside of the downtown core, who largely want status quo. There is a predominantly lower income section from 1 o'clock to 6 o'clock who want economic development that is accessible to themselves; they don't want gentrification or development that forces them OTB. There is a diverse segment from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock. You might quarrel with my boundaries and characterizations, but my point is that ITB is not monolithic.For that matter, OTB is not monolithic either. 

 

As a former home owner inside I-285 in metro Atlanta (technically Dekalb County), I saw considerable ambivalence from neighborhoods about increases in density and redevelopment. Some neighborhoods fought it tooth and nail. Others embraced it. Sometimes a neighborhood that fought it was adjacent to a neighborhood that embraced it. 

[BHennington]

Raleigh's future, as suggested in a previous post, will be comprised of nodes that are extremely dense. Hopefully, connected in same fashion with a decent transportation system. The continued growth will not stop and is a realistic expectation for Wake County residents and frequent visitors. That argument should cease.

I also see the diversity of Raleigh, which is great, but fighting the force of development is inherently a losing battle much of the time. Efforts need to be restructured and aim to push toward infrastructure. Raleigh's residents that are upset about traffic should target the City to take measures to improve traffic flow, not the developer.

[Jones_]

Not sure if its actually the lose of Tripps or the actual idea of change that people are objecting to. The ITB crowd is not big on change.

The NewRaleigh Instagram post had several the people mentioning Tripps the most. As an aside, I wasn't clear if the new retail space would be for Tripps or just replacing the gross space. 

 

And of course I do believe in 'good' growth vs crap growth and respecting historical areas and structures, but really...the parking lot of whole foods is a perfect candidate for this type of project. Turns the site into a mixed use area. The proposed building is mixed use. Its on a decently connected road network and imposes nothing on the adjacent upper income homes. Its on a greenway. It's almost damn perfect.....the only better outcome I could imagine would be for the entire shopping center to convert itself into apartments over retail (in phases of course) moved up closer to Wade, including Whole Foods in the building with a City street going behind the structure to create an actual city block. 

[RALNATIVE]

Be careful with demographics. Per the City's own website, from 1990 to 2000 the city saw an increase in the share of children 14 and under, as well as an increase in the share of adults aged 45 to 64.

 

We are now in 2015. Those age demographics that you cite are at least 15 years old. I haven't looked at the actual data, but all of the information that I've read indicates that growth in the 20-40 age range should outpace other age groups over the coming years.

[ctl]

See table 2.9 of www.raleighnc.gov/content/PlanDev/Documents/LongRange/Demographics/2013DataBook.pdf which has data through 2011. In terms of percentages, the 20-24 and 25-34 age brackets have never been lower. How this will change in the next 15 years, I can't say. 

[RALNATIVE]

See table 2.9 of www.raleighnc.gov/content/PlanDev/Documents/LongRange/Demographics/2013DataBook.pdf which has data through 2011. In terms of percentages, the 20-24 and 25-34 age brackets have never been lower. How this will change in the next 15 years, I can't say. 

 

You must be living in a bubble. There is a reason why Skyhouse and so many other apartment complexes are springing up around the downtown entertainment districts and businesses such as Red Hat and Citrix. They are definitely not marketing to retirees or children under 14.

 

There is a huge demand for people who want to live in a downtown environment and are not in the market to buy pricey condos or homes. These renters tend to be in the 20-40 age range. There is a lot of data to support this, otherwise you would not be seeing the development patterns that we currently see.

[Jones_]

The two big things that data doesn't speak to are that absolute numbers are higher regardless of percent and that it says nothing about where people want to live, which as we all can observe here and in other cities, is closer to downtown, or work, or both if possible. 

[Spatula]

See table 2.9 of www.raleighnc.gov/content/PlanDev/Documents/LongRange/Demographics/2013DataBook.pdf which has data through 2011. In terms of percentages, the 20-24 and 25-34 age brackets have never been lower. How this will change in the next 15 years, I can't say. 

 

This demographic change is happening nationwide. People are having fewer kids and they're having them later. There are some other things going on here. I think the 18-29 demographic is still the one powering the region's future largely, but the way the economy has changed they simply can't afford to live downtown. I've mentioned this in other posts but I could see the 'student debt bubble' hitting this region harder than most if that ever becomes a thing.

 

As for the demographics you're right. There's a lot of old money inside the beltline and they don't want change. Some of them want mayberry Raleigh, just like what they grew up in. Although the older long-term residents inside the beltline are not a monolith either, and some of them are quite supportive of urbanization. Many of them also felt a lot of pain from the recession and they know that increased development ITB helps their ailing property values. So... that group is actually more diverse than you might think.

 

The black community in southeast raleigh is also fairly supportive of urban infill. They're a very large bloc of the voters electing Raleigh's current government. Gentrification is a concern but until that actually becomes a major issue in east Raleigh (which has mostly been left alone), they'll support policies that bring grocery stores back to their neighborhoods and keep their kids in better schools.

[ctl]

A rising tide floats all boats. Raleigh grows in population, and all age brackets grow with it in absolute numbers. Naturally there are more 20-40 residents than there used to be, and so the demand for products and services that are popular in that bracket has risen. But the statistics are absolutely clear that the 20-40 bracket is growing more slowly than the others. It might be uncomfortable to read that, but denying it makes as much sense as denying global warming.

 

Note that these numbers apply across the entire city. Of course there are zip codes or census tracts where the microdemographics differ. For example the new Del Webb development of 1275 homes in the northwest is being sold only to age 55+. Raleigh can't wait to get its hands on that tax base. So, for every place where the 20-40 bracket dominates, there's another place in the city where a different age bracket dominates. It has to be that way, or else the overall statistics would be different.

 

The 20-40 bracket (and I've got two sons in that bracket!) have their own points of view and outlooks on life. The city needs them and, like every other bracket, the city should address their desires and aspirations while recognizing diversity within the bracket. For example, some of them have good incomes but others don't (i.e. the 20-40 bracket in the Hispanic and African-American populations). The bracket does have political muscle, and they make important contributions to the city. Alleluia. But don't overstate their significance by asserting that they are driving the city. They are one factor among several.

 

A major question in the next decade will be whether the prices for Raleigh housing, either rental or purchase, rise so much that the city becomes unaffordable to many people. 

[RALNATIVE]

Again ctl, you must really not be paying attention to what is actually happening in Raleigh these days. Both the city of Raleigh and the developers are catering to certain age groups. Most of the new festivals, races, events, etc. that the city is allowing and in most cases promoting, indicate that the city, along with developers, are trying to make the area more attractive for certain demographics and are going overboard to lure them and retain them.

 

Now this may or may not be indicative of actual growth patterns across demographics, but clearly the city is focused on attracting and retaining those age groups that will help drive the economy in the future. You may not like that fact, but it is a reality. Raleigh's economy is becoming more and more technology and research based, and those workers on average tend to be younger and more educated. I am not arguing current (and accurate) demographic statistics. What I am arguing is that people in the 20-40 age range are becoming more predominant in the area than ever before.

 

Not sure why you're making such a a big deal about my statement of Raleigh becoming younger, but obviously it has triggered some sort of weird emotional response from you.

[Spatula]

A major question in the next decade will be whether the prices for Raleigh housing, either rental or purchase, rise so much that the city becomes unaffordable to many people. 

 

Well, I've tossed my $0.02 in support of rent controls, as well as municipal income taxes in place of much of the property tax burden, and urban growth boundaries. Even on this forum, those suggestions were met with cold reactions, and the people here are probably the most urban-supportive people in the city. So if the people here don't support the policies that are necessary to correct the supply/demand curve so that businesses are motivated to set up shop downtown out of economic pragmatism, and not just civic pride, and that low-income and mid-income housing is possible downtown out of a similar economic necessity---if that kind of stuff isn't supported by the most ardent urbanists in this city then I am skeptical how urban this place can truly become. It will progress similar to other southern cities with revitalizing downtowns, where downtown becomes a playground for the rich, and the growth that occurs there remains small as a percentage of the city's total growth. That's the case for Austin, Charlotte, Atlanta, everywhere.

[Jones_]

Becoming a playground for the rich is my worst fear. I am less nice about it and call it becoming generic, losing its character etc etc. The cycle repeats itself but always involves this part of the skit in some form: rich couple drives into cool neighborhood occupied by artists, locally owned restaurant, and rows of small original homes and partially rehabbed original commercial stock. Rich man says "I want to live here!" Proceeds to buy old house, knock it down, build big modern house. "Invest" in commercial block buying it, tearing that down, building a shiny new building and renting it to Panera, a chain steakhouse and other stuff along those lines. The artists/gays/other minorities that helped make the area cool, can no loner afford to live there and move on and the cycle repeats itself elsewhere in the city or perhaps in another city altogether. 

I like local income taxes instead of property taxes. It sort of acts like a homestead tax does. That way, no matter where in a city the rich live, they pay…income loopholes notwithstanding...

[Crabpeople]

I'm curious as to the thoughts on the following article from The Economist.  While 'smart growth' is far more present here than it was a decade ago, there's still plenty of room for improvement.  Essentially, supply and demand are not allowed to run free, which by itself shouldn't be surprising, but there's more.  Thoughts?

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use-worlds-greatest-cities-carries-huge-cost-space-and-city

[Jones_]

Seems like an exercise in utopian dreams to me. What city could every actually nail its housing supply, and all the corresponding support infrastructure, exactly right? You'd have to have a predetermined number of people you'll let live there on particular horizons. But what if you miss that? The lowball (bunches of people outside cities with no infrastructure plan for them)and highball scenarios(bunches of empty buildings inside cities being taxed at a high rate which further empties them) both are unwieldy and expensive to extract yourself from. 

I don't think disjointed land use rules are to blame for my inability to live in Oakwood…If the City decided that tracts of high-rises belong there to drive down the price, suddenly it sucks to live there. Relying on top-down planning to nail altruistic elements without micro area input would be doomed to fail. Let Oakwood prevent a massive freeway any day I say. If anything, the city allowing the bulldozing of the other half of Oakwood prevents me from living in Oakwood. 

I do think the poor planning related to non-core areas of cities has done more to screw up affordability in central areas than anything. Reliance on cars, poor mass transit and connectivity, in general *not* providing alternate downtown-like areas that jobs, and corporate headquarters can move to, yet not remove themselves from the heartbeat of an area, would do more to level out housing prices than any dream that a central authority managing a single downtown in the way described. I get that SF and NYC really only have space for their one, massively in demand downtown. Ces't La Vie. Those scenarios will be better handled by things like, livable minimum wages, affordable college, progressive income tax rates (massively tax no-value-added income like capital gains) and the like. Treating housing as a stand alone issue simply isn't a thorough enough look at problems associated with urban affordability. 

( I may edit this a lot, as I have not yet had enough coffee)

[orulz]

A new site plan was submitted to the city on Friday for Ridgewood Shopping Center, SP-12-2016, not available for download yet. The shopping center owners have been at work revising their plans for an apartment building since this past summer so it's likely that we will get to look at the updated version soon.