Unified Development Ordinance

[kermit]

I know all this is complicated and politically tricky, but the siloed nature of planning and urban development here creates some massive inefficiencies. We are rezoning to (hopefully) reduce auto dependence but our city DOT, who are theoretically engaged in vision zero efforts, says bullsh1t like this which makes clear they have no intention of improving the pedestrian environment:

 

 

Pedestrian safety is the responsibility of the people controlling the deadly weapons --  drivers and road designers. we can’t have 15 minute neighborhoods without a DOT working to improve the pedestrian experience in concert with zoning changes.

City departments need to be on the same page! Do  better Charlotte. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

I know all this is complicated and politically tricky, but the siloed nature of planning here creates some massive inefficiencies. We are rezoning to (hopefully) reduce auto dependence but our city DOT, who are theoretically engaged in vision zero efforts says bullcrap like this which discourages walking:

 

 

Pedestrian safety is the responsibility of the people controlling the deadly weapons, drivers and road designers. Do  better Charlotte. 

Good point, this does read like being a pedestrian requires gearing up for battle.

I see motorized jerks zooming through these city streets creating an incredibly inhospitable environment for pedestrians.  We need more cautionary drivers, not more soldierized pedestrians.

[JHart]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

I know all this is complicated and politically tricky, but the siloed nature of planning here creates some massive inefficiencies. We are rezoning to (hopefully) reduce auto dependence but our city DOT, who are theoretically engaged in vision zero efforts says bullcrap like this which discourages walking:

 

 

Pedestrian safety is the responsibility of the people controlling the deadly weapons, drivers and road designers. we can’t have 15 minute neighborhoods without a DOT working to improve the pedestrian experience.

Do  better Charlotte. 

It is also their first comment about pedestrian safety, 21 days into "Pedestrian Safety Month", and featuring primarily not-pedestrians... 

[Spartan]

On 10/14/2021 at 8:43 PM, RANYC said:

Took a look at the UDO place map and a bit confused.

Is the aim of this process to both redefine the zoning code with new place types and then to assign the new place types (or zoning districts) that get closest to mirroring the existing property uses?

I ask because here in the west end, the proposed map has all these lots along west trade zoned as "car-oriented commercial;" however, these are lots which happen to line the newly-opened, snail-paced, largely-unused streetcar route.  West end is just outside of uptown and along a fixed transit line, surely the car-oriented commercial lots along west trade should contain far denser "commercial activity centers," at the very least.

But is that not the aim of this process?  To rezone existing uses in an effort to encourage very different and more dense uses than what's currently in place?

TBH, part of the issue with the UDO is the community's obsession with Single Family residential development. As we saw from the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, people lose their minds when anything could disturb the sacred tranquility of the cul-de-sac lifestyle, and there is a "YE SHALL NOT TOUCH SINGLE FAMILY" attitude that persists among elected officials. So, the Planning Department has to live in that world and deal with the day-to-day realities of angry citizens and politicians while also having to deal with the realities of growth. City Council likes to pretend they get it, but until we actually agree that permanent SFR neighborhoods suck the lifeblood out of a city we will continue to bend over for them.

 

So, with that rant over I offer the following: 

1. Place Types is NOT zoning. Place Types is a future land use map like you would find in any of the City's past Area Planning processes. There will be a separate zoning map, but in many cases you will find it to be very similar to the Place Types map, especially in places that will tend to be more urban in character like Commercial Centers, Regional Centers, etc.
    
2. The relationship between the 2040 Plan, Place Types and the UDO is not being communicated very well. The UDO is designed from the ground up to implement the 2040 Plan, and Place Types is the link. The idea is that Place Types are used to group compatible land uses (based on policies/concepts from the 2040 Plan) that the UDO then regulates. Place Types are, in principle, a hybrid form-based & Euclidean model of organizing land  uses. The reason for a hybrid approach is so that SFR can continue to be regulated in a more Euclidean way while allowing more urban areas to have something that is more similar to a form-based approach. This is how the City has placated to SFR. If you all recall, the TOD Zoning Amendment a few years ago was the beginning of this approach, and although it certainly wasn't perfect, I would argue that it has helped create better products from the development community in a more consistent way. For example, newer South End developments generally have pretty good streetscape experiences for pedestrians. Maybe not perfect, but much better than the horrible podium developments with walls of parking decks fronting the street that we used to get.
    
3. The point of Place Types is to map the desired future land uses based on adopted policy. The UDO serves as the implementation mechanism via regulation. The goal is to make it easy for the community to do business where it is consistent with the plan. I think the UDO creates more opportunities for better urban development across the board. For example, if you look at the use table for Community Activity Centers, you can have residential zoning, office / mixed use development/dog grooming/bars/etc. by right. This means that in CAC areas, you will not have to rezone to start a business, build an apartment building, open a brewery, or the like, nor will you have to rezone if you want to open a restaurant in a building that used to be a gas station or a warehouse. That saves time, money, and effort on startup costs, pro formas, etc. and fewer meetings with city officials.
    
4. The rezoning associated with this should, in theory, be proactive in the way that the TOD zoning was a few years ago. It should rezone areas to districts that support the Place Types identified for a given area, thereby changing the land entitlements such that it allows the type of development the community wants in places where it should be (ie: remove barriers to development in places where its wanted).

 

I generally agree that the UDO is too Euclidean in structure. For those of you who aren't urban planning nerds, here is a good primer on the difference between them. The one sentence summary is that FBC controls the shape and placement of a building (ie: how it looks) rather than the stuff going on inside of it. The idea is that traditionally, cities evolved with good urban form by default, and the uses were dictated by things like the market, economy, geography, topography, etc.

I would love to see a pure form-based code like some other large cities have done (ie: Miami), but since I have no control over it, my attitude/approach is based on whether the proposed suite of plans, policies, regulations is an improvement over the status quo of the past few decades, and the answer, IMO, is a resounding YES..

[Guest]

On 10/23/2021 at 12:41 PM, Spartan said:

I would love to see a pure form-based code like some other large cities have done (ie: Miami), but since I have no control over it, my attitude/approach is based on whether the proposed suite of plans, policies, regulations is an improvement over the status quo of the past few decades, and the answer, IMO, is a resounding YES..

This is a winning argument... wish you could be on the city council. My support was always tepid for the UDO/2040 Plan but I would vote yes if I could.

The bitterness is how this was all timed. It was off by five years. It's way too late for neighborhoods like Belmont which are now permanently unaffordable. Even a correction of like 25% wouldn't really do that much now (and that would cause it's own sort-of problems).

It's like for things to really get improving, we'd need a combination of a zoning overhaul and correction. Not like an 08' apocalypse correction but wipe out the rampant speculation. Zoning would allow for missing middle types to start to be built and the correction would give the next generation of developers some slack.

I think the entire land development industry needs an overhaul and it will come in time. It's almost faith. It's just gonna be a very long painful road.

[RANYC]

On 10/23/2021 at 12:41 PM, Spartan said:

TBH, part of the issue with the UDO is the community's obsession with Single Family residential development. As we saw from the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, people lose their minds when anything could disturb the sacred tranquility of the cul-de-sac lifestyle, and there is a "YE SHALL NOT TOUCH SINGLE FAMILY" attitude that persists among elected officials. So, the Planning Department has to live in that world and deal with the day-to-day realities of angry citizens and politicians while also having to deal with the realities of growth. City Council likes to pretend they get it, but until we actually agree that permanent SFR neighborhoods suck the lifeblood out of a city we will continue to bend over for them.

 

So, with that rant over I offer the following: 

1. Place Types is NOT zoning. Place Types is a future land use map like you would find in any of the City's past Area Planning processes. There will be a separate zoning map, but in many cases you will find it to be very similar to the Place Types map, especially in places that will tend to be more urban in character like Commercial Centers, Regional Centers, etc.
    
2. The relationship between the 2040 Plan, Place Types and the UDO is not being communicated very well. The UDO is designed from the ground up to implement the 2040 Plan, and Place Types is the link. The idea is that Place Types are used to group compatible land uses (based on policies/concepts from the 2040 Plan) that the UDO then regulates. Place Types are, in principle, a hybrid form-based & Euclidean model of organizing land  uses. The reason for a hybrid approach is so that SFR can continue to be regulated in a more Euclidean way while allowing more urban areas to have something that is more similar to a form-based approach. This is how the City has placated to SFR. If you all recall, the TOD Zoning Amendment a few years ago was the beginning of this approach, and although it certainly wasn't perfect, I would argue that it has helped create better products from the development community in a more consistent way. For example, newer South End developments generally have pretty good streetscape experiences for pedestrians. Maybe not perfect, but much better than the horrible podium developments with walls of parking decks fronting the street that we used to get.
    
3. The point of Place Types is to map the desired future land uses based on adopted policy. The UDO serves as the implementation mechanism via regulation. The goal is to make it easy for the community to do business where it is consistent with the plan. I think the UDO creates more opportunities for better urban development across the board. For example, if you look at the use table for Community Activity Centers, you can have residential zoning, office / mixed use development/dog grooming/bars/etc. by right. This means that in CAC areas, you will not have to rezone to start a business, build an apartment building, open a brewery, or the like, nor will you have to rezone if you want to open a restaurant in a building that used to be a gas station or a warehouse. That saves time, money, and effort on startup costs, pro formas, etc. and fewer meetings with city officials.
    
4. The rezoning associated with this should, in theory, be proactive in the way that the TOD zoning was a few years ago. It should rezone areas to districts that support the Place Types identified for a given area, thereby changing the land entitlements such that it allows the type of development the community wants in places where it should be (ie: remove barriers to development in places where its wanted).

 

I generally agree that the UDO is too Euclidean in structure. For those of you who aren't urban planning nerds, here is a good primer on the difference between them. The one sentence summary is that FBC controls the shape and placement of a building (ie: how it looks) rather than the stuff going on inside of it. The idea is that traditionally, cities evolved with good urban form by default, and the uses were dictated by things like the market, economy, geography, topography, etc.

I would love to see a pure form-based code like some other large cities have done (ie: Miami), but since I have no control over it, my attitude/approach is based on whether the proposed suite of plans, policies, regulations is an improvement over the status quo of the past few decades, and the answer, IMO, is a resounding YES..

Appreciate your response, but had to look up some of your terms used.  Including here for those of us who are uninitiated:).  It would appear that the UDO has a healthy bit of "Form-Based" principles, no?  For example, encouraging mixed-use, increasing density, setting goals for building interactions with the street and street-types, pedestrian-access protection...on and on.  This UDO feels very different than something purely or even mostly Euclidean.

Euclidean Zoning Codes

A type of zoning named for the Village of Euclid, Ohio where zoning was upheld in 1926 as a legitimate governmental power under the police powers of government. The zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio was challenged in court by a local land owner on the basis that restricting use of property violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though initially ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, the zoning ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926). In this way, Euclidean Zoning set forth a legal precedent on regulating the use of land in the United States. Euclidean zoning codes are based on the earliest comprehensive ordinances and the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (1922). They are characterized by establishing and regulating land based on use. Typical types of land-use districts in Euclidean zoning are: residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial. Euclidean Zoning is also referred to as “Traditional Zoning” or “Building Block Zoning.”

 

Form-Based Zoning Codes

Form-Based Zoning Codes are a method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-based codes place an emphasis on the relationship between the street and buildings, pedestrian and vehicles, public and private spaces, and the relationship between multiple buildings, a block, a neighborhood and transitions in scale. They create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form of private developments, with a secondary focus on land use regulations.

Elements of a Form-Based Code:
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Regulation Plan and Atlas. A plan or map of the regulated area indicating the type of allowed activities and regulations
      Building Form Standards. Regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that define an interaction between the public and private realm to create comfortable spaces for people
    Public Space/Street Standards. Specifications for the elements within the public realm (e.g., sidewalks, travel lanes, street trees, street furniture, etc.)
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Administration. A clearly defined application and project review process
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Definitions. A glossary to ensure the precise use of technical terms  
 

Goals of Form-Based Zoning:
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Mixed-use activities within buildings and blocks of the city—that are walk-able distances of offices and residences
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Promote walk-ability through a greater emphasis on the pedestrian spaces
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Promote transit by establishing nodes of greater intensity concentrations
 

Outcomes:
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Zoning areas with greater intensity
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Mixed-use zones
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   More transitional zones created by emphasis placed on form rather than use.
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif  A more predictable physical result based on prescriptive (state what you want) rather than proscriptive standards (state what you don't want)
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   A zoning code that is pro-active rather than re-active
http://www.miami21.org/images/icon_bullet_01.gif   Codes and regulations that are easier to read for citizens and are more predictable

Edited October 26, 2021 by RANYC

[Spartan]

10 hours ago, RANYC said:

Appreciate your response, but had to look up some of your terms used.  Including here for those of us who are uninitiated:).  It would appear that the UDO has a healthy bit of "Form-Based" principles, no?  For example, encouraging mixed-use, increasing density, setting goals for building interactions with the street and street-types, pedestrian-access protection...on and on.  This UDO feels very different than something purely or even mostly Euclidean.

Yep, the UDO does have some form-based principles, which is why I said it's a hybrid model.  I understand this is a bit wonky, so thanks for looking up all of that. FBCs seek primarily to regulate the look/feel of the built environment based on scale an placement of buildings based on the rural-urban transect, not land use, and it does this through highly visual graphics and simple charts that anyone can understand. By focusing less on land use, and instead on the size of buildings to differentiate zoning districts, it enables the creation of more walkable, mixed use environments. Euclidean zoning seeks to separate and regulate land uses based on the idea that different use types are inherently incompatible and should be separated. By focusing on the building rather than what's going on inside of it, you are able to get a good built environment with buildings that are adaptable and reusable.

The UDO is not based on the transect, and among other things, focuses quite a bit on specific land uses as the foundation for differentiating districts (ie: single family, auto-oriented commercial, etc.). This alone is going to create situations where people are going to continue to have contentious rezonings in neighborhoods, and in places will continue to prevent a mixture of uses that leads to a better built environment. Keep in mind, too, that the FBC vs Euclidean discussion only applies to zoning and land use regulation, not all of the other content in the UDO.

Here is a sample FBC that is pretty good in case you want to see what one looks like.

[RANYC]

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

Yep, the UDO does have some form-based principles, which is why I said it's a hybrid model.  I understand this is a bit wonky, so thanks for looking up all of that. FBCs seek primarily to regulate the look/feel of the built environment based on scale an placement of buildings based on the rural-urban transect, not land use, and it does this through highly visual graphics and simple charts that anyone can understand. By focusing less on land use, and instead on the size of buildings to differentiate zoning districts, it enables the creation of more walkable, mixed use environments. Euclidean zoning seeks to separate and regulate land uses based on the idea that different use types are inherently incompatible and should be separated. By focusing on the building rather than what's going on inside of it, you are able to get a good built environment with buildings that are adaptable and reusable.

The UDO is not based on the transect, and among other things, focuses quite a bit on specific land uses as the foundation for differentiating districts (ie: single family, auto-oriented commercial, etc.). This alone is going to create situations where people are going to continue to have contentious rezonings in neighborhoods, and in places will continue to prevent a mixture of uses that leads to a better built environment. Keep in mind, too, that the FBC vs Euclidean discussion only applies to zoning and land use regulation, not all of the other content in the UDO.

Here is a sample FBC that is pretty good in case you want to see what one looks like.

Thank you!  One immediate reaction is that this code appears to be for Spartanburg's CBD and adjacent areas, so pretty narrowly defined zone of applicability.  Our UDO will apply to the 300 square miles of the city of Charlotte, a land mass inclusive of very suburban and light-residential, auto-centric communities.  Even the city of Miami with its FBC is only 55 square miles.  Do you think it's tough to pull off an FBC for a city with a land area as vast and as inclusive as Charlotte's - instead, we should take purest-form FBC ideas and apply to center city only?  Would you call our Downtown zoning and the TODs in place along the light-rail line per 2019's mass rezoning, FBC?

Edited October 27, 2021 by RANYC

[RANYC]

Fave line from the Spartanburg FBC: Great downtowns are built in fine-grained increments. The mega-project rarely saves a downtown and is very difficult - financially and politically - to achieve.

"Storefront bays should be constructed in increments as small as possible - Main Street was built with facades that are less than 50 feet in width." (From Spartanburg FBC).  I support the Central Square redevelopment currently underway, but I think some of the Plaza Midwood residents frustrated by the development wanted this small, incremental storefront bay concept along Central Avenue to keep consistency with other structures along that part of Central.

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by RANYC

[Spartan]

On 10/27/2021 at 7:55 AM, RANYC said:

Thank you!  One immediate reaction is that this code appears to be for Spartanburg's CBD and adjacent areas, so pretty narrowly defined zone of applicability.  Our UDO will apply to the 300 square miles of the city of Charlotte, a land mass inclusive of very suburban and light-residential, auto-centric communities.  Even the city of Miami with its FBC is only 55 square miles.  Do you think it's tough to pull off an FBC for a city with a land area as vast and as inclusive as Charlotte's - instead, we should take purest-form FBC ideas and apply to center city only?  Would you call our Downtown zoning and the TODs in place along the light-rail line per 2019's mass rezoning, FBC?

Yes, the area of applicability is substantially different. FBC can work at any scale and with any form, but it is designed to support integrated, walkable mixed use environments so it isn't the ideal solution for suburban style SFR neighborhoods and strip commercial development unless there is some desire to have those types of places evolve. Personally I fault City's leadership for not pushing the FBC concept across the board, and also the portions of the development community that are pushing back against changes to the status quo (ie: REBIC). 

The UDO does use form-based concepts in its non-residential and non-industrial areas (ie: activity centers), which is why I said its a hybrid approach. The way its shaped in this document is a bit clunky, but it achieves the same end for those areas in the same way that the TOD ordinance adopted a few years ago does. The areas that need more mixture of uses and walkability will now have the regulatory framework to support their evolution as long as there is market demand for development. The City will likely struggle with saying "no" in some parts of the city, which is what is needed to encourage development in other parts of the City that would benefit from new private sector investment.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 8:15 AM, RANYC said:

Fave line from the Spartanburg FBC: Great downtowns are built in fine-grained increments. The mega-project rarely saves a downtown and is very difficult - financially and politically - to achieve.

"Storefront bays should be constructed in increments as small as possible - Main Street was built with facades that are less than 50 feet in width." (From Spartanburg FBC).  I support the Central Square redevelopment currently underway, but I think some of the Plaza Midwood residents frustrated by the development wanted this small, incremental storefront bay concept along Central Avenue to keep consistency with other structures along that part of Central.

 

Spartanburg's history includes a lot of plans that relied heavily on "big fish" projects to catalyze economic activity. The key concept of any good urban place is smaller scale incremental development. Charlotte is unique in that the demand to be here is so ridiculously high that massive developments are to some extent the norm, or at least expected to happen regularly.

[kermit]

Speaking of parking requirements… I certainly hope this is part of the discussion of the UDO as adjustments like these will determine the future of housing affordability.

(Here is the source for the data referenced in the quote. https://www.planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/  )

Edited November 1, 2021 by kermit

[KJHburg]

Drive through vs walkability

this might not belong here but it is relevant to the UDO I guess.   For the record I am a walk in kinda guy at places such as this and I have hated all the indoor dining rooms closed (literally would not go to places that did not have their dining rooms open and more importantly the bathrooms) 

https://ui.charlotte.edu/story/charlotte-wants-more-walkability-fast-food-companies-want-more-drive-thru-only-restaurants-can

[Norm2]

39 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Drive through vs walkability

this might not belong here but it is relevant to the UDO I guess.   For the record I am a walk in kinda guy at places such as this and I have hated all the indoor dining rooms closed (literally would not go to places that did not have their dining rooms open and more importantly the bathrooms) 

https://ui.charlotte.edu/story/charlotte-wants-more-walkability-fast-food-companies-want-more-drive-thru-only-restaurants-can

I am a walk in guy myself. Being forced to mainly use a drive through has been a big change for me.

[Spartan]

The could, in theory, be designed to allow for walk up service from the sidewalk and drive thru in the back. They aren't being designed that way, but the compromise exists - they just can't have a triple drive thru  lane.

[kermit]

[KJHburg]

Interesting if so homebuilders are "worsening the city's housing crisis" as stated above???     Who should build housing in the city?  Inlivian and other city agencies can build all the housing in the city  and maybe we can all live in Soviet style flats in high rises and bulldoze low density neighborhoods like Dilworth aned Eastover and Elizabeth to achieve this?         See I can be as stupid as those quotes above.     I read the Ledger article and it was discussing some concerns from homebuilders about flood lines and tree saves.    

[RANYC]

48 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Interesting if so homebuilders are "worsening the city's housing crisis" as stated above???     Who should build housing in the city?  Inlivian and other city agencies can build all the housing in the city  and maybe we can all live in Soviet style flats in high rises and bulldoze low density neighborhoods like Dilworth aned Eastover and Elizabeth to achieve this?         See I can be as stupid as those quotes above.     I read the Ledger article and it was discussing some concerns from homebuilders about flood lines and tree saves.    

I don't find the tweets above constructive, but I read the Ledger article and personally thought it wasn't a well-executed and substantive analysis of the opposition to the UDO.  I also thought the article's overall negative tone about the UDO's public engagement effort didn't really sync with the article's substance. 

The lines below  were especially vacuous. 

• Although the language of the new ordinance was released more than a month ago, the city has yet to release a document spelling out the changes in plain English.
• Until now, the proposed UDO has attracted little public opposition — most likely because hardly anyone understands the details of what it contains. 

I've gone through the UDO - I never look at zoning codes ever but the code seemed like plain English to me...yes it's a massive read, but length doesn't make it inscrutable.  And I get why it's a massive document, because so many bodies of regulation around development types and built environment features are consolidated into one.  I also find the illustrations in the current rewrite to be helpful.  Not saying it's an easy read, it's massive and technical, but given how litigious zoning and development and land-use financing can be, I can understand the technicality.

Would have been more informative if the Ledger had substantiated more of its claims.  For example, the Ledger could have asked how our 608 pages compare to peer city zoning codes?  Could have even compared the current 608 pages to the sum total of pages when aggregating each of the current ordinances now being combined into one through the rewrite. 

Ledger could have explored the fact that the UDO has attracted little public opposition perhaps because people are "spent" from the lengthy Comp Plan debate.  Or maybe there's been little public opposition because most people don't care about zoning laws generally, and those who do are largely supportive.  Data on public engagement would have been helpful.  Ledger could have shared attendance figures from all these UDO town halls that the Planning Dept is hosting, and Ledger could have reported on UDO comments and questions captured online or through virtual engagement efforts by Planning - that's the beauty of Virtual engagement - plenty of paper trail around the extent of public engagement and passion.  Didn't see a mention at all to counter builders' comments that everyone is all confused.

Would have been nice if Ledger found everyday people to comment on the central tenets of the rewrite.  Survey data would have been great - both surveys of non-builder and non-activist Charlotteans, and then a survey of a sample of builders.

The Ledger could have cited ways in which the UDO could be more clearly communicated.  Perhaps a document that maps current ordinances to revisions in the rewrite.  That doesn't exist as far as I know and that could be useful. 

At any rate, sloppy by the Ledger, IMO.  Left me wanting.  Felt like the article was simply parroting  a couple builders' grievances.

Edited November 16, 2021 by RANYC

[kermit]

I thought the tweets achieved their goal of pointing out that developers’ concerns can drown out the views of others on the UDO, Charlotte has nearly a million residents, their views count too. The growth in home price to income ratios (along with an increased need for affordable housing) tells us that developers are not keeping up with housing demand. 

Suggestions that developers will stop building in Charlotte if the new regulations don’t suit them are ludicrous. We are a city that has grown by more than 2% per year for a generation, this makes us one of the most attractive markets for developers in the nation. Given the amount of demand in the local market coupled with price increases it seems reasonable for the city to request some changes in the current regulatory / building process.  Most of the changes in the UDO are designed to increase opportunities to build and increase the supply of affordable housing (e.g. ending single family exclusive zoning).  Developers are pushing back because the changes bring new risks to their current (ineffective) business models. But I think most of us would agree that creating a more affordable city for all is probably worth a bit of developer heartburn — if some local developers decide the new regs are too onerous they will certainly be replaced by others seeking to take part in our growth. Regardless of the details of the debate, we should try to be realistic. None of the changes in the UDO (or suggestions that a Substack newsletter is producing unbalanced articles)  threaten to lead to “soviet style flats” in Dilworth.

Edited November 16, 2021 by kermit

[KJHburg]

I was merely repsonding to a comment that was made and posted above that said "Homebuilders are doing a great job  worsening the housing crisis as it is"     Blaming homebuilders and developers for affordability issues is ludicrous.  More supply is needed and maybe some of the people should reduce their selling prices for land.  Land costs as well as higher construction materials costs are causing housing prices to rise along with demand.     The single family zoning has been eliminated citywide.  Now with the UDO it gets to the nuts and bolts and some of the adminstrative rules sound like they are more difficult to live with.  No one has seen any of these detailed rules before in this large document that is why the discussion has started again about the finer details.  Should we just allow city bureaucrats write all the rules with no say from the citizens?  Most of those details were not explained or written down before.  

[kermit]

11 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Blaming homebuilders and developers for affordability issues is ludicrous.  More supply is needed and maybe some of the people should reduce their selling prices for land. 

As you say, supply has not kept pace with demand. Who is to blame for that, current property owners? What are you suggesting as a solution to high housing costs in Charlotte?

[jthomas]

To some extent, it is a chicken and egg problem. You can't blame builders for not providing a product that is illegal to build on the vast majority of parcels. That said, the development community often can be quite influential in local politics. Perhaps if there were more enlightened developers pushing to eliminate restrictions like exclusive single-family zoning, parking minimums, and minimum lot sizes, there would be more political support for making these necessary changes.

I do have to give credit to the NC Home Builders Association (a group I would have associated with exurban sprawl-type development). They pushed a bill in the General Assembly this year that would have abolished single-family zoning and legalized quadplexes everywhere at a statewide level. SB349/HB401 - look it up and let your representatives know that you support it. While it didn't pass this year, IMO this is the type of reform that is needed to allow housing supply production to catch up with demand in a more affordable and sustainable manner.

[Blue_Devil]

37 minutes ago, kermit said:

As you say, supply has not kept pace with demand. Who is to blame for that, current property owners? What are you suggesting as a solution to high housing costs in Charlotte?

I mean supply and demand issues always have waves... People are moving here at an unprecedented rate.  We are seeing supply trying to catch up, but literally I don't think builders can build fast enough. Top that off with a huge supply chain issue that is slowing down all construction. 

High density housing is going up all over Charlotte, but there is only so much land in the urban area. It is expensive. 

[kermit]

6 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

I mean supply and demand issues always have waves... People are moving here at an unprecedented rate.  We are seeing supply trying to catch up, but literally I don't think builders can build fast enough. Top that off with a huge supply chain issue that is slowing down all construction. 

High density housing is going up all over Charlotte, but there is only so much land in the urban area. It is expensive. 

Yea, but not every high growth metro has these same problems. Houston manages the same demands and the same increasing construction costs with much more reasonable home prices.

[Norm2]

Not enough residences are being built for sale. Most are being built to rent, unfortunately. Even entire single family neighborhoods are being built as rentals. 

[KJHburg]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

As you say, supply has not kept pace with demand. Who is to blame for that, current property owners? What are you suggesting as a solution to high housing costs in Charlotte?

More supply high rise, mid rise, low rise, SF homes all over.  We need more housing period.  Vacant lots and surplus government property should be considered strongly for residential including affordable housing.  

3 hours ago, kermit said:

Yea, but not every high growth metro has these same problems. Houston manages the same demands and the same increasing construction costs with much more reasonable home prices.

and the Houston area is the size of Connecticut.  Plus the city has no zoning but many areas are deed restricted on what types of housing are built.   Houston metro is a good 50-60 miles wide and north and south about 50 miles as well.