Unified Development Ordinance

[kermit]

7 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

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.  

Your describing the UDO. Developer pushback agains the new system that will allow the development you are pushing for is what started this discussion.

[RANYC]

20 hours ago, kermit said:

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.

The tweet seemingly indicts all homebuilders and proposes cutting them out of the UDO process, which is silly.  My response was that the Ledger article focused too much on the 2 or so builders and lawyers cited in the article without countering with those builders supportive of the UDO.  Also, I know developers who are supportive of the UDO but have comments and critiques of the current draft, which is exactly what Planning says it wants...hence this is the first of a few drafts before a vote that isn't happening until July 2022, I believe.  Tweeting out that everyone should just write-off the strength of experience and specialty of "Homebuilders" and  to singularly implicate them in the housing crisis without considering NIMBYism, land use traditions, red-lining, income and wealth inequities, etc, well that's just poppycock.  Not saying all homebuilders are completely innocent, but a lot of us are complicit.

[RANYC]

Should or could our UDO give preference to residential developments structured for individual home ownership?

[tozmervo]

2 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Should or could our UDO give preference to residential developments structured for individual home ownership?

*Home owner-occupied, preferably.  As is the case with financial wealth, real estate has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of those who already have means, blocking paths for upward mobility. 

[Spartan]

23 hours 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. 

 

If only there were some sort of ordinance that could make all of the development processes more efficient -  You know,  unify the development process to make it so that development that follows the plan has fewer barriers to getting built.

One day we'll realize that permanent single family neighborhoods work against well functioning cities. Probably not anytime soon though.

IMO we shouldn't be debating a twitter comment when they guy isn't even on here...

[KJHburg]

3 hours ago, tozmervo said:

*Home owner-occupied, preferably.  As is the case with financial wealth, real estate has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of those who already have means, blocking paths for upward mobility. 

well look to Wall Street backed firms buying up thousands upon thousands 90,000 last quarter across the US to make them rentals.  This keeps everybody the  first time buyers of every color stripes nationalities from buying homes and it is really steams me.  Wall Street is trying to steal away the way most americans gain wealth which is through home ownership.  My mothers home was on the market earlier this year at $275,000 price in Concord and we receieved 30 offers.  We only considered the 15 that were owner occupants even over higher cash offers or so it seemed.  (Sometimes cash investors offer way over to win the house then claim this and that and reduce their offers during the due diligence period)  (This was once done to me now I spread the word on their ways)  Big investors backed by Wall Street are trying to steal the American dream of home ownership whether that be a condo, a townhome, a mobile home, a sitck built home of any shape or size.  But Realtors locally are wising up to their ways and sellers are deciding to sell only to owner occupants.  (And yes that is LEGAL  wall street firms are not a protected class under fair housing)   

[RANYC]

In a QC Nerve article about the city council and mayoral election getting delayed again to July 2022, there's a mention of what the election delay means for voting on major pieces of legislation, chief among them being the UDO, currently scheduled to be voted on in July 2022.  In that article, Julie Eiselt acknowledges that this latest delay puts the current UDO voting date in jeopardy, but then goes on to convey doubts about whether the Council would have been ready to vote on the UDO in July even without the latest election delay.

Edited December 11, 2021 by RANYC

[Guest]

The UDO is still in the balance and Taiwo's departure is not helping. I can't say much negative about him and actually had good vibes the couple times I talked to him.

To leave though at this time... when we might be nearing 'the final year' is absurd.

[RANYC]

Seems to me that the elections will end up being a referendum on the UDO, and by extension, the Comp Plan.

[RANYC]

Charlotte Ledger just published an article about Taiwo Jaeyobi's departure and how some feel his departure may impact passage of the UDO.

Here's a quote:

"But others, especially some in the real estate and building industries, found him to be arrogant and difficult to work with.  One City Council member, Republican Tariq Bokhari, said in July that Jaiyeoba should be fired after sharing misleading results of a transit poll. (Bokhari also famously told Axios Charlotte “f— that guy,” referring to Jaiyeoba.)"

I found this disappointing coming from Charlotte Ledger.  Are Tarik and his slanderous Axios interview comments enough of a credible source to go to print with what I think are damning accusations against Taiwo as a Planning Director?  If it's print-worthy that Taiwo is arrogant, then what does the Ledger print about Tarik, a councilman dropping f-bombs in press interviews about city staffers?  I'd argue it takes quite a bit more arrogance to hurl expletives at staffers in the press.

Is Taiwo difficult to work with because the Planning Department saw record turnover under his leadership?  Is he difficult to work with because interest groups on both sides of the Comp Plan and UDO made that observation when engaging with him, or did only one side level that broadside?  Show me the meat!

So I just canceled CLT Ledger for what I found to be sloppily-substantiated assertions.
 

Edited December 27, 2021 by RANYC

[kermit]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

So I just canceled CLT Ledger for what I found to be sloppily-substantiated assertions.

Yea, I really felt that their coverage of the UDO was excessively slanted towards developers and suburbanites (lots of pearl clutching about the sanctity of SFH and offered little or no discussion of the unsustainability of the status quo). Today's headline and story reinforced that feeling for me.  Its a shame, before their UDO coverage I rarely noticed a big bias from the Ledger (but I am often oblivious).

EDIT: I thought the CBJ has done a much better job with evenhanded coverage of the UDO.

FWIW: I interacted with Taiwo several times in non-contententious professional contexts -- he struck me as a super-nice dude on each occasion. Tariq on the other hand....

Edited December 27, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

15 minutes ago, kermit said:

Yea, I really felt that their coverage of the UDO was excessively slanted towards developers and suburbanites (lots of pearl clutching about the sanctity of SFH and offered little or no discussion of the unsustainability of the status quo). Today's headline and story reinforced that feeling for me.  Its a shame, before their UDO coverage I rarely noticed a big bias from the Ledger (but I am often oblivious).

FWIW: I interacted with Taiwo several times in non-contententious professional contexts -- he struck me as a super-nice dude on each occasion. Tariq on the other hand....

I subscribed for a source and was increasingly convinced it was a shill.

[tozmervo]

As a reminder, public comment on the first UDO draft are due on January 14. Public comments rarely lack for negative feedback, so if you have positive feedback or support for various elements I especially encourage you to leave comments. If you regularly complain about Charlotte's physical makeup, this is the single most important thing you could do. The new UDO is the tool that will drive future development in the city of Charlotte.

Charlotte Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) - PublicInput.com

[Spartan]

It's important to voice your support for this. As I've said before, it isn't perfect, but its light years better than what we have now. If you want to see positive change en masse, this is the mechanism for it. Don't let the eventual opposition get in the way of progress!

 

8 hours ago, tozmervo said:

As a reminder, public comment on the first UDO draft are due on January 14. Public comments rarely lack for negative feedback, so if you have positive feedback or support for various elements I especially encourage you to leave comments. If you regularly complain about Charlotte's physical makeup, this is the single most important thing you could do. The new UDO is the tool that will drive future development in the city of Charlotte.

Charlotte Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) - PublicInput.com

 

[KJHburg]

is this the kind of density proposed in the UDO?

[RANYC]

17 hours ago, KJHburg said:

is this the kind of density proposed in the UDO?

1. I know a joke, but I do hope density disciples understand that at some point density becomes counterproductive to quality of life. 
2. I also hope they understand that rental density in mid-and-high-rise structures gobbles up limited land available for individual owner-occupied plats faster than the type of development seen in Charlotte in the past.
3. Vertical Density without proximity to reliable and frequent mass transit is a recipe for a cluster-F.  Density combined with single-user auto-centricity is also a recipe for a cluster-F.
4. Finally, I missed the webinar about the tree ordinance part of the UDO.  If anyone has tuned into that, do planners/writers have expectations for what the UDO will do to the canopy coverage percentages over the next 20 years?  

Edited January 6, 2022 by RANYC

[tozmervo]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

1. Finally, I missed the webinar about the tree ordinance part of the UDO.  If anyone has tuned into that, do planners/writers have expectations for what the UDO will do to the canopy coverage percentages over the next 20 years?  

 

[Spartan]

21 hours ago, KJHburg said:

is this the kind of density proposed in the UDO?

In uptown there is no upper limit.

 

 

 

[JRCLT]

Went to the future about 20 years or so just to take this picture of uptown looking south… Seems they finally got ride of JB fwy.

[Spartan]

On 1/6/2022 at 3:35 PM, RANYC said:

1. I know a joke, but I do hope density disciples understand that at some point density becomes counterproductive to quality of life. 
2. I also hope they understand that rental density in mid-and-high-rise structures gobbles up limited land available for individual owner-occupied plats faster than the type of development seen in Charlotte in the past.
3. Vertical Density without proximity to reliable and frequent mass transit is a recipe for a cluster-F.  Density combined with single-user auto-centricity is also a recipe for a cluster-F.
4. Finally, I missed the webinar about the tree ordinance part of the UDO.  If anyone has tuned into that, do planners/writers have expectations for what the UDO will do to the canopy coverage percentages over the next 20 years?  

Its a chicken and egg situation.... do you want good transit? Then you need density. Do you want density? Then you need good transit. Either way, the correct answer does not involve more single family homes - in fact, it involves the evolution parts of neighborhoods near activity centers into something that isn't solely SFR.

[JRCLT]

Its a chicken and egg situation.... do you want good transit? Then you need density. Do you want density? Then you need good transit. Either way, the correct answer does not involve more single family homes - in fact, it involves the evolution parts of neighborhoods near activity centers into something that isn't solely SFR.

Tokyo and its greater region…what came first? The density? Or the superb transit?

An brief assessment of Tokyo’s public transit.

http://

[RANYC]

if you’re looking for research and essays about new urbanism and rezoning case studies in order to inform your feedback on the UDO, consider this link:
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare

 

[kermit]

Meanwhile in the UK…

Quote

The power to raise a “workplace parking levy” (WPL) from local businesses was introduced by Labour more than 20 years ago. But parking is such a controversial issue in local government that Nottingham is the only city in the UK with a scheme.

Leicester is now set to become the second: it is consulting on proposals to charge companies with more than 10 parking spaces £550 a year [around $700usd] per space from next year. It is up to employers to decide whether to absorb the cost or pass it on to their staff. It could raise £450m in the next decade to invest in a new fleet of electric buses, an expanded cycle network and train station renovations.

Would be a nice revenue scheme for transit…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/22/tax-on-parking-uk-cities-to-impose-levy-on-cars-in-bid-to-cut-pollution

[TGIBridays]

Joe Bruno brought to light a weird restriction in the UDO for duplexes and triplexes that limits their height to the adjacent building heights.  I don't understand how someone building a duplex that's two stories next-door is worse for the "Neighborhood character" than a duplex that's two stories... It doesn't make any sense to me.

Article: https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sidewall-restrictions-questioned-city-aims-more-duplexes-triplexes-charlotte/OBQLTWMCQ5AFPMT4MXYAUPIZ4A/

Here's the wording from Article 4 section 4.3.D.1  https://publicinput.com/UDO_Zoning

Quote

All duplex and triplex structures are limited to a sidewall height, at the required minimum side setback, of 12 feet or the average height of adjacent building sidewalls on both sides of the lot, whichever is greater. For a corner lot, the adjacent lot and the lot adjacent to such lot are used for averaging. If a sidewall height of greater than 12 feet is proposed, a survey will be required at the time of permitting.

 

[Nathan2]

1 hour ago, TGIBridays said:

Joe Bruno brought to light a weird restriction in the UDO for duplexes and triplexes that limits their height to the adjacent building heights.  I don't understand how someone building a duplex that's two stories next-door is worse for the "Neighborhood character" than a duplex that's two stories... It doesn't make any sense to me.

Article: https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sidewall-restrictions-questioned-city-aims-more-duplexes-triplexes-charlotte/OBQLTWMCQ5AFPMT4MXYAUPIZ4A/

Here's the wording from Article 4 section 4.3.D.1  https://publicinput.com/UDO_Zoning

 

Its insane that we have so many restrictions on everything that's more than 1 unit. Meanwhile you can build these castles that tower over neighbors, but if these housed more than one unit it would somehow equal bad.