Gentrification in Triangle neighborhoods

[Jones_]

So is the converse of this argument true? Because there is not an African American equivalent to Hayes Barton anywhere in NC *that you know of*, you can make a race/economic correlation? I can't argue against logic that says "since Robert Johnson, Michael Jordan, Raymond Felton, Julius Peppers, etc. don't live in the same neighborhood, you can make a race/economic correlation".

This thread, and every other one on southeast raleigh, devloves into economic debates instead of discussion about the city of Raleigh itself, so I really have no need to contribute.

Hey...a discussion about gentrification is by definition one of economics, I didn't start the thread. If you think the media is simply forming generalizations about race and socio-economic status all the time you are simply wrong. Media inflames for sure but this an issue that truckloads of statistics will support. This thread went socio-economic when a look at why development might need to be guided one way or another came up. Should it? Should it not? The City is regardless. I tend to think it shouldn't to the degree that homestead tax laws can help existing and/or elderly residents stay if they choose to. In line with that thought, I am not necessarily in favor of the city requiring that 80% of the housing be for low-income people. I am in south central downtown and think of our neighborhoods in a similar fashion. An economic discussion is the heart and lungs of the body of growth that we end up with in this city.... I would like to see rows of brownstones in SE Raleigh and at the same time a grandmother who has lived there her whole life not get forced out. I beleieve you said you live in SE Raleigh? I am very interested to hear what you would want to see there development wise since you lent alot of insight on what all has been going in that area. Thanks, and sorry if anything came off as inciteful (vs. insightful )

[avery]

So is the converse of this argument true? Because there is not an African American equivalent to Hayes Barton anywhere in NC *that you know of*, you can make a race/economic correlation? I can't argue against logic that says "since Robert Johnson, Michael Jordan, Raymond Felton, Julius Peppers, etc. don't live in the same neighborhood, you can make a race/economic correlation".

This thread, and every other one on southeast raleigh, devloves into economic debates instead of discussion about the city of Raleigh itself, so I really have no need to contribute.

Gentrification and economics are interrelated and it is impossible to have a discussion on the topic without economics coming up. It is what it is. We can talk about the city of Raleigh itself, but what do we talk about? Whenever a discussion opens up on SE Raleigh, the gentrification issue always surfaces and so does the socio-economic problems of displacing individuals. That was the point of this thread I thought. Maybe we should rename the topic SE Raleigh Revitalization and ignore the word gentrification. What should happen in SE Raleigh? I dunno because any suggestions will probably get attacked by someone.

[Tayfromcarolina]

The city is having a meeting concerning Gentrification (Forcing out of residents of a community, usually of lower economic status in leu of new higher priced development) of neighborhoods downtown. I think it is an inevitable however, there should be affordable housing built within the new developments. Think of Capitol Park near peace college. Any way if you can attend here is more info.

Raleigh citizens are invited to participate in a workshop on gentrification that will be held on Thursday, Jan. 26 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the Zanzibar Room at Exploris Museum, 201 E. Hargett St. The workshop is being sponsored by the City of Raleigh Planning Department, the Ethnic and Diversity Committee of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association (NCAPA) and the Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation.

Link- City of Raleigh

[ncwebguy]

Did anyone here go to this meeting last Thursday?

The gentrification presentations were well done, but the Question and Answer section was about 10 percent Questions and 90 percent ranting. I was afraid it would come to that, and I was right. Most speakers had to comment on how they don't care about professional planners' (including Raleigh's newish planner Mitch Silver) definition of gentrification.

Interesting points/comments made:

- Raleigh's sprawling nature has kept housing prices relatively in check with the influx of new residents so far. Not being locked in by a coastline or river allows for some price increases, but not the doubling DC and San Francisco have seen. This keeps the pressure off of redeveloping lower class neighborhoods.

- The eastside neighborhoods are already changing with older businesses closing shop, although the only example of this happening in the last 15+ years was Men at Work car wash.

- Representative Bernard Allen had just visited Capitol Park (formerly Halifax Court) and it was a move in the wrong direction.

A few city council members were present, but didn't say anything.

[dmccall]

These poor, poor people. I just read the TBJ article about how John Kane just bought this 2,500 sqft house for $850K a couple of weeks ago. I feel so sorry for them, only making 700% on their house in 2 years.

map it

BTW my house is always for sale. Make me a good enough offer, and I'll move with no guilt.

[jermainew]

I attended the q&a portion of the meeting and I agree that it turned into more of a complaint forum than an information gathering session -- however I do believe the comments by rep. Bernard Allen are substantial b/c this development will effectively dilute a voter base important for we minority citizens --

in addition to this, the financial rewards of the appreciation in this area probably will not be realized by the residents of the area who will be forced to move b/c many of them are simply tenants--

However, it is my belief that gentrification is a process that must take place in order to revive downtrodden areas such as these and bring in revenue producing entities--

[Transplant]

These poor, poor people. I just read the TBJ article about how John Kane just bought this 2,500 sqft house for $850K a couple of weeks ago. I feel so sorry for them, only making 700% on their house in 2 years.

map it

BTW my house is always for sale. Make me a good enough offer, and I'll move with no guilt.

I'll sell my house for 200%.... for a bit more, and I'll toss in my car!

[Tayfromcarolina]

I know that's right. In a heart beat.

[ncwebguy]

I would like to think that race is not the only issue voters consider at the polls. I am very much in the minority in district C but still feel James West does a good job representing all residents of the district to the rest of the city. The candidate that has the support of the majority of the community will win on election day. To deny a neighborhood an influx of residents, money, etc. solely for political gain is tragic. From what he said, Rep. Allen made it sound like he just drove through Capitol Park, saw the nice new town houses and houses at Pilot Mill and thought all African-Americans had been displaced. If he actually walked around, he would find the afordable housing priced townhouse are overwhelmingly populated by minorities, including some former Halifax Court residents. Some density may have been lost, but not much, and most of what was lost were the trouble makers who were not let back in due to a checkered past.

Also, I do think it is not right that gentrification will financially reward slumlords that have done nothing to improve their property and in doing so brought down the neighborhood around them. The 60-70%+ of the east side's renter residents have no financial investment in the neighborhood, but do have emotional and time investments. I don't know how to reward those investments other than through such vehicles as job training, etc. but even then you can't make the proverbial horse drink water after presenting it. I hope neighborhood revitalization in itself creates jobs, creating some financial reward for tenants. Hopefully these tenants can continue to live within the communtiy and eventually save enough money so that those who want to can afford to buy in to the neighborhood and stay long term. One of the problems, though, is that tenants leave as soon as they have enough money to do so because of the history of crime in the area.

At the december eastside visioning kickoff, city of raleigh numbers showed that residents made only 1/3rd of the city average, yet housing costs were half the city average. This 1/3rd to 1/2 gap needs to be bridged before any buy in can happen from within. Hopefully the task force (which I'm on) will be able to look at solutions to these problems.

The North Hills story is a good example of why there are two different views to the gentrification issue. Outsiders see "hey they're making money, what's the problem?" which is great if the tenant and property owner are the same person. Insiders who live there but do not own feel powerless and talked down to or talked about instead of being at the table.

[dmccall]

They are certainly invited to take the risk of borrowing so much money, it will take them 30 years to pay off the debt. We have a local unemployment rate of <4%, one of the country's lowest, and I encourage these people to get off of the cycle of renting and start investing toward their own capital. It's never too late.

[foodpainter]

"Gentrification with Justice" -

This is a seminar, sponsored by Building Together Ministries, which will tackle the issue of the loss of low-cost housing following inner-city development.

Main speaker is Dr. Robert Lupton -- 30 years of redevelopment experience in Atlanta. Objective is to create an ongoing dialogue to create solutions for citizens threatened with displacement due to future redevelopment in Raleigh.

Date: Tuesday, June 27.

Time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Place:NCSU McKimmon Center.

Follow-up: Two focus groups to meet with Dr. Lupton, Wednesday, June 28, 8:30 - 10:00 AM, and 10:30 - 12:00 PM, NCSU McKimmon Center.

[yoga]

Thanks for sharing this - I'm going to try to go. It's pertinent to a conference Designbox is planning for September revolving around the creative class.

[foodpainter]

Let us know what it was like! Interesting topic, but I wasn't able to attend (just found out about it at the last minute).

[yoga]

I couldn't get there, dangit. My 2:00 didn't end until almost 4 and I didn't want to barge in at the last minute.

[sax184]

Maybe if they held it in the evening, in a gentrifying neighborhood, they'd actually hear from some of the people they're worried about affecting.

[yoga]

I wonder how the workshops went today. Links anyone?

[ncwebguy]

The more I think about it, the more I think this wasn't meant for everyday people.

I'm the secretary of the south central CAC, and didn't hear about it until the thursday or friday before, too late to get time off of work.

When the meetings are scheduled for Tuesday from 3:00 - 5:00 and Wednesday from 8:30 - 10:00 AM, and 10:30 - 12:00 PM *and* they are held miles away from the area most impacted (southeast raleigh), attendance is going to be limited. Limited to developers who have all the time in the world, city staff who can adjust their schedules, and hardly anyone else.

Also, it may have been recycled from 2001. Right there under 3:30 - 5 on March 30, 2001. I don't know if what happened in Altanta applies to here, or if they just want to hear themselves speak.

Unless this was held just for the folks on Method Road and behind the Western Blvd Frenc Fry Valley, it really missed its target audience.

[yoga]

Pardon my cluelessness but what is CAC?

I'm a sucker for the underdog; I think it's a vital topic and may have clues to the lack of grit factor in Raleigh. The prices of residential space DT certainly isn't conducive to the vibrancy of the creative class, also a grit source.

[ChiefJoJo]

CAC = Citizen's Advisory Council. The are meant to be the avg citizen's voice in city govt. I'm not sure how effective they are, but I know some of the councilors at least listen or asks for their opinions.

[ChiefJoJo]

I was listening to an NPR podcast yesterday on the economics of location, i.e., why certain cities or even neighborhoods suceed while others fail. Among the guest's points were that the changing real estate marketplace is shifting so quickly from a suburban to an urban model that the demand for walkable areas has vastly outstripped supply. That is, the demand for walkable communties may be as high as 30-50%, whereas the supply of such communities may be only 10% in some cities. That point I clearly understood, since a quick MLS or foreclosure search in nearly any US city will show that urban areas (that have some sense of mixing of uses and walkability and/or perhaps good access to transit) are faring far better than the burbs.

What I hadn't considered was his claim that the acceleration of reurbanization of cities that have an especially small supply of those type of neighborhoods are experiencing the most rapid increase in gentrification. Perhaps some of that has stalled with the housing bust, but it makes sense. In Raleigh, about the only areas that one could call walkable neighborhoods would be downtown & surrounds, NCSU & North Hills. The corollary to his theory/observation is that it is encumbant upon cities to help build more of these types of walkble communities if an area wants to avoid wiping out sensitive neighborhoods.

[ncwebguy]

Despite the market saying "this is what we want", developers continue to provide more of the same auto-depenedent devlopment while claiming "the market has spoken".

5-10 years ago, Raleigh had the opportunity to add new walkable communities with the approvals for devlopment of land that became Brier Creek, Triangle Town Center, and their surrounding areas. Instead, we got acres of surface parking, and one parking deck tucked in between TTC and the Super Target.

Gentrification/redevlopment/some other buzzword has been overwhelmingly more west of downtown. The rich have gotten richer while new affordable housing developments erect metal fences to keep crime out. Though that may be my myopic "inside the fishbowl" view. The east side is a lot better than it has been in decades, but that isn't enough for the masses.

The lopsided supply/demand curve has kept out a lot of people who are not afraid of living in a transitional area because rents are higher than they can justify. Only a handful of houses have been avaiable for rent near my house, so they can charge a somewhat significant premium. Meanwhile, out of area landlords that don't know what they have continue to operate in "do just enough to get by" mode, renting houses by the room and/or word of mouth, taking their part of the housing stock out of the market as well.

Over the weekend we drove around Oakwood and then the area bordered by MLK, State Street, 440, and Garner Road. You could see the skyline in certain spots in the southern neighborhood, it never felt like ITB, let alone in Raleigh at all. Houses were well over $200/square foot even in the newish area just off Edenton, but nothing was available south of MLK. Plus there was a lot of undeveloped land, though I think that may be due to the women's prison and wetlands on the creek that the greenway runs parallel to.

[sax184]

A vicious supply demand imbalance is now pricing itself into the urban markets of the region. There are simply not enough non-auto-dependent neighborhoods in the Triangle to stem the price acceleration. So urbanism is not to blame for gentrification in urban areas, the lack of general urbanization in the sea of massive suburban crap is the culprit.

The Charlotte Walkscore map says it all- mostly suburban-designed southern cities have little urban fabric, and hundreds of miles of suburban fabric. The places that can offer urban walkscores are much better in high-energy price situations than those with low walkscores.

Then consider that since walkscores are ignorant to whether or not it is safe/easy to walk, but only know if there is a reasonable supply/variety of destinations worth walking to, the walkscore maps tend to optimistic on the number of walkable areas in a region. (Cary's Crossroads area would probably get a high walkscore, but who on earth would walk there to shop)

[ChiefJoJo]

^ Yes. That was my point as well... not that urbanism is to blame, but the lack of it creates a tremendous imbalance in the marketplace, creating a potentially strong gentrification impact on areas like Raleigh, that have little urban fabric and infrastructure available.

A few more thoughts...

One, this seems to be another strong argument for rapid transit deployment ASAP. Extending walkability via transit corridors (because essentially, TOD=pedestrian oriented development) to formerly suburban-oriented locations may be more critical than we thought for preserving fragile neighborhoods (say SE Raleigh) from rapid redevelopment. Now, as I said above, the mortgage meltdown probably has temporarily held this up for a couple of years, but I would think areas like SER will once again see more development pressure in the coming years.

I would think that as fuel prices remain high and gentrification occurs we will see even more rapid shift in decay and crime to the suburbs. As lower income populations are forced out of their neighborhoods, areas that once seemed immune to crime may experience a sharper than expected rise. Also, as I heard at the transit forum, if gas is pricey and there is no viable transit service (there isn't except in Chapel Hill), these folks who are forced out to the outer edges may have a hell of a time getting to work at places like Wal-Mart that pay only minimum wage. This may in turn force wages higher just for those companies to be able to operate effectively, raising prices for everyone else.

As we have seen in the Glen Lennox topic, I would think that areas like Chapel Hill are increasingly at risk as well. For one, due to the growth policies that strictly limit development, it is expensive as hell to live there. They claim to want to protect neighborhoods with NCODs, but in the end, they are preventing the type of good urban infill development that could actually help decrease the pent up development (& gentrification) pressure in fragile neighborhoods elsewhere. Sure, they have East 54 nearby, but the fact that that project's first phase of condos has supposedly sold out, even in shaky economic times should tell us something about the market demand in the eastside NC 54 submarket. It seems in many ways, that folks in Chapel Hill would rather retain their idealic vision of what the town should be, rather than actually try to deal effectively with some of the real issues they face.

[Gard]

^

I'm not so sure that higher gas prices will lead to more suburban decay. Many, for one thing, either can't get their house sold or can't afford to sell and buy another with the tougher mortgage market, so they will just stay where they are. American's are also trading in vehicles for more fuel efficient ones, which could mean they are intent on having it both ways; living in the burbs AND not paying so much for gas. More fuel efficient vehicles coming to market as well as alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles could also give people less incentive to move. On top of that, cities that expand their mass transit systems more and further into the burbs will also give people less incentive. Americans are by and large conservative and don't like to change, so if there is something that facilitates not changing, they won't. Realistically, its too early to tell.