Why planning/development is so bad in Raleigh

[RaleighRob]

As an example, the loss of Whitaker Park apartments removed about (still being torn down) 80 or so living units. Each block of four apartments looks like it can fit around 1.5 houses as large 5000 sqft, which I hear (grapevine etc.) is about what these look to be....so I am guessing 30-40 houses will take there place....I might go walk the site for exact number just for sh&^s and giggles.

[dmccall]

The reason I wrote that is that it gets us into some very dangerous territory as a free nation. Here are the follow up statements that follow the 5,000s.f comment:

* Nobody should have a house > 4,000 s.f.

* Nobody should have a house > 3,000 s.f.

* Nobody should have a house > 2,000 s.f.

* Nobody should have a house > 1,000 s.f.

* Nobody should have a house > 500 s.f.

* Nobody should have a house > 250 s.f.

* Nobody should make > $5M/yr

* Nobody should make > $1M/yr

* Nobody should make > $500K/yr

* Nobody should make > $100K/yr

* Nobody should make > $50K/yr

* Nobody should make > $10K/yr

* Nobody should drive a car that costs > $100K

* Nobody should drive a car that costs > $50K

* Nobody should drive a car that costs > $10K

* Nobody should drive a car > 20K mi/yr

* Nobody should drive a car > 10K mi/yr

* Nobody should drive a car > 5K mi/yr

Are you totally comfortable with every single one of those statements? No matter what situation you've created for yourself, there's always somebody out there who thinks you have/do "too much".

This, of course, raises the philosophical core of the purpose of a planning commission, and really, a government. It's the developer/landowners rights vs. efficient society battle with which we haven't comfortably settled, and probably won't ever settle.

[sax184]

The reason I wrote that is that it gets us into some very dangerous territory as a free nation. Here are the follow up statements that follow the 5,000s.f comment:

* Nobody should have a house > 3,000 s.f.

* Nobody should have a house > 2,000 s.f.

[Spatula]

The reason I wrote that is that it gets us into some very dangerous territory as a free nation. Here are the follow up statements that follow the 5,000s.f comment:

.....

This, of course, raises the philosophical core of the purpose of a planning commission, and really, a government. It's the developer/landowners rights vs. efficient society battle with which we haven't comfortably settled, and probably won't ever settle.

[ChiefJoJo]

Here's a WRAL story on the infill debate. Take a look at some of those monster homes! I think we need a balance between allowing property owners to rebuild and perserving the character of those old neighborhoods that everyone wants to live in so badly. The woman in the story makes a good point:

"Do we want to do so much rebuilding and so much redevelopment that we don't even have the charm that the people were attracted to in the first place?"

[urbanvb]

Fairfax County, Va has a height restriction of 35 feet. Perhaps Raleigh could come up with similiar restrictions.

story

[dmccall]

I do have to say that I am really sad to see this one go. I guess I can empathize with you, Jones, on the bungalo thing. I really like true Williamsburg reproductions and this is one of the best ones in Raleigh. Tall house is replacing it with some big house. The current one, which features fantastic brick work, is only 2.500 sq feet and probably only has 8' ceilings downstairs. I'm sure that the kitchen is original circa 1970 equipment and design, so it surely needed an upgrade.

[Jones_]

I do have to say that I am really sad to see this one go. I guess I can empathize with you, Jones, on the bungalo thing. I really like true Williamsburg reproductions and this is one of the best ones in Raleigh. Tall house is replacing it with some big house. The current one, which features fantastic brick work, is only 2.500 sq feet and probably only has 8' ceilings downstairs. I'm sure that the kitchen is original circa 1970 equipment and design, so it surely needed an upgrade.

[dmccall]

It is located here.

Yes, indeed. Flemish bond brickwork. I think the house was featured in Southern Living in the mid 70's, if I'm not mistaken. The owner is a well-known antique dealer lady in North Hills (used to be next to Don Murray's). Inside, I assume, it's very authentic to the period (although the work was that she hated little boys so we kept our distance growing up).

[ChiefJoJo]

The N&O did a front pager on tear downs in older, established neighborhoods over the weekend... click here & here.

Last week, the Raleigh City Council agreed to talk during the coming budget discussions about hiring a new planner who would study tear-downs and perhaps craft new regulations for them.

"If you live there and you love the charm and ambience of the neighborhood, these homes are large and out of character," Silver said. "You have others moving in that want to live inside the Beltline and feel that the size of the home, at 1,200 square feet, is not sufficient for their lifestyle."

For now, the complaints might be moot. "People are not exceeding what the zoning permits," Silver said. "It may be larger than the adjacent homes, but they're building these homes with what the zoning allows."

After this article, the profile of the issue is now raised... let's hope the council acts.

[JeffC]

The N&O did a front pager on tear downs in older, established neighborhoods over the weekend... click here & here.

Last week, the Raleigh City Council agreed to talk during the coming budget discussions about hiring a new planner who would study tear-downs and perhaps craft new regulations for them.

"If you live there and you love the charm and ambience of the neighborhood, these homes are large and out of character," Silver said. "You have others moving in that want to live inside the Beltline and feel that the size of the home, at 1,200 square feet, is not sufficient for their lifestyle."

For now, the complaints might be moot. "People are not exceeding what the zoning permits," Silver said. "It may be larger than the adjacent homes, but they're building these homes with what the zoning allows."

After this article, the profile of the issue is now raised... let's hope the council acts.

[plus2]

I am generally against tear-downs. What's happening on both sides of Whitaker Mill is a shame, but I am less against tear-downs on lots fronting major roads. Anderson Dr. has a yellow dividing line, so I feel like it's a bigger street.

I am definitely pro-infill on major street corners for adding retail.

[ChiefJoJo]

Did anyone else find the N&O article to be somewhat disjointed?...I got the impression that the writer started out with the idea of portraying the infill as a bad thing for reasons discussed earlier in this thread. But, curiously, the article focused on Anderson Drive, where (evidently) the infill has sparked very little controversy or debate. Article totally ignored the various neighborhood fabric destroying infill projects off of Whitaker Mill, unless I wasn't reading very carefully...

[ncwebguy]

From the article:

Minton of the Home Builders Association said officials need to be careful as they look to tighten the rules.

"The property owner should have the final say," Minton said. "They're building nice homes. It may not be the two-bedroom bungalow that's sitting next door, but they're very nice homes and they'll last a long time. And the folks in the neighborhood, their values are increasing because of it."

[sax184]

Maybe I'm generalizing, but all of the N&O's articles seem to be that way to me these days. I'm not saying they shouldn't get both sides of the story, but it's like there's never a story that doesn't leave you scratching your head a little. I doubt that article will change anyone's opinion on the matter. The positive coming from this is that the Raleigh City Council had been debating whether to invest some extra money in planning to study the issue, and now supporters of infill neighborhood controls have a bit more leverage.

We should understand that the McMansion teardown and rebuild concept (which I think should be restricted more than it is currently) is very different than the general concept of quality urban infill development, which I think ought to be encouraged. I think we can both respect older "2nd ring" neighborhoods while at the same time have more interwoven, dense & urban redevelopment.

[only]

That Chapel Hill, Durham, and Raleigh have all seen an increase in in-town permits says something about a change in the market for urban versus suburban living. One might ask-- if people are willing to tear down existing homes just to live in an urban neighborhood, does this tell us something about how much urban neighborhoods are being prevented from being developed to meet market demand for that living arrangement?

[JeffC]

I guess my objection to infill is on the aesthetic rather than the policy grounds...I mean, good Lord, if you can afford to pay $400,000 for an old piece of crap mill house and then tear it down, can't you afford to hire an architect to give you something custom, interesting, and authentic to its context, rather than off the shelf McMansion plan #36A??

[Jones_]

I guess my objection to infill is on the aesthetic rather than the policy grounds...I mean, good Lord, if you can afford to pay $400,000 for an old piece of crap mill house and then tear it down, can't you afford to hire an architect to give you something custom, interesting, and authentic to its context, rather than off the shelf McMansion plan #36A??

[plus2]

I guess my objection to infill is on the aesthetic rather than the policy grounds...I mean, good Lord, if you can afford to pay $400,000 for an old piece of crap mill house and then tear it down, can't you afford to hire an architect to give you something custom, interesting, and authentic to its context, rather than off the shelf McMansion plan #36A??

[ChiefJoJo]

Setting aside the question of how we determine the dominant style, should we regulate one? Is the city responsible for saying that one neighborhood is a "Craftsman" neighborhood, and then insisting that new construction conform to the named style? Does the inevitable faux-historic construction detract from and devalue the genuine? Is maintaining a "character" through the legislation of an arbitrary style worth the Disney-fication of the city?

Several people have suggested that the zoning regulations need to be changed in order to prevent large homes from being constructed next to smaller homes (conveniently ignoring the hundreds of examples in their own neighborhood that have lived alongside one another for 30+ years). As was mentioned in the article, the new homes are not exceeding the zoning regulations. They're not infringing on the lot setbacks, they're not exceeding the maximum height limitations. What new set of rules would impact all properties equitably? Some suggest a different maximum height for every lot, depending on the distance from the street, or the heights of adjacent properties. Again, we're faced with regulations that artificially increase the value of some properties while inadvertently devaluing others.

In the end, do we want to make it even more difficult to live close to downtown? Will our nostalgia for old mill houses push even more residents to new neighborhoods at the fringe of the city?

[only]

I don't think anyone is intending to regulate the "dominant style" in these 2nd ring neighborhoods, unless when you say "style," you mean "height" and "scale" when compared to the surroundings. Then, of course the city has the right to regulate those measures, as does any city in a changing marketplace. Yes, those homes meet the existing zoning code as they are required to do. That says nothing of whether the code reflects current best practice for single family infill redevelopment--which I doubt it does, considering other zoning regs on the books in this city.

Let's look at the best practices from elsewhere and see where that takes us.

[Jones_]

Probably not. Considering that there are indicators aplenty that the local condo market is saturated, and considering that you have failed to draw any connection (aside from unit cost, perhaps) between single-family redevelopments and multi-family housing, and considering that the article talked exclusively about so-called "suburban" forms, there is no reason to believe there is a connection or should even be a connection between these things.

Saying that people prefer to live close to downtown because of convenience, proximity to entertainment or restaurants, market appreciation, or any number of other reasons is entirely separate from saying that people want a de-luxe apartment in the sky. As poorly executed as the article was, at least the writers refrained from making simple mistakes such as these.

There are greater unanswered questions, but they have little to do with the resultant built form. Let's refrain from using the term "tear-down" for starters. If the city imposed an outright ban on 'tear-downs' tomorrow, it would change the character of these residential redevelopments in no significant way. The only likely impact would be in raising the values of these homes, as the added cost of construction of a 'renovation' (as opposed to entirely new construction) and the additional time necessary to show compliance with newly-created regulations would be passed directly on to the homeowner. (Let's also take a moment to note that our first attempt to regulate this process has not changed the results, but has pushed up home prices instead).

[ChiefJoJo]

Please refrain from using terms like "second ring". The Park-Burgess model was debunked shortly after publication... 80-odd years ago.

It's apparent that you refrained from actually reading my OP, scanning instead for a juicy quote you could play straw man with. Community SCALE wants to regulate the "character" of new developments. They have argued for the ability to review their neighbors' building plans and reject them based on arbitrary aesthetic grounds. These are questions of style. Their proposals to lower the maximum building height even further would make many of the properties in their neighborhood non-conforming. This is nonsensical; their fundamental argument is that they want everything to "fit in." They want to dictate what their neighbor's house will look like. That's not the sort of thing that you can code into a zoning regulation. You can try - Cary certainly has. But the net effect is only to drive up the costs of compliance and push the neighborhood fabric toward mediocrity.

Speaking of regulating building heights, Russ Stephenson has said that he wants to change the zoning regulations so that any one house can not be more than 10% taller than its neighbors. This basically means that you will never be able to build a 2-story house next to a 1-story house. Advocates argue that their intention is to drive up property values equally, but what of the non-conforming properties that become unbuildable due to new regulations?

[only]

Funny that builders arguments for allowing tear-downs rests on an increase in "home" (home and lot) values and yet you also claim that not allowing tear-downs does the same thing....I guess its fair to conclude, as is obvious to most people regarding any maintained neighborhood, that values will indeed go up? No kidding.

[vitaviatic]

There's also the issue of increasing the cost of a particular project by prohibiting outright demolition of any existing structure. In many cases, you're better off working with some portion of the existing building. It really depends on the overall condition of the building and what you hope to accomplish, but generally speaking, it's cheaper that way. In perhaps just as many instances, you're better off pushing the whole thing down and starting over. Trying to fix what's there will only take more time and more money, and you'd be better off with a clean slate. If the city were to come along and say that you had to maintain X percentage of an existing structure when doing a redevelopment project, that could adversely affect the cost/benefit of going ahead with the work.

N&O...renovating the older houses increased the real value of the neighborhood as a whole... which is generally true. If there's a nice new house two doors down, it increases the value (especially the potential future value) of your home by proxy. The new house shows a continued investment in the neighborhood, and reinforces the notion that you could renovate your house similarly and not suffer for being the "nice" house on the block. My point was more that the increased costs and restrictions could discourage this sort of work from being done in the first place.