ReNew Raleigh: Manufactured Consent

• JZ
  01/22 11:40 AM
  

  And why do people trust the free market more than government?  Just as devious, just as mercenary. 

  “Please call the city council members and urge them to vote against the study task force and to allow Raleigh�s citizens to decide how to improve their own property.”:

  First of all, what the hell gave them the impression that they had some autonomous right separate from their fellow man?  What happened to the ideal of thinking of others before you think of yourself? 

  Secondly, the irony is that all the council members are voted in by citizens in order to “do their bidding”.  Via the electoral process, the majority sets the agenda of priorities for that election cycle.  It appears that—in this round—responsible growth, checked by a proper balance of regulation, will be a means to settle this matter. If I’m not mistaken, ReNew Raleigh constituents cast their ballots and it appears that they are in the minority.

  On my walk this past Sunday I noticed several signs about the Mordecai and Oakdale neighborhoods.  One in particular strikes a chord because I walk past the house every day to work:  The woman that lives there watered her damn lawn every day before the (overdue) mandated restrictions kicked in and even reseeded in mid-July despite all the forecasting.  This is the mentality of the folks at ReNew Raleigh.  Take as much as you can get and make sure to demand more than your fair share.  Because her lawn in only 15 feet deep, most of her damn sprinkler “shadow” hit the sidewalk and pants.  Runoff and moist ankles.  Smart.

• HelenTart
  01/22 01:10 PM
  

  What needs to come out of this is a movement towards the middle.

  For example: What would the folks at “RenewRaleigh” say if instead of “McMansions”, someone wanted to use their property rights to build a 3-story apartment building for low-income residents? Or turn one of the “McMansions” into a rooming house? It could happen. A lot of these new buildings are the same size or larger than the ones in Historic Oakwood that were turned into rooming houses.

  Infill restrictions can protect against both extremes.

  This proposed stakeholder group is a good compromise between doig nothing and
  a moratorium on teardowns. It would allow a moderated discussion addressing the fears of all sides of the issue.

  I’ve already expressed my point of view to the City Council. That’s really all we can do.

• Carol
  01/22 03:52 PM
  

  I have seen a few of these Renew signs walking around 5 points this week and I am surprised it was pro-developer because of the grass-roots “look” they had (with real grass on the signs!), like the Dix306 signs. Truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
  I live on a block safe from teardowns, since my block’s prices are already high, a builder would be nuts to not work with the dwelling he paid so much for. But I live close to Sunrise and Reaves, where there were 2 more teardowns last week. The inventory of new 4000 square foot, 5 or 6 bedroom, 800-900K houses for sale is already saturated. These things are accumulating on the market and you would be an idiot build more now. They are all designed insipidly with one target market: the modern family of 5 (or so) who lives “the way people live now”. With their margins shrinking and the cost of heating these monsters rising, the developers will soon come to their senses and quit building these defective products. The market will dictate this, even if the city council will not.
  I am here to say there are other target markets- families of 2 who make decent money and want large yards a smaller house and smaller operating costs.
  Good post- keep up the good work.

• brian_M
  01/22 04:53 PM
  

  Ugh. It sucks when you know some of the people involved in this, and that they are nice people. Just…ugh.

  And, that uppercase G in Raleigh = lol what

• JZ
  01/22 05:08 PM
  

  I think, Helen, that the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District solution reflects your interests in a move to the middle.  It preserves creativity and opportunity within reasonable constraints.

  The option to limit size of additions to 25% is ludicrous, and reflects an extreme that gets these developer/investor types all fired up and on the defense. Its a divisive tactic that serves no constructive purpose.

  I’ll continue to emphasize that trusting our professional planners and designers to help lead these discussions will both be educational for many and the most efficient way to accelerate the process.

• Michael
  01/23 02:56 AM
  

  I live in Sunset Hills and we just dissolved the covenants limiting property rights through a petition.  I’m fairly confident the neighborhood will not want any limitations reinstated since we all just went through the trouble to get rid of them.

• RaleighRob
  01/23 12:27 PM
  

  That air photo of a block of houses from 2004/05/06 is really eye-opening.  I can’t imagine any sane person actually thinking the 06 is an improvement over the 2004.

• BobSconce
  01/23 01:23 PM
  

  RaleighBob—

    Apparently somebody does—the people who buy the new homes.  If they preferred the 2004 version, they could have just bought those houses.

    The real problem is the folks who live across the street from this and who enjoyed looking at the 2004 version, but not so much that they were willing to pay the 2004 homeowners to keep their houses that way.

    If you want to live in a neighborhood where people can’t tear down their homes and put a bigger home in, Raleigh has many such neighborhoods—they’re the ones with restrictive covenants.  If you don’t want those restrictions, Raleigh also has many such neighborhoods for you to choose from. 

  But, don’t move to a neighborhood without the restrictions and then complain that your neighbors aren’t restricted—they had the same options you did and chose to live where they had the freedom to rebuild if they wanted.

• JZ
  01/23 01:57 PM
  

  The only thing constant in life is change.  And to suggest that a neighborhood w/out a covenant today should never have one is ludicrous.  Many communities (Apex, for one) have enacted Architectural Standards that stipulate the way one can build in an established neighborhood in order to impact it positively. 

  This does not suggest limiting size or aesthetic, but there are ways of doing it that are more respectful of the neighborhood qualities that first drew people to live there.

  More importantly, tear downs are a wasteful use of resources because most of that existing material gets thrown in a landfill. Rarely is it recycled.  Even if water runoff is controlled and trees are preserved the environmental impact of a wholesale teardown/rebuild is insensitive to the economy and the larger state and national community, let alone the neighborhood.

  I acknowledge that the present economic engine does not necessarily support that.  But that doesn’t make it right.  Everyone’s momma raised them better than that. And the world is changing as it come to terms with the wastefulness of resources, energy consumption and pollution. 

  To think that a continuation of the big gains in Real Estate over the last 10 years in this area is an ENTITLEMENT is self-absorbed and reactionary.  It isn’t balanced, nor is it sustainable.  In essence it’s a “I’m gonna get mine before s/he gets theirs” philosophy and I find that repugnant.

• Matthew Brown
  01/23 06:33 PM
  

  I see two sides of this issue, so let me present the minority opinion on this forum. My impression is that most of the homeowners in the Sunset Hills area are actually happy with the changes depicted in the photos above. The existing houses were five of the brick duplexes that were built in large numbers in that part of town in the 1950s. They are not unattractive, but were not especially well built. They are now owned by various landlords. Some have been well-maintained and others definitely have not. To some of the neighboring homeowners, replacing these with large single-family houses is a dream come true.

  Most of the new houses will probably house families, whereas the old duplexes mostly housed couples and singles, so there will actually be increased density.

  The new houses, although large, are actually of very nice designs, among the best of the new houses in the area. When their landscaping fills in, they will make for an attractive streetscape.

  There are still quite a few apartments in the area that aren’t going anywhere, and there are many smaller houses as well, so the area will remain economically diverse, except that there will be few very poor people, but that has always been the case.

  While I hate to see a fine historic house torn down for a crummy McMansion, I don’t hate to see a crummy old house torn down for a fine new house. That’s better than tearing down more forest, isn’t it? But I do hate to see all the extra materials in the landfill.

  As I said, I see both sides of this issue. I live in a small house myself and love it. I suspect the current economic slowdown will allow us a breather so that we can examine the issue and find solutions. I even suspect that the economic slowdown may be part of a long-term trend that will lead to less demand for very large houses.

• RaleighRob
  01/24 11:46 AM
  

  Matthew—excellent points.  I too, love infill and have no problem tearing down crumbling buildings for something new.
  But the thing is, if you watch carefully the houses that are being torn down, they are not usually “crummy old houses”.  Most of the time they are perfectly sound buildings that are just not to the size expectations of most McMansion-lovers. 

  Some have, of course, been bought by more reasonable people who then renovate them and maybe add-on an extra room or two in the back.  (I’ve seen that a couple of times in University Park, for example, and applaud them.) 
  However, that’s obviously not the problem that brought up this issue.  It’s taking a perfectly good home and knocking it down (such a waste)—- and then building a gigantic replacement that’s completely out-of-scale for the lot and for the neighborhood.  That is the problem.

• georgia
  01/24 09:21 PM
  

  There are at least 3 Phil Millers in RNC, and the one in urban RENEWal RALEIgH is not the builder, as I understand it. This one spoke at the CPC meeting, is “just” very interested, he says.

  I point you to the Atlanta Infill Task Force. Eventually everyone decided to work on it together. It took a moratorium to motivate, but they agreed the speculators were out of bounds.

  Here is a thought on that topic. Isn’t this a problem of Commercial Interests in a Residential area? Can any of you planners and designers come up with ideas for how to help sort out the problem from that perspective? If they were doing the work to live in the home, the tax rate would affect them, so they would build differently. The BIG money that is floating around that funds this is Commercial loans, and no tax penalty, as would happen in a residence.

  Seems to me:

  -Increase demolition permit fee drastically, with discounts for reuse or moving house.

  - Find a way to distingush the process between commercial activity and residential activity, and push that stuff thru some kind of process (what would be legal here?) like you see planned developments go thru.

  - Could there be a special set of Infill rules for teardowns as to size, setback, volume, impervious surfaces

  - Banish attached garages ITB.

  And what is the deal with those european roofs? I would banish them too, when I am queen for a day…

• HelenTart
  01/27 06:44 PM
  

  RE: Renew Raleigh’s Philip Miller

  According Sarah Lindenfeld at the N&O;, here is his bio on his law firm’s Web site:

  http://www.bjmls-law.com/bmls/attorneys/viewattorney.aspx?id=3

  The corporation is registered by Charles Marshall, 150 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh. I guess Charles Marshall is the lawyer that was used to set up the corporation.

  I’ve heard Philip R. Miller III tell his story at the Public hearings also. He’s lived on Randolph Dr. since 2000 and hopes to tear down the 1,945 sq ft house and build a larger one.

  Of course at this point, he no longer has an problem because the proposal that could have limited his building was voted down.

  It’s amazing what you can fund out once you have a full name to work with….

• Ron112
  02/06 12:05 PM
  

  I don’t understand this thought process.  Following the same logic why tear down Chavis Heights?  If I wanted to live in Cary with all of it’s restrictions, I would move there.

  I bought my house in a good location and excellent school district to add on to meet my family needs.  You are cutting the legs out from under me.  I can’t afford to pay cost of a new house that already fit my needs.

  That means that market is handling knock downs as the lots are being priced out of the market as mentioned in previous emails.  Knockdowns dropped from approx. 270 in 06 to 74 in 07.

  If the City has the neighborhood overlay mechanism that allows the property owners generate a vote, why does it need changes?  Use that process.

  I heard that tried it in Oxford Park and the neighborhood voted down.  So, other areas should provide the community vote and let the chips fall where they may.

• Ron112
  02/06 12:06 PM
  

  Are the developers paying these people to put up the signs?

• HelenTart
  02/06 03:35 PM
  

  Ron112

  The Chavis Heights Hope VI redevelopment was the result of about 10 years of work by government and community members.

  If you’d like learn more about how the city Community Development Department process for redevelopment you can go the department website, or attend the meeting Thursday night:

  Citizen Meeting: Action Plan Followup, February 7, 2008, YWCA 554 E. Hargett Street, 6:00 p.m.

  The Community Development Department will conduct a second public meeting on the City�s Annual Action Plan and Housing Budget for FY 2008-2009 (July 1, 2008 � June 30, 2009).  This is a follow-up to the November 8, 2007 Action Plan needs assessment meeting.  For more information, please call 857-4330 or email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

• Ron112
  02/06 10:07 PM
  

  HelenTart,

  Thank you for the info. Why redevelop it?  Those places have a lot of character.  That development would be out of place when compared to all the other homes around it.  Those some of those people have lived in that neighborhood for 25 years or more.  We would certainly offend them by building it. 

  If people are for tightening the zoning laws, it needs to be across the board. Hopefully, they realize that’s what slippy slope they are pushing us toward. 

  If people think 40 years of the present zoning laws are outdated, then so could this 10 year Chavis plan.

• Ron112
  02/06 10:29 PM
  

  I agree with a lot of people that some of these new house awful looking. 

  I think these people have the right to do it even if it doesn’t match my taste.  However, I’m comfortable enough with my own house and myself that I don’t feel inferior like some of these people.

  Note freshsqueze:  if you worried about progress, please knock your house down and plant all the original trees and vegetation back.  Then live in your tee-pee or better yet give it back to the Indians you stole it from.

• HelenTart
  02/07 12:32 AM
  

  “Why redevelop it? “

  Because the community made that decision. (See the first sentence in my comment.)

  There was a lot of talk about the history of that public housing complex and the folks that grown up there and gone on to do good things. There was a lot of discussion about what would replace it also. The whole city was invited to comment because the complex had been built with and was being with demolished public money. 

  It’s the lack of community involvement in all these massive renovations and replacements that neighbors are concerned about. My understanding is that even a requirement to work with the next-door and across-the-street neighbors on a design or, or even to notify them, is too much of an invasion of privacy.

  I agree that zoning does need to be updated. There are many older neighborhoods that were built at R-4 on land that is zoned R-10. That’s a whole different problem.

  I am also very comfortable in my house and don’t feel inferior to the people that live in the larger houses in nearby even older neighborhoods. Some of the houses in my neighborhood have been renovated and doubled in size but they have done it without towering over their neighbors.

• Fallonia
  02/07 01:36 AM
  

  Ron112 quoted teardown numbers for 2007 as being lower. Yes, the numbers are lower, but they are not complete. There are 3 problems.

  First, they are the number of houses built on a demolished site. That means empty lots, and work is process, are not listed. The entire Whitaker Park apartment complex was demolished (over 100 units) but shows up as the three houses built on Pine.

  Second, the cut off date is June 5, not Oct. That is the cut off for when an inspected building would trigger a listing of a demolished property.

  Third, we are having trouble finding the demolition and rebuilding of rental type units. The Bernard street conversions from duplexes to townhomes is not on the list.

  The Planning department will be correcting all these problems and re-releasing the updated numbers. They apologize for the problem, caused by all the hoopla resulting from the recent unpleasantness.

• Tim
  02/07 01:54 PM
  

  Note Ron112: freshsqueeze may have a difficult time restoring the natural vegetation since our local govt has done such a piss-poor job of managing our natural resources, thereby crippling the Wake Co. landscaping industry. Also, NC Indians never used tipis, so don’t champion a culture that you don’t know dick about.

• freshsqueze
  02/07 04:38 PM
  

  I actually have some Native American in my blood, but thanks for the thought Ron.

• Ron112
  02/08 12:57 AM
  

  Tim- it was probably people like you back then that put the zoning in place, so they could not build Tee-Pees. 

  A better solution for you is to pool your money together and buy these houses when they come on the market.  Then you can restrict the deeds to impose your will and then resell them. I think you will find that you won’t have many buyers.  Then you will have to turn them into rental properties or create your Brave New World.

• Tim
  02/08 02:10 AM
  

  Ron, there were no zoning resolutions “back then.” The first zoning resolution was in 1916 in NYC, well after the decline of the Plains Indians. Do tell, how might one go about zoning a portable structure designed for a nomadic lifestyle?

  Also, I did not pose a problem for you to offer me a solution. I called attention to the contradictions in your attack on freshsqueze because it is ethnocentric of you to assume the said commenter is of European decent. Your gross generalization of Native Americans reeks of prejudice and bigotry and your offensive ramblings are both groundless and asinine. New Raleigh is a site for intelligent discussion, not fallacious attacks.

• HelenTart
  02/08 12:22 PM
  

  I didn’t post my first reaction to the “tee-pee” comment because on second reading I released it wasn’t directed to me. However since other people seem to be discussing it, I’ll add my point of view to what seems to be the underlying concept. I don’t know about freshsqueze’s home, but for me:

  I didn’t buy a tee-pee or an uncleared lot. I chose a house in a fully-developed, established (at that time, 30-year-old) neighborhood. Our neighborhood—so far and with the active participation of the residents—has been protected by our Conservation Overlay.

  However I can understand how some residents of other neighborhoods expected to have a fairly stable neighborhood when they’d been living in the same place for decades. Most folks aren’t as involved in these issues as I am, so they are shocked to find clear-cutting next door and and upper story windows over-looking their backyard.

  Since (again, so far) it’s impossible to travel back in time and introduce the concept of home owners associations when these neighborhoods were originally built, the goal is to attempt to offer some of those modern protections to older neighborhoods.

• JZ
  02/08 12:42 PM
  

  Helen__

  Where can I get a copy of the NCOD Neighborhood Plan for Capitol Heights ?

• HelenTart
  02/08 12:49 PM
  

  “A better solution for you is to pool your money together and buy these houses when they come on the market. ”

  That is a great idea and is one of the solutions used in other places. The owners are required to offer the houses to their neighbors before they sell.

  The point is, these houses don’t come on the market. The buyers solicit the owners. Even in my neighborhood, every 6 months or so I get a letter from a business wanting to buy my house. I’ve had house-flippers tell me that they have gone door-to-door in my neighborhood asking people if they wanted to sell.

  Of course folks who do this for a living are likely to be able to outbid a group of neighbors, especially in these older neighborhoods like mine where people of modest income were able to buy 15 or 20 years ago. If there was a requirement to offer these houses, then the neighbors could plan for it.

• JZ
  02/08 01:00 PM
  

  For info regarding the Raleigh Comprehensive Plan, Districts and specific Neighborhood Plans related to the general Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, here’s a good jumping off point:

  http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_200_0_43/http;/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Business/Comprehensive_Plan/Cat-TG-2005401-103712-District_Plans.html

• HelenTart
  02/08 04:01 PM
  

  The link for our Neighborhood Plan is:

  http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt?space=Dir&spaceID=1&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=0&in_hi_userid=2&control=OpenSubFolder&subfolderID=1688&DirMode=1

  The NCOD standards for lot width, size and unit type are in the last link on that page.

  The name on the plan—Oakwood Park—was one of the compromises I made. Since Captial Heights is the name of the largest section of the neighborhood, I thought the plan should have its name. The rest of the neighbors wanted to call it “Oakwood Park” for the park that is on one edge of the neighborhood. I felt using “Oakwood” in the name was misleading because the neighborhood is not in Historic Oakwood, nor are the houses in anyway similar to the houses in Historic Oakwood.

  Making compromises with your neighbors is part of the process.

• Uhavetobekidding
  02/19 05:20 PM
  

  Fallonia:  The Whitaker Park project was voted on at the CAC meeting with a 16-0 victory.  You now complain about the project, why didn’t you complain then?

  Same project different question: Why did the CAC chair express concern about a possible mix use for this sight after the project was approved?  Wouldn’t a mixture of single family homes with townhomes or apartments provide more affordable housing than just large single family homes?

  Last for Raleigh Rob: your assertion that you have any idea what kind of condition someone�s house is in is preposterous.  Are you a General Contractor?  How did you get access to the basements or crawl spaces?
  If you were promoting a real diverse agenda I would support you but what I see is a bunch of malicious statements to engage in a campaign of fear.

• HelenTart
  02/19 06:30 PM
  

  Fallonia’s point was about the accuracy of the statics: That Whitaker Park was an example of a   large number of demolitions that were not included in the number quoted.

  As far as the condition of someone’s house is concerned, you don’t have to have a 3000 sq ft house to have a house in good condition.

• Fallonia
  02/19 08:49 PM
  

  Exactly, that was a fact based post.
  Thanks for clearing that up.
  FP

• Spiro
  02/20 01:44 PM
  

  “But really, this isn�t about citizens, its about developers lining their pockets off of your neighborhood and trying to keep you from doing anything about it”

  This might sound plausible, but no developer forces people to buy the houses that the developer or builder develop. They are only responding to the demand for products desired in the marketplace.  If they build the wrong products they will suffer.  You guys need to present facts, not these “progressive” opinions.

• uhavetobekidding
  02/20 02:30 PM
  

  Ms. Tart you are going in circles.  The condition of one�s house has no correlation to the size of a house. 

  Your response has no merit because it did not answer the question of how the blogger knew the condition of the houses.  Instead your response went to how large house are.

  As for the accuracy of one�s statistics goes you are trying to use the Whitaker park project as example of all the tear downs going on with no respect for “affordable housing” yet you supported it?  You are complaining about what you supported?  Your opinions are far from progressive as they are conservative views of your taste.  Liberalism is a movement of tolerance not the other way around.

• HelenTart
  02/20 04:20 PM
  

  I totally agree with “uhavetobekidding”: “The condition of one�s house has no correlation to the size of a house.” That was my point.

  The size and the proportion of the replacement buildings is one of the biggest issues, not the condition of the house the building replaces.

  Raleigh Rob was responding to the assertion that every house demolished or massively renovated was in dangerously bad condition.

  If the condition was the issue, city will, upon request of citizens, inspect and order demolished a house that is so bad off it needs to be torn down. The city demolishes houses regularly—read the city council agendas. They have a public hearing for each one. Would that all demolitions went through that process.

  Since Renew Raleigh says there is no issue, I’m at a loss as to what the condition of the house has to do with it anyway.

• Mark
  02/20 04:21 PM
  

  “but no developer forces people to buy the houses that the developer or builder develop. They are only responding to the demand for products desired in the marketplace.

  Your premise is that all builders and developers have the owner’s best interest in mind.  In reality, these folks are going to convince you to tear-down instead of add-on if it means doubling their profit.  Most owners are naive when it comes to the building and construction industry, and are easily swayed when talking to their ‘hired professional’ builder or developer.  Don’t kid yourself.  These guys are salesmen.  And their livelihood depends upon it—they’ll say and do whatever it takes to convince you to go bigger and build more.

• Mark
  02/20 05:07 PM
  

  “Your response has no merit because-”

  And your response has no merit because you’re using a false name.

  Common sense tells us that it is far more cost-effective to rehabilitate, renovate, and add onto an existing structure than it is to completely knock down and start from scratch, not to mention the waste-reduction benefits from an environmental standpoint.

• uhavetobekidding
  02/20 05:28 PM
  

  How does a pen name invalidate the merits of my comments?  Mark? Feel free to give me your name and address.

  2nd. Helen Tart is quite correct about the city being able to tear down ones house.  However, the homeowner, tax payer, owner also has that right without disclosing any reason as it is not a community house it is a Personal house.  Encroaching on one�s right to privacy is not a liberal cause.

  Mark Said: “In reality, these folks are going to convince you to tear-down instead of add-on if it means doubling their profit.”  So are you saying that you should not tear down so you can lower your net worth?  Again, what is the benefit the city gets from putting these types of restrictions on homeowners?

• JZ
  02/20 05:59 PM
  

  The benefit the city gets when implementing a more sophisticated review process is that the neighborhoods gain an opportunity to maintain a sense of their existing character.

  Without guidelines, the owners or developer are actually doing more harm than good because they are destroying the quality that makes the neighborhood desirable. 

  When homeowners are provided some sort of guideline, it helps them in their goals to invest well with their home improvements.  At this time, homeowners or developers have been left unguided thereby allowing them to make certain decisions about character, size and materiality that is not necessarily in keeping with the neighborhood.  While attempting to improve their property, they’re actually making their neighborhoods less desirable to live in.

  In offering guidelines, the city will put at the citizens’ disposal our tax funded professional staff—along with involved citizens—whose expertise can help determine what is important to maintain in each distinct neighborhood.  I see this as having the best interest of all citizens at heart because it takes into consideration how ALL dwellings come together to create an appealing neighborhood quality.

  
  That being said, you may be able to read between my lines and understand that what I am advocating is what is known as a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, with respective Neighborhood Plans developed for particular districts. 

  Crowder’s suggestion of a 25% rule is ludicrous and incites violence in my opinion.  We need professional designers on city council, but Mr. Crowder needs to learn how to work well with others.

• Fallonia
  02/20 06:36 PM
  

  JZ stated the value question clearly. You could build these homes in a field or a parking lot and have the same net effect. It is my understanding that it takes 50 to 100 years to grow an older neighborhood. And I guarantee you it is the character of the old part of the neighborhood that is drawing people to them.

  The 25% rule originated from the planning department’s proposal. And that number was also in a proposal made by former Planning Commissioner Clyde Holt, which has since made the pro-build community distrustful of him. No One was for it.

  I believe it would be very appropriate for there to be changes in the way we handle redevelopment in existing neighborhoods. This is dramatically different than development of new neighborhoods. Interestingly, development of new neighborhoods tries to blend. I am confused as to why this is considered such a bad thing when going into an older area. I have yet to see new neighborhoods building to their maximum footprints, precisely for the reasons we are experiencing in town—it ain’t purty.

  So, do people living in older neighborhoods have rights to expect some form of predictability while living out their investment or not. Truly, that is all anyone is looking for.

• Fallonia
  02/20 06:39 PM
  

  25% thingie:

  That was a review trigger, not a limit.

• JZ
  02/20 07:00 PM
  

  thanks for the clarification on the 25% rule…that’s not what i had heard, but i acknowledge i’ve not read every last item on this issue….

  interestingly, i spoke with a homeowner/landlord the other weekend at a party i attended…..he owns several properties along Anderson Drive as well as elsewhere in town…..he also held the opinion that the 25% rule was a maximum, not a threshold for review…..so there’s a bunch of pro-RenewRaleigh-ites out there, thinking what i was thinking….eek.

• uhavetobekidding
  02/20 07:36 PM
  

  It is still amazing to me that you haven’t answered any of my questions.

  1. You are assuming the “neighborhood” thinks of character as you.  You make a simplistic argument when what you speak of is far from simplistic. 

  2. The 25% rule “triggers a review” for commission approval?  Your assertions are all over the place.  It boils down to one thing; certain people with likeminded ideals would like to regulate others to their ideals of character.  These people profess to represent the “neighborhood” when in fact they represent themselves.  I personally don’t want to see Raleigh turn into Cary and I am afraid that is what I am seeing.
  Liberalism has nothing to do with governmental controls over one�s personal property: in fact it is the complete opposite.  We have yet to see one person step forward and say how their quality of life was hurt by a house being built.  When you consider all the important things in life and we are talking about how to regulate the appearance of someone else�s house, it shows how petty our society has become.  In a free society you have to learn tolerance comes first.

• JZ
  02/20 07:41 PM
  

  uhavetobekidding:

  I recommend you refer to the Residential Architecture Guidelines in Apex, NC to get a better handle on what this issue is about.  You may be thinking of character in the wrong terms.

  Seeing how Apex was able to find the balance between owner’s property rights and neighborhood preservation and pass the resolution without controversy will help you come to better terms with the issue.

• JZ
  02/20 07:59 PM
  

  In Apex, the community wanted to maintain the small-town feeling without stifling development.  For the citizens, this is what was incorporated into their Unified Development Ordinance:

  http://www.apexnc.org/docs/plan/udo/sections/section006_003.pdf

  
  A Small Town Character Overlay District was established.  As you can see from the text, the spirit was not to stifle or constrain development, but to identify existing patterns and encourage their use as new development occurs.

  uhavetobekidding, you may think this too much constraint, but if you ask me, anything less, you might as well move to Houston, where houses coexist with storage facilities and oil refineries because your argument against any regulation of private property implies lifting all zoning regulation.  There has to be some codification of shared values otherwise we have chaos.

• Spiro
  02/20 08:05 PM
  

  Mark:

  You are wrong.  It makes no sense for a General Contractor to talk an owner into demolishing a house that is a good candidate for rehabilitation.  I also makes no sense talking an owner into keeping a chopped-up, worn-out, home with low ceilings if a new home is a better investment.  I admit that some General Contractors do not understand how to analyze the economics of these types of projects, but some do.

• Fallonia
  02/20 08:09 PM
  

  {It boils down to one thing; certain people with likeminded ideals would like to regulate others to their ideals of character.  These people profess to represent the “neighborhood” when in fact they represent themselves.}

  Nope. Untrue, but prevalent belief.

  JZ, thank you, great document for this attempt to find the balance point.

  Reasoned reasonable approach, imho.

• uhavetobekidding
  02/20 08:14 PM
  

  JZ, that is why zoning was instituted in 1971.  Since then we have done nothing to follow the guidelines to help with growth.  Downzoning, restrictive covenants etc.. do nothing but create sprawl.  Cities are considered Urban and should continue to grow from within for the environmental benefits.  The 1970 liberal planners saw the growth and developed a plan for more infill more water reservoirs etc… We haven’t followed their advice and now we are paying for it. 

  As for you Houston comment, you are trying to spin the extreme without answering my questions.  However, I would rather fall on the liberal interpretation that Houston abides by than the dictated one you suggest.

  FYI:  Raleigh is the capital city of NC not a small town we have an environmental responsibility to be urban in nature.

• JZ
  02/20 08:33 PM
  

  uhavetobekidding__

  So you’re a RenewRaleigh representative. Admit it.

  I’ve never been accused of scorning urbanism…that’s pretty funny.  But, everything in good time, my friend.  I’m sure you would prefer not having a Soleil Center crop up in your neighborhood, despite your supposed support of density, right?  By that example, I think I prove my point that there are simply better ways to increase residential density than others. 

  Apex is an analogy…an analogy which could extend to a typical established Raleigh neighborhood only, and modified on a case-by-case, neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

  I’m not sure what you mean by your comment about not doing anything to follow the guidelines to help growth.  The present conditions reflect what zoning has allowed and encouraged: with a majority of growth at the periphery.  Established neighborhoods have not experienced enthusiastic interest until the last 15 or 20 years due only to changing priorities in the population.  A relaxed zoning ordinance, low development costs and the near absence of impact fees have encouraged—and continue to encourage—more growth at the edges.  Seems like if we want more density, we need to tighten up on the regulation more than relax it more.

  Given how little density exists in the downtown core as defined by West, East and Peace Streets and MLK Blvd., I encourage a greater effort being placed within the core first, and extending that effort outward.  That’s how, historically, urban environments emerge….not first in the Center, then Cameron Village, then North Hills, then Cary, then Wake Forest…..

• uhavetobekidding
  02/20 09:13 PM
  

  JZ, A “representative” that is funny.  Soleil center next door or YOU telling me what I can or cannot do with my property,, I will take the center next door. If you preach tolerance you have to teach it as well.

  As far as you picking about what parts of the city and dictating which should become urban and at what time is absurd. 

  You continuously change your argument to avoid answering the valid points that dispute your assertions. 

  Downzoning is predominately an issue inside the beltline while upzoning is continuously used for development on the edges.  This is the definition of sprawl.  Zoning cases prove this as you can’t show me very many upzoning cases ITB. 

  As for your last assertion “downtown core as defined by West, East and Peace Streets and MLK Blvd� Isn�t this area defined by predominately by historical and conservation overlay districts preventing urban growth? 

  Next time you want to see a real McMansion drive to Wakefield or just go down Durant road.  I could fit 3 new houses from Anderson Drive in anyone of these houses. 

  PS. Do you know how many trees were cut down for these new subdivisions?

  Thanks for the label as well as it shows your rush to judgment without proof or knowledge.

• JZ
  02/20 11:29 PM
  

  UHTBK__

  I really think you have this whole thing turned around.

  Downtown is increasing in density both commerically and residentially.  There is no growth being stifled due to conservation overlays.  In fact, the Blount Street Commons project which will add over 1000 new residents to the downtown core was made possible with the creation of the a new zoning district.

  Density is defined by number of people per acre, not units per acre, nor the size of the single family residence.  So I fail to see how making a single-family residence bigger helps increase density unless your taking on boarders.

  If one wants to live with the rest of us, one must make compromises.  A driver’s license is a compromise in order to operate a motor vehicle.  Paying taxes is a compromise in order to use city services and have one’s children publically schooled. Some regulation on your property is a compromise to protect and enhance the welfare of your fellow citizens.

  I fail to see why this is so controversial.

• uhavetobekidding
  02/21 12:08 AM
  

  JZ: you are picking one block of downtown that is providing one type of housing.  This helps but because we live in a diversified country you have to understand once again not everyone wants to live like you. 

  Using the cities established infrastructure is the best thing for all citizens; this includes people who want to live in single family homes.  Which means we need to increase the number of homes in the interior?

  You also say “Some regulation on your property is a compromise to protect and enhance the welfare of your fellow citizens.”  I agree but we only have one way to judge that perspective which is home value.  These values haven’t gone down, so the issue goes back to your views not reality.

  If a developer told someone they would have to move for their project I would be the one out front protecting the homeowner.  A neighbor of mine hasn’t painted his house in 30 years; I would never consider getting a group of likeminded people assembled to petition the government to make him/her paint their house.  Chastising people for building their dream house because you or others don’t like its appearance is classless.  This issue is hurting true environmentalist and any liberal movement as it shows close-mindedness.  Tolerance; is key here as you consistently are referring to individual houses not housing developments.  FYI.. I was out of town during the Whitaker Park fiasco we should have demanded a mix use of housing on the property instead of down zoning it to allow single family homes to replace multifamily dwellings.

• Georgia
  02/21 01:37 AM
  

  UHTBK,

  you have to be kidding…

  your arguments are all over the place. I have just read this thing straight through and, your points are all over the place. Clear to me your singular point is that others are wrong, but not inclined to consider that there is a valid issue here for others. That is not tolerance, my friend.

• JZ
  02/21 10:48 AM
  

  UHTBK__

  A proper code promotes and upholds tolerance, I think this is the point that you may have been missing. You really should read through the Apex Code.  There is nothing in there about appearance.  There is nothing in there about mandating regular maintenance. It is a very tolerant zoning regulation that helps to protect all property owner’s rights.  If you disagree with its approach it would help me if you could sight chapter and verse and explain specifically what difficulty you have with it.

  As far as downtown development and density goes:  The Blount Street Commons is a 23 acre project over 4 1/2 blocks.  The Halifax Court redevelopment is another example of acreage of dense, single-family development.  Along Bloodworth Street, south and east of Moore Square there are smaller developer projects involving densification.  East of Shaw University a few other blocks were redeveloped as single-family homes.

  Other than single family homes, Raleigh has multiple established multi-family projects such as the Hudson on Fayetteville Street, Park Devereaux, the Paramont and the Morgan on Dawson Many others are in progress such as the 100+ units in the new RBC tower, Hue on Dawson Street, the West at North and the Bloomsbury Project on Boylan Avenue.  I apologize to the group for having to retrace the scope of downtown residential growth, it seemed necessary in this case.

  I’m having a very difficult time following your arguement, UHTBK.  If you could take a bit more effort in clarifying the reasoning behind some of your statements I might be able to understand the point your trying to make.

• JZ
  02/21 10:50 AM
  

  One last thing I forgot to point out:  the homes with the highest land and home values in Raleigh are in the downtown such as Oakwood and Mordecai.  Hayes-Barton and the surrounding neighborhood is a good exception to that rule, but also an exception to demographic in terms of lot size, home size and exclusivity.  Doesn’t seem very tolerant over in the H-B…

• JZ
  02/21 11:00 AM
  

  Oh,...one more thing (my head is SWIMMING with details)....

  the Blount Street project is composed of single family homes, flats, townhomes and live/work units.  Some pretty diverse choices.  Pretty tolerant of different lifestyles.  Thank god for Planned Unit Developement Zoning, eh?

• Mark
  02/21 11:39 AM
  

  “I admit that some General Contractors do not understand how to analyze the economics of these types of projects, but some do.”

  I am not disputing any contractor’s ability to analyze material and labor costs in any way—on the contrary, it takes a firm understanding of these things to even be able to operate on a daily basis in this business.  I don’t know any contractors that are not competent in the economy of building, as you suggest… probably because they would go out of business.

  “It makes no sense for a General Contractor to talk an owner into demolishing a house that is a good candidate for rehabilitation.”

  Sure it does.  It’s much easier for a contractor to bulldoze a building and start from scratch than to spend the effort of constant field verification and adaptation/improvisation that it takes to renovate and add onto an existing house.  The difference for the owner is that it costs substantially more to build all new.  It also makes sense for the builder because they will get paid more.

  Take an existing 2,000 square foot house.  Look at the cost of adding 1,000 square feet and retrofitting the existing space to fit the owners needs.  Compare this with the cost of demolishing the existing, regrading the site, and building a new 3,000 square foot house in its place.  Now remember that the contractor’s fee is based on the overall cost of the construction…  What builder wouldn’t want a cut of the new $500,000 building?

• uhavetobekidding
  02/21 02:18 PM
  

  Georgia:  Let�s see since I have started blogging I been accused of having no merit due to my pen name, for asking specific questions which were never answered and now you saying I am the one all over the place?

  JZ: By the way I don’t have a problem with redevelopment of downtown and never said I didn’t support the projects you speak of but I do have a few questions that I am sure you will not answer.

  I used to ride the bus through Halifax court, it was LOW income housing, what happened to all those people who lived there?  Every development you have spoken about has gentrified the area it dealt with and pushed the existing residents out, where are they supposed to go?

  Last but not least the HB area you talk about “my church by the way” is filled with row houses and zero lot lines and inadequate off street parking.  New construction has increased the property values over the last 30 years as the spikes in construction correlate to spikes in value. So are you saying you want the home values in the HB area to decrease?  If so how does that help the city?  (fyi it is ok to have a different point of view just defend it)

  Mark: You are funny and I assume a general contractor considering your consistent statistical references about them.  Building costs are completely dependent on what comps you are doing.  Adding 1000 sq feet might cost $50 a square or $250 a sq dependent on a lot of variables including current structure condition.  A new home is easier to forecast cost and is guaranteed to be built more efficient than an older one. 

  So to broaden your perspective on why a homeowner might want to build from scratch please keep this in mind: 1. Fixed cost versus variable 2. Guaranteed increased efficiency (energy consumption is drastically decreased with new homes including water) 3. Functional obsolescence for SOME families 4. This last one might be hard for you to understand but some individuals might just want to build their dream house without design inputs from others, you know exploring their own creativity. 

  Accepting this is called tolerance.  Liberalism is a two way street not a one way.

• Mark
  02/21 04:00 PM
  

  “Fixed cost versus variable”

  This is a misconception.  Too many factors go into making the final product.  Track houses which are replicas of one another and have identical finishes are one thing, but this discussion is about custom built houses which are all different, built buy different folks.

  How complicated is the roof for framing?  Roof material?  What are the exterior finishes, and how much surface does each on cover?  What kind of windows?  Kitchen finishes?  Granite?  Appliances? Fixtures?  Lighting?  Carpet or hardwood?  Tile square footage?  Molding?  High ceilings or flat?  Built-ins?  Porches?  A garage?  Landscaping?  Ornamental shutters or lintel details?  What kind of HVAC system?  How extensive is the electrical work?

  That’s just for starters, for one new single-family house.  All of these are big questions, each associated with it’s own wide range of cost implications.  The decisions made in reference to these variables, along with siting and architectural drawings begin to make up a sort of DNA of each individual house.

  “Functional obsolescence for SOME families.”

  Nearly any structure can be reconfigured and added onto, to suit the needs of most any family, and at a lower cost than that of a tear-down/re-build.

  “Guaranteed increased efficiency (energy consumption is drastically decreased with new homes including water)”

  Go look at the USGBC’s LEED for Existing Buildings.  Go look at Cherokee Investment Corporation’s LEED Platinum Headquarters in Downtown Raleigh—a historic structure—and the first Platinum Certified building in North Carolina.  Costs associated with ‘greening’ existing structures is substantially lower than tearing down and building all new energy-efficient buildings.  Also, there is much more to sustainability than just energy efficiency.

• Mark
  02/21 04:06 PM
  

  Also, I am not a contractor as you suggested.  And I deeply sympathize with families wanting to build their dream home.  However, they must conduct whatever they build in accordance with our zoning ordinances, and I don’t think it would ruin anyone’s dreams if the ordinances were refined and updated.