Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Portland has an urban growth boundary. Making new construction pricey on mainly infill lots. This has caused high home prices and very small lots. Something I hear complaints about in this forum daily. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
+1. People think this is checkers when it's high level chess. One small correction though, it's not just new construction that was affected by the growth boundary and the limits on new development in Portland. It had a dramatic trickle down effect on all home prices, due to the lack of new development.
Taken in the vacuum of a perfect world, it's hard to argue against anything what the author of that article wrote. But, for anyone that has studied or is interested in this stuff, the article resembled a fairy tale. I understand shooting the **** here on City-Data, but for someone to publish that is a little irritating. Not to mention the absurd comparisons of Raleigh to NYC and Philly.
It's a sad fact, but $ controls development. Developers are a necessary evil, and they build according to what sells. Inevitably though, we control everything, as we are the ones that buy into these developments. They wouldn't be built if there weren't buyers lining up. If the gov starts to screw around with limitations which causes the acquisition, eng and arch, and construction costs to surge. The developer then loses his profit, which in turn either makes us pay more or makes the development not viable from the start and a housing shortage results. Now, I'm not saying that no governmental controls need to enacted. They do. But it's all a very delicate balance.
Another thing I have to disagree with the author is his ridiculous"lily white" comment and the implication of converting old, small shotgun style housing into $500,000 homes with porticoes and big porches is bad. That is establishing some architectural identity and character in a city and region that is devoid of it and never had it to begin with.
Portland has an urban growth boundary. Making new construction pricey on mainly infill lots. This has caused high home prices and very small lots. Something I hear complaints about in this forum daily. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
Fair point...there are still options to restrict areas, and existing units and parts of existing units for affordable housing. I thought NC had a statute that some cities have used to do that. I don't know what the eligibility requirements are, however.
+1. People think this is checkers when it's high level chess. One small correction though, it's not just new construction that was affected by the growth boundary and the limits on new development in Portland. It had a dramatic trickle down effect on all home prices, due to the lack of new development.
Taken in the vacuum of a perfect world, it's hard to argue against anything what the author of that article wrote. But, for anyone that has studied or is interested in this stuff, the article resembled a fairy tale. I understand shooting the **** here on City-Data, but for someone to publish that is a little irritating. Not to mention the absurd comparisons of Raleigh to NYC and Philly.
It's a sad fact, but $ controls development. Developers are a necessary evil, and they build according to what sells. Inevitably though, we control everything, as we are the ones that buy into these developments. They wouldn't be built if there weren't buyers lining up. If the gov starts to screw around with limitations which causes the acquisition, eng and arch, and construction costs to surge. The developer then loses his profit, which in turn either makes us pay more or makes the development not viable from the start and a housing shortage results. Now, I'm not saying that no governmental controls need to enacted. They do. But it's all a very delicate balance.
Another thing I have to disagree with the author is his ridiculous"lily white" comment and the implication of converting old, small shotgun style housing into $500,000 homes with porticoes and big porches is bad.That is establishing some architectural identity and character in a city and region that is devoid of it and never had it to begin with.
Good post. As for the underlined, diversity – in general – is still needed at the city's core, and poor blacks and minorities are being displaced from Raleigh's core at a high rate.
There also needs to be some consideration of character... I'm surprised there's not gentrifier's guilt when they pull in to their ultra modern , neo-styled house, which sits across from a glorified shack that's likely still occupied.
I've said it before and will say it again - the City of Raleigh owns enough land parcels downtown that they could invest in large-scale affordable housing. Not subsidized section 8 rentals - affordable and aimed at the municipal workers (cops, firemen, nurses, etc).
The City now controls 300 acres of land amassed together that they could build some affordable housing in sections on.
People choose not to have their City government do these things.
People choose not to have their City government do these things.
As it should be. It doesn't make sense for a homeowner to both pay property taxes on the large lot / cul-de-sac property that they choose to live in, and also be expected to pay for the urban lifestyle others prefer.
Now if only the cul-de-sac and suburb haters would get together and put their money where their mouth is, and fund these projects exclusively out of their pocket, then we can have a society with a fair system of funding our own preferences.
+1. People think this is checkers when it's high level chess. One small correction though, it's not just new construction that was affected by the growth boundary and the limits on new development in Portland. It had a dramatic trickle down effect on all home prices, due to the lack of new development.
Taken in the vacuum of a perfect world, it's hard to argue against anything what the author of that article wrote. But, for anyone that has studied or is interested in this stuff, the article resembled a fairy tale. I understand shooting the **** here on City-Data, but for someone to publish that is a little irritating. Not to mention the absurd comparisons of Raleigh to NYC and Philly.
It's a sad fact, but $ controls development. Developers are a necessary evil, and they build according to what sells. Inevitably though, we control everything, as we are the ones that buy into these developments. They wouldn't be built if there weren't buyers lining up. If the gov starts to screw around with limitations which causes the acquisition, eng and arch, and construction costs to surge. The developer then loses his profit, which in turn either makes us pay more or makes the development not viable from the start and a housing shortage results. Now, I'm not saying that no governmental controls need to enacted. They do. But it's all a very delicate balance.
Another thing I have to disagree with the author is his ridiculous"lily white" comment and the implication of converting old, small shotgun style housing into $500,000 homes with porticoes and big porches is bad. That is establishing some architectural identity and character in a city and region that is devoid of it and never had it to begin with.
You sure about the bolded?
Come on. I know that not all the existing housing around here looks it, but you have to consider that MANY great, old houses were torn down in Raleigh years ago because people were modernizing and not paying attention to these beautiful pieces of architecture.
So, yeah... NEVER had it? You're wrong.
And... who said "shotgun" isn't a style?
I mean, I don't care for it, but we cannot pretend it's not a style. You can find ugly crap pretty much anywhere. Hell, Long Island is full of ugly crap.
But, there are some really beautiful houses there, too.
Same as here.
We just tore more stuff down in the Triangle because we had the room to spread out. LI and other places that are basically packed to the brim with humans aren't going to be places where you see someone rip down a serviceable house.
Here? Sure... rip down a whole neighborhood and build new stuff. We have room. For now.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
As it should be. It doesn't make sense for a homeowner to both pay property taxes on the large lot / cul-de-sac property that they choose to live in, and also be expected to pay for the urban lifestyle others prefer.
Now if only the cul-de-sac and suburb haters would get together and put their money where their mouth is, and fund these projects exclusively out of their pocket, then we can have a society with a fair system of funding our own preferences.
Both lifestyles involve a great amount of funding/infrastructure to support so I really don't see the difference in what you would be paying. It's not like one costs significantly more than another or has different resources needed - you still need the basic functions of a community and the infrastructure to support it.
Come on. I know that not all the existing housing around here looks it, but you have to consider that MANY great, old houses were torn down in Raleigh years ago because people were modernizing and not paying attention to these beautiful pieces of architecture.
So, yeah... NEVER had it? You're wrong.
Fair point as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
I've said it before and will say it again - the City of Raleigh owns enough land parcels downtown that they could invest in large-scale affordable housing. Not subsidized section 8 rentals - affordable and aimed at the municipal workers (cops, firemen, nurses, etc).
The City now controls 300 acres of land amassed together that they could build some affordable housing in sections on.
People choose not to have their City government do these things.
You should attend some council meetings. Your voice is needed.
Both lifestyles involve a great amount of funding/infrastructure to support so I really don't see the difference in what you would be paying. It's not like one costs significantly more than another or has different resources needed - you still need the basic functions of a community and the infrastructure to support it.
When a homeowner buys a home in a subdivision with cul-de-sacs, nobody else is paying their mortgage payments, their property taxes, or their services bill.
When a renter moves into subsidized housing, that homeowner above is also helping to pay for that residents.... well.... everything.
One of the two groups is paying for both their share and the other group's share.
As far as policemen, firefighters, etc., I personally have not seen them asking for subsidized housing or even urban living. I know several who are home owners (all in the suburbs). A friend of my wife waits tables, and she bought a decent house of her own (not a mcmansion in Cary or North Raleigh, but a decent home nonetheless).
Now if they want to set up a plan where the residents of subsidized housing can actually give back, for example in exchange for rent discounts, they go and take care of the lawns of the people in the suburbs that are paying their rent for them, I'd say that starts to approach something more fair.
I realize there are some elderly and disabled in subsidized housing as well, and obviously they need help without giving back, but I don't see why that category of resident shouldn't be in a community that is appropriate to their medical condition or age. They should not just have free roam to live wherever they want on someone else's dime.
When a homeowner buys a home in a subdivision with cul-de-sacs, nobody else is paying their mortgage payments, their property taxes, or their services bill.
When a renter moves into subsidized housing, that homeowner above is also helping to pay for that residents.... well.... everything.
One of the two groups is paying for both their share and the other group's share.
As far as policemen, firefighters, etc., I personally have not seen them asking for subsidized housing or even urban living. I know several who are home owners (all in the suburbs). A friend of my wife waits tables, and she bought a decent house of her own (not a mcmansion in Cary or North Raleigh, but a decent home nonetheless).
Now if they want to set up a plan where the residents of subsidized housing can actually give back, for example in exchange for rent discounts, they go and take care of the lawns of the people in the suburbs that are paying their rent for them, I'd say that starts to approach something more fair.
I realize there are some elderly and disabled in subsidized housing as well, and obviously they need help without giving back, but I don't see why that category of resident shouldn't be in a community that is appropriate to their medical condition or age. They should not just have free roam to live wherever they want on someone else's dime.
That's a completely different argument that what you listed above - in your first post, you had an urban vs. suburban argument. In this post, you have a subsidized vs. unsubsidized housing post. So are you making the assumption that all affordable housing is in urban areas? And all suburban housing is unsubsidized? I don't think that's the case in Raleigh......
Quote:
Originally Posted by McWallace
As it should be. It doesn't make sense for a homeowner to both pay property taxes on the large lot / cul-de-sac property that they choose to live in, and also be expected to pay for the urban lifestyle others prefer.
I don't think people who live in subsidized housing "prefer" to live an urban lifestyle. Maybe it's where housing is affordable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
