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.
And that's great. People paying their own rent, private developers making their own investments and subsequent profits. As long as they aren't telling me how evil I am for living in the suburbs, we don't have a problem.
Please quote where somebody said you were evil for living in the suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McWallace
I did address this earlier. The people in the suburbs are paying for their own land, and their own taxes, and not telling those that prefer the urban lifestyle that they need to go away and build the city the right way, nor are they suggesting that the city taxpayers should spend more money to accommodate the lifestyle. And once again, I wasn't saying that you suggested the city should, I was supporting another poster's idea that the city has land that is ideal for this, but that taxpayers do not want the building of these places to be the job of the city.
I am a property owner that owns my own land and pays property taxes - I'm 100% behind the city getting involved with affordable housing if it keeps people employed and from living on the streets. You don't speak for all of these taxpayers.
Also with the population growth in the area and across the US, there are going to be changes - whether that's the suburbs continuing to expand or the urban core expanding into the suburbs. People gotta live somewhere and there are a lot of factors that can come into play. (anybody got a Magic 8 ball?) But don't delude yourself into thinking you can keep the status quo and nothing is going to change - the people who've lived here their whole lives will tell you otherwise. If you are truly interested in keeping Raleigh from being a "gridlocked, smog filled urban cesspool", now is the time to figure out where all these people are going to live and what infrastructure/lifestyle changes we need so people aren't struggling to pay for expensive housing, have no transportation options or no jobs. The gridlocked, smog filled urban cesspool will happen when Raleigh is playing catch up instead of trying to at least plan for what might happen.
Last edited by pierretong1991; 03-28-2017 at 05:37 PM..
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.
Just want to point out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, old houses look old. Old houses look like crap unless they were maintained well, which they usually aren't. The new houses, even if a lot of them are cookie clutter houses, look better 99% of the time, IMHO, because they have newer material and updated designs.
Just want to point out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, old houses look old. Old houses look like crap unless they were maintained well, which they usually aren't. The new houses, even if a lot of them are cookie clutter houses, look better 99% of the time, IMHO, because they have newer material and updated designs.
I am a property owner that owns my own land and pays property taxes - I'm 100% behind the city getting involved with affordable housing if it keeps people employed and from living on the streets. You don't speak for all of these taxpayers.
Me too. This is probably religious babble to some but there comes a time when we need to provide a helping hand to those who may not have had the privilege or assistance that brought us success. If affordable housing developments give a low-income family the opportunity to be in a good school district and close to employment opportunities then I am all for it. It is better in the long run for all of us in this area.
We are trying to determine best development practices for the next 25 years in the Triangle.
You can't say, "Well I don't have any problems getting to work now" as a valid talking point.
If you treasure the way things are now in the Triangle, then you should protect it by reigning in the developers who currently are deciding the area's fate.
Raleigh's main arterials are a done deal, they're all you have to work with in town, and the only new ones will be along the periphery.
All I am suggesting is a little more connectivity to other thoroughfares.
You can't tell me that the current development pattern can continue unchanged without decreasing everyone's quality of life. Falls of Neuse Rd. has probably at 50,000 cars per day now, and new developments solely depending on it could continue adding cars indefinitely. This is all I meant when I said "negatively impacting the region as a whole"
I'm not one of those people who gets on a soapbox and vilifies everything incongruous with my position. I listen and like compromise.
Look at the map and see that developer's land acquisitions and decisions are having a huge influence on Raleigh's "circulatory system". Every development dumps onto one major road, There's no other way out where you might avoid that big back up.
Use Atlanta's spartan interstate layout to see the extreme effects of funneling to a single road. All of my co-workers have 1-1/2 hour commutes every day because no alternates exist to the original freeway layout dating back to the 1960's. It burns me up that millions of people must suffer daily all because GDOT sat back and did nothing for 25 years while watching Atlanta's population triple. Just a few parallel routes created would have today's commute times 50% of what they are now.
I hope Raleigh embraces more nodes with walkability. I'd even be up for some neighborhood stores (or even giant vending machines) where these subdivisions exit. The store could benefit from the major arterial and residents could walk to get a roll of toilet paper.
We are trying to determine best development practices for the next 25 years in the Triangle.
You can't say, "Well I don't have any problems getting to work now" as a valid talking point.
That's a great example of how increased connectivity could help a subdivision out.
Unfortunately people are short sighted when it comes to the future - they'll get worried when it's too late to do anything and traffic is bad enough. The population is not decreasing or stabilizing anytime soon and chances are everyone in that increasing population is going to want to drive a single occupancy vehicle. So now is the time to figure out how to best distribute traffic based on projected development/land uses. And for places where growth is outpacing traffic capacity (or it's just unrealistic to widen anymore), look at ways to provide opportunities for multi-modal transportation (bike/walking/transit).
So, using tax money TO BUILD these condos would pay back those who fund the construction of them by lowering their tax rate?
Where did I say that tax money should be used to build high density condos?
I never said that. Don't put your argument with others onto me.
Also, I don't think I've seen anywhere in this area that has 80 condos in a single acre. Not saying it can't be done.
Uh...Yeah....The Paramount, the West, The Plaza at PNC, etc. There are plenty of places that already meet this metric and these people are overly funding the city relative to their infrastructure services. In effect, these residents are subsidizing suburban areas of the city that have an outsized dependance on infrastructure (more roads, more sewer lines, more area to light at night, more area to police, etc.)
If you're suggesting that the money to build the condos initially would come from a private developer that wants to build these, and that there is a market for people that wants to buy them, then yes, yes and yes. That's exactly what I was suggesting. If you want it, build it. With your money, not mine.
We need public policy to encourage urban development like we have had public policy that encouraged, enabled and paid for suburbia for decades. Let me turn the tables on you for a second....Why should urban property owners have to pay to build new roads and extend sewer lines and city services so that suburban residents can buy larger, less expensive new houses and, by nature of the tax code, pay less taxes on the property to sustain it? Suburban areas of the city and county are not victims.
Just want to point out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, old houses look old. Old houses look like crap unless they were maintained well, which they usually aren't. The new houses, even if a lot of them are cookie clutter houses, look better 99% of the time, IMHO, because they have newer material and updated designs.
The earth can't handle everything being disposable for too much longer. Plastic now present in all food chains. I think that old refrigerator carcasses are just buried in mass "graves" because there's nothing worth extracting. And then there's tires which have only limited uses (outdoor playground s) if recycled. Steel belts prevent rubber reuse.
I agree very new homes look great, but today's stock isn't aging well. I would hope their expected lifespan would be far beyond paying off the 30 year mortgage. Cities & buildings get old and you must deal with it like in Europe.
We're already out of good wood to build homes and today's residential construction is using 4"x4"s that are actually 50 thin layers of plywood glued together, not to mention OSB (glued wood chips) being used for floor, wall sheathing, roof substrate, etc. The roof of new commercial buildings is commonly TPO, which is a big sheet of plastic about 1/16" thick. It's sad.
Four-sided brick homes hide their age very well, and look great even after 100 years. ex. Filoli Mansion (Carrington's house on Dynasty)
Last edited by architect77; 03-29-2017 at 12:59 PM..
I just want to add that like our nation's health care conundrum, a lot of things are intertwined and have indirect effects whether realized or not. Lack of exercise and poor diet results in more care & higher costs for someone (Medicare, Medicaid, or Insurer) raising everyone's premiums & taxes. And preventative care can save thousands down the road benefitting all of us. We've got to spur competition by enabling price shopping and get insurers selling across state lines. Prices will be driven down.
Everyone benefits when some low cost housing is provided, because tonight one of you will eat at a restaurant and your salad and vegetables had to be chopped by an employee making near minimum wage.
His low pay can't afford commuting from far away, so what does everyone do?
Restaurant can't afford to pay more, but still needs vegetable chopped and dishes washed.
We take for granted how many times every day we are receiving a service from a low-paid worker, whether at CVS, dry cleaner, grocery store, and without them our lives couldn't proceed as they do now.
The benefits for all must be weighed and considered.
Disclaimer: I am not a liberal or democrat and am not for or against Obamacare.
Last edited by architect77; 03-29-2017 at 12:53 PM..
I just want to add that like our nation's health care conundrum, a lot of things are intertwined and have indirect effects whether realized or not. Lack of exercise and poor diet results in more care & higher costs for someone (Medicare, Medicaid, or Insurer) raising everyone's premiums & taxes. And preventative care can save thousands later benefiting everyone. We've got to spur competition by enabling price shopping and get insurers selling across state lines. Prices will be driven down.
Everyone benefits when some low cost housing is provided, because tonight one of you will eat at a restaurant and your salad and vegetables had to be chopped by an employee at near minimum wage.
His low pay can't afford commuting from far away, so what does everyone do?
Restaurant can't afford to pay more, but still needs vegetable chopped and dishes washed.
We take for granted how many times every day we are receiving a service from a low-paid worker, whether at CVS, dry cleaner, grocery store, and without our lives couldn't proceed as they do now.
The benefits for all must be weighed and considered.
Disclaimer: I am not a liberal or democrat and am not for or against Obamacare.
In the end, we all pay one way or the other. People without health care go to the emergency room because they need help and then often can't pay. Where do those costs go? They get rolled up into others' health care costs. We are not a society of "let them die in the streets" but we also aren't honest with ourselves in terms of true costs and implications of our decision making. We are a society of winners & losers and measuring success, and the winners often control the rules.
In the past 6 decades, issues around housing, urbanity, etc. didn't have visibility because winners didn't often want to live in "the city". Especially in the last decade, the migration of many winners back to the city centers has changed the political battlefield.
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.
