N&O - Raleigh grows fast, but not well as developers set the standards (Wallace: condos, new house)
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, CaryThe Triangle Area
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.
Well to some extent I am also referencing other recent but similar threads.
But for purposes of this thread, the idea that the city already owns ideal locations and could build, but the people who actually pay into the tax system (as opposed to draining it) don't really want to fund this construction.
So why don't the people who want these multi-family walkable communities pool their resources take them on as private projects, dip into their pockets and fund them, instead of complaining about how cul-de-sacs should be banned and trying to convert everyone to their way of thinking?
If you're not of the mind that the city needs to accommodate this need, then you're not one of the people I'm talking about, you're just a guy that has an opinion on urban planning because of the kind of work you do. Do you work for the state by any chance? I'm already helping to fund your salary if so. How many times do I have to be taxed for the wants of others?
Well if you want a road widened so you can live in your large cul-de-sac house and still commute to RTP/downtown Raleigh, why shouldn't you dip into your own pocket and fund those projects instead of complaining about traffic? Why should I have to pitch in for the infrastructure improvements that are needed so you can live that type of lifestyle?
The same argument applies. Everyone's got their own preferences and everyone is funding personal preferences that they don't agree with but that's just the reality of Raleigh right now.
And no I know I'm not trying to convert everyone to that way of thinking - just trying to present an alternate opinion that I'm strongly opinionated on. You don't have to take it as gospel if you don't want to
(No, I work for a private civil engineering/architecture consulting firm)
Where did I complain about my commute? I absolutely did dip into my pocket when I bought my house, because that's where I wanted to live. I never asked anyone else, or the city to provide me certain features of my living arrangement, and I never suggested it was selfish for someone else to live differently (not that you did either, but one poster did). If I had a problem with the commute situation, I would live somewhere else. I believe, in your effort to reach for a fast retort, you neglected to think it through adequately.
I also didn't tell those who prefer grid or urban living that their preference is bad for the city and for society.
Personally I've seen no evidence that the presence of cul-de-sacs contribute to traffic problems, just opinionated articles from bloggers and such. I can see how certain neighborhood designs might contribute to traffic problems in some areas or cities, but I don't see it as an issue around here.
The suggestion in this thread has been that packing in residents more densely is the right way, and any other way is bad. As has also been suggested, suburban living is the entire reason so many people move here in the first place to escape their crowded grids. Without that as a feature, there will be no need for growth planning at all.
On the bright side, at least we both get some comfort knowing that my tax dollars aren't paying for your strong opinions
Where did I complain about my commute? I absolutely did dip into my pocket when I bought my house, because that's where I wanted to live. I never asked anyone else, or the city to provide me certain features of my living arrangement, and I never suggested it was selfish for someone else to live differently (not that you did either, but one poster did). If I had a problem with the commute situation, I would live somewhere else. I believe, in your effort to reach for a fast retort, you neglected to think it through adequately.
I also didn't tell those who prefer grid or urban living that their preference is bad for the city and for society.
Personally I've seen no evidence that the presence of cul-de-sacs contribute to traffic problems, just opinionated articles from bloggers and such. I can see how certain neighborhood designs might contribute to traffic problems in some areas or cities, but I don't see it as an issue around here.
The suggestion in this thread has been that packing in residents more densely is the right way, and any other way is bad. As has also been suggested, suburban living is the entire reason so many people move here in the first place to escape their crowded grids. Without that as a feature, there will be no need for growth planning at all.
On the bright side, at least we both get some comfort knowing that my tax dollars aren't paying for your strong opinions
It was just an example of how we both are funding lifestyles that neither of us agree with, whether suburban or urban (and it's not one sided at all). None of that was directed at you personally.
Thanks for letting me test out my opinions on this board though if I ever do get into a position where your tax dollars do pay for my opinions so I know what I can sell and what I can't
High density, urban development pays for more than its fair share of infrastructure and better leverages much of the infrastructure that already exists. An acre with 80, $300,000 condos on it provides much more money to the city's coffers than that same acre does with 6, $300,000 suburban houses on it. At current peanut-buttered tax rates across all RE values, urban development is the gift that keeps on giving to the city.
wouldn't a high density infill project require fewer resources? I mean, they come in, they remove all the toxic building materials of yore, the street system is there, if the bus runs through it's already there. They put the power line underground.
Sure, if you replace a small block of 20 dilapidated prewar homes and 80 residents with 10 stories of decent apartments and 500 residents, you probably need an extra stoplight and a nice bus stop for them. But the evil developer has parking requirements, building codes, and safety measures that are all up-to-date.
High density, urban development pays for more than its fair share of infrastructure and better leverages much of the infrastructure that already exists. An acre with 80, $300,000 condos on it provides much more money to the city's coffers than that same acre does with 6, $300,000 suburban houses on it. At current peanut-buttered tax rates across all RE values, urban development is the gift that keeps on giving to the city.
So, using tax money TO BUILD these condos would pay back those who fund the construction of them by lowering their tax rate? I don't think so. This means it's of no real benefit to me, it just means that if ever I drive near this area, I will spend a lot of time parked at crosswalks waiting for a lot of people with ear buds stuffed in their ears to cross the road at a leisurely pace to retrieve their lattes (so I would likely avoid the area, and take routes through the 'burbs where there are less pedestrians to deal with).
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.
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. I see a benefit to the folks who want this lifestyle, but I don't see a benefit to me for this type of dwelling (since I don't want to live in that environment). Any extra tax revenue would likely just go to more sidewalks and bike trails and other infrastructure needed to support the needs of urban dwellers who rely on the city to take care of the land they live on, as opposed to paying for and taking care of their own land.
But, if there's a market for it then I say go for it. Just don't go into suburbia wagging your finger telling others what they should do. And don't complain if that type of building takes over and the Triangle just becomes another gridlocked, smog filled urban cesspool.
So, using tax money TO BUILD these condos would pay back those who fund the construction of them by lowering their tax rate? I don't think so. This means it's of no real benefit to me, it just means that if ever I drive near this area, I will spend a lot of time parked at crosswalks waiting for a lot of people with ear buds stuffed in their ears to cross the road at a leisurely pace to retrieve their lattes (so I would likely avoid the area, and take routes through the 'burbs where there are less pedestrians to deal with).
Hate to break it to you, but there are already tons of people with ear buds stuffed in their ears crossing the road at a leisurely pace to retrieve their lattes that are living in apartments built by private developers
Quote:
Originally Posted by McWallace
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.
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. I see a benefit to the folks who want this lifestyle, but I don't see a benefit to me for this type of dwelling (since I don't want to live in that environment). Any extra tax revenue would likely just go to more sidewalks and bike trails and other infrastructure needed to support the needs of urban dwellers who rely on the city to take care of the land they live on, as opposed to paying for and taking care of their own land.
You still never answered my question earlier about why people who live in urban areas should have their property taxes going towards resources that benefit the suburbs? (if what you said is true) They're not benefiting from it and it's not the lifestyle they want. So why should they pay for it?
Hate to break it to you, but there are already tons of people with ear buds stuffed in their ears crossing the road at a leisurely pace to retrieve their lattes that are living in apartments built by private developers
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.
Yes but that is already in an urban (downtown) environment. A subdivision being built there would be inappropriate and would never happen, so it's not really applicable to this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pierretong1991
You still never answered my question earlier about why people who live in urban areas should have their property taxes going towards resources that benefit the suburbs? (if what you said is true) They're not benefiting from it and it's not the lifestyle they want. So why should they pay for it?
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'm saying if folks want more urban living, then let those people make it happen. The suburbs are happening because people want these homes and developers are able to sell them. Those same developers have the option of finding property suitable for condos, apartments, or whatever, and they have a choice on which investment they think is right for them. Its much better to let the free market work than for a generation of children who grew up playing SimCity to determine what's best for the population at large in a real city.
If I were a developer I personally would find dense, multi-family housing to be risky, because the segment of the market that prefers that is contradictory to the bulk of the market (families) moving to this area. A home in the 'burbs is marketable to families, retirees, and sometimes young adults, and the value of the structures built are less susceptible to possible future depreciation because of some shift in trends. Let's say for example the "next" North Hills area starts to develop north of 540, or in South Raleigh after 540 is completed, or maybe somewhere in Durham, and suddenly that becomes the trendy place all young people want to live. If a developer builds 100 condos, he is taking a huge gamble that the area will remain the hip place at least until all units sell, and he can lose his shirt if the location of something that originally supported desirability at the current location shifts elsewhere. Meanwhile, savvy buyers know that condo prices don't hold up against single family homes long term, and are aware of this risk of the area diminishing in popularity once the newness wears off and traffic becomes unbearable (like North Hills is becoming), and the risk of being stuck with a unit they can't sell that's dropped in value (selling those condos becomes more difficult). If I were a developer, I would find buying residential land and building one or two homes at a time in advance of sales a much less risky endeavor, because worst case scenario, construction has to stop on only a couple of homes than on a massive building that they may be under obligation to complete. Yes they are typically buying more land for a subdivision, but at a lower cost per acre.
So again I addressed your question, introducing some additional considerations, but there is a practical limit somewhere on how much time should be spent on repeating myself and on a thread like this, so I'm not going to keep doing it just for the sake of saying the same thing and it not being heard. Hopefully you can understand that. Much of what I said was really geared toward the "suburbs are selfish" guy's comment, and not directed toward you anyway.
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.
