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.
For all the talk about how this was going to be an entertainment district centered around a stadium and the project couldn't be done without it, the stadium seems to have been moved to the back burner for now due to a lack of interest on the part of the city and community to support the financing piece.
I took a Sports Financing class as part of my MBA. It was the last quarter and I was running out of options. Basically I learned what seems like common sense. These stadiums only benefit the owner and developer. The city tends to not get a good return on their investment.
Don't know why City of Raleigh bends over backwards to help Kane Development make more money. They did it at North Hills, they're doing it at Downtown South. I don't want to even try to research what else they've helped out with. I think lots of cities hear 'It will bring jobs!' and just become mesmerized and don't put up any resistance or demands to actually serve the real market of citizens.
Meanwhile, the median house price in our market is already high, and rising higher, pricing so many people out of the market.
So far, I don't believe any tax incentives have been granted to Kane for Downtown South. Nor were they (and he *did* ask) for North Hills. So all that's been done, so far, is the city has allowed Kane to build. And in my opinion, allowing a developer to build stuff, is not "bending over backwards."
The city, on the whole, benefits with population growth in a central location like this. It generates a tremendous amount of tax revenue per acre, but costs less to provide services. (fewer miles of streets sewers, and water lines to maintain; less area to provide police/fire coverage.)
To be frank, when the bills start to come in as the infrastructure from our suburban expansion begins to age out and need to be replaced, you better hope we have a lot more of this sort of development that pays more in property tax, than it costs to serve, in order to be able to finance the maintenance of our low density suburbs without catastrophic property tax hikes.
Sewer lines and water lines have a typical life span of 75-100 years. If you figure that the suburban expansion began in earnest in 1960, that means we have somewhere between roughly 10 and 40 years to get our house in order before those chickens come home to roost.
There are, unfortunately, localized impacts - namely, displacement. But emphatically, maintaining the status quo does *not* solve the problem, either.
So far, I don't believe any tax incentives have been granted to Kane for Downtown South. Nor were they (and he *did* ask) for North Hills. So all that's been done, so far, is the city has allowed Kane to build. And in my opinion, allowing a developer to build stuff, is not "bending over backwards."
The city, on the whole, benefits with population growth in a central location like this. It generates a tremendous amount of tax revenue per acre, but costs less to provide services. (fewer miles of streets sewers, and water lines to maintain; less area to provide police/fire coverage.)
To be frank, when the bills start to come in as the infrastructure from our suburban expansion begins to age out and need to be replaced, you better hope we have a lot more of this sort of development that pays more in property tax, than it costs to serve, in order to be able to finance the maintenance of our low density suburbs without catastrophic property tax hikes.
Sewer lines and water lines have a typical life span of 75-100 years. If you figure that the suburban expansion began in earnest in 1960, that means we have somewhere between roughly 10 and 40 years to get our house in order before those chickens come home to roost.
There are, unfortunately, localized impacts - namely, displacement. But emphatically, maintaining the status quo does *not* solve the problem, either.
Good post, unfortunately this type of development wont be enough. Ive voiced concern in the past about the dangers of our high level of sprawl and what essentially amounts to insolvency of a lot of our suburbs. Wake county I believe just 2 or 3 years ago was contemplating raising property taxes by a whole lot ( which still wouldn't be enough). They didn't do it but the day they will is coming. Strong Towns has a great piece on the issue you are speaking about. This development is good definitely, though unfortunately most of our growth as a metro is coming by and large from sprawl. The types of development we should be seeing by and large should have been like Downtown south which is just downtown expanding.
I'm fine if it sputters. I'd rather see the investment in the real downtown, not the "Disney" variety.
I felt that way at one point, but then I took a step back and realized that without these sort of developments our city would always basically amount to:
1. Downtown
2. A very small list of "urban" neighborhoods with some semblance of walkability, like Hillsborough Street, Five Points, and "The Village District," many of which are terminally hemmed in by historic neighborhoods of single family homes
3. A lot (I mean, a WHOLE LOT) of sprawl
Increasing the total percentage of the city's land area that is developed in some way other than "sprawl" is a net win. Is North Hills perfect, no. Is it better than like 95% of the city's land area? Absolutely.
To make this whole "densification" and "urbanization" thing work, for the sake of sustainability and the ability to house all the migrants coming to our area *without* knocking down every tree in Chatham County, we need to aspire to be more than just Downtown, a (very) few historic urban neighborhoods somewhat preserved in amber, and SPRAWLEIGH. We need to create NEW urban districts as well. And this is that.
I felt that way at one point, but then I took a step back and realized that without these sort of developments our city would always basically amount to:
1. Downtown
2. A very small list of "urban" neighborhoods with some semblance of walkability, like Hillsborough Street, Five Points, and "The Village District," many of which are terminally hemmed in by historic neighborhoods of single family homes
3. A lot (I mean, a WHOLE LOT) of sprawl
Increasing the total percentage of the city's land area that is developed in some way other than "sprawl" is a net win. Is North Hills perfect, no. Is it better than like 95% of the city's land area? Absolutely.
To make this whole "densification" and "urbanization" thing work, for the sake of sustainability and the ability to house all the migrants coming to our area *without* knocking down every tree in Chatham County, we need to aspire to be more than just Downtown, a (very) few historic urban neighborhoods somewhat preserved in amber, and SPRAWLEIGH. We need to create NEW urban districts as well. And this is that.
So, I support it.
This is my take on it as well. In addition – between Downtown South, the development that's starting to happen near Dix Park, and Downtown itself, we'll likely see all three of these "districts" start to merge into a more cohesive/fluid urban area over the next 2-3 decades.
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.
