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.
It avoids a choice to own a detached, single-family home with an easy walk to shops and restaurants, and a short commute; a choice which would very possibly be superior to many respondents to that survey.
That's because the Have My Cake And Eat It Too House is a rare beast, and because it's (a) desirable and (b) rare it is usually super-expensive. As someone who once opened a small co-op grocery aimed at customers within walking distance, in a neighborhood with 20,000+ residents per square mile (7X higher than Cary's), it just doesn't work. (That walkable grocery is still open, but still losing money.)
Let's say that I own a retail business that wants to gross $1M a year. (A typical US Starbucks is just shy of $1M.) At Cary density, there are 425 residents within a 5-minute walk of my shop. In order for me to survive just on walk-in traffic, every single one of those residents would have to come in every single week and buy about $45 of stuff from me. More realistically, maybe 10% of them would ever come in, which means they'd each have to spend $450 a week. In reality, I'd go out of business, stat.
(However! If I am in a place that is indeed super-expensive, it is very much possible that people will spend that kind of money. Or, if I have a giant parking lot and great freeway visibility, but in that case it's not going to be very much fun to walk around there.)
Lots of people want the walkable amenities that come with density, but don't want the other people -- even though the other people also support the very same walkable amenities. Guess what? Life involves trade-offs, and... other people aren't that scary! They're just people.
Small single-family houses can also achieve densities of 20+ units to an acre, too, but those are also widely banned or just impractical.
You'd be surprised. Chapel Hill has always been pricey; but Durham has shot up dramatically recently even before the current madness.
I think the "disparity" comes from the fact that "Raleigh" gets tempered by including Johnston County and the Eastern Wake areas.
Man, ain't that the truth. I bought my home here for under $300K four years ago. Now, according to a website rhyming with "pillow" (I know, I know, take it with a grain of salt), there's no homes for sale under that amount and only 9 residential lots as well, with a few of them asking close to $300K just for the land. It's insane and unbelievable to me.
I do think we need more duplexes/triplexes, but I personally am not comfortable with saying single family homes shouldn't be built and people shouldn't have them unless they are ultra wealthy.
I mean that's why I find this depressing. Why shouldn't a teacher, nurse, grocery store manager be able to buy a house?
You only have to look at places like Austin and Denver to see what's coming. SFH are, in fact, going to be for wealthy in desirable areas no matter what. You can't ignore it, and you can't just be upset about and say you wish everyone would have a SFH. Duplexes, triplexes or quads are houses. People need to get over the idea that only SFH is a house and everything in between is some kind of a transitional situation. Homeownership is still one of the only ways to accumulate wealth in this country. If someone wants to get a duplex as a start up house, save their $$ and get a SFH eventually, that's great! It should happen and there should be multi-family homes to have. In this area, those are very rare. I am saying this as someone who actually benefited from getting one side of the duplex at the right time and right place in the past. It allowed me to be comfortable to do things in my early 30s while some of my peers were struggling to save up for a down-payment (some for a condo and not even a SFH). I hope that everyone has that opportunity.
You can't ignore it, and you can't just be upset about and say you wish everyone would have a SFH. Duplexes, triplexes or quads are houses. People need to get over the idea that only SFH is a house and everything in between is some kind of a transitional situation.
I'm not ignoring it
I can be upset about the fact that people who want to buy a house won't be able to
I did not at any point say I wish everyone would have a SFH. Not everyone wants one.
I don't need to get over that, because that's NOT what I said.
The lack of empathy on this thread from many is really astounding. And I'm for Apple coming here. As mature humans we are capable of having more than one thought
You only have to look at places like Austin and Denver to see what's coming. SFH are, in fact, going to be for wealthy in desirable areas no matter what. You can't ignore it, and you can't just be upset about and say you wish everyone would have a SFH. Duplexes, triplexes or quads are houses. People need to get over the idea that only SFH is a house and everything in between is some kind of a transitional situation. Homeownership is still one of the only ways to accumulate wealth in this country. If someone wants to get a duplex as a start up house, save their $$ and get a SFH eventually, that's great! It should happen and there should be multi-family homes to have. In this area, those are very rare. I am saying this as someone who actually benefited from getting one side of the duplex at the right time and right place in the past. It allowed me to be comfortable to do things in my early 30s while some of my peers were struggling to save up for a down-payment (some for a condo and not even a SFH). I hope that everyone has that opportunity.
I can't speak for Austin, but we looked at the Denver area extensively before we moved here, so I'll speak about that.
We looked in the following parts of the Denver area; Highlands Ranch, Parker and our main focus was Castle Rock. I have a cousin, who isn't wealthy by almost anyone's standard (two working parent household; neither are making "sick coin") and lives in Englewood. We never looked at Englewood because we didn't want an "Inside the city limits suburb". We didn't want an older house. Castle Rock, even with it's traveling distance to downtown (30 miles) was still reasonably affordable when we were looking (even though it has since shot up like the burbs here have). And being 30 Miles from downtown was already the norm we were used to; my wife grew up in a Suburb of SJ, our house was 40 some odd miles from Boston. "That's just the way it is".
My sense on this discussion (and others like it) is.
This area has been used to the idea that you could build SFH up close to the main metropolitan area. The suburbs of Raleigh extend only as far as what would be the "inside the city/right outside the city" of many metro areas. I have said it before, WF is considered "out there" here. In most cities, living 16 miles from downtown is "f**k, that's close". The population of the Raleigh metro area in 1990 was less than 400K. By comparison, Cincinnati ( a big but not exactly massive metro area) had a population of 1.4M in 1990. Because of that, the suburbs of Cincy now extend to what was "really far away farm land" when I left Cincy in 1991 (I have been back to Cincy many times since we moved and I can't even recognize it with all the development that has extended. Kings Island was "a really fun amusement park half way to Dayton" when I lived there. The burbs now extend up to it.
My point is there isn't a single "good sized city" in the US where the areas right inside/at the city limits ("close in suburbs") are all that affordable for a SFH. Affordable SFH can be found further out as the metro area fills in/grows.
I don't think one has to take the position of "that's it, no more SFH!" to stop what is inevitable. Rather one must accept that eventually, our little daisy of an area will more closely resemble cities of many of us left (not from a political POV, but rather an Urban Planning/core POV). There are going to be areas affordable for some people that aren't for others; just as there are today. But those affordable areas may be 20,30,40 perhaps eventually 50 miles to downtown.
In the picture attached, I have drawn a rudimentary map to illustrate my point. I could easily see a Raleigh in the future that extends, completely, to all the circles I have drawn. You can't simply continue to pack people in to circles A, B, C and think things will remain affordable. The pressure will eventually come to extend out into circle D as is pretty common for areas the size of ours. This "fight" isn't really about zoning. This fight is more about "someone people want Raleigh to be what it always was and damn the changes" vs "well you can't really have a metro area of 1.5M people in the area you used to have it for 400K". And when it does, things like commuter rails make a helluva lot more sense. The commuter rail lines around Boston extend 50+ miles on some lines...50 miles from Raleigh in most directions today is no man's land.
Every city has close in areas which are no longer affordable for many people. I could never afford to live in the towns right around Boston. If I came to WF this year, I would not be able to afford 540K for a house. I would have to then look into the area just further out or adjust my "wants and needs".
Does that reality "suck"? I guess if you want to Raleigh to be what it always was, sure. But as I said some odd pages ago, places either get busy living or get busy dying. Staying the same is dying. Growth is a good problem to have. The goal should be "we're growing, that's a good thing. It definitely beats the alternative. Now how do we do it without destroying the virtues of this place we all love".
ETA - sorry for the disjointed novel. Vacation coffee is still kicking in
I can be upset about the fact that people who want to buy a house won't be able to
I did not at any point say I wish everyone would have a SFH. Not everyone wants one.
I don't need to get over that, because that's NOT what I said.
The lack of empathy on this thread from many is really astounding. And I'm for Apple coming here. As mature humans we are capable of having more than one thought
Sorry if it sounded I was saying something against you. Of course you can be upset. It is a depressing situation, I agree. I do get upset too. When I see houses getting bought under 200K in east Durham and within a year 3-level "contemprorary SFH" being built and sold for 800K, I do get upset. Because, that could have been a triplex and could have housed 3 times more people in that area if we had stronger zoning laws. But, no, margins are better to gut and build a SFH, so developers will continue doing it.
Also, I really meant like people -- not directly you. My own partner hated the idea that we bought a duplex for about 300K when we bought it. So, I really meant people...
GVOR, I think my point either got lost or maybe it wasn't clearly stated: when I say build for density I mean the urban core. Of course, SFH won't disappear. They'll always be available. Places like Chicago or Boston - they are built for density. You see all those row houses, duplexes, brownstones (that no one can afford at this point) there. They exist there which we can't say about here. Here we do not have that luxury. This area is semi-suburban. And with all that development and growth, that's going to bit us in the ass. As I said in my previous post, why are we keep allowing SFH in east Durham -- the only affordable part of Durham left? Margins are great so every freaking developer keeps building a SFH there. That shouldn't be happening. There should be a bit more thought put into it.
I lived in Denver for 10 years and in Boulder for a few more. My partner's whole family is from Austin so I've spent time there a lot. I am familiar with both. Yes, you can live in Lakewood or even move to Golden. But, Denver is doing as much as it can do get the public transit happen. Someone can live in Golden and take the light rail. There are park-n-rides everywhere. They use toll roads for express bus lanes. I used to commute from Boulder to Denver, and used to bike from home to the closet P-n-R, lock my bike up and get on an express bus. My bus fees were covered by my employer 100%.
But, based on what's happening here, we have to work on both. I really can't imagine for the Triangle area to get their **** together and have a good functioning public transit quickly. So why not at least work on having a denser core while we figure out the light rail or at least a good rapid bus system?
I can't speak for Austin, but we looked at the Denver area extensively before we moved here, so I'll speak about that.
We looked in the following parts of the Denver area; Highlands Ranch, Parker and our main focus was Castle Rock. I have a cousin, who isn't wealthy by almost anyone's standard (two working parent household; neither are making "sick coin") and lives in Englewood. We never looked at Englewood because we didn't want an "Inside the city limits suburb". We didn't want an older house. Castle Rock, even with it's traveling distance to downtown (30 miles) was still reasonably affordable when we were looking (even though it has since shot up like the burbs here have). And being 30 Miles from downtown was already the norm we were used to; my wife grew up in a Suburb of SJ, our house was 40 some odd miles from Boston. "That's just the way it is".
My sense on this discussion (and others like it) is.
This area has been used to the idea that you could build SFH up close to the main metropolitan area. The suburbs of Raleigh extend only as far as what would be the "inside the city/right outside the city" of many metro areas. I have said it before, WF is considered "out there" here. In most cities, living 16 miles from downtown is "f**k, that's close". The population of the Raleigh metro area in 1990 was less than 400K. By comparison, Cincinnati ( a big but not exactly massive metro area) had a population of 1.4M in 1990. Because of that, the suburbs of Cincy now extend to what was "really far away farm land" when I left Cincy in 1991 (I have been back to Cincy many times since we moved and I can't even recognize it with all the development that has extended. Kings Island was "a really fun amusement park half way to Dayton" when I lived there. The burbs now extend up to it.
My point is there isn't a single "good sized city" in the US where the areas right inside/at the city limits ("close in suburbs") are all that affordable for a SFH. Affordable SFH can be found further out as the metro area fills in/grows.
I don't think one has to take the position of "that's it, no more SFH!" to stop what is inevitable. Rather one must accept that eventually, our little daisy of an area will more closely resemble cities of many of us left (not from a political POV, but rather an Urban Planning/core POV). There are going to be areas affordable for some people that aren't for others; just as there are today. But those affordable areas may be 20,30,40 perhaps eventually 50 miles to downtown.
In the picture attached, I have drawn a rudimentary map to illustrate my point. I could easily see a Raleigh in the future that extends, completely, to all the circles I have drawn. You can't simply continue to pack people in to circles A, B, C and think things will remain affordable. The pressure will eventually come to extend out into circle D as is pretty common for areas the size of ours. This "fight" isn't really about zoning. This fight is more about "someone people want Raleigh to be what it always was and damn the changes" vs "well you can't really have a metro area of 1.5M people in the area you used to have it for 400K". And when it does, things like commuter rails make a helluva lot more sense. The commuter rail lines around Boston extend 50+ miles on some lines...50 miles from Raleigh in most directions today is no man's land.
Every city has close in areas which are no longer affordable for many people. I could never afford to live in the towns right around Boston. If I came to WF this year, I would not be able to afford 540K for a house. I would have to then look into the area just further out or adjust my "wants and needs".
Does that reality "suck"? I guess if you want to Raleigh to be what it always was, sure. But as I said some odd pages ago, places either get busy living or get busy dying. Staying the same is dying. Growth is a good problem to have. The goal should be "we're growing, that's a good thing. It definitely beats the alternative. Now how do we do it without destroying the virtues of this place we all love".
ETA - sorry for the disjointed novel. Vacation coffee is still kicking in
Along this same line of thought...I personally think that it's healthier for the Triangle's inner-ring suburban areas to maintain and increase their value and still be seen as desirable places to live as the area grows and expands out.
I think a good example of how "it's better than the alternative" would be to look at the Dallas Metroplex. The "old" suburbs closest to Dallas and FW that were built up in the 70s-90s have not really kept their value and are considered less desirable than the new new new built further and further out into surrounding counties. Leaving the "old burbs" fairly unkempt with a shrinking tax-base. One of my former supervisors/mentors grew up in the "mid cities" areas right between Dallas and FW; very convenient to most of the area; who said it was basically Cary in the 80s/90s when he was growing up and would now considered kind of "meh".
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoot001
We basically have the MAGA now---Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon(Remote). Plus Cisco, IBM, GE, NetApp, etc.
GVOR, I think my point either got lost or maybe it wasn't clearly stated: when I say build for density I mean the urban core. Of course, SFH won't disappear. They'll always be available. Places like Chicago or Boston - they are built for density. You see all those row houses, duplexes, brownstones (that no one can afford at this point) there. They exist there which we can't say about here. Here we do not have that luxury. This area is semi-suburban. And with all that development and growth, that's going to bit us in the ass. As I said in my previous post, why are we keep allowing SFH in east Durham -- the only affordable part of Durham left? Margins are great so every freaking developer keeps building a SFH there. That shouldn't be happening. There should be a bit more thought put into it.
I lived in Denver for 10 years and in Boulder for a few more. My partner's whole family is from Austin so I've spent time there a lot. I am familiar with both. Yes, you can live in Lakewood or even move to Golden. But, Denver is doing as much as it can do get the public transit happen. Someone can live in Golden and take the light rail. There are park-n-rides everywhere. They use toll roads for express bus lanes. I used to commute from Boulder to Denver, and used to bike from home to the closet P-n-R, lock my bike up and get on an express bus. My bus fees were covered by my employer 100%.
But, based on what's happening here, we have to work on both. I really can't imagine for the Triangle area to get their **** together and have a good functioning public transit quickly. So why not at least work on having a denser core while we figure out the light rail or at least a good rapid bus system?
I am not opposed to improving public transit here. But I think the concern I have is a couple of fold:
1. This area (and we have seen this opinion shared on this board) seems to have the opinion that "public transit is for poor people" which is laugh out loud funny. I took commuter rail into Boston and then either electric street bus or subway for work for years. I assure you there are many professionals (including bank CEOs) who use it assuming it provides a value proposition to them (i.e. less of a headache to take a train/bus than sit in traffic)
2. My fear is this area will dabble in light rail/commuter rail/[enter option of your choice] and it won't be effective at first (I would argue we aren't near needing a Commuter rail yet) and it will get cast as some "see....more government waste!!!" and it will die and then we'll be Cincy who has nothing other than city buses for public transit because they abandoned a subway in the 1950s as part of people fleeing the city for the burbs due to....well....you know.
But yes, I do find it funny that multi-family attached housing is somehow on the fringe of "not allowed".
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.
