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.
I have lived in a lot of towns that had areas like this always near downtown and after gentrification... most people could not afford the replacement homes. This looks like an area ripe for gentrification. Where do the poor people go ? Does anyone really care that has always been the question and i all my years on this Earth it has never been answered . So save your $$ and buy one of these places they are a good investment, especially with Raleigh's growth.
you make a valid point, sfalady, but there's two things to consider:
leaving intact crappy housing for poor people is not really helping anyone, and also a city cannot grow (and help alleviate some poverty) when large sections of it are scary and unappealing. i know some people can appreciate the good anywhere, but the fact is most of the places in those pictures scare the heck out of me to think of walking through. that's not good for anyone. if there was an easy solution to get rid of poor people by making them better off, everyone would jump on it. as it is, fixing up bad areas hopefully helps some poor people who can still afford to stay, but in nicer surroundings, and it helps other poor people by providing greater economic opportunity. leaving everything as is helps no one.
How does a city as rapidly-growing as Raleigh justify sprawling itself out so far with newer subdivisions while so many urban neighborhoods are let to rot and decay? It just seems like a blatant waste of land to me. Why won't a developer purchase and raze many of those blighted homes and replace them perhaps with condos, townhomes, etc.? From your photos it looks as if this part of town was a reasonable walk from Downtown Raleigh. If priced right and marketed well, new residential units should become quite popular here for young urban professionals, empty nesters, etc. seeking to live within walking distance of Downtown. I should know because I myself am planning to move into a "sketchy" urban neighborhood after college to live on the fringe of Downtown Scranton, PA.
This looks like yet another perfect example of how America loves to just throw away the old in favor of all that is "shiny" and "new." When will this end? I even know of older suburbs here in my area that are emptying out in favor of newer suburbs which are also emptying out in favor of exurbs. Soon people will be living and commuting an hour each way from our urban cores. That just seems ridiculous to me.
you make a valid point, sfalady, but there's two things to consider:
leaving intact crappy housing for poor people is not really helping anyone, and also a city cannot grow (and help alleviate some poverty) when large sections of it are scary and unappealing. i know some people can appreciate the good anywhere, but the fact is most of the places in those pictures scare the heck out of me to think of walking through. that's not good for anyone. if there was an easy solution to get rid of poor people by making them better off, everyone would jump on it. as it is, fixing up bad areas hopefully helps some poor people who can still afford to stay, but in nicer surroundings, and it helps other poor people by providing greater economic opportunity. leaving everything as is helps no one.
Low-income people were treated like some sort of "disease" that needed to be "quarantined" for many years in our nation. Instead of permitting them to be widely-dispersed throughout various neighborhoods, they were shoved into specific "projects" to be kept away from the general population. This resulted in feelings of despair from the poor being crammed side-by-side against other poor people, which is part of the reason why urban crime rates near housing projects are so high. If those below the poverty line were more widely-dispersed in various different neighborhoods that feeling of hopelessness would be mitigated by the presence of middle-class neighbors.
As such I don't agree with the notion of keeping this neighborhood as being largely blighted simply so that the "poor have a place to go." Do we relegate the wealthy only to exurban enclaves in the mountains? No. Why then should we dictate where the poor ought to be?
Let's take New York City as a fine example of this trend. Manhattan is one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the nation, and it also has a very low crime rate as a result. Nearby in The Bronx there are many poor living in housing projects, and as expected this neighborhood has one of the highest crime rates in the city. If the poor weren't lumped together like sardines, then one can make a valid argument that the feeling of group despair wouldn't lead so many to turn to a life of crime. Seeing their neighbors working hard and succeeding is a great way for the poor to rise up the socioeconomic ladder. Seeing their neighbors likewise being just as miserable as they are gives them no incentive to better themselves through due dilligence and a morally clean lifestyle.
How does a city as rapidly-growing as Raleigh justify sprawling itself out so far with newer subdivisions while so many urban neighborhoods are let to rot and decay?
This is hardly a problem found only in Raleigh. As you stated yourself, this pattern is found in cities all over the country.
I heard about a community (perhaps it was in California?) where the builders tried to create a mixed-income environment. They built multi-million dollar homes next to middle-class homes and lower-income homes. But the buyers had other plans. The millionaires chose to buy those smaller homes & use them as guest houses instead. The builders' dream of a mixed income community failed.
How does a city as rapidly-growing as Raleigh justify sprawling itself out so far with newer subdivisions while so many urban neighborhoods are let to rot and decay?....... Why won't a developer purchase and raze many of those blighted homes and replace them perhaps with condos, townhomes, etc.?
Well, first of all, the city does not own the properties in question so they have somewhat limited control over their condition or the prospect of rehabbing them. There are a few programs in place to purchase blighted properties with taxpayer money and then revitalize them, but downtown land is very expensive it can only be done sparingly due to lack of funds. If a house becomes deteriorated and unsafe, sure the city can condemn it, but there is a lengthy process involved in condemning a home that gives the owner a period of time to get the house back up to code so it isn't condemned. Usually the owner does the bare minimum to avoid getting condemned but the house itself is not much improved.
Bottom line, you are talking about privately owned property. Not public property. The city has little control over their fate.
You aren't suggesting that the city just pick a blighted street from a map and throw all the residents out on the streets so their homes can be town down and the lots be sold to the highest bidder for redevelopment are you?
You aren't suggesting that the city just pick a blighted street from a map and throw all the residents out on the streets so their homes can be town down and the lots be sold to the highest bidder for redevelopment are you?
Are you advocating leaving this slummy neighborhood "as-is" and giving outsiders like myself a very negative impression about a city more interested in wooing upper-middle-class transplants to its suburban periphery than it is concerned about the well-being of its own existing urban residents? Low-income people don't have to live in such squallid conditions as the ones that are photographed here.
How does a city as rapidly-growing as Raleigh justify sprawling itself out so far with newer subdivisions while so many urban neighborhoods are let to rot and decay? It just seems like a blatant waste of land to me. Why won't a developer purchase and raze many of those blighted homes and replace them perhaps with condos, townhomes, etc.? From your photos it looks as if this part of town was a reasonable walk from Downtown Raleigh. If priced right and marketed well, new residential units should become quite popular here for young urban professionals, empty nesters, etc. seeking to live within walking distance of Downtown. I should know because I myself am planning to move into a "sketchy" urban neighborhood after college to live on the fringe of Downtown Scranton, PA.
This looks like yet another perfect example of how America loves to just throw away the old in favor of all that is "shiny" and "new." When will this end? I even know of older suburbs here in my area that are emptying out in favor of newer suburbs which are also emptying out in favor of exurbs. Soon people will be living and commuting an hour each way from our urban cores. That just seems ridiculous to me.
We welcome your investment of tens of millions of dollars!
And we are eagerly anticipating the unveiling of your vision for public viewing.
There is no end to the opportunities in NC for a moneyed visionary.
Are you advocating leaving this slummy neighborhood "as-is" and giving outsiders like myself a very negative impression about a city more interested in wooing upper-middle-class transplants to its suburban periphery than it is concerned about the well-being of its own existing urban residents? Low-income people don't have to live in such squallid conditions as the ones that are photographed here.
No, I am not advocating leaving these neighborhoods as is. I am just pointing out that the City of Raleigh does not have full control over them as you seemed to imply in your earlier post. Many donwntwon areas in Raleigh have been revitalized over the past several decades. Mordecai, Oakwood and Boylan Heights all come to mind. These areas transformed over time as privately owned homes went on the market and were renovated by investors, developers, and private homeowners alike. My point is that this is private property you are talking about. You can't pin all the blame on the City. They have very limited control over the condition of these areas. They do provide certain tax incentives to developers to come in and rehab in these areas, but you need willing property owners to sell their property first before the next step can happen. The city can't force people to sell. These areas are slowly being revitalized one house at a time. I don't really see how it could happen any other way.
How does a city as rapidly-growing as Raleigh justify sprawling itself out so far with newer subdivisions while so many urban neighborhoods are let to rot and decay? It just seems like a blatant waste of land to me. Why won't a developer purchase and raze many of those blighted homes and replace them perhaps with condos, townhomes, etc.? From your photos it looks as if this part of town was a reasonable walk from Downtown Raleigh. If priced right and marketed well, new residential units should become quite popular here for young urban professionals, empty nesters, etc. seeking to live within walking distance of Downtown. I should know because I myself am planning to move into a "sketchy" urban neighborhood after college to live on the fringe of Downtown Scranton, PA.
This looks like yet another perfect example of how America loves to just throw away the old in favor of all that is "shiny" and "new." When will this end? I even know of older suburbs here in my area that are emptying out in favor of newer suburbs which are also emptying out in favor of exurbs. Soon people will be living and commuting an hour each way from our urban cores. That just seems ridiculous to me.
There are people who are very interested in investing in this area. In fact, one investor is currently in the process of trying to gain community approval to get his permits to construct a new apartment complex just east of Moore Square. He even went so far as to move existing houses to vacant lots instead of demoing them. However, there are a lot of issues in this areas regarding community groups opposing investment in the area. As you can imagine, there are people who oppose gentrification because it will displace many low income residents, and unfortunately, no one has a good answer for balancing things out. Many groups in the community basically expect investors to come in and improve the housing for low-income folks only. You can read a little info on this here: newsobserver.com | High-rent proposal east of downtown questioned (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/866804.html - broken link)
I for one would love to invest in a home in this area as my first home; however, the opposition in the area sort of scares me a bit. The pioneers who are already living there and active in the community seem to be very frustrated by the lack of action.
Moderator cut: removed
Last edited by autumngal; 01-14-2008 at 12:04 PM..
Reason: no directing members to other forum sites please
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.
When will this end? I even know of older suburbs here in my area that are emptying out in favor of newer suburbs which are also emptying out in favor of exurbs. Soon people will be living and commuting an hour each way from our urban cores. That just seems ridiculous to me. 
