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.
Right, my point was that there isn't more development coming to release the pressure there; be it from the scarcity of resources (land available) or town covenants (as you mention). Wellsley was always the funny one to me. Building height is limited and I believe they have limitations on what type of retail you can have in town. Sharon is similar.
But one kind of scarcity is real—there's a limited amount of land—while the other kind is simply due to a failure of elected officials (and the people who vote for them) to act.
In North Carolina, there's a bill with bipartisan support, Senate Bill 349, which would legalize multi-family housing in much of the state, and help us avoid the outcomes already experienced in places like Boston and the Bay Area. I doubt it will pass this year, but i hope it does in the near future.
But one kind of scarcity is real—there's a limited amount of land—while the other kind is simply due to a failure of elected officials (and the people who vote for them) to act.
No understood. I'm just saying materially, the ends are the same even if the means are different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldnorth
In North Carolina, there's a bill with bipartisan support, Senate Bill 349, which would legalize multi-family housing in much of the state, and help us avoid the outcomes already experienced in places like Boston and the Bay Area. I doubt it will pass this year, but i hope it does in the near future.
Wait, triple deckers, condexes and the like are illegal here?
Wait, triple deckers, condexes and the like are illegal here?
Not illegal, but subject to local zoning. SB 349 would make it harder for local governments to use zoning to band multi-family housing. There's already a lot of pushback in local governments, as you'd expect, but it's good to see legislation like this get proposed.
Not illegal, but subject to local zoning. SB 349 would make it harder for local governments to use zoning to band multi-family housing. There's already a lot of pushback in local governments, as you'd expect, but it's good to see legislation like this get proposed.
Wait, triple deckers, condexes and the like are illegal here?
Not 100% illegal, but pretty much impossible to build. (It is 100% illegal on the over half of Raleigh's land where only detached houses are allowed.)
For decades, my grandparents lived in a triple-decker on a 0.11 acre lot in Brookline. Even in Brookline, "America's first suburb," 76% of housing units are in multi-unit buildings. (Median housing unit is currently worth just shy of $1M.)
Raleigh has fairly generous zoning by NC standards, but:
(a) you can only build a triple-decker in a "mixed-use zone," which cover ~1/4 of the city -- and this is somewhat exaggerated, as most retail/office/campus areas are zoned mixed-use but are far too valuable for a mere triple-decker;
(b) speaking of valuable, you can't build a single triple-decker on anything less than a 1/4 acre lot of mixed-use land. But because that zoning allows much bigger apartment buildings, and much more valuable commercial development, you'd be utterly daft to just build a triple-decker.
(OK, so you could also build a triple-decker if you owned 1/3 acre in an R-10 zone, but again, why would you because you could also build three detached houses, which would sell/rent for way more.)
Now, that's under existing zoning, and there's a proposal working its way through Planning Commission to tweak these, but it kinda explains why only 2.2% of Raleigh's land is duplexes or townhouses.
(Raleigh land use statistics from the 2014 comprehensive plan.)
Yeah Sf builds virtually no housing.
Raleigh can avoid this. Theyve been warned
Indeed!
In 2011-2015, the Raleigh area added 1.6 jobs per new unit, the Durham-Chapel Hill side 1.2 jobs per new unit. Given that most new units are home to one or two employed people, you can safely assume that the new jobs and new residents are finding new places to live.
Contrast those to the Bay Area, which added 6.8 jobs for every housing unit built. Without new homes, where the heck are all these new workers living? Given that incredibly skewed statistic, is it any wonder that competition for those new housing units bid prices to the sky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM posts
In Durham, the "affordable" condos are not affordable and the lowest prices are for studios. Not gonna work for families
It's quite an accomplishment that downtown Durham can have brand-new <$200K condos -- yes, studios, but again, those work for fully 28% of US households.
It's quite an accomplishment that downtown Durham can have brand-new <$200K condos -- yes, studios, but again, those work for fully 28% of US households.
Ah, yes, the American dream. Be a schoolteacher, work in a CVS, pack someone's groceries, live in a 475 square foot box in downtown Durham with no separate bedroom and somehow come up with $250,000 for that (arbitary numbers, I have not seen under 200K but I have seen 250).
Not sure where you're getting that over a quarter of US households would be happy to live in a studio apartment but I'm not talking about those people anyway.
Not 100% illegal, but pretty much impossible to build. (It is 100% illegal on the over half of Raleigh's land where only detached houses are allowed.)
For decades, my grandparents lived in a triple-decker on a 0.11 acre lot in Brookline. Even in Brookline, "America's first suburb," 76% of housing units are in multi-unit buildings. (Median housing unit is currently worth just shy of $1M.)
Raleigh has fairly generous zoning by NC standards, but:
(a) you can only build a triple-decker in a "mixed-use zone," which cover ~1/4 of the city -- and this is somewhat exaggerated, as most retail/office/campus areas are zoned mixed-use but are far too valuable for a mere triple-decker;
(b) speaking of valuable, you can't build a single triple-decker on anything less than a 1/4 acre lot of mixed-use land. But because that zoning allows much bigger apartment buildings, and much more valuable commercial development, you'd be utterly daft to just build a triple-decker.
(OK, so you could also build a triple-decker if you owned 1/3 acre in an R-10 zone, but again, why would you because you could also build three detached houses, which would sell/rent for way more.)
Now, that's under existing zoning, and there's a proposal working its way through Planning Commission to tweak these, but it kinda explains why only 2.2% of Raleigh's land is duplexes or townhouses.
(Raleigh land use statistics from the 2014 comprehensive plan.)
Thanks for all this info. Sorta blown away by it all. My wife and I’s first place together was a 1920s Victorian home that was converted to a double decker. In the suburbs, 40 miles from Boston. Our last place we rented was a Condex (four bedroom house on one side, two bedroom condo attached; a family owned the house side and our landlords owned just the attached condo, paid 380K for just the condo; we rented the two bedroom side) in one of the premier suburbs on the south shore (again 40 miles from Boston).
Both were better than my first place after college which was a 900 sq foot 1 bed in an apartment building.
What is the historical reason behind this? Is it a NIMBY thing or something else?
But one kind of scarcity is real—there's a limited amount of land—while the other kind is simply due to a failure of elected officials (and the people who vote for them) to act.
In North Carolina, there's a bill with bipartisan support, Senate Bill 349, which would legalize multi-family housing in much of the state, and help us avoid the outcomes already experienced in places like Boston and the Bay Area. I doubt it will pass this year, but i hope it does in the near future.
These bills were sponsored by developer-backed politicians. 6 pubs and 4 dems, They used certain buzzwords to make it look like an ‘affordable housing’ thing, but make no mistake, this thing is backed by developers and AirBnB type companies to maximize their ability to build the most profitable options for them. Doing away with single-family zoning so a developer can stick a quad-plex on the empty lot next to your house even though the local municipality had determined that the area was best able to only handle single family homes is a recipe for overbuilt traffic and resource snarling chaos.
The solutions are available, but no one will be willing to go in 100%. NIMBY-ism is strong everywhere. RE developers and politicians are in the same bed, they aren't willing to give up on their cash cows.
1. Re-zone to create dense urban areas. Literally stop building SFH, period. If the land is sold or bought, make sure what gets build is a duplex, triplex, quad or whatever.
2. Allow the existing SFH to build ADU's, and get the density that way.
3. Pass a law to make sure that every new development has affordable units. Nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters should live somewhere and they should live close to where they work. Make sure that at least 10% (or whatever is allowed) of everything you build is set aside as affordable housing units.
3. Create a huge and reliable network of public transit. Not everyone would want to live in a dense urban area, or will be able to afford it, but that shouldn't stop them from being employed in these areas. Someone can afford a small house somewhere in Bahama NC or Graham NC should be able to get on a bus and get to Durham DT or RDU reliably by 8am in the morning. They should also be able to get back home reliably by 6pm or 11pm.
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.
