triangle.com | Home

Your location is ... [change]

Welcome to Share! Here you can post photos and news, comment on forums and create community groups.

Search

Tear Downs

Submitted by danbarkin on June 8, 2007 - 10:24am. general discussion | N&O

In older neighborhoods of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, there has been a surge in tear downs -- the demolition of old homes to make way for new, larger houses. We'll have a story about this on Sunday, June 10, in the N&O. Some people think this is changing -- for the worse -- the character of charming old neighborhoods. Others say this is just capitalism at work, as land becomes more valuable close in and buyers want larger houses on these old lots. Do you think tear downs should continue unfettered, or should local government regulate the size of new homes in these neighborhoods?

Average rating

(0 votes)

Bookmark this:

house tear downs

Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on June 10, 2007 - 9:19am.

To the people who think they have to live inside the beltline-- just because you build a McMansion does not get you into the Raleigh "old money" crowd. Hopefully when inflation hits, Raleigh is not left with hundreds of empty houses. Oh well, another example of people with more money than good sense. Raleigh Native

» login or register to post comments

tear downs

Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on June 10, 2007 - 9:25am.

The first thing that occurs to me about tearing down a perfectly good house, is that they could be moved to house people who cannot afford to buy most houses. For the cost of some land and the move and set up, a family could afford their own home. On the second thing, I don't want to look out of my window and see a massive brick wall ten feet away.Why even put windows on houses that only allow a view of the window next door or a wall? Sure you now have a huge home, but what do you see when you look out your window ?

» login or register to post comments

Premise is incorrect - zoning is in place

Submitted by leavemebe on June 10, 2007 - 9:47am.

Your premise is incorrect - teardowns and improvements aren't "unfettered". They are subject to current zoning regulations, including setbacks and height restrictions.

And changing the current zoning regulations is equivalent to the destruction of one's property rights, known at the time of purchase. Plain and simple.

A neighbor of mine in a beautiful "new" home (replaced a 1200 sf house) said he would have reconsidered the purchase had he known about the predatory downzoning" petition aggressively campaigned by Sarah Lowder and her Communit Scale group.

Some, like Sarah, do not "like" the rules and regulations, or don't "feel" good about change or the architecture/size of the improvements. And the group appears to be garnering attention using misinformation (City of Raleigh can sell Fallon Park to developers who in turn can build condos, right in the park!). Give me a break! If there's going to be a debate on this issue please at least be intellectually honest about it. You don't have to lie and needlessly scare people into signing a petition.

Look, most of the teardowns on my street are done with homes that are beyond repair, with broken systems (structural, plumbing, electrical), inadequate size (sub-2000 square feet) for most families, all ripe for improvement. Some would even be perfect practice candidates for the City of Raleigh's fire department because of mold issues.

When they go, and in most cases they must, should what replaces them be the property owner's say or someone else's?

The cat's out of the bag on my street and restricting development with predatory downzoning would only hurt my property value, my "new" neighbor's values, likely by millions of dollars.

I do not think anyone has better architectural taste than my own and in no way do I want someone else to impose their's on me. If I wanted restrictive covenants I would have bought somewhere else.

Current zoning is adequate, we have no "blight", and the larger homes bring in and retain more families. The dilapidated homes are going away, and I say "Hooray"!

» login or register to post comments

in support of property rights

Submitted by yourneighbor (not verified) on June 12, 2007 - 6:07pm.

We have lived on Claremont for a number of years - before the 'tear down' era began and I must say that I am very happy with the results for a number of reasons -- Whether you 'like' (which is really none of your business) the new homes or not, I can honestly say that most of them are a great improvement over the ones that were there prior -- most have needed serious repair and attention - some have been in dilapidated condition, and there are still some that could probably be condemned. I welcome a large home with a nice manicured lawn, over the crumbling old house with the lawn that is mowed once a month - if we're lucky. On that same note, I can't believe that someone actually posted those comments about the home with the turret. I’ll take the turret over a crumbling roof any day. But you know what, like the guy with the turret, it’s the guy with the crumbling roof’s prerogative – and within reason, who am I to tell him that he doesn't have a right to be there or point fingers and publicly insult his choice? Our new neighbors are lovely - as other have noted on this post, there are new, young families moving in breathing new life to our little neck of the woods - their arrival is well-worth the year or so of construction hassles. This is all great for the overall quality of life here on the street and fabulous for our property values. I appreciate knowing that when I'm ready, I can either sell, expand (if possible), or tear my home down and start over. I would love to have the opportunity to stay here and we will eventually outgrow the old structure we're in. Also, keep in mind that it's not just builders/investors that are doing this in the area, but our neighbors are too -- I can think of five families off the top of my head on this street that have done just that. They made the decision to re-invest in their current investment and stay in this lovely area – and there are others of us that would like to have that option in the future. I am also disappointed to note that I have never been approached by a member of SCALE regarding the zoning petition -- how can you say that you represent the wishes of your neighbors when one of them (me) has never personally heard from you? I have read articles where SCALE has noted that they have 'canvassed' the neighborhood -- even holding a neighborhood meeting to discuss. Well I'm your neighbor and I'm affected by your ideas - and you didn't invite me. I am adamantly against the rezoning efforts and SCALE’s tactics. I sincerely hope that the City of Raleigh will not succumb to the wishes of one small special interest group. Many of the residents in this neighborhood have only recently learned of SCALE’s existence. I sincerely believe that the group will be surprised to find how many of your neighbors are against its ideas when they learn what this rezoning really means.

» login or register to post comments

We have lived on Claremont

Submitted by yourneighbor100 on June 14, 2007 - 3:14pm.

We have lived on Claremont for a number of years - before the 'tear down' era began and I must say that I am very happy with the results for a number of reasons -- Whether you 'like' (which is really none of your business) the new homes or not, I can honestly say that most of them are a great improvement over the ones that were there prior -- most of the old homes needed serious repair and attention - some have been in dilapidated conditions, and there are still some that could probably be condemned. I welcome a large home with a nice manicured lawn, over the crumbling old house with the lawn that is mowed once a month - if we're lucky. On that same note, I can't believe that someone actually posted those comments about the home with the turret. I’ll take the turret over a crumbling roof any day. But you know what, like the guy with the turret, it’s the guy with the crumbling roof’s prerogative – and within reason, who am I to tell him that he doesn't have a right to be there or point fingers and publicly insult his choice? Our new neighbors are lovely - as others have noted on this post, there are new, young families moving in and breathing new life into our little neck of the woods - their arrival is well-worth the year or so of construction hassles. This is all great for the overall quality of life here on the street and fabulous for our property values. I appreciate knowing that when I'm ready, I can either sell, expand (if possible), or tear my home down and start over. I would love to have the opportunity to stay here and we will eventually outgrow the old structure we're in. Also, keep in mind that it's not just builders/investors that are doing this in the area, but our neighbors are too -- I can think of five families off the top of my head on this street that have done just that. That's nearly half of the re-builds on the street. They made the decision to re-invest in their current investment and stay in this lovely area – and there are others of us that would like to have that option in the future.

I am also disappointed to note that I have never been approached by a member of SCALE regarding the zoning petition -- how can you say that you represent the wishes of your neighbors when one of them (me) has never personally heard from you? I have read articles where SCALE has noted that they have 'canvassed' the neighborhood -- even holding a neighborhood meeting to discuss. Well I'm your neighbor and I'm affected by your ideas - and you didn't invite me. Doesn't my voice count too?

I am adamantly against the rezoning efforts and SCALE’s tactics. I sincerely hope that the City of Raleigh will not succumb to the wishes of one small special interest group and jeopordize the property rights of hundreds of its citizens. Many of the residents in this neighborhood have only recently learned of SCALE’s existence and have received inadequate information regarding its purpose and goals. I sincerely believe that the group will be surprised to find how many of its neighbors are against its ideas when they learn what this rezoning really means.

» login or register to post comments

claremont

Submitted by FPARKER on June 14, 2007 - 6:59pm.

Really sorry to hear you never got any information. At least two distributions were made on both streets (Claremont and Overbrook). Several of your neighbors were at the meeting. We have wondered if someone took the packets that we left, you are not the first report this from your street.

Incidently, we have tried to set up personal visits with some who called and requested more info. I know in the last case, our reps phone calls were not returned.

I appreciate what you wrote and do not wish to diminish your point. I did want to clear this up, tho.

» login or register to post comments

Welcome to Scale: all spin all the time

Submitted by itswhoyouknow on June 14, 2007 - 11:18pm.

Why would anyone want to steal a packet about a meeting? Please stop spinning this as it isn't just one or two neighbors who didn't get flyers. Next:

How did SCALE champion themselves as the only protectors/representatives of Fallon Park? Of course city wide marketing is their goal.

Another good question, why doesn't the Fallon Park Neighborhood association distribute it's email list? Instead they send everything out BCC, why?

In fact some broadcast emails are received by some neighbors and not others. Why would the FPNA have different lists?

Could it be that you selectively choose neighbors to rally your cause?

Well said Claremont neighbor and God Bless you.

» login or register to post comments

Stealing a flyer from a mailbox?

Submitted by chaz on June 15, 2007 - 5:58am.

It is interesting that your answer would involve neighbors stealing from each other. The notion that you all "canvassed the area" and someone comes behind you and digs around in someone elses mailbox is downright crazy and speaks to your view of the world.

Why didn't you comment on all the excellent points made?

» login or register to post comments

tear down

Submitted by FPARKER on June 10, 2007 - 10:53am.

Good article. I appreciate the coverage of what is going on in the older neighborhoods. I am sorry to see the post above has already incorrectly stated the mission of the neighborhood group SCALE.

SCALE has canvassed the affected neighborhood and used clear communication channels with neighbors about these concerns. There has been a community open house and face to face conversations with neighbors.

What the poster called "predatory" rezoning is a bit inflammatory. Until the City Council and Planning Department get the infill debate on the table, the only regulatory tool available to the residents of an affected area is zoning. At this time, the zoning of a property determines the required setback from the street and ones neighbors. In an effort to maintain the existing setbacks of a fully built neighborhood, sometimes it is appropriate to ask that the official zoning reflect that reality. Otherwise, tearing down and rebuilding with much much larger houses could diminish the look and feel of these areas.

At this time, the board of adjustments and the planning commission have used neighborhood character and setbacks as a standard for approving variances and rezoning petitions. I have access to the language of one such petition in our neighborhood just recently. It was clear that the intent is to respect the build of the community. When someone buys a property to rebuild, the only standard they have to follow is the setback standard, and that is set by the zoning.

If a neighborhood is built with 30 foot front-and-back and 10 foot side-to-side setbacks but it is zoned R-6, then the new builds, to maximize the potential for that rebuilding, will be closer to the neighbors and the street than the other houses in the neighborhood. This impacts immediate neighbors and the vegetation and the runoff and the street character.

Truly, if the new homes were not so out of step with the nature of the existing neighborhoods then this whole effort would not be necessary. It is my contention that existing homeowners should have the same rights to protect their investment that the new homeowners do to maximize their investment. It is where that line is that is in question.

» login or register to post comments

Spinning Lies Hurting Neighbors

Submitted by itswhoyouknow on June 13, 2007 - 12:11pm.

"If new homes are out of step with the nature of the existing neighborhoods"

WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO BE JUDGE AND JURY? WHY DO CITY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE UNIQUE CHARACTER? BECAUSE THEY WERE DEVELOPED IN A TIME BEFORE ZONING AND THE HOMEOWNER COULD BUILD WHAT HE OR SHE LIKED. LUCKILY YOU STILL CAN, UNLESS YOU WERE ONE OF THE FEW AFFECTED BY NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVISTS WHO LIKE TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT AFFECT THEM.

SARAH LOWDER, WHO IS QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE, PERSONAL HOUSE IS NOT CONFORMING TO CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS. IMAGINE THAT. HOWEVER A NEW HOME BEING BUILT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES HER HOUSE DOES NOT FIT. SO WHICH IS NOT CONFORMING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEW OR OLD?

HOUSES ALL OVER THE ANDERSON HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD DON’T MEET CURRENT SETBACKS. THE HOUSES ARE BUILT TO CLOSE TOGETHER IN MOST CASES AND DON’T REPRESENT R4 OR R6 ZONING MEASURES. WHEN THE CITY DOWNZONED LOCHMORE AND KENMORE IT MADE 65% OF THE HOMES NON CONFORMING TO ACREAGE ALONE NOT TO MENTION SETBACKS.

WHITE OAK ROAD HAS SOME OF THE LARGEST HOUSES "ITB" RIGHT BESIDE SINGLE STORY RANCHES AND NO ONE EVER COMPLAINED.

THE PROBLEM IS YOUR ARGUMENT HAS NO MERIT; YOU REALLY WANT A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT YOU CAN RULE AS YOUR OWN. THAT ISN’T POSSIBLE SO YOU ARE USING CITY CONTACTS AND CAC’S TO RALLY LIKE MINDED PEOPLE TO REPRESENT YOURSELF AS THE ONLY VOICE IN THE AREA. IT IS NOT JUST MEAN SPIRITED IT IS A DISGUSTING POLITICAL TACTIC TO FORCE YOUR VIEWS ON OTHERS.

OUR COUNTRY HAS A WAR GOING ON, SERIOUS CRIME AND POVERTY ISSUES AND ALL YOU CAN FOCUS ON IS NOT HAVING CONTROL OVER WHAT SOMEONE BUILDS 2 BLOCKS AWAY FROM YOU. YOUR PRIORITIES ARE SICK.

IF YOU WANT A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION GO MOVE TO ONE!

I CAN'T BELIEVE THE N&O RAN THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE. I GUESS IT PROVES ONCE AGAIN IT IS ALL ABOUT WHO YOU KNOW.

35 YEAR RESIDENT.

» login or register to post comments