share.triangle.com - Tear Downs - Comments

Looking at the bigger picture

Java55 — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:11:30 -0500

Add to this urban consternation the current drought conditions, financial futures, upcoming politics, etc. it's almost like coming face to face with an Act of God and capitalism being diametrically opposed to true Christianity are the battle lines being drawn. Next thing you know, they will be trying to pave over William B. Umstead State Park... you know, probably for erosion control during a prolonged drought... I'm surprized nobody has thought to audit the DOT yet in connection to developers and land grab schematics and the fact that all the best road conditions just happen to fall in the same locations as high end development projects.

Rule Would Cause Homeowner Migration Away from Downtown

tinyi — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:29:00 -0500

I live in Belvidere Park and would be directly and negatively impact by the proposed rule change. I am a transportation and urban planner and chose to live downtown to be close to work and not contribute to traffic and resource consumption. I believe strongly in the urban density and walkable communities.
If you look at the impact of the proposed rule change on someone like me you may be able to understand the larger economic impacts. I planned to stay in my current house which is just under 1,000 sq ft only if I am able to add an addition when I have a family. However, if I can’t add on I would literally be forced to moved out of downtown and buy further out in one of the suburbs. I would likely rent the downtown house out. So in one fell swoop this rule would be contributing to suburban sprawl and increasing the rental properties downtown. I suspect that if the rule passes this scenario would be repeated over and over.

As an planner I see over and over how important homeownership is to the health of any downtown. It influences home values, safety and crime reduction, economic competitiveness with other cities, resource consumption by reducing commute times – the list goes on and on. We see the impact of sprawl all around us in this area and this rule change is the single thing that would force a person like me to leave downtown and move outward.

This very heavy handed approach to controlling tear downs is truly unnecessary. There are many tools that the City could use to shape redevelopment and residential reinvestment short of increasing setbacks. Historic neighborhood overlays come to mind.
So very shortsighted in my opinion.

Property Rights

Visitor — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:43:15 -0500

This is still AMERICA! If you own property you should be able to do what you want to with it as long as it does not physicall hurt someone.

You whiners need to find some real issues to complain about such as the ME,ME,ME generation, of which you are apparently one of.

Teardowns

LM — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:47:08 -0500

How lucky Raleigh residents are if teardowns are the only problem the City has to solve! No crime, homelessness, or traffic problems here.

The City's proposed teardown ordinance serves only one purpose - to protect the rich from the very rich! What a lofty goal for our illustrious Mayor!

teardowns

22 year resident — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:23:01 -0400

If owners want McMansions on postage stamp lots, that is their business. But when builders grade away tree roots and then sell the lot with the trees that they know will die, that is fraud. In the coming years we will see a lot of dead trees on these rebuilt lots.

Development can happen around trees if care is taken. Call a consulting arborist before the grader goes in, make a preservation plan and stick to it, and you can have a bigger home with your big trees living. Trees add a lot of value to a home and to the community, well worth the effort of preserving.

teardowns

mimosa — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:31:56 -0400

Even when trees are being tagged to be saved by the demolition crew and the home builders, the protection fences often are not placed far enough away from the trees to do much good. Many people believe if the fencing includes the trees' driplines then the trees are protected. However, roots expand further than driplines. Many new homeowners will experience the death of older trees on their property eight or nine years after purchasing their homes. Are there any developers in the area who consult with arborists prior to demolition and construction within an infill environment?

Another question . . . What precautions are taken when demolitions occur, especially in the infill areas where there is already a density of homes? In homes built prior to 1978, asbestos and lead paint are present. How many demolitions are occurring where water is being used to continuously wet the materials as the older homes are being demolished? In the recent NYC pipe explosion it was said that the steam from the pipes kept the asbestos from becoming airborne. So does that mean if water is not part of the demolition process, then surrounding property owners and their families are being exposed to hazardous pollutants coming from the demolition site?

What are the regulations in Wake County and North Carolina concerning demolitions? Are people who are doing the demolition work required to be licensed or can a builder subcontract the work? Are the workers required to use protective gear? Is there a washdown area for the workers so they will not take home hazardous materials on their clothes and shoes?

While many of the new homes are being built "green," are builders and community leaders stressing a "green" safe environment for nearby neighbors? And is that same concern being stressed for the demolition and construction crews who are onsite and the most at risk?

teardowns

annie9715 — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:05:03 -0400

I am not against new construction, but save the trees for goodness sakes. I live in a teardown neighborhood ITB. The builder/developers are leveling the older homes along with every living thing on the lot. This includes the stately older oaks and the umbrella of pines that are the reason these neighborhoods are so desireable. Not to mention the protection they give from the sun and habitate for the birds and small animals.

We are at war over oil and this behavior seems just incredibly irresponsible to me. There are many days when I can have my doors and windows open and sit on my porch getting a nice breeze when I look over to my neighbors in 'the big houses' and see them all shut-up with the AC roaring. Yes they do put trees back, but even when the trees they plant reach a mature height they will not even reach the eave lines of some of these houses - what are we thinking?

I think that there should be guidelines put into place restricting the ability to take down trees and then requiring a percentage of the lot to remain in yard area. That would reduce the size of the allowable building area and keep the new homes in a reasonable range.

wake up

jezebel — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:01:47 -0400

Ms Eder on Oxford wake up.

I want to remind you of a simple fact !

your house is already built out of the R-4 setback.

If your home is re-zoned to R-4 from R-6 ( you say you are in full suppport of this )& your house was to burn to the ground, you can NOT rebuild back the 4000 feet you have covered your lot with.

Maybe you need to ask a good honest attorney about this. try not to be the useful idiot.

Teardowns

jepthas — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:18:03 -0400

One of the prized ideas of Smart Growth is the concept of "Infill." In reality, infill means only one thing: more and more or less and less land. This includes both people and housing. Why should we be surprised at teardowns when that is what modern planning is all about, once you get behind the doubletalk? Citizens are all for "smart growth," without knowledge of how it works. If smart growth-oriented new developments put $1 million houses on lots so small that there are almost no lawns to mow, why should we be surprised if the rules encourage a similar outcome for infill? Planning has never thought the middle class should have a house anyway. We were supposed to live in apartments.

Tear Downs

rdu_wtf — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:20:00 -0400

Just as people have the rights to build a house that shows no sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood, the surrounding neighbors have the right to complain about and criticize that house. Most of the criticism should be brought against the developers and realtors that build these properties on spec but also against those who create the market for them. I don't hesitate in my criticism of people who drive Hummers because they're a stupid display of ego and perceived status that adversely impact my environment (earth rapers). Why not criticize houses that do the same? Sure, it's a touchy subject because a house is personal, and an investment and a public representation of class level and taste but some of the same people here defending the rights to build whatever you want and telling people to "mind your own business" wouldn't hesitate to criticize a neighbor with 3 sofas on the front porch or 4 cars parked in the yard. Should bad taste be immune from criticism if it's a display of wealth rather than a display of poverty? I don't think so.

Tear-down

stevemiles — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:51:40 -0400

By the way, the houses are now going for 500,000- this price will definitely push out hard working families. The city of Raleigh need to get on the stick - I'm voting the bums out!

Tear-down

stevemiles — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:51:40 -0400

By the way, the houses are now going for 500,000- this price will definitely push out hard working families. The city of Raleigh need to get on the stick - I'm voting the bums out!

Tear-down

Visitor — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:46:00 -0400

Chestnut Hills in North Raleigh has become an ungodly neighborhood to live these days do to the Mc Mansion addiction. Noise, construction traffic, and developers searching for there next job now clog a once quite area. The homes built by one respected builder (mentioned in an earlier article) do not fit in to that modest neighborhood. Take a look for yourself. By the way, the houses are now going for 500,000- this price will definitely push out hard working families. The city of Raleigh need to get on the stick - I'm voting the bums out!

Hardly

georgiaporgia — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:25:00 -0400

Hearty folks, my ancestors.

The problem is not about a perception of control, but a loss of control over one's destiny.

I read Myrick Howard's piece and I thought he said it well: environmental issues, preservation issues, rising property taxes, and loss of value for the houses near to a large rebuilt home. I would add to that: where will I go after 40 years in my home in a central neighborhood. And why should be forced to leave a settled neighborhood that I have been a positive part of?? No one should ever be run out of their home because of changing economic real estate trends. But it happens all the time. No one gave a darn about this area except the people who loved it for its modesty -- until it became a cash cow.

History Lesson

Visitor — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:14:00 -0400

When was the last time you heard someone say "the government will solve the problem?" With a straight face that is, the problem: there is no problem. People aren't losing quality of life they are losing their perception of control, so they cause problems. People with that mindset would never have made the trip across the Atlantic so many years ago.

Tear Downs

danbarkin — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:24:55 -0400

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?

In older neighborhoods of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, there has been a surge in tear downs -- the demolition of old homes to make…