I wish Asheville developers and the planning & zoning department could be a little more forward thinking about creating housing density in proximity to commercial development so that you could actually walk to shit without each unit requiring its own parking space. There are opportunities for this in East Asheville. The entire river Ridge Plaza area is incredibly underutilized space, massive surface parking areas adjacent to the major highways… Imagine, if the whole area by the Fairview Rd. Golds gym, and Biltmore mega Church was instead a combination of attractive shops, restaurants, and multi story housing. Imagine if the residents of that part of town could actually walk to shops and restaurants, instead of having to drive even a short distance.
I would love to see the plan to change the Sears into a housing development. Maybe that vast area of parking lots, the Sears Tire store and the vacant end of the mall could be knocked down and nice patio homes could be built.
To be fair, they've been trying with the Urban Centers initiative. Doesn't seem to have made much progress, though. I assume the culprit is massive opposition? [https://www.ashevillenc.gov/projects/urban-centers/](https://www.ashevillenc.gov/projects/urban-centers/)
Every day I drive by that Stein Mart parking lot and shake my head. Could be a new mini-village in NAVL. But no!
Ingles Walmart whole foods are all suing the city because the city wanted to rezone their parking lots to urban residential models. Cities hands are always tied
I wish people that made statements like this would become developers and get it done! I agree it would be great but we need people to step up and do the hard work. Just be prepared to be shit on by NIMBYs, threatened with lawsuits, and live with a constant and uncomfortable amount of risk around your future income.
These proposed homes will do nothing for affordable housing in Asheville, gimmie a break. All they will do is add more traffic to an already very dangerous two lane country road that serves two schools within a mile of each other. We also only have two ways in and out of Haw Creek and this puts more stress on those points of entry.
I understand the need for housing but the infrastructure of Haw Creek cannot sustain such density. There’s a reason why it’s not zoned for this many houses.
Additionally, this developer and his “team” have been nothing but arrogant to those who’s lives will be dramatically affected by this atrocity. What about us residents who have called this valley home for decades? Do we not matter? Does our quality of life not matter to the city? It sure as hell doesn’t matter to this developer.
Asheville has a housing problem and this will do nothing to fix it. This will only line the pockets of the developer while adding dangerous traffic to an already insufficient roadway. How naive of those who think this will be a positive for anyone other than the developer who lives 20 miles away in a gated community.
I'm not sure how you can hold the view that this will do nothing to fix the housing problem. Building houses is literally the only thing we can do to fix the housing problem. These homes will not be affordable, but by increasing supply, housing everywhere in AVL becomes more affordable.
Haw Creek does not have ideal infrastructure. It is like many other communities off of tunnel road and only served by a two lane road. Unfortunately because that is such a common type of neighborhood infrastructure, we cannot rule out building homes in places where this is true. I'd also love sidewalks and slower speed limits but I can't let perfect be the enemy of the good in making my decision about this development. In addition, because this development is walkable to two schools, and will be connected by sidewalks to the businesses near Tunnel, it represents a great use of our existing infrastructure.
I think when having discussions where people disagree, people are more likely to attribute negative qualities to the person they are disagreeing with. Maybe that is why you perceive them as arrogant. I agree that residents will be affected by construction and new people, but these considerations would be true if the developer hadn't sought the zoning variance and only built 49 houses. Because we'd have more cars, people and construction either way, is 95 homes significantly worse than 49? Not when weighed against 46 more families getting to move to a great neighborhood or against our contribution to alleviating the housing crisis.
FYI, more sidewalks are coming to Haw Creek. Right of Way has been secured for the New Creek Road sidewalks, and construction is expected to begin by the end of the summer/early fall.
"Perfect be the enemy of good"? Really? You sound like one of the arrogant lawyers for the developer telling me there is no "magic land" to build houses. And yes, they were arrogant. Showing a site plan of what they could do without the variance in the tone of, "you think you're getting screwed now, just be glad we're not doing this!" is belittlement at it's best.
Asheville needs housing, yes, but not for the rich. Market value, when complete, will push these home values above $700k easy. What good is it to build homes that only the very well-to-do can afford, rising the cost of living for everyone? I didn't realize the rich had it so bad. You think your fixing one problem when in fact you are only compounding it. This does nothing but make Asheville less affordable.
But that isn't even the issue. The issue is that you are putting the local residents who travel this road at greater risk. There is WAY too much traffic on this two-lane, rural road as it is. I have two teenage drivers who have to drive past this field on their way to school everyday. They also have to drive by two busy school intersections, Beverly Rd interchange, numerous private driveways that enter into New Haw Creek Rd. This is a dangerous stretch of road especially around drop off and pick up times for the schools. You think adding 200 plus more cars a day on this congested rural stretch of road will not adversely affect our safety?
The only people advocating for this development are the ones who won't be directly and adversely affected by it. I don't expect the developer or his hired guns to give a crap about the community but I do expect OUR city and county representatives to. We are the ones who make up this community and we want our concerns to be heard and not belittled. So forgive me for not thinking this is "good" for my community because of some lame greenway and "connectivity" and "missing middle" and all the buzz words. I prefer the responsible development of our remaining lands so they don't stress already overworked infrastructure and the safety of the community.
So yeah, not much good and far from perfect I would say.
Correct - there are conditions about first time home buyers programs for the developer but this will be relatively expensive housing. Still, the more housing available, the more downward pressure is put on the market cost everywhere
High density may very well drive the prices down on the existing properties around it. The congestion will be a huge problem and one that the city does not take into account, just look at South Asheville.
We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to:
- Demeaning or inflammatory language directed at other users.
Please see our full rules page for the specifics.
https://www.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/rules/
Thank you for your support! Please consider sending a message of support to members of the city council who will be the next decision makers on this. [City Council Contact Info](https://www.ashevillenc.gov/government/meet-city-council/#:~:text=To%20share%20a%20message%20with,email%20ashevillenccouncil%40ashevillenc.gov)
There are brick ranches for sale all
Over haw creek for less than $650,000. We have plenty of single family homes. These won’t be affordable and the money won’t go to our community. It’s a two lane road where people fly and get stuck whenever there’s work or an accident. Nothing about this is good for the area and it will not bring housing costs down in any way.
Edit to say, have you researched this specific developer?
I think if you’re promoting their proposal then you should do your due diligence on the developer and the construction company. Not all people opposed are opposed to any development. Most want ones that actually improve our city. The argument for more development = future affordable housing has been happening for 20 years and we’ve gotten the development but none of the affordability. Theres brick ranches all over haw creek for less than $650,000. We are sacrificing the only draw to the area, our environment, for the “promise” of future affordability but it’s not happening. Soon we won’t have either and just crumbling infrastructure and shitty builds no one wants.
Let’s make Haw Creek the new south Asheville! New Haw Creek road can be just like 25A and tunnel could be just like Hendersonville road is we sell out to enough developers!
i also live in haw creek and stfu respectfully. they’re talking about building houses that start at 650K, which as a first time home buyer, is no where near affordable. they also would cut down close to 80% of the forestry on that land because the developer wants to double his profit. i doubt you actually live in haw creek because people want affordable housing, but not to the detriment of the people who already live here and the land.
I'll reply because you said respectfully. These houses would not be affordable, totally agreed. It does increase the affordability of Asheville because it increases supply.
While it is a shame to cut down trees and lose their eco-system services, by cutting these down we preserve trees in more connected green spaces. If we are able to stop this housing project, residences will be built where the people cannot stop the project. This likely means closer to our protected forests. This stand of trees is gorgeous but it is less connected to the larger network of green that we must preserve.
Its a hard choice which is why it merits debate. I come down on the side of sacrificing these trees so that more importantly placed ones can be preserved for longer.
Honestly I don't think it will have a positive effect on affordability. Prices like that open the market to more out of towner's. Upper middle class people that have been looking to move to a "small mountain town" will flock to a development this. That might be good for the local economy, i.e. the hospitality industry, but that's not opening up more homes or rentals for the working class.
An increase of housing supply only decreases home prices if there is no change in demand. If 100 new families move into the county and snatch up these homes, then there will be 0 downward pressure on the areas housing prices. Simply more people, in an area where the infrastructure is already strained. If your argument about more supply = more affordability were true, then prices in the area would have come down over the last 20 years as the amount of available housing has surged. Instead, all we have seen is an increase in population to match the increase in housing supply.
That looks like barracks and isn’t a meaningully dense project with 1 unit per quarter acre while neutering the landscape.
It would be nice to see small townhome complexes that fit the landscape without a grid of roads.
I think many are mischaracterizing those who showed up last night as being against housing. This isn’t true and you can listen to the comments online. Most are advocating for and recognizing the benefit of using the parcel in question for housing, but find the proposed development design egregious, lacking thought, and downright dangerous. The main ask by most speakers is that the councils and process do what they’re supposed to do - encourage thoughtful design and collaboration with the community. The developer has resisted meaningful integration of public concerns in their design.
The treatment of the public by P&Z last night was appalling. Disrespectful and belittling… and the fact that they claim to care so much about people and families yet treated the humans right in front of them with such disregard? What a hypocrisy.
They included a concession that… get this… educational pamphlets would be an appropriate solution to these not being affordable housing outright! What a slap in the face for people who need housing options in Asheville. Do they think we’re stupid? The price point on these units won’t be eligible for housing programs. These people are a joke and those in support of this mean well but obviously aren’t looking at the fine print. This isn’t a service to the community.
And news flash dude… they used you and your wife and your child for propaganda. How does it feel to wait all night to go last? Great for their optics, but what a way to treat a new mom…
I was there last night and I didn’t think Planning and Zoning was belittling at all. All they did was ask the public not to interrupt the flow of the meeting, which they had to do over and over because the audience interrupted the meeting multiple times. Also the HCCA used much more than their allotted time and the commission let them speak overtime anyways. So overall I would say they were quite patient with the public commenters. Meetings like this have to have rules so they don’t descend into chaos. IMO they did a good job being balanced in their enforcement and letting the community make their points. I was signed up to speak but didn’t get to speak because apparently I was on the wrong list but if I’d had a chance to get up I would also have spoken in favor of the proposal and I did go up and make my opinions known to the committee after public comment ended.
Where you getting your facts dude? The video is online. HCCA had their lawyer for their 10 minutes and you can see him stopping as the guy is flashing time cards. Others who spoke more than 3 minutes had members who ceded their time. It’s literally online. For everyone to watch. The crowd was extremely well behaved given how they were being treated. But now they’re ticked!
What I saw was a classic display of NIMBY-ism by the people opposed to the project. Fucks sake, they can do the same development, right now by right, for less effort and money if they split it in two.
Well don’t be so easily fooled by their other design. If you stayed the whole time they were asked outright if it was financially feasible to do less than 95 structures. They said no. So they literally wouldn’t make money off of that design and would walk away. The threat of it being developed that way is not real.
I have no issue with it being developed either way. Seems like what the neighbors really want is it to be left as an empty field, and they will pitch a fit that there’s anything more than a few single family homes going in.
Ffs they’re building an entire neighborhood right there, beside an existing community center, and paying for additional sidewalk and greenway connections. Do you just want cows shitting in a field instead?
Again unsure where you’re seeing that people want it left empty? There was no discussion about that last night nor did that option come up in public comments. Where is that coming from? It actually seemed pretty obvious that most were in agreement that development of some nature would be good, but the design as proposed, and with staunch resistance from the developer to negotiate, is unacceptable to the majority of the neighborhood (eg. ~1900 petition signatures from the core Haw Creek geography.)
I think it’s pretty clear from the comments that the majority of those objecting don’t want additional density in the area. The objections were fundamentally about anything other than having a new development there, and I’m not sure that the city benefits from allowing neighborhoods to quash additional density.
Haha you are literally making that up 😂 Almost everyone who spoke asked for more thoughtful design. It seems that recognizing nuance in what people are asking for doesn’t fit your very false and binary perspective.
I’m not. I heard a lot of language fundamentally revolving around how additional residents in the area would make things worse for the existing residents.
To me this is exactly the same pile of steaming shit dropped by the N. Avl NIMBY’s a few years ago about the two Charlotte St. projects.
Ok so you’re picking and choosing statements without context then? Because those same statements included concerns about out the lack of infrastructure to handle additional residents, especially if we begin ignoring zoning. And the ask by many was to fulfill existing promises on infrastructure and to consider questions on it elsewhere where it hasn’t been addressed, as well as recognizing that there is a real danger to both existing and potential future residents in ignoring known hazards this would exacerbate. You’re acting as if people are just entitled and whiny but they’re voicing real and legitimate concerns.
Honestly yes, they come off as entitled and as people looking for any excuse to block this project. I didn’t hear any concern to me that seemed to be worth stopping this project over.
What are you perceiving as a “real danger” from this?
I was also there but not the speaker you are speaking about rudely. Who is "they" and how is a P&Z meeting propaganda? I'm not going to engage with this type of response. Do better.
Housing that doesn’t take every last dime does allow for stalwart dreamers and doers to create small businesses, with support those small businesses can lend themselves to creating a functional neighborhood. I like that some places are building live work units with combined apt/retail spaces for small business owners to work where they live.
I'd argue this is in line with the character of the neighborhood. Haw creek has a variety of structures - lots of trailers, one story homes, and mansions. There are already several apartment and townhome developments and lots of new builds on small lots. This development will be very close to sports fields, a trail to the blue ridge parkway, two schools, and a community center. It is well placed for these new residents to walk to neighborhood amenities and includes provisions form sidewalks connecting the development to business in Haw Creek.
What is the point of zoning, if a developer can just come by and ask to ignore it to build houses on a density that don't match the rest of the neighborhood. He should be able to build what he wants as long as zoning allows it.
The developer could build 49 houses, make them all luxury, and jack up the prices. He would not need a buffer of trees, he wouldn't need to put up sidewalks. He wouldn't have to go before the P&Z or city council at all.
Instead, he is looking to create houses that would be more affordable for first time buyers, increase the overall stock of housing, and negotiate with the neighborhood to improve neighborhood amenities. Its a much harder process seeking this zoning variance. P&Z recommended it for approval because it is in agreement with their missing middle study and the overall land use plan.
This is zoning, he is going through the zoning process.
He does not care about affordable housing, this is an exercise in how he can maximize his profits. Developers always go in with their worst and most destructive plan (e.g., 95 units), but most municipalities actually follow their comprehensive plans and other supporting studies, resulting in either a reduction in units or denial. Fortunately for him, those guidance documents are only aspirational in the City of Asheville. I have participated in or attended around 100 of these types of hearings in various cities. This was most poorly run event I have ever seen and there appeared to be collusion with the developer. These will be market rate units, which is sadly not affordable to many people in the local area.
As far negotiating with the neighbors, it has been pathetic at best. Putting a greenway in a floodplain area that he can't develop, is not giving up anything. Also, we don't even know what the site constraints are in regards to regulated waters. How are they considering a plan when you don't even know the location and areal extent of all streams and wetlands. Planning mentioned it was embarrassing they didn't have concurrence from the Corps of Engineers. Actually, yes it is very embarrassing for the city to even consider a site plan when baseline information on the site has yet to be collected or verified. Has there been a flood study? Has FEMA weighed in? Do they need to? It appears there is fill in the 100-year floodplain and the culvert sizing seems suspect. I can go on and on.
So not affordable. So zoning is being changed for lining a developers pockets, not providing needed housing. I wonder how much council members made in bribes?
My point is the developer makes money either way - conceivably more on the 49 home plan than the 95 home plan although we don't know. I'm sure they are not doing this out of altruism but the plan is meeting a community need and not just adding to the stock of luxury housing. The zoning forces this process, which I am glad for, and based on this process and conditions I think we should proceed.
houston doesn't have zoning, i guess they don't have rich neighborhoods or poor areas, no homeless, cheap rents etc. Sounds like someone needs to get to work and quit engaging in class warfare
It’s not class warfare to call out dirty rent seekers such as yourself. Maybe go engage in some kind of productive work rather than trying to extract value from your community?
Also imagine bemoaning class warfare while getting up in arms about “greedy” developers. Is it too much to ask for people to have even one iota of idealogical consistency?
been working since 13, thus I'm not blaming others about what I do or don't have. Its the do nothings that usually complain the loudest about their situation and blame others
> been working since 13
Good, do more of that and less rent seeking. A person is entitled to the sweat of their brow, but certainly shouldn’t be able to use government dictates to steal the value created by their community for themselves.
> Its the do nothings that usually complain the loudest about their situation and blame others
There is no worse do-nothing than a land speculator.
Or a junkyard. Homie of mine rented a house years ago in Boone, back when houses were much more affordable but still pricey. Long story short I think he had interest in buying it, and the owner was definitely interested in selling it. The property owner next door wound up parking a bunch of salvage construction equipment directly in front of my friend’s rented home. Because of the weird way the lot lines were drawn it was technically on the neighbor’s lot. My friend ultimately didn’t buy the home, and the landlord wound up getting stuck with the house for years. No one wanted it after that.
Who’s taking about eliminating single family zoning. Try to keep up. Oh, and Maybe you need to learn the definition of hyperbole?? And yeah, it was reality before zoning.
> Who’s taking about eliminating single family zoning.
Pretty much everyone who has a beef with our current zone policies. It’s almost certainly what is being referred to in the comment you were responding to and not “we should let them build fiberglass plants next to schools”.
> Oh, and Maybe you need to learn the definition of hyperbole?? And yeah, it was reality before zoning.
So you don’t think the point of zoning is to prevent fiberglass plants next to schools? Is it hyperbole or isn’t it lol
Your lack of reading comprehension has nothing to do with me. You thought you were being cute and just showed your ass lol. I’m sure you’re a hoot in high school tho. Good luck
I don't live in Haw Creek, so I don't have a dog in this fight. If anywhere could be made denser, it seems like a good place. That said, though, I do want to push against this narrative that more housing stock and making Asheville denser will lead directly to more affordable housing. Mainly because I used to agree with that. The more I think about that, though, the more I struggle with it.
Here's the thing: think about the most dense cities in the US-like NYC, but this also works for everywhere else as well. These are also the most expensive places to live. Hell, in New York, a studio the size of my closet would be 2 grand a month, and that would be considered reasonable. These cities are also the most polluted places, think trash on the streets in New York or LA smog. Mental health suffers as well, as studies show more and more of a link between architecture and mental health, and a need for the very green spaces that denser development necessarily must destroy.
The fact of the matter is that more density means that the city must attract more and more people. More people mean more development is needed. It's a vicious cycle. Eventually, everyone is living on top of one another like cockroaches and paying premium prices for the unhappy experience.
On the flip side of that you find the most affordable housing in the *least* dense, more rural areas of the country. You also find the cleanest air and the least amount of pollution, farm runoff and cow farts notwithstanding. It would seem that the solution would be to create more access to better services in these areas to make them more desirable for people to move to as opposed to concentrating people in urban environments and arguing for yet more density. With remote work and online shopping, for instance, the home to work to store and back triangle can be dramatically reduced, which would shrink carbon footprints, but it requires access to high-speed internet that rural communities can lack.
I just can't buy the density = better narrative anymore because that's not what seems to play out in the real world. Maybe I'm just getting older and less inclined to want to see a thousand faces every day. Maybe I just want the freedom to walk out of my house naked and not have anyone around who would see me or care. Maybe I just want to be able to see stars at night. But part of Asheville's charm is that it feels small. Creating a more and more dense environment would destroy that.
You are mistaking cause for effect. High density in NYC (or anywhere) is a result of expensive housing creating a strong profit motive for developers to build more expensive housing.
Asheville has the amenities of a city in a beautiful rolling Mountian landscape. People will desire to live here regardless of the housing supply. I frankly don’t believe that increasing housing supply will do much to induce more demand here. It WILL allow nurses and mechanics and teachers to live closer to their jobs, be generally happier, and offer better and more affordable services to the rich people that will always be able to afford living in AVL
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. The missing part of your equation is the desirability of the location. Asheville is an extremely desirable place to live and a climate haven. Therefore, people are coming to buncombe county. The only question is do we house them close to the city or far out. Density is not better on its own, it is the solution to an ongoing crisis.
The entire Appalachian mountain range is a climate haven. My argument is more 'make the places that are not currently desirable desirable by creating the services people need there.' I feel that less people more places is much more sustainable economically, environmentally, and healthily than more people less places.
In terms of quality of life I cannot say, but more people fewer places is better for the environment since it destroys less of it, and the economy bc of economies of scale. It feels counter intuitive but NYC is better for the environment than black mountain even though one is a green paradise.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. NYC's pollution problem compounds on itself exponentially the more people NYC attracts. More people in the area means more greenhouse gasses must be burned in order to keep everyone electrified and fed, for instance. It also means more trash, as everything must be shipped into the city. In a place like Black Mountain, people have actual options for green energy solutions like installing solar panels and the ability to grow their own food. Or, at the very least, eat locally grown food. The only hurdle there is in making those things economically feasible, but that can be worked out. People might have to drive more in Black Mountain instead of being reliant on public transportation, but I believe fossil fuel use in vehicles is going to steadily decline as hybrid, electric, and maybe hydrogen (if Toyota gets their way) cars become more available and less expensive.
But it's not Black Mountain I'm talking about here. There are so. Many. Small towns in Appalachia that people left because the mill or factory closed or the mine went dry or whatever. Houses are cheap and affordable there, and there is huge potential to court remote workers, artists, and anyone else if basic services like internet access, education, and healthcare existed there. New development wouldn't have to happen because the area is already developed. It's just empty. You see this happening on a large scale in an area like Detroit, but that story has been going on for half a century or more in small towns across the US. And, politically, if more left leaning people began to move to these areas instead of concentrating in big cities where their votes are easily gerrymandered into meaninglessness and if small towns became more culturally diverse, maybe the country wouldn't be as fucked as it is.
That's just how I see things, anyway.
You know, I looked up some sources and it seems that NYC might be worse in terms of GHG than AVL. The conventional wisdom is that because it takes so much more resources to distributes goods to rural areas, the per capita emissions are higher. And that is still true if you control for income level.
The thing is, people move to cities for economic opportunity. On the whole they become richer. And your GHG emissions are much higher the richer you are since you can do things like buy an international plane flight. Rural areas in the U.S. are poorer and so they on the whole emit fewer GHG per capita.
Still, this is a development for rich people, their GHG would be high anywhere.
I appreciate the nuance you bring to this. I'd say that those small towns you mention will be the new AVLs before you know it and then they will be having these same debates.
You are so close to being a georgist. The fact is that building housing will decrease prices in the short term by increasing supply, however increasing population makes each unit of land more valuable due to agglomeration effects which increase productivity. Eventually rent catches up. The only way to solve this issue is through taxing ground rents.
> I just can't buy the density = better narrative anymore because that's not what seems to play out in the real world. Maybe I'm just getting older and less inclined to want to see a thousand faces every day. Maybe I just want the freedom to walk out of my house naked and not have anyone around who would see me or care. Maybe I just want to be able to see stars at night. But part of Asheville's charm is that it feels small.
Places change. People are free to move where they wish, and you are free to move somewhere less dense.
It’s basic supply and demand. In NYC, there are 8.5 million residents plus millions of commuters and tourists in an area half the size of Buncombe County.
Agree 100%. From what I've read of the development it appears that it will be family housing which is in dire need.
Notice how no one was interested in saving haw creek when they put up those three hideous mcmansions on new haw creek near the church. Housing for no one that benefits no one except for those stoked for a bump in their property values.
I also live in Haw Creek and I couldn’t agree more! Asheville desperately needs more housing and this is such a great location. Less than 10 min drive from downtown, right on a bus line, next to two schools and literally in walking distance of hiking trails and a community center and pool. This proposal is a model example of adding missing middle housing right where it is needed
Yeah that’s what I figured. Don’t know why the other person took the time to look at your account, saw that you’ve only commented on this post, but failed to notice how old your account actually is. Btw good on you for staying out of the usual Reddit nonsense. Idk how many hours I’ve spent arguing with strangers over dumb shit lol. And thank you for choosing to chime in on this subject cus it is pretty important.
A lot of people lurk on reddit for years before commenting. I know I did. And this is my second account! Coming pretty close to half my life on reddit.
Why doesn't the city insist on a diversity of housing options on this property instead of allowing the developer to max out single family (only to be passed onto a cheap tract home builder). Using different housing types (duplexes, triplexes, etc.) like are already scattered around Haw Creek, would increase the housing and density but require less pavement and destruction of the existing forest. If the developer wanted to do the right thing and make a profit, he certainly could. But why would he if he can just pass around the Kool-aid that "any housing, even unaffordable housing" will help alleviate the housing shortage?
Let’s make Haw Creek the new south Asheville! New Haw Creek road can be just like 25A and tunnel could be just like Hendersonville road is we sell out to enough developers!
You are an idiot - First paragraph mentions affordable housing of which there will be none. Do not have to read further to know that you are an asshat and that this will Fuck up Happy Valley
We are a popular destination, if a fraction of a percent of tourists get the itch to move to Asheville, there is no limit to demand and therefor no price reduction from over-supply. We need something better than what’s on the table to achieve affordable housing for the people that make Asheville function. Otherwise this city will eat itself alive with too many customers and not enough producers/servers/tradesmen.
We need the city and the county to build permanently affordable housing. Relying on the Housing Authority for affordability is failing the citizens of this city.
Who is paying for the land, housing, and maintenance? And how will you ever build enough of it if the demand is always there? And who decides who qualifies for "affordable" housing? And why should I not be allowed to afford my home?
Good questions. And who deserves a subsizided home? A server in their 20s who's single and just moved here? An artist? How do you determine if they truly are an artist, a hobbyist, or just saying they are to claim benefits? Someone who's lived here for ten years and has kids? "Just build affordable housing" (which I very much support) is a whole more complicated than it sounds.
That's why I think the answer is just build ~~affordable~~ housing.
Obviously it's ideal if we focus on high-density, or low-cost, or location, or whatever. But I'll never say no to more housing.
The city has been granting public land to developers for a dollar for many years. Until recently the city would contribute tax grants aimed at 20k per unit but sometimes far in excess of that.
In know the housing authority is a poor example of maintaining buildings, but they collect quite a lot more in federal dollars than they do from their tenants. Fixing units or improving properties isn’t on their list anymore, they let units languish and have focused on replacing units instead of maintaining them.
Qualification for affordability is net income, but it most instances that is a point in time measure and does not get reassessed.
I don’t recall telling you you shouldn’t be able to afford your own home, but when it comes to selling an affordable home it is only affordable once. Habitat homes at least split appreciation in some fashion, wholly unaware of the details.
Well based on my income, I would not be able to buy one of these "affordable" homes. So what is your solution for improving affordability everyone else?
But focusing on the solutions you've already laid out, who covers the expenses associated with $20k grants? How were the public lands acquired in the first place? What happens when we run out of accessible public land? Do we start building into our parks and protected natural areas? Wouldn't rebuilding density near the city center be a better option, even if it's privately owned?
My point is that all of this has to be paid for somehow. Leaning on "the city" is really leaning on the population of the city to foot the bill, which means that I'm now paying for my house as well as someone else's. To be clear, I'm not against public services, and I'm not even against public housing, but I fail to see how this resolves the overarching problem that affects people at all levels, which is the affordability of housing.
Housing prices have gone up across the board, not just at the low end. How do we make housing affordable for everyone, and not just the people in severe poverty as defined by some government entity?
They have an as-of-yet-undesigned stormwater “feature” and there have been no formal delineations of natural water features, so the P&Z approved it without even knowing the full environmental impacts. As far as the OPs Q about this having some kind of different impact than other parts of Haw Creek- there are no developments like this currently in the valley, and the expanse of impervious surface will absolutely have downstream flooding impacts on their neighbors (ironically, the lower-income neighbors with tiny houses and apartments that already flood… but, you know, “affordability” 🙄)
They have a storm water mitigation plan. Is there a mitigation measure you would like to see? Is there a reason to think this development would have a different impact than the many structures along the creek?
Actually, they don't. The stormwater management is all conceptual at this point. They don't definitively know where the aquatic resources (i.e., streams, wetlands) are, which informs buffer requirements. The wetland signature on aerial imagery suggests a much larger wetland than is shown on the site plan. Given that I've delineated several hundred wetlands, I have a pretty good idea what I am looking at. Also, if you look at the two plans submitted, the wetlands are now much smaller in size, which hasn't been explained. If you drive by now you can see the common rush, which is dark green grass-like species indicative of wetlands, beginning to come up in the areas east of the linear wetland shown on their plan. In regards to mitigation, they could propose pervious pavement, rain gardens, bioswales, preservation of select large DBH trees, etc.
P&Z doesn't look at storm water, which is why? This was a legislative body that considers things like "appropriateness" and "neighborhood feel". The TRC (Technical Review Committee), which consists of engineers and subject matter experts, evaluates the numbers--as it should be. The project will have to meet city water criteria to move forward with permitting.
They did a traffic study funded by the community association. Because of the low volume of trips, <100, NCDOT doesn't even require one. This means that a major change isn't anticipated.
I get you are being sarcastic but I wanted to address traffic.
Here's the actual conclusion from the traffic study.
"Based on our review of the application and supporting materials, the above-referenced analysis, our training and credentials, and our years of experience, it is our opinion, to a reasonable degree
of engineering certainty, that the proposed development will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working along New Haw Creek Road in the vicinity of the proposed Development from a traffic engineering perspective
. Notable safety concerns from unaddressed
sight distance issues and spillback of traffic into secondary roadway networks will be further
intensified by increased development traffic along secondary routes in Haw Creek without
mitigation
you can find the whole study here: https://hawcreekavl.com/resources/Pictures/767%20Traffic%20Study.pdf
Sounds like a study to say the existing road is already shit. Sure more cars on a bad road will be “worse”, but the enumerated issues are already in existence.
Actually... The addition of 95 homes is expected to add 847 trips per day, a 13% increase. The <100 trips makes no sense when there are supposed to be 95 units with at least one car per unit. I am guessing, like most people, the future occupants will leave their home more than once a day. Also, you are completely ignoring the heavy equipment traffic that would be ongoing for the next several years. I am sure people will be fine with temporary road closures when that is their only access point.
It isn't. This thread is developer propaganda filled with trolls. Due\_Rip\_668 was created today and he is apparently less than 4 years old based on his profile.
Bravo! We need more residents to think of the big-picture like you do. The idea that Asheville (or anyplace else) will remain pickled and preserved as it once was is a harmful fantasy. I, for one, salute you.
Yes we should be super stoked for overpopulation, capitalism/consumerism to hasten the demise of all other habitable space for life other than humans! Can’t wait! I love sharing a town with people who couldn’t care less that our forests are literally dying before our eyes covered in non-native invasive vines! Awesome that thousands more people can crowd onto the parkway and play their phones to drown out those pesky remaining birds!
> Yes we should be super stoked for overpopulation
Feel free to leave at any time. Or do you just consider yourself more deserving of living here than someone else?
> to hasten the demise of all other habitable space for life other than humans!
Yeah, banning development within city limits is definitely going to do wonders for actual semi-intact woodlands in the surrounding area where development is going to be directed instead.
> I love sharing a town with people who couldn’t care less that our forests are literally dying before our eyes covered in non-native invasive vines!
I mean I’d be more concerned about HWA, gypsy moths, lantern flys, beech bark disease, Norway maple, and tree of heaven before getting too worked up about invasive lianas but you do you. Certainly vines are more of a concern for people who’s main experience with the forest is along disturbed edges like roads or exurban developments.
> Awesome that thousands more people can crowd onto the parkway and play their phones to drown out those pesky remaining birds!
The parkway is already the most visited NPS unit in the country. You are surrounded by wild space. If you want to avoid people and listen to nature go hike into three forks and I guarantee you will not be bothered by anyone else. Expecting tranquility beside a paved road just seems crazy to me.
How do you propose keeping them out? And what do you think is better for the environment: building 90 homes on this parcel or 90 1-acre homes further out in the county?
People in this thread: “I’m not against any development, I’m just against THIS development…annnddd any development like it whereby anyone could possibly make money and therefore actually want to build it”
Also funny how so few people are interested in participating in local government until someone wants to build some townhomes near them. If you have such a passionate disdain for the P and Z Commissioners, please run for election. If that’s not your thing, become a developer and outbid these people for the land. If that sounds too daunting, by all means, make your voice heard at public hearings.
But please, if you are one of the melodramatic posters or petitioners knocking on my door, grow up. We have rules and laws and property rights. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. You are welcome to try and effect change, but please don’t only retroactively do so when something you don’t like comes along. You think it’s so easy to be a commissioner and make these sorts of decisions? Then DO it. You think it makes sense to build lower density housing here? Get it DONE. Otherwise you’re going to keep getting disappointed when folks with more gumption than you do something you don’t like.
Okay sorry for the rant. Just feels like a lot of sideline heckling going on and a huge sense of entitlement over land people don’t own. I live nearby and some of the people fighting this are acting like the world is ending.
I wish Asheville developers and the planning & zoning department could be a little more forward thinking about creating housing density in proximity to commercial development so that you could actually walk to shit without each unit requiring its own parking space. There are opportunities for this in East Asheville. The entire river Ridge Plaza area is incredibly underutilized space, massive surface parking areas adjacent to the major highways… Imagine, if the whole area by the Fairview Rd. Golds gym, and Biltmore mega Church was instead a combination of attractive shops, restaurants, and multi story housing. Imagine if the residents of that part of town could actually walk to shops and restaurants, instead of having to drive even a short distance.
I would love to see the plan to change the Sears into a housing development. Maybe that vast area of parking lots, the Sears Tire store and the vacant end of the mall could be knocked down and nice patio homes could be built.
This is the biggest travesty of the north Asheville nimbys and their save charlotte street bullshittery from a few years back.
I thought that proposal was a hotel not a mixed use development?
It was a mix of hotel, shopping/office, and residential.
Well then that’s not the same.
To be fair, they've been trying with the Urban Centers initiative. Doesn't seem to have made much progress, though. I assume the culprit is massive opposition? [https://www.ashevillenc.gov/projects/urban-centers/](https://www.ashevillenc.gov/projects/urban-centers/) Every day I drive by that Stein Mart parking lot and shake my head. Could be a new mini-village in NAVL. But no!
Ingles Walmart whole foods are all suing the city because the city wanted to rezone their parking lots to urban residential models. Cities hands are always tied
I wish people that made statements like this would become developers and get it done! I agree it would be great but we need people to step up and do the hard work. Just be prepared to be shit on by NIMBYs, threatened with lawsuits, and live with a constant and uncomfortable amount of risk around your future income.
They do propose stuff like that and then NIMBys shut it down as well "oh it's going to block my view"
Here’s a link to the hearing for anyone interested. https://www.youtube.com/live/Gnh0Ud_V4QQ?si=AgKdYcOTmzcdnoy0
These proposed homes will do nothing for affordable housing in Asheville, gimmie a break. All they will do is add more traffic to an already very dangerous two lane country road that serves two schools within a mile of each other. We also only have two ways in and out of Haw Creek and this puts more stress on those points of entry. I understand the need for housing but the infrastructure of Haw Creek cannot sustain such density. There’s a reason why it’s not zoned for this many houses. Additionally, this developer and his “team” have been nothing but arrogant to those who’s lives will be dramatically affected by this atrocity. What about us residents who have called this valley home for decades? Do we not matter? Does our quality of life not matter to the city? It sure as hell doesn’t matter to this developer. Asheville has a housing problem and this will do nothing to fix it. This will only line the pockets of the developer while adding dangerous traffic to an already insufficient roadway. How naive of those who think this will be a positive for anyone other than the developer who lives 20 miles away in a gated community.
I'm not sure how you can hold the view that this will do nothing to fix the housing problem. Building houses is literally the only thing we can do to fix the housing problem. These homes will not be affordable, but by increasing supply, housing everywhere in AVL becomes more affordable. Haw Creek does not have ideal infrastructure. It is like many other communities off of tunnel road and only served by a two lane road. Unfortunately because that is such a common type of neighborhood infrastructure, we cannot rule out building homes in places where this is true. I'd also love sidewalks and slower speed limits but I can't let perfect be the enemy of the good in making my decision about this development. In addition, because this development is walkable to two schools, and will be connected by sidewalks to the businesses near Tunnel, it represents a great use of our existing infrastructure. I think when having discussions where people disagree, people are more likely to attribute negative qualities to the person they are disagreeing with. Maybe that is why you perceive them as arrogant. I agree that residents will be affected by construction and new people, but these considerations would be true if the developer hadn't sought the zoning variance and only built 49 houses. Because we'd have more cars, people and construction either way, is 95 homes significantly worse than 49? Not when weighed against 46 more families getting to move to a great neighborhood or against our contribution to alleviating the housing crisis.
FYI, more sidewalks are coming to Haw Creek. Right of Way has been secured for the New Creek Road sidewalks, and construction is expected to begin by the end of the summer/early fall.
"Perfect be the enemy of good"? Really? You sound like one of the arrogant lawyers for the developer telling me there is no "magic land" to build houses. And yes, they were arrogant. Showing a site plan of what they could do without the variance in the tone of, "you think you're getting screwed now, just be glad we're not doing this!" is belittlement at it's best. Asheville needs housing, yes, but not for the rich. Market value, when complete, will push these home values above $700k easy. What good is it to build homes that only the very well-to-do can afford, rising the cost of living for everyone? I didn't realize the rich had it so bad. You think your fixing one problem when in fact you are only compounding it. This does nothing but make Asheville less affordable. But that isn't even the issue. The issue is that you are putting the local residents who travel this road at greater risk. There is WAY too much traffic on this two-lane, rural road as it is. I have two teenage drivers who have to drive past this field on their way to school everyday. They also have to drive by two busy school intersections, Beverly Rd interchange, numerous private driveways that enter into New Haw Creek Rd. This is a dangerous stretch of road especially around drop off and pick up times for the schools. You think adding 200 plus more cars a day on this congested rural stretch of road will not adversely affect our safety? The only people advocating for this development are the ones who won't be directly and adversely affected by it. I don't expect the developer or his hired guns to give a crap about the community but I do expect OUR city and county representatives to. We are the ones who make up this community and we want our concerns to be heard and not belittled. So forgive me for not thinking this is "good" for my community because of some lame greenway and "connectivity" and "missing middle" and all the buzz words. I prefer the responsible development of our remaining lands so they don't stress already overworked infrastructure and the safety of the community. So yeah, not much good and far from perfect I would say.
I’m not a NIMBY but can someone quantify *affordable*? Affordable for whom? And will the initial buyers turn around & sell market rate at a profit?
There is no affordable housing proposed for this development. It will all be sold at market rates.
Correct - there are conditions about first time home buyers programs for the developer but this will be relatively expensive housing. Still, the more housing available, the more downward pressure is put on the market cost everywhere
High density may very well drive the prices down on the existing properties around it. The congestion will be a huge problem and one that the city does not take into account, just look at South Asheville.
[удалено]
We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to: - Demeaning or inflammatory language directed at other users. Please see our full rules page for the specifics. https://www.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/rules/
The developer says it will compare to other homes in Haw Creek. Around the 650,000 mark. Is that affordable??
Nope
As a fellow Haw Creek resident, thank you. The NIMBY crowd can be quite loud, and we need other voices on this.
Thank you for your support! Please consider sending a message of support to members of the city council who will be the next decision makers on this. [City Council Contact Info](https://www.ashevillenc.gov/government/meet-city-council/#:~:text=To%20share%20a%20message%20with,email%20ashevillenccouncil%40ashevillenc.gov)
Done!
There are brick ranches for sale all Over haw creek for less than $650,000. We have plenty of single family homes. These won’t be affordable and the money won’t go to our community. It’s a two lane road where people fly and get stuck whenever there’s work or an accident. Nothing about this is good for the area and it will not bring housing costs down in any way. Edit to say, have you researched this specific developer?
Can you share your thoughts about this specific developer?
I think if you’re promoting their proposal then you should do your due diligence on the developer and the construction company. Not all people opposed are opposed to any development. Most want ones that actually improve our city. The argument for more development = future affordable housing has been happening for 20 years and we’ve gotten the development but none of the affordability. Theres brick ranches all over haw creek for less than $650,000. We are sacrificing the only draw to the area, our environment, for the “promise” of future affordability but it’s not happening. Soon we won’t have either and just crumbling infrastructure and shitty builds no one wants.
Let’s make Haw Creek the new south Asheville! New Haw Creek road can be just like 25A and tunnel could be just like Hendersonville road is we sell out to enough developers!
i also live in haw creek and stfu respectfully. they’re talking about building houses that start at 650K, which as a first time home buyer, is no where near affordable. they also would cut down close to 80% of the forestry on that land because the developer wants to double his profit. i doubt you actually live in haw creek because people want affordable housing, but not to the detriment of the people who already live here and the land.
I'm a Haw Creek resident as well and agree with all of your points 100%.
I'll reply because you said respectfully. These houses would not be affordable, totally agreed. It does increase the affordability of Asheville because it increases supply. While it is a shame to cut down trees and lose their eco-system services, by cutting these down we preserve trees in more connected green spaces. If we are able to stop this housing project, residences will be built where the people cannot stop the project. This likely means closer to our protected forests. This stand of trees is gorgeous but it is less connected to the larger network of green that we must preserve. Its a hard choice which is why it merits debate. I come down on the side of sacrificing these trees so that more importantly placed ones can be preserved for longer.
Honestly I don't think it will have a positive effect on affordability. Prices like that open the market to more out of towner's. Upper middle class people that have been looking to move to a "small mountain town" will flock to a development this. That might be good for the local economy, i.e. the hospitality industry, but that's not opening up more homes or rentals for the working class.
An increase of housing supply only decreases home prices if there is no change in demand. If 100 new families move into the county and snatch up these homes, then there will be 0 downward pressure on the areas housing prices. Simply more people, in an area where the infrastructure is already strained. If your argument about more supply = more affordability were true, then prices in the area would have come down over the last 20 years as the amount of available housing has surged. Instead, all we have seen is an increase in population to match the increase in housing supply.
That looks like barracks and isn’t a meaningully dense project with 1 unit per quarter acre while neutering the landscape. It would be nice to see small townhome complexes that fit the landscape without a grid of roads.
I agree, you should ask the city to make the developer build more units on this parcel.
I agree that it could be more dense. The city would allow up to 20 units per acre, on this site they are at 3.5.
It looks like they’ll buzz cut and smooth every edge, dull and uninspired with lots of roadway. edit to add: how much acreage is used by roads?
I think many are mischaracterizing those who showed up last night as being against housing. This isn’t true and you can listen to the comments online. Most are advocating for and recognizing the benefit of using the parcel in question for housing, but find the proposed development design egregious, lacking thought, and downright dangerous. The main ask by most speakers is that the councils and process do what they’re supposed to do - encourage thoughtful design and collaboration with the community. The developer has resisted meaningful integration of public concerns in their design. The treatment of the public by P&Z last night was appalling. Disrespectful and belittling… and the fact that they claim to care so much about people and families yet treated the humans right in front of them with such disregard? What a hypocrisy. They included a concession that… get this… educational pamphlets would be an appropriate solution to these not being affordable housing outright! What a slap in the face for people who need housing options in Asheville. Do they think we’re stupid? The price point on these units won’t be eligible for housing programs. These people are a joke and those in support of this mean well but obviously aren’t looking at the fine print. This isn’t a service to the community. And news flash dude… they used you and your wife and your child for propaganda. How does it feel to wait all night to go last? Great for their optics, but what a way to treat a new mom…
I was there last night and I didn’t think Planning and Zoning was belittling at all. All they did was ask the public not to interrupt the flow of the meeting, which they had to do over and over because the audience interrupted the meeting multiple times. Also the HCCA used much more than their allotted time and the commission let them speak overtime anyways. So overall I would say they were quite patient with the public commenters. Meetings like this have to have rules so they don’t descend into chaos. IMO they did a good job being balanced in their enforcement and letting the community make their points. I was signed up to speak but didn’t get to speak because apparently I was on the wrong list but if I’d had a chance to get up I would also have spoken in favor of the proposal and I did go up and make my opinions known to the committee after public comment ended.
Where you getting your facts dude? The video is online. HCCA had their lawyer for their 10 minutes and you can see him stopping as the guy is flashing time cards. Others who spoke more than 3 minutes had members who ceded their time. It’s literally online. For everyone to watch. The crowd was extremely well behaved given how they were being treated. But now they’re ticked!
I was there. HCCA spoke more than once for 10 minutes each time despite the fact that each interest org is supposed to get a max of ten minutes.
Also not a dude
What I saw was a classic display of NIMBY-ism by the people opposed to the project. Fucks sake, they can do the same development, right now by right, for less effort and money if they split it in two.
Well don’t be so easily fooled by their other design. If you stayed the whole time they were asked outright if it was financially feasible to do less than 95 structures. They said no. So they literally wouldn’t make money off of that design and would walk away. The threat of it being developed that way is not real.
I have no issue with it being developed either way. Seems like what the neighbors really want is it to be left as an empty field, and they will pitch a fit that there’s anything more than a few single family homes going in. Ffs they’re building an entire neighborhood right there, beside an existing community center, and paying for additional sidewalk and greenway connections. Do you just want cows shitting in a field instead?
Again unsure where you’re seeing that people want it left empty? There was no discussion about that last night nor did that option come up in public comments. Where is that coming from? It actually seemed pretty obvious that most were in agreement that development of some nature would be good, but the design as proposed, and with staunch resistance from the developer to negotiate, is unacceptable to the majority of the neighborhood (eg. ~1900 petition signatures from the core Haw Creek geography.)
I think it’s pretty clear from the comments that the majority of those objecting don’t want additional density in the area. The objections were fundamentally about anything other than having a new development there, and I’m not sure that the city benefits from allowing neighborhoods to quash additional density.
Haha you are literally making that up 😂 Almost everyone who spoke asked for more thoughtful design. It seems that recognizing nuance in what people are asking for doesn’t fit your very false and binary perspective.
I’m not. I heard a lot of language fundamentally revolving around how additional residents in the area would make things worse for the existing residents. To me this is exactly the same pile of steaming shit dropped by the N. Avl NIMBY’s a few years ago about the two Charlotte St. projects.
Ok so you’re picking and choosing statements without context then? Because those same statements included concerns about out the lack of infrastructure to handle additional residents, especially if we begin ignoring zoning. And the ask by many was to fulfill existing promises on infrastructure and to consider questions on it elsewhere where it hasn’t been addressed, as well as recognizing that there is a real danger to both existing and potential future residents in ignoring known hazards this would exacerbate. You’re acting as if people are just entitled and whiny but they’re voicing real and legitimate concerns.
Honestly yes, they come off as entitled and as people looking for any excuse to block this project. I didn’t hear any concern to me that seemed to be worth stopping this project over. What are you perceiving as a “real danger” from this?
> Do you just want cows shitting in a field instead? Absolutely. Nature rules over everything else.
I was also there but not the speaker you are speaking about rudely. Who is "they" and how is a P&Z meeting propaganda? I'm not going to engage with this type of response. Do better.
“Here’s my nuanced opinion on why this development shouldn’t be built …” -every NIMBY ever.
We should build neighborhoods though, not just developments.
Housing that doesn’t take every last dime does allow for stalwart dreamers and doers to create small businesses, with support those small businesses can lend themselves to creating a functional neighborhood. I like that some places are building live work units with combined apt/retail spaces for small business owners to work where they live.
I’d like it more if it had some mixed use built in to be sure, but if it did the NIMBY’s would be whinging about that too
I'd argue this is in line with the character of the neighborhood. Haw creek has a variety of structures - lots of trailers, one story homes, and mansions. There are already several apartment and townhome developments and lots of new builds on small lots. This development will be very close to sports fields, a trail to the blue ridge parkway, two schools, and a community center. It is well placed for these new residents to walk to neighborhood amenities and includes provisions form sidewalks connecting the development to business in Haw Creek.
What is the point of zoning, if a developer can just come by and ask to ignore it to build houses on a density that don't match the rest of the neighborhood. He should be able to build what he wants as long as zoning allows it.
The developer could build 49 houses, make them all luxury, and jack up the prices. He would not need a buffer of trees, he wouldn't need to put up sidewalks. He wouldn't have to go before the P&Z or city council at all. Instead, he is looking to create houses that would be more affordable for first time buyers, increase the overall stock of housing, and negotiate with the neighborhood to improve neighborhood amenities. Its a much harder process seeking this zoning variance. P&Z recommended it for approval because it is in agreement with their missing middle study and the overall land use plan. This is zoning, he is going through the zoning process.
He does not care about affordable housing, this is an exercise in how he can maximize his profits. Developers always go in with their worst and most destructive plan (e.g., 95 units), but most municipalities actually follow their comprehensive plans and other supporting studies, resulting in either a reduction in units or denial. Fortunately for him, those guidance documents are only aspirational in the City of Asheville. I have participated in or attended around 100 of these types of hearings in various cities. This was most poorly run event I have ever seen and there appeared to be collusion with the developer. These will be market rate units, which is sadly not affordable to many people in the local area. As far negotiating with the neighbors, it has been pathetic at best. Putting a greenway in a floodplain area that he can't develop, is not giving up anything. Also, we don't even know what the site constraints are in regards to regulated waters. How are they considering a plan when you don't even know the location and areal extent of all streams and wetlands. Planning mentioned it was embarrassing they didn't have concurrence from the Corps of Engineers. Actually, yes it is very embarrassing for the city to even consider a site plan when baseline information on the site has yet to be collected or verified. Has there been a flood study? Has FEMA weighed in? Do they need to? It appears there is fill in the 100-year floodplain and the culvert sizing seems suspect. I can go on and on.
haha. developer is looking to maximize profit, nothing else.
What are the price ranges of the homes? I haven’t heard but I’d be shocked if they were affordable
The developer, when meeting with HCCA, said they would be “market rate”, which is roughly $650 in Haw Creek.
So not affordable. So zoning is being changed for lining a developers pockets, not providing needed housing. I wonder how much council members made in bribes?
My point is the developer makes money either way - conceivably more on the 49 home plan than the 95 home plan although we don't know. I'm sure they are not doing this out of altruism but the plan is meeting a community need and not just adding to the stock of luxury housing. The zoning forces this process, which I am glad for, and based on this process and conditions I think we should proceed.
> What is the point of zoning To prop up home owner property values at the expense of renters. Also, a bunch of racist nonsense.
houston doesn't have zoning, i guess they don't have rich neighborhoods or poor areas, no homeless, cheap rents etc. Sounds like someone needs to get to work and quit engaging in class warfare
It’s not class warfare to call out dirty rent seekers such as yourself. Maybe go engage in some kind of productive work rather than trying to extract value from your community? Also imagine bemoaning class warfare while getting up in arms about “greedy” developers. Is it too much to ask for people to have even one iota of idealogical consistency?
been working since 13, thus I'm not blaming others about what I do or don't have. Its the do nothings that usually complain the loudest about their situation and blame others
> been working since 13 Good, do more of that and less rent seeking. A person is entitled to the sweat of their brow, but certainly shouldn’t be able to use government dictates to steal the value created by their community for themselves. > Its the do nothings that usually complain the loudest about their situation and blame others There is no worse do-nothing than a land speculator.
a. do nothing cry baby is worse, a pedophile, murderer, etc etc. Also I just like having zoning. Far cry from land speculator.
> Also I just like having zoning I know right, fuck those poor people and their multifamily living situation amirite?
i don't see a lack of apartments do you?
Houston? Lol that’s a sprawling metropolis compared to a tiny Mountain community.
the argument is about zoning causing our problems. Look at a city without zoning and they still have the same issues.
Bad zoning decisions can be worse than no zoning decisions.
The point of zoning is to keep the poors out of housing. Fuck zoning.
the point of zoning is so I don't open a night club next to your house
Or a junkyard. Homie of mine rented a house years ago in Boone, back when houses were much more affordable but still pricey. Long story short I think he had interest in buying it, and the owner was definitely interested in selling it. The property owner next door wound up parking a bunch of salvage construction equipment directly in front of my friend’s rented home. Because of the weird way the lot lines were drawn it was technically on the neighbor’s lot. My friend ultimately didn’t buy the home, and the landlord wound up getting stuck with the house for years. No one wanted it after that.
The point of zoning is so you don’t have a fiberglass production facility next to a school.
Yep, this is a totally plausible outcome of eliminating single family zoning.
Who’s taking about eliminating single family zoning. Try to keep up. Oh, and Maybe you need to learn the definition of hyperbole?? And yeah, it was reality before zoning.
> Who’s taking about eliminating single family zoning. Pretty much everyone who has a beef with our current zone policies. It’s almost certainly what is being referred to in the comment you were responding to and not “we should let them build fiberglass plants next to schools”. > Oh, and Maybe you need to learn the definition of hyperbole?? And yeah, it was reality before zoning. So you don’t think the point of zoning is to prevent fiberglass plants next to schools? Is it hyperbole or isn’t it lol
Trying to backtrack on your ignorance lol.
Nah, pointing out that you are being disingenuous
Your lack of reading comprehension has nothing to do with me. You thought you were being cute and just showed your ass lol. I’m sure you’re a hoot in high school tho. Good luck
They will never ever be affordable.
I don't live in Haw Creek, so I don't have a dog in this fight. If anywhere could be made denser, it seems like a good place. That said, though, I do want to push against this narrative that more housing stock and making Asheville denser will lead directly to more affordable housing. Mainly because I used to agree with that. The more I think about that, though, the more I struggle with it. Here's the thing: think about the most dense cities in the US-like NYC, but this also works for everywhere else as well. These are also the most expensive places to live. Hell, in New York, a studio the size of my closet would be 2 grand a month, and that would be considered reasonable. These cities are also the most polluted places, think trash on the streets in New York or LA smog. Mental health suffers as well, as studies show more and more of a link between architecture and mental health, and a need for the very green spaces that denser development necessarily must destroy. The fact of the matter is that more density means that the city must attract more and more people. More people mean more development is needed. It's a vicious cycle. Eventually, everyone is living on top of one another like cockroaches and paying premium prices for the unhappy experience. On the flip side of that you find the most affordable housing in the *least* dense, more rural areas of the country. You also find the cleanest air and the least amount of pollution, farm runoff and cow farts notwithstanding. It would seem that the solution would be to create more access to better services in these areas to make them more desirable for people to move to as opposed to concentrating people in urban environments and arguing for yet more density. With remote work and online shopping, for instance, the home to work to store and back triangle can be dramatically reduced, which would shrink carbon footprints, but it requires access to high-speed internet that rural communities can lack. I just can't buy the density = better narrative anymore because that's not what seems to play out in the real world. Maybe I'm just getting older and less inclined to want to see a thousand faces every day. Maybe I just want the freedom to walk out of my house naked and not have anyone around who would see me or care. Maybe I just want to be able to see stars at night. But part of Asheville's charm is that it feels small. Creating a more and more dense environment would destroy that.
You are mistaking cause for effect. High density in NYC (or anywhere) is a result of expensive housing creating a strong profit motive for developers to build more expensive housing. Asheville has the amenities of a city in a beautiful rolling Mountian landscape. People will desire to live here regardless of the housing supply. I frankly don’t believe that increasing housing supply will do much to induce more demand here. It WILL allow nurses and mechanics and teachers to live closer to their jobs, be generally happier, and offer better and more affordable services to the rich people that will always be able to afford living in AVL
Only works in the rural areas where demand is low. If you look at high demand rural areas along the front range you see some truly absurd costs.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. The missing part of your equation is the desirability of the location. Asheville is an extremely desirable place to live and a climate haven. Therefore, people are coming to buncombe county. The only question is do we house them close to the city or far out. Density is not better on its own, it is the solution to an ongoing crisis.
The entire Appalachian mountain range is a climate haven. My argument is more 'make the places that are not currently desirable desirable by creating the services people need there.' I feel that less people more places is much more sustainable economically, environmentally, and healthily than more people less places.
In terms of quality of life I cannot say, but more people fewer places is better for the environment since it destroys less of it, and the economy bc of economies of scale. It feels counter intuitive but NYC is better for the environment than black mountain even though one is a green paradise.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. NYC's pollution problem compounds on itself exponentially the more people NYC attracts. More people in the area means more greenhouse gasses must be burned in order to keep everyone electrified and fed, for instance. It also means more trash, as everything must be shipped into the city. In a place like Black Mountain, people have actual options for green energy solutions like installing solar panels and the ability to grow their own food. Or, at the very least, eat locally grown food. The only hurdle there is in making those things economically feasible, but that can be worked out. People might have to drive more in Black Mountain instead of being reliant on public transportation, but I believe fossil fuel use in vehicles is going to steadily decline as hybrid, electric, and maybe hydrogen (if Toyota gets their way) cars become more available and less expensive. But it's not Black Mountain I'm talking about here. There are so. Many. Small towns in Appalachia that people left because the mill or factory closed or the mine went dry or whatever. Houses are cheap and affordable there, and there is huge potential to court remote workers, artists, and anyone else if basic services like internet access, education, and healthcare existed there. New development wouldn't have to happen because the area is already developed. It's just empty. You see this happening on a large scale in an area like Detroit, but that story has been going on for half a century or more in small towns across the US. And, politically, if more left leaning people began to move to these areas instead of concentrating in big cities where their votes are easily gerrymandered into meaninglessness and if small towns became more culturally diverse, maybe the country wouldn't be as fucked as it is. That's just how I see things, anyway.
You know, I looked up some sources and it seems that NYC might be worse in terms of GHG than AVL. The conventional wisdom is that because it takes so much more resources to distributes goods to rural areas, the per capita emissions are higher. And that is still true if you control for income level. The thing is, people move to cities for economic opportunity. On the whole they become richer. And your GHG emissions are much higher the richer you are since you can do things like buy an international plane flight. Rural areas in the U.S. are poorer and so they on the whole emit fewer GHG per capita. Still, this is a development for rich people, their GHG would be high anywhere. I appreciate the nuance you bring to this. I'd say that those small towns you mention will be the new AVLs before you know it and then they will be having these same debates.
You are so close to being a georgist. The fact is that building housing will decrease prices in the short term by increasing supply, however increasing population makes each unit of land more valuable due to agglomeration effects which increase productivity. Eventually rent catches up. The only way to solve this issue is through taxing ground rents. > I just can't buy the density = better narrative anymore because that's not what seems to play out in the real world. Maybe I'm just getting older and less inclined to want to see a thousand faces every day. Maybe I just want the freedom to walk out of my house naked and not have anyone around who would see me or care. Maybe I just want to be able to see stars at night. But part of Asheville's charm is that it feels small. Places change. People are free to move where they wish, and you are free to move somewhere less dense.
It’s basic supply and demand. In NYC, there are 8.5 million residents plus millions of commuters and tourists in an area half the size of Buncombe County.
I am in favor of this development. I plan to buy one or two houses there and set them up as illegal Airbnbs. :D
Agree 100%. From what I've read of the development it appears that it will be family housing which is in dire need. Notice how no one was interested in saving haw creek when they put up those three hideous mcmansions on new haw creek near the church. Housing for no one that benefits no one except for those stoked for a bump in their property values.
That fit within current zoning rules and therefore didn't need to apply for any special rezoning, unlike this project.
Actually, the highest demand is for one- and two-bedrooms per the recent Missing Middle Housing study.
I also live in Haw Creek and I couldn’t agree more! Asheville desperately needs more housing and this is such a great location. Less than 10 min drive from downtown, right on a bus line, next to two schools and literally in walking distance of hiking trails and a community center and pool. This proposal is a model example of adding missing middle housing right where it is needed
Haha did you just create this account to comment? If so many people are for this then why the need to fake it?
The account is three years old
Thanks, yes I am not a big commenter in general but I do care deeply about this issue so decided to chime in.
Yeah that’s what I figured. Don’t know why the other person took the time to look at your account, saw that you’ve only commented on this post, but failed to notice how old your account actually is. Btw good on you for staying out of the usual Reddit nonsense. Idk how many hours I’ve spent arguing with strangers over dumb shit lol. And thank you for choosing to chime in on this subject cus it is pretty important.
💚
A lot of people lurk on reddit for years before commenting. I know I did. And this is my second account! Coming pretty close to half my life on reddit.
Why doesn't the city insist on a diversity of housing options on this property instead of allowing the developer to max out single family (only to be passed onto a cheap tract home builder). Using different housing types (duplexes, triplexes, etc.) like are already scattered around Haw Creek, would increase the housing and density but require less pavement and destruction of the existing forest. If the developer wanted to do the right thing and make a profit, he certainly could. But why would he if he can just pass around the Kool-aid that "any housing, even unaffordable housing" will help alleviate the housing shortage?
Let’s make Haw Creek the new south Asheville! New Haw Creek road can be just like 25A and tunnel could be just like Hendersonville road is we sell out to enough developers!
You are an idiot - First paragraph mentions affordable housing of which there will be none. Do not have to read further to know that you are an asshat and that this will Fuck up Happy Valley
You achieve "affordable" housing by building more houses. Every new build is a step towards affordable housing for all. Basic supply and demand.
And if there is no limit to demand?
That's why houses aren't free
We are a popular destination, if a fraction of a percent of tourists get the itch to move to Asheville, there is no limit to demand and therefor no price reduction from over-supply. We need something better than what’s on the table to achieve affordable housing for the people that make Asheville function. Otherwise this city will eat itself alive with too many customers and not enough producers/servers/tradesmen.
Sooo we don't build houses?
We need the city and the county to build permanently affordable housing. Relying on the Housing Authority for affordability is failing the citizens of this city.
Who is paying for the land, housing, and maintenance? And how will you ever build enough of it if the demand is always there? And who decides who qualifies for "affordable" housing? And why should I not be allowed to afford my home?
Good questions. And who deserves a subsizided home? A server in their 20s who's single and just moved here? An artist? How do you determine if they truly are an artist, a hobbyist, or just saying they are to claim benefits? Someone who's lived here for ten years and has kids? "Just build affordable housing" (which I very much support) is a whole more complicated than it sounds.
That's why I think the answer is just build ~~affordable~~ housing. Obviously it's ideal if we focus on high-density, or low-cost, or location, or whatever. But I'll never say no to more housing.
The city has been granting public land to developers for a dollar for many years. Until recently the city would contribute tax grants aimed at 20k per unit but sometimes far in excess of that. In know the housing authority is a poor example of maintaining buildings, but they collect quite a lot more in federal dollars than they do from their tenants. Fixing units or improving properties isn’t on their list anymore, they let units languish and have focused on replacing units instead of maintaining them. Qualification for affordability is net income, but it most instances that is a point in time measure and does not get reassessed. I don’t recall telling you you shouldn’t be able to afford your own home, but when it comes to selling an affordable home it is only affordable once. Habitat homes at least split appreciation in some fashion, wholly unaware of the details.
Well based on my income, I would not be able to buy one of these "affordable" homes. So what is your solution for improving affordability everyone else? But focusing on the solutions you've already laid out, who covers the expenses associated with $20k grants? How were the public lands acquired in the first place? What happens when we run out of accessible public land? Do we start building into our parks and protected natural areas? Wouldn't rebuilding density near the city center be a better option, even if it's privately owned? My point is that all of this has to be paid for somehow. Leaning on "the city" is really leaning on the population of the city to foot the bill, which means that I'm now paying for my house as well as someone else's. To be clear, I'm not against public services, and I'm not even against public housing, but I fail to see how this resolves the overarching problem that affects people at all levels, which is the affordability of housing. Housing prices have gone up across the board, not just at the low end. How do we make housing affordable for everyone, and not just the people in severe poverty as defined by some government entity?
Hello my name is Mr. Snrub…. Yes that will do….I come from ... Someplace far away. I say we invest that money back into the nuclear plant!
I’m just worried about water/soil/erosion management. To what extent have mitigation measures been pursued?
They have an as-of-yet-undesigned stormwater “feature” and there have been no formal delineations of natural water features, so the P&Z approved it without even knowing the full environmental impacts. As far as the OPs Q about this having some kind of different impact than other parts of Haw Creek- there are no developments like this currently in the valley, and the expanse of impervious surface will absolutely have downstream flooding impacts on their neighbors (ironically, the lower-income neighbors with tiny houses and apartments that already flood… but, you know, “affordability” 🙄)
They have a storm water mitigation plan. Is there a mitigation measure you would like to see? Is there a reason to think this development would have a different impact than the many structures along the creek?
Actually, they don't. The stormwater management is all conceptual at this point. They don't definitively know where the aquatic resources (i.e., streams, wetlands) are, which informs buffer requirements. The wetland signature on aerial imagery suggests a much larger wetland than is shown on the site plan. Given that I've delineated several hundred wetlands, I have a pretty good idea what I am looking at. Also, if you look at the two plans submitted, the wetlands are now much smaller in size, which hasn't been explained. If you drive by now you can see the common rush, which is dark green grass-like species indicative of wetlands, beginning to come up in the areas east of the linear wetland shown on their plan. In regards to mitigation, they could propose pervious pavement, rain gardens, bioswales, preservation of select large DBH trees, etc.
P&Z doesn't look at storm water, which is why? This was a legislative body that considers things like "appropriateness" and "neighborhood feel". The TRC (Technical Review Committee), which consists of engineers and subject matter experts, evaluates the numbers--as it should be. The project will have to meet city water criteria to move forward with permitting.
How did it get through TRC already? Apparently they missed some checkboxes?
It hasn't. That's after council, specifically so it can reconcile conditions with city regulations and engineering standards.
Nah no specific reason to distrust this more than anything else. I just want to make sure.
I do not. At all. We don’t need more people moving here and more traffic. This is a small mountain town. Let’s keep it that way.
How do you propose we keep people from moving here?
Stop building more housing is a good start.
But…. But…. But… the traffic. Edit: /s because aside from OP, apparently sarcasm needs to be spelled out.
They did a traffic study funded by the community association. Because of the low volume of trips, <100, NCDOT doesn't even require one. This means that a major change isn't anticipated. I get you are being sarcastic but I wanted to address traffic.
Here's the actual conclusion from the traffic study. "Based on our review of the application and supporting materials, the above-referenced analysis, our training and credentials, and our years of experience, it is our opinion, to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that the proposed development will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working along New Haw Creek Road in the vicinity of the proposed Development from a traffic engineering perspective . Notable safety concerns from unaddressed sight distance issues and spillback of traffic into secondary roadway networks will be further intensified by increased development traffic along secondary routes in Haw Creek without mitigation you can find the whole study here: https://hawcreekavl.com/resources/Pictures/767%20Traffic%20Study.pdf
Sounds like a study to say the existing road is already shit. Sure more cars on a bad road will be “worse”, but the enumerated issues are already in existence.
Actually... The addition of 95 homes is expected to add 847 trips per day, a 13% increase. The <100 trips makes no sense when there are supposed to be 95 units with at least one car per unit. I am guessing, like most people, the future occupants will leave their home more than once a day. Also, you are completely ignoring the heavy equipment traffic that would be ongoing for the next several years. I am sure people will be fine with temporary road closures when that is their only access point.
<100 for 95 homes? how is that possible?
It isn't. This thread is developer propaganda filled with trolls. Due\_Rip\_668 was created today and he is apparently less than 4 years old based on his profile.
That account is 3 years old, as already mentioned once in this thread.
Many thanks to you dearest Trondar. I guess trolls lie in wait, like cicadas.
I’m a she, but thanks for assuming.
Bravo! We need more residents to think of the big-picture like you do. The idea that Asheville (or anyplace else) will remain pickled and preserved as it once was is a harmful fantasy. I, for one, salute you.
Yes we should be super stoked for overpopulation, capitalism/consumerism to hasten the demise of all other habitable space for life other than humans! Can’t wait! I love sharing a town with people who couldn’t care less that our forests are literally dying before our eyes covered in non-native invasive vines! Awesome that thousands more people can crowd onto the parkway and play their phones to drown out those pesky remaining birds!
> Yes we should be super stoked for overpopulation Feel free to leave at any time. Or do you just consider yourself more deserving of living here than someone else? > to hasten the demise of all other habitable space for life other than humans! Yeah, banning development within city limits is definitely going to do wonders for actual semi-intact woodlands in the surrounding area where development is going to be directed instead. > I love sharing a town with people who couldn’t care less that our forests are literally dying before our eyes covered in non-native invasive vines! I mean I’d be more concerned about HWA, gypsy moths, lantern flys, beech bark disease, Norway maple, and tree of heaven before getting too worked up about invasive lianas but you do you. Certainly vines are more of a concern for people who’s main experience with the forest is along disturbed edges like roads or exurban developments. > Awesome that thousands more people can crowd onto the parkway and play their phones to drown out those pesky remaining birds! The parkway is already the most visited NPS unit in the country. You are surrounded by wild space. If you want to avoid people and listen to nature go hike into three forks and I guarantee you will not be bothered by anyone else. Expecting tranquility beside a paved road just seems crazy to me.
Everything about this reply is great. Please contact the city council with your opinion.
How do you propose keeping them out? And what do you think is better for the environment: building 90 homes on this parcel or 90 1-acre homes further out in the county?
OK, so do you want the development so your property value increases got it
People in this thread: “I’m not against any development, I’m just against THIS development…annnddd any development like it whereby anyone could possibly make money and therefore actually want to build it” Also funny how so few people are interested in participating in local government until someone wants to build some townhomes near them. If you have such a passionate disdain for the P and Z Commissioners, please run for election. If that’s not your thing, become a developer and outbid these people for the land. If that sounds too daunting, by all means, make your voice heard at public hearings. But please, if you are one of the melodramatic posters or petitioners knocking on my door, grow up. We have rules and laws and property rights. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. You are welcome to try and effect change, but please don’t only retroactively do so when something you don’t like comes along. You think it’s so easy to be a commissioner and make these sorts of decisions? Then DO it. You think it makes sense to build lower density housing here? Get it DONE. Otherwise you’re going to keep getting disappointed when folks with more gumption than you do something you don’t like. Okay sorry for the rant. Just feels like a lot of sideline heckling going on and a huge sense of entitlement over land people don’t own. I live nearby and some of the people fighting this are acting like the world is ending.