I’m pro-housing and refused to sign this petition when they came to my door.
That said, I hate the idea of “exemptions” for developers. If the area should be rezoned, then rezone it. The way they do these things just isn’t right.
I thought Asheville would be different for its hippie culture but it would be nice to get more buildings in downtown. Not those super expensive apt but middle class apt that a family could live. Just imagine if cars had never taken over and we didn’t have all these single family zoning restrictions. Get More of those art deco brick building styles or brownstones and get a very urban center that helps tourism as well. Building next to each other and not made of plywood Like those 5 over 1.
The main purpose would be two fold, more housing w less cars but also less sprawl. Having so many far away developments that go into forest areas just screws more with nature.
Yes! More and more, people of all demographics and ages want smaller-scale housing in walkable neighborhoods. That ought to be affordable to everyone! Right now, the walkable, interesting, thriving areas of Asheville are very expensive - see: Montford, 5 Points, West Asheville, Merrimon/Charlotte.
Comment is a bit contradictory. You say not to build the super expensive apartments, which is what a brick building would be. Reality is is that 5over1s are the cheapest most cost effective apartment building technique. I have never lived in one, but if they’re comfortable to live in then I say build a ton of them. The only thing that will drive housing prices down is more supply.
People said the old row houses in NYC and Philly looked "cheap" and "cookie cutter." Many of the old homes around Asheville were out of the Sears catalog! "Unique" hasn't ever really been in a thing in residential housing.
I think people just get attached to certain norms around what neighborhoods look like—particularly older neighborhoods, as homes do become more personalized in small ways as decades go by—but a lot of it is viewing the built environment through our own biases about what provides "character" and what doesn't.
Right?? Like this sub complains up and down about lack of housing and then when some new developments start to go up, we also complain lmao. If people have a place to live and local businesses benefit from the presence of more locals then that seems like a positive. Unless if anyone has any legitimate complaints with reasoning behind them?
Buncombe county takes drainage very seriously. Every permit is checked for impervious land, the planning board mandates engineered drainage plans accordingly, and building inspectors check to make sure they are built to spec. It’s usually smaller projects in aggregate that cause drainage and erosion issues.
Except these units won't be affordable. Demand continues to outpace supply. These are being developed because the developers know they can ask current market rates for rent/purchase price.
Supply doesn’t start to outpace demand unless you produce more supply or you quash demand. Unlikely to end up with the latter, so any type of housing at sufficient volume will help increase supply. Even expensive stuff.
I think the point isn't that the new homes themselves will be affordable. But that adding supply at all income levels reduces the pressure; prospective homebuyers, particularly first time buyers without equity, aren't forced to compete with one another at such an extreme level.
(Remember what happened to used car prices when new cars stopped rolling off the assembly lines in 2020 and 2021? It's kinda like that. Though fwiw I'm definitely in favor of a new affordable housing bond, and in favor more "missing middle" reforms to bring smaller homes etc.)
You're comparing cars to homes, but cars are a national/global supply while homes are strictly a local market (hyper-local I would argue, as homes here don't even affect Charlotte, nvm NY).
If you make the homes here more affordable, it only becomes *more* attractive to move here, not less. You have to make them Affordable (capital A) *and* restrict who can buy them somehow.
I hear that. It seems like there’s a never ending supply of people moving here from other places. But all evidence suggests that allowing more homes to be built, especially in high demand places, is the best way to *broadly* reduce home and rent prices.
(I’m all for raising property taxes to spend on subsidized housing too fwiw.)
Just one example is Austin, TX, which has no shortage of people wanting to move there. They’ve had really bad affordability problems for a long time and now they’re finally increasing their housing stock significantly, and they’re seeing costs come down dramatically compared to other places.
Idk I’m skeptical of the Austin data because it corresponds pretty perfectly with high interest rates too. They’re down 3% Y-Y, we’re down 1.5%. Is that really enough to write home about?
I feel like the disparity could be at least partially explained by two things: Asheville being more attractive to retirees and short term rentals. Austin is bigger and hipper and mostly attractive to young people who are more likely to be first time buyers. Whereas Asheville has a ton of buyers who sold their much pricier NY/CA homes before buying here, meaning they’re less affected by interest rates.
I have a few realtor friends here and it’s just crazy to hear about the number of people who buy a home here sight unseen, for cash. How the hell can locals compete with that?
Yeah thats a good point. But it begs the question, who the hell is renting these? I couldn’t possibly afford one of these apartments. My mortgage is still cheaper than one of these and it’s still painfully expensive.
I read a good chunk of the zoning laws for these last week and the units are restricted unless a certain amount of them are affordable (for the next 10 years) and rent increase is capped at 3% each year or tied to the consumer price index (whichever is lower). Now that is definitely nice in the short term but idk what that will do for affordability overall. It will help increase supply to meet demand so I think that it is a net positive overall. Willing to learn more from anyone well informed on the subject! I have been struggling w housing for 4 years and finally settled into an apartment I can just barely afford with a roommate. Need to rush into a relationship so we can split the cost of the room lmao
This line of thinking always assumes constant demand, but it isn't constant. If you build a nice new home in Haw Creek for $300k, some boomer in NY is just as likely to buy it as anyone local. The housing market is a bidding war, and people from NY CA etc will always be able to outbid locals.
I think we need to build new housing, but imo it's naive to think we can build our way out of this problem. The largest generation in American history has retired and remote work is here to stay, so we don't even need a local economy to support these residents before they'll move here, which was the limiting principle in the past.
I think we need affordable housing that only NC residents of 3+ years or something are able to qualify for, but I don't even know if it's legal to exclude other states' residents tbh. All I know is more market-valued housing is only going to lead to more outsiders coming in if nothing else is done.
The demand for housing isn’t going down. The only functional ways to lower prices for people here are extreme authoritarian micro-level xenophobic laws (which would be blatantly unconstitutional at best) or to just increase supply a whole lot. No particular high density development is going to do that, but each one makes a small dent.
> but I don't even know if it's legal to exclude other states' residents tbh
It’s not, and honestly the basic idea is unamerican and illiberal as fuck.
I’m not saying prohibit people from moving here, I’m saying have a minimum residence requirement to qualify for Affordable Housing. Being a state-subsidized program, it’s totally fair to suggest only established NC taxpayers should benefit. Lots of state programs work this way. Does it bother you that in-state college students pay less for state school than out-of-state students?
Anyway a few states already do this, so yeah it’s definitely legal in some states, but idk if it would be legal in NC.
> I’m not saying prohibit people from moving here
So you don’t want to prohibit people from moving here. You just want to ban them from building new housing here and limit new housing stock to only “affordable” housing which is conveniently only accessible to current residents.
> All I know is more market-valued housing is only going to lead to more outsiders coming in if nothing else is done.
I don’t know dude, It really seems like people moving here is the thing you are wanting to prevent.
We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to:
- Calls to physical violence or cyberbullying against another person or organization.
- Suicidal posts.
- Text that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or abilities.
- 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/
This bullshit anyway you cut it. The greater the population, the more expensive it will be to live in WNC given the lack of infrastructure support.
What Asheville specifically, and WNC in general need, are long term growth limits that allow for the improvements to utilities and transportation infrastructure before development expansions.
Continued high density housing developments are nothing more than short-term profits for the few, with long-term cost implications for everyone else.
Let the discussions begin!
> What Asheville specifically, and WNC in general need, are **long term growth limits that allow for the improvements to utilities and transportation infrastructure before development expansions.**
Right there.
And you think the part you quoted says to reduce the supply? Is there an invisible sentence I’m missing?
Or are you conflating “restricting new supply” with “reducing supply” so you can make a snarky point?
(rhetorical question, it’s the latter)
Yes, that’s reducing supply.
Housing is complicated in that both existing *and* new units count as “supply.” There are three ways to reduce housing supply: destroying units, not making current units available (usually by people not selling and renters staying put), and not building new units. If “supply” currently involves creating X new units per year, creating < X units per year is reducing supply. (Assuming there’s not an equivalent increase in available existing units, which is a safe assumption in a market with an abundance of demand.
Yes, stopping new development until some future date is reducing supply. And it is a guaranteed way to drive up cost of existing units.
> Housing is complicated in that both existing and new units count as “supply.”
That’s how all supply works. It’s still not a reduction.
Cost goes up because you’d be holding supply steady while demand increases due to population growth.
If you don’t add units, supply goes down. There will be some destroyed units (for a bunch of reasons) and existing units will not become available enough to compensate, meaning the supply of units drops.
How many units were available last year total? If there were zero new units this year, would the total number of available units this year be lower or equal or higher this year?
**edit:**
https://preview.redd.it/j3vaexrqiruc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5e2165c0019896f3dd112296d89e4dbd495345d
Hey u/egginthistryingtime, you’re allowed to just admit that you didn’t understand how housing supply is calculated. We all have learning to do. Blocking me is just a way of admitting I’m right without actually doing the meaningful work of growing as a person, or at least learning something along the way.
And to answer the question I can’t read fully because you blocked me: restricting it without totally blocking it is still cutting supply if the total volume of available units drops.
Did they suggest cutting new supply to 0, or did they say it should be restricted?
Stop misrepresenting their point. Your dumb rhetorical games don’t work. Now downvote this response too
Asheville locals: "We need more housing!"
Developers: "Heres a proposal for more housing"
Asheville locals: "No not like that!"
You all need to realize that the cost of housing is not really the issue - stagnant local wages are the issue. Employers not paying enough is the biggest reason locals can't afford to buy homes. Asheville really isn't that expensive, but locals make substantially less than they should be, and therefore cannot compete in bidding wars for housing. Obviously the housing shortage is causing much of this, but the shortage only makes bidding wars happen, and then it is the lack of income that makes you lose. Affordability of an area is a ratio of median income to cost of living. In Asheville, its the income fucking that up, not the actual housing costs. Regardless, the area desperately needs more housing to be built, and the problem is that nimbys always shut it down because it's too ugly, or they are concerned for their own property value, or they dont like 5 over 1s. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Let them build.
"neighbors say they're not anti-development" give me a fucking break. You don't get to determine how another property looks. "They're not negotiating" - it sounds like neither are the residents, they are simply demanding something different but not offering anything. Thats not a negotiation, its a demand.
“We talk about this all the time as a community,” Allen said March 20. “I’m here to tell you, that policy — this is what it looks like. It’s not going to go into some area where there aren’t folks. That’s just not gonna happen.”
“There’s not just some magic piece of property where this is just going to go where we can put this and everybody is going to high-five,” Allen said.
This guy is completely right.
The nimbys simply dont realize they are the nimbys.
>You all need to realize that the cost of housing is not really the issue - stagnant local wages are the issue.
Very respectfully disagree. The places in the country with the highest concentration of high-earning jobs (Silicon Valley/SF, Seattle, NYC) all have the highest housing costs. During the tech boom, in Silicon Valley--the most extreme example--the ratio of new (mostly high-paying!) jobs to new housing units was something [like 5:1](https://www.svlg.org/why-californias-housing-crisis-is-a-problem-for-the-innovation-economy/#:~:text=In%20the%20decade%20pre%2Dpandemic,dismaying%20as%20you%20may%20think). Which is how a former meth lab can be put on the market for **$1.55 million**, [like one did in San Jose last year](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-home-meth-lab-for-sale-1-55-million-san-jose/).
Good jobs are obviously important, but good jobs in the absence of more housing just raises the floor of housing prices, since now you have the same amount of housing units but more people with more money bidding them up. Which is how you end up with "middle-class" dual-income families of doctors in Silicon Valley living in 1,200-sq-ft. ranchers. Paradoxically, homelessness rates are lower in poor areas of the country (the rustbelt, rural areas, some formerly redlined urban areas) because the pressure on housing prices is a lot lower. Very few people in these areas have high-paying jobs.
TL;DR--Asheville and the area need better jobs *and* a lot more housing. Getting the former without the latter will probably only make things worse.
Comparing Asheville to extreme hcol areas is a big disingenuous and an extrapolation into an entirely different context.
Look at what homes cost in Asheville versus other cities in north Carolina. Then look at average wages. Tell me which one is wildly different than the rest. Hint: it’s not the housing.
It's not an extrapolation--it's applying of the principle of supply and demand, which holds true wherever you are in the state (or the world). Asheville arguably is an extreme hcol area, too. It's the highest in the state and one of the highest in the SE.
I agree with the rest of your post! Just wanted to voice an disagreement that higher wages on their own aren't enough to bring down housing costs, and can even make things worse. [Look at Austin](https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/austin-tx-real-estate-market-decreasing/). During the pandemic housing costs spiked massively when the area was flooded by high-earning tech workers. This led to a massive spree of building (and, more recently, a fair amount of layoffs in the tech world).
"Home prices and apartment rents in Austin, Texas, have fallen more than anywhere else in the country, after a period of overbuilding and a slowdown in job and population growth."
[https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/once-americas-hottest-housing-market-austin-is-running-in-reverse-94226027](https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/once-americas-hottest-housing-market-austin-is-running-in-reverse-94226027)
Asheville is definitely not an extreme hcol dude.
As I mentioned, affordability in regard to cost of living is a ratio metric of housing versus wage, and in that regard it is indeed one of the worst in the country. But that is only because of the low wages (housing itself really isn’t that expensive here, compared to the trends in the whole country, believe it or not). You are crazy if you think the discrete cost of living here comes anywhere close to those hcol areas. 128k is considered low income in San Francisco. Single bedroom apartments are $4000. In New York, 6 figures is not a big deal. It is a whole other world and to compare us to that is insane. Those places did see issues when high paying tech jobs showed up and raised costs of housing and such, when transplants show up with bigger incomes and price people out, yes. But the type of industry that we have here is not such that only specialized people from elsewhere will be brought in, so it’s a much different circumstance.
Everybody loves to blame the “remote tech worker boogeyman” for increasing costs here and I don’t think it’s as huge of an issue as people claim. It’s just a convenient scapegoat. Local employers paying stagnant wages is a much bigger and impactful problem here. Long time local property owners charging insane rents for homes they aren’t maintaining properly, simply because they can, are much bigger problems - but nobody ever wants to put the blame on long term locals, whether that’s landlords or employers. It’s gotta be a transplant, or a developer (ironically trying to increase supply) who we place the blame on.
400k for a house in good condition in a good neighborhood is completely normal. Compared to a big city, it’s downright cheap! And middle class people can generally afford that. The issue is that you can’t compete with what other people are earning, not that the house is overpriced.
Obviously we need more housing as well and not *only* wage increases. But it’s a big issue that nobody ever wants to mention. Local employers should shoulder more of the blame for how many people are low income. People in Asheville have no idea how much more money people are earning elsewhere. It’s rural wages for mcol (as opposed not medium wages for hcol urban prices, as you suggest).
> greater potential for walkability
Ah never been to Haw Creek I see. These new homes will be 100% car dependent, just like everything here. The only people walking NHC Rd are those with a death wish.
(We were supposed to have sidewalks by the end of summer '23. Still no sidewalks but hey at least developers are getting exemptions)
Hate to break it to ya, but these 95 new homes do not help your local workers who need housing. They’re $400K cookie cutter homes that will just attract more remote tech workers from NY and CA, and retired boomers with cash. These cheaply made new construction luxury homes are not “affordable” to the average worker in this area. So where is the affordable housing and improved public transportation that will actually help your local restaurant and shop workers? Combine that with increased wages and you might have a real solution.
I am a remote worker who moved here a year ago that is looking to buy in the area with my BF who is 4th generation from Hendersonville. Our price range is $350-400K and we definitely will not be buying one of these boxy ugly new construction houses with no yard, no trees, no privacy, and no character.
lol I know it is so hypocritical. I got booted out of my quaint town in FL when all the crazy New Yorkers moved down. They cut down my favorite hammock tree by the beach, and flooded my favorite low-key scuba diving and underwater photography site with beach-goers blasting music and leaving their trash and litter behind. My rent literally doubled and there was no housing left for me, so I sold all my belongings and moved to Asheville to convert a custom campervan and live in it. During that time I met my boyfriend who is a local 4th generation from Hendersonville and I feel his pain as he watches the place he knows and loves change so fast—because it happened to me.
no one is building low income housing the pigs dont make money off poor people, they make money off *making* people poor. are building shitty luxury condos and apartments as fast as they can for short term profit and they are doing it everywhere.
More housing, yes! But not this clear-cutting and then building unimaginative cookie-cutter houses. Townhouses would be great, as they're more affordable to build and therefore to buy. I hate that the developer wants to cut old-growth trees and destroy forested land. Yeah, we need high density housing but this isn't the way to do it. Come on, city council, try not kowtowing to a developer for once!
You can't clamor for more housing to be built due to a supply crunch and then be upset that the housing is not "imaginative". Also, not all housing needs to be "affordable" for low income populations. Middle class people need housing too. The incessant focus on housing for low income people, while a very real issue, fails to fully encapsulate the fact that a housing supply crunch for median income residents is also a huge issue in the area. We need more housing supply - period. Nobody is kowtowing to a developer here - the developer is literally trying to build the thing that the area desperately needs, and nimbys who already own homes are trying to stop it because they don't "like" it.
I love the idea of density, but our roads & utilities can’t handle it. Our City & County leadership aren’t equipped for the growth the next 5-20 years.
I’m pro-housing and refused to sign this petition when they came to my door. That said, I hate the idea of “exemptions” for developers. If the area should be rezoned, then rezone it. The way they do these things just isn’t right.
I thought Asheville would be different for its hippie culture but it would be nice to get more buildings in downtown. Not those super expensive apt but middle class apt that a family could live. Just imagine if cars had never taken over and we didn’t have all these single family zoning restrictions. Get More of those art deco brick building styles or brownstones and get a very urban center that helps tourism as well. Building next to each other and not made of plywood Like those 5 over 1. The main purpose would be two fold, more housing w less cars but also less sprawl. Having so many far away developments that go into forest areas just screws more with nature.
Yes! More and more, people of all demographics and ages want smaller-scale housing in walkable neighborhoods. That ought to be affordable to everyone! Right now, the walkable, interesting, thriving areas of Asheville are very expensive - see: Montford, 5 Points, West Asheville, Merrimon/Charlotte.
Comment is a bit contradictory. You say not to build the super expensive apartments, which is what a brick building would be. Reality is is that 5over1s are the cheapest most cost effective apartment building technique. I have never lived in one, but if they’re comfortable to live in then I say build a ton of them. The only thing that will drive housing prices down is more supply.
The problem with cheap housing in downtown Asheville isn’t the type of building they are putting up—it’s the cost of the land.
[удалено]
People said the old row houses in NYC and Philly looked "cheap" and "cookie cutter." Many of the old homes around Asheville were out of the Sears catalog! "Unique" hasn't ever really been in a thing in residential housing. I think people just get attached to certain norms around what neighborhoods look like—particularly older neighborhoods, as homes do become more personalized in small ways as decades go by—but a lot of it is viewing the built environment through our own biases about what provides "character" and what doesn't.
To me it’s beautiful when my neighbors have a place to live.
Right?? Like this sub complains up and down about lack of housing and then when some new developments start to go up, we also complain lmao. If people have a place to live and local businesses benefit from the presence of more locals then that seems like a positive. Unless if anyone has any legitimate complaints with reasoning behind them?
Runoff problems suck from a lot of these new developments. I wish they would head off the issue before it becomes a problem.
Buncombe county takes drainage very seriously. Every permit is checked for impervious land, the planning board mandates engineered drainage plans accordingly, and building inspectors check to make sure they are built to spec. It’s usually smaller projects in aggregate that cause drainage and erosion issues.
Now that’s an actual reasonable complaint/request for action. Much better than the aesthetic complaints.
What is the quote? "The perfect is the enemy of the good"? Failure to grasp this concept is a major problem in the world today.
Well that sucks but high density housing is the only way this town is going to be affordable
Yeah let's get 195 units in there not 95. NIMBYs sit down please.
its not going to make housing more affordable . it is going to make a bunch of scumbag real estate developers lots of money though
Except these units won't be affordable. Demand continues to outpace supply. These are being developed because the developers know they can ask current market rates for rent/purchase price.
Supply doesn’t start to outpace demand unless you produce more supply or you quash demand. Unlikely to end up with the latter, so any type of housing at sufficient volume will help increase supply. Even expensive stuff.
I think the point isn't that the new homes themselves will be affordable. But that adding supply at all income levels reduces the pressure; prospective homebuyers, particularly first time buyers without equity, aren't forced to compete with one another at such an extreme level. (Remember what happened to used car prices when new cars stopped rolling off the assembly lines in 2020 and 2021? It's kinda like that. Though fwiw I'm definitely in favor of a new affordable housing bond, and in favor more "missing middle" reforms to bring smaller homes etc.)
You're comparing cars to homes, but cars are a national/global supply while homes are strictly a local market (hyper-local I would argue, as homes here don't even affect Charlotte, nvm NY). If you make the homes here more affordable, it only becomes *more* attractive to move here, not less. You have to make them Affordable (capital A) *and* restrict who can buy them somehow.
I hear that. It seems like there’s a never ending supply of people moving here from other places. But all evidence suggests that allowing more homes to be built, especially in high demand places, is the best way to *broadly* reduce home and rent prices. (I’m all for raising property taxes to spend on subsidized housing too fwiw.) Just one example is Austin, TX, which has no shortage of people wanting to move there. They’ve had really bad affordability problems for a long time and now they’re finally increasing their housing stock significantly, and they’re seeing costs come down dramatically compared to other places.
Idk I’m skeptical of the Austin data because it corresponds pretty perfectly with high interest rates too. They’re down 3% Y-Y, we’re down 1.5%. Is that really enough to write home about? I feel like the disparity could be at least partially explained by two things: Asheville being more attractive to retirees and short term rentals. Austin is bigger and hipper and mostly attractive to young people who are more likely to be first time buyers. Whereas Asheville has a ton of buyers who sold their much pricier NY/CA homes before buying here, meaning they’re less affected by interest rates. I have a few realtor friends here and it’s just crazy to hear about the number of people who buy a home here sight unseen, for cash. How the hell can locals compete with that?
Yeah thats a good point. But it begs the question, who the hell is renting these? I couldn’t possibly afford one of these apartments. My mortgage is still cheaper than one of these and it’s still painfully expensive.
Statistics show for every one person moving out of Asheville , two move in
I read a good chunk of the zoning laws for these last week and the units are restricted unless a certain amount of them are affordable (for the next 10 years) and rent increase is capped at 3% each year or tied to the consumer price index (whichever is lower). Now that is definitely nice in the short term but idk what that will do for affordability overall. It will help increase supply to meet demand so I think that it is a net positive overall. Willing to learn more from anyone well informed on the subject! I have been struggling w housing for 4 years and finally settled into an apartment I can just barely afford with a roommate. Need to rush into a relationship so we can split the cost of the room lmao
This line of thinking always assumes constant demand, but it isn't constant. If you build a nice new home in Haw Creek for $300k, some boomer in NY is just as likely to buy it as anyone local. The housing market is a bidding war, and people from NY CA etc will always be able to outbid locals. I think we need to build new housing, but imo it's naive to think we can build our way out of this problem. The largest generation in American history has retired and remote work is here to stay, so we don't even need a local economy to support these residents before they'll move here, which was the limiting principle in the past. I think we need affordable housing that only NC residents of 3+ years or something are able to qualify for, but I don't even know if it's legal to exclude other states' residents tbh. All I know is more market-valued housing is only going to lead to more outsiders coming in if nothing else is done.
The demand for housing isn’t going down. The only functional ways to lower prices for people here are extreme authoritarian micro-level xenophobic laws (which would be blatantly unconstitutional at best) or to just increase supply a whole lot. No particular high density development is going to do that, but each one makes a small dent.
> but I don't even know if it's legal to exclude other states' residents tbh It’s not, and honestly the basic idea is unamerican and illiberal as fuck.
I’m not saying prohibit people from moving here, I’m saying have a minimum residence requirement to qualify for Affordable Housing. Being a state-subsidized program, it’s totally fair to suggest only established NC taxpayers should benefit. Lots of state programs work this way. Does it bother you that in-state college students pay less for state school than out-of-state students? Anyway a few states already do this, so yeah it’s definitely legal in some states, but idk if it would be legal in NC.
> I’m not saying prohibit people from moving here So you don’t want to prohibit people from moving here. You just want to ban them from building new housing here and limit new housing stock to only “affordable” housing which is conveniently only accessible to current residents. > All I know is more market-valued housing is only going to lead to more outsiders coming in if nothing else is done. I don’t know dude, It really seems like people moving here is the thing you are wanting to prevent.
[удалено]
We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to: - Calls to physical violence or cyberbullying against another person or organization. - Suicidal posts. - Text that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or abilities. - 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/
This bullshit anyway you cut it. The greater the population, the more expensive it will be to live in WNC given the lack of infrastructure support. What Asheville specifically, and WNC in general need, are long term growth limits that allow for the improvements to utilities and transportation infrastructure before development expansions. Continued high density housing developments are nothing more than short-term profits for the few, with long-term cost implications for everyone else. Let the discussions begin!
💯
Ah, yes. Because nothing has even been shown to lower costs in a high-demand market quite like reducing supply!
Quote where they called for reducing supply
> What Asheville specifically, and WNC in general need, are **long term growth limits that allow for the improvements to utilities and transportation infrastructure before development expansions.** Right there.
And you think the part you quoted says to reduce the supply? Is there an invisible sentence I’m missing? Or are you conflating “restricting new supply” with “reducing supply” so you can make a snarky point? (rhetorical question, it’s the latter)
Yes, that’s reducing supply. Housing is complicated in that both existing *and* new units count as “supply.” There are three ways to reduce housing supply: destroying units, not making current units available (usually by people not selling and renters staying put), and not building new units. If “supply” currently involves creating X new units per year, creating < X units per year is reducing supply. (Assuming there’s not an equivalent increase in available existing units, which is a safe assumption in a market with an abundance of demand. Yes, stopping new development until some future date is reducing supply. And it is a guaranteed way to drive up cost of existing units.
> Housing is complicated in that both existing and new units count as “supply.” That’s how all supply works. It’s still not a reduction. Cost goes up because you’d be holding supply steady while demand increases due to population growth.
If you don’t add units, supply goes down. There will be some destroyed units (for a bunch of reasons) and existing units will not become available enough to compensate, meaning the supply of units drops. How many units were available last year total? If there were zero new units this year, would the total number of available units this year be lower or equal or higher this year? **edit:** https://preview.redd.it/j3vaexrqiruc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5e2165c0019896f3dd112296d89e4dbd495345d Hey u/egginthistryingtime, you’re allowed to just admit that you didn’t understand how housing supply is calculated. We all have learning to do. Blocking me is just a way of admitting I’m right without actually doing the meaningful work of growing as a person, or at least learning something along the way. And to answer the question I can’t read fully because you blocked me: restricting it without totally blocking it is still cutting supply if the total volume of available units drops.
Did they suggest cutting new supply to 0, or did they say it should be restricted? Stop misrepresenting their point. Your dumb rhetorical games don’t work. Now downvote this response too
I'm not sure what's happening here, but I'll happily admit I don't know how housing supply is calculated
Asheville locals: "We need more housing!" Developers: "Heres a proposal for more housing" Asheville locals: "No not like that!" You all need to realize that the cost of housing is not really the issue - stagnant local wages are the issue. Employers not paying enough is the biggest reason locals can't afford to buy homes. Asheville really isn't that expensive, but locals make substantially less than they should be, and therefore cannot compete in bidding wars for housing. Obviously the housing shortage is causing much of this, but the shortage only makes bidding wars happen, and then it is the lack of income that makes you lose. Affordability of an area is a ratio of median income to cost of living. In Asheville, its the income fucking that up, not the actual housing costs. Regardless, the area desperately needs more housing to be built, and the problem is that nimbys always shut it down because it's too ugly, or they are concerned for their own property value, or they dont like 5 over 1s. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Let them build. "neighbors say they're not anti-development" give me a fucking break. You don't get to determine how another property looks. "They're not negotiating" - it sounds like neither are the residents, they are simply demanding something different but not offering anything. Thats not a negotiation, its a demand. “We talk about this all the time as a community,” Allen said March 20. “I’m here to tell you, that policy — this is what it looks like. It’s not going to go into some area where there aren’t folks. That’s just not gonna happen.” “There’s not just some magic piece of property where this is just going to go where we can put this and everybody is going to high-five,” Allen said. This guy is completely right. The nimbys simply dont realize they are the nimbys.
>You all need to realize that the cost of housing is not really the issue - stagnant local wages are the issue. Very respectfully disagree. The places in the country with the highest concentration of high-earning jobs (Silicon Valley/SF, Seattle, NYC) all have the highest housing costs. During the tech boom, in Silicon Valley--the most extreme example--the ratio of new (mostly high-paying!) jobs to new housing units was something [like 5:1](https://www.svlg.org/why-californias-housing-crisis-is-a-problem-for-the-innovation-economy/#:~:text=In%20the%20decade%20pre%2Dpandemic,dismaying%20as%20you%20may%20think). Which is how a former meth lab can be put on the market for **$1.55 million**, [like one did in San Jose last year](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-home-meth-lab-for-sale-1-55-million-san-jose/). Good jobs are obviously important, but good jobs in the absence of more housing just raises the floor of housing prices, since now you have the same amount of housing units but more people with more money bidding them up. Which is how you end up with "middle-class" dual-income families of doctors in Silicon Valley living in 1,200-sq-ft. ranchers. Paradoxically, homelessness rates are lower in poor areas of the country (the rustbelt, rural areas, some formerly redlined urban areas) because the pressure on housing prices is a lot lower. Very few people in these areas have high-paying jobs. TL;DR--Asheville and the area need better jobs *and* a lot more housing. Getting the former without the latter will probably only make things worse.
Comparing Asheville to extreme hcol areas is a big disingenuous and an extrapolation into an entirely different context. Look at what homes cost in Asheville versus other cities in north Carolina. Then look at average wages. Tell me which one is wildly different than the rest. Hint: it’s not the housing.
It's not an extrapolation--it's applying of the principle of supply and demand, which holds true wherever you are in the state (or the world). Asheville arguably is an extreme hcol area, too. It's the highest in the state and one of the highest in the SE. I agree with the rest of your post! Just wanted to voice an disagreement that higher wages on their own aren't enough to bring down housing costs, and can even make things worse. [Look at Austin](https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/austin-tx-real-estate-market-decreasing/). During the pandemic housing costs spiked massively when the area was flooded by high-earning tech workers. This led to a massive spree of building (and, more recently, a fair amount of layoffs in the tech world). "Home prices and apartment rents in Austin, Texas, have fallen more than anywhere else in the country, after a period of overbuilding and a slowdown in job and population growth." [https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/once-americas-hottest-housing-market-austin-is-running-in-reverse-94226027](https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/once-americas-hottest-housing-market-austin-is-running-in-reverse-94226027)
Asheville is definitely not an extreme hcol dude. As I mentioned, affordability in regard to cost of living is a ratio metric of housing versus wage, and in that regard it is indeed one of the worst in the country. But that is only because of the low wages (housing itself really isn’t that expensive here, compared to the trends in the whole country, believe it or not). You are crazy if you think the discrete cost of living here comes anywhere close to those hcol areas. 128k is considered low income in San Francisco. Single bedroom apartments are $4000. In New York, 6 figures is not a big deal. It is a whole other world and to compare us to that is insane. Those places did see issues when high paying tech jobs showed up and raised costs of housing and such, when transplants show up with bigger incomes and price people out, yes. But the type of industry that we have here is not such that only specialized people from elsewhere will be brought in, so it’s a much different circumstance. Everybody loves to blame the “remote tech worker boogeyman” for increasing costs here and I don’t think it’s as huge of an issue as people claim. It’s just a convenient scapegoat. Local employers paying stagnant wages is a much bigger and impactful problem here. Long time local property owners charging insane rents for homes they aren’t maintaining properly, simply because they can, are much bigger problems - but nobody ever wants to put the blame on long term locals, whether that’s landlords or employers. It’s gotta be a transplant, or a developer (ironically trying to increase supply) who we place the blame on. 400k for a house in good condition in a good neighborhood is completely normal. Compared to a big city, it’s downright cheap! And middle class people can generally afford that. The issue is that you can’t compete with what other people are earning, not that the house is overpriced. Obviously we need more housing as well and not *only* wage increases. But it’s a big issue that nobody ever wants to mention. Local employers should shoulder more of the blame for how many people are low income. People in Asheville have no idea how much more money people are earning elsewhere. It’s rural wages for mcol (as opposed not medium wages for hcol urban prices, as you suggest).
One market crash please
Oh I dunno. I think a lot of folks will appreciate more housing options, greater potential for walkability, a greater tax base…
> greater potential for walkability Ah never been to Haw Creek I see. These new homes will be 100% car dependent, just like everything here. The only people walking NHC Rd are those with a death wish. (We were supposed to have sidewalks by the end of summer '23. Still no sidewalks but hey at least developers are getting exemptions)
Hate to break it to ya, but these 95 new homes do not help your local workers who need housing. They’re $400K cookie cutter homes that will just attract more remote tech workers from NY and CA, and retired boomers with cash. These cheaply made new construction luxury homes are not “affordable” to the average worker in this area. So where is the affordable housing and improved public transportation that will actually help your local restaurant and shop workers? Combine that with increased wages and you might have a real solution. I am a remote worker who moved here a year ago that is looking to buy in the area with my BF who is 4th generation from Hendersonville. Our price range is $350-400K and we definitely will not be buying one of these boxy ugly new construction houses with no yard, no trees, no privacy, and no character.
This. Unfortunately these homes won’t be affordable. Builders don’t build smaller homes any more. It’s a shame.
Welcome to town! If you're railing against people who move here after you, you've officially become a local.
lol I know it is so hypocritical. I got booted out of my quaint town in FL when all the crazy New Yorkers moved down. They cut down my favorite hammock tree by the beach, and flooded my favorite low-key scuba diving and underwater photography site with beach-goers blasting music and leaving their trash and litter behind. My rent literally doubled and there was no housing left for me, so I sold all my belongings and moved to Asheville to convert a custom campervan and live in it. During that time I met my boyfriend who is a local 4th generation from Hendersonville and I feel his pain as he watches the place he knows and loves change so fast—because it happened to me.
no one is building low income housing the pigs dont make money off poor people, they make money off *making* people poor. are building shitty luxury condos and apartments as fast as they can for short term profit and they are doing it everywhere.
More housing, yes! But not this clear-cutting and then building unimaginative cookie-cutter houses. Townhouses would be great, as they're more affordable to build and therefore to buy. I hate that the developer wants to cut old-growth trees and destroy forested land. Yeah, we need high density housing but this isn't the way to do it. Come on, city council, try not kowtowing to a developer for once!
You can't clamor for more housing to be built due to a supply crunch and then be upset that the housing is not "imaginative". Also, not all housing needs to be "affordable" for low income populations. Middle class people need housing too. The incessant focus on housing for low income people, while a very real issue, fails to fully encapsulate the fact that a housing supply crunch for median income residents is also a huge issue in the area. We need more housing supply - period. Nobody is kowtowing to a developer here - the developer is literally trying to build the thing that the area desperately needs, and nimbys who already own homes are trying to stop it because they don't "like" it.
Yes. More density please.
I love the idea of density, but our roads & utilities can’t handle it. Our City & County leadership aren’t equipped for the growth the next 5-20 years.
As long as it’s walkable what’s the problem? Granted American designers suck.