More housing choice in NC cities? That’s a good thing
Affordable housing has been a challenge in metropolitan areas like Raleigh and Charlotte for quite some time. The latest solution? Increasing housing density.
Just this week, the Raleigh City Council approved new rules to allow different types of housing, namely duplexes and townhomes, in traditionally single-family neighborhoods. Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin called it a chance to add “gentle density” to neighborhoods. Charlotte included a similar provision in its 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which was narrowly approved by the City Council earlier this month. The fiercely disputed provision is a push to allow duplexes and triplexes citywide, which could jeopardize single-family zoning in much, if not all, of the city.
These changes seek to address a phenomenon known as “missing middle” housing: housing types that fall somewhere in between single-family homes and apartment buildings; they include duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. These units are typically more affordable than single-family homes, especially for low-income residents, and building them is crucial to addressing the affordable housing crisis.
But single-family zoning, which has long been the law of the land throughout much of Raleigh and Charlotte, doesn’t allow for these types of units to be built. It forbids anything other than a detached single-family home — which means more affordable options, such as multiplexes, low-income housing and student housing, are banned, artificially limiting housing supply and driving up costs. As a result, low-income families are priced out of these neighborhoods, which often have better access to public transportation and high-quality schools. Black and Latino residents are often disproportionately affected.
Charlotte is a particularly interesting case study in the downfalls of single-family zoning. The city has a long history of redlining and restrictive covenants. Wealthier, white neighborhoods such as Myers Park and Dilworth were considered good investments, while majority-Black areas like Brooklyn were said to be bad ones. Although redlining has since been outlawed, single-family zoning, in many ways, perpetuates it — now, more than 80% of Charlotte is zoned single-family. Intentional or not, single-family zoning in Charlotte has contributed to the segregation of the city on the basis of race and income level, as illustrated by the aptly-named “crescent and wedge” pattern seen on most maps.
And it’s not without consequences. Despite being one of the fastest-growing cities in the country, Charlotte ranked last among major U.S. cities in terms of upward mobility.
Not everyone is on board with zoning changes. Some worry that increased density will chip away at neighborhood character. Others worry about displacement, fearing that it will accelerate gentrification. Those concerns are, to some degree, valid. But the truth remains that more housing choice can also mean more affordability, especially in the current market, where demand for housing is outpacing supply.
Increasing housing choice is by no means a perfect solution. There’s no guarantee that newly constructed units will be affordable if prices are free to stabilize at the market rate, especially since local governments don’t have the authority to impose new development impact fees without legislative approval or require developers to set aside units as affordable. It’s even possible that the change won’t have much of an impact at all. Minneapolis, for example, eliminated single-family zoning in 2019, but in 2020, just 16 duplexes and four triplexes were constructed in the city. But, as many leaders have pointed out, change is needed — simply preserving the status quo is not acceptable, especially when affordable housing in Raleigh and Charlotte is so sorely lacking.
The push for affordable housing must happen on all fronts. Progressive, inclusionary housing policies that allow for higher density are just one of them. But there are limits to how much local governments can do regarding housing development. Perhaps the next step should be for the N.C. General Assembly to give them more of a say.