We read a lot in this community. We share articles, policy papers, books with dense footnotes and even denser implications. We talk about zoning reform over coffee and debate density metrics at cocktail parties. That is who we are, and I love us for it.

But this summer, we’re doing something different. We’re watching films together.

The CITYBUILDER Summer Film Tour is a three-city screening series coming to Durham, Cary, and Raleigh this summer, presented in partnership with Better Cities Film Festival and Southern Urbanism. Each event brings together a curated selection of short documentary films, none longer than twenty minutes, that explore housing, urbanism, and the future of American cities. Cities that look a lot like ours.

Think of it as the book club, but we watch instead of read. The format is the same: we absorb something together, and then we talk about it. The conversations after are just as important as the films themselves.

Why films? Why now?

The Triangle is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. We are making decisions right now about land use, infrastructure, density, and who gets to belong that will shape this region for a generation. Most of those decisions are being made quietly, in planning commission meetings and zoning board hearings and development agreements that many residents never see.

Part of our mission at CITYBUILDER is to widen the circle of people who are paying attention. Film is one of the fastest ways to do that. A well-made short documentary can explain in seven minutes what a policy brief takes forty pages to say, and it can make you feel something in the process.

What we’re watching and why it matters

Saga City is an animated short about a fictional town called Colvert that was drowning in the problems we know intimately: traffic, sprawl, heat islands, economic decline, the suffocating logic of car dependency.

And then Colvert decided to do something about it. The community came together, shared a vision, and rebuilt the city through infill development, infrastructure overhauls, transit systems, and suburban density.

The film’s arc is the story of a place much like the Triangle, whose problems can only be solved by changing the status quo.

CNU25.Seattle: Pocket Neighborhoods features architect Ross Chapin walking us through two Seattle neighborhoods built at human scale: small clusters of homes arranged around shared courtyards and garden paths. He talks about what he calls the “gift of constraints”, and about the five layers of threshold between the sidewalk and your front door.

These layers tell you where public space ends and private space begins, creating a community that encourages neighborly interaction. One resident says of Chapin’s neighborhood: “It feels like an oasis.” When you design for people first, at human scale, this is what you get. Most of our zoning codes make it impossible to build like this.

LA’s Forbidden City is a walking tour with urban planner Mark Vallianatos through the duplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts of Los Angeles; buildings that Angelenos love, live in, and can no longer build. It is a mystery and a history at the same time. In the 1920s, you could put any housing type next to any other on the same street. By the time parking minimums and setback requirements and density caps worked their way through the code, the most-loved building types in the city were effectively banned.

Here is our plan: at every screening, we want to start building a list of buildings in the Triangle that people love and can no longer legally construct. Raleigh’s forbidden city. Durham’s. Cary’s. Come to a screening and help us start it.

Segregated By Design is the film I most want you to see, and the one I find hardest to describe without getting angry all over again. Richard Rothstein, author of “The Color of Law,” narrates a fast-moving motion design film about how every major American metropolitan area became segregated — not by accident or individual bias, but by the deliberate, explicit policy of the federal, state, and local governments.

It explores the New Deal housing policies that demolished integrated neighborhoods to build segregated ones. You’ll learn about the United States Housing Authority’s first target city, Austin, Texas, where they planned to relocate every African American in the city to a specific designated area, closing schools and libraries based on skin color. The Federal Housing Administration’s insured loans — available to white families, denied to Black families, with deeds that prevented resale across racial lines. Redlining. Blockbusting. Slum clearance. State-sponsored violence.

And then this: the slums were not created by the people who lived in them. They were created by targeted government policy that forced overcrowding, withdrew public services, and then allowed white homeowners to look at the conditions and conclude that this was a characteristic of the community rather than a product of the government that engineered it.

Rothstein’s closing argument is that if we recognized that segregation is unconstitutional, we have an obligation to remedy it completely. That is not a comfortable conclusion, but it is a necessary one. I want us to watch this together and talk about what it means for our Triangle, for the maps of our own neighborhoods, for whose name is on the deed.

Before | After is one minute and forty-five seconds long, and it will make you want to call your city council member. It’s a collection of street transformations around the world, captured on Google Streetview by the team at Urb-i: car-dominated roads redesigned for people, with paint and bollards and bike lanes and benches where parking spaces used to be. It’s simple, direct, and inspiring. Cities on every continent are doing this. We have no excuse not to join in.

Come to one. Come to all three.

These screenings are held around the triangle. They’re at great venues: Fullsteam ATC in Durham, Hearsay in Cary, Trophy Brewing in Raleigh. They’re family-friendly with activities for kiddos. Drinks are available. The format is relaxed.

But these screenings are not passive. After we watch these films, we’ll talk about what they mean for housing in the Triangle, about the history underneath our neighborhoods, and what’s actually within reach for our region.

This summer sits between where we’ve been and where we’re going. CITYBUILDER is hosting YIMBYtown 2026 at the Raleigh Convention Center this November — a national pro-housing conference that will bring together advocates, planners, builders, and policymakers from across the country. This film tour is how we prepare for that. It is how we deepen the community that makes a conference like YIMBYtown worth attending.

Come watch. Come talk. Come build it with us.

Dates & Locations

June 25, 2026, 7-9pm · Fullsteam ATC · 320 Blackwell St #101, Durham

July 22, 2026, 7-9pm · Hearsay, A Cocktail Bar · 317 W Chatham St, Cary

August 26, 2026, 7-9pm · Trophy Brewing & Taproom · 656 Maywood Ave, Raleigh

All screenings are $10 and open to the public. Presented with Better Cities Film Festival and Southern Urbanism.

Brought to you by our Gold Sponsor

Hannah Moell is a Raleigh-based visual artist and housing advocate. As Development & Partnerships Director at CITYBUILDER. She leads sponsorship, fundraising, and partnerships, with a current focus on YIMBYtown 2026 at the Raleigh Convention Center.

Her art practice spans encaustic fractals, large-scale watercolor florals, and natural pigment on linen, all rooted in neuroaesthetics — the science of how pattern and the natural world trigger beauty and awe. She holds a BFA from East Carolina University and teaches through Durham Art Guild and the Makery.

Whether building coalitions or paintings, she’s drawn to systems that hold meaning and work that moves people.

CITYBUILDER readers know that housing is quickly taking center stage as a key political issue in North Carolina. Local governments have been slow to address many of the fundamental obstructions to more robust, affordable, and sustainable communities as our state continues to grow (though there have been positive steps in recent years). After several fits and starts, an array of proposals are either currently being considered by the North Carolina General Assembly, or soon will be.

But this week, we have a new entrant into the Housing Policy Thunderdome (er, I mean, wonderful, not at all dysfunctional exercise in democratic self-governance): Governor Josh Stein!

On Tuesday, May 19^th, Governor Stein signed Executive Order 36: “Increasing Housing Opportunities for All North Carolinians.” In outlining his rationale for the order, the Governor hit all the housing sweet spots: North Carolina’s 764,000 home shortage, the rapidly expanding gap between wages and housing affordability, infrastructure and workforce needs, an aging housing stock, diverse housing needs across different demographics – the hits.

As the Governor said, “you all have heard the expression ‘if you build it, they will come’, well, as it turns out in North Carolina, if you do not build it, they will still come”. Core message of the day: North Carolina is booming, and we need more housing.

However, for me, the most exciting element of this order is the fundamental recognition that state agencies have a role to play in solving this challenge, and they need to work together to do it.

What does the executive order do?

First, I want to take a moment to express appreciation for the work that goes into getting a new, cross-agency EO ready for primetime. I served as Climate Change Policy Advisor to Governor Cooper over the last couple years of his administration, so I was able to get a look behind the curtain; boss signed 330 EOs over his 8 years, so he had some experience in this department. It is no easy task, so I want to commend Governor Stein and his team for taking a hard swing at addressing this issue in a comprehensive way!

Okay, that being said, what does this thing actually do?

Section 1: Establishes a new Senior Advisor for Housing in the Office of the Governor

This sounds like a small step, but trust me when I say this is vital!

Often, policy advisors will act as the central point person with a specific agency. In other cases, such as with my former role as Climate Change Policy Advisor, they work with several agencies that each touch on parts of an issue, but don’t necessarily “own” it.

This position seems to be similarly situated, as well as being a member of senior staff. This speaks to the prioritization of housing as an issue moving forward. Unlike other states, North Carolina does not have a muscular housing-focused entity at the state level beyond the NC Housing Finance Agency (“NCHFA”). The people at NCHFA do great work with the mandate they have, but it is not within their charge to address the myriads of underlying policy influences that impact housing production.

This means that for the first time, there will be someone specifically tasked with seeing how all the pieces of the bigger picture fit together. Governor Stein also brought in a heavyweight in Janneke Ratcliffe, who was most recently Vice President at the Urban Institute, a premier national leader on housing policy. Her entire focus will be devoted to working across agencies and issue areas, breaking through silos, and reforming policies and incentives created by agencies that often are blind to how they influence where and what we are able to build.

In the Governor’s Office, with limited time and too many problems, personnel truly is policy, and Janneke Ratcliffe is good personnel.

Section 2: Efficient Deployment of State Resources Through Technology and Data

The title of this section reads pretty boring, but that masks its importance. This is the meat of the order, outlining the expectations of various agencies to work with each other and the new Senior Housing Advisor.

Some particularly notable elements related to community design and land use decisions include the following (emphasis my own):

All agencies shall work with NCHFA to “…increase efficiencies in small-scale projects to enable more participation by small developers.”

This is an explicit acknowledgement of the value of small-scale projects and developers. Spotlighting projects that do not receive the same benefits through public subsidies and face structural disadvantages is a vital first step to developing the wider variety of housing types that North Carolinians need. I discuss this issue and much more in a North Carolina Housing and Transportation Roadmap that I developed last fall.

“…explore the development of integrated housing information platforms to streamline data across jurisdictions and address critical inputs like zoning, infrastructure capacity, transportation, permitting, and market feasibility.”

How this provision is implemented will be key, but creating easy to navigate platforms will help local governments (particularly smaller communities with less resources) adopt best practices. Also, by linking these elements together, the Governor is showing that his administration understands how these elements all collectively impact what types of communities actually get built and where.

“…directs DOT to explore metrics for transportation project impacts on community connectivity, housing availability, and local economic benefits and to collaborate with local planning organizations and community-based organizations to support transit-oriented development, locally driven housing development, and local connectivity” and “directs DOT to incorporate Complete Streets guidance into project design to the maximum extent feasible to support community connectivity, safety, and housing access.”

Personally, this is the provision I am most excited about after spending two years working with NCDOT on clean transportation priorities. The extent to which the agency sees its role as simply mitigating problems downstream of causes beyond its control without recognizing its role as an active player in shaping community design was… eye-opening, to say the least.

This directive flips that perspective on its head.

The Governor is directing NCDOT to take a harder look at the impact of its infrastructure decisions on surrounding local communities, what types of community design decisions they lead to, and the importance of connected, safe, and community-oriented streets in creating the conditions necessary to build more homes of all types in the state. However, from my experience, the Governor’s team and advocates will have to stay on top of this to make sure that NCDOT actually adopts the deep reforms needed to give this some teeth (more on that below).

“directs DEQ to work with the Senior Advisor and state agencies to advise on the use of the Flood Resiliency Blueprint and other natural hazard risk data (e.g., landslide, wildfire), drinking water and wastewater treatment system capacity, stormwater, and water allocation limitations that may impact development patterns for new housing.

This provision is good, but I would like to see it go further. Land use needs to be more affirmatively incorporated into resilience planning, rather than simply using resilience tools to advise housing policies. How I like to think about this is by treating resilience planning as a two-sided coin.

On one side, you mitigate harms: restrict building in rapidly expanding floodplains and areas under threat from wildfire; improve building standards to better withstand increasingly severe storms; implement impervious surface restrictions; invest in stormwater runoff capture, green infrastructure, and natural floodplain restoration, etc.

Okay, back to the resilience coin. On the first side you have harm mitigation. On the other side you incentivize better outcomes: remove parking mandates that lead to more impervious surfaces, allow (and encourage) greater density in safe areas, improve land use and transportation systems to reduce expanded development pressure into floodplains and natural land.

In my opinion, NCDEQ, as well as many of my friends in the climate and environmental community, have not taken the second side of the coin seriously enough. This is not necessarily borne out of opposition to the ideas, but because acting on them often involves scrambling long-hardened political coalitions, employing strategies outside of areas of traditional expertise, and accepting sometimes unavoidable local environmental trade-offs. However, restricting buildable areas without allowing for increased flexibility in safe areas to offset it creates housing supply imbalances and untenable political realities, inevitably resulting in pressure to roll back environmental protections, causing poorer outcomes for everyone.

Bringing NCDEQ into a conversation on resilience and development patterns could be a great opportunity to advance further discussion in this area, but it will require intentionality, and will need to be leveraged properly.

Additional important provisions in this section include instructions to the NC Department of Health and Human Services to streamline existing government programs and integrate new data tools to better serve individuals suffering from mental health and substance abuse disorders, those with intellectual disabilities, and underserved populations that are often systematically excluded from affordable housing opportunities. All of these are critical advancements and will surely pay dividends for cross-agency cooperation and more efficient data sharing, and deliver greater assistance to those most in need!

Section 3: Further Integrate Housing Initiatives at Department of Commerce.

The final section of this order focuses on the Department of Commerce. Although I believe there is much more that can be done to leverage the Department’s resources to incentivize additional local reforms, it is heartening to see that Commerce is taking a prominent role given the importance of housing affordability in continuing North Carolina’s recent economic growth.

Most provisions in this section are high-level and focused on typical Commerce functions, such as providing greater assistance to local governments and housing non-profits, and advancing workforce development priorities in housing-related trades and professions. All good, if a bit devoid of details.

However, the final provision in the order caught my attention.

Commerce is directed to “give housing creation and support significant weight in the process for nominating eligible census tracts to the U.S. Treasury to be designated Opportunity Zones.”

Like others, how this section is implemented will be key, but to me, this opens the door to Commerce taking a much closer look at the housing policies of local communities and leveraging the possibility of federal investment to incentivize further reforms. Given the likelihood of upcoming federal housing legislation that incorporates new considerations for local zoning and real-time housing supply improvements when determining certain federal awards, this is a very smart move if implemented proactively.

Final Thoughts

This is an exciting executive order with a ton of potential, but its success is entirely dependent on how deep the administration digs and how far they are willing to push agencies to think in new ways. Pushing forward legislative reforms is still vital, and if implemented correctly, this executive order has the potential to accelerate the impacts of reforms.

The Governor has jumped into the fray, but it will be on all of us to push for the reforms we need and deserve.

Conor Mulderrig is an Independent Clean Energy, Housing, and Transportation Policy Consultant in Durham, NC. Previously he served as Climate Change Policy Advisor to Governor Roy Cooper where he worked to advance cleaner buildings, transportation systems, and land use reforms. He also served as Special Advisor for Clean Energy Deployment and Resilience at the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Resilience Liaison to the Governor’s Recovery Office for Western North Carolina, and most recently was an Infrastructure Fellow for Arnold Ventures Philanthropies.

Housing policy in North Carolina is often framed as a purely local issue. It’s easy to see why: cities, towns, and counties each control zoning, development approvals, parking requirements, and other rules that shape what gets built in our communities.

But the reality is that local governments operate inside a framework heavily shaped by state law. The North Carolina General Assembly determines which tools local governments are allowed to use, what restrictions they can impose, and how development regulations are structured in a Dillon’s Rule state. Recently, the legislature has started to identify where statewide standards could and should override fragmented local rules that make housing harder to build.

Over the past several years, some North Carolina municipalities have begun experimenting with reforms aimed at allowing more housing choices, supporting infill development, and modernizing outdated development standards. A few places have legalized missing middle housing, removed parking mandates, allowed ADUs, and encouraged mixed-use districts and faster approval processes.

Progress built this way is naturally uneven.

In many places, even small-scale housing is still burdened by overlapping regulations, excessive parking requirements, complicated approval systems, infrastructure limitations, and development standards that make incremental housing financially difficult to deliver. Communities that want to allow more housing still struggle to navigate these layers of conflicting rules and procedural barriers.

That is why state-level housing reform matters.

Done well, statewide reforms can simplify the rules, expand local flexibility, reduce unnecessary barriers, and create a more predictable environment for homeowners, housing developers, and community growth.

To the NC legislature: we have some housing reform goals for this 2026 short session.

The session may be “short,” but legislators still have plenty to accomplish. As lawmakers continue negotiating the state budget and broader policy priorities through the coming months, active conversations around major issues, including housing, are happening behind the scenes.

Bills that crossed over remain eligible to move. Existing legislation can still be amended. Policy ideas that never passed as standalone bills can still become part of larger negotiations as the session continues.

As housing advocates, local leaders, and community members, it’s important to stay engaged and continue pushing for reforms that make it easier to build more homes across North Carolina.

Here are our CITYBUILDER state-level housing priorities:

Pass Practical Parking Reform (HB369)

HB369 is one of the most important housing reform bills still moving this session.

At its heart, this bill is both a housing affordability bill and an anti-flooding bill.

Across North Carolina, small developers, churches, business owners, and property owners are routinely forced into impossible site design tradeoffs. Local parking mandates require large amounts of paved surface area, while stormwater and impervious surface regulations simultaneously penalize excessive pavement coverage. The result is often fewer homes, smaller buildings, more expensive projects, or small commercial projects that never move forward at all.

HB369 would begin to address that imbalance by reducing excessive parking mandates while encouraging stronger stormwater outcomes on development projects. While the bill may continue evolving through committee discussions and amendments, the overall direction is good for housing affordability, small businesses, incremental development, and community growth across North Carolina. We explored this bill in more detail in our parking piece last year, and organizations like the Parking Reform Network continue to document how excessive parking mandates raise costs nationwide.

📧 Now is the time to email, call and talk to members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee and ask them to support HB369.

Share

Legalize Taller Single-Stair Buildings

Single-stair reform is one housing policy we remain especially excited about advancing in North Carolina.

CITYBUILDER has partnered with Single Stair NC over the past year to advance conversations around modernizing NC’s building code to allow taller single-stair apartment buildings with updated life safety standards. These building types are increasingly being explored across the United States because they allow more flexible apartment layouts, more family-sized units, and smaller-scale apartment buildings on urban infill sites.

During last year’s long session, SB492 from Senators Moffitt and Mayfield directly proposed modifying North Carolina’s building code to allow taller single-stair apartment buildings. While the bill did not ultimately cross over, we hope lawmakers continue looking for opportunities to incorporate similar provisions into broader housing and code reform discussions this session. The bipartisan federal Road to Housing Act also touches upon single-stair reform, reflecting growing national momentum around building code modernization and small-scale apartment housing.

Allow Housing Near Jobs (By-Right in Commercial Areas)

In many North Carolina communities, it is still illegal to build housing in areas zoned for commercial activity, even when those sites already have roads, utilities, and infrastructure in place.

Many aging commercial corridors and oversized parking lots are well positioned for homes, apartments, and mixed-use neighborhoods, yet outdated zoning rules still separate housing from jobs, retail, and daily life. Allowing housing by-right in these areas would support corridor revitalization, reduce approval uncertainty, and create more opportunities for incremental development and mixed-use communities.

Last year’s SB499 proposed allowing housing by-right in many commercial zones across North Carolina. We hope lawmakers continue advancing similar reforms this session.

Allowing more housing on commercial corridors and underutilized parking lots would help communities grow gradually while making better use of existing infrastructure that we’ve already built and paid for.

Expand Small Lot Freedom

Many communities say they want more housing choices, incremental growth, and opportunities for homeowners to add small-scale housing. But in practice, minimum lot sizes, minimum home size requirements, infrastructure limitations, and other technical barriers still make that difficult to accomplish.

Lawmakers and local governments alike should continue simplifying these barriers by:

• removing unnecessary minimum lot size requirements for ADUs

• removing minimum primary home size requirements

• reducing barriers to cottage courts and small-lot housing

• allowing private water and sewer connections across property lines through easements

These kinds of reforms make it easier for homeowners, small builders, and families to gradually add housing within existing communities instead of forcing growth outward.

Expand By-Right and Administrative Approvals

If housing is legal to build, it should be possible to actually get approved.

Too many communities still rely on lengthy discretionary approval systems that create delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs, especially for small-scale housing and infill projects. Large national developers may be able to absorb years of delay and carrying costs. Oftentimes, small local builders cannot.

Communities and lawmakers should continue modernizing development approval systems by:

• expanding administrative approvals for code-compliant projects

• creating clearer review timelines

• reducing duplicative approval processes

• expanding exempt plat and minor subdivision allowances

• creating more predictable pathways for small-scale infill development

When local approval systems become too complicated, expensive, or unpredictable, pressure for broader state-level intervention will continue to grow. Simpler and more predictable rules benefit everyone.

Continue Supporting Affordable Housing Funding

Housing reform is not only about reducing barriers and modernizing regulations.

Communities across North Carolina also need continued investment in affordable housing production and financing tools.

There are several housing funding bills moving this session that would help expand affordable housing construction and close financing gaps for projects across the state, including workforce housing, affordable rental development, and homeownership opportunities. We appreciate our friends at NC Housing Coalition for leading on these efforts.

We are encouraged by the ongoing bipartisan conversations around housing affordability and production. North Carolina’s housing challenges are too large for any single policy solution, and long-term progress will require both regulatory reform and strategic housing investment.

Carolina Forward recently highlighted several of these housing funding bills.

Housing policy work does not happen all at once, and it rarely happens at only one level of government.

Some of the ideas above are active legislation already moving through the General Assembly. Others are policy concepts we believe lawmakers, local governments, and advocates should incorporate wherever possible. Meaningful housing reform is often incremental, built piece by piece through zoning changes, code updates, infrastructure policy, funding tools, and development process reforms working together over time.

And honestly, that’s part of why I keep pushing on this work.

There is no single bill that “solves” housing. There is no one city that gets everything right. The work is continuous and layered.

Local governments need to keep modernizing their policies, and the state needs to keep stepping in where outdated rules and fragmented systems are making it unnecessarily difficult to build homes, support small businesses, and grow communities incrementally. If we want stronger and more affordable communities across North Carolina, housing policy has to keep moving forward at every level at once.

Jenn Truman is a young designer, leader, and advocate based in Raleigh, she is embedded in the local community through both her professional and volunteer work. Jenn is a regular contributor to and Founder of CITYBUILDER.

There’s just something magical about a city at the water’s edge; yet that’s almost entirely lacking in the Triangle. Long ago, our cities and towns were founded away from water: Chapel Hill famously crests a hill, Raleigh infamously sits in Joel Lane’s tavern’s backyard. Durham, Cary, and Apex began as way stations at a time when railroads frequently followed ridge lines. Only Hillsborough has a (very) small slice of Eno River waterfront, which later fostered a mill.

But even all those years ago, foresighted planners laid the groundwork for the Triangle’s many miles of greenways, most of which sit within creek valleys. These greenways preserve public access to the water’s edge, but come with strings attached: the state’s riparian buffer requirements in the Neuse and Jordan Lake basins (i.e., most of the Triangle) make it nearly impossible to build anything except a trail within fifty feet of streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and estuaries.

These rules are a boon to local water quality; they prevent pollutants from flowing into streams and protect aquatic habitats. However, these same rules make it nearly impossible to have a waterfront restaurant or buildings that open out onto streamside greenways.

Read more

North Carolina Needs More Housing Options

NC is growing fast, but we’re not building enough homes that people can actually afford. Because of this, the state has a major housing shortfall. Rents and home prices keep rising, and in many communities the only homes getting built are large apartment complexes or detached suburban houses. What’s missing is the middle: smaller apartment buildings that fit into neighborhoods, support walkability, and create more family-sized homes. Across the country, cities and states are beginning to revisit outdated building rules that make this kind of housing difficult or downright illegal to construct. North Carolina now has a chance to be part of that movement. The basic idea behind single-stair buildings is simple: they’re apartment buildings, up to six stories tall, built around one main staircase instead of the (legally mandated) two. They still use modern life-safety features and, yes, they have an elevator.

What Single-Stair Housing Actually Is

For many people, the phrase “single-stair” is unfamiliar, and sounds more unusual than it really is. In cities around the world, these small to mid-sized apartment buildings are built around one protected stair. Most apartments and condominiums today are legally required to have two staircases, which leads to long hallways, minimal light, and tall towers. Single-stair apartments are modern apartment buildings: they include elevators, sprinklers, fire-rated hallways and doors, and other code-required safety features. The point of legalizing them isn’t to reduce safety. The point is to make it possible to build apartment buildings that are smaller, simpler, and better suited to neighborhoods across North Carolina’s cities and towns.

Just as important, single-stair structures allow for better homes than traditional two-stair apartment blocks. Single-stair buildings make it easier to design more family-sized apartments with two or three bedrooms, instead of forcing everyone into smaller one-sided units. Because the building is typically thinner, apartments can have windows on more than one side, which means more daylight, better airflow, and layouts that feel more livable. These quality of life advantages are one reason why single-stair reform has become such an attractive answer for housing advocates.

A Citizen-Led Effort to Raise Awareness

In late 2025, a group of North Carolina citizens, architects, builders, and policy makers got together to create singlestairnc.com. The website is designed to bring more awareness to this housing format and its benefits in North Carolina. Building code reform is not the kind of issue that gets much public attention, even though it has a major impact on what gets built and what housing options we have. The goal of the site is to make the issue easier to understand, show why it matters for affordability and neighborhood design, and give North Carolinians a way to take action.

North Carolina Is Part of a Bigger Movement

Single Stair is a nationwide movement and it’s time for North Carolina to step up. Pew Research reported that since 2022, 19 states and Washington, D.C. have introduced bills to study or allow single-stair buildings, and that seven states passed bipartisan single-stair legislation in 2025 alone. Our neighbors in Virginia already enacted a law in 2024 to study and recommend code changes for single-stair buildings. Maryland enacted a law in 2025 requiring its Department of Labor to study single-stair building code reform and report back by December 2026.

Tennessee shows just how quickly things can move once a state opens the door. Lawmakers there passed a 2024 reform allowing single-stair buildings under set safety conditions, letting cities opt in locally. By late 2025, Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis, and Jackson had all moved forward. This makes Tennessee one of the clearest examples of single-stair reform going from idea to law to on-the-ground adoption.

That momentum has continued into 2026. Rhode Island introduced a bill to allow certain residential buildings up to four stories and 16 units with a single staircase, and California lawmakers introduced a new single-stair reform bill after the state’s fire marshal study process. For North Carolina, a bi-partisan bill, SB 492, has been proposed, but it’s stuck in the Senate pending a formal review and vote.

Why This Matters Right Now

North Carolina already has a live bill on the table, but it needs public support to see it through. Senate Bill 492 was filed in March 2025 and remains referred to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee. With the General Assembly’s short session underway, lawmakers are again looking for practical ways to address the state’s housing shortage. This is exactly the kind of reform they should take seriously. It is easy to understand, limited in scope, and aimed at one clear barrier that makes small apartment buildings harder to build. Politicians often say they want housing solutions. This is one.

What You Can Do

If you want more housing options and more walkable communities in North Carolina, then check out singlestairnc.com, and come to our Single Stair Lunch & Panel at 12pm on Friday, May 1st. At this event, we’ll discuss the pathway to legalizing and constructing single-stair buildings in NC. After lunch, stick around for presentations from current NC State architecture students, who will explore how real sites in Raleigh could be transformed by single-stair developments. Students will present from 1:30-5:30pm, so stop in to look at their brilliant projects.

RSVP here

I recently visited NC State University to ask students what off-campus housing looks like for them. Most said they pay between $800 and $1,200 per month for an apartment with roommates. Even then, one student described Raleigh’s housing market as “exorbitant”.

According to Axios Raleigh, rents for student housing near NC State have increased by 30.5% since 2020. At UNC Chapel Hill, rents have risen 23.3%, compared to a 22.9% increase in market-rate apartments. Student rents around NC Central and Duke have experienced similar trends. Across the Triangle, student housing costs are rising rapidly.

This piece was written by Ka’Mya Cooper, a CITYBUILDER student fellow. Each semester, CITYBUILDER provides fellowship opportunities for aspiring student urbanists in the Triangle.

As a student at North Carolina Central University, I’ve felt the impact of this firsthand. I wasn’t able to get on-campus housing, so I had to find the next most affordable option. Off-campus housing works, but it comes with its challenges. Transportation becomes a daily concern, and being farther from campus makes it harder to be fully present as a student.

That’s why the conversation around student housing needs to shift.

Students don’t just need more housing. We need accessible housing near campus. When universities fall short on space, students are pushed into already competitive rental markets, driving prices higher for everyone and limiting options. Building more housing specifically for students can help relieve this pressure, while giving students places designed for their basic needs. Local residents can rent decent homes at more affordable prices if they aren’t competing with students for space.

Proximity also matters. Living closer to campus isn’t just about convenience; it plays a role in how students engage with their education. Shorter commutes mean fewer barriers to attending class, participating in campus activities, and accessing resources.

The takeaway is simple: Student housing is not a luxury. It’s part of the infrastructure that supports student success. As prices continue to rise across the Triangle, expanding near-campus housing will only become more urgent.

This piece was written by Ka’Mya Cooper, a CITYBUILDER student fellow and current undergraduate at North Carolina Central University.

Twelve years ago today, Kim-Mai Cutler published “How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF’s Housing Crisis Explained).”

Part flag-planting and part manifesto, it became a seminal work for the YIMBY movement and, in many ways, the first shot in the long war to reclaim American cities for the people.

Today, the piece is especially relevant to North Carolina.
Three points stand out in particular:

1. The article explains San Francisco’s severe housing shortage as the result of decades of restrictive policies and highly organized NIMBY opposition. North Carolina is earlier in that same cycle, but the political dynamics are already visible in local land use debates across the Triangle.

2. San Francisco’s crisis was driven by a shrinking supply of market-rate housing as rules limited where and how homes could be built. North Carolina is seeing similar constraints emerge through the expansion of HOA-restricted suburbia and zoning protected single-family only neighborhoods, even as demand for housing continues to grow.

3. Over time, these systems reward homeowners who benefit from limited supply and rising home values. That creates consistent pressure to oppose new housing, especially in established neighborhoods. California took this dynamic to the extreme, but the same pressures are present here, and without clear policy direction North Carolina risks following the same path.

The proper housing policy response in the Triangle today is the same as it was in San Francisco then: pragmatic, frustrated, and relentlessly focused on supply and accountability.

Many of the early wins by YIMBYs were accomplished by simply publishing the exclusionary — and often factually inaccurate — arguments made by NIMBY groups like Livable California during their policy calls. This kind of citizen journalism is only just beginning in the South, and it is long overdue. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

For too many North Carolinians under 40, housing is an existential issue.

In North Carolina, the YIMBY movement is growing for the same reasons it did in California: young people face intense housing pressure.

Housing determines whether people can stay in the communities they care about, build stability, and plan what comes next. When housing doesn’t work, nothing else really works either.

When housing is unstable or out of reach, everything else becomes harder to hold onto. People take longer to settle, stay in shared or temporary situations longer than they planned, or leave places they would have otherwise invested in. Starting a business, changing careers, or putting down roots all begin to feel riskier when the foundation is uncertain.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is a response to lived experience. More people are recognizing that the rules shaping housing are not neutral, and that changing them is the only way to create choice and real stability.

NIMBYism is backed by trillions of dollars in U.S. home equity and by non-representative groups of homeowners who are deeply invested in protecting scarcity. But that advantage is no match for younger North Carolinians who are trying to build stable lives in the places they care about. They are living with the consequences of this system every day, and they are not going to accept it indefinitely. I choose to bet on those young people.

Kim-Mai Cutler fired the first shot in this war twelve years ago today.

Her piece starts in the middle of the chaos, but stay with it. Cutler connects the protests, the politics, and the underlying housing shortage into a clear explanation of how a crisis like this gets built over time.

Read it with North Carolina in mind.

How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF’s Housing Crisis Explained)

The Santa Clara Valley was some of the most valuable agricultural land in the entire world, but it was paved over to create today’s Silicon Valley. This was simply the result of bad planning and layers of leadership failure — nobody thinks farms literally needed to be destroyed to create the technology industry’s success.

Today, the tech industry is apparently on track to destroy one of the world’s most valuable cultural treasures, San Francisco, by pushing out the diverse people who have helped create it. At least that’s the story you’ve read in hundreds of articles lately.

It doesn’t have to be this way. But everyone who lives in the Bay Area today needs to accept responsibility for making changes where they live so that everyone who wants to be here, can.

The alternative — inaction and self-absorption — very well could create the cynical elite paradise and middle-class dystopia that many fear. I’ve spent time looking into the city’s historical housing and development policies. With the protests escalating again, I am pretty tired of seeing the city’s young and disenfranchised fight each other amid an extreme housing shortage created by 30 to 40 years of NIMBYism (or “Not-In-My-Backyard-ism”) from the old wealth of the city and down from the peninsula suburbs.

Here is a very long explainer. Sorry, this isn’t a shorter post or that I didn’t break it into 20 pieces. If you’re wondering why people are protesting you, how we got to this housing crisis, why rent control exists or why tech is even shifting to San Francisco in the first place, this is meant to provide some common points of understanding.

This is a complex problem, and I’m not going to distill it into young, rich tech douchebags-versus-helpless old ladies facing eviction. There are many other places where you can read that story.

It does us all no justice.

1) First off, understand the math of the region. San Francisco has a roughly thirty-five percent homeownership rate. Then 172,000 units of the city’s 376,940 housing units are under rent control. (That’s about 75 percent of the city’s rental stock.)

Homeowners have a strong economic incentive to restrict supply because it supports price appreciation of their own homes. It’s understandable. Many of them have put the bulk of their net worth into their homes and they don’t want to lose that. So they engage in NIMBYism under the name of preservationism or environmentalism, even though denying in-fill development here creates pressures for sprawl elsewhere. They do this through hundreds of politically powerful neighborhood groups throughout San Francisco like the Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

Then the rent-controlled tenants care far more about eviction protections than increasing supply. That’s because their most vulnerable constituents are paying rents that are so far below market-rate, that only an ungodly amount of construction could possibly help them. Plus, that construction wouldn’t happen fast enough — especially for elderly tenants.

So we’re looking at as much as 80 percent of the city that isn’t naturally oriented to add to the housing stock.

Oh, and tech? The industry is about 8 percent of San Francisco’s workforce.

Then if you look at the cities down on the peninsula and in the traditional heart of Silicon Valley, where home-ownership rates are higher, it’s even worse.

The Google Bus protesters have said that the company should build housing on its campus, but the Mountain View city council has explicitly forbidden Google from doing just that. They’ve argued that it’s to protect the city’s burrowing owl population. (The city council even created a feral cat taskforce last week to protect the owls.)

Even more mind-bogglingly, Mountain View is discussing new office development that would bring as many as 42,550 office workers to the city. But the city’s zoning plan only allows for a maximum of 7,000 new homes by 2030.

Then, if you look at the job-to-housing ratios in some of the other peninsula cities like Palo Alto, it’s pretty terrible. Palo Alto voters just killed an affordable housing development for seniors by ballot measure last November.

So the wealthy voting classes of the peninsula are also strangling themselves of housing too. The median rent in Mountain View is $2,700 compared to $3,400 in San Francisco, according to Zillow. Once you factor in the cost of owning a car — estimated at slightly more than $9,000 a year by the AAA — it’s not that much cheaper.

If you look even closer to the Caltrain stations, rents go way up. The newly-opened Madera complex in downtown Mountain View rents out 1-bedroom units starting at $3,299 all the way up to 2-bedroom apartments at $8,000 per month.

Certain cities like Menlo Park seem more collaborative. Facebook partnered with developer St. Anton Partners to build a 394-unit complex within walking distance of its Menlo Park headquarters. But that’s 394 units for a company with more than 6,000 employees.

So one contributor to the tech industry’s spread into San Francisco is that the peninsula cities are more than happy to vote for jobs, just not homes.

2) Why is the tech industry migrating to cities anyway?

This is a demographic shift that is much larger than the technology industry itself — although there are some tech-specific reasons that have fueled a migration north from the historic heart of Silicon Valley over the last 10 years.

This is what urbanist Alan Ehrenhalt calls “The Great Inversion,” a major shift where cities and suburbs have traded places over the last 30 to 40 years. As people marry later and employment becomes more temporal, young adults and affluent retirees are moving into the urban core, while immigrants and the less affluent are moving out.

San Francisco’s population hit a trough around 1980, after steadily declining since the 1950s as the city’s socially conservative white and Irish-Catholic population left for the suburbs. Into the vacuum of relatively cheaper rents they left behind, came the misfits, hippies and immigrants that fomented so many of San Francisco’s beautifully weird cultural and sexual revolutions.

But that out-migration reversed around 1980, and the city’s population has been steadily rising for the last 30 years.

This is a phenomenon that’s happening to cities all over the United States.

It’s happening in Seattle, Atlanta, New York City, Boston and Washington. D.C.:

The full article continues here.

Across Raleigh, Wake County, Orange County, and key statewide races, voters narrowed the field for November. These contests may not always draw headlines, but they determine who writes the zoning rules, transportation plans, and housing policies that shape everyday life in our cities.

Local elections are where growth becomes real. Where belonging either expands or contracts. Where we decide whether our communities will welcome new neighbors or quietly close the door.

Last night clarified the choices. November will determine the direction of the policies that shape communities across the Triangle.

Raleigh

The Raleigh At-Large Council race was the most competitive in this primary. Six hopefuls were on the primary ballot. As a non-partisan race, the top four of them will move on to the general in November: Stormie Forte, Sana Siddiqui, Clark Rhinehart, and Joshua Bradley.
The top vote-getter in the general election in November will serve a four-year term as an At-Large City Councilor and the 2nd place vote-getter will serve a two-year term as an At-Large City Councilor.

In the Raleigh City Council District C race, four candidates competed for one seat. The top two primary vote-getters, Corey Branch and Jared Ollison, will advance to the general election in November.

We’ll continue covering these campaigns and the other district races through the summer and into the fall. Click the story below to read our deeper analysis of each candidate and see how we graded them on housing.

Wake County

Wake County’s At-Large County Commissioners race also had a competitive Democratic primary, with seven candidates vying for two new seats. Authorized by the state legislature to take effect in 2026, these positions will expand the board to nine members, with the at-large commissioners representing the entire county, following a transition to district-based elections for the other seats.

With the Democratic field narrowed down, November’s race will see Democrats Christine Kushner and Mona Singh compete in the general election against Republicans Gary Hartong and Kyle Stogoski, with the top two vote-getters in the four-way race being elected commissioners.

We’ll continue covering these campaigns through the summer and into the fall. Click the story below to read our deeper analysis of each candidate and see how we graded them on housing.

Orange County

The Democratic Primary in the Orange County At-Large Commissioner race saw Karen Stegman come out on top. November’s election will see a matchup between Stegman and Republican candidate Jeffrey Hoagland.

Orange County also had two district-based commissioner races. In Orange County’s District 1, Jamezetta Bedford will be the Democratic nominee in November.

In District 2, Beth Bronson prevailed over Earl McKee by 32 votes to become the Democratic nominee.

Click the story below to read our deeper analysis of each candidate and see how we graded them on housing.

Durham

Durham does not have County Commission or City Council races on the ballot this year, but several races at the state and federal level made for an exciting primary season in Bull City (and southern Wake County).

In the congressional race between Valerie Foushee and Nida Allam, provisional primary votes are still being counted as of Wednesday, March 4th. Foushee leads by just over 1,000 votes, but this margin is slim enough that Allam is requesting a recount, according to the Daily Tarheel.

This is where the count stands as of 6:30pm on March 4th, 2026:

In the state legislative race between Sophia Chitlik and DeDreana Freeman, Chitlik won by a wide margin over the former Durham City Council member:

Other NC Primary News

There were contentious primaries throughout the state, but most eyes are on the race between Phil Berger and Sam Page. This morning, the count showed Sam Page defeating Berger by just 2 votes, with military overseas and provisional ballots still left to be counted.

While not our typical coverage, a change in state leadership would certainly have an impact on North Carolina’s housing policies. We recommend following Bryan Anderson over at Anderson Alerts to stay up to date on the latest in what is sure to be an extremely close race...

November will decide whether our region doubles down on building together or retreats into the fear of change.

Share

The candidates advancing from the primaries will shape zoning rules, transportation investments, and the practical choices that determine whether new neighbors can find a home here. These decisions are not theoretical. They affect rents, starter homes, small businesses, school enrollment, and whether our cities grow in ways that are resilient and welcoming.

CITYBUILDER exists to win hearts and minds, not just elections. But elections matter. Policy matters. Turnout matters.

November will not be decided by who posts the most online.
It will be decided by who organizes, who educates, and who shows up.

If you believe that everyone deserves housing choices, now is the time to act.

Support pro housing candidates.
Talk to your neighbors.
Host a conversation.
Share our coverage.
Invest in this work.
Become a member.

Growth is good. Building together is better.
Let’s make sure November reflects that.

Candidate assessments are based on candidate questionnaire responses to our housing questionnaire, other published questionnaires and public forums. Our pro-housing questionnaire was developed collaboratively with RDU New Liberals, Yes! in My Triangle YIMBYaction chapter, and Strong Towns Raleigh Local Conversation. Each group may also share candidate recommendations or endorsements.

Children assume that everyone belongs. Adults turn belonging into a policy debate.

I am raising children in Raleigh, and as I head into this primary Election Day, I keep thinking about the juxtaposition between parenting and politics.

Each morning I read about international conflict before making breakfast and packing snacks. I answer emails about zoning text while I handle school pickup. I review candidate questionnaires after bedtime.

This is how a lot of us are living right now. Big headlines. Small routines. Same day.

The national climate feels unstable. My kids have noticed too. Sometimes they ask why their classmates are afraid to come to school. Children notice. Sometimes they ask why I go speak at City Council in favor of building apartments. They notice that some adults don’t want apartments. But to kids, an apartment just means more friends on the playground. More bikes on the sidewalk. More birthday parties.

Our children assume that belonging is normal.

As adults, we turn belonging into a debate.

This debate shows up in zoning text, parking mandates, rezoning hearings. It shows up in school board meetings. In each comprehensive plan that expands housing choices or quietly narrows them.

This debate has consequences.

In Chapel Hill, leaders are considering school closures as enrollment declines after years of limited housing growth. When fewer families can afford to live in a community, classrooms empty.

In Durham, the UDO process has been stalled because of efforts to include downzoning measures, even as state law limits that authority. When we restrict housing choices, we are deciding who gets to stay and who never gets the chance to arrive.

The question of who belongs does not stay in living rooms or on playgrounds. It gets written into policy. This debate sits at the heart of our local elections.

Today is primary Election Day.

A day to decide who writes the rules. If we believe that local elections codify belonging, then primaries are where that power is first exercised.

Reminder: This year is the first time that Raleigh City Council will have a primary.

There are yard signs everywhere. People are paying attention. Early voting numbers have been strong. There is energy in the air. But March still feels early. It doesn’t carry the built-in urgency of November.

It’s easy to assume that the “real” election comes later. But in many local races, the primary effectively determines who will hold office. Primaries set direction long before November does. They decide which ideas move forward and which quietly disappear.

This is particularly true for registered voters who are not affiliated with either party; these unaffiliated voters outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina. If you are unaffiliated, you are not sidelined. You choose which ballot to pull. You influence which candidates move forward to November. You help shape what each party stands for locally. That is leverage.

Particularly on Election Day, we must remember that housing policy is not owned by one party. Pro-housing leadership exists across the political spectrum, but it doesn’t advance by accident.

Housing policy only progresses when voters elevate candidates who understand that welcoming new neighbors strengthens our cities. Pro-housing politics is about neighborhoods. It’s about whether they grow, stagnate, exclude, or welcome. Political parties may list every candidate under the same banner. That does not tell you how they’ll vote on housing. Labels are not land use policy. So, if housing matters to you, look beyond the labels.

That’s why we created our housing report cards.

We hope you’ll use them to understand who supports expanding housing choices and who does not.

If you’re reading this, you likely already have a plan to vote.

Today, do one more thing.

Send the housing report cards to one person who hasn’t voted yet.
Text a neighbor.
Forward this email.
Ask them who they believe should define belonging in this city.

Because that’s what today is about. Who defines belonging. Who decides whether there is room for new neighbors.

Many of us are voting while juggling childcare and other responsibilities. Many of us are thinking about the kind of city our children will inherit. Not out of panic, but out of stewardship.

Good housing policy is at the core of that stewardship. So, think about the types of policies and candidates our children would understand. Because children assume that belonging is normal. Let’s make sure our policies do too.

Vote today!

The polls are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. EST on Election Day.

Find your polling place here.

Jenn Truman is a young designer, leader, and advocate based in Raleigh, she is embedded in the local community through both her professional and volunteer work. Jenn is a regular contributor to and Founder of CITYBUILDER.

North Carolina’s cities are expanding, yet most new housing today remains clustered at two extremes: very low-density subdivisions or large multifamily apartment towers. Neighborhoods do not have a way to add smaller, mid-scale buildings that would fit comfortably within existing blocks. This missing segment limits infill development, reduces feasible housing sites, and restricts architectural and urban design options.

Other American cities have begun filling this gap by reforming their building codes to allow single-stair multifamily buildings above three stories. These policies enable mid-rise buildings on smaller lots while applying clear safety measures, including sprinkler systems, two-hour stair enclosures, strict distance limits from unit doors to exits, and reduced floor areas.

This article compares the various technical requirements adopted by jurisdictions across the country, and evaluates how NC Senate Bill 492 would place North Carolina within this national trend. The objective is to provide a structured view of what works, what varies, and how these lessons can inform a safe and functional approach for the state.

Senate Bill 492: NC’s Single-Stair Building Code Reform

To put it simply, SB 492 would amend the North Carolina State Building Code to authorize a single stairway to be used as means of egress in certain multifamily residential buildings. The bill would allow for buildings up to 8 stories total and 7 stories above the grade plane to have only one exit staircase. This amendment stipulates a variety of safety measures for the several different configurations of single-stair buildings:

• Mid-rise buildings, which would be up to 8 stories and no more than 7 stories above grade would have the strictest restrictions: no more than four apartment units per floor, fire ratings of 2-hour fire-resistance for the egress staircase, and an NFPA 13 rated sprinkler system throughout the building.

• Low-rise buildings, which would be up to 3 stories and no more than 2 stories above grade, would not allow more than six units per floor and would require either a 1-hour fire-resistance construction OR an NFPA 13 sprinkler system.

• There are other requirements that apply to buildings of both heights, such as requiring exits to either lead directly outdoors, or be pressurized. Additional measures mandate maximum travel distances from the unit’s door to the building exit, and other egress path requirements designed to keep people safe.

  

Single-stair buildings provide the opportunity for small lots or infill lots to be used for a mid-sized form of residential development. However, the International Building Code doesn’t permit the construction of single-stair apartments, citing outdated fire safety concerns. In reality, single-stair buildings have similar fire safety statistics to other building types. Many states that have legalized single-stair buildings have implemented other fire safety regulations, requiring sprinkler systems, or implementing a maximum distance from fire exits.

There’s a wave of single-stair legislation across the U.S., so how can interested municipalities enact safe policies based on what has worked in other locations?

What’s Legal in North Carolina Today?

Currently, North Carolina, along with the majority of other U.S. states, follows the International Building Code (IBC) when determining code restrictions for construction of residential dwellings. Here are the key takeaways of what’s legal right now in regards to single-stair construction:

These rules only apply to small residential buildings with low occupant loads, such as condos, townhomes, single-family homes, or apartment buildings. Currently, buildings 4 stories or higher with 4 or more units per floor are not permitted under the IBC (without amendments to local code language).

Single-Stair Legislation Across the Nation

A number of jurisdictions in the United States have already passed bills to legalize small-scale apartment buildings with a single exit stairway. Below, we compare what single-stair legislation in other American cities allows, and where NC’s proposed SB 492 fits in.

Here are some key takeaways from the chart:

1. Single-stair buildings are all sprinklered. All cities and states that have adopted single-stair buildings require sprinklers throughout the entire structure to improve safety precautions. This is different from townhomes and single-family homes, which usually don’t require sprinklers due to their small scale.

2. Construction materials determine how tall a single-stair building can be. “Construction type,” which refers to the material makeup of a building structure, determines how flammable the building is in the case of a fire. More flammable building types can be restricted to lower floor allowances and shorter heights to improve safety.

3. Single-stair laws increase the required fire rating of stairwells. The IBC requires the walls of emergency exit stairwells in non single-stair buildings to be 1-hour fire rated. Many single-stair laws require stairwells in single-stair buildings to be 2-hour fire rated, increasing the protection of occupants exiting the building.

4. Allowed egress distances are shorter in single-stair construction. Most single-stair laws restrict the distance from unit doors to stairwell doors to 20 feet or less, and restrict overall egress distances to 125 feet or less. This 20 foot unit door to stairwell distance is drastically shorter than the 125 feet that the IBC allows for standard apartment buildings. By minimizing travel distances inside the building, single-stair apartment laws reduce the time during which occupants could inhale smoke as they navigate through a hallway to the stairwell.

5. Floor area and units per floor are limited in single-stair buildings. Most single-stair laws limit the number of units per floor to four units, lessening occupant loads on the exit staircase and preventing crowding in the event of an emergency.

We often think that adding more stairs to apartment buildings makes them safer, yet existing requirements are quite unspecific when it comes to large-scale, double-loaded corridor buildings. This makes the occupant load per staircase significantly higher in large apartment complexes compared to single-stair apartments.

Single-Stair Buildings Make Better Public Spaces

When we walk down the street in American cities, we’re often greeted by walls of concrete, private storefronts, and parking garages. These building forms discourage connection and walkability; they shove people next to roads and don’t provide the opportunity to wander through plazas, gardens, and passageways.

European cities often have small pedestrian pathways that wind through buildings and courtyards, opening up to gardens, patios, plazas, or small shops. This promotes walkability and connection through place-making; it gives people a sense of wonder and discovery during their walk, while providing moments of pause throughout the journey to rest or explore.

Single-stair buildings provide an opportunity to create these semi-public plaza or garden spaces. The arrangement of the buildings allows for a shared “backyard”, where all residents can partake in a peaceful outdoor area. Connected sidewalks allow neighbors to access these spaces, similar to a neighborhood park, yet all residents are in walking distance.

Lessons from Denver & NYC

A number of cities have seen a tremendous amount of success allowing single-stair apartment buildings in their local code. Here are a few of their experiences:

Denver

Use of an occupant evacuation elevator provides additional means of egress, while maintaining the effectiveness of single-stair buildings. An elevator must be included in the building per the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), and one prototype building has found a way to make better use of that valuable space.

NYC

New York City’s unusually high height limits for single-stair buildings allow developers to meet market-rate demand while preserving open space and traditional urban fabric.

North Carolina is Ripe for Reform

Single-stair reforms across the country demonstrate that mid-scale multifamily housing can be legalized while preserving clear life-safety standards. Although each jurisdiction uses different thresholds for height, floor area, and construction type, the most common elements are consistent. Buildings are fully sprinklered. Egress paths are short. Stair enclosures receive higher fire-ratings. Unit counts per floor are capped. Together, these rules form a predictable and enforceable framework.

North Carolina’s proposed Senate Bill 492 follows this general structure, but its story height limits and construction-type allowances place it among the most ambitious reforms. As cities in the state evaluate the bill, the experiences of places like Seattle, New York City, Denver, Nashville, and Baltimore offer useful guidance. Their policies show what has worked, what has required adjustment, and how regulators have balanced safety with the need for new housing forms.

As advocates for our local municipality, we support the push to make single-stair housing legal, safe, accessible, and affordable to all cities in the United States (and Canada!). The same places that we take our families to visit on vacation can exist here: walkable, comfortable neighborhoods, with destinations and moments of wonder all throughout the journey.

Julie Powers is a Bachelor of Architecture Student at NC State University, with an LAEP minor. Additional graphic and illustration support was provided by NC State Undergraduate College of Design in Architecture major Brenna Belcher.

Every election shapes the kind of region we live in.

But primaries are where the direction is set.

As we wrote in Every Vote Builds a City, local races determine whether we expand housing choices and welcome new neighbors or retreat into scarcity and rising costs. That is why we are grading candidates on housing.

For this round, we focused on the most competitive, contested at large primary elections where the outcome will shape housing policy in the general election and beyond. Uncontested races and jurisdictions without competitive municipal primaries will be covered in our general election guide later this summer. Durham does not have competitive municipal primaries this cycle, so we are providing commentary on relevant statewide races that directly affect local housing policy.

We evaluated candidate questionnaires and public records for consistency, urgency, and clarity of support for expanding housing supply, affordability tools, and zoning reform. Housing is the defining issue of this election cycle.

So, who made the grade?

Raleigh

The Raleigh At-Large Council race is the most competitive in this primary. With Jonathan Lamber-Melton running at the County level, there is an open at-large seat and a six-way competition for the two at-large seats on Council.

We’ll be back to cover the district races before the general.

Click the story below to read our deeper look at each candidate and why they earned their grade.

Wake County

Wake County At-Large County Commission seats also have a competitive primary, with seven candidates vying for just two new seats. Authorized by the state legislature to take effect in 2026, these positions will expand the board to nine members, with the at-large commissioners representing the entire county, following a transition to district-based elections for the other seats.

Click the story below to read our deeper look at each candidate and why they earned their grade.

Orange County

The Orange County Commissioner race is smaller in scale but still consequential for housing policy. With one at-large seat open and a competitive primary field, voters will help determine whether the County continues to advance zoning reform and affordable housing investments or slows that progress.

Orange County’s political landscape can be resistant to growth, which makes clarity and leadership on housing especially important in this race.

Click the story below to read our deeper look at each candidate and why they earned their grade.

Durham

Durham does not have County Commission or City Council races on the ballot this cycle, so we are not issuing local report cards here. However, several competitive Democratic primaries at the federal and state level will directly shape housing policy that affects Durham residents.

In the congressional race between Valerie Foushee and Nida Allam, both candidates have articulated pro-housing priorities. Foushee identifies housing and community development as key issues and has supported federal funding for affordable housing and community investment. Allam, during her time as Durham County Commissioner, has emphasized eviction prevention, affordable housing investment, and housing access as central components of economic equity. While the candidates differ on other policy areas, both recognize that housing affordability and stability require sustained public investment and policy attention.

The state legislative race between Sophia Chitlik and DeDreana Freeman presents clearer contrasts on housing. Chitlik has centered housing policy early in her legislative tenure and has sponsored bills in her first term. Freeman previously served on Durham City Council and received a D in our last local housing scorecard based on her record at the time, including her vote against Durham’s most recent affordable housing bond. Read that prior evaluation here. State lawmakers shape zoning authority, housing finance tools, tax credits, and subsidy programs that directly affect Durham’s ability to build and preserve homes.

Federal and state races can be housing races too, and the outcomes this cycle will influence the policy environment Durham operates within for years to come.

The candidates who advance from these primaries will shape what appears on your ballot this fall and the policy direction our region takes for years to come. If we want cities that say yes to homes, yes to neighbors, and yes to abundance, this is where it starts.

The report cards tell that story at a glance. Read the grades.

Share them with a friend or neighbor who cares about affordability and growth. Ask candidates where they stand.

And make a plan to go vote!

Every vote builds a city.

These assessments are based on candidate questionnaire responses to our housing questionnaire, other published questionnaires and public forums. Our pro-housing questionnaire was developed collaboratively with RDU New Liberals, Yes! in My Triangle YIMBYaction chapter, and Strong Towns Raleigh Local Conversation. Each group may also share candidate recommendations or endorsements.

The Orange County At-Large Commissioner race features two Democratic candidates competing in the primary. There is no Republican primary contest for this seat, meaning the outcome of the Democratic primary will largely determine the direction of the race heading into November. We’ve graded all three candidates across both parties.

County leadership plays a critical role in affordable housing investment, development review processes, land use coordination, and homelessness response across Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough. We believe housing is the measure of whether our leaders are ready to welcome growth and build a more affordable future.

We evaluated candidates based on their support for expanding housing supply, strengthening affordability tools, improving predictability in development processes, and addressing housing stability countywide. Below is our full breakdown of each candidate and why they earned their grade.

Karen Stegman (Dem) earns an A for her demonstrated pro housing leadership and policy depth. As a former Chapel Hill Town Council member, she played a leading role in advancing zoning reform, reducing lot size barriers, streamlining development review, and approving $25 million in affordable housing bonds. She pairs supply expansion with strong affordability tools, including inclusionary zoning, land trusts, eviction prevention, and property tax relief. In a political climate where density often faces resistance, her consistent support for infill and mixed income development reflects meaningful leadership on Orange County’s housing challenges.

Adam Beeman (Dem) earns a C. He supports additional housing types, by right permitting in designated growth areas, and infrastructure aligned development. However, his answers remain general and emphasize caution and context sensitivity over clear production targets or demonstrated reform leadership. Addressing Orange County’s housing shortage requires detailed, actionable commitments, and we did not see that level of specificity reflected here.

Jeffrey Hoagland (Rep) earns an F. While he responded to our questionnaire, his housing platform centers almost entirely on expanding single family homes and suburban sprawl, opposes recent pro housing zoning reforms, and rejects public subsidy tools. He does not support expanding missing middle or multifamily housing options. We did not see a housing strategy that meaningfully addresses Orange County’s housing shortage.

Transparency matters.

These assessments are based on candidate questionnaire responses to our housing questionnaire, other published questionnaires and public forums. Our pro-housing questionnaire was developed collaboratively with RDU New Liberals, Yes! in My Triangle YIMBYaction chapter, and Strong Towns Raleigh Local Conversation. Each group may also share candidate recommendations or endorsements.

We encourage you to read each candidate’s full questionnaire responses and public statements before voting.

Candidates who did not respond are noted above; grades reflect publicly available records.

Housing decisions shape affordability, neighborhood stability, and whether our communities welcome new neighbors. Share this guide with a friend, ask candidates where they stand, and make your plan to vote.

We begin Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson not with policy, but with a morning.

“You open your eyes at dawn. You turn in the cool bed sheets.

A few feet above your head, on the top of your roof, a layer of solar panels is blinking in the sun.

Their power mixes with electricity pulled from several clean energy sources.

Towering wind turbines to the east.

Small nuclear power plants to the north.

Deep geothermal wells to the south.

Forty years ago, your parents cooled their bedrooms with jewels dredged out of coal mines and oil pits.

They mined rocks and burned them. Coating their lungs in the byproducts. They encased their world, your world, in a chemical heat trap.

Today that seems barbaric.

You live in a cocoon of energy so clean it barely leaves a carbon trace and so cheap you can barely find it on your monthly bill.

The year is 2050.”

The opening chapter reads like science fiction, but it is grounded in engineering, economics, and policy pathways that already exist. It is not escapism. It is orientation.

Klein and Thompson continue, describing “clean and clear” water piped in from desalination plants that provide “half of the country’s used fresh water,” allowing “previous parched cities to erupt with green foliage.” Fruit and vegetables are “Shipped from a farm mere miles away.” Crops grow vertically rather than horizontally, freeing up land once constrained by sprawl and scarcity.

“When your parents were young, nearly 25% of all global land was used to raise livestock for human consumption. That is unimaginable now. Much of that land is rewilded.”

And then this quiet but profound line:

“The world has changed. Not just the virtual world, that dance of pixels on our screens. The physical world, too.”

For those of us in CITYBUILDER; across real estate, municipal leadership, design, advocacy, and civic process, we know the mechanics. We understand pro formas, zoning text, comprehensive plans, bond cycles, elections, and public comment periods. We know the friction. We live inside the “how.”

But before the how, there must be a horizon.

Abundance asks us to sit, just for a moment, inside a fully realized physical future. To consider energy that is clean and inexpensive. Housing that is attainable. Food that is local. Land that is restored. Infrastructure that serves human flourishing rather than merely managing decline.

Scarcity, as the book suggests, is often constructed; not only through limited resources, but through limited imagination and procedural inertia. Thus, scarcity becomes embedded in policy, in timelines, in the stories we tell about what is possible.

What would shift if those of us shaping the Triangle oriented first toward abundance? Toward creativity anchored in feasibility. Toward innovation paired with implementation, and growth that is generous rather than extractive.

This conversation is especially timely as Raleigh reevaluates its comprehensive plan and Durham advances updates to its development frameworks. These decisions will influence housing supply, cultural vitality, environmental performance, and economic resilience for decades to come.

At our book club on February 25th, we will gather not simply to critique systems, but to reflect more spaciously:

What is the physical world we are trying to build?

What would abundance look like in our neighborhoods, our projects, and our policies?

What would need to change (procedurally, politically, personally) to move toward abundance?

We invite professionals, public servants, developers, advocates, creatives, and community members of all perspectives to join us.

Bring your questions.

Bring your reflections.

Bring your vision.

RSVP here

Join CITYBUILDER Book Club

📘 Abundance by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein
📅 Wed Feb 25th 12:00pm - 1:00pm
📍 PRESS Coffee Crêpes Cocktails
400 Hillsborough St suite 108, Raleigh, NC 27603, USA
👉 RSVP here

Come for the ideas. Stay for the people who want to build a Triangle where everyone has a place to live. We’ll see you there.

Hannah Moell is a housing advocate, market researcher, and multidisciplinary artist whose work bridges data and design with emotional resonance. Through her research with BSB Design, she explores how residential architecture can respond to shifting demographics, economic pressures, and the human need for belonging. At the intersection of strategy and soul, Hannah’s work seeks to shape housing that is not only innovative and attainable, but deeply life-enhancing.

This is part 2 in a series originally published on Greater Greater Washington that discusses how making it easier to build more, smaller houses in the Washington, D.C. area would bring down home prices and help revive the starter home. Read part 1: “How Re-Legalizing Starter Homes Cuts New House Prices.”

Legalizing “missing middle housing” allows homebuilders to “make it up on volume”: sell a higher volume of units, each at a lower price, by lowering the cost of inputs per unit. Those lower costs come from both dividing land and materials between multiple units, and building smaller units that use fewer materials.

Much has been written about how Houston reduced minimum lot sizes, spurring a wave of moderately-priced townhouses. Yet the city’s famously unusual land use regulation may make comparisons difficult. Instead, let’s look at three growing (but conventionally zoned) cities that have recently changed their zoning codes to allow smaller houses and seen homebuilders respond with hundreds of new, lower-priced homes.

Petite prices in Portland

In 2021, Portland passed a controversial zoning reform called the Residential Infill Program, or RIP. In 2022, it followed with “RIP2,” which ended the city’s 1950s minimum lot size rules. This allowed homebuilders to profitably build smaller houses on smaller lots that sell for less money, and builders enthusiastically constructed “starter homes”, lower in both square footage and price.

Builder magazine profiled homebuilder Eric Thompson, who pivoted his business from Oregon HomeWorks, which sold million-dollar teardown mansions, to Snug Homes, which sells cottages and townhouses at half the price. Despite cutting prices, Thompson “is seeing the same profit margins as before but on more revenue, resulting in a healthier bottom line.”

A recent city report reviewing RIP’s effects included this pair of graphs, showing new house prices and sizes in established Portland residential neighborhoods in 2024. Detached houses on conventional lots (which were legal before RIP) are shown on the left, and denser “middle housing” (which was legalized by RIP) on the right.

In the construction industry, more money buys more houses. After all, “price per square foot” is a common unit price for homebuyers. Yet even for conventionally sized houses, the demand is greatest for smaller and cheaper units; note that the house dots on the left graph cluster around 1700 square feet and $600,000. However, this demand hits a wall: it’s difficult to sell a new house on a conventional Portland lot for less than $500,000.

What’s surprising is the graph on the right, which shows that the RIP zoning changes resulted in many new, smaller units that actually sold for less: “In 2023-24, the average sales price of a new market-rate middle housing unit was about $250,000 to $300,000 less than that of a new market-rate single detached house, mostly due to size difference.” Nearly all new houses on unconventional lots sold for less than $500,000, the citywide median house price.

As homebuyer Josie Cantu enthused to NBC News, “these kinds of buildings being put in place opens up so much opportunity for people like myself.” Many of the new middle houses are even priced low enough to qualify for pre-existing affordable homeownership programs, greatly expanding those programs’ reach and making homeownership more attainable for middle- and moderate-income Portlanders.

Another finding of the city’s report is that there has not been a significant increase in residential demolitions. The pace of demolitions has remained roughly steady, but the city now sees twice as many units built per demolition.

Durham bent the curve

Similar zoning rules enacted in 2019 also re-legalized the starter home market in Durham, North Carolina. Local homebuilder Aaron Lubeck writes in Southern Urbanism that “the most unprecedented and transformative reform in EHC [Expanded Housing Choices] is the introduction of the Small Lot Code,” which allowed existing city lots to be subdivided for small houses on small lots, and effectively allowed new houses on what were previously unused back yards and front yards.

The Small Lot Code was quickly embraced by builders. By 2022, small lots accounted for the majority of new-construction houses sold in central Durham. It’s no surprise that they’re popular: some new small-lot houses sell for less than $300,000, compared to the city median of over $400,000. Lubeck points out that the explosion of new small houses caused new-home sales prices citywide to plateau in 2022, even as prices in neighboring Raleigh and Chapel Hill (as well as nationally) continued to climb.

Recent sales near the corner of Hanover and Drew streets, one mile from the center of Durham, illustrate how small lots have transformed the city’s new housing market and created more housing choices. These sales include:

• a new, large detached house for $915,000;

• a new, mid-sized four-bedroom house for $515,000;

• a new small, two-bedroom house for $345,000; and

• an older house for $362,000.

The $345,000 two-bedroom house (effectively an accessory dwelling unit sold separately) is comparable in price to the nearby $362,000 house from the 1950s, but with the advantages of new construction (better efficiency, more usable interiors, and newer systems). That price was possible because they split a large lot which contained $515,000 houses in front. Together, the $515,000 and $345,000 houses add up to $860,000 of housing on one lot. This is about as much as the $915,000 new house on a full-sized lot a block away, but divided such that two families can combine their purchasing power to buy that one city lot.

Twins win in Raleigh

Durham’s success later inspired the city council down the road in Raleigh to approve two broad zoning text changes in 2021 and 2022 that have been among the most productive “missing middle housing” reforms in America, with nearly 4,000 formerly impossible units permitted to date.

One of the most notable early changes was allowing duplexes on every residential lot, a change urged by city councilor Jonathan Melton: “If someone can build a mansion next to my house and I have no say…because that’s their property and that’s allowed by right, why do I have to weigh in if someone can build a duplex or a quad or some townhomes? What message are we sending about the types of people that live in big, single-family, expensive homes, and the types of neighbors we welcome into multifamily living?”

The results were very quickly seen in neighborhoods which were already experiencing teardowns and mansionization. Because duplexes can be built and permitted almost exactly like detached houses, some teardowns that had already happened went back and reapplied for permits as duplexes instead.

On Sheffield Road in East Raleigh, a few blocks from where I went to high school, two neighboring new houses sold in 2024. On one side, a new four-bedroom detached house sold for $865,000; next door, a four-bedroom duplex unit sold for $660,000 (over $200,000 cheaper). The duplex even sold at a lower price per square foot than the $585,000 “fully-renovated with designer upgrades” 1955 four-bedroom across the street.

The same math could work in Greater Washington

The experience of cities like Portland, Durham, and Raleigh shows that in the real world, zoning that encourages small houses on small lots also results in small price tags. They have quickly cut the cost of new houses by hundreds of thousands of dollars, putting new houses in close-in, transit-rich neighborhoods within reach of middle-income and even moderate-income households.

The effects are clear in Arlington, where courtroom battles over the “Expanded Housing Choices” zoning reform have resulted in a few projects moving forward and others reverting to conventional teardowns. The first new duplex units to deliver under the new zoning are priced a full one million dollars less than new detached houses on sites where developers had pursued attached houses.

These cities have found that small lot houses cumulatively save local residents millions of dollars, make existing housing subsidies go further, do not threaten “neighborhood character” with additional demolitions, and cost local governments almost nothing. These homes’ lower prices make them more resilient to fluctuating interest rates.

Instead, Greater Washington’s jurisdictions have deemed the vast majority of the region’s neighborhoods off-limits to small lots and small houses. Instead of listening to a handful of “supply skeptics” who refuse to believe that homebuilders will sell less land for less money, local governments everywhere should make better choices and legalize more housing options in more neighborhoods.

Payton Chung, LEED AP ND, is a developer and author who writes about the interrelated crafts that build cities: architecture, development, finance, landscape, planning, and transportation. He has written for the Urban Land Institute, Greater Greater Washington, the American Institute of Architects, Streetsblog, and the Congress for the New Urbanism. He is a Cary native and currently working on transit-oriented residential developments in the Triangle region of North Carolina.

There are parts of the Triangle that are, by all accounts, known for their dynamism and growth. From large towns like Morrisville and Apex to small ones like Pittsboro and Wendell, these places have embraced a future in which their communities will be much larger, in terms of population and even geography, than they are today.

And then there are communities like Carrboro and Chapel Hill, which long ago decided that they’ve had enough change. With backing from anti-growth activists, elected officials in both towns worked with Orange County to set a growth boundary (which they call the “rural buffer”) in the 1980s, with the promise that the communities would continue to build all the housing they needed. Unsurprisingly, those same anti-growth activists then worked to block almost all new housing proposed in the towns.

Since that time, change in Chapel Hill and Carrboro has largely followed the same script. A developer proposes a project, anti-growth activists seek to block it, and the council decides its fate. This is the story for projects big and small, which is one reason why new construction (especially in Chapel Hill) looks like it was built without much thought to planning. This dynamic is also a major contributor to Chapel Hill’s high housing costs (the median home cost is $620k), particularly when compared to its neighbors ($394k in Durham, $427k in Raleigh).

But this pattern is about to change. Carrboro and Chapel Hill are poised to improve how growth happens in southern Orange County. For the first time in two generations, their councils are embracing zoning reforms that will make it possible to build small infill housing, not just McMansions or five-over-one podium apartment buildings. Here’s what to watch for in 2026.

Carrboro wants to grow. For real.

Since its adoption of a pro-growth comprehensive plan in 2022, Carrboro has been hard at work on implementation, including a complete rewrite of its unified development ordinance (UDO) that’s currently underway. Normally we’d expect Carrboro to follow Chapel Hill’s lead and take a decade (or more) to implement its plan, but there are three reasons to be optimistic about the current progress:

1. Carrboro’s town council supports growth. In 2023, pro-growth candidates defeated those who were more skeptical of policies to increase housing. In 2025, the last remaining member of the old guard, Randee Haven O’Donnell, declined to run again. The three candidates running for election, along with the mayor, all spoke in favor of implementing the 2022 comprehensive plan.

2. Carrboro recently hired a new planning director, John Fussa, who has experience planning in communities that want to accommodate more housing and more neighbors.

3. Finally, the new Carrboro town council showed that it means to carry out its comprehensive plan when it voted in November to adopt the Carrboro Downtown Area Plan. The downtown area plan thinks expansively, incorporating nearby neighborhoods that will eventually become part of downtown, and imagining taller buildings of varying sizes throughout the space. The plan supports a future Carrboro that will be more vibrant and accessible than it is today.

Carrboro’s town council will continue to discuss its zoning code rewrite throughout the year, although it’s unclear when they plan to take a vote. But in all likelihood, the current council will adopt the new zoning code, a significant upgrade from what we have now.

Chapel Hill is inching toward real change

If Carrboro has been sleepy for decades, Chapel Hill has been growing in fits and starts due to its process-first approach to housing. The town spent most of the 2010s fighting about its future. In 2014, a pro-growth mayor passed a form-based code, but it only applied to the area now known as “Blue Hill.” That small section of town has added more than 2,000 homes since, which is almost one tenth of all the housing that currently exists in Chapel Hill. Despite this success, “Blue Hill” helped bring about an anti-growth backlash that halted any further attempts to update the town’s zoning code.

Until now. Starting in 2021, pro-growth council members began winning seats and building a fragile majority committed to reform. That same year, town staff commenced what became a five year effort to rewrite Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). After hitting a snag with consultants, staff started the process over last January, but promised it would only add an extra six months to the timeline.

Meanwhile, staff presented (on council’s request) a series of text amendments that are expected to make it dramatically easier to build infill housing in Chapel Hill if passed. Among other things, the text amendments will:

• Eliminate the requirement that developers present “concept plans” before they bring a project to council

• Eliminate parking minimums townwide

• Change subdivision rules to make it easier to build small homes on small lots

• Reduce lot sizes and set backs across most zoning districts

• Legalize zero-frontage and flag lots

• Legalize shared driveways

• Change rules to encourage the construction of ADUs and duplexes townwide, including the elimination of floor area ratio restrictions for duplexes.

This package of text amendments was not adopted when it came up for a vote in November. In part, this was due to the fact that Karen Stegman, a pro-housing council member, resigned in June, leaving just four reliable pro-housing votes on the council (five votes were needed to pass the amendments). Ordinarily, council holds a work session in advance of votes of this magnitude, but this didn’t happen, which meant that council did not have an opportunity to discuss the proposal in detail.

At the November 21 meeting, council member Amy Ryan proposed a series of amendments to the amendments, most of which aimed to scale back the original reform package. For example, Ryan proposed an amendment that would make concept plan reviews optional, rather than eliminating them entirely. Other council members argued that this optional process would become a de facto requirement, particularly if council rejected a proposal that did not go through concept plan review. The council deadlocked on Ryan’s amendment, after which she suggested that the entire package might fail that night.

From there, council members debated Ryan’s other amendments, discussing topics such as the optimal size of duplexes and the ideal number and location of off-street parking spaces. At the end of the night, the reform package failed, which pushed the vote to January, when two new members (both more favorable to housing) would join the council. Soon after the November meeting, council member Theodore Nollert said he planned to propose an amendment to legalize triplexes and quadplexes in the town.

At a work session on January 7, the new council expressed support for retaining several elements of the staff proposal that had been on the brink of elimination in November. For example, council members gave support to the elimination of concept plans, and the retention of the 5,000 square foot maximum for duplexes. Ryan had proposed dropping the maximum to 3,600 square feet, a slight increase from the current 2,500 square foot max that has proven insufficient to attract new builds.

Throughout the meeting, council discussed many of the age-old issues that impact Chapel Hill: the high cost of housing, the presence of students, and the trouble with parking. But two new voices, council members Louie Rivers and Wes McMahon, made the conversation more convivial than it had been in the past.

Town staff noted that Nollert’s proposal to legalize triplexes and quadplexes would need to go through a new process, which would take several months. Staff also suggested that they will soon begin the adoption process for their LUMO zoning code rewrite, with a vote coming as early as June.

In either case, we hope that the council continues to push for reform. For example, legalizing single-room occupancy apartments (basically dorms for adults) would help people who need safe and small housing near campus. Likewise, the council could look at removing obstacles to building townhomes. To top it all off, we’d love to see council members host a design competition to encourage homeowners and builders to take advantage of the town’s new rules. If you have ideas for the council, or just want to encourage them to pass the text amendments, please write to them here.

Will Chapel Hill and Carrboro lead the way on better zoning?

For decades, our highest growth communities have also been the ones furthest from services and jobs. Suburban sprawl is subsidized in a thousand ways, and our zoning and building codes encourage it. Infill is more complex than single-family housing (technically, politically, and economically), but much more important, as it makes our communities sustainable and resilient.

While Chapel Hill and Carrboro were once poster children for the anti-growth agenda, we’re beginning to witness a change. From accessory dwelling units and duplexes to cottage courts and small apartment buildings, southern Orange County is set to see a renaissance of new building types, all thanks to councils that can see a future more prosperous, diverse, and exciting than the present.

Our pro-housing councilors shouldn’t be afraid to take the actions they know are needed to secure more homes in our communities. In turn, those same pro-housing council members need support from their constituents and neighbors who understand the benefits of more housing. Not just on election day, but in their inboxes and at those long council meetings in which they’re envisioning what their communities could look like decades from now. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are closer than they’ve ever been to realizing a future in which housing is plentiful. It’s up to us to make sure that our elected officials know just how important it is to build a place for everyone.

Martin Johnson is a housing advocate based in Chapel Hill. This is his first column for CITYBUILDER.

If it feels too early to be talking about elections, it’s not.

In fact, candidate filing has already closed for the 2026 midterm elections, which means the slate is now set for races that will shape housing, land use, and growth across the Triangle for years to come.

This year’s ballot includes races for U.S. Senate and U.S. House, North Carolina Senate and House, state judicial offices, County District Attorneys, County Boards of Commissioners, and County Boards of Education.

Plus, a newly structured election for Raleigh City Council!

For CITYBUILDER’s election coverage, we’ll focus on the Triangle, specifically local races in Wake, Durham, Orange, Chatham, and Johnston Counties. These counties have the most impact on the region’s housing supply, infrastructure, and long-term growth.

Here’s who’s on the ballot.

Read more

1. Focus on your downtown and an ecosystem of neighborhoods. A strong and prosperous place is a healthy ecosystem. Traditional neighborhoods around a core commercial center form the most adaptable, productive, and strong form of development. These places need to thicken up and become vital again. That’s where our iterative and incremental efforts should begin.

2. Focus on neighborhood compatibili…

Read more

A Housing Problem That Hits Close to Home

Across North Carolina, from Raleigh and Charlotte to Asheville and Wilmington, people are feeling the squeeze. Housing costs are climbing, traffic congestion is worsening, and more green spaces are taken over by suburban sprawl every year. The state’s population is booming, and our housing supply isn’t keeping up. According to Michael Cline, a demographer writing for the NC Office of State Budget and Management, North Carolina is set to become the 7th most populated state by the year 2030. In order for people of all demographics to be able to afford quality, family-oriented housing, we need to rethink how a growing American city can be structured.

Here in the beloved City of Oaks, we have beautiful greenery throughout our communities, and new retail coming to our downtown areas. Unfortunately, in order to get to t…

Read more

The 2025 municipal elections are over. Check out who won near you at WRAL.

In case you missed it, Election Day 2025 resulted in big victories for pro-housing candidates across the Triangle. Out of the 26 pro-housing candidates we identified in races large and small, we are thrilled to say that 18 of them were voted into office on Tuesday. From Wendell to Wake Forest, from Holly Springs to Hillsborough, people voted for elected officials that will lead on housing.

A couple of highlights from races that stood out to us:

• Pro-housing candidates Dustin Ingalls and Deans Eastman were elected to the Town of Wendell Board of Commissioners.

• Pittsboro voted to elect pro-housing candidate Candace Hunziker as a Town Commissioner, and re-elected pro-housing mayor Kyle Shipp.

• In Morrisville, pro-housing mayor TJ Cawley held his seat, and pro-housing Harrison Kesling was e…

Read more

Every generation believes its challenges are unique, but America’s housing shortage is both timeless and urgent. It touches nearly every family, in every county and every political district. From the price of a starter home to the scarcity of affordable rentals, the cost of housing now defines our quality of life and our local politics alike.

In the Triangle, that reality feels close to home. Families who have lived here for decades watch their children priced out of the neighborhoods they grew up in. Newcomers arrive ready to work, but struggle to find a place to live. And too many of our cities have allowed the same pattern to continue: long approval processes, outdated zoning, and too little housing of every kind.

Local elections decide how our cities grow. They decide who approves the next housing project, who sets zoning rules, and who says yes or no to new neighbors. Yet we often treat every rezoning like a referendum instead of a responsibility. We argue over the details and forg…

Read more