Today, Raleigh City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed 2026 Housing and Transportation Bond referendum packages. Let’s dive right in:

What’s in the Bond Proposals?

The current draft that Raleigh City Council will be looking at today proposes:

• $101.5 million for affordable housing investments

• $101.5 million for transportation and mobility improvements

According to the proposed ballot language, the bond package at its current size is not expected to increase the city’s property tax rate dedicated to debt service.

The housing portion would fund affordable housing development and preservation, homebuyer assistance, homelessness response, and a mixed-income revolving loan fund designed to attract additional outside investment and accelerate housing production.

The transportation portion moves beyond just traditional road spending, to include:

• sidewalk expansion

• bike infrastructure

• Vision Zero safety projects

• neighborhood traffic calming

• greenway and connectivity improvements

• Bus Rapid Transit related infrastructure

• implementation funding for Raleigh’s Active Mobility Plan “Big Jump”

That “Big Jump” implementation alone includes more than 5 miles of new sidewalks and 50 miles of high-comfort bikeways over five years.

CITYBUILDER supports moving the bonds forward.

Some advocacy groups are now arguing the housing bond should be substantially larger, and are encouraging Council to delay or rethink the proposal. This is the wrong approach.

Raleigh absolutely should continue pushing for larger housing investments over time. The city will likely need additional housing resources in the future as the affordability crisis continues.

But there is also a recurring pattern in Raleigh politics where the moment a meaningful housing proposal becomes politically achievable, some groups pivot from demanding action to arguing the proposal should be bigger, slow down, or worse. We saw this same dynamic during the 2020 housing bond debate, when some groups argued the affordable housing bond should be larger, only to later oppose the bond entirely.

Thankfully, voters moved forward anyway, with 72% voting FOR the last bond.

Raleigh Forward recently published a clear explanation of why the question facing Council is not simply “how big can the bond be,” but how Raleigh should structure long-term housing investments in a way that can actually “be deployed effectively and sustained over time”:

RaleighForward on Balancing Urgency With Long-Term Fiscal Stewardship

In recent weeks, news outlets have reported that several advocacy groups are urging Raleigh City Council to consider a significantly larger affordable housing bond for the November 2026 ballot. Some suggest a bond closer to $200 million, which is roughly double the $101.5 million housing bond currently under discussion as part of a broader capital package that also includes transportation investments.

The motivation behind these calls is understandable. Raleigh’s housing affordability challenges have intensified alongside rapid population growth, and the demand for assistance continues to outpace available resources. But the central policy question facing Council is not simply how large a housing bond should be. The more consequential issue is how Raleigh should structure its housing investments so they can be deployed effectively and sustained over time.

…

Raleigh’s housing challenges are real and growing, and the City has an important role to play in addressing them. But effective housing policy requires more than large funding commitments. It also requires a financing strategy that aligns with how housing development occurs. The steady state bond approach under discussion represents an effort to enhance fiscal discipline as Raleigh deals with the same fiscal stress other cities are facing due to macroeconomic headwinds, not to mention state and federal budget cuts. Not only is this approach fiscally sustainable, but a more frequent, predictable investment cycle also allows developers, staff, and funding partners to plan more effectively. Within that framework, Council retains flexibility to adjust the size and structure of each housing bond. However, the larger goal remains: to implement a bond financing strategy that is not only ambitious and more effective, but predictable and durable enough to sustain progress over the coming decades.

Dive deeper into the housing bond components over at RaleighForward, where this was originally published.

Transportation is Affordability Infrastructure

Affordability is not just about housing production in isolation. Transportation costs matter too.

For decades, America’s answer to affordability has been “drive until you can afford housing.” But that model simply shifts costs from rent to transportation. Families end up spending thousands more per year on cars, fuel, insurance, maintenance, and long commutes.

Safe sidewalks, bike connections, transit infrastructure, and walkable communities are affordability infrastructure too. CITYBUILDER believes that walkable urbanism is how we build a sustainable future. This is part of why we support Raleigh’s current combined housing and transportation investment approach.

A city cannot seriously address affordability while ignoring transportation costs, unsafe streets, disconnected sidewalks, or the lack of mobility options outside of driving everywhere.

The reality is that housing progress in Raleigh has always depended on broad coalitions. Pro-housing advocates, transit supporters, environmental groups, urbanists, neighborhood organizers, affordable housing providers, and mobility advocates all need each other if we want to build a more affordable and connected city.

Splitting these coalitions apart over an “all or nothing” strategy risks ending up with neither.

This bond package is not a permanent solution to Raleigh’s housing crisis. But it is real funding for real projects that can move forward this fall.

Today’s public hearing is where City Council decides whether these bonds move forward to voters this November. So those of us who support more housing and better mobility infrastructure need to be visible today.

Public Hearing Information

📍 Raleigh City Council Chambers, 222 W. Hargett St.
🗓️ Tuesday, May 19th
⏰ 1:00 PM

More Info

CITYBUILDER encourages supporters to email City Council in support of the Housing and Transportation Bonds and to attend the hearing in person if possible. Wear green, or throw on your CITYBUILDER or YIMBY gear so supporters can easily identify each other in the room.

More housing is good. Building together is better.

Back in March, I had the opportunity to sit down with Melanie Rausch, a Transit Planning Manager for the City of Raleigh. Melanie has been with the City for four years, where she’s worked on Raleigh’s burgeoning Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. To kick off our discussion, I wanted to know more about the projects she worked on before joining the BRT team:

“I’m proud of getting our real time information into the transit app. I also started the effort to get our real time information into Google Maps. I pushed to get that real time information out there. So many people have smartphones now, and being able to look at your smartphone and see where your bus is or when it will arrive provides a sense of relief and comfort that improves the experience and encourages using public transit.”

Her team is currently guiding Raleigh’s BRT project through its first phase of construction along the New Bern Avenue corridor. The BRT program will connect Cary, Garner, North Raleigh, and East Raleigh through four different routes. I used our discussion to learn more about how the City pays for transportation projects, why BRT is one of the most exciting new developments happening in the City of Oaks, and how our transit systems are linked to virtually every aspect of city planning.

This piece was written by Elijah Geist, a CITYBUILDER student fellow. Each semester, CITYBUILDER provides fellowship opportunities for aspiring student urbanists in the Triangle.

Our first topic of discussion was the Wake Transit Plan, which was originally adopted in 2016 and amended in 2021 and 2025. I asked Melanie about the significance of the plan and what it means for her department’s work:

“The Wake Transit Plan is significant for a lot of reasons. Mostly because the 2016 plan introduced the ½ cent sales tax dedicated to increasing funding efforts for public transportation. When it comes to public transportation projects, some transit agencies receive more funding from their state than others, so having that ½ cent sales tax helps Wake County supplement funding.”

“From a more public-facing perspective, prior to the Wake Transit Plan, Raleigh only had three high frequency bus routes, which means there were only three bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less. Now, we have 11 routes that fall within that threshold. The Wake County Transit Plan has improved results through collective action on a county and local municipal level. I always recommend looking at the National Transit Database (NTD) if you’re someone interested in understanding the funding behind transportation planning.”

The original transit plan was developed with 4 principles in mind: 1) Connect the Region, 2) Connect All Wake County Communities, 3) Create Frequent, Reliable, Urban Mobility and 4) Enhance Access to Transit. At CITYBUILDER, we focus heavily on land use, so I wanted to know what implications these transit principles have for land use in the Triangle Area:

“There is this author I really enjoy, Jarrett Walker. He wrote a book that I’ve read multiple times. It’s called Human Transit, and the second edition specifically highlights the intersection between transportation planning and land use planning, and how policy decisions affect both. It explains how transit, housing, and land use coincide in more ways than one. The way that location affects costs can encourage important destinations to be spread out. It is not intentional — it’s simply a side effect of current development practices.”

The team behind the BRT project is working hard to ensure that transportation and land use are not siloed. Instead, transit staff are taking a more holistic approach to project development: focusing on making public transit easier to access, more reliable, safer, and more convenient than ever before. I asked Melanie what makes BRT so special compared to other transit projects:

“BRT is taking routes that have been identified as having high demand and high transit propensity, and we’re essentially trying to “beef it up”. We’re trying to build stations that provide a similar service to rail, but without all of the associated costs.”

“These include things like level boarding — which speeds up the boarding process and makes it more accessible — as well as transit signal priority (TSP), queue-jumps, dedicated bus lanes along sections of the corridors, 10-minute frequency, increased span of service, stops at every station, and the addition and improvement of pedestrian facilities.”

You can read more about transit propensity and how it is used to identify communities with mobility needs here.

Let’s break down the features that Melanie mentioned: Queue jumps allow buses to skip through traffic by optimizing when the BRT loads passengers or moves through an intersection. Transit Signal Priority (TSP) either provides longer green lights or shorter red lights based on BRT movement. When a transit service like BRT receives signal priority through TSP or queue-jumps, this is called transit preferential treatment.

In addition to preferential treatment, BRT will provide sheltered stations with ample seating and lighting, fully integrated real-time arrival displays, ticket vending machines, public art installations, and improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the surrounding areas.

Reducing road congestion is a common priority for local governments. In American cities, almost all trips (92%) take place by car. Because of this, many residents have trouble seeing the value in public transportation investments, especially residents who don’t use public transit themselves. I asked Melanie how she felt about this reasoning:

“You know how the phrase goes, “build it and they will come.” That same concept can apply to investing in public transit. The more time and resources we spend investing in our transportation networks, the more likely people are to use them. When more people use public transit, the number of cars on the road decreases. With the BRT program, we are trying to make a viable transportation alternative in the Triangle.”

There’s also a logical reason for residents concerned about traffic to support public transit. The concept of induced demand explains that when the number of lanes on a road is increased, an equally proportionate number of vehicles will end up using that road in the future. Basically, more people will start driving, or they’ll drive more, so traffic won’t actually decrease. You can’t just build your way out of bad traffic, you have to find alternatives that actually incentivize use by making non-car travel easier, safer, and more convenient.

Throughout my life, I’ve lived in places with limited access to public transit. I grew up in a low-income household that was less concerned with pedestrian infrastructure and more concerned with paying the bills. I never really gave it much thought until I went to NC State and got my first exposure to density and walkability. It wasn’t until that experience that I realized pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and walkability can help with “paying the bills” — driving less puts gas money back into pockets and saves us time along the way. I think this is the case for most people in the Triangle. I asked Melanie if she relates to some of the apprehension people feel towards “new” transit projects:

“I know it can feel a bit strange or intimidating to invest in something you haven’t experienced before. Trying to assess value can be even more challenging. It doesn’t help that narrative building has been working against public transportation in a lot of ways. We’re trying to flip that perception.”

Raleigh is joining a number of cities in the Southeast that have BRT: In Richmond, VA, they have PULSE BRT, and in Atlanta, GA, they have MARTA BRT. Within the last few years, Richmond approved the Sauer Center — a 37-acre mixed-use residential development that will include diverse housing options, retail, public space, and other amenities, all built along the middle portion of the city’s BRT line. In September of 2025, the City of Atlanta began accepting proposals for constructing an 11-acre residential development along the MARTA BRT corridor.

I wondered if Melanie envisions Raleigh’s BRT encouraging similar large-scale investment along the underserved corridors where it’s currently being constructed:

“Absolutely, and that’s the goal. The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Frequent Transit Corridors and encourages density along those routes. That’s part of the BRT’s goal, to attract investment in these communities.”

“Businesses feed off of each other. Hillsborough Street is a corridor in Raleigh that radiates from Downtown without becoming a challenging environment for pedestrians. It maintains a mix of land use types and diverse transportation options. BRT and similar projects aim to provide other corridors with the same opportunity to become a destination.”

To close out our conversation, I wanted to know if transportation networks had impacted Melanie’s life in a meaningful or memorable way:

“Definitely. I have always centered my housing choices around transportation. My parents believed in living close to where you work, so we lived in areas with lots of employment opportunities. Today, I always try to live within a couple miles of where I work. I recently moved and I made sure I still lived near a 15-minute route connected to where a lot of my friends live.”

Build public transit, and they will come.

Be sure to check out the most recent updates on Raleigh’s Bus Rapid Transit here.

This piece was written by Elijah Geist, a CITYBUILDER student fellow and current graduate student at the UNC Department of City and Regional Planning.

Raleigh has begun opening the door to missing middle housing.

We’re seeing more conversations and more permits around ADUs, duplexes, and townhomes. That matters. That’s real progress.

But if we’re being honest, something about the conversation still feels incomplete.

Because there’s a whole range of housing types between a single-family home and a large apartment complex, and we’re only beginning to tap into it.

As a kid, I used to ride my bike down Raleigh Blvd, usually coming from the Boys and Girls Club. I would pass by 1950 N Raleigh Blvd all the time and never gave it a second thought.

Years later, I find myself driving past that same property and asking a question.

Why aren’t there more of these?

A six-unit building, built in 1984, sitting on about a quarter acre. Nothing flashy. Nothing out of scale. Just a small apartment building that fits into its surroundings.

The more I think about it, the more it feels like proof.

Proof that the next chapter of missing middle housing in Raleigh has been here the whole time.

Townhomes, duplexes, and ADUs are important tools to end the housing shortage, but they’re just the beginning.

There’s an opportunity to expand our definition of middle housing to include fourplexes, small 6–10 unit apartment buildings, and even neighborhood-scale 10–20 unit developments. Not as a replacement, but as the next layer.

Because if missing middle stops at adding one or two units at a time, we’re only scratching the surface of what’s possible.

What’s interesting is that Raleigh already has examples of this kind of housing scattered throughout the city.

In older neighborhoods like Five Points, Boylan Heights, Mordecai, and parts of Southeast Raleigh, you’ll find small multifamily buildings that have been part of the fabric for decades.

Four units. Six units. Sometimes more.

They don’t stand out as disruptive. They don’t feel out of scale. They just feel like part of the neighborhood, and most people don’t think twice about them.

That’s the point.

By allowing 4 to 20 unit buildings in Raleigh’s neighborhoods, we aren’t introducing something new. We’re just recognizing what was once commonplace.

There’s a wide range between a single-family home and a 200+ unit apartment building.

And right now, we’re barely using it.

Not because it doesn’t work, but because we haven’t fully allowed ourselves to.

A fourplex on a standard lot can look and feel like a large home. A 6–10 unit building is often just two or three stories, similar in height to many of the houses being built today.

And a 10–20 unit building can still feel neighborhood-scale when it’s designed with intention, especially when it includes walkable layouts, shared green space, and thoughtful massing.

This isn’t about inserting large buildings into small neighborhoods.

It’s about allowing more flexibility within the scale that already exists.

Raleigh is growing.

That growth is putting pressure on housing prices, restricting land availability, and determining who gets to stay in the communities they’ve been part of.

If we want to respond in a meaningful way, we don’t just need more housing.

We need more ways to build housing.

Smaller-scale multifamily, especially in the 4 to 20 unit range, creates more attainable entry points for residents, more flexibility in how sites are used, and more opportunities for incremental, neighborhood-based growth.

And just as important, it creates space for smaller, local developers to participate in shaping the city.

This isn’t theoretical.

In places like Pasadena, small courtyard-style apartment buildings in the 10–20 unit range are some of the most desirable housing in the city.

Not because they’re large, but because they strike a balance between density and livability. That same balance is possible here.

As we think about expanding into this range, there are a few systems that will need to evolve alongside it.

Zoning and entitlement pathways.
Financing tools for smaller projects.
Appraisal and valuation approaches.
Predevelopment support for emerging developers.

These levers shape what gets built and what doesn’t.

Raleigh is in a position that a lot of cities wish they were in.

We’re growing. We’re attracting people. And we still have the ability to shape how that growth shows up in our neighborhoods.

If missing middle housing stops at duplexes and ADUs, we’re only scratching the surface of what’s possible.

The real opportunity is in the layer just beyond that.

And the question isn’t whether it works.

The question is whether we’re ready to treat it like it belongs.

Desmond Dunn is a husband and father of two, building a path in small-scale real estate development. He’s an emerging affordable housing developer and an Urban Design and Development Consultant at r.plan, focused on projects that strengthen underserved communities like Southeast Raleigh through good design and real community benefit.

More by Desmond Dunn:

Steven’s project is foremost an experiment shaped by lessons from Europe and Asia, where single-stair buildings and compact condo living are far more common, and provide much-needed density in growing urban areas. What emerged from Loft 3 is a set of grounded, practical insights about how to make middle housing work in Raleigh today.

Here are five of the most important takeaways:

1. Create a Great, Versatile Floorplan

At the heart of Loft3 is a simple idea: the floor plan must be versatile.

Because units are smaller and more efficient, they must accommodate a wide range of lifestyles. The layouts were intentionally designed to be flexible, appealing to young professionals, roommates, students, and even small families. A second bedroom might double as a home office or a nursery, or a resident could rent out the room to offset costs.

In many ways, the success of these units comes down to restraint. There’s very little wasted space. Mechanical and electrical systems are consolidated among the units on each floor. Even the building’s form, tight to the property lines with small courtyard separations, ensures that every unit receives light while maximizing efficiency.

The result is a layout that’s designed with resident experience in mind, rather than just financially optimized.

2. Elevators and Parking Are Major Cost Drivers

If there’s one lesson that came through clearly, it’s this: cost is everything. Elements like elevators and parking can be the biggest roadblocks in the affordability equation.

At Loft3’s scale, adding an elevator would increase costs by roughly $20,000 per unit for ownership models, plus ongoing maintenance. ADA requirements add even more cost, in the case of specialized elevator car dimensions or turn radii in the hallway spaces. The Loft3 development makes use of one elevator shared by all units, maximizing its spatial and economic efficiency.

“The project was not without a lot of headache for just everything being so unknown.” - Steven Wilk

Parking can be even more dramatic, often exceeding $30,000 per space. These numbers fundamentally shape what’s possible for affordable housing developments. The team initially explored townhomes with surface parking, but quickly realized the costs didn’t make sense. That pushed them toward a higher-density condo model, and eventually to a more efficient parking strategy with a podium located on one side of the building. Even then, trade-offs were unavoidable. Including a required second stair for fire egress on the east side of the building added another $10,000–$15,000 per unit, despite rarely being used in practice.

The broader takeaway is that affordability is about eliminating unnecessary building components, in addition to reducing material and labor expenses. Every added feature raises construction costs, and if we rethink what’s truly essential in a building, we can unlock more attainable pathways to affordable housing.

3. Safety Starts with Design Choices

One of the most misunderstood aspects of single-stair and small-scale buildings is safety. But as the Loft3 team emphasized, safety isn’t just about adding more systems, it’s about designing smarter buildings from the start.

For example, Loft3 uses cold-formed steel rather than wood framing. This dramatically reduces the risk of structural fire. While a unit fire is always possible, the building itself is far less likely to ignite compared to typical wood-frame construction. Modern building systems such as fire-rated assemblies, sprinklers, and compartmentalization are already highly effective at containing fires. The data shows that newer mid-rise buildings rarely experience catastrophic fire spread, but public perception hasn’t yet caught up.

There’s still a lingering distrust of building systems, often driven by the prevalence of wood construction and a desire for redundancy in fire response. This has led to requirements that may not always align with actual risk, like additional stairs and oversized fire apparatus.

The Loft3 experience suggests a different path forward: trust the systems, invest in better materials, and design buildings that are inherently safe rather than overly complex.

4. Affordability Takes a Village

Delivering affordable middle housing can be a struggle to coordinate, along with design and construction challenges.

This piece was written by student fellows in collaboration with Single Stair NC.

Each semester, CITYBUILDER provides fellowship opportunities for aspiring student urbanists in the Triangle. This semester we’re focused on single-stair apartments. Single Stair NC is a new publication committed to advancing the pursuit of single-stair buildings in North Carolina.

At Loft3, the team navigated Raleigh’s affordable housing density bonus, which requires a percentage of units to be priced below market rate. While the process itself was relatively straightforward, largely handled through legal agreements and tied to Area Median Income (AMI), there was a lack of precedent of the same development composition (particularly for for-sale condos rather than rentals).

City staff were willing to collaborate, and financing mechanisms like community reinvestment programs provided additional support. The bank did not view affordability as a risk factor… in fact, it opened doors to favorable investment options. The key is understanding how to “solve backwards”, starting with the target price point and structuring the deal accordingly.

Most importantly, the project demonstrated that developers shouldn’t be intimidated by affordability requirements. With the right team (attorneys, lenders, and city partners) it’s entirely achievable.

5. Living Affordably Downtown Requires a Lifestyle Shift

Ultimately, the biggest obstacle in the success of a middle-density project isn’t in the technical details… it’s in residents shifting their lifestyles to be more walkable and social. Loft 3 is built around a different way of living where units are smaller, amenities are minimal, and many residents don’t own cars. Instead of private space, the intrinsic value comes from location, walkability, and community; these commodities are impossible to manufacture within single-family lot lines.

This is a sharp contrast to the suburban model that has dominated American housing for decades. As Wilk put it, “less is more.” When you live in a walkable area, you don’t need as much… fewer bedrooms, less storage, and fewer material possessions results in a streamlined life, where your time and money can be spent on hobbies or with loved ones. Your community becomes your most valuable asset: local shops, parks, and shared spaces help foster the connections that surpass material value.

The success of this lifestyle model depends on finding the right audience: people who have already rejected sprawl and are looking for something more intentional. These buyers aren’t being convinced; they’re being served. However, scaling this approach will require a broader mindset shift. Are people willing to give up elevators to save money? To live with one parking space… or none? To trade private amenities for public ones?

In cities like Charleston or New Orleans, this lifestyle is already normalized. Raleigh is on its way to catch up to its Southern neighbors.

Loft3 was, by the developer’s own admission, not without its challenges. “The project was not without a lot of headache,” one team member noted, reflecting on the many unknowns of constructing this building type at a small scale in the Southeast. However, these headaches are lessons for project teams to learn from, creating a practiced process to streamline future developments.

Loft3 is a prototype, a proof of concept that middle housing can work in Raleigh as long as it’s approached thoughtfully. With better floorplans, fewer cost burdens, smarter safety strategies, collaborative affordability efforts, and a willingness to rethink how we live, projects like this could become the foundation for a more connected, attainable city.

If you’d like to hear more from Steven Wilk on how he constructed this spectacular development, make sure to join our livestream tour and Q&A on Thursday, April 23rd at 12pm. We’ll see you there!

RSVP here

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.

The City of Raleigh is approaching six years since it implemented substantial changes to its missing-middle housing policies, creating more opportunities for residents to build density in their own backyards. In March 2020, Raleigh adopted a policy that fast-tracked Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) construction and permitting. This change created opportunities for homeowners to improve property conditions by investing directly in their own neighborhoods.

This piece was written by Emily Carnevale, a CITYBUILDER student fellow. Each semester, CITYBUILDER provides fellowship opportunities for aspiring student urbanists in the Triangle.

This shift in inclusive housing was monumental given Raleigh’s history with ADUs. In the 1970s, the city outlawed this housing type entirely amidst suburban flight and absentee landlords. It wasn’t until 2018 that Raleigh passed an ordinance permitting ADUs, though this policy was burdened by numerous restrictions. The following year, a more progressive council was elected, and one of its first acts in 2020 was to legalize ADUs by right citywide, including in historic districts.

Why are ADUs Important?

The City of Raleigh defines an ADU as “a small, self-contained home that is located on the same lot as a primary dwelling.” This means that ADUs may be detached, attached, or even internal to the primary dwelling, as shown in the figure above. ADUs must include a living room, a sleeping area, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a lockable entrance.

An ADU’s use extends beyond generating supplementary income; they also provide the possibility of building generational wealth and supporting intergenerational living within families. This in turn creates opportunities for aging parents to maintain independence in a separate residence while remaining close in case of an emergency. On top of this, ADUs can offer a more affordable approach to aging in place than traditional retirement homes.

Current Progress

Since the policy’s inception in 2020, Raleigh has demonstrated its excitement for ADU development by implementing an ADU dashboard that tracks the number of residents who have applied for permits, are in the process of building, or have constructed an ADU. As of March 2026, a solid 162 ADUs have been built, 247 permits have been issued, and 72 applications are under review.

These numbers reflect real progress in Raleigh’s approach to developing alternative homes. This upward shift in building demonstrates that Raleighites want diverse housing choices, but leads us to ask: how can the city make ADUs work for even more homeowners?

Read more of our pieces on ADUs:

• Durham ADU Frequently Asked Questions

• Where in Cary Can I Build an ADU?

• Topher Thomas and the Power of Building Small Homes

• NC Lawmakers Push for More Housing

Boosting ADU Growth

As it stands, if a homeowner builds an ADU without a contractor, the ADU cannot be rented. Licensed contractors are required on all projects with a total valuation of $40,000 or more. Though this contractor requirement was written with the goal of protecting future renters, it drives up construction costs, and thus creates a barrier to who can build ADUs. This in turn reduces the number of ADUs that can be built in Raleigh.

Aside from reforming the contractor requirement, there’s further room for improvement in Raleigh’s policies for encouraging ADU growth. Cities such as Boston, MA, and Santa Cruz, CA, offer ADU financing to help fund construction. The Boston Home Center offers ‘income-eligible’ homeowners an opportunity to apply to the city’s ADU Financial Assistance program. Qualified applicants receive both a grant and a loan to aid in the design, permitting process, and building of an ADU.

The City of Santa Cruz offers an even more extensive financial program that provides forgivable loans of up to $40,000 to homeowners who rent their ADUs to low-income households at affordable rents for up to 20 years. This policy not only offsets construction costs, but aims to address affordable housing needs as well.

Though both the Boston and Santa Cruz programs intend to stimulate more ADU construction, questions remain regarding best practices. For example, when NGOs, researchers, and public officials in Greater Los Angeles were interviewed about municipal ADU incentives, several suggested that income restrictions (such as those in Santa Cruz’s program) reduced tenant turnover, citing this as a positive for homeowners. Yet, other interviewees noted that most homeowners did not want to voluntarily restrict their rental income for a decade or more. Refining ADU funding policies to reflect the willingness of homeowner participants is crucial to building a successful municipal program.

If the City of Raleigh implements a program that incentivizes residents to build ADUs, it could not only add more units to the rental market, but also promote the construction of intentionally affordable units. Learning from existing setups, such as those in Santa Cruz and Boston, and tailoring them to better suit Raleigh residents could result in a solution that produces even more ADUs while addressing the affordability crisis.

Overall, Raleigh is headed in the right direction by streamlining ADU construction while evaluating regulations to protect future renters. From here, the city can expand upon its existing policy and draw inspiration from other municipalities that are actively creating opportunities for more homeowners through financial assistance programs.

This piece was written by Emily Carnevale, a CITYBUILDER student fellow. Each semester, CITYBUILDER provides fellowship opportunities for aspiring student urbanists in the Triangle.

Emily is a graduate student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina with a focus on conservation at the intersection of land-use and transportation planning.

Two of Raleigh’s major UDO text changes, dubbed Missing Middle 1.0 (TC-5-20) and Missing Middle 2.0 (TC-20-21), were applauded by housing advocates when they passed in the early 2020s. Collectively, these amendments legalized two homes per lot in nearly all residential districts, allowed townhomes in more of the city, eliminated density caps in exchange for lot standards, permitted tiny houses on flag lots, introduced high frequency transit overlay districts, and made several other important reforms.

At face value, Raleigh now has a progressive housing code that should be producing large amounts of incremental housing and generating new homeownership opportunities.

In many ways, that’s exactly what’s happening.

The city tracks this progress through its public Missing Middle metrics dashboard (displayed above). Since the reforms passed, hundreds of homes have been permitted under the updated rules. Duplexes, townhomes, and small multi-unit buildings are appearing in neighborhoods that previously only allowed single-family houses.

This is real progress. It confirms what housing advocates have long argued: When cities legalize more housing types, builders and homeowners respond, increasing the supply of homes for everyone.

Raleigh’s data also reveals an unexpected pattern. Most of the homes being built fit specific development types and site conditions. Townhomes in particular have become a common pathway for adding housing under the new rules, often on sites that were already platted or assembled for development.

But we’re not seeing much production of the smallest forms of incremental housing: developments where a homeowner splits a large lot in two, creates a flag lot behind an existing house, or adds a small new parcel that allows another home to be built.

Historically, those small projects were a major way that American neighborhoods grew. They also allow many people to participate in building housing, not just large developers working on large sites.

And these small projects are exactly where Raleigh’s process breaks down.

A simple subdivision took 598 days

As a local builder and small developer, I recently went through the process of subdividing my own property. The goal was straightforward: I wanted to split my lot and create a flag lot behind my house. That way, I could build and sell another home in my backyard.

This is exactly the kind of incremental development that housing advocates talk about: an existing homeowner creating one additional home on land that is already served by streets, utilities, and infrastructure.

Organizations like Strong Towns and the Incremental Development Alliance have spent years advocating for this kind of approach. Their argument is a simple one, that cities become stronger and more resilient when many small actors can participate in development, rather than relying entirely on large projects.

This is how many of our most beloved neighborhoods were built. Over decades, lots were subdivided, new homes were added, and neighborhoods evolved gradually as the city grew.

But when I followed Raleigh’s rules to create that second lot, the process took 598 days.

Nearly two years.

For a two-lot subdivision on an existing residential property.

Nothing about that timeline reflects incremental development. A process that slow effectively shuts out the small scale builders and homeowners who are supposed to benefit from Missing Middle reforms. Only large developers with significant capital and professional teams can comfortably absorb that level of delay.

Durham shows a better path

Just down the road, Durham offers a useful comparison.

In the last six months of 2025 alone, Durham approved 168 exempt plats, including 65 flag lot subdivisions. The average review time for those plats was about one month.

That kind of timeline allows homeowners and small builders to realistically participate in housing creation. If someone owns a large lot and wants to split it into two or three smaller ones, the process is manageable and predictable.

It does not take years in Durham. It takes weeks.

Bull City shows that small lot subdivisions can function as a real tool for incremental housing when the rules are clear and the process is efficient.

This is how cities used to grow

Before modern zoning codes and complex subdivision regulations, cities grew gradually through many small actions. Large parcels were divided. Backyards became homes. Duplexes and small apartment buildings filled in gaps. Neighborhoods evolved slowly as demand changed and families made modest investments in their property.

Over time, these incremental additions created the walkable neighborhoods we now consider historic and desirable. Ironically, many of those same idyllic neighborhoods would be impossible to replicate under today’s regulatory systems.

Modern Missing Middle reforms are an attempt to reopen the door to these small and mid-sized housing types. But legalizing housing forms is only part of the work; the process required to build them matters just as much.

Join the conversation

Next week, I’ll be hosting a CITYBUILDER Policy Talk where I’ll discuss my experience navigating Raleigh’s subdivision process. I’ll walk through what worked, what didn’t, and why Raleigh still struggles to support the kind of small scale incremental development that historically built its communities.

Understanding this policy gap is the first step towards fixing it.

If Raleigh wants its Missing Middle reforms to reach their full potential, the city will need to make sure that the people most capable of building incremental housing can actually navigate the system.

Because cities are not built by zoning text alone; they are built by people.

CITYBUILDER Policy Talk

📘 Raleigh’s Need for a Small Lot Code by Evan Bost
📅 Tue Mar 17th 12:00pm - 1:00pm
📍 Online through Google Meet

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.

is a local builder and small developer in Raleigh, North Carolina. He is passionate about resource-conscious building techniques and sustainability initiatives, which he has helped implement during his time as Director of Marketing and Client Relations at Bost Custom Homes.

The Raleigh At-Large City Council race is the most competitive contest in this primary, with six candidates vying for two citywide seats. This election is nonpartisan. Voters may select up to two candidates, and the top four vote getters will advance to the general election.

These council members will directly shape zoning reform, permitting standards, affordable housing investments, and how the city manages growth. 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 commitment to expanding housing supply, supporting affordability tools, protecting recent pro housing reforms, and ensuring predictable development standards. Below is our full breakdown of each candidate and why they earned their grade.

Stormie Forte earns a B based on her voting record and tenure on City Council since 2021. While she did not submit responses to our questionnaire, her record shows consistent support for missing middle housing and necessary zoning reforms to enable attainable housing. Recently, she voted yes on major rezonings such as Peace and West and North Hills, signaling a willingness to allow more housing in Raleigh’s denser urban areas. At times though, she has expressed more hesitation around apartment development, even in transit rich areas, but her overall record demonstrates meaningful support for housing growth when it matters most.

Clark Rinehart earns an A on housing for demonstrating a clear, consistent commitment to expanding housing supply across all types, particularly missing middle and transit oriented growth. He shows a strong understanding of how zoning, permitting, and predictability directly affect affordability. He also recognizes that while subsidies play an important role, they cannot substitute for allowing more homes in more places. We are encouraged by his support for innovative partnerships, including faith based YIGBY housing and mixed income development, to help Raleigh collectively address its housing shortage at scale.

Cameron Zamot is one of the stronger housing candidates in this field, earning a B for his clear support of missing middle housing and meaningful permitting reform. He understands how zoning classifications, lot size rules, and building code barriers affect the feasibility of fourplexes and other small scale housing, and he connects density directly to walkability and bike friendly neighborhoods. We have concerns about attaching inclusionary zoning requirements to small scale projects, which could limit production, but we respect his seriousness and engagement on the core supply issues facing Raleigh.

James Bledsoe earns a B for his clear understanding that increasing supply, reducing regulatory barriers, and reforming zoning are central to long term affordability. He supports expanding missing middle housing, reducing outdated height limits, and improving permitting predictability, which are all meaningful pro housing positions. However, his approach to housing stability and public subsidy is more limited and cautious, and we believe stronger commitments in those areas are necessary to fully address displacement and short term affordability pressures.

Sana Siddiqui earns a C. She did not respond to our housing questionnaire, so we evaluated her based on public statements and other written responses. Her positions place significant weight on neighborhood discretion and case by case review, which historically limit housing production. Neighborhood veto power is not a pro housing position, and we did not see a clear commitment to expanding supply through predictable, by right policies.

Joshua Bradley earns a D. He did not respond to our questionnaire, so this grade reflects his public record. He has argued that Missing Middle and larger projects should only proceed with mandatory inclusionary requirements and added public review. While we support strong affordability tools, requirements that make projects infeasible do not increase housing supply. We did not see a balanced commitment to expanding homes across income levels.

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.

The Wake County At-Large County Commissioner race is competitive on the Democratic side, with seven candidates vying for two countywide seats in the primary. Voters may select up to two candidates, and the top two vote getters will advance to the general election. The Republican primary is not competitive this cycle; we will evaluate those candidates’ housing positions ahead of November.

These at-large commissioners will help shape countywide decisions on housing funding, homelessness response, infrastructure investment, and coordination with municipalities on growth and zoning reforms. 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 understanding of the County’s housing responsibilities, their support for expanding housing supply and affordability, and their willingness to use county tools to address the region’s housing shortage. Below is our full breakdown of each candidate and why they earned their grade.

Jonathan Lambert-Melton earns an A for his proven pro housing record and continued leadership. As a Raleigh City Councilor, he has been a champion of zoning reform, ADUs by right, missing middle housing, and ending exclusionary zoning. He consistently supports both housing supply and targeted public investment in affordable housing. Jonathan understands that supply, subsidy, housing stability, and transit all work together, and has backed housing first programs, tenant protections, and transit oriented growth. His commitment to expanding these reforms countywide demonstrates the kind of leadership needed to address Wake County’s housing shortage at scale.

Steve Rao earns a B for his support of missing middle housing, transit oriented development, and predictable permitting reform. He is the only candidate who offered a concrete proposal - to restore the Wake County Housing Fund from $5 million back to $10 million - demonstrating a commitment to affordability. While he emphasizes affordability targets, we would like to see a stronger and more explicit commitment to expanding overall housing production across income levels as the central solution to Wake County’s shortage.

Mona Singh earns a B. She did not submit responses to our questionnaire, so we evaluated her based on public statements and interviews. She has identified housing affordability as a top priority and supports expanding multi unit housing, reducing parking minimums, and aligning higher density development with transit and infrastructure. While we would welcome more specificity around county level land use strategy, her positions reflect meaningful support for increasing housing supply and affordability in Wake County.

Christine Kushner earns a C. She recognizes the need for more affordable housing and supports expanding ADUs, duplexes, and multifamily housing in urban areas, as well as housing vouchers and property tax relief for vulnerable residents. However, her responses reflected a broad, values based approach rather than a detailed strategy for how Wake County can use its specific tools, including zoning coordination, predictable permitting standards, and county level housing funding, to meaningfully increase supply and support stability. While she connects housing to schools and overall community well being, we did not see a comprehensive housing plan proportional to the scale of the region’s challenges.

Kimberly McGhee earns a C. She did not respond to our questionnaire, so this grade reflects her public statements and interview responses. She speaks frequently and substantively about housing, particularly around preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, preventing displacement, and expanding public funding for affordability and homelessness response. While she clearly understands housing as a serious county issue, her platform centers on subsidy and preservation strategies and does not articulate a clear approach to expanding overall housing supply. A comprehensive pro housing strategy requires pairing affordability tools with consistent production across income levels, and we did not see that balance reflected in her public positions.

Robert Mitchener earns a D. While he acknowledges that Wake County faces a housing shortage and expresses support for affordable housing and nonprofit partnerships, his responses did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the core mechanisms that drive housing production or the County’s specific responsibilities in funding, land use coordination, and homelessness response. His emphasis on property tax relief and general reform, while helpful for some residents, does not address the structural supply and affordability challenges facing the region. We did not see a comprehensive or actionable housing strategy reflected in his answers.

Marguerite Creel earns an F. She did not respond to our questionnaire, and her public materials do not articulate a coherent housing policy for Wake County. In her public responses, questions about sprawl and housing were redirected toward unrelated priorities, and her comments on homelessness focused on relocating individuals rather than addressing housing supply, rental assistance, supportive housing, or the County’s funding role. We did not see engagement with the core systems that shape housing outcomes. Wake County’s housing shortage requires actionable, policy-based leadership, and housing solutions are not reflected in her platform.

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.

To understand Raleigh’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and how it has shaped the City of Oaks, we must go back to origins of the capital itself. In 1792, when Raleigh was first chartered, the City Code was created. For over 200 years, the City Code has encompassed all of Raleigh’s municipal laws. After some modernization, these codes were incorporated into Raleigh’s Municode library, where they reside today.

Among the City Code is the zoning code, which the City of Raleigh defines as the “process of partitioning a city, town, or borough into zones reserved for different purposes (such as residence or business) and is intended to promote an orderly pattern of development.” Essentially, zoning aims to ensure that the city’s built environment and land uses are compatible across its many different areas.

This piece was written by Elijah Geist, a CITYBUILDER student fellow. Each semester, CITYBUILDER provides fellowship opportunities for aspiring student urbanists in the Triangle.

The first instance of formal “zoning” in America was introduced in New York City. Written in response to concerns about overdevelopment, the Big Apple’s Comprehensive Zoning Resolution was passed into law on July 25th, 1916. The code divided the city into zones based on primary activities and included height and setback standards. Over the next few years, the City of Raleigh and its surrounding municipalities began introducing similar zoning codes in their jurisdictions.

Raleigh’s Sordid Zoning Past

Raleigh, like every other municipality in the U.S., has an unsavory history with zoning. While the tool is often touted as a means to keep a city safer, cleaner, or more economically efficient, it has frequently been employed as a means to further sinister goals. Over the past hundred years, zoning has separated people far more often than land. This usually took the form of restrictive and racially motivated covenants.

Initially, Raleigh’s zoning focused on creating separation, both of people and of differing land uses. This continued into the post-WWII era, which saw a spike in suburban sprawl driven by white flight. As a result, the city’s code increasingly prioritized the development of single-family housing, eventually prohibiting most multifamily developments. Prior to recent zoning reforms, over 50% of Raleigh prohibited the development of multifamily units. Text changes passed in 2021 legalized multiple forms of missing middle housing throughout the city, taking the first steps towards undoing the zoning that long separated the city.

How the UDO Interacts With the Comprehensive Plan

To expedite the review and development process, most cities in the U.S. have adopted some version of a UDO. Raleigh began developing theirs in 2010, in response to the City’s adoption of its 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In short, a Comprehensive Plan serves as a non-binding document that outlines the development goals of a municipality. Raleigh’s previous Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1989, emphasized suburban development and auto-centric thoroughfares. In comparison, Raleigh’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance of walkability, density, and human-scale public spaces.

Raleigh officially adopted the current UDO in 2013 as text change TC-3-13, and it became fully effective throughout the planning jurisdiction in 2016. The UDO consolidates all development regulations into a single application, covering topics from zoning and land use regulations to design and preservation standards.

The Structure of Raleigh’s UDO

The UDO consists of twelve chapters, each covering a part of the development and review process:

1. Introductory Provisions

2. Residential Districts

   1. This chapter guides the protection of existing residential neighborhoods, as well as the planned construction of future developments. This section also emphasizes the compatibility of uses, noting that incompatible uses are discouraged by district provisions.

3. Mixed Use Districts

   1. This chapter details how uses can be combined within regulation and outlines where certain combined uses should go to best adhere to the development context.

4. Special Districts

   1. This chapter outlines Special Districts within the UDO, which are designed for multiple uses and can provide unique guidance for certain developments. For example, the Campus (CMP) Special District seeks to help colleges and universities grow while shielding the surrounding communities from major development.

5. Overlay Districts

   1. This chapter intends to “apply regulations that achieve a specific purpose to a targeted area.” Sometimes, certain zoning regulations are superseded by overlay districts. For example, the Transit Overlay District (TOD) allows for height bonuses for some developments along major transit corridors.

6. Use Regulations

   1. This chapter includes details on specific uses and how they are regulated within the planning jurisdiction.

7. General Development Standards

   1. This chapter guides the development standards of parking, lighting, signs, landscaping, etc.

8. Subdivision & Site Plan Standards

   1. This chapter details how site plans must meet certain standards and be fully approved by the City before any construction can commence. It covers a wide range of administrative approvals.

9. Natural Resource Protection

   1. This chapter explores development standards in the context of tree conservation, stormwater management, watersheds, flood hazards, and erosion.

10. Administration

    1. Development plans require approval and enforcement when standards are violated. This chapter details how plans are reviewed, corrected, and approved.

11. Building & Housing Code

    1. Structures need to be safe, and to some degree, standardized. The Building & Housing Code chapter outlines clear building code standards to ensure that codes are followed exactly.

12. Definitions

    1. This contains definitions of relevant terms and phrases used throughout the UDO.

Raleigh’s UDO Reforms

Recently, Raleigh has taken an important turn in its land use practices by choosing to prioritize the development of denser and more diverse housing options. One of the key principles in the current UDO is its promise to “provide neighborhoods with a variety of housing types to serve the needs of the population.” As a city with one of the consistently high rates of population growth in North Carolina, Raleigh is on the precipice of becoming one of the nation’s major municipalities. Supporting more permissive zoning regulations will ensure that Raleigh can keep up with a whirlwind of population growth and economic development.

One of the ways that the current UDO has allowed Raleigh to grow sustainably is through text changes, such as TC-5-20 (2021) and TC-20-21 (2022). These changes were made to enable the construction of more diverse housing types, aimed at addressing the “missing middle” problem in Raleigh. By decreasing minimum lot sizes, allowing the construction of tiny houses, permitting flag lots, and more, these UDO reforms have helped the City of Raleigh address a rampant housing shortage. Through these text changes, the City has been able to add nearly 5,000 mid-sized housing units to its stock.

Understanding the UDO empowers residents and policymakers alike to participate meaningfully in shaping growth and future development. The UDO is a tool, and the citizenry of Raleigh should know how to use it.

All of the information in this article was gathered from the City of Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance, the Form-Based Codes Institute article “Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance”, and the American Planning Association’s “Planning History Timeline”.

Elijah Geist is a passionate Raleigh citizen and Graduate Student in UNC-Chapel Hill’s Department of City and Regional Planning. He is graduating in May of 2026 with his Masters Degree in City and Regional Planning with a Concentration in Transportation. He enjoys researching active transportation and pedestrian connectivity.

I grew up riding my bike with friends through Chavis Heights in Southeast Raleigh. We played between stoops and felt the love of the block. But the cues were different: trash in the grass, broken blinds, busted windows, rattling window units, paint the color of a cloudy day.

As a kid, I knew something was off, even if I couldn’t name it. Years later at North Carolina Central, walking through McDougald Terrace, the same cues greeted me. Minimal fixes. Barely habitable in places. The people felt warm; the buildings felt tired. That’s when it clicked: the problem wasn’t the community. It was the message the buildings were sending about what we deserve.

When most people hear “affordable housing,” the image that comes to mind is bare-bones: beige walls, low-cost finishes, lifeless hallways. Just enough to pass inspection.
But affordable doesn’t mean cheap. And it shouldn’t look cheap.

The way we design housing sends a message about who we think deserves dignity. If we cut corners on design, we’re not just saving dollars. We’re telling families that their comfort, pride, and identity do not matter.

Why Design Matters

Design shapes daily life. It’s the difference between:

• A hallway you rush through vs. one where neighbors actually talk.

• A playground tucked in a corner vs. a green where kids thrive.

• A unit that feels temporary vs. a home you are proud to invite people into.

Dignity shows up in the details: light, space, materials. But it also shows up in whether systems work and hazards are removed. In older public housing, we have too many examples of the opposite. In New York, federal monitors have documented persistent problems like mold and leaks that “require sustained, systemwide reforms.” Even when progress is made, new, bigger problems surface as smaller ones are cured.

In Durham, residents of McDougald Terrace were evacuated in 2019 after dangerous carbon monoxide levels were detected. Hundreds of families spent weeks in hotels while repairs moved forward. The crisis was described as the result of “decades of underfunding.”

These are not isolated stories. They are signals of a system that has normalized minimums.

The Problem With “Spreadsheet Housing”

Too often, buildings are designed to satisfy a pro forma instead of people. I’ve walked through developments where it was clear that the numbers came first, and residents came second. When it comes to “affordable housing” policy, the number of units usually supersedes the quality of those homes.

I get it. Projects have to pencil to get funded. But focusing only on numbers means we fall short of the larger goal: building places that help people thrive.

We also pay for neglect later. HUD’s landmark capital-needs study found a large backlog across public housing, with billions required for roofs, heating and cooling systems, and basic repairs. In their October 2025 report, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities estimated that $169 billion is needed to stabilize the nation’s entire public housing stock. And that number isn’t about upgrading quality of life or adding luxuries; it’s about restoring bare minimum standards of health and safety.

When oversight dug into New York City’s public housing portfolio years ago, the issues were plain: “mold, rat infestations, lead paint, leaky roofs and broken elevators.” Those conditions erode trust and dignity as much as they erode plaster.

Buildings aren’t just investments. They are containers for human lives. If the spreadsheet ignores that, the building will, too.

Innovation Under Constraint

Yes, construction costs are high. The answer is not cutting dignity out of design. The answer is building smarter.

• Modular and panelized systems can cut timelines and variability.

• Pre-approved pattern books can lower soft costs without lowering standards.

• Early, integrated teams can align architects, builders, and residents around use, not just unit counts.

• Capital stacks that pair preservation funds with energy upgrades can replace failing systems and reduce monthly costs for residents.

A Higher Standard

Think about the difference between a unit that barely passes code and one that makes someone proud to live in. That pride matters. It affects how residents care for their homes, how kids see their future, and how neighborhoods hold together.

In Durham, the carbon monoxide crisis forced attention and investment. In New York, court-monitored reforms are pushing faster heat restoration and more accountable mold response. These are steps in the right direction, but they also remind us how low the floor has fallen.

Dignity is not an add-on. It is the foundation.

Affordable housing should not mean lowering expectations. It should mean more creativity, more care, and more respect for the people we serve.

Because when we design for dignity, we aren’t just building housing. We’re building belonging.

Call to Action

If you are an architect, developer, lender, or public official, here is the work:

• Start every project with a dignity checklist. Light. Air. Safety. Community space.

• Use real resident feedback to shape circulation, courtyards, and services.

• Align incentives so that long-term performance matters as much as first cost.

• Treat remediation of legacy hazards as nonnegotiable, instead of optional.

• Preserve what is culturally significant while fixing what harms.

What’s one design choice you have seen that made affordable housing feel like home instead of just shelter?

Desmond Dunn is a husband and father of two, building a path in small-scale real estate development. He’s an emerging affordable housing developer and an Urban Design and Development Consultant at r.plan, focused on projects that strengthen underserved communities like Southeast Raleigh through good design and real community benefit.

In the 1960s, North Hills Mall opened as the first indoor shopping mall between Atlanta and Washington, D.C. It was a regional destination, anchored by department stores and surrounded by acres of surface parking. People drove long distances to shop there because that was the dominant model of retail at the time. The site was designed for a Raleigh organized around driving, single‑purpose trips, and the assumption that retail would continue to concentrate into large, centralized malls. By the late 90s, that model was breaking down. North Hills, like malls across the country, struggled with vacancies and declining consumer spending. What remained were large expanses of asphalt and aging commercial buildings that no longer matched how Raleigh lived, worked, or grew.

Beginning in the early 2000s, Kane Realty started redeveloping the site incrementally. Rather than clearing everything at once, the mall and surrounding strip retail were transformed piece by piece into a street network with apartments, offices, storefronts, and public spaces. This incremental approach has allowed North Hills to evolve in response to real demand while reusing land that was already paved and part of the city.

Urban planners have a name for this kind of transformation. Ellen Dunham‑Jones, whose work on Retrofitting Suburbia is the textbook on how cities should think about post-suburban growth, describes this process: taking failing malls and strip retail and incrementally transforming them into mixed‑use districts that absorb growth without pushing development farther outward.

North Hills’ evolution has been significant for nearby neighborhoods. For long‑time neighbors, living next to a growing urban district is very different from living next to a declining mall. It’s fair to acknowledge that disruption.

But it’s also important to be honest about the alternative. Very few people genuinely want to return to the days of empty Winn‑Dixie and JCPenney parking lots, adorned by lethargic strip retail. Even if you decry the recent uptick in traffic, the underused structures of years past generated traffic too, just without housing, stable jobs, or varied recreation attached to them. Much of the congestion on Six Forks Road today is regional traffic passing through the area from far‑out suburbs, not from trips created by people who live or work on the site.

If Raleigh is serious about putting height in the right places, North Hills is the obvious answer. It is underutilized commercial land that has already proven it can absorb density and function as a real urban center.

That history of successful redevelopment matters today, because North Hills is back before City Council with another rezoning request. Case Z‑34‑25 is about putting height where it actually makes sense. It’s also a test for how cities make decisions when good but imperfect projects come forward.

What’s on the table in Z‑34‑25?

The current rezoning covers several underutilized portions of the site west of Six Forks Road. It would replace existing zoning with conditional‑use districts, allowing buildings between 12 and 37 stories tall. The proposal does increase allowable height, but it also places explicit caps on overall development. Limits on dwelling units, commercial square footage, office and medical space, and total building area are all written directly into the zoning conditions. In other words, it combines flexibility in building form with clear boundaries on what can ultimately be constructed.

In places like North Hills, height is often what makes mixed‑use projects feasible. Taller buildings allow for smaller footprints, larger public spaces, and the ability to actually realize housing capacity that already exists on paper. The rezoning also includes design and site requirements like stepbacks, limits on surface parking, new open space, green stormwater infrastructure, and green building standards. Including third‑party green building standards is a strong and welcome condition for tall building projects like this one, helping ensure that increased height also delivers better environmental performance.

Importantly, the City’s own planning staff found that the proposed entitlements would generate approximately 2,000 fewer vehicle trips per day than what is allowed under current zoning. That’s not just a talking point. It’s a reflection of how mixed‑use districts decrease traffic by enabling daily needs to exist within walking distance. The Planning Commission recommended approving the rezoning, with just one dissenting vote from Tolulope Omokaiye.

It’s also important to be clear about what this rezoning does not include.

Two years ago, a more ambitious North Hills proposal was being discussed. That version included room for a new fire station and land for a transit station that could have anchored significantly better public transit service into Midtown. That proposal never reached a public hearing. Political uncertainty, organized opposition, and a sense that approval was unlikely created enough doubt that the applicant withdrew. When the project stalled, those public benefits disappeared with it.

This is an insidious part of the development process that we see too often in the Triangle. Elected officials avoid naming it directly, but nonetheless: delay has consequences. Projects held in limbo do not quietly improve. Risk increases. Costs rise. Commitments shrink. If any developer could afford years of uncertainty, you’d think it would be the developer with the most experience and largest footprint in Raleigh. Yet, even they could not keep those elements on the table indefinitely.

The version before Council next week is still a good project. But it is more constrained than what was once proposed. Height has been reduced in some areas, overall density is capped more tightly, and ambition has been tempered by years of negotiation and shifting market conditions. Concentrating height at the core of the site, across from the Eastern (the existing 37‑story tower that has already defined the Midtown skyline for several years) is part of that tradeoff. When faced with delays, projects don’t get bolder; they get narrower.

There’s another tension in this case that’s worth addressing directly. In many rezonings, housing advocates argue for approval by pointing to Raleigh’s Comprehensive Plan. Here, the small area plan adopted in 2020 places height caps of roughly 12 to 20 stories across much of North Hills. This rezoning seeks to exceed those limits.

That doesn’t make the proposal reckless. It simply highlights a weakness in how small area plans are sometimes used politically. These plans often freeze a moment of political caution and treat it as permanent truth, limiting the ability of future councils and communities to respond when places evolve. The issue isn’t that conditions changed slowly over decades. It’s that the small area plan was already out of step with reality when it was approved. Plans should guide growth, not lock it in place. When an area demonstrates that it can support density and urban form, elected officials should have the flexibility to respond.

The opposition to this rezoning is familiar.

I’ve spent enough time in Raleigh City Council chambers to recognize the pattern. Many of the same voices arguing against this rezoning often proclaim that housing should be built near jobs, near services, and near existing infrastructure, while they oppose housing at the edge of the city in the name of fighting sprawl.

On that principle, I agree. The problem for them is that North Hills is that place.

North Hills, now grown up into a real Midtown, is a major employment center. It’s walkable. It sits right on the Beltline. It has long been identified as a future transit node. If mixed‑use buildings and new housing aren’t acceptable here, it’s hard to imagine where they would be.

At some point, this stops being a debate about location and becomes a question of whether we are willing to build at all. This is, quite literally, where the term NIMBY comes from: saying that housing and growth are fine in theory, just not in my specific neighborhood.

Delays and threats of denial rarely improve projects. More often, they narrow them, and public amenities are the first components to get the axe. Predictability, not posturing, is what allows cities to secure community benefits and plan for housing and transit over time. To this Council’s credit, expectations appear clearer than in the past. That clarity matters. Developers, neighborhoods, and transit agencies all plan around the signals that elected officials send.

So, why support Z-34-25?

Here’s the bottom line: Z‑34‑25 deserves support because it puts growth where it actually belongs. Adding density is good when it’s on underutilized commercial land, surrounded by jobs, services, and existing infrastructure, all in a place that has already proven it can function as a real urban center. It may not be perfect, but it is good.

City Council doesn’t get to vote on the project they wish existed. They get a yes‑or‑no vote on what has been proposed, negotiated, and brought forward. That makes this moment important.

If advocates want better outcomes, We have to say, clearly and publicly, what works and what should move forward. Supporting good projects is how cities get more of them.

This rezoning will be opposed by some. That is predictable. What’s less predictable is how many supporters of housing, walkable growth, and learning from past lessons will show up with the same clarity. We must.

If you believe Raleigh needs more housing choices and a planning system that rewards progress instead of punishing it, now is the time to say so.

The public hearing is January 6th. Speak for housing. Speak for learning from our past decisions. Tell Council that Raleigh became better once because someone was willing to imagine more than a parking lot.

We shouldn’t forget that lesson now.

🏙️ Z-34-25 PUBLIC HEARING | JANUARY 6

This is exactly where growth should go. If you agree:

📝 Sign up to speak at the public hearing
📨 Email your city councilor to voice your support

👥 Show up, even if you don’t speak
💚 Wear green to support the rezoning
✔️ Tell Council: North Hills is the right place to build tall

Opponents will be there. Supporters must be too.

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.

Parks are public commons. Parks are not private backyards for the lucky few who can afford houses on the edge. Their true value comes when many people live within walking distance, when a steady flow of neighbors keeps them lively and safe, when the sidewalks leading in are just as busy as the trails inside.

Read more

Despite cooling housing costs across Raleigh, one cluster of neighborhoods stands out for refusing to budge: Five Points. Nestled inside the Beltline and steeped in historical charm, the area has become a hotbed of resistance to the city’s Missing Middle housing reforms. But here’s the twist: local residents’ opposition isn’t just hurting the city, it’s hurting themselves too.

This article digs into the story of Five Points, both as a group of neighborhoods and as a symbolic holdout against more affordable, inclusive housing in Raleigh. We’ll explore the history, the lawsuits, the zoning fights, and the costs — financial and otherwise — of saying “no” to change.

Five Points Defined

The Five Points area is a cluster of five historic neighborhoods, the core of which includes…

Read more

In December, WakeUp Wake County hosted a talk with Vicki Been, who laid out both the challenges and opportunities facing Raleigh as it tackles the affordable housing crisis.

Been is no stranger to complex urban issues. She’s the Faculty Director of NYU’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy and served as New York City’s Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development. Her core message: Raleigh has made impressive progress, but if it wants to meet demand and maintain affordability, it can’t stop here.

Affordable housing is a critical issue in the Triangle, where “about half of renters are paying more than that 30% amount and another 19% of homeowners are paying more than 30% of their income,” Been said. With median rents hovering around $1,825 a month, a household m…

Read more

In an area that’s growing as fast as the Triangle, questions about design aren’t abstract, they’re urgent. Who gets to shape the public realm? Who’s welcome in a space, and who’s left out? What can architects really do in the face of rising inequality, climate pressure, and social fragmentation?

These are the questions at the center of REAL MATTER, an annual summer design workshop hosted by Raleigh’s own in situ studio. The workshop brings together students and young professionals from across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for two intensive weeks of research, design, and public engagement, all rooted in the physical and social landscape of Raleigh.

While the work is local, the implications reach far beyond the city.

Why It Exists

REAL MATTER exists because the built environment, shaped by decades of …

Read more

Recent changes in Raleigh’s zoning laws have dramatically expanded the types of development allowed throughout the city. Duplexes, once limited to specific areas, are now permitted in all but one zone. At CITYBUILDER, we believe expanding housing types like duplexes is key to a city that works for everyone—one where teachers, delivery drivers, and young families can live near where they work and thrive. This piece breaks down one of the most common questions we hear: where can you actually build a duplex in Raleigh? Let’s take a look at the historical restrictions, the new allowances, and what these changes mean for the future of housing in Raleigh.

Raleigh Zoning Reform Refresher: Finding the Missing Middle

For decades, Raleigh followed zoning policies that restricted the construction of duplexes and other multi-…

Read more

We’re proud to republish this update from CITYBUILDER board member Eric Braun, originally posted at RaleighForward, where he shares thoughtful commentary on local housing, transit, and governance. Eric brings a sharp legal lens and steady optimism to the conversation — a perspective we’re excited to share with our readers.

Given the recent news that the developer of the Hayes Barton townhome community received approval of an amended plan for 17 townhomes, we thought it was time to provide an update on all of the Missing Middle litigation. As readers may recall, this proposed project spawned the first lawsuit challenging Raleigh’s Missing Middle reforms.

These reforms (TC-5-20 “Missing and Middle 1.0”) and (TC-20-2021 “Missing Mid…

Read more

Read more

Raleigh is growing, and with that growth comes a need for more housing options that suit different lifestyles, budgets, and family sizes. After passing the Missing Middle Housing text changes, Raleigh is beginning to see a pipeline of new missing middle housing units—new homes that may not have existed without these changes. The adoption of text changes TC-5-20 in 2021 and TC-20-21 in 2022 laid the groundwork for these changes by permitting missing middle housing in more residential districts and increasing density near high-frequency transit corridors.

What is Missing Middle Housing?

Read more

A single Hayes-Barton townhome development has stolen all the Missing Middle headlines since the much needed zoning update was established. But there’s at least 10 proposed small scale developments within Raleigh’s Administrative Site Review portal being reviewed.

These selected developments are mostly modest and small-scale to fit within their respective communities. In total, they will add nearly 200 units on less than 10 acres within the City limits.

Let’s review each in detail:

MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT #1 | 601 Method Rd

Nine unit small apartment building on Method Rd near Western Blvd BRT.

MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT #2 | 1613 Battery Dr

Fourteen new townhomes replacing one single family home adjacent to Raleigh Blvd.

MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT #3 | 1201 Brookside Dr

Read more