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

On the original post, you can hover over the chart to see the numbers for each category.

Read more

Announced back in July of this year, the Downtown Raleigh Alliance (DRA) and the city have partnered with a few consultants to create a plan for Downtown as the last few years have seen unanticipated changes. The largest of those being the uptick in remote and hybrid work and how downtown businesses were reliant on a certain number of workers coming to the office and frequenting them for lunch and goods. It is also a great time for a new plan as the previous downtown plan was implemented in 2015 and plenty of policies and recommendations from that one have already been put in place.

The new plan has four key focus areas which include:

1. Providing a retail strategy for downtown with a focus on the Fayetteville Street corridor

2. Defining opportunities to support a thriving Minority and Women Owned Business community

3. Examination and strategic positioning of the downtown office market

4. Identification of catalytic projects to stimulate and grow the Downtown Raleigh economy

I copied those straight off

Read more