@Sean - Consider your phrasing here with new multi-family that's being built without "affordable units." Are you applying this same logic to single-family home sales in Charlottesville? For instance, consider a $1m house off Rugby Road that is sold to a non-developer. Odds are (extremely) high that said lot will continue to be just a house, and the lot will continue to not be "affordable." But, no vitriol or even a remark in your newsletter about the sale.
Thanks for the comment! The story should have had and will soon have an explanation that clarifies that this new proposal does not seek to build any of the bonus units allowed under the new Development Code in Residential-A and Residential-B zones. Neither does 303 Alderman Road or 1609 Gordon Road. 2030 Barracks Road does seek additional bonus units because half of them will meet the city's guidelines. As the process is novel, I'm still trying to figure out!
Here's a link to the Affordable Dwelling Unit Manual:
It is not the information itself that I am taking issue with, but how it is being presented. I would argue that you are making a judgment on the above developments, themselves, by adding that information about them not seeking bonus units when you do not also include similar information with every SFH sale that remains SFH. Obviously, a sale in and of itself of a SFH does not signify that that lot will remain SFH, but if the end result is still a constraining of housing supply, that should be noted, IMO, either up front or in some sort of regularly scheduled lookback piece on these sales. I know that is a harder thing to report on (and visualize for readers) that the filing of new development plans, but something to consider, maybe?
As you may know, I look at every single property transaction in Charlottesville and have done so for the past four years (nearly). The new zoning ordinance introduces new development rights, and I'm curious to see who takes advantage of them and who is not. With the case of 303 Alderman, a major development plan was filed within a month of the $850,000 purchase.
Same with 2030 Barracks Road, a property whose developers are seeking the bonus development. At what price point? Why did this developer take this approach, and will the project pencil out? Will it actually materialize, or will it be like the RST Development in Hollymead which did not?
How will 307 Alderman Road turn out? The property sold on September 27, 2024 for $700,000 but nothing has been filed yet. 1943 Thomson Road sold for $1.85 million in July. That will likely stay a single family home. The previous owner left town out of fear the neighborhood character would change.
The new Development Code introduced new rules and this is novel. I'm not an advocate. I'm a person who has written about land use in this community since 2007 and my reporting is an extension of both my curiosity and my desire to let people that things are different now.
As a beat reporter, I have several sources I check multiple times a week. One of those is the development portal hence today's report.
Not every story tells the full story, and there's no judgment intended. The reporting is intended to inform a basic question: "Does the development seek additional density allowed under the code?"
Every single parcel is going to be different. Some will build the affordable units. Others will not. In trying to describe how this novel process unfolds, my goal is to inform people as they begin to see the built environment change.
I really appreciate the input and the ability to respond and hear your thoughts. I'm learning as if everyone else about how this is going to work, and I should be careful about how I use the word "affordable" as I should be careful with all words. But being able to write it out in a comment thread helps me a lot, so I appreciate this opportunity.
And this is most certainly the most comments any post has had in 751 editions!
I believe the point is that the new zoning rules have requirements for developers to build affordable housing in projects at a certain scale, and Sean is pointing out that many developers are choosing to develop *just* underneath that amount to avoid the requirement. Nobody has proposed that sales (of single-family homes or otherwise) would have similar requirement. Sean reports on many individual sales in his paid posts if you're interested. :)
The segment on the Hillcrest Development has been updated to correct an error. 303 Alderman is a single-family house that will be replaced by six townhouses that are three stories in height on the same lot. I incorrectly described the unit as you can see in the strike-through text in the segment.
Additionally, the headline for this entire newsletter likely should have not brought up the affordability component because the story itself does not do enough to explain some of the distinctions. This will be corrected as that segment is posted to Information Charlottesville. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue this experiment in local journalism.
@Sean - Consider your phrasing here with new multi-family that's being built without "affordable units." Are you applying this same logic to single-family home sales in Charlottesville? For instance, consider a $1m house off Rugby Road that is sold to a non-developer. Odds are (extremely) high that said lot will continue to be just a house, and the lot will continue to not be "affordable." But, no vitriol or even a remark in your newsletter about the sale.
Thanks for the comment! The story should have had and will soon have an explanation that clarifies that this new proposal does not seek to build any of the bonus units allowed under the new Development Code in Residential-A and Residential-B zones. Neither does 303 Alderman Road or 1609 Gordon Road. 2030 Barracks Road does seek additional bonus units because half of them will meet the city's guidelines. As the process is novel, I'm still trying to figure out!
Here's a link to the Affordable Dwelling Unit Manual:
https://www.charlottesville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11172/Charlottesville-ADU-Manual_11_02052024
Does this help explain? I'll add that paragraph sometime later this evening.
It is not the information itself that I am taking issue with, but how it is being presented. I would argue that you are making a judgment on the above developments, themselves, by adding that information about them not seeking bonus units when you do not also include similar information with every SFH sale that remains SFH. Obviously, a sale in and of itself of a SFH does not signify that that lot will remain SFH, but if the end result is still a constraining of housing supply, that should be noted, IMO, either up front or in some sort of regularly scheduled lookback piece on these sales. I know that is a harder thing to report on (and visualize for readers) that the filing of new development plans, but something to consider, maybe?
As you may know, I look at every single property transaction in Charlottesville and have done so for the past four years (nearly). The new zoning ordinance introduces new development rights, and I'm curious to see who takes advantage of them and who is not. With the case of 303 Alderman, a major development plan was filed within a month of the $850,000 purchase.
Same with 2030 Barracks Road, a property whose developers are seeking the bonus development. At what price point? Why did this developer take this approach, and will the project pencil out? Will it actually materialize, or will it be like the RST Development in Hollymead which did not?
How will 307 Alderman Road turn out? The property sold on September 27, 2024 for $700,000 but nothing has been filed yet. 1943 Thomson Road sold for $1.85 million in July. That will likely stay a single family home. The previous owner left town out of fear the neighborhood character would change.
The new Development Code introduced new rules and this is novel. I'm not an advocate. I'm a person who has written about land use in this community since 2007 and my reporting is an extension of both my curiosity and my desire to let people that things are different now.
As a beat reporter, I have several sources I check multiple times a week. One of those is the development portal hence today's report.
Not every story tells the full story, and there's no judgment intended. The reporting is intended to inform a basic question: "Does the development seek additional density allowed under the code?"
Every single parcel is going to be different. Some will build the affordable units. Others will not. In trying to describe how this novel process unfolds, my goal is to inform people as they begin to see the built environment change.
Understood.
I really appreciate the input and the ability to respond and hear your thoughts. I'm learning as if everyone else about how this is going to work, and I should be careful about how I use the word "affordable" as I should be careful with all words. But being able to write it out in a comment thread helps me a lot, so I appreciate this opportunity.
And this is most certainly the most comments any post has had in 751 editions!
I believe the point is that the new zoning rules have requirements for developers to build affordable housing in projects at a certain scale, and Sean is pointing out that many developers are choosing to develop *just* underneath that amount to avoid the requirement. Nobody has proposed that sales (of single-family homes or otherwise) would have similar requirement. Sean reports on many individual sales in his paid posts if you're interested. :)
Also out from beyond the paywall on Information Charlottesville:
https://infocville.com/category/property-transactions/
The segment on the Hillcrest Development has been updated to correct an error. 303 Alderman is a single-family house that will be replaced by six townhouses that are three stories in height on the same lot. I incorrectly described the unit as you can see in the strike-through text in the segment.
Additionally, the headline for this entire newsletter likely should have not brought up the affordability component because the story itself does not do enough to explain some of the distinctions. This will be corrected as that segment is posted to Information Charlottesville. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue this experiment in local journalism.