Affordable Housing and Corridor Density

In a time when $700 is a steal for a 1 bedroom apartment I think this project is great.

A small sample of current vacant rentals within a short walk of the ‘Larchmont’ (and adjacent to the ‘transit corridor’):

1BR/1BA NORTH
Apartment
11 Murdock, $395. Water Included

2BR, 1.5BA NORTH
House
172 Macon. 2nd month free. Garage. $695/month

2BR/1BA NORTH
Apartment
501 Beaverdam, $545/month. Mountain Views, Washer/Dryer hookups

NORTH ASHEVILLE TOWNHOUSE
Condo / Townhome
Walking distance to town. 1BR, 1BA. $495/month. Includes water.

2BR, 2BA NORTH
Apartment
81 Lakeshore. Porch, coin-operated laundry. $675/month.

2BR, 1BA NORTH
Apartment
270 Edgewood. $650/month. Near UNCA. Pets okay.

1BR, 1BA NORTH
Apartment
45 Henrietta. $590/month. Sunporch, new appliances.

Gracelyn Garden Apts. 30 Clairmont Avenue; 2BR/1.5BA; $615/mo.
Without a doubt, Gracelyn Garden Apts. has one of the greatest locations in N. Asheville. Situated just 2 blocks off of busy Merrimon Ave., it has all of the walking distance convenience without any of the street noise. Large apts. Coin-operated laundry. Heat pump with central A/C.

501 Beaverdam Road; 1BR and BONUS ROOM/1BA; $545/mo.

Lakeshore Garden Apts.- 1 Lakeshore Drive; 2BA/2BR; $675/mo.
Lovely, well-maintained building in established residential area of north Asheville. Large, den, landscaped yard; building located well off of road. All units have a patio or balcony, A/C, dishwasher, disposal.

[There are also vacancies at Winston Heights, the Section 9 townhouses on Long St. 1/2 block from the Larchmont site]

The planetary population is going to be half again what it is today in about 30 years. Asheville presumably will not increase by quite that much, given that we are in a relatively non-dense part of the world, but we won’t trail by much.

We have a clear choice between density and sprawl. The only people I can much credit with standing to complain about Larchmont or other similar projects are those who have chosen not to have children. (If you are contributing to the need for higher density, you need to accept the consequences.)

And per the traffic worries, the best way we can reduce traffic congestion into the future is to increase transit accessibility. That requires higher density to support higher frequency. As oil prices climb, everyone within walking distance of our transit corridors will benefit from the higher density that permits increased service.

If this was easy we would not be debating and discussing the location. Size. Sale. Density. Subsidies. Etc of this project.

Better to have density on a well trafficed urban street that has lots of commercial and big box already than in the floodplain and riparian buffers.

Hey what are the rules about junk yards ? A 50 year oid plus grandfathered recycling business had a senior city staffer hang up on them today when they inquired about the rules? It would be very helpful to know the city policy on uses allowed and prohibited in the floodplain. Thanks to all karen

Lindsey, it only took a few minutes using Mountain Xpresses online classifieds and searching a few of the rental agencies that handle the off-Merrimon garden apartments, like Leslie and Assoc. I have a friend who lives in Gracelyn Gardens and they’re really nice and fully-equipped.

Note, too that I was just looking within a few blocks of Larchmont. The rents in W. Asheville were even lower.

The listings I provided were in line with what Gordon provided for MHO. While I can’t compare sq. footage to make it scientific, many of these are spacious garden apts and some are apts in vintage houses which has the charm appeal to many. Some also allow pets.

Since I walk this neighborhood every day, it’s apparent that the supply is growing and the costs are going down.

From Leslie and Associates:

346 Montford Ave.; 1BR/1BA; $575/mo.
NO pets.

The Asheville Hotel Apts: Studio/1BA; $695/mo.
No dogs, cats only with pet fee.

83 Edgemont; 1BR/1BA; $685/mo.
Pets allowed with pet fee and approval. Coin laundry in building.

Linden Apartments, 82 Merrimon Avenue, 1Br/1BA: $595/mo.
Central steam heat paid for by the owner, water and hot water are also included with the rent. Cats allowed with pet fee..

12 Golf Street; 1BR/1BA; $625/mo.
Large apartment, hardwood floors, living room, gas range, tenant pays gas and electric. No dogs, cats only on approval with pet fee.

American Court Apartments, 85 Merrimon Avenue; Efficiency (one room)/1BA; $500/mo.- SPRING SPECIAL!
fully furnished units with one or two beds located in each unit. Apartments do NOT have kitchens, only a microwave and small refrigerator. No dogs, cats only on approval with pet fee.

East Asheville
314 Fairview Road; 1BR/1BA; $525/mo.
No dogs, cats only on approval with pet fee

630 Rosehill Road; 1.5B/1BA; $595/mo.
Pets okay on approval with pet fee.

From Craigslist:
Mar 16 – $800 / 1br – 1br-n.asheville(beaverdam) – (16 woodbury rd)
Mar 16 – $800 / 1br – N. Asheville (Beaverdam) 1BR/1BA –
Mar 16 – $650 / 1br – 1 bed, and studio rondetts (cottages) – (N-Asheville)
Mar 16 – $650 / 1br – 1 bed, and studio rondetts (cottages) – (N-Asheville)
Mar 16 – $575 / 1br – 2/1 with Bonus room, bottom unit of Duplex – (North/Weaverville) img
Mar 16 – $625 / 1br – Apartment – (Montford) pic

I live in North Asheville. None of the supposed Larchmont “opponents” I’ve spoken with actually oppose the concept, the architecture or affordable housing. Just the scale of this particular project. That makes them opponents?

Take an example: You want to see congress pass health care reform legislation? Are there things about the proposed bill you don’t like? Do you want to see changes and improvement before the bill goes to the president’s desk? Yes? So, does that make you a supporter of health care reform or an opponent of health care reform?

Some neighbors would simply like to see Larchmont built at a scale more in keeping with the rest of their neighborhood. The principle rationale for why it cannot comes not from city leaders, but from the developers – the ones saying no in this debate. 60 units and not a unit less. Fewer than 60, they insist, is not workable under their business model. That may be. And it may not be.

For some odd reason, some people in Asheville won’t take a developer’s word for it anymore. And anyway, when did developers’ business models become our neighborhoods’ responsibility?

The planetary population is going to be half again what it is today in about 30 years

Nature has its own way of “thinning the heard” so to speak when populations get out of control.
The only way to really have an impact on global population is to practice a form of cultural genocide in the various so-called third world parts of the globe where population is booming. Of course we tend to call it “education” but I have never been one fer fancy political language, lets just call it what it is. Of course we could just practice the regular old genocide, but that would be a bit tricky, and to do it effectively we would have to use nukes, and that would create a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
Overpopulation is a problem, but it is a symptom not the disease itself. Until we address the underlying causes (or just start wiping out whole populations) we will just be sticking our fingers in various dikes (please note that is dikes with an “I”, thank you).

I’m sorry, just one more and I’ll stop:

$450- West Asheville
1st floor very small, yet super cozy efficiency/room, appr. 250 sq ft. For one person only. This efficiency has no kitchen but has a gas grill outside for shared use and nice size refrigerator, toaster oven and microwave. for someone who doesn’t need alot of space and doesn’t care about cooking or eats out alot. One indoor cat allowed.

Laura, I didn’t feel you were on my case. I get a good sense of the frustration, having housed young people at my place over the years. From what I can tell, wages are depressed and to make it worse, people are often under-employed. At the same time, I think I see the rental market rates shifting to reflect those labor conditions.

In the Larchmont neighborhood, which might be assumed to be high-end by those who don’t know it, there is a variety of relatively affordable options — everything from Section 9 housing to inexpensive garden apartments to small bungalows that are often shared. It gets tricky, though, to have to live alone and with a dog.

Have you looked around the Hillside neighborhood? Again, my friend just vacated a really sweet apartment that was $425. Another young friend who’s a sandwich-maker just found an affordable place on Cherry St. downtown. What about the listing on Murdock ($395)?

Back to the original topic: I don’t believe the solution is to build massive complexes to meet all the needs. Rental subsidies, to allow tenants to occupy existing spaces, in combination with smaller, dispersed complexes, would be a better use of tax dollars and would allow for flexibility (eg. those who have pets) and would sustain the vitality of neighborhoods by integrating renters with home owners.

It’s also more harmonious.

Tom, at the P&Z hearing, we also learned that the City did their traffic study at the site during a snowstorm in January…hardly representative of the typical congested conditions. But hey, they’re the experts.

Bottom line about traffic: Merrimon is haphazard and hazardous. There are solutions that re-route commuter traffic away from the corridor but those should be implemented, or at least planned prior to any development that makes the situation worse. I see no master plan being implemented that addresses public transport, wages, and housing — just a single-pronged, short-sighted effort.

Cecil,

If you’re going to experiment with social engineering, at least make the requirement for over-sized high density apartments and protestors being childless part of a comprehensive ideology. Ban cars in the corridor. Ban single-family homes altogether. Require a living wage. Issue vouchers for rental assistance to reduce the environmental damage of new construction (that uses cheap and often toxic imported materials) and facilitate the occupancy of vacancies that exist. Require any Larchmont advocate in the Kimberly neighborhood (like yesterday’s C-T letter writer) to make available low-cost rentals in their homes as a condition of their advocacy.

I really do get it. I just don’t see that the whole fabric has been woven. The spot application of ideology, without the implementation of its totality, does more harm than good.

So, Cecil, because the world population in 2040 will be 10,185,093,320 we should put 60 units where only 37 reasonably fit on the Larchmont site in Asheville, NC, USA, World 2010?

So what is the point of zoning “to protect neighborhoods” if it can be abolished to build large scale projects the neighbors don’t want? I guess whether your project is allowed or not depends on it fitting city council members’ ideological preferences, not adherence to any “plan” and Cecil if you are worried about overpopulation, you could easily reduce CO2, traffic density, and reduce overpopulation by one.

Gene Johnson:

Am I really the ‘conservative’ as you claim, repeatedly espousing the position that there is no affordable housing problem in Asheville?

I have consistently supported and promoted the construction of 32 affordable apartments (as per the current zoning), in conjunction with rental subsidies for vacancies in close proximity to the site. I have also housed those in need, rent-free, in my modest home.

For all the back and forth, the rigid proponents of 60 units for the Larchmont refuse to acknowledge that those of us who question the size and scope are not anti-’affordable housing.’ Apparently, it just doesn’t suit the narrative.

By the way, ‘drive time’ and post office access’ are incorrect and presumptuous worries you attribute to me. I’m a neighborhood pedestrian.

Doug said: “Here’s a lesson I have learned from living in various cities around the country:
If you want a nice, spacious, one-bedroom apartment close to a downtown area, then it is going to cost more than $500 a month.”

Good point…when I last rented the going rate was around $400.00 for a one bedroom. The next step up to a to bedroom was around $450. to $550. and that felt like a mortgage payment to me. So I found a place that was reasonably priced and bought it. I’ve had the luxury of being able to live in my house alone, but frankly if I couldn’t make my mortgage I would have rented out a couple of rooms. Only in America do we expect single dwelling large living areas. Obviously lots of people haven’t traveled abroad that much. In Europe most middle class people live in high rise apartments. Only the wealthy own homes. We are heading in that direction.

I understand that the city leadership should be concerned that people have affordable housing, but like Doug, I question if it is an entitlement.

Gene Johnson:

Apologies accepted.

I admit up-front that I am not a zoning expert but I was around during the codification of the UDO (and decades earlier) and can argue against your claim that the site has an Institutional (not Urban Residential) zoning simply because of the Naval Reserve. Here’s what the the Conditional Use Standard (UDO) states:

“That the proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located.”

The adjoining properties on the eastern border are modest single-family homes; the property to the north is a church; and below is the post office. Thus, the Institutional zoning.

‘Spin’ is casting aspersions on the neighbors for seeking a compromise that both provides affordable housing and retains the density and character of the neighborhood.

The zoning, per se, is not the issue. The issue is that the usable land is a mere 1.65 acres. With that small space, there can be no adequate buffers from the neighbors because of the need for the buildings’ massive footprints plus parking and amenities. That means that just beyond the neighbors’ small back yards, will be an oversized complex with its inescapable noise, pollution and general congestion. With a smaller complex, the set-back can be reasonable. That’s my guiding principle.

Actually, there were two other takers for the property. We heard their stories at the P&Z hearing. One was for a small school in the reserve building (rejected). The other was for assisted living for neighborhood seniors (rejected due to proposing to build 50 units – not permittted under Institutional zoning).

About other developers coming in: What I am skeptical of is that Council would not exercise their authority to further restrict the zoning should other ill and incompatible uses be proposed and the neighbors protest.

Don’t get me wrong. I want MHO to buy and use the space. If I sound otherwise, it’s because I believe that coming in like gang-busters does little to promote the cause and certainly is not very neighborly.

Gene,

Good insights, you seem to really have a handle on things. A follow up question if you don’t mind: Where else in Asheville are apartments that are twenty feet taller than the height of buildings on Merrimon, and twice as dense as any surrounding buildings used as normal buffers? Just looking for a little context, thanks.

As to the picture Councilman Smith is using for this post, I recall seeing that at the Planning and Zoning hearing. I believe it was made by Mr. Ledgerton, the architect hired by the developer. First, if you’re in the Sun Trust lot, you’re downhill looking up, not uphill looking down, but what’s a little distortion. Secondly, I’m not going to suggest that a council member using materials paid for by the developer is a conflict of interest, but it sure does let us know where he stands. I stand to be corrected.

Tom Sullivan raises a good point, why is it up to the city to make changes to accommodate a developer? Why don’t they have another business plan? If this was Trump Towers, would we still be treating the developer the same way?

Wiley:

“Where else in Asheville are apartments that are twenty feet taller than the height of buildings on Merrimon, and twice as dense as any surrounding buildings used as normal buffers? Just looking for a little context”

This is rhetorical, I assume, since Asheville has plenty of buildings three stories or more, and plenty that are “dense” (whatever that means). Look, in my opinion, the only people who have standing to really be opposed to this are the handful of immediate neighbors above. I think they’re getting a better neighbor than if it went commercial.

For almost everyone else it’s about aesthetics. Either you are somehow offended to be driving up the major north-south corridor of our city and look up and see an apartment building behind the bank and post office or you take it in stride and think it’s a great thing to have it there. Those who say they want to move to Marshall or Madison County make their sensibilities clear. I wouldn’t live there on a bet, personally, that’s why I live in North Asheville.

I would love to know how many of these opponents would be happy to shove that building to the back of the lot so it was even closer to the neighbors, but less visible from Merrimon. I’m sure a LOT would.

Ms. Alenier is pretty honest. Others are less so. She is consistent in saying it’s not about traffic or about zoning. It’s about a single family neighborhood wanting to maintain their distance from apartments. I disagree with her that the hill overlooking the site is not a good buffer. If not this site, where?

As for Mr. Sullivan’s point about “developers,” I think that’s disingenuous. This is NOT Trump Towers, it’s a GOOD thing, something progressives have said we need and want. This idea that zoning can never be changed, even to keep up with reality and human needs, is beyond me. It’s not a principle, it’s a tactic! Those utilizing this tactic will not worry one bit about being consistent when someone comes in and builds a big chain restaurant there, per the zoning. They’ll be demanding that City Council rezone it single-family residential!

Elephant in the room: If a developer built a gym in that spot so the locals could drive a few blocks to go workout, I doubt we’d hear a peep from the neighbors. Increased traffic or tall buildings be dammed.

But improved density so that working class folks can have a place to live? Well, that’s controversial.

Personally, I support increased The Larchmont’s plan for 60 units. It’s good for Asheville, and will encourage better multi-modal infrastructure in that part of town.

- pvh

Paul V:

Use that argument with the struggling single mom or the elderly Greek immigrants or the public high school teacher – all whose properties adjoin the site. As not only a member of the working class but one whose life has been devoted to social justice, I, too, take offense at your mischaracterization of the neighborhood and its people and our intentions.

It’s really frightening to see the mindset of the ‘improved density’ proponents, whatever that term means.

Robin,

Your assertions are misguided at best. The question at hand is not over the character of the people moving in, it’s over the size and scale of the property.

Not one single comment at the P&Z meeting complained about crime, race, or any other social paradigm.

Robin Merrell:

If you had taken the time to listen to those raising questions about the Larchmont project, you would hear that the objections are to the DENSITY for that site, which, through a thorough and public process, was ZONED for a maximum of 32 apartments on the small parcel.

As for mischaracterizing the opponents’ imagined fears, you are so inaccurate and irresponsible in making those allegations that your comments would be laughable if they weren’t so repulsive, and libelous if you had mentioned any names.

@Nancy:

Can’t speak for you – but here’s how I was introduced to this topic about two weeks ago:

Me: (((At Mountain Java))

Ms. X: Hey Paul, you live on Merrimon. do you know about the Lachmont project?

Me: Not really. Tell me about it.

Ms. X: They want to change the zoning to allow about 60 units of affordable housing in that space next to the post office.

Me: As long as it doesn’t look fugly, it seems good.

Ms. X: Well, if that gets built we might be flooded with less-than-desirableness.

Me: Meaning? ((Feigned look of confusion))

Ms. X: Oh, you know. Poor people.

I’m sure Ms X doesn’t speak for _everyone_ in your neighborhood group – but let’s not pretend that attitude isn’t there. Refusing to acknowledge that mindset is what’s frightening.

A Trader Joe’s or a Bojangles’s could be built in that location and not need a single zoning change. The neighborhood should be thankful that a new community is coming, and not another mindless strip mall.

There are places where increased density is a bad idea – but the proposed location is not one of them.

- pvh

All of this talk about good buffer or bad buffer sent me to the topo maps on Buncombe GIS.

And Nancy, after your fourteen posts today (maybe more by now) I’m surprised to find that your property is 35 feet in elevation above the parking lot of the old military facility and 65 feet in elevation above the Post Office parking lot (where the bus stops and traffic lights are located). So I’m trying to figure out how this development will impact you.

Yes, some of our neighbors across the street who actually overlook the site are closer. So may be it’s not a NIMBY situation. Maybe it’s a “Not-In-My-Neighbor-Across-the-Street-and-Down-the-Hill’s Back Yard” situation.

But the disproportionate response from you and from neighbors who live miles away (flyers passed out to my friends as far north as the Asheville Country Club, and over 30 web links posted online by the Woodfin resident who started the petition, and petition signers spread out from Biltmore Forest to west Asheville to Weaverville), does make it seem either aesthetic, as Gene or Eugene says, or something either unstated or vigorously denied.

I’m with Gene on this one. It may not be Conservative in a Republican sense. You say it’s about Preservation. As your friend who talks on the video suggests, preserving “a little patch of grassy [and asphalt-y] land.”

But I don’t think it’s Conservative or Preservative, I think it’s downright Reactionary. I personally don’t care who’s a Democrat precinct leader or an Obama supporter or social worker, this reaction is Reactionary.

I am sad to think how you will hate looking down on this site. But comparing any negative impact to us, as north Asheville neighbors (which I’m still trying to figure out), to the environmental and traffic benefits of having these families live on the bus line near workplaces and grocery stores, there’s no contest.

To step back a minute and take a view over the coming years, I wonder what everyone will do when this is over. If you win, what comes next, an intense petition effort for the County and City to turn this $1-2 million property into a Dog Park? Or opposition to the commercial or office building proposed there next?

And if the proposal for 60 apartments wins, what comes next? The apartments are built, families move in, and they put their children on the school bus every morning and head off to work.

What gives life meaning after this battle is over?

So go ahead and tell me what I’ve got wrong and then ask for another apology as you’ve asked from others. But you won’t get it from me. Because I do have issues. After listening to my City neighbors sound like they’re from Petticoat Junction or Mayberry or Dickens’ Christmas Carol for the past three months, I’ve developed real issues with Asheville’s mood in the 21st Century.

p.s. And Wiley, if you attended the Planning and Zoning meeting as I did, you saw the developer present many examples of apartment buildings in Asheville that are just as tall and more dense.

And Wiley and Nancy, months ago the first and loudest opponent on WLOS made negative assumptions about the character of those who will live in these apartments. It’s on tape.

And for goodness sake, please stop reassuring us how you support affordable housing because you support 37 units. Saying this says nothing. It’s like a Congressman saying he doesn’t support universal health care but he does support Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are a given, and 37 units is already allowed, it doesn’t need a vote of City Council. 37 units doesn’t need or want your approval. If the current zoning allowed only 20 units, would you support a rezoning to 37? Please.

By the Way, The site is 1.59 USABLE acres according to the County’s new survey but I suppose you can call it 2.3 or 2.5 or 2.72 depending on which $8 MILLION public grant application you are filing. We pay and then we pay some more. Where is our representation? On vacation in Hawaii or just owned?

“then shalt thou count to sixty, no more, no less.”

“Larchmont will be built anyway”
——————–

Last post, I promise!

Mr. Sullivan, I don’t know why you are so fatalistic. Maybe it’s that Old Testament thing you’ve got going on. Let me take one last shot at explaining why you appear to be an opponent, and not just a reasonable guy who wants a little give and take.

I’m not a developer, and I don’t know what the developer’s “numbers” look like. But I can do math, and I know that 37 units is about 60% of 60 units. So you’re asking them to “compromise” and cut their project by about 40%.

I know enough about business and real estate to understand that this just isn’t a credible position to take (especially for a development that is trying to be “affordable”) if your goal were really to see something affordable built there.

Take any nearby business–the Asheville Pizza Company, the Toy Box, Usual Suspects–and tell them that you are wholeheartedly in support of their great, locally-owned business, just not at the size and scale proposed, and that you want them to be reasonable and cut their parking, seating, inventory by 40%.

If you were saying, “be reasonable and cut it by 10%” maybe. Maybe. But the argument you use in the name of reasonableness is, on the face of it, unreasonable. And since I assume you also probably have some passing acquaintance with math or business, I can only conclude that you don’t really mean it.

I hate to say it again, but this is the same kind of tactic used by Republicans in Congress. Present the Democrats with a “reasonable” proposal that they cannot possibly agree to and then declare them unreasonable and accuse them of trying to steamroll the democratic process.

Asheville Forever,

I do recall people speaking of buildings that had the same square footage density, but not per person density, which is the entire reason the zoning issue has come up. If you could refresh my memory as to what the taller buildings they referred to where, I’d appreciate it. There was a lot of information presented in that 80 minute presentation.

I have to disagree with you that only those immediately impacted by the sight of the buildings should be involved in the community input process. We vote for all of our city council members, we don’t do district voting. I take that to mean we’re supposed to care about the city as a whole, that those nearby who are also impacted in one way or another deserve to have their voices heard as well.

Because one person made one comment one time should not cast a pallor over the entire argument of people who would like to preserve the character and scope of the neighborhood. I’d like to think that there is a reason “A Raisin in the Sun” has been relegated to college drama classes, and is not rehashed on Broadway time and time again. We have taken great strides forward as a society. If one comment discredits an entire side, then we shouldn’t listen to anyone in Washington (which probably isn’t bad advice anyway).

You do a terrific job of focusing on moving forward, which is always important to remember. Life will go on after this is over, and hopefully the neighborhood will still get along. Mudslinging such as saying your neighbors are trying to live in Mayberry, and are only reactionary isn’t helping to be build a cohesive neighborhood.

I don’t live in North Asheville but is obvious that a 60 unit apartment complex is simply too BIG for the site. It’s not necessary to be an engineer, social scientist, housing expert, etc., to see the disproportion and problems with the plan regardless of whether the prospective tenants are wealthy retirees, regular working people, or welfare recipients. Build the 30-32 unit complex that will fit the neighborhood. Tell me again why 32 units is just impossible but 60 units will work just fine.

If zoning is such a fine thing, why the rush to re-zone to accomodate this project? Were planners un-aware of the zoning?

This so typically Asheville – grab the wrong end of the stick whenever possible.

Wow, how ’bout all this banter?
I am one of the neighbors adjoining the property. Here’s my take in a letter shared with City Council. sorry gordon, you get to hear it again….

I wrote to you last month about my concerns regarding the 60-unit Larchmont apartment complex proposed for the former Naval Reserve site. I consider myself to be VERY progressively minded. I chose this neighborhood because of its walkability and I ride my bike or walk for my errands whenever possible. I am a believer that communities must take care of one another. I am a former graphic designer turned special education teacher for goodness-sake. So please recognize that I am a believer in the ideal that Mountain Housing proposes with this development.
However, as a person who is very close to the project I have looked hard at ALL that it is. I hope you will really try to wrap your head around what I have to say…
Although I would love to have residential homes adjoining my home, and I would love to see more people like myself (as in struggling to make ends meet) in this neighborhood, I cannot see how a project of this size can be considered appropriate for the small space on which it will rest. Now listen closely… I do not like the idea of looking out onto the building and its roof from my house, BUT even worse I abhor the idea of looking at it from all angles of Merrimon Avenue. Aesthetically, three stories with a hipped roof will be terribly out of place. The southwest corner of the building (the one everyone will see) will be 60 feet tall… 60 feet. How tall is Staples? Not even close. So that’s the visual side of me saying, “This ain’t right.”
So, “Okay” you say, “who cares how bad it looks?” Well, consider a few other things which I as the neighborhood walker know to be fact. There is an abundance of vacant housing within blocks of the Larchmont, but I will point out only affordable options. Winston Heights (on Long Street) has an apartment that has been available for at least a month. The Garden Apartments on Clairmont Ave has several vacancies. Mountain Housing is already building a large complex on Depot Street, which will certainly have even more rentals than the Larchmont. Where are all the people that need a place to live? Isn’t the “need” for affordable housing supposedly what the developer has been pitching to you? I mentioned that I ride my bike… well, not on Merrimon! And the bus… try catching the morning bus downtown. If you are lucky you might get a seat, and if you are luckier you might get to where you are going on time. So please rethink the idea that this hip apartment complex could possibly cater to hard-working, eco-minded folks. And then there’s the traffic issue… I know the Fire Chief told P&Z it won’t be a problem, but some of the guys who actually work out of #7 on Larchmont do not agree. You can ask them, but don’t tell them who you are before you ask… I think they like having a job.
So there it is … my final plea. Open your eyes and look HARD. Don’t be deceived by your first or second glance or your own ideals.

I hate to point out again that Buncombe County owns the land. If this falls through (it would take several miracles) it is obvious that they will make sure that a purple 100 story building is built there so we will know that if we do not allow them to push any project they “cooked up” onto us that we will be severly punished. Any opposition will be labled as “elitist” and/or “nimby” as there cannot be any reason to oppose the County or the City as they always know what is best for us. Taxpayers should be billed and not heard!
One question though, when exactly was this thing put together? 2009? 2008? Time and the freedom of information act will eventually tell!

Laura actually says, “Don’t be deceived by … your own ideals.”

I love it. Hearing these neighbors is such good entertainment. Asheville’s sophisticated self-styled liberals/progressives kill me. Who else can slice it so thin and keep a straight face?

As the guy said in the movie Roxanne, I would rather be with the people of this town than with the finest people in the world.

And Cecil, nonbreeding is not an excuse for zoning or density limits because nonbreeding solves the problem without limiting housing density. Nonbreeding can make housing demand affordable all by itself, rendering this whole debate superfluous. It can replace zoning, not excuse it.
I don’t have kids and I have hated zoning all my life, starting when I was a kid and couldn’t fix my minibike in the front yard without nosy NIMBY neighbors whining at me and my parents.
And one look at the unnaffordable rental prices above makes the need for more studio apartments, NOT one bedrooms, perfectly obvious. Remember affordability cannot be achieved without MARKET OVERWHELMING SUPPLY.

As another resident of North Asheville, I support our city’s affordable housing effort. This helps keep our community unique and helps hold off further gentrification of Asheville. However, the elevation and density of this project bothers me. No consideration was given for building the project within the limits of the zoning. Again, citizens have no voice as this project is pushed through. I will be watching who votes for this on city council. What happened to compromise?