Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,246,349 times
Reputation: 1041
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Man
A question I always ponder is why do people find this way of life appealing? I'm not knocking autmobiles or non-urban living. But why would anyone choose day after to day to drive 10, 20, 30, 40, 50... miles a day, endure horrible traffic, waste increasing resources on gas, etc?
Wouldn't it be nice to walk every now and then... or at least have the option to?
Then you have to ask yourself this question: What about urban people whom grow up in the inner city that no longer want to live there their whole lives? My opinion AND view is that most people whom covet the lifestyle you speak of are those that were not raised in inner city enviro's. The allure of moving into a city for walkability mostly comes from those who were reared in suburban or rural areas. Not wholly, but in my opinion the majority. So they wanna trade in the burbs and driving places for the city where they can walk most places. But the inner city natives dream of something different than the streets they grew up on; they dream of a home with a yard and quiet neighborhood.
So people "sprawl" outward in the search of value, peace and quiet. While others run to the city to cut down on their commute. Just as the OP stated, this leads to perceived issues as far as sprawl is concerned, but there are other issues at play too...but thats another discussion.
Wrong. It's common knowledge that Atlanta built more condos over the last decade than they could sell. There are still a lot of empty units, and yet more buildings are under construction. Deals are out there. What you're describing hasn't happened here yet.
I do think there's a good number of condo resales available, but new inventory is really shrinking. When the Atlantic took all of their units off the market and shifted to apartments, that made a huge (positive) difference.
But I tend to agree with the article that, in the short-term, condos in Atlanta won't be huge money-makers for the investment-minded. But they can be great homes for people who don't want to deal with yards and roofs but do want urban, walkable environments:
Quote:
Even with improved prices, Atlanta will not be an ideal condo market anytime in the near future. The relative availability of land, a remaining glut of condo resales and the still-strong preference for single-family homes mitigate the demand for condominiums. And as we saw even before the Great Recession, there is a rather shallow pool of Atlantans with the wherewithal or desire to spend in the neighborhood of high six figures for a high-rise condo. That buyer is shopping in Miami and generally from Brazil.
The "rural vote"? You mean the vote of the very people who are selling their land to the developers who are building the developments that you're trying to control? The folks who are pocketing huge sums of cash by selling the land that's been in their family for decades, that they can't make a living off of anymore because farming doesn't pay the bills?
That I'M trying to control? Excuse me? I knew the strawmen would come flying fast and furious. It's always amusing to see just what flavor they will take.
Quote:
Head out to Cherokee County some day, and take a look at the "Land for Sale" signs that are on virtually every piece of undeveloped land- everyone up there who owns more than an acre of property is looking to sell to the first person who comes alone with a crazy offer. Many of those signs have been in place since 2006, so these pieces aren't developer-owned parcels that are in foreclosure- they're people looking to make a quick buck. Yes- I'm sure those folks would be quick to rally behind the type of programs you're proposing.....
Instead of this Tea-Party-esque rant, perhaps we could more rationally explore WHY people would want to sell their land. Are land values dropping, and they want to sell before the values are reduced to near nothing? As development continues to expand, is it better to be one of the first to sell? Is the productivity of the land decreasing? Are they getting excellent offers? Without further exploration, who knows.
This is the place where 150 years ago the people didn't want to comply with federal law, so they just said we won't be part of the country anymore.
I'm not trying to draw up the Confederate past, what I'm saying is there is still a history here of doing things for yourself and not wanting to deal with a bunch of bureaucrats telling you what to do. Do you really think anyone is going to go for a bunch of arbitrarily drawn lines for development?
Unfortunately, this is a good point. Many people in Georgia (as evidenced by some of our past discussions) will shun government regulations at all costs, even if not having those regulations would lead to a worse outcome. Sprawl control is a classic example of that. Yes it would be messy for awhile. Yes you'd have political fights. But that is no excuse to avoid taming the highly underrated social problem known as sprawl.
Quote:
Drawing the lines in and of itself would be a nightmare. You couldn't do it without angering someone who was on the wrong side of it. It would be nothing but politics, court cases, and fighting.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you don't like something, you should try to change it. But you can't make a square peg fit into a round hole. Atlanta is not a densely populated city. It never has been. Back when it was, the population was so small that it wasn't even ever THAT dense. Trying to make a bunch of laws and cram density down people's throats in Atlanta would be like going to Manhattan and trying to cram sprawl down theirs. You live in one of the nation's capitals of sprawl. It's not going to change any more than it will in Los Angeles.
And sixty years ago, Atlanta was roughly the same size as Birmingham. Now we're a world city. If we didn't want to grow so much, then we shouldn't have attracted jobs here in the first place. We can't live in the 21st century with 20th- and 19th-century values and expect to prosper. It simply will not work.
Quote:
If you want to create cute little urban walkable areas like Decatur, by all means, go nuts. Then you can live in them and be happy. But you can't force your views on others who are happily living their lives the way they see fit by starting to limit development the way you see fit. Maybe in old Soviet Union, or modern Portland.....but not Atlanta.
Really? The USSR? Yay, let those strawmen fly.
Nobody said anything about HOW the higher density would look or in what parts of town it would occur. Leave that up to the market to decide.
Quote:
EDIT: Neil is 100% right. I live in the suburbs. Why? Well, when I rented, I lived in Buckhead. But I have a regular job with a regular income, so that means I wasn't going to be able to buy in Buckhead. I could have bought a one bedroom Novare shoebox in the sky in midtown, but I wanted a place my girlfriend and I could live and not kill each other.
Quote:
A space where we could get a big, loud, floppy obnoxious dog....maybe where we could have a child without having to move right away. So my choices were suburbs, or urban pioneer. I looked around East Atlanta, but I just wasn't comfortable leaving her there alone when I come home late or travel. She didn't like it either. So we came to the suburbs. I commute into town every day, but I do it during off peak hours so it never takes me more than 30 minutes. Quite honestly, it's only about 10 minutes more than it took when I lived intown because I'm sailing at 70 mph instead of stopping at a red light every 100 yards. Sure, you can try to make the city more dense...but what you're really going to do is make it so fewer people can afford to live there, and then it will become less dense, and then prices will come down again. Equilibrium is going to be achieved regardless of what outside forces you try to put on it, and it may not be the outcome that you want.
Here's why my proposal is very unlikely to succeed: Most Americans believe that lots of physical space is a God-given right. We look upon extreme examples of density, such as Tokyo, and we give thanks that we live in oversized homes, drive oversized vehicles, and have oversized bodies. Problem is, we've become so enamored with size that we don't stop to think about what that size does. (That's what she said!)
And why are rising property values a bad thing? Heck, with Atlanta's market having one of the worst recoveries in the nation, a healthy rise in property values sounds like a good thing to me! Unless, of course, we should just let the free market decide.
So people "sprawl" outward in the search of value, peace and quiet
What value? As the cost of gas rises and maintenance on cars the value of living in low-density, shoddy built homes is reduced. My house is 85 years old, things were built to last back then, not like now where the developer builds cheap homes and fills them with crappy built appliances and counters that fall apart in 10 years.
The thing about portland is that the planners did the planning without regards to job creating industries and attracting new businesses. Hence you have the skewed labor pool to jobs ratio, and I cannot think of any emerging job creating sectors thinking of Portland. Certain cities just have the natural beauty and we all want to at least visit, but to me economic viability (not just white collar but a large pool of cheap labor) is also very important. As a nearby example, look at Asheville NC's average home price compared to average income. If you earn avg income you cannot afford an avg home in Portland or Asheville.
That I'M trying to control? Excuse me? I knew the strawmen would come flying fast and furious. It's always amusing to see just what flavor they will take.
Instead of this Tea-Party-esque rant, perhaps we could more rationally explore WHY people would want to sell their land. Are land values dropping, and they want to sell before the values are reduced to near nothing? As development continues to expand, is it better to be one of the first to sell? Is the productivity of the land decreasing? Are they getting excellent offers? Without further exploration, who knows.
Cherokee is the one county that did propose a rather restrictive zoning law about a decade ago that would have preserved much of its rural character and would have concentrated developments in "villages" and pre-existing towns. Patterned after some New England county master plans.
It was soundly defeated. The locals wanted control of their own land. Call Bob's position tea-party-esque all you want, I believe the land owners of Cherokee would like to keep the time-honored rights that property owners have been afforded in this country since its inception. Don't know why you are concerned as to why they are selling... unless you plan to buy your personal home or land as an investment and want to understand the local market. Something makes me think this is not your goal.
The thing about portland is that the planners did the planning without regards to job creating industries and attracting new businesses. Hence you have the skewed labor pool to jobs ratio, and I cannot think of any emerging job creating sectors thinking of Portland. Certain cities just have the natural beauty and we all want to at least visit, but to me economic viability (not just white collar but a large pool of cheap labor) is also very important. As a nearby example, look at Asheville NC's average home price compared to average income. If you earn avg income you cannot afford an avg home in Portland or Asheville.
Portland's unemployment is still 2% lower then ours. Not sure what you are talking about.
I'm not sure where you are getting at as I did not even mention atlanta in my post. Perhaps you have an agenda, I dunno.
Looking at the region (west), Portland trails Seattle and San Jose in jobs. So while I understand your comparison to Atlanta which I have never mentioned, it makes practical sense to compare apple to apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onthemove2014
Portland's unemployment is still 2% lower then ours. Not sure what you are talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
