Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2014, 05:03 PM
 
31,995 posts, read 36,555,306 times
Reputation: 13254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
There are real limits to how many people can live in a leafy SFH neighorohood and that can't change unless the zoning and political will changes.
There are limits in the absolute sense but we are far from them.

Let's say the whole city reached the density of leafy single family neighborhoods like Cabbagetown, Peachtree Park or Decatur (5,000 psm). That would accommodate a population of 560,000.

Since the city has started growing again, we typically add a few thousand people a year. Even if we added 5,000 per year, we'd have well over 20 years of headroom before we even get close to needing more space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2014, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
9,818 posts, read 7,839,438 times
Reputation: 9981
The historic sfh home neighborhoods are simply off-limits, as they should be. There is plenty of land that CAN be rezoned if the zoning currently doesn't support increased density.

One of the unique defining factors of Atlanta is our intown neighborhoods. They may change along the commercial corridors, but they aren't going anywhere in most of our lifetimes. And that's a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 09:20 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,083,841 times
Reputation: 6333
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
There are limits in the absolute sense but we are far from them.

Let's say the whole city reached the density of leafy single family neighborhoods like Cabbagetown, Peachtree Park or Decatur (5,000 psm). That would accommodate a population of 560,000.

Since the city has started growing again, we typically add a few thousand people a year. Even if we added 5,000 per year, we'd have well over 20 years of headroom before we even get close to needing more space.
2010-2013 from Census estimates added 28k people. So a little over 9k a year on average since 2010. I think this will increase to 15k a year as all of these new units get delivered(apparently Atlanta is over 97% occupancy in these intown apartments) so the demand is still there for more apartments.

What Atlanta needs to do is simply infill the parking lots and brownfields for now. Worry about tearing down SFH neighborhoods after 90% of the lots are built up. Sweet Auburn alone can add a good 3k-5k residents with infill projects. O4W can add another 15k-20k residents.

A neighborhood I would say is pretty close to built up is Inman Park...I honestly don't know where else developers can build in Inman Park without tearing down SFHs or existing structures(like they did with Daddy's Garage or whatever it's called) for 4-6 story apartment buildings, but I'm sure they'll find a way because of how desirable the neighborhood.

Realistically, the inner 15 square miles of Atlanta can realistically fit about a good 200k residents with apartment infill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 11:11 PM
 
4,819 posts, read 6,053,182 times
Reputation: 4600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
Here is where your propositions will meet some resistance. Market forces and those opposed to gentrification. The first a constraint of our economic system, the second a political one. There have been many threads on this site about the dangers of gentrification from a policitcal slant. There are forces that do not want these neighborhodods to prosper under the only feasible way they can develop... Gentrification. Without some huge government infusion, the market needs to make this attractive to investors and to newcomers. When that happens, prices escalate and poorer folk are left out. Political problem. The catch 22? Investors shy away from political mess.

Not saying I have the answer, but I am in sales and I am trained to find objections and overcome them. These are the two objections (or dilemmas) ahead of the city to overcome to achieve the kind of infill growth you propose. The market and local political resistance.
This makes sense and this is a problem I completely understand your point but this not what he's saying at all. He fundamentally complaining about the lot sizes, Zoning, preservation, cityscape of these neighborhoods.

Besides sherwood forest, Ansley Park, parks of Iman Park, Most Atlanta neighborhoods inside the Beltline... Were develop during The time of small lots, Most of American cities we would call urban are develop the same around there core. The only difference they have less absences of homes and less vacancies, In Atlanta case homes were razed leaving many of Atlanta neighborhoods with gaps to fill back up

Cabbagetown, Grant Park, Old Fourth Ward, Reynoldstown, Oakland, Atkins Park, Summerhill, Home Park, Mechanicsville, Pittsburgh, Peoplestown, Vine City, English Avenue. Bankhead, Adair Park and West End. Home lots are small and Comparable to most of America urban cities... The second wave mostly Eastside Neighborhoods Edge Woods, Candle Park, East Atlanta, Virginia-Highland, Ashview Heights, Washington Park, is a mixture between small to medium lot. Their Zoning is fine they need infill and restore back to historic levels.

These Neighborhoods Are historic Victorian, Craftsman, bungalows is important for these neighborhoods to keep architectural integrity. Many are on the national historic register places list. He clearly doesn't care and call it "extreme preservation" in Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 11:13 PM
 
4,819 posts, read 6,053,182 times
Reputation: 4600
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Ok, I'm getting a bit tired here.

You're either not listening to all my arguments or taking many things out of context.

I have not contradicted the Beltline planning. I have said all along there are dense plans for brown field developments in industrial and commercial properties. That is EXACTLY what large parts of the Beltline ARE and what your renderings show. None of my arguments contradict this.

Neighborhood leaders, even in the Beltline plans, are watching after their existing single family home lots!! This falls directly into my arguments. The Beltline plans show exactly what I have been saying. Development here.... but not here, here, here, and here.

However, the room is limited for these dense developments, because they are constrained to only certain existing land-use types. This is directly reflected in the cities zoning. The majority of square mileage of this city are tied to single family home zoning that will remain unchanged and there are real pros and cons to this. Many people here seem willing to discuss the pros, but are ignoring the cons.


There are some single family neighborhoods with more free lots than others, but mostly they will not densify much. As I have stated over and over, the zoning of lots is limited to how dense something gets. Take Virginia Highland, some of the smallest lots in the city and there is pre-preservation apartment and condo growth mixed in, has a density of 8000 ppsm. If applied city-wide, which it can't be, only 295k would live in that type of zoning. Much of the city is zoned much less dense than that.

There are real limits to how many people can live in a leafy SFH neighorohood and that can't change unless the zoning and political will changes.

That is why there is a limit to how many people can fit in town with the current zoning and political will.

Remember, the crutch of my original argument is the city will come close to doubling in size. I never said it wouldn't grow and it wouldn't change. I said there are limits to what the city can handle. I'm just trying to make people understand the limits of current zoning and plans, especially when we are talking about a regional context of our city growing by several million people in a few decades.

Instead we have people arguing for extreme preservation and pretending like Atlanta can densify as come Chicago or Philly. It is an attempt to eat cake and have it too.
Now your like literally ignoring what I'm saying, and throwing straw mans.. let's try this again,

Most American cities urban areas are single family neighborhoods. Do you understand this? Single family neighborhoods with consistent homes, small lots, and low vacancies, does and has created high densities. It's what most American cities are develop like. Most close in single family neighborhoods in cities before the 1930's were dense this includes Atlanta. Virginia Highland is not develop as dense as Sweet Auburn, there are numerous neighborhoods that's would be denser than Virginia Highland if there vacancies was lower, and they was filled up. A sign you haven't been really paying attention to my posts.

Next the straw mans I literally said at the end Atlanta can't not fill up like philly, It's literally in the last paragraph of the post you just quote................ I'm also not denying there is limitation to Atlanta growth that another straw man. We're at odds to where that limit is. I saying Atlanta simply has way to much land to infill to even bring speaking about limitations. The limit is way and much higher than what you suggesting.

Another straw man is the Chicago situation, Chicago has old Sweet Auburn like, and old Vine cities like neighborhoods end to end that's why Chicago is so dense. Imagine Sweet Auburn like neighborhoods from Downtown to Decatur that's Chicago. Atlanta is not like that. But Atlanta does have many neighborhoods with tiny lots sizes that would be comparable inside The Beltline if they have didn't have vacancies and were develop back to there historic density, there neighborhoods with significant amounts of home missing on plots. I showed pic and everything come man.

But it doesn't have to be Chicago, it could be Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, Miami, New Orleans, Seattle, Denver, LA, it doesn't matter. Your complaining about zoning in these neighborhood when there nothing wrong with the zoning of these neighborhoods for density they're 1870's to 1930's built neighborhoods. So "Instead we have people arguing for extreme preservation and pretending like Atlanta can densify as come Chicago or Philly. It is an attempt to eat cake and have it too." is huge straw man that shows your not listening.

Another thing you making large areas and plenty areas into little...... Do you understand Atlanta has not one but two CBD's next to each other? Most cities have limited areas for mid and high rises, Do you realize Atlanta already has more areas zoned to go vertically high then most cities? Do you realize it will take a long time before Downtown and Midtown are filled up? This is not a small area it's large area.

The beltline is basically planning to have 10 other Glennwood Park like areas. That seems like a large area. Let me get this straight your complaining that their logically developing the huge swaps of brownfield between the neighborhoods and not touching the neighborhoods, when it's not necessary to do so? It's seem were playing glass half empty or half full? and debating which is a lot or few? When in reality it's significant Atlanta is not going to run out of land in our life time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
8,057 posts, read 12,792,094 times
Reputation: 6318
chiatldal, I don't see cwkimbro complaining about anything. I see him being realistic even in best case scenarios of what the city of Atlanta can ultimately hold population wise. That is it in a nutshell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 07:09 AM
 
4,819 posts, read 6,053,182 times
Reputation: 4600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
chiatldal, I don't see cwkimbro complaining about anything. I see him being realistic even in best case scenarios of what the city of Atlanta can ultimately hold population wise. That is it in a nutshell.
I just don't see it. I just see land being an issue, There enough brownfield spaces to have dozens of Glenwood Park like developments. There's no shortage of land........ Then there's undeveloped areas that's part of the city....... I seriously doubt Atlanta will have land issues in our life time. I'm not a psychic I don't know where Atlanta population will max may be it will be just doubling but I seriously doubt it would be that because of land. He saying there's limited area for multi family units that's not true.


Remember me bring up Vine City showing the aerial of the density it once had with the zoning it already has? You clearly can see a significant amount of homes are missing. The icing on the cake is the Vacancy rate. The Vacancy rate is nearly half..... So not only are homes missing from it's historic density, but even half the home that are there are vacant.

http://atlantaequityatlas.com/wp-con...cy-Percent.jpg


urban renewal took parts of neighborhoods away, but even if you look to the side at Mechanicsville it's like what the heck? Atlanta could gain 100,000's alone refilling development, and filling Vacancies.

http://homer.gsu.edu/blogs/library/w...summerhill.jpg

What's interesting is the 2010 Census found Atlanta was over estimated by 130,000, with the current stock of development or 2010. So the census projected Atlanta could be over 130,000 more people as is.... Adding that back with the Current population that's 580,000. Atlanta already is capable of holding over 1/4 more people. That would make Atlanta only cable of another 3/4... I doubt that's the line.


I agree with you when you said politics about gentrification could hold back neighborhoods for growth that's possible, but it's not the zoning, preservation. and lack of areas for redevelopment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 07:25 AM
 
994 posts, read 1,532,978 times
Reputation: 1225
Why is cramming more people into less space such a noble goal? Perhaps I do not understand the apparently strong and negative reaction to most of the growth continuing in the suburbs and counties besides Fulton.

Why are people so excited about more apartments being built?

Apartment-dwellers (save for places like NYC and San Fran, perhaps) are intrinsically more of a transitory population. They are not paying property taxes; they are not "vested" into the community where the apartment building is constructed; and they may generally lack the financial means to really contribute to the economics of the city.

I think all this apartment-building (not only here, but elsewhere -- this is a national trend right now) is going become a regretful thing some years down the line. The reality (or one of them) is that all these apartments are being built in part because it's too hard for many people to qualify for mortgages now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,887 posts, read 17,131,919 times
Reputation: 3701
Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Why is cramming more people into less space such a noble goal? Perhaps I do not understand the apparently strong and negative reaction to most of the growth continuing in the suburbs and counties besides Fulton.

Why are people so excited about more apartments being built?

Apartment-dwellers (save for places like NYC and San Fran, perhaps) are intrinsically more of a transitory population. They are not paying property taxes; they are not "vested" into the community where the apartment building is constructed; and they may generally lack the financial means to really contribute to the economics of the city.

I think all this apartment-building (not only here, but elsewhere -- this is a national trend right now) is going become a regretful thing some years down the line. The reality (or one of them) is that all these apartments are being built in part because it's too hard for many people to qualify for mortgages now.
Exactly. These comments reflect reality in a dispassionate way, not as folks might prefer it or as discussed in an urban planning class at college.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 08:47 AM
 
31,995 posts, read 36,555,306 times
Reputation: 13254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Why is cramming more people into less space such a noble goal? Perhaps I do not understand the apparently strong and negative reaction to most of the growth continuing in the suburbs and counties besides Fulton.

Why are people so excited about more apartments being built?

Apartment-dwellers (save for places like NYC and San Fran, perhaps) are intrinsically more of a transitory population. They are not paying property taxes; they are not "vested" into the community where the apartment building is constructed; and they may generally lack the financial means to really contribute to the economics of the city.

I think all this apartment-building (not only here, but elsewhere -- this is a national trend right now) is going become a regretful thing some years down the line. The reality (or one of them) is that all these apartments are being built in part because it's too hard for many people to qualify for mortgages now.
Well said.

And once elbow room is gone it's almost impossible to get it back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top