Two new Buckhead Projects Proposed. Including "Disco" Kroger Redevelopment (Atlanta: houses, vs.)

[rickms]

I think it's misguided to think that just because much of Buckhead going all the way up towards Sandy Springs need to be high density when the issue is that it's extremely low density and treated like a country reserve of sorts. It's inexplicable how that much land can for massive lots.

[AtlJan]

Originally Posted by rickms

I think it's misguided to think that just because much of Buckhead going all the way up towards Sandy Springs need to be high density when the issue is that it's extremely low density and treated like a country reserve of sorts. It's inexplicable how that much land can for massive lots.

Let me guess, you are voting for Bernie Sanders. Have you heard of private property? Buckhead isn't treated like a country reserve. It's treated like private property. It's treated like people live there. It's not inexplicable how it can be used for "massive lots". In fact, I can explain it. It's a series of single-family residence neighborhoods, and it's zoned as such by the city. There are actually laws in place to protect the low density. I suppose the zoning board thinks these neighborhoods are important, if you don't.

For example, my neighborhood is zoned R2A. That's a 30,000 sqft lot with 35% coverage. You really don't get to decide what other people do with their private property. I suppose you could rally and get the zoning changed but you will be fighting a whole lot of residents who pay a whole lot of property tax. If you're interested in the details of R2, R2A etc. Here it is for your review.

http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/sho...ocumentid=2174

[rickms]

Let me guess, you are voting for Bernie Sanders. Have you heard of private property?

Wow, that's quite a leap based on me making a simple observation.

Let me guess, you listen to AM radio?

Buckhead isn't treated like a country reserve. It's treated like private property. It's treated like people live there.

You miss my point, but then again, you don't care what others' points are because you have a script.

I'm discussing density, smart land use and what makes sense for the city and metro and yes
that land area is like I describe. I never stated that it wasn't private property etc.

[AtlJan]

Originally Posted by rickms

Wow, that's quite a leap based on me making a simple observation.

Let me guess, you listen to AM radio?



You miss my point, but then again, you don't care what others' points are because you have a script.

I'm discussing density, smart land use and what makes sense for the city and metro and yes
that land area is like I describe. I never stated that it wasn't private property etc.

Your use of the word "reserve" gave your own agenda away, as it is defined by Webster's as "a tract of public land set aside for special use".

[arjay57]

It seems like upside down world. Nowadays owning your own little patch of paradise is apparently a bad thing. Poor land use, they say, not enough density, you're causing congestion and blocking people from driving fast where you live, and so forth.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

Your use of the word "reserve" gave your own agenda away, as it is defined by Webster's as "a tract of public land set aside for special use".

Please don't be so quick to turn things into a political conversation when no one else is talking about politics.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by magnetar

Please don't be so quick to turn things into a political conversation when no one else is talking about politics.

Eschewing private property rights and demanding property owners give up their land so that it can be subdivided for the masses screams of a left leaning political agenda. It will be said in a discussion like this.

The funny thing, and this is my personal take, but the sprawl that so many (left leaning mostly) decry was born out of a left leaning post-war ideal. Give me a minute to explain:

Cities were overcrowded, dirty, poor, had ruined the beauty of nature. The hippie culture that was all about peace, love and flower power epitomized this ideal. City planning turned to lovely expanses of nature and very little paving over paradise and putting up a parking lot. Look at the layout of planned cities, our local one is Peachtree City. Take down as few trees as possible. Locate retail in pockets behind permanent green spaces. Look at major capital cities planned in this era: Brasilia and Canberra. Built like suburban office parks. Low rise buildings set in park like spaces. Lots of green, lots of nature.

Of course this development is very spread out and dependent on the automobile. Now that type of development is seen as wasteful, sprawling, contributing to the demise of the planet and the new thinking is pile folks back on top of one another and be happy about it.

I just find it humorous that both ideals had strong left leaning/anti establishment roots behind them. But I don't expect many pro-density advocates to admit this.

[rickms]

Your use of the word "reserve" gave your own agenda away, as it is defined by Webster's as "a tract of public land set aside for special use".

Simply amazing - apparently you are an AM radio listener, because on AM radio, everyone speaks of people having an "agenda."

I simply am describing the area in the context of urban discussion.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Eschewing private property rights and demanding property owners give up their land so that it can be subdivided for the masses screams of a left leaning political agenda. It will be said in a discussion like this.

The funny thing, and this is my personal take, but the sprawl that so many (left leaning mostly) decry was born out of a left leaning post-war ideal. Give me a minute to explain:

Cities were overcrowded, dirty, poor, had ruined the beauty of nature. The hippie culture that was all about peace, love and flower power epitomized this ideal. City planning turned to lovely expanses of nature and very little paving over paradise and putting up a parking lot. Look at the layout of planned cities, our local one is Peachtree City. Take down as few trees as possible. Locate retail in pockets behind permanent green spaces. Look at major capital cities planned in this era: Brasilia and Canberra. Built like suburban office parks. Low rise buildings set in park like spaces. Lots of green, lots of nature.

Of course this development is very spread out and dependent on the automobile. Now that type of development is seen as wasteful, sprawling, contributing to the demise of the planet and the new thinking is pile folks back on top of one another and be happy about it.

I just find it humorous that both ideals had strong left leaning/anti establishment roots behind them. But I don't expect many pro-density advocates to admit this.

And the right don't want to admit that suburbs were born out of the need to get away from racial minorities, particularly blacks. I mean, look at Inman Park when it was first developed back in the early 1900s and touted as a suburb. The developer said that it was a place where no negroes would live.

And the suburban development of the 60s-80s is wasteful, sprawling, and unnecessary. Why do you want Atlanta to sprawl out 50 miles from the downtown area each way? Do you want the Atlanta suburbs to eventually reach the mountains with non-sensical suburban development? Do you want towns like Dahlonega, Helen, etc to become suburban bedroom communities vs. the charming little mountain towns they are now? I certainly don't.

[JoeP]

Cities were overcrowded, dirty, poor, had ruined the beauty of nature. The hippie culture that was all about peace, love and flower power epitomized this ideal. City planning turned to lovely expanses of nature and very little paving over paradise and putting up a parking lot

LOL, yeah it was the "liberals" and "hippies" who did this. Everything is left/right to blind partisans.

People need to grow up. All kinds of people moved to the burbs after the war.