Reynoldstown apartment controversy (Atlanta, Madison, Moreland: credit, townhomes, neighborhoods)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Here's an current apartment complex, built using mostly wood, that's Phase 2 will be

I don't think wood per se is all that bad.

One Museum Place is stick built and those things are going for like a million and up.

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by jsvh

What about we just let developers build what people want and can afford to live in (beyond basic structural / fire regulations)?

So if it's suburban sprawl that developers want is that ok?

[mattee01]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

So if it's suburban sprawl that developers want is that ok?

At a certain price point, the land is not cheap enough. But yes if they can afford to buy 300 million in land that will only hold 100 apts in that style by all means...

[ATLTJL]

I'm a little confused....this project was already approved, and now people are complaining because they want it to be 6 stories instead of 3 and have additional units?

I get that, but then why in the same breath would they say that the design is too suburban? Wouldn't a taller, denser building be less suburban than the 3-story building that is already approved?

I just don't understand what she really wants...how would the smaller building be any better or less suburban than this one?

I pretty much agree that most of the construction in this general area looks like it is being done quite poorly. It's ok if these units stay apartments forever, but I imagine they will someday turn condo. And I imagine those owners will not want to hear every footstep from their upstairs neighbors.

If they don't turn condo, I think she has quite a valid point. Our metro area is littered with apartments that started off luxury, but through years of ownership and area demographic changes, became run down. I would agree with trying not to build the slums of 2037.

[magnetar]

The developer is free to build whatever kind of building they like, and charge whatever they want, provided that it its within the building's current zoning. If the private developer, assisted by the Beltline staff paid with public money, decides to lobby the neighborhood and the city to build more units, why on earth shouldn't we ask for something from the developer in return? A higher build quality, or a percentage set aside for public service employees, or a better design that is more sensitive to the single-family environment in which it's being built? I'm kind of astonished to see rational people like jsvh stating that we should just let developers build whatever schlock they'd like along the Beltline.

I'm no NIMBY; I want to see dense, high-quality development and transit in my neighborhood. If the developer wants to ask us for permission to build an additional 40 units, it's more than reasonable to ask that some of those units be made affordable in return for the rezoning they want.

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by David1502

I agree completely. There is serious overbuilding of apartments throughout Metro Atlanta and this will lead to many of these complexes being forced to lower their rents in the future the next time we face a recession. Reduced rent will lead to decreased maintenance and these apartments will join the many other existing older apartments which are eyesores in their respective communities.


There are numerous examples of corridors of apartment communities which have seen better days - Buford Highway, Franklin Rd. in Marietta, Roswell Rd. in Sandy Springs, and too many older complexes in Smyrna to count. The majority of these were marketed as luxury apartments when they opened and got high rents for a few years, but as time went on, the management failed to keep up the property and thus we see what they are today.


Why should city and county governments believe that this pattern will not continue today and in the future?


Instead, they should encourage more condominium development because it will enable people to actually own something and not perpetually throw their money away in rent.


What is going to happen when these millennials just out of college decide in the next 10 years that they are tired of paying close to $20,000 a year in rent with nothing to show for it and choose to own? There aren't enough condominium properties being constructed to fill this need. Also, as the millennials decide to marry and form families of their own, there aren't enough two to three bedroom apartments available to meet their demand even if they choose to continue renting.


Fortunately, Cathy Woolard is taking a long term perspective on the explosion of construction of apartments.

I agree with everything you said but just need to raise a point regarding your remarks pertaining to "people needing to own than rent."While I dont disagree,I cant see that being too big of an issue as many of these "apartments" that are now renting will become Condos eventually.This happened at the onset of the recession. Rents were high I suppose,so the owners sold them and they became Condos.
Also,many cities have more renters or at least an equal amount of renters and owners,Dont see how it will hirt Atlanta as long as rents stop rising as they are now.

[onemanarmy]

The same people who complain about lack of density are the same people who complain about "quality" of rentals. The CITY can't be filled with high income earners only, so naturally there has be space for working class and poor people. Now the question becomes, where do "they" live, if in 20 years this building becomes low rent apartments, a couple of market forces have transpired. 1. The current land value of the area has declined to the point that it's not suitable for redevelopment, or 2. The current neighborhood land value increases to the point where these units are going to be converted or redeveloped.

So it's almost impossible for these apartments to turn into slums unless the ENTIRE neighborhood returns to slums. If the latter happens these same residents would already have fled, thus helping create the very thing in which they are opposing. See VaHi as an example, plenty of apartments exist in the neighborhood, that look as if they belong in Bankhead, however are not occupied by "poor" people.

[AndyInAtlanta]

I live in Reynoldstown, and while I know a lot of my fellow neighbors really hate this thing, I'm more apathetic. Why, well, because I used to live in the Old Forth Ward. You venture over there and its a sea of stick-built apartments lining the Beltline. You want density, it attracts good businesses to the area and strengthens local spots as well. You also want good diversity, if I wanted to live in a middle-class, white area I'd go back to Peachtree City. No offense to Peachtree City, but it is what it is.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I'm a little confused....this project was already approved, and now people are complaining because they want it to be 6 stories instead of 3 and have additional units?

I get that, but then why in the same breath would they say that the design is too suburban? Wouldn't a taller, denser building be less suburban than the 3-story building that is already approved?

I just don't understand what she really wants...how would the smaller building be any better or less suburban than this one?

I pretty much agree that most of the construction in this general area looks like it is being done quite poorly. It's ok if these units stay apartments forever, but I imagine they will someday turn condo. And I imagine those owners will not want to hear every footstep from their upstairs neighbors.

If they don't turn condo, I think she has quite a valid point. Our metro area is littered with apartments that started off luxury, but through years of ownership and area demographic changes, became run down. I would agree with trying not to build the slums of 2037.

Blame Cathy Woolard for stirring up trouble, trying to draw attention to herself and get her name out there to many new residents who have no idea who she is.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Blame Cathy Woolard for stirring up trouble, trying to draw attention to herself and get her name out there to many new residents who have no idea who she is.

So, you're on the record stating that developers should be able to build as large as they want in Atlanta's residential neighborhoods—and they can do so without allocating any of the additional density to affordable housing? Seems like a strange position from you; certainly one that would be unpopular in Kirkwood.

Or do you dislike the topic because of the particular political candidate who's talking about it? Because that's kind of what it sounds like, since you've expressed an opinion about her twice on topics to which she's only tangentially related. Reynoldstown has been talking about this development for months, and it's germane because there's a zoning meeting about it coming up this week.