Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (Auburn: home, to buy)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Quoting of me makes no sense to what just applied it, when I said that i meant the neighborhoods are not meant for the people commuting through them but for people in them. 2nd of that comment was about walkablity not transit.

Actually that quote apply to this situation makes the oppsite case. During the early sunbelt boom cities did massive urban renewal they started razing commerical areas and homes for the sake of suburbite communting

This a old picture of Downtown Houston


I don't think any one saying get rid of all parking lot but developers most definitely went over happy with them.


Millions of people live and cities and million people in US live in apartments, you basically making a argument out nothing,

Wasn't even thinking of you when I did that quote.

As for Houston, that was simply a case of developers buying up SFH and razing what was there in the hope of building something higher density. It was nothing the city did. People were moving to new, more modern homes. One company, Texas Eastern, owned about half of that land on the east side of downtown Houston. They gave land for the new convention center (the large white building on the far left) in order to stimulate development on their other tracts.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

Atlanta needs more density. But it needs to figure out where it can support that density, rather than just dumping it in and hoping it all works.

Have you heard of the Atlanta City Studio? They are doing exactly that.
https://www.facebook.com/atlcitystudio/

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Garages... yuck

An absolute requirement for my next house is a 2-3 car garage. What do you have against garages, besides the fact that they mean evil cars are parked in them?

Originally Posted by jsvh

Often not for the municipality that is paying for the parking.

Last time I checked, I pay my taxes to the city of Atlanta and Fulton County. I don't pay specifically for my block.

All I ask is we legalize the denser zoning so people have a choice to build houses and live that densely if they choose. Right now building houses like that on their own is illegal almost everywhere in metro Atlanta.

Sure. Pick a spot. But, not everywhere should be that, just like not everywhere should be low density.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Some. But it doesn't make it right. And people are realizing that. If you asked the majority of knowledgeable city residents, I doubt you would have majority support for keeping parking minimums in their current state. Sure there are the F-U-I-got-mine NIMBYs out there that are vocal. But most people in the city are more reasonable.

And I doubt you'd find too many that think that removing most parking is a wise idea either.

We need to stop using the law to force suburban lifestyle on those that don't want to live it.

Yet, you're wanting to force the high-density, no-parking, toll-road lifestyle on those who don't want it. You can have everything you want. There is plenty of space in the city to do it.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Man, so sad to see what bad policy did to urban centers. Looks like a nuke went off. And the impacts to the population count probably are not far off from that. Glad we are (slowly) fixing some of those mistakes.

Can you explain how "bad urban policy" created the Hiroshima wasteland??? And if you think most of Atlanta looks anything like that, you are so far fringe, I'm not sure it's possible to please you. I picture a city all contained in one single building on a single city block as your utopia.

Originally Posted by J2rescue

To piggyback on your comment, when a place is designed primarily for the automobile, it is ALWAYS not functional for any other mode travel.

Not functional? You mean, people can't cross a street or walk across a parking lot? Is there some physical barrier stopping them from completing these tasks? I think what you mean is "a little less functional".

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by bu2

Wasn't even thinking of you when I did that quote.

As for Houston, that was simply a case of developers buying up SFH and razing what was there in the hope of building something higher density. It was nothing the city did. People were moving to new, more modern homes. One company, Texas Eastern, owned about half of that land on the east side of downtown Houston. They gave land for the new convention center (the large white building on the far left) in order to stimulate development on their other tracts.

I didn't say you was, but I'm the only one on said something like that.

But you miss the point to what I saying, I wasn't talking the leaders specifically but the culture of developers from the 50's to the 80's were extremely pro sprawl. Developers went way over board with build parking lots. which benefited people not living their community but people commuting. Cities were developing not for people to live in but for suburbanites to drive into. Which is why Houston Downtown at that point became that terrible.

[evannole]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

An absolute requirement for my next house is a 2-3 car garage. What do you have against garages, besides the fact that they mean evil cars are parked in them?



Last time I checked, I pay my taxes to the city of Atlanta and Fulton County. I don't pay specifically for my block.



Sure. Pick a spot. But, not everywhere should be that, just like not everywhere should be low density.



And I doubt you'd find too many that think that removing most parking is a wise idea either.



Yet, you're wanting to force the high-density, no-parking, toll-road lifestyle on those who don't want it. You can have everything you want. There is plenty of space in the city to do it.



Can you explain how "bad urban policy" created the Hiroshima wasteland??? And if you think most of Atlanta looks anything like that, you are so far fringe, I'm not sure it's possible to please you. I picture a city all contained in one single building on a single city block as your utopia.




Not functional? You mean, people can't cross a street or walk across a parking lot? Is there some physical barrier stopping them from completing these tasks? I think what you mean is "a little less functional".

Great post, as usual. As to your bolded comment, yes, I suspect you're right. It would likely look something like this :
Kowloon Walled City: It was the densest place on Earth - CNN.com

"Unplanned, self-generated, unregulated," as one of the quotes in the article describes it. A lot more "yuck" than garages, if you ask me, but to each his own, of course.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

People pay taxes. They expect government to do something about problems, not try to make them worse.

And it can be rather mathematically shown that most of suburbia does not pay enough in taxes to support itself. Strong Towns, if you ever get around to reading about it, does just that.

Originally Posted by bu2

To borrow a phrase the really pro-transit people use:

Well the city should be for the people who live there, not for outsiders coming driving in.

And its many of those same people who say that who want to be able to park in front of their house and not have it taken up by customers of businesses who are relying on their tax dollars to provide parking for their customers.

And people pay on a city basis, not a neighborhood one. I have just as much right to park as the person who lives in the area (Though I am generally polite enough not to, and try to take the bus / train when I can instead of driving). I help pay for the road, after all. If someone in a residence wants a guaranteed parking spot, though, they can pay to store their private property on their private property, or pay to store their private property on someone else's private property.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by evannole

Great post, as usual. As to your bolded comment, yes, I suspect you're right. It would likely look something like this :
Kowloon Walled City: It was the densest place on Earth - CNN.com

"Unplanned, self-generated, unregulated," as one of the quotes in the article describes it. A lot more "yuck" than garages, if you ask me, but to each his own, of course.

Oh yeah! I've seen that place before. That looks like an absolute hell. But, I do have to wonder if that sort of density would be cheered by anyone here, or if anyone would want to live in that?

[evannole]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

And it can be rather mathematically shown that most of suburbia does not pay enough in taxes to support itself. Strong Towns, if you ever get around to reading about it, does just that.



And people pay on a city basis, not a neighborhood one. I have just as much right to park as the person who lives in the area (Though I am generally polite enough not to, and try to take the bus / train when I can instead of driving). I help pay for the road, after all. If someone in a residence wants a guaranteed parking spot, though, they can pay to store their private property on their private property, or pay to store their private property on someone else's private property.

And this is one reason why parking minimums, for certain kinds of development and in certain neighborhoods, make sense. They're not appropriate for all developments and all neighborhoods, of course, but eliminating them altogether in an attempt to get to a one-size-fits-all system makes no more sense than having them everywhere.

It also makes sense, where possible, to encourage smarter kinds of parking, to help us get to more efficient uses of land. Moving away from open parking lots and towards garages either underground or between street level retail and upper floor residential makes sense for larger properties. For individual residences, basement garages like mine are extremely efficient in terms of land use, as they take up no more space than the house would even if it didn't have a garage.

In short, I think there's likely a happy medium between the current parking minimums we have and the utopia that some imagine where no parking is required.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

People are generally positive about pro density changes until it impacts their neighborhood. The biggest mistake the pro density crowd is making is not pushing for the impacts of the density to be managed.



I guess it depends on where and what is being built, but when a city changes the zoning of an existing neighborhood it's actually the higher density living being forced on people who wanted a suburban neighborhood.

Obliviously people are not talking about Buckhead, There area closer in that make sense to increase density

Cities develop denser inward and get less as you go out

Atlanta once had 331,314 just in 36 Sq mi. So we know for a fact Atlanta can reach density that high in that area. And this before midtown midrises and modern loft builds in neighborhoods.



So Atlanta can


A. Infill historic using their traditional density with out sacrificing their character

http://www.city-data.com/forum/48283191-post13.html

Old Fourth Ward, Cabbagetown, Virginia-Highland, Poncey-Highland, Reynoldstown, Inman Park, Sweet Auburn, Kirkwood, Grant Park, Historic Midtown, Home Park and etc even Mechanicsville, West End, Vine City, Pittsburgh and etc in the Future

It also make more sense to encourage more street retail areas like East Atlanta village, Virginia-Highland commercial area and etc.


B. Infill older brownfield areas, and continue density in Beltline sub regions, A long the Beltline there enough Brownfield to add dozens of Glennwood Park like developments...

Fuqua trying to put big box stores along the beltline is an example of Atlanta zoning codes need a overhaul.

C. Areas like Downtown, Midtown and parts of west midtown can get high density

D. Some corridors can increase density as well like Ponce, and boulevard.

[evannole]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Oh yeah! I've seen that place before. That looks like an absolute hell. But, I do have to wonder if that sort of density would be cheered by anyone here, or if anyone would want to live in that?

No, I doubt that anyone here would actually advocate for anything like that. But it is, indeed, a useful example of the kinds of things that can happen if there's a complete lack of planning or regulation. Happy mediums are what we need.