Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (upkeep, low cost)

[arjay57]

Since the city has specifically identified these 2,600 acres for transit oriented development, you would think they would support TOD there.

Using what we've got could make a real difference, without requiring any new rail transit whatsoever. "At modest residential densities, this could accommodate 175,000 new residents and several million square feet of retail and office space."

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Oh hey! I just watched that vid. It's a good one.




I agree, but we need to be weary of the banks & lenders in this process. There have been cases where, lenders want to see even more parking than the local (still bloated) minimums. Even when minimums are removed (which they absolutely should be), if you can't get the lenders to allow the financing of that kind of development, not much will change.


In the long term, things will fix themselves, but in the short term it's likely up to development arms like Invest Atlanta, or even a city-sponsored credit union, as I've discussed here before, to get the ball rolling.

Parking MAXIMUMS!

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

Isn't this a sign that projects won't make it without free parking?

No. It's a sign that banks and lenders are financially conservative and doing what they think is necessary.

It's fairly obvious that plenty of projects can survive, since, well, there are plenty of examples across the world, and here in the US.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Lenders will figure it out soon enough. Just get the city to roll back the parking minimums.

If you have a choice between two lenders and one wants you to spend $20K a spot to build a deck that you don't need, you are going to go with the other one.

And once lenders and developers see projects in the area are still leasing out without parking, or with minimal parking they all will come around.

Zoning code is the main hurtle to overcome.

Right. It needs to be kick-started is all.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Since the city has specifically identified these 2,600 acres for transit oriented development, you would think they would support TOD there.

Using what we've got could make a real difference, without requiring any new rail transit whatsoever. "At modest residential densities, this could accommodate 175,000 new residents and several million square feet of retail and office space."

IIRC, that'll come out as part of the rezoning efforts. That said, I'll be pleasantly surprised if the city gets that level of density, considering it is over 43,000 ppsm, or nearly 4 times as dense as Midtown.


Even meeting that goal, that's still only meeting ~40% of current pent up demand, and only ~20% of the total expected demand in the next few decades. We need a bit more than that, like a collection of light rail and bus rapid transit routes.

[tickyul]

Hate to throw-water on a theory going about.

But in the current-environment, in the USA, with regards to housing-prices....new-construction is NOT going to stop or lower the current rocketing-upwards trend in home-prices.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

That said, I'll be pleasantly surprised if the city gets that level of density, considering it is over 43,000 ppsm, or nearly 4 times as dense as Midtown.

Midtown could stand getting a lot denser. As I recall the density that's typically cited as the threshold for heavy rail is about 20,000 psm or greater.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by tickyul

Hate to throw-water on a theory going about.

But in the current-environment, in the USA, with regards to housing-prices....new-construction is NOT going to stop or lower the current rocketing-upwards trend in home-prices.

Well, inflation will keep prices rising, but yeah, increasing supply to meet and surpass demand will stabilize and lower prices.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Midtown could stand getting a lot denser. As I recall the density that's typically cited as the threshold for heavy rail is about 20,000 psm or greater.

No disagreement there. IIRC the goldilocks point is ~12000 ppsm for supporting non-car lifestyles, but 20,000 ppsm isn't too awful. Was just giving the numbers some context.

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by tickyul

Hate to throw-water on a theory going about.

But in the current-environment, in the USA, with regards to housing-prices....new-construction is NOT going to stop or lower the current rocketing-upwards trend in home-prices.

I agree with you. It depends entirely on where the housing is built.

The demand is caused by an influx of buyers wanting to relocate in/around Atlanta. Past human behavior has taught us that people tend to push the limits of what they can achieve, thus many buying the most expensive house they can afford.

Whether high, mean, or low income buyer, everyone wants to be as close to the action as they can. That's where the jobs are and that's where everything else is.

Enough people have had rollover generational wealth from just the past 1-2 generations (still nouveau riche) or less that cash buyers are a real problem in the perspective of those buying with financing. Sellers love them, on the other hand.

[bmw335xi]

Follow in California’s footsteps where they believe additional housing is bad! You havent even begun to see expensive housing LOL.

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Follow in California’s footsteps where they believe additional housing is bad! You havent even begun to see expensive housing LOL.

Nope, took a temp transfer to Redwood City, CA. 2 bedroom houses were 1 mil when I arrived, and 1.5 mil when I left!

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Follow in California’s footsteps where they believe additional housing is bad! You havent even begun to see expensive housing LOL.

Please, those new homes are going to be even more pricey that what is currently on the market.