Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (Buckhead: townhomes, buy)

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by evannole

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.

I don't think we should go about requiring minimum parking. I mean, if people can't get around without a car, a developer won't build without parking. The costs won't change, but the developer will have that option. Same with someone building their own home / doing a rebuild. If they think they can get away without a car, then they don't have to spend the money to have a place. Otherwise, they can spend the money that would have been spent by force otherwise to build their property as they want.

It's about giving people the option to build what they feel best fits their property's needs, rather than dictating a cost-raising minimum.

We really do not need parking minimums one bit, and I don't think the part of my quote that you highlighted speaks to needing one at all.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

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

But not everyone is. I would not be at all surprised if most of the cars in the city are non CoA residents.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

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

No, we already have "spots" where density is legal. We need to make it broadly legal. If we cannot legally build density at least at the level of outer suburbs elsewhere in the world most places within the city limits (let alone our suburbs) something is wrong.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

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

No one is forcing parking spaces to be removed. Just giving people the option to decide for themselves.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

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.

No, I don't. I just want people to have a real choice. Get your suburban mandates out of people's lives at let them decide how they want to live on their own. No need to have any laws forcing density, people will choose it on their own if given a choice.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

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.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. Bad urban policy did not create the Hiroshima wasteland, a nuke did that. But bad policy did crater most city centers in the US in a similar way.

My "utopia" is the way most metros in the world are laid out. You are the radical one wanting to keep laws to force low-density, suburban life on people. Most of the world is not that way.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

I don't think we should go about requiring minimum parking. I mean, if people can't get around without a car, a developer won't build without parking. The costs won't change, but the developer will have that option. Same with someone building their own home / doing a rebuild. If they think they can get away without a car, then they don't have to spend the money to have a place. Otherwise, they can spend the money that would have been spent by force otherwise to build their property as they want.

It's about giving people the option to build what they feel best fits their property's needs, rather than dictating a cost-raising minimum.

We really do not need parking minimums one bit, and I don't think the part of my quote that you highlighted speaks to needing one at all.

The key is to make sure the developer and resident isn't offloading the cost of the parking. Currently, a lot of these projects offer some parking and the overflow is in a neighborhood or a business lot close by.

Honestly, I don't see a lot of room in the Atlanta market for places with zero parking. Sure, there are a few people who will live the carless lifestyle, but most drive in Atlanta. That fact makes it hard for developers to truly go carless and for banks to finance the project.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

The key is to make sure the developer and resident isn't offloading the cost of the parking. Currently, a lot of these projects offer some parking and the overflow is in a neighborhood or a business lot close by.

Honestly, I don't see a lot of room in the Atlanta market for places with zero parking. Sure, there are a few people who will live the carless lifestyle, but most drive in Atlanta. That fact makes it hard for developers to truly go carless and for banks to finance the project.

That should be up to the developer and the market then, not by government fiat via 35+ year old zoning codes designed for cars.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

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.

Sure. I agree. But a developer can do almost all of what you listed today. It's not hard to get a zoning change in a brownfield area or along the beltline. Gentle infill that sticks to the neighborhood character isn't hard to zone either.

The problem in the residential areas is that gentle infill that has minimal impacts isn't profitable. Let's take Cq's neighborhood of Kirkwood. It's a great place that has experienced some gentrification. This gentrification has created desirability and scarcity. Perfect place for some infill! The profitable way to do that is to buy a run down house, tear it down, and build 3 to 4 two bedroom apartments. You could also build another SFH or fix it up, but that wouldn't add density. This new apartment would have 6-8 adults instead of 2, and would have no off street parking. On top of that it will need to be rather boxy and not in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. Cq might be OK with it, but a lot of his neighbors are gonna get out the pitchforks.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by Gulch

That should be up to the developer and the market then, not by government fiat via 35+ year old zoning codes designed for cars.

I don't understand. What do we need to do to make sure the developer doesn't offload those costs?

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

I don't understand. What do we need to do to make sure the developer doesn't offload those costs?

Nothing.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by jsvh

No, we already have "spots" where density is legal. We need to make it broadly legal. If we cannot legally build density at least at the level of outer suburbs elsewhere in the world most places within the city limits (let alone our suburbs) something is wrong.

....

No, I don't. I just want people to have a real choice. Get your suburban mandates out of people's lives at let them decide how they want to live on their own. No need to have any laws forcing density, people will choose it on their own if given a choice.

I'm not sure I understand what you want. Most of the SFH in the CoA is already zoned and occupied, so there isn't a lot we can do to add density while keeping it SFH. Atlanta has embraced mixed use residential on commercial land.

So, what would you like to see built and roughly where?

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

We really do not need parking minimums one bit, and I don't think the part of my quote that you highlighted speaks to needing one at all.

The elderly and handicapped may disagree with you.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

No, I don't. I just want people to have a real choice. Get your suburban mandates out of people's lives at let them decide how they want to live on their own. No need to have any laws forcing density, people will choose it on their own if given a choice.

But, don't people have a choice now? You can choose to live in a condo or an apartment on Peachtree in Midtown, in a SFH in Brookwood Hills with a nice yard and garden, or in a gated subdivision out here in the burbs. Seems like Atlanta has lots of choices for all different lifestyles. Perhaps, though, I'm missing your point (unfortunately, my wife tells me that I do that frequently...).