Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the reality in which some of us live. Those poorer southside neighborhoods would no longer be poorer if they got to see some development happening.
For the most part, yes.
There is no magic threshold. But, if I had to come up with a number, I'd say 42%.
And some of those neighborhoods will probably never, ever get more development. Crime and schools will limit some areas. So again, you are limiting supply artificially. The more places that are open, the more options people will have.
Again, I don't think Atlanta should be 100% no zoning (although it works ok for Houston) or 100% high density, but there should be a lot fewer places zoned SFH and government shouldn't help the rich by zoning for Single Family Estates.
1. I don't think that zoning laws are a limit to the housing market - who will build a $500,000 home if they thing there's a possibility that a mobile home park or used car lot will go in next door or behind them? I think that zoning is a prerequisite before residential development will take place in the first palce. The reality is that Municipalities and County governments control zoning and they have an inherent interest to get the most revenue from the properties within their jurisdictions. Therefore, they will zone a certain amount of property for commercial because residential doesn't fully cover the cost of schools and they will also zone some percentage of land for higher density residential uses, too because these businesses will need workers living close by. The bottom line is that zoning is not the purview of a small group, but the result of the collective decisions of elected officials and the appointed zoning board.
Houston has no zoning at all and people build expensive homes.
2. The choice isn't single family houses or 100 unit apartment buildings, but on the other hand, once a neighborhood of single family is already developed, I think it would be a financial disaster to go in piece mill and allow a property owner to have his home be torn down for a duplex or a four unit apartment building. No, I don't think the property owner should have the right to cause a reduction in the values of his neighbors, just to further the cause of providing an opportunity to build housing for those looking for a less expensive entry into Buckhead or other desirable Intown neighborhoods.
Again, Houston has areas like Montrose where that has happened and the neighborhood has thrived.
3. Instead of looking at overthrowing zoning laws for long established low density neighborhoods like those found in the western part of Buckhead, Brookhaven and the Cascade Rd. corridor of SW Atlanta, it would be a lot more practical to consider developing the numerous underdeveloped areas like the Marietta Boulevard corridor, and other industrial areas which are geographically close to high demand residential areas.
4. One last consideration is that a municipality needs long term residents who will take a long term active interest in the affairs of the community. Specifically, who will volunteer to serve on the boards or run for City Council if they are thinking that they will be moving when their lease is up in six months? The reality is that a lot of the metro Atlanta area is transient, by that I mean that they move between apartments on a frequent basis whereas the cost of moving from an owner occupied house is a lot higher. The reality is that over half of the students in the schools in the Smyrna area are not in the school for the whole year because they are moving from apartments, therefore, the test scores for these schools is not that good. This reality causes the City and County governments to make a concerted effort to insure that they have a strong base of homeowners and to use zoning to protect the property values of their homes to increase the value of their tax digest. (Smyrna had a moratorium on new apartments for 7 years). If these municipalities were to engage in rezoning in the middle of single family home neighborhoods for duplexes it would be completely counter to that purpose and be detrimental to the property values of all involved.
High prices means ultimately more renters and a rich/poor mix in the city with no middle class. Many American cities are getting that way.
5. As far as middle income housing, I am not sure that real estate that is most in demand will ever be a realistic market for those in middle income. The result is that those who can't afford the pricier areas tend to be the urban pioneers who go into less expensive areas in close proximity to expensive areas. This reality has been seen in areas like Kirkwood/East Atlanta and Old Fourth Ward, where urban pioneers bought homes at bargain prices in the 1990's and early 2000's and are now worth a fortune. This process will continue in other lower priced adjacent neighborhoods.
If you have patio homes or townhomes, you've got a price point for the middle class.
Now I don't think no zoning is the best approach, but it does work ok. Those things you say won't happen without zoning, do happen in Houston.
Y'all act like density is just awful and should be contained at all cost, yet don't seem to see anything wrong with suggesting to contain it in the poor parts of the city. I would much rather let the cold, (mostly) calculating hand of the market, and the individuals, make those decisions than force anything I considered toxic on one part of the city over another.
It really does scream '*********, got mine'.
Yet the highest density zoning and the most intense residential and commercial development is in the wealthy areas of town. That is growing rapidly.
I haven't heard anyone say density should be confined to poor areas.
Fourth, if you remove the zoning laws and allow developers to go in and buy single family homes on acreage in Buckhead and then bulldoze them to build duplexes and apartments, how long do you think that the property values of the surrounding homes will hold up? Presently, the City of Atlanta and Fulton County receive a fortune from this area in which most homes are valued at well over a million.
If you saw the slide from Atlanta City Studio, Planning Commissioner Keane has targeted areas for growth and areas for conservation. No one has said on here to bulldoze successful, intown neighborhoods.
These areas are great examples. Look at Whitehall Street. Less than a mile from downtown, walking distance to a MARTA station, and it's all shi**y, run-down warehouses and empty lots. And then a tons of space in SPI-18.
Huge..HUGE...swaths of open old industrial areas being used for trailer storage and other crappy industrial junk. Much of the area is zoned multi-family or mixed use. ON OR VERY CLOSE TO THE BELTLINE. Why the hell is this area not being swamped by development??? It should be pretty easy to get those areas zoned properly.
The choice isn't single family houses or 100 unit apartment buildings, but on the other hand, once a neighborhood of single family is already developed, I think it would be a financial disaster to go in piece mill and allow a property owner to have his home be torn down for a duplex or a four unit apartment building. No, I don't think the property owner should have the right to cause a reduction in the values of his neighbors, just to further the cause of providing an opportunity to build housing for those looking for a less expensive entry into Buckhead or other desirable Intown neighborhoods.
ADUs on R-5 lots allows the property owner to add a ADU if they choose to.
And I can't see how you possibly think you're being fair in any way. You want to 'protect' the 'nice' neighborhoods, but in doing so, you're causing prices to rise, and hurting just about everyone.
Wrong. We can protect our nice neighborhoods AND build tons of dense housing at the same time. Just because I want to live on Ridgewood amongst stately mansions does not mean I should be able to, and that the people who live there should have to watch their neighborhood get taken over by cheap housing. You are being ridiculous. More and more, it's becoming clear that the real issue is that some people have things you don't like.
Quote:
That's a cruddy position to stick to for the sake of forcing properties to remain the way you think they should, rather than letting property owners and the market decide.
No, I'm letting properties remain how the neighborhood of homeowners wants them to be. Just as you think a neighborhood of homeowners shouldn't be able to stop a single homeowner from turning his land into a low-rent apartment complex, a single property owner shouldn't be able to kill everyone elses' value by dropping a low-rent apartment complex in the middle of an established neighborhood.
You keep saying "that won't happen", but then along comes Fuqua who drops a Kroger and large parking lot right on a valuable piece of property steps from Midtown. And, as I recall, you had plenty to say about what a bad idea it was. So, if you think "it won't happen", you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
Parking minimums, required setbacks, unnecessarily high floor area minimums, non-default mixed use allowances, non-default multi-family allowances, and a system of various procedures and committees within the city that is, by the city's own admission, confusing and inconsistent are all a good start.
So, simplify it and open it up. Not difficult. But changing established single family neighborhoods to become dense areas is going to meet major blowback, as it should. The entire metro area does not need to be dense.
Quote:
Y'all act like density is just awful and should be contained at all cost, yet don't seem to see anything wrong with suggesting to contain it in the poor parts of the city. I would much rather let the cold, (mostly) calculating hand of the market, and the individuals, make those decisions than force anything I considered toxic on one part of the city over another.
No, we have not. You are reading your own bias into it. We have identified tons of areas which could house hundreds of thousands of people, in various parts of the city.
But this part is clear: you consider it "toxic" to not allow density everywhere, where I consider it "toxic" to drop an apartment building or a Costco into a quiet family neighborhood. This is an argument that neither of us will win.
Quote:
It really does scream '*********, got mine'.
It screams "****** you and your neighborhood...we're taking everything you worked for and changing it to OUR vision!! Say hello to your 1,000 new neighbors!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
And some of those neighborhoods will probably never, ever get more development. Crime and schools will limit some areas. So again, you are limiting supply artificially. The more places that are open, the more options people will have.
People said that about Old Fourth Ward for the longest time. Ten years ago, who on earth would have gladly lived in Old Fourth Ward? Now, people are tripping over each other to get in there. Even if you flood the Northside with density, the schools aren't gong to be able to take all those new students. New schools would have to be built, just like they would in the areas you speak of.
Quote:
Again, I don't think Atlanta should be 100% no zoning (although it works ok for Houston) or 100% high density, but there should be a lot fewer places zoned SFH and government shouldn't help the rich by zoning for Single Family Estates.
Hmmm..you know...I always found Houston to be a very unpleasant city. Never enjoyed being there. So, that's not winning any arguments.
"Shouldn't help the rich". Right there shows what this really comes down to. And before anyone accuses me of being one of them, I live in a cheap townhome made of cardboard amongst hundreds of others and am about as liberal as they come. As for estates, the vast majority of the city is zoned R3 or higher, and most of that is on the north side. That's less than half an acre for even those lots. Very little of it is zoned R1 or R2. Even R1, the least dense zoning of the city, allows lots of 2 acres, which is hardly an "estate". Outside of the north, almost everything is zoned R3 or higher.
How about this one: I'll mostly agree to pretty much anything currently R4 and above allowing whatever is desired. All I, C, and NC zones are open game for pretty much anything. Personally, I think most industrial use should be removed from inside the city. R3 and R3A could be be on a case by case basis, with potential impact of the area taken into account. R2 and R1 would require a lot more legwork to break up and would require approval from numerous sources. All these SPI zones..I don't know what they do exactly, but they appear to be in popular areas...open them up. That alone would make the vast majority of the city available for development, while protecting established high-value neighborhoods. I also could support a reduction in the number of MR zones...three types should be sufficient.
Here's the thing: the reason you won't win this argument with me is that the very reason I love Atlanta is the smattering of great wooded, quiet, SFH neighborhoods dotting the city. Not many cities where you can live in a place like Ansley Park, walking distance to Midtown and Piedmont Park. To take that away and make it all just a bunch of dense housing completely ruins what I love about the city and makes it less desirable to be here. If the city were to turn into a place like Houston, I'd probably leave.
They sure seem to be popping like crazy everywhere I look. There must be hundreds of these projects in recent years and a lot more are in the pipeline.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
