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.
I can't find a 7-lane road through Brookhaven. I'm sure you'll come back with a right-turn lane counting as a lane, though.
You are right. Peachtree is consistently six lanes in Brookhaven. Not going to 7+ lanes until Buckhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
A condo is also not a SFH, by any stretch, and should not cost even a fraction as much. Not even worth comparing. Yes, it is cheaper...because you don't get nearly the same thing.
Yes they are different. But why do we need limits preventing the cheaper condos from getting built but not SFH?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
only one through road east/west, barely a good north/south through road, and thus only people with a destination of Decatur should really be in there.
Funny how that works, huh? "one through road east/west, barely a good north/south through road" and people just find alternatives ways of getting around Decatur (even though the area lacks a highway or even any roads more than four lanes.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
That being said...Brookhaven is a fine place to densify. Take that gigantic MARTA parking lot and make it a 35-story building with all 200-square foot condos.
...
Absolutely. I've never disagreed with such things. Although I have no idea what TOD you're talking about.
People have to get places. Either have some wide roads where they can go, OR have a viable transit system, OR have people driving through your neighborhood. Pick one. Either way, Atlanta's arterial road system is abysmal with terribly timed traffic lights. It's no wonder traffic is bad in parts.
Or, live more densely and thus drive less miles each day, likely even bike or walk in addition to transit being more viable from density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Source needed! I see a lot of land labeled as mixed-use, multi-family, and industrial (much of which is abandoned). A lot of other parts are R4 or R5, which are not low-density (except in uber-fabric minds).
If you still think we have more than 10% of our land in our metro is available to even limited multi-family then I cannot help you (and no, you cannot build multi-family housing in industrial zoned areas)
I am not sure why anyone would advocate density as a solution to affordable housing. The most expensive cities in the US are also the most dense. Building huge skyscrapers and packing in as many people as possible in a small area may increase supply, but it also means more businesses and restaraunts in the area to cater to the increased population, which increases desirability of an area, which then leads to less affordable housing in the long run.
Look at Midtown. It has become incredibly dense over the last few years, which has done nothing but cause a rapid increase in services, restaraunts, high income residents, and increased prices.
The cheapest areas of the country are the least dense because no one wants to live there due to lack of amenities.
Also, Decatur traffic is the worst I encounter in the metro. Sometimes it takes me 20+ minutes to go one mile, especially on Clairmont.
This was explained and debunked in the post already.
Yes they are different. But why do we need limits preventing the cheaper condos from getting built but not SFH?
Only in some areas. The very fact that you talk about the explosion of condos and apartments in Midtown kind of blows that theory out of the water.
Quote:
Funny how that works, huh? "one through road east/west, barely a good north/south through road" and people just find alternatives ways of getting around Decatur (even though the area lacks a highway or even any roads more than four lanes.)
No...it's not "funny how that works". it's obvious. Decatur downtown is a small area barely measuring a single square mile. It is almost completely surrounded by large arterial roads to carry the traffic load. It's patently obvious why there isn't much traffic in downtown Decatur. That does not scale to much larger areas. Stop trying to pretend it does.
In fact, what you are saying is the solution for Decatur, is almost exactly what I have been saying all along: you need larger arterial roads to funnel the traffic away from the neighborhood and town areas. But, you seem to think you can simply get rid of the big roads. It appears that you are playing on two sides of the fence here.
That sucks and is annoying. We have been fighting for and are finally getting that type of development around us (I know, crazy, right??). We will soon be able to walk to restaurants and bars once everything is finished. And, due to the increased density, our property value has gone way up. Extra bonus!
Quote:
Or, live more densely and thus drive less miles each day, likely even bike or walk in addition to transit being more viable from density.
Yes...transit will be more viable because of the density. But, if you build the density first, and the transit takes another decade or two to start running (since that stuff never gets built quickly), assuming it ever does, you will create a gridlock bottleneck. You're assuming that because there is density that all those people live and work in the same area. The fact that millions of people ride the NYC subway every day is proof that even with incredible amounts of density, people still have to get around further than walking or biking.
Your source indicates 11.3% zoned multi-family, and another 15% zoned industrial. The largest portion of that SFH zoning is R4 (30% of city area), which isn't exactly huge lots. R4A, small lots is a decent amount. R3, medium lots, is the second largest.
"Note that the majority of the city is zoned residential, with single-family residential as the largest zoning category (51,308 acres). The second largest zoning category is industrial, which constitutes a much smaller land area (9,904 acres). The third largest is multi-family residential (7,810 acres)."
I have a bigger problem with the industrial portion.
Quote:
If you still think we have more than 10% of our land in our metro is available to even limited multi-family then I cannot help you (and no, you cannot build multi-family housing in industrial zoned areas)
Really? So, all of the development happening on the westside in areas which were zoned industrial isn't actually happening? Atlantic Station doesn't exist? Is it a mirage? So, that huge area steps from the Beltline on the SE corner that is nothing but acres and acres of abandoned industrial lots has to just stay that way? Come on...be serious. You can't be taken seriously if you use complete falsehoods to further your agenda.
Why should we encase those neighborhoods in amber though? It's this toxic fight against incremental development that gets cities in trouble. Instead of letting neighborhoods respond to demand in a healthy way, we enshrine them. Instead of letting density slowly be added to handle both commercial and residential, you're trying to force them to adhere to your preference of what they should be.
Trees are one thing (ecological improvements), but wanting to force the neighborhoods to become stagnant is a recipe for disaster.
I'll keep saying this over and over and over again. We have 450,000 people who want to live in our city right now. We have another 450,000 on the way. That's triple our city's current population. Shutting out a full 20% of our city to being able to help handle that growth will be damaging to being able to handle that demand. Yes, as much of that should be concentrated in places that can handle it, but through ACTIVE methods like supporting infrastructure, not through passive, harmful methods like restrictive zoning. That's an important distinction.
There is a life cycle of neighborhoods. They generally decline and renew. Druid Hills has already been through at least two cycles. Druid Hills had millionaires at first. Then it seriously declined in the 30s and a lot of the mansions fell into disrepair or were partly sublet. It revived into an upper middle class neighborhood sometime after WWII, but then all the kids moved out and it was in decline with the rest of DeKalb in the late 80s/early 90s. Then it revived again.
Inman Park had gone so far down they were ready to bulldoze much of it.
Now that renewal can simply be updating the interiors, but change is necessary if they don't want a permanent decline.
I think the area west of downtown is just primed to create a residential version of midtown. But government should encourage, not limit.
There is a life cycle of neighborhoods. They generally decline and renew. Druid Hills has already been through at least two cycles. Druid Hills had millionaires at first. Then it seriously declined in the 30s and a lot of the mansions fell into disrepair or were partly sublet. It revived into an upper middle class neighborhood sometime after WWII, but then all the kids moved out and it was in decline with the rest of DeKalb in the late 80s/early 90s. Then it revived again.
As a third generation resident of Druid Hills, I have to set the record straight here. Druid Hills in all of its' history was never in 'serious decline'...ever. What is true is that with the ascendancy of Buckhead in the 20's and 30's it ceased being considered the go-to neighborhood for Atlanta's movers and shakers. However, many remained; professionals that had strong ties to Emory and DeKalb County (like my parents and grandparents) preferred Druid Hills for its' proximity to the University, the hospitals and Decatur. I cannot recall any time when DH was anything but an attractive and desirable neighborhood. Its' history certainly can't be compared to Inman Park, whose fortunes declined when Victorian architecture began to be dismissed as too dark, overbearing and unwieldly for 20th Century tastes.
As a third generation resident of Druid Hills, I have to set the record straight here. Druid Hills in all of its' history was never in 'serious decline'...ever. What is true is that with the ascendancy of Buckhead in the 20's and 30's it ceased being considered the go-to neighborhood for Atlanta's movers and shakers. However, many remained; professionals that had strong ties to Emory and DeKalb County (like my parents and grandparents) preferred Druid Hills for its' proximity to the University, the hospitals and Decatur. I cannot recall any time when DH was anything but an attractive and desirable neighborhood. Its' history certainly can't be compared to Inman Park, whose fortunes declined when Victorian architecture began to be dismissed as too dark, overbearing and unwieldly for 20th Century tastes.
In the early 90s, Fernbank ES was down to about 400 students (it peaked at around 750 about 4 years back), many who didn't live in the area. Almost all of Druid Hills had been zoned for multi-family (in fact, last time I checked about 5 years ago it still was) in the assumption it would get torn down and rebuilt. Many of the mansions did become derelict, even the Candler mansion now on the Emory Briarcliff campus. Condo complexes like Lullwater Estates and Clifton south of Ponce were a big reason for the historic district. The neighborhood was really aging. Look at just about any house in any neighborhood where someone has lived there 20-30 years. They are generally way out of date in colors/bathrrooms/kitchens. That impacts home values, especially when a large part of the neighborhood is that way. That doesn't mean it ever became a "slum" or lower middle class, but it did decline.
What's with obsession with Midtown? Why not downtown getting all these developments? I never like Midtown: too sterile and boring.
Developers are finally discovering downtown again in just the last several months. Underground Atlanta, Gulch, Newport's South Downtown redevelopment are all moving forward.
In the early 90s, Fernbank ES was down to about 400 students (it peaked at around 750 about 4 years back), many who didn't live in the area. Almost all of Druid Hills had been zoned for multi-family (in fact, last time I checked about 5 years ago it still was) in the assumption it would get torn down and rebuilt. Many of the mansions did become derelict, even the Candler mansion now on the Emory Briarcliff campus. Condo complexes like Lullwater Estates and Clifton south of Ponce were a big reason for the historic district. The neighborhood was really aging. Look at just about any house in any neighborhood where someone has lived there 20-30 years. They are generally way out of date in colors/bathrrooms/kitchens. That impacts home values, especially when a large part of the neighborhood is that way. That doesn't mean it ever became a "slum" or lower middle class, but it did decline.
If you equate aging with decline, then there must be a hell of a lot of neighborhoods in 'serious decline' in the United States and beyond. There have been and are derelict mansions and estates in Greenwich, CT, Beverly Hills, CA, Lake Forest, IL, Hillsborough, CA, McLean, VA and Shaker Heights, OH. That mere fact did not and does not diminish their desirability. They also have multi-family zoning where once were grand estates. Druid Hills is no different than them in this respect. They all simply evolved to meet the needs of newer generations, and as a result, some of the grand estates no longer served a practical use for them.
As for Fernbank's enrollment, fluctuations are typical for any neighborhood, as are fluctuations in the median age. Residents grow older, houses are turned over to younger families, enrollment goes up. That happens in any neighborhood, and it's certainly not endemic of decline.
Multi-family / apartments are "only" prohibited in most areas.
Fixed that for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
No...it's not "funny how that works". it's obvious. Decatur downtown is a small area barely measuring a single square mile. It is almost completely surrounded by large arterial roads to carry the traffic load. It's patently obvious why there isn't much traffic in downtown Decatur. That does not scale to much larger areas. Stop trying to pretend it does.
In fact, what you are saying is the solution for Decatur, is almost exactly what I have been saying all along: you need larger arterial roads to funnel the traffic away from the neighborhood and town areas. But, you seem to think you can simply get rid of the big roads. It appears that you are playing on two sides of the fence here.
If you support downsizing all roads in the city core to three lanes or less and even keeping arterial bypass roads to four / five lanes max then we are together on this.
Remember Decatur was the county seat of both Fulton and DeKalb County until Atlanta got going and Fulton was split off in 1853. Decatur was at the center of a network of roads connecting the area.
So, where they are now without any large roads cutting through the city is not an accident, it took deliberate decisions to push traffic out of the area not by creating larger bypass roads elsewhere but by downsizing and even closing existing routes through the city.
If they want to improve their traffic situation, Brookhaven should look to Decatur to imitate this. Despite originally having a major US highway (78) coming through their city center, they are now on track to have no roads over three lanes within a mile of their core. And no roads above four (except for a couple with some turn lanes / highway stubs at the edge) within three miles. Decatur even closed streets to cars (including the original State Route 155) to build their MARTA station.
Meanwhile Brookhaven has a six lane road through it's center. And lots of larger roads within three miles including two freeways, Buford Highway, Lenox, Clairmont, N Druid Hills.
If they really care about reducing traffic, Brookhaven needs to stop this silliness and start doing road diets now. Peachtree most of all. As well as start concentrating density and building its city center around Brookhaven MARTA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
That sucks and is annoying. We have been fighting for and are finally getting that type of development around us (I know, crazy, right??). We will soon be able to walk to restaurants and bars once everything is finished. And, due to the increased density, our property value has gone way up. Extra bonus!
Glad we are on the same page with this one. Think our views really align more than many of our discussion portray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
The fact that millions of people ride the NYC subway every day is proof that even with incredible amounts of density, people still have to get around further than walking or biking.
Some people do. But density increases the share of people getting around via walking, biking, and transit. And those that do still drive now drive shorter trips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Your source indicates 11.3% zoned multi-family, and another 15% zoned industrial. The largest portion of that SFH zoning is R4 (30% of city area), which isn't exactly huge lots. R4A, small lots is a decent amount. R3, medium lots, is the second largest.
My number is from page 8. But either way, even with your number no way the metro is breaking 10% of land where you are legally allowed to build multi-family (no, trailer parks do not count).
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
"Note that the majority of the city is zoned residential, with single-family residential as the largest zoning category (51,308 acres). The second largest zoning category is industrial, which constitutes a much smaller land area (9,904 acres). The third largest is multi-family residential (7,810 acres)."
I have a bigger problem with the industrial portion.
...
Really? So, all of the development happening on the westside in areas which were zoned industrial isn't actually happening? Atlantic Station doesn't exist? Is it a mirage? So, that huge area steps from the Beltline on the SE corner that is nothing but acres and acres of abandoned industrial lots has to just stay that way? Come on...be serious. You can't be taken seriously if you use complete falsehoods to further your agenda.
None of those places you name that have multi-family are currently zoned industrial.
What we are discussing is changing the zoning laws to allow multi-family in many more places like was done there. So if you are supportive of large changes in zoning like those you mentioned and thus want that to allow those sorts of projects to happen more often we are on the same page.
Last edited by jsvh; 07-16-2017 at 06:19 PM..
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.
