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.
Perhaps if ATL slowed down the density in the most desirable areas it would push the building towards under utilized transportation nodes.
Or perhaps it'll do what all the evidence has shown it will do, and just drive prices up.
Active incentives are better than passive mandates. The first increases quality of life in the city without suppressing housing supply, while the latter just drives prices up.
Or perhaps it'll do what all the evidence has shown it will do, and just drive prices up.
Active incentives are better than passive mandates. The first increases quality of life in the city without suppressing housing supply, while the latter just drives prices up.
Perhaps a combo of pushing the development to under utilized areas and coming up with incentives.
Our values have nothing to do with the assessor's office. They went up rapidly before that happened. The demand has been here for years. This is the area squashed by that asshat John Woodham, and others were worried about the area. Once the Publix finally got built, things started picking up quickly.
As I said, without knowing more I couldn't draw specific correlations. I agree, the demand has been here, but telling people not to come won't fix anything. Refusing to meet that demand is just going to make things worse.
Quote:
You need more phrases.
But they're just so good at describing what's being suggested. Give me something new to describe, and I'll use a new phrase.
Quote:
I didn't say *my* personal decision was the one. I said that the people who lived in the areas should be able to decide what their area does. Keep in mind, your personal concept is also not the perfect way, and may make the city far less appealing to many who live here.
I read through a thread on another forum which asked whether people preferred urban, suburban, or rural life. From the few pages I read, suburban and rural far outpaced urban for what respondents desired. The ones who preferred urban, for the most part, preferred a more mixed setting. I'm not suggesting that this is scientific, but I think you far over-estimate the number of people who want to live in a place like NYC.
The difference is that my view is fact based, and I've shared plenty of data and study to show that. I may very well be over estimating how many people want to live in NYC, though I've not actually estimated how many actually do at all, but that's why I'm not saying to put in X number of units in Y style of housing.
I'm saying to open up the regs to allow the people's actual wants and resources to balance into something that works, as opposed to artificially suppressing them.
Quote:
This one suits me just fine. Maybe you could pick one of the "vibrant" cities to move to, since it's more your speed.
Well, I'm rather tethered to where I get paid. I certainly wouldn't turn down a job in a large city, assuming I'm appropriately compensated, but that includes Atlanta, a vibrant city getting ever more so by the year.
Neither you nor I can actually stop that without causing horrendous harm to the place, which is why I suggest to go find an already stagnant city to go keep stagnant, while I would love to return to my vibrant home to help keep vibrant.
Quote:
Maybe they decided that they just had too many people as is.
Honest question: at what point do you believe there are just too many people in an area? At what point does the sheer crowd of people outweigh the enjoyment of the area? Is there such a thing to you?
You might look at a picture like this and think, "Oh man! Look at that vibrancy!" I look at that and think "Oh. My. F***ing. God. Get me outta here!!" It looks horrible. I can pull up a lot more crowded than that.
As I've already said, when there's a measurable, quantifiable health, environmental, or economic problem, or when people stop deciding to live there. That's the point. I might not, personally, want to live there, but I'm not the one running other people's lives.
You're right, I do look at that picture and see vibrancy. I can't help but think of how many varieties of stores they support, or how many hobby / social groups there are, how many opportunities to learn there are, or the variety of restaurants that must be around every corner.
That's fine that you see that and want to get away from it, but just because you want to doesn't mean you have any right to keep a place from becoming that. Not when doing so creates far more problems for far more people than just you.
It's clear you're no stranger to travel, so why not travel and find a place that more naturally fits what you want? Is it because you want all the positives of a city, without having to actually live with a city? I can't help you there, if that's the case.
Quote:
Why tear apart the beautiful parts of the city for some personal standard of density when there are plenty of large areas to densify?
Again and again you say tear apart, continuously painting density as this big baddy. I'm not basing things on a personal design, I'm basing things on the numbers as they are. The economic sustainability, the efficiency of supporting people, the ecological good, the socio-economic good, etc.
I will not, can not force anyone to densify their property, but I refuse to mandate that they can't. My standard of density is one that comes from needing to meet the demand of housing in a cost-effective way. Nothing more.
So, again, stop painting me as some big baddy after people's land. It's tiresome.
Quote:
The more you talk, the more it really becomes apparent that this is about wealthy people getting to live in nice areas, and others not being able to.
That's a part of it. I mean, I do keep saying that socio-economic mobility is part of this, and studies have shown that mixed income housing is beneficial to improving that mobility. Improving socioeconomic mobility is a net benefit to our society, with pretty much no downsides. I can't possibly fathom how someone might not like that.
Of course, it's also about cost effective cities, as I've also said. Have I mentioned you should go read about the Growth Ponzie Scheme?
Quote:
I said that, at a certain point, there are just too many people. You don't feel that way, as evidenced by you seeing no issue with nearly infinite numbers of people per square mile.
Well, I have problems with the material sciences associated with infinite numbers of people per square mile, but that's being pedantic.
Really, I have a problem with your insistence on keeping that kind of thing away, despite all the known benefits, because of your personal tastes. If everyone lived in a small space, there'd be a lot more big space left for you, but no, you have to have this space for you despite the demand to make it more.
Quote:
It's depressing that I don't want to tear apart our beautiful neighborhoods? I almost never say this, but...LOL.
Again with the 'tear apart'. Gosh, maybe you should get some new phrases?
I can not see, in any concept of the term, how adding amenities, adding new people, adding new shops and services, is 'tearing apart'. Running a highway through, that's tearing apart. Demolishing entire blocks for parking, that's tearing apart. Ripping out existing density homes for massive-set back towers that house a quarter of the people without any of the street activity, that's tearing apart.
Allowing a few new apartment buildings with ground-level stores in an area already replacing old houses with massive structures, which already has apartment buildings in it, and yet is still popular, is not.
Quote:
Very few and far between, and almost entirely on main roads, as I have most supported all along.
Oh, and so all the one on my little side street, or on the next one over, or the next few over, or in the next block, are few and far between? Nor was I aware that I lived on a main road.
Anyway, not much would change since, gosh, the people who live in the nice neighborhoods are best suited to not sell their property to developers if they so choose.
Quote:
Obviously, I didn't mean infinite literally. But, 1,000,000 people in a square mile might as well be infinite.
Well, no, not really, by an infinite factor. Especially since Kowloon only had a peak population of 33,000 people. Yeah they were packed in, but it was obvious that it worked, since, well, it worked. I wouldn't advocate for exactly the same thing, of course, since it causes health problems with the slap-dash construction, but I see no reason to not allow density a third as much as Kowloon as long as there aren't health problems, and as long as it continues to be both in demand and cost effective.
Of course, you'd have a hard time getting that kind of place filled given American's tastes, even in the cities, so I doubt that it'd work out.
It's better than not having a home, though, and in some cases it may be more cost effective on a personal level enough for people to justify if it was close enough to jobs and such.
Quote:
Just want to make sure that you don't believe that whatever a property owner wants to do is fine. You do want there to be certain restrictions, but you want those restrictions to be very, very basic.
I want them based on the realities of the data, as I keep saying. Measurable, quantifiable affects.
Quote:
Adding a million people in the space that we have available is not nearly as insane as you believe. Those million people do not all need to live within three square miles. SO much space on the southside and westside.
So, every one of those million want to live on the South and West Sides? There aren't enough in the million who want to live elsewhere, with the money to just about make it, such that you aren't still suppressing demand?
Please. Those areas that you want to encase have just as high occupancy rates as anywhere. It's clear that there are people who not only want to live there, but have the funds to do so, but we're not meeting their needs for some personal preference rather than reality-based efforts.
I don't want to dictate where people live. I don't want to dictate how people should live. I want them to be able to collectively decide, and for the market to have the flexibility to make it happen.
Quote:
And I'd suggest you have a selection bias on studies you read and people you befriend. I mean, it never ceases to amaze me how many people you and jsvh happen to know who use the Beltline as their main commuting route and who all walk everywhere, when this is such a miniscule percentage of the city.
You're free to supply your own studies. You've been free to do so this entire time. I've even asked you to. Give it a shot before dismissing what actual data I've brought to the table.
Quote:
Dude: what you are talking about is THEORY, not fact. Millions of people still believe in Trickle-Down Economics and believe it is quantifiable fact. That doesn't make it so.
And the data shows that you're right, Trickle-Down Economics doesn't work, just as the data shows that I'm right, and artificially suppressing density is harmful. This isn't theory, this is real-world, observable data. It's gotten bi-partisan support. It's been vetted by peer review and examination.
Quote:
Can you also mention the "urban fabric" and "human scale" just so we can get every buzzword in there, please?
Can you stop ignoring quantifiable reality, please?
Dude: what you are talking about is THEORY, not fact. Millions of people still believe in Trickle-Down Economics and believe it is quantifiable fact. That doesn't make it so.
You sound like one of the conservatives who don't believe in human influence climate change or some anti-vaxxer.
fourthwarden shared tons of reputable references to support his arguments. Please show us reputable source saying that suburban sprawl is good?
Last edited by bhammaster; 07-18-2017 at 08:23 AM..
This WSJ article takes a look at how difficult it is to build in different cities. This graphic pretty much sums up the data:
Good stuff, thanks for the share.
INB4 "oh look at Atlanta! So easy to build!", I'd like to remind you that we still have 450,000 people to meet demand for, with another 450,000 on the way, consistently rising housing prices, and consistently dropping occupancy rates. We're not so out of the water just yet.
Does anyone who's already paid the subscription fee know if those numbers are metro-area or purely city based?
Please show us reputable source saying that suburban sprawl is good?
I live in the suburban sprawl of S. Forsyth. It's pretty darn good out here.
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.
