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.
Because I already answered this in a reply to Sam, I'll just copy and paste the answer:
You'll never get land to be 100% built up to its potential zoned capacity. That's just not how the real-world works, and Seattle is having to learn that the hard way. You actually have to overshoot your expected growth with 'capacity' to be able to handle real demand.
It's all about needed zoning to actually meet demand, not just the potential capacity of the zoned area. Not 100% of that dense area will be built up into density, but having that much land established as potential density is what's needed to provide enough options to actually meet demand.
We have real-world data to show that, for this very metro.
It's hard to see how Seattle is a good parallel for Atlanta. They already have nearly 700,000 people in 84 square miles, compared to our 475,000 in 132 square miles.
Atlanta start-up wants to make boarding cool again. Adds density and provides the missing middle housing without adding ADUs or unchecked zoning changes that arjay fears.
Quote:
LeBlanc, who has spent a decade working in Atlanta, believes there’s still space in American cities for rooming houses and single-room occupancy hotels. Commonplace at the beginning of the 20th century, these businesses offered cheap, convenient, short-term living, entry-level housing stock for a booming city. LeBlanc believes a better rooming house model can again offer a more economical, egalitarian place to rent.
“One of the reasons that so many of these rooming houses failed was because they were terrible,” he says. “I wanted to figure out how you could make them safe, affordable and accountable.”
His initial vision for PadSplit was to create a product that targeted renters making roughly $25,000 a year, so those on minimum wage or low fixed income had more access to housing. He felt there was a way to take homes, especially those with multiple bedrooms, into profitable investments and affordable housing, without using subsidies. Single-family homes were out of reach for many residents, especially in lower income areas. Was there a way to take these unused assets and create a shared living space, which gave property owners more income?
When pressed to explain how the PadSplit model conforms to Atlanta housing codes and regulations, LeBlanc said that there’s a loophole that allows this type of conversion and occupation. There’s a way to still qualify if tenants pays fees, instead of rent, to a master tenant entity, set up like an limited-liability company. But he said PadSplit is “operating legally, and we have existing zoning case law to back us up.”
The model also has backing from Enterprise Community Partners, and LeBlanc is also working with the Urban Land Institute to make permanent zoning recommendations to make this type of housing legal in other jurisdictions.
After opening the first PadSplit last May, he’s converted two additional homes, with two more in the middle of renovation. Soon, there will be a total of 27 units spread across five houses.
PadSplit retrofits go above and beyond current safety standards, says LeBlanc, specifically Atlanta Housing Authority Standards. Smoke detectors are added to each room, and each home is decorated with new furniture and artwork. The management and operations team emphasizes respect, and qualified tenants. Every applicant must pass a criminal background check.
Boy, it's almost like I already said that not all of the land will get used to 100% of its zoned capacity earlier in this thread. Almost like there was a reason for me stating that a few times before this post.
Irrelevant. You stated, and I quote, "If we were to try and satisfy 100% of the urban demand, we'd need 28% of the total metro land area dedicated to the prospect of urban living". 28% dedicated to dense urban living. Now, you're saying that it won't all get filled, so we don't need that?
So, again, I ask: what is the definition of "urban neighborhood" that Levine used, which encompasses six times the size of the city of Atlanta?
Quote:
It's all about needed zoning to actually meet demand, not just the potential capacity of the zoned area. Not 100% of that dense area will be built up into density, but having that much land established as potential density is what's needed to provide enough options to actually meet demand.
No, of course it won't. Never suggested it would. In fact, I stated so much the opposite, that my claim is that it's patently ridiculous to think we need 2,500 square miles of land for dense urban living. Like, borderline psychotic.
Quote:
We have real-world data to show that, for this very metro, whether or not you want to accept it.
More data than this Levine guy? Can you share some other links?
Quote:
This is why I have been pressing the open-form zoning method, so that all that land that isn't built up despite being zoned for it, can still legally be the low-density that the market and individuals want it to be. Maybe now you can see how simply allowing for density won't automatically ensure that it happens to an area?
Uhhh...I never said it would. But, it could, against a neighborhood's wishes. And it doesn't need to. This is simply sticking up your middle finger to those who live in those areas and saying, "Tough luck. We're getting what we want, whether you like it or not." As with the "second class citizen" pedestrian arguments, this isn't about solving a real problem...this is about winning.
Quote:
Pick one: "all that area zoned for density will be underused and unecessary, and there's not nearly as much demand for it as you say", or "zoning areas for density automatically mean they will fully and completly change".
Well, of course the first one. The second one doesn't make any sense. And I just don't see the need to put our established neighborhoods in jeopardy just to tickle your fancy. Of course, all that density will never be built up. It would be in a thousand disconnected little pockets, which is exactly what I think is the worst possible plan.
Quote:
I say let's prove you right. Let's zone as much land as I say is needed to be open to density, and then let's watch me be wrong.
You see...I wouldn't be "right". Opening up the zoning wouldn't make it density-everywhere all the time, as you seem to think I think it will. It would create an low rise apartment building here, a triplex there, a tower over there. This creates single dense pockets that do not have all the "jobs, stores, restaurants, and transit in one place". That is supportable only with higher-density sections. We'd end up with more people spread out all over the place in more little pockets needing to get to other pockets. It would simply make things worse. Confine your medium and high density to areas and it's more likely to create the job and amenity nodes, the kind of development I support.
Quote:
Let's put our zoning where our mouths (keyboards?) are, and actually prove, in a real-world setting, who's right.
Neither of us would be right. Of course, my right isn't what you say it is, so the terms aren't even valid. How about we do what I say, see if it works, and if it doesn't, then we can move on to razing parts our neighborhoods to create miniature dense pockets and spread people all over the place?
Or, maybe we just pick an existing neighborhood near downtown/midtown, raze the whole thing to the ground, and build super-high-density housing? Let's raze about one mile around Piedmont Park and create a super-dense, NYC-style mega-pocket to house everyone who wants to be in it...that would take care of about a quarter-million people right off the bat!
Atlanta start-up wants to make boarding cool again. Adds density and provides the missing middle housing without adding ADUs or unchecked zoning changes that arjay fears.
arjay doesn't fear ADU's, but in fact has been a supporter of them.
However, arjay does believe that turning the developers loose to build willy-nilly in our prized single family neighborhoods would be a disaster for the city with massive negative consequences.
With regard to boarding houses, it's my understanding that you can have up to 6 unrelated adults living in a single household. Many folks who've been around here a while will remember when areas like Ansley and Candler Park had a lot of that sort of thing. It wasn't doing the neighborhoods any good, but several sections of the city were sagging as folks moved to the suburbs. Eventually they reversed the trend and became the jewels that they are today.
Atlanta start-up wants to make boarding cool again. Adds density and provides the missing middle housing without adding ADUs or unchecked zoning changes that arjay fears.
arjay doesn't fear ADU's, but in fact has been a supporter of them.
However, arjay does believe that turning the developers loose to build willy-nilly in our prized single family neighborhoods would be a disaster for the city with massive negative consequences.
With regard to boarding houses, it's my understanding that you can have up to 6 unrelated adults living in a single household. Many folks who've been around here a while will remember when areas like Ansley and Candler Park had a lot of that sort of thing. It wasn't doing the neighborhoods any good, but several sections of the city were sagging as folks moved to the suburbs. Eventually they reversed the trend and became the jewels that they are today.
Irrelevant. You stated, and I quote, "If we were to try and satisfy 100% of the urban demand, we'd need 28% of the total metro land area dedicated to the prospect of urban living". 28% dedicated to dense urban living. Now, you're saying that it won't all get filled, so we don't need that?
So, again, I ask: what is the definition of "urban neighborhood" that Levine used, which encompasses six times the size of the city of Atlanta?
No, of course it won't. Never suggested it would. In fact, I stated so much the opposite, that my claim is that it's patently ridiculous to think we need 2,500 square miles of land for dense urban living. Like, borderline psychotic.
I'm saying that 100% of it won't be filled to capacity, but that that much land is needed create enough opportunities to satisfy demand.
It's about ratios. If we needed 10% of the metro dedicated to whatever the definition is to meet 50% of the demand for that definition, whatever it is, in 2005, then we need to scale that up to 28% to meet 100% in 2017.
Again, not all of it will be filled, but, as Seattle is figuring out, you need to overshoot predicted capacity to actually meet demand. So, we use known points of data to create a new amount of land based on the ratios. If you have better data, and not just your gut feeling on what is and isn't ridiculous, to indicate that we can get away with less, then, by all means, share it. I would love to read it.
Quote:
More data than this Levine guy? Can you share some other links?
I was referencing the Levine material.
Considering you've given no counter data, other than what you personally feel is "ridiculous", though, I don't see how I'm the one lacking in material.
Then again, we just got a report about prices in Buckhead and Midtown growing at, or slower than, inflation, and in at least one specific case actually decreasing due to massive increases in supply. That same report showed that the city as a whole was still well outpacing inflation, though, and other information indicates that that's directly linked to a lack of supply.
[quote]Uhhh...I never said it would. But, it could, against a neighborhood's wishes. And it doesn't need to. This is simply sticking up your middle finger to those who live in those areas and saying, "Tough luck. We're getting what we want, whether you like it or not." As with the "second class citizen" pedestrian arguments, this isn't about solving a real problem...this is about winning.
You certainly treat the 'could' as a certainty.
I'm sorry I want to ensure that we have a wide range of incomes able to live in the city, thus improving economic and social mobility for as many people as possible while also doing what we can to reduce emissions in the process. I'm sorry I want to use what data is currently available to achieve that. I'm sorry that data all points towards needing to densify, and increase supply. I'm sorry the known and proven methods to do that are rather directly dependent on opening up zoning laws across wide-areas. I'm sorry we have evidence to support that in this very metro on that topic.
I'm sorry I want to do more quantifiable good for more people than your insistence on quarantining growth to drastically reduced areas. I'm sorry similar efforts, which have more or less been modus operandi so far, have lead us to the current problems of rapid price increases, and have not been effective in meeting known demand.
I'm sorry that fixing all that requires changes that you don't like. I'm sorry you seem so convinced the wants of the few should outweigh the needs of the many.
You can characterize me and my position as anything other than what I say if you want, you're free to do so, and if your internal narrative demands it, so be it. All I can say is that you're wrong. About a lot of things.
Quote:
Well, of course the first one. The second one doesn't make any sense. And I just don't see the need to put our established neighborhoods in jeopardy just to tickle your fancy. Of course, all that density will never be built up. It would be in a thousand disconnected little pockets, which is exactly what I think is the worst possible plan.
Wait, so, the area will be underused and unnecessary, and yet it somehow poses an existential crisis to that same area? You certainly do treat the 'could' as a certainty.
Quote:
You see...I wouldn't be "right". Opening up the zoning wouldn't make it density-everywhere all the time, as you seem to think I think it will. It would create an low rise apartment building here, a triplex there, a tower over there. This creates single dense pockets that do not have all the "jobs, stores, restaurants, and transit in one place". That is supportable only with higher-density sections. We'd end up with more people spread out all over the place in more little pockets needing to get to other pockets. It would simply make things worse. Confine your medium and high density to areas and it's more likely to create the job and amenity nodes, the kind of development I support.
This would only be the case in the most broad of terms. Most density would naturally grow where there's supporting infrastructure to make it happen. Near a train station, along a transit line, near a large road that has extra capacity. Near other density. You know why? Because that's where the projects have the best chance of returning an investment. That's where demand for that kind of density most is.
Any developer who would build a car-free apartment complex in the middle of nowhere without a transit line in place would be an outlier, and likely wouldn't even get financing to do so. Otherwise, a low-rise apartment building there, and a triplex here perfectly okay. It'll be taking up extra capacity in the roads, bus network, and our expanding bike infrastructure, all of which can support a fair amount of growth as it is.
Virginia Highland already has a bit of that, and it's not come falling apart. I know, because I lived it first hand. Adding a bit more of that will not do anything anywhere near catastrophic as you seem to think.
Besides, even if, there becomes some problem of a pocket of density developing that's truly disconnected from the rest, that very density will be bringing in enough revenue to establish frequent bus services, and even maybe a high-capacity transit connection, not to mention the pedestrian and bike upgrades that can be put in place in the mean time. It's a problem that comes with its own solution in the form of increased tax revenue.
Quote:
Neither of us would be right. Of course, my right isn't what you say it is, so the terms aren't even valid. How about we do what I say, see if it works, and if it doesn't, then we can move on to razing parts our neighborhoods to create miniature dense pockets and spread people all over the place?
We have been doing a lot of what you've been saying to. We've been protecting our Single Family neighborhoods against 'too much growth'. We've been dictating specific areas to infill. There's been success on some of the sub-market level, but the city as a whole is still far outpacing inflation in housing costs, with supply still stifled, which is the entire point behind not continuing to attempt to quarantine growth.
Your way doesn't work, and we have recent history to show that. Just go look at the Case-Schiller indexes, or city real estate reports.
Quote:
Or, maybe we just pick an existing neighborhood near downtown/midtown, raze the whole thing to the ground, and build super-high-density housing? Let's raze about one mile around Piedmont Park and create a super-dense, NYC-style mega-pocket to house everyone who wants to be in it...that would take care of about a quarter-million people right off the bat!
Because that's not how developments work. At all. You can't just designate a single place and say 'go'. Again, Seattle tried that an is learning just how that doesn't work in a real-world setting. Heck, we've been trying that on a smaller scale already, and yet housing prices continue to go up as demand goes unmet. You need a wide set of options and variety in you build-able area, or else you don't get even remotely close to meeting demand.
[quote=fourthwarden;51504570]I'm saying that 100% of it won't be filled to capacity, but that that much land is needed create enough opportunities to satisfy demand.
It's about ratios. If we needed 10% of the metro dedicated to whatever the definition is to meet 50% of the demand for that definition, whatever it is, in 2005, then we need to scale that up to 28% to meet 100% in 2017.
Again, not all of it will be filled, but, as Seattle is figuring out, you need to overshoot predicted capacity to actually meet demand. So, we use known points of data to create a new amount of land based on the ratios. If you have better data, and not just your gut feeling on what is and isn't ridiculous, to indicate that we can get away with less, then, by all means, share it. I would love to read it.
I was referencing the Levine material.
Considering you've given no counter data, other than what you personally feel is "ridiculous", though, I don't see how I'm the one lacking in material.
Then again, we just got a report about prices in Buckhead and Midtown growing at, or slower than, inflation, and in at least one specific case actually decreasing due to massive increases in supply. That same report showed that the city as a whole was still well outpacing inflation, though, and other information indicates that that's directly linked to a lack of supply.
Quote:
Uhhh...I never said it would. But, it could, against a neighborhood's wishes. And it doesn't need to. This is simply sticking up your middle finger to those who live in those areas and saying, "Tough luck. We're getting what we want, whether you like it or not." As with the "second class citizen" pedestrian arguments, this isn't about solving a real problem...this is about winning.
You certainly treat the 'could' as a certainty.
I'm sorry I want to ensure that we have a wide range of incomes able to live in the city, thus improving economic and social mobility for as many people as possible while also doing what we can to reduce emissions in the process. I'm sorry I want to use what data is currently available to achieve that. I'm sorry that data all points towards needing to densify, and increase supply. I'm sorry the known and proven methods to do that are rather directly dependent on opening up zoning laws across wide-areas. I'm sorry we have evidence to support that in this very metro on that topic.
I'm sorry I want to do more quantifiable good for more people than your insistence on quarantining growth to drastically reduced areas. I'm sorry similar efforts, which have more or less been modus operandi so far, have lead us to the current problems of rapid price increases, and have not been effective in meeting known demand.
I'm sorry that fixing all that requires changes that you don't like. I'm sorry you seem so convinced the wants of the few should outweigh the needs of the many.
You can characterize me and my position as anything other than what I say if you want, you're free to do so, and if your internal narrative demands it, so be it. All I can say is that you're wrong. About a lot of things.
Wait, so, the area will be underused and unnecessary, and yet it somehow poses an existential crisis to that same area? You certainly do treat the 'could' as a certainty.
This would only be the case in the most broad of terms. Most density would naturally grow where there's supporting infrastructure to make it happen. Near a train station, along a transit line, near a large road that has extra capacity. Near other density. You know why? Because that's where the projects have the best chance of returning an investment. That's where demand for that kind of density most is.
Any developer who would build a car-free apartment complex in the middle of nowhere without a transit line in place would be an outlier, and likely wouldn't even get financing to do so. Otherwise, a low-rise apartment building there, and a triplex here perfectly okay. It'll be taking up extra capacity in the roads, bus network, and our expanding bike infrastructure, all of which can support a fair amount of growth as it is.
Virginia Highland already has a bit of that, and it's not come falling apart. I know, because I lived it first hand. Adding a bit more of that will not do anything anywhere near catastrophic as you seem to think.
Besides, even if, there becomes some problem of a pocket of density developing that's truly disconnected from the rest, that very density will be bringing in enough revenue to establish frequent bus services, and even maybe a high-capacity transit connection, not to mention the pedestrian and bike upgrades that can be put in place in the mean time. It's a problem that comes with its own solution in the form of increased tax revenue.
We have been doing a lot of what you've been saying to. We've been protecting our Single Family neighborhoods against 'too much growth'. We've been dictating specific areas to infill. There's been success on some of the sub-market level, but the city as a whole is still far outpacing inflation in housing costs, with supply still stifled, which is the entire point behind not continuing to attempt to quarantine growth.
Your way doesn't work, and we have recent history to show that. Just go look at the Case-Schiller indexes, or city real estate reports.
Because that's not how developments work. At all. You can't just designate a single place and say 'go'. Again, Seattle tried that an is learning just how that doesn't work in a real-world setting. Heck, we've been trying that on a smaller scale already, and yet housing prices continue to go up as demand goes unmet. You need a wide set of options and variety in you build-able area, or else you don't get even remotely close to meeting demand.
Well, if you're wanting Atlanta real estate prices to drop, just wait a while. It's a boom and bust economy--it crashed in 1860s, , 1890s, 1930s, 1970s, late 2000s.
And even if the market is cyclical, the market itself is a much safer and more efficient means to meet demand that some kind of central planning you seem to have in mind. It reacts more quickly and can innovate and turn on a dime.
Likewise for the environment, private property ownership drives conservation more than public ownership--as those that have a claim to the land will protect it voraciously. He is more often thinking about the livelihood of his grandchildren, whereas a bureaucrat is only out to please the boss in the short term. Ecological groups were on the forefront of protests in the former Soviet Union, think Ecoglasnost in Bulgaria--they saw the state polluting and ruining the landscape around them.
You may think I've jumped the shark to compare this conversation to free market vs totalitarian state one--but that's what it sounds like to me. Somehow fourthwarden and friends know what is best for the people better than the people do themselves. History says that never ends well.
We have been doing a lot of what you've been saying to. We've been protecting our Single Family neighborhoods against 'too much growth'. We've been dictating specific areas to infill. There's been success on some of the sub-market level, but the city as a whole is still far outpacing inflation in housing costs, with supply still stifled, which is the entire point behind not continuing to attempt to quarantine growth.
No, we haven't been doing what I suggest, at all. You obviously have no idea what I am talking about. The fact that we still have blocks and blocks of parking lots downtown and midtown, huge empty fields of grass steps from downtown, thousands of acres of abandoned or disused industrial sites, and vast fields in some of the further periphery areas ITP, all just sitting there for years or decades, shows very much that we have not done what I have suggested. Not even a little bit.
Quote:
Your way doesn't work, and we have recent history to show that. Just go look at the Case-Schiller indexes, or city real estate reports.
My way hasn't been done.
Quote:
Because that's not how developments work. At all. You can't just designate a single place and say 'go'. Again, Seattle tried that an is learning just how that doesn't work in a real-world setting. Heck, we've been trying that on a smaller scale already, and yet housing prices continue to go up as demand goes unmet. You need a wide set of options and variety in you build-able area, or else you don't get even remotely close to meeting demand.
The fact that you didn't catch the sarcasm in the paragraph you quoted speaks volumes.
Your way doesn't work, and we have recent history to show that. Just go look at the Case-Schiller indexes
What are you seeing in Case-Shiller?
Here's the graph I posted a page or so ago, showing the evolution of Case-Shiller for ATL vs. the representative basket of 20 major metros. ATL's index is way behind that of the basket of 20, and has accelerated at a slower rate since the recession as well.
ATL's index (against Jan 2000) stands around 141. Over 18 years, that equates to around a 1.9% compound annual growth rate. The US inflation rate has averaged 2.1% over this period. Meanwhile, the basket of 20's index is around 205, which translates to a 4.0% CAGR - twice the national rate of inflation.
Are prices going up in Atlanta? Yes, of course. And we should do what we can to keep that from getting out of control. But Atlanta has actually fared considerably better than other large metros in this regard. This is not a problem exclusive to Atlanta, nor is it even as big a problem in Atlanta as it is in most other large metro areas.
Just for fun - here's Atlanta's line vs. that of Boston, which has fared similarly to the basket of 20.
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.
