Yes, You Can Build Your Way to Affordable Housing (Atlanta: home, neighborhood)

[arjay57]

Here are a couple of nice, dense developments going up. We're seeing this sort of thing all over town.


First look: 84 East Atlanta townhomes are coming, most with prices in $200Ks




Ashton Woods revises proposed townhome plans for Brookhaven Boys & Girls Club site - Reporter Newspapers

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

If it is so profitable, why aren't we seeing people do it? Why aren't we seeing developers coming in and making bank off of all the demand we know is there?

Where are the the profits and profit makers?

So, again, if it's so darn easy, where is it all? We KNOW there's demand. We KNOW we're not meeting nor surpassing it. So where's all the development catering to that demand that should be going on since it's SO EASY to build profitable, high-density developments?

Maybe the demand isn't as much as you think it is. Or else developers probably would be clawing at each other to build those projects. I guarantee you that it was not too difficult to get that land at Northside and 17th, which Fuqua is now building a grocery store and self storage on. The lot on the corner sat empty for over eight years, and the one in the bend for nearly 15. This is the same period during which the entirety of Atlantic Station was built from what was previously a steel mill, so don't tell me it a was a zoning hurdle. There is industrial land all over this city which would probably be super easy to turn into high-density residential without much effort at all. That sea of parking lots has been in downtown for decades...not sure there's too much restriction there. Its probably not too hard to build profitable, high-density developments...but what you want is affordable. That's a different story. And I believe that you think way too simplistically on the "if we just build enough, it will finally become affordable".

No, you really can't. The VAST majority of the city is zoned for separate, low density residential and commercial. The VAST majority of the city has restrictive and exclusionary zoning policies.

Here's about as far as I would go:
All the Rs: let them have an accessory dwelling unit. We all know this would be so few and far between as to not make a lick of difference.
R4, R5 (and all the As and Bs): Duplexes and Triplexes allowed. Multi-Family units on a very limited case-by-case basis.
Simplify MR and RG zoning to allow more floors or units in those areas.
Anything I or C can be rezoned to allow, or just allow pretty much any type of housing.

No...I simply will not bend on putting apartment buildings in the middle of current R areas by default.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Maybe the demand isn't as much as you think it is. Or else developers probably would be clawing at each other to build those projects. I guarantee you that it was not too difficult to get that land at Northside and 17th, which Fuqua is now building a grocery store and self storage on. The lot on the corner sat empty for over eight years, and the one in the bend for nearly 15. This is the same period during which the entirety of Atlantic Station was built from what was previously a steel mill, so don't tell me it a was a zoning hurdle. There is industrial land all over this city which would probably be super easy to turn into high-density residential without much effort at all. That sea of parking lots has been in downtown for decades...not sure there's too much restriction there. Its probably not too hard to build profitable, high-density developments...but what you want is affordable. That's a different story. And I believe that you think way too simplistically on the "if we just build enough, it will finally become affordable".

Sam, you are right on the button.

We are FAR from having a land shortage. I took a few hours yesterday to knock around the city and it's amazing how many opportunities there are out there.

And no, they certainly don't have to go fancy schmanzy with it. However, I have a feeling that is the way most developers prefer to go.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Maybe the demand isn't as much as you think it is. Or else developers probably would be clawing at each other to build those projects. I guarantee you that it was not too difficult to get that land at Northside and 17th, which Fuqua is now building a grocery store and self storage on. The lot on the corner sat empty for over eight years, and the one in the bend for nearly 15. This is the same period during which the entirety of Atlantic Station was built from what was previously a steel mill, so don't tell me it a was a zoning hurdle. There is industrial land all over this city which would probably be super easy to turn into high-density residential without much effort at all. That sea of parking lots has been in downtown for decades...not sure there's too much restriction there. Its probably not too hard to build profitable, high-density developments...but what you want is affordable. That's a different story. And I believe that you think way too simplistically on the "if we just build enough, it will finally become affordable".

The demand is there developers just rather build for for the middle upper class then for the middle and working class.

I have no issues with North American properties, Jacoby Group, OliverMcMillan and etc they are cool for larger mix use projects but they aren't going build for middle and working class. As I mention I'm very pro new urbanism but historically urbanism of northern city weren't just done by large real estate companies. There were smaller developers who built smaller and cheaper developments. And a lot of the new urbanism wave is too dominate by larger companies. So instead of organically getting the smaller cheaper multi units, larger companies are often driving

but it's not a zoning issue, the zoning can't be too strict there too much land and their already multi units in several of them, so the zoning isn't stop anything. in fact if Anything the zoning needs to be stricter Fuqua built a suburban development along the beltline that went against the neighborhoods wishes.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Sam, you are right on the button.

We are FAR from having a land shortage. I took a few hours yesterday to knock around the city and it's amazing how many opportunities there are out there.

And no, they certainly don't have to go fancy schmanzy with it. However, I have a feeling that is the way most developers prefer to go.

No land shortage. But we made an artificial shortage of land for dense, urban housing that people want with our zoning laws.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Maybe the demand isn't as much as you think it is. Or else developers probably would be clawing at each other to build those projects.

The evidence absolutely says otherwise. There is tons of demand, as evidenced by our low new units to new jobs ratio, our far lower new unit permits than pre-recession, our still climbing occupancy rates, and the population projections put forth by multiple agencies / government levels.

Developers should be clawing at each other. Why aren't they? Because we've made it too hard to enter that level of the market.

I guarantee you that it was not too difficult to get that land at Northside and 17th, which Fuqua is now building a grocery store and self storage on.

Because he totally got the zoning changed to build high-density housing, walkable development right? He didn't just go with the default zoning and rules because he could turn a profit on commercial properties without touching the housing market, right?

The lot on the corner sat empty for over eight years, and the one in the bend for nearly 15. This is the same period during which the entirety of Atlantic Station was built from what was previously a steel mill, so don't tell me it a was a zoning hurdle.

1) GDOT / SRTA owned that land for a long time, expecting to turn it into the city's new Amtrak station.

2) Fuqua kept the current zoning and isn't building housing.

3) Atlantic station was a huge effort on the scale that I don't think most firms could handle once, let alone multiple times. This kind of huge development is exactly what we've been talking about, though. They couldn't make the finances work on something smaller and more low-income oriented, so only a giant of a project with many high-priced leasing spaces could financially work. You or Arjay would call anything similar in any other part of town 'destructive'.

There is industrial land all over this city which would probably be super easy to turn into high-density residential without much effort at all.

The demand is there, even if you ignore the evidence, so why isn't it being done already?

That sea of parking lots has been in downtown for decades...not sure there's too much restriction there. Its probably not too hard to build profitable, high-density developments...

You mean the ones where tons are being actively acquired or developed right now? Yeah, they're already seeing activity, in part because they're easier to densify.

but what you want is affordable. That's a different story. And I believe that you think way too simplistically on the "if we just build enough, it will finally become affordable".

And you ignore all evidence that that's exactly how this all works. It REALLY is that simple. If there is too much demand and not enough supply, prices go up. If there is enough supply to meet demand, prices stabilize. If there is more supply than a given demand, prices go down.

We KNOW there is high demand. That is a hard fact that the data bares out. The answer, then, is to increase supply to meet it.

Here's about as far as I would go:
All the Rs: let them have an accessory dwelling unit. We all know this would be so few and far between as to not make a lick of difference.
R4, R5 (and all the As and Bs): Duplexes and Triplexes allowed. Multi-Family units on a very limited case-by-case basis.
Simplify MR and RG zoning to allow more floors or units in those areas.
Anything I or C can be rezoned to allow, or just allow pretty much any type of housing.

Fine, those are okay stipulations. We can make them simpler, but sure, it's a start.

No...I simply will not bend on putting apartment buildings in the middle of current R areas by default.

And now we've gone back to not meeting demand.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Sam, you are right on the button.

We are FAR from having a land shortage. I took a few hours yesterday to knock around the city and it's amazing how many opportunities there are out there.

And no, they certainly don't have to go fancy schmanzy with it. However, I have a feeling that is the way most developers prefer to go.

We have a massive, proven housing demand. Why is all that land still open? Why aren't the owners densifying for guaranteed occupancies? If it was profitable, where are the people building to make guarenteed profits.

Sure, we may not have a land shortage (right now), but we're artificially killing the opportunity to develop that land. Of course, we still have 900,000 people to house. We need every scrap of area in the city set up to be able to help with that in some form or fashion. There's no point in further artificially limiting supply for personal perceptions.

Originally Posted by chiatldal

The demand is there developers just rather build for for the middle upper class then for the middle and working class.

As I've already said too many times now, this explanation makes no sense. If it WAS profitable, where are all the people coming in and undercutting the high-priced developers? Where is all the low-priced housing, and where are the lower-quality developers to fill in the supply gap, as there is in every other industry out there?

I have no issues with North American properties, Jacoby Group, OliverMcMillan and etc they are cool for larger mix use projects but they aren't going build for middle and working class. As I mention I'm very pro new urbanism but historically urbanism of northern city weren't just done by large real estate companies. There were smaller developers who built smaller and cheaper developments. And a lot of the new urbanism wave is too dominate by larger companies. So instead of organically getting the smaller cheaper multi units, larger companies are often driving

How does this make any sense? Larger developers are building high-priced units, but there is demand for lower priced units, and you claim that they're profitable to make, so where are all the small-scale developers? Where are all the companies coming in and snatching up those guaranteed profits?

There should be tons of them, but instead they're, what, just sitting back and letting the larger developers be the only game in town out of... what exactly? Respect? Fear? It sure isn't profit motives.

but it's not a zoning issue,

The evidence and analysis says otherwise.

the zoning can't be too strict there too much land and their already multi units in several of them, so the zoning isn't stop anything.

Of course it can be! Most of the multi-family units in old neighborhoods were grand-fathered into them. That, or they're only being put in where the wealthy want to rent them, making the otherwise unprofitable projects work, economically speaking.

The zoning laws all across the city are artificially raising the costs and ability to develop housing. If they weren't we'd see TONS more housing going in all over the place.

in fact if Anything the zoning needs to be stricter Fuqua built a suburban development along the beltline that went against the neighborhoods wishes.

Maybe in certain aspects, but really it's zoning stringency that makes Fuqua-like developments possible in the first place, keeping all opportunities for more dense development off the table.

[brown_dog_us]

There is tons of land to be developed ITP. It's just not in desirable locations.

We won't fix that through zoning. Atlanta needs to focus on better schools and less crime. Fix those two issues and a lot of the undesirable land will become sought after.

[jsvh]

Actually, we will fix that through zoning.

Investment in struggling neighborhoods is a key way to improve crime and schools.

But honestly, it doesn't matter if you believe that will help. We still shouldn't hold back areas just because schools and crime (or roads or transit) isn't perfect.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

There is tons of land to be developed ITP. It's just not in desirable locations.

We won't fix that through zoning. Atlanta needs to focus on better schools and less crime. Fix those two issues and a lot of the undesirable land will become sought after.

I disagree. I think the evidence points to there being plenty of demand for housing, even in less desirable area. The problem is that it's too expensive to develop housing at the price points of that demand. Fix zoning problems, and you help bring down the cost of development, meaning more housing in those areas.

Crime and schools are certainly things to continuously work on, but they're not what's keeping development in general out. Just the expensive development, and if you make development expensive as we have, that's all that can be built.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

As I've already said too many times now, this explanation makes no sense. If it WAS profitable, where are all the people coming in and undercutting the high-priced developers? Where is all the low-priced housing, and where are the lower-quality developers to fill in the supply gap, as there is in every other industry out there?

And gain what doesn't make sense about Jamestown CEO statements?

How does this make any sense? Larger developers are building high-priced units, but there is demand for lower priced units, and you claim that they're profitable to make, so where are all the small-scale developers? Where are all the companies coming in and snatching up those guaranteed profits?

There should be tons of them, but instead they're, what, just sitting back and letting the larger developers be the only game in town out of... what exactly? Respect? Fear? It sure isn't profit motives.

One is more profitable than the others.

It's kinda like how theirs a culture of larger developer building malls, and the mom and pop shops has been disappearing. The mall developers aren't going to build the mom and pop shops. This takes a cultural change.

I think outside of those who trying to escape gentrification to stay in the city, the city still have a bad rep to the working class. The working class is trying to escape the city, while to the upper class the city has become cool and hip. So the popularity with lower class outside the city has catch up. But I believe this perception is going to change. Especially as poverty and etc become more associated with the suburbs, And idea of smaller commutes become more popular.

The evidence and analysis says otherwise.

On the contray it makes my point

there are examples of what I'm saying

If it's the zoning laws and the fault of SFH neighborhood then ST Louis, Cleveland, Minneapolis and etc would never reach their peak population.

Cleveland had 914,808..... in 82.47 sq mi
St. Louis had 821,960...... in 61.9 sq mi
Minneapolis had 521,718........... in 58.4 sq mi
Detroit had 1,849,568............. in 142.87 sq mi in

Minneapolis most of city limit surfaces are cover by SFH.


If SFH neighborhoods drives up land value and it prevents density and afforable housing in Atlanta 472,522 in 124 sq mi. how the heck did Minneapolis reach 521,718 in 58.4 sq mi at one point?

Your suggesting something extreme something that non of the urban cities in the midwest did.

Of course it can be! Most of the multi-family units in old neighborhoods were grand-fathered into them. That, or they're only being put in where the wealthy want to rent them, making the otherwise unprofitable projects work, economically speaking.

The zoning laws all across the city are artificially raising the costs and ability to develop housing. If they weren't we'd see TONS more housing going in all over the place.

Maybe in certain aspects, but really it's zoning stringency that makes Fuqua-like developments possible in the first place, keeping all opportunities for more dense development off the table.

No there already duplexes, multi units and etc in neighborhoods the zoning is not stopping them. Want you want is something extreme. Something that would destroy character of historic neighborhoods and make Atlanta look like parts of Houston.

Again with sctrict zoning laws, There TONS more housing already all over the place in Minneapolis, St Louis, Cleveland, Your asking for Atlanta to sell it's soul something those cities didn't do to archive density and affordable housing.

Fuqua-like developments happen because the zonning laws along the beltline arent strict enough towards the beltline goal. It work both ways zoning can prevent something suburban being belt in urban areas.