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.
What's wrong with simply sticking with the precepts of the City Design Book and protecting our single family neighborhoods? I thought you were a big fan of this.
We can add density and protect the conservation areas. ADUs are a great example. Let homeowners decide if they want to add an ADU and additional income.
1) I never said that we should have no zoning requirements or regulations. I said we should have more open zoning and fewer impedimentary and ultimately harmful regulations. I would take it as a show of arguing in good faith if you'd stop saying that I'm suggesting to remove zoning all together since that's never been my position.
Things like real safety, health, and environmental protection laws should be maintained. It's just that so many things help up in the name of those things really do more harm than good.
2) I'd be surprised if the people who lived there wanted to sell their homes to dense development if it were allowed.
3) Adding density to Sea Island wouldn't be too crazy, considering how common ocean-front towers are on the barriers elsewhere. Again, though, the people who own property on Sea Island are rich enough to not have to do squat with a developer if they don't want to. They would be more than capable of retaining their homes, and, should their personal tastes dictate, choosing not to sell to anyone who wanted to make a tower.
4) I probably shouldn't need to say this, but since you're using Sea Island as an example, Atlanta IS NOT St. Simons. Atlanta is the economic engine of the state, a place of immense opportunity and resources for uplifting people. It is a place that can be used to great effect to improve lives and break generational trends of poverty and lost economic mobility. If St. Simons was anything other than a tourist location with a shrinking population (13,381 in 2000 & 12,743 in 2010) then yeah, we'd be having a different conversation about the need of upzoning the island. For now, though, they can get away with artificially raising prices.
5) That said, funnily enough St. Simmons does allow the some of the middle-density housing you're so adamant on keeping away from huge swaths of Atlanta. Perhaps there's not as much as there could, or should be, but there's quite a bit of medium-level density around with town homes, and condos. There's even a solid, fairly dense, zero-lot-line commercial cluster in the Village that's quite walkable and bikable. I know, because I have stayed there quite a bit myself.
As for 1) & 2) I see high-rise and low-rise multifamily units going up all over in different parts of the city. Which particular areas of the city are you proposing to change the zoning for, and are the property owners in those areas in favor of it? That is the question.
In the 1960s and 1970s Ansley Park and VA Highland, for example, had become more run-down areas, with boarded up houses and many houses that had been converted into multi-unit apartments. I don't know if the zoning changed or whatever, but since there was not a huge demand for those big houses in that area at that time, owners were willing to divide them up for multi-unit living--there was an over supply. I don't see that happening in that area today, but times could and will change over time. For some of the areas where there are large lots/large homes today, the time will come when the market changes and property owners see the need for rezoning to allow them to divide them up . Right now, in a seller's market, I don't think you are going to see them clamoring for it. However, there are other parts of town where multi-family is being built.
4) and 5) actually make my point. Sea Island is the fancy area with big homes and big lots (and I'm sure some kind of zoning to ensure that). St. Simons is built for higher density. Buyers can pick which they prefer and which they can afford. Our city is like that as well.
And as for your statement about Atlanta being a place that can be used to "improve lives and break generational poverty"--I really don't know what you mean by that. I seriously don't. But I tell you what can and does "improve lives and break generational poverty" in a huge way: real estate investment, i.e. home ownership. If you wreck the real estate market by having unstable zoning laws, you will be hurting small and large real estate investors alike. No, actually you will be hurting the small ones much more.
And back to 2). Unfortunately, you cannot always tell what the intent of your buyer is when you are selling, nor can you predict to whom one of your neighbors will sell. Zoning is there in part to protect the investment of property owners in the whole area.
In the 1960s and 1970s Ansley Park and VA Highland, for example, had become more run-down areas, with boarded up houses and many houses that had been converted into multi-unit apartments. I don't know if the zoning changed or whatever, but since there was not a huge demand for those big houses in that area at that time, owners were willing to divide them up for multi-unit living--there was an over supply. I don't see that happening in that area today, but times could and will change over time. For some of the areas where there are large lots/large homes today, the time will come when the market changes and property owners see the need for rezoning to allow them to divide them up . Right now, in a seller's market, I don't think you are going to see them clamoring for it. However, there are other parts of town where multi-family is being built.
We can add density and protect the conservation areas. ADUs are a great example. Let homeowners decide if they want to add an ADU and additional income.
See my previous posts in this thread on ADU's, here and here.
I'm in favor of it, depending on how they are done. I'm not in favor of allowing willy-nilly, unregulated construction all over the place.
I believe it is far, far more than those who want to live a car-free, walk-everywhere, small-apartment, dense lifestyle. Absolutely.
Most people are not urbanist die-hards. They just aren't. If they were, that would be the target market, and that's what things would be built for. Do you really think that the world came to be like it is when it's not what anyone actually wanted?? Few really wanted to own a car, drive anywhere, live in houses, but that's what was built anyway? If so few people actually want to live in houses outside the direct core, why are those houses flying off the market, sometimes within hours, even at inflated prices? Hint: it's what people want!
And again: people drive those cars. What you're actually trying to say is, 99% of American landscape is built for vehicles (with sidewalks frequently attached for pedestrians and extra bike lanes spread around for cyclists), and not specifically for only pedestrians or cyclists.
My response to cq above touches on this. We've built the environment the way it is, because that's what demand was for.
I don't have a personal problem with SFHs existing as long as people really want to buy them, which, as you pointed out, would still be a thing.
The problem I have is when that is the only legal form of housing made availible. Even someone who wants to live in density will snatch up a single family home if that is all that is availible. Remember this study from a while back? The one where it was made clear that we were drastically under performing in our ability to meet housing preferences, and how that's rather directly linked to how we allow development to grow?
Yeah, the point isn't that SFHs shouldn't exist, it's that they shouldn't be the only thing that's legal to build. After all, if they're so in-demand, then, with open zoning laws, they will still get built. If people are actually given a choice, rather than legally mandating one over the other, then people actually have options to choose what they actually want.
Quote:
No, we totally understand that. We just don't agree with it as a default for every area, every neighborhood, every lot. It is you who is not understanding.
I mean, Arjay literally just misrepresented my position, something which you have done many times yourself. Y'all don't really seem to understand, no.
Quote:
Why are we "hyper-prioritizing" cars if that's not what people want? Seems like you think there's some big conspiracy out there to brainwash people against their own desires.
If cars really were what people naturally wanted, why do we need to codify theire prioritization? Why do we need to mandate parking, and subsidize roads so much? Why do we need to make low-density sprawl the legal default for building?
Surely, if people just so naturally wanted those things, then it wouldn't matter if they weren't codified and mandated by law.
Quote:
Oh. My. Dear. Lord. Tell me you didn't type this with a straight face. Are you actually saying I've been tricked into believing that I'd rather drive to vast areas of the city, rather than walk to the short distance around my house to limited amenities (having an entire metro of amenities within walking distance is nearly impossible without ridiculous density) all the time? That I'd actually rather ride transit for 90 minutes over three transfers in the winter cold or summer heat to get to work rather than drive for 20 minutes, but I've been tricked into thinking that the 20 minute drive is not actually better for me? Second class? Seriously?
Government housing assistance, as part of the New Deal, literally red-lined massive (mostly poor and minority) swaths of cities from financing. They literally prioritized single family homes rather than given a full suite of options. They literally removed the entire core of a city from any opportunity at all, red-line or otherwise.
That same housing assistance system literally fueled suburban sprawl as returning veterans from WWI could only really spend their housing assistance away from the cities.
Auto companies literally bought and dismantled streetcar and interurban networks in favor of buses that they could then supply parts for.
Auto companies literally lobied hard for the interstate system, which, rather than stopping at some outter perimeter of major metros like the European systems it was meant to replicate, razed and literally removed (mostly poor and minority) neighborhoods that were otherwise alive and functioning.
'Urban Renual' policies literally tore down otherwise alive and vibrant neighborhoods to make room for auto-storage.
Zoning retroactively codified low-density and seperation of lan-use despite thousands of years of human development that had trended towards fairly dense mixed-use.
We continue to hide the costs of roads behind layers of disassociated taxes and fees, while transit bears its fare for all to see when they step in the door, creating a massive psycological disconnect.
None of these things were natural occurences of people's preferences. None of them were the results of people voting with their wallets and systems organically growing from the collective action of millions of individual choices. No, they were high-level directorates that set policy for decades to come.
I do have to wonder, if we hadn't red-lined out the inner city, if we had let people chose to use government financing to live in the inner city, if we hadn't torn down entire neighborhoods for interstates and parking lots, if we had tolls up front like we do fares for transit...
If we had all that, would you be the same person with the same views you have today? Are you to try and tell me that you would? Perhaps, or perhaps you'd live a truely different perspective of allowing desnity and car-free living to be legal by default.
Quote:
Like I said above, unless there were a truly incredible amount of amenities around me, I would want to drive to most places. But, that amount of amenity is only supportable with very high density, because otherwise there aren't enough people to support all those amenities. But, I don't want to live in high density, in a small multi-level apartment building, at least as a family. And most others probably don't either. The Manhattan style of living is of absolutely zero interest to me, and likely most other people here.
Like I've siad, neither your nor my personal preferences should dictate the policies. Follow the data. Follow the analysis. Open up the laws, and let people actually have a choice.
Quote:
If you did a poll asking how many people want to live near amenities and be able to walk to restaurants and stores, the answer would probably be yes for the vast majority (including myself). So, you might conclude that most people want to live an urban, walkable lifestyle. But, then you have to ask how many of them are willing to live in a cramped apartment building with no yard or car in order to achieve it. I'd bet the numbers drop significantly.
What's wrong with simply sticking with the precepts of the City Design Book and protecting our single family neighborhoods? I thought you were a big fan of this.
I don't know where you've been, but I've been quite critical of the city's plan, considering it locks 75% of the city's land area out of any meaningful growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlJan
As for 1) & 2) I see high-rise and low-rise multifamily units going up all over in different parts of the city. Which particular areas of the city are you proposing to change the zoning for, and are the property owners in those areas in favor of it? That is the question.
The entirety of the city. If property owners don't want to increase their property's density, then so be it, but they shouldn't be able to say that others who do, can't.
Quote:
In the 1960s and 1970s Ansley Park and VA Highland, for example, had become more run-down areas, with boarded up houses and many houses that had been converted into multi-unit apartments. I don't know if the zoning changed or whatever, but since there was not a huge demand for those big houses in that area at that time, owners were willing to divide them up for multi-unit living--there was an over supply. I don't see that happening in that area today, but times could and will change over time. For some of the areas where there are large lots/large homes today, the time will come when the market changes and property owners see the need for rezoning to allow them to divide them up . Right now, in a seller's market, I don't think you are going to see them clamoring for it. However, there are other parts of town where multi-family is being built.
I know, the buildings my father own are direct results of that. Zoning has changed, and all the multi-family stuff was grand-fathered in.
Property owners should be allowed, by defualt, to section up their property into multi-family if they want. If there is demand for it, they will be filled. If not, prices will go down. Both are good.
Quote:
4) and 5) actually make my point. Sea Island is the fancy area with big homes and big lots (and I'm sure some kind of zoning to ensure that). St. Simons is built for higher density. Buyers can pick which they prefer and which they can afford. Our city is like that as well.
But why should it be? Why not just allow it by default, and let the places develop as they will? There will still be rich and poor areas, low and high density, but they will be the results of natural choices, not forced mandates on lifestyles.
Quote:
And as for your statement about Atlanta being a place that can be used to "improve lives and break generational poverty"--I really don't know what you mean by that. I seriously don't. But I tell you what can and does "improve lives and break generational poverty" in a huge way: real estate investment, i.e. home ownership. If you wreck the real estate market by having unstable zoning laws, you will be hurting small and large real estate investors alike. No, actually you will be hurting the small ones much more.
Density means you don't spend as much money on transportation. It means you have more job opportunities within walking, biking, and transit distance. It means you have access to more education within walking, biking, and transit distance. It means you have access to more government resources within walking, biking, and transit distance.
Honestly, though, passive investment in homes should not be the key to breaking cycles and building generational wealth. Certainly not when allowing people to do things like open a shop in their ground floor, or section up their home for rental use by default is a much better way of actively generating revenue.
Having open zoning laws allows that, without even really destabalizing a market in the long term. Yeah there will be a bit of growing pains at first, but in the long-run we'll be better off.
Besides, it's not like our stringent zoning laws prevented toxic speculation from creating a horribly unstable market.
Quote:
And back to 2). Unfortunately, you cannot always tell what the intent of your buyer is when you are selling, nor can you predict to whom one of your neighbors will sell. Zoning is there in part to protect the investment of property owners in the whole area.
But, if there is enough demand to upzone an area, then there is likely enough demand to justify selling at a similar price anyway. Your property values won't go down because you're living in an area that's so in demand that someone is building an apartment building, or new store next to you.
I don't think Ansley or Virginia Highland experienced that much white flight.
I do not know first hand about Virginia Highland, but as for Ansley, I do. Many people (now in their 80s) who grew up in the large homes there, could not afford to buy them or maintain them when they were starting their families in the 1960s, and so moved to areas with new ranch-style homes that they could afford to buy and heat/cool and maintain without relying on servants, because that way of life had changed and the whole economy was changing. I do believe that race and desegregation had something to do with it, but it was more complex than simply white flight. These were families who had already made the move to Buckhead, Sandy Springs etc. before the desegregation of the schools, which did not happen until 1972. Their aging parents were left in the big houses for some years after they were gone. That was the shift--one by one "the old ladies moved out and the hippies moved in".
The problem I have is when that is the only legal form of housing made availible. Even someone who wants to live in density will snatch up a single family home if that is all that is availible.
You need to stop using complete and utter exaggeration and falsehoods. Since when is SFH "the only legal form of housing"? Since when is that all that is available? I get daily listings of homes in my email. Every single day, there are multiple condos and townhomes available at fairly low cost, in central areas of the city. There are apartment and condo buildings being built all over the place. How can you sit there and say that SFH is all that is legal and available? It's not even remotely true.
Quote:
Remember this study from a while back? The one where it was made clear that we were drastically under performing in our ability to meet housing preferences, and how that's rather directly linked to how we allow development to grow?
I remember an article by one uber-urbanist blogger talking about the study. And checking out his Facebook page, he's pretty off the rails into hardcore urbanism...not sure I trust everything he says in his blog article. I would like to read the study itself, but not enough to buy a $30 book. See how the questions were presented and how the data was interpreted. Because, like I said, if you asked me if I wanted to live in an urban, walkable environment, I would say yes. But if you then asked me if I was willing to give up everything that was required in order to live in that environment, I would say no. Because while I would love to be able to walk to restaurants, stores, and entertainment, I would not want to live in a small mid-rise condo or apartment as a family. So, in the end, my answer would be no, but it could quite likely be recorded as yes, depending on the questioning methodology.
Quote:
I mean, Arjay literally just misrepresented my position, something which you have done many times yourself. Y'all don't really seem to understand, no.
I'm not misrepresenting at all. Your position is that every lot in the metro should be zoned to build absolutely any type of residential structure desired by whoever happens to purchase that property, with only health, safety, and environmental regulations standing in the way, no matter what anyone else in the neighborhood has to say about it. I have maintained that as your position since day one. Is that not your position, verbatim?
And, if so, do you have any right to rail against Fuqua's projects, specifically the Piedmont Park one?
Quote:
If cars really were what people naturally wanted, why do we need to codify theire prioritization? Why do we need to mandate parking, and subsidize roads so much? Why do we need to make low-density sprawl the legal default for building?
Surely, if people just so naturally wanted those things, then it wouldn't matter if they weren't codified and mandated by law.
Well, if people don't like murder, why do we need to have laws against it? If most people are against drunk driving, why do we have laws making it illegal? I mean, since people don't like those things, they just won't happen, right? Yeah, big stretch, but the end result is the same. Just because most people do or don't like something, or do or don't want something, doesn't mean that it will happen that way. If 409 of the 410 homes in my neighborhood were against something, that doesn't mean that the 410th home won't do it. That's the way the world works...I assume you are old enough to understand human emotion.
Quote:
Lots of conspiracy...
Quote:
We continue to hide the costs of roads behind layers of disassociated taxes and fees, while transit bears its fare for all to see when they step in the door, creating a massive psycological disconnect.
On a per-user basis, transit is far and away more subsidized. The fare you pay for transit is a tiny portion of the actual cost. In fact, fare revenues for MARTA are only about 30% of operating costs, much less if you add capital costs. By contrast, fuel taxes (paid by users) fund at least 44% of GDOT funding, which also pays towards capital expenses. I haven't been able to determine if that's just Georgia fuel taxes, or federal fuel taxes as well. But Federal funds pay for an even larger share. I assume that the federal portion also includes motor fuel taxes, bringing the total percentage covered by user taxes even more. Every time I fill my tank, I pay about $7 (currently about 18%) in fuel taxes.
Quote:
If we had all that, would you be the same person with the same views you have today? Are you to try and tell me that you would? Perhaps, or perhaps you'd live a truely different perspective of allowing desnity and car-free living to be legal by default.
If you had somehow been able to keep the automobile mostly hidden from people, and not let them know that they could freely drive themselves anywhere and everywhere they want, then maybe it's possible that people wouldn't want them. I mean, you'd have to create a town like The Village, but...
Quote:
Like I've siad, neither your nor my personal preferences should dictate the policies. Follow the data. Follow the analysis. Open up the laws, and let people actually have a choice.
And the only way to do that, in your mind, is to make it absolutely everywhere?
The second time you linked the same article in one post. Bravo! So, according to Levine, Atlanta has 10% of its housing in urban zones, and is meeting nearly half the demand. Most of those urban zones are only partially built up, and surely zoned for higher-density residential. It seems to me that we could absolutely fix this "amber-encased crisis" quickly by filling in our urban zones with residential buildings.
Quote:
The entirety of the city. If property owners don't want to increase their property's density, then so be it, but they shouldn't be able to say that others who do, can't.
I think you'll find that the vast, vast majority of property owners simply do not agree with you. And that is the reality of the human condition, something you seemingly refuse to accept.
Quote:
Property owners should be allowed, by defualt, to section up their property into multi-family if they want. If there is demand for it, they will be filled. If not, prices will go down. Both are good.
Prices going down is not good for property owners.
Quote:
But why should it be? Why not just allow it by default, and let the places develop as they will? There will still be rich and poor areas, low and high density, but they will be the results of natural choices, not forced mandates on lifestyles.
Because that's not how the world works. That's not how human beings think. It's just not. People who buy a property in certain areas far and away expect that property to retain its value through the general character of the surrounding neighborhood. That is how people think. That is what people want. That is reality. you don't have to like it. You can point to data to say that slapping up a micro-apartment building in the middle of Paces is better for overall housing costs, but the residents of that area would never have any of it. Because, that's reality. Can you honestly tell me that outside of health and safety reasons, you have absolutely no care in the world what gets built next to you?
Quote:
Density means you don't spend as much money on transportation. It means you have more job opportunities within walking, biking, and transit distance. It means you have access to more education within walking, biking, and transit distance. It means you have access to more government resources within walking, biking, and transit distance.
And short of very, very few examples, this almost never plays out the way it does on paper. There are almost no affordable, transit-laden, highly-dense areas. But, yeah, we know...they are all just doing it wrong.
Originally Posted by arjay57
What's wrong with simply sticking with the precepts of the City Design Book and protecting our single family neighborhoods? I thought you were a big fan of this.
I don't know where you've been, but I've been quite critical of the city's plan, considering it locks 75% of the city's land area out of any meaningful growth.
Okay, maybe I misunderstood you.
It seemed like you were going to considerable lengths do defend the City Design Book in this post:
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.
.
