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.
If you throw single family zoning out the window you are making new markets, not simply responding to existing demand.
You're not 'throwing out' single family zoning, you're throwing out *exclusive* zoning. SFHs can still be built without a problem.
Sure, you're 'making' a new local market by virtue of allowing things to be built where they once weren't, but that in and of itself is allowing existing, and future, demand to be met from the existing aggregate, metro-wide housing market.
Quote:
And I don't believe the review process is all that burdensome. I have seen scores of them and been involved in several of them myself.
The city itself has said its zoning approval process is cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated. Just because you don't think the process is that bad, doesn't mean it isn't.
I'll circle back to my original point because it needs to keep being said: INCREASING SUPPLY LOWERS PRICES. We have multiple reports now that show how certain sub-markets have done this within our city & metro. This is real-world, actual in-context data that shows that the Atlanta Metro is not such a unique place that the basic laws of economics cease to operate here as they do elsewhere.
We can fight off growing affordability issues on the larger-scale (which is still a problem, mind you) by applying these lessons to much wider areas, and expanding on those lessons themselves with other known and proven policies.
The city itself has said its zoning approval process is cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated. Just because you don't think the process is that bad, doesn't mean it isn't.
The rezoning process can be improved but there's nothing wrong with having a review process that includes the affected community, tree cover, watershed, traffic and a host of other issues. Folks who have heavily invested a large part of their lives in a community ought to have a voice. And it should be up to the person or entity who wants to throw the existing situation out the window to come forward with a rational basis for doing so.
Smart developers simply take that in stride and include these considerations in their proposal from the outset. They are approved by the dozen and I've listed many specific examples of greatly increased density in single family areas.
The nice thing about opening up zoning is that you provide the market the flexibility to be able to meet a wide variety of wants and abilities to pay at a wide variety of price points.
By opening up zoning you provide more options for more people so you can satisfy more individual cases of where want and willingness meet.
Open zoning also provides the market the ability to react to changing market conditions. A multi-family area could step down to SFH without a drawn out review process, just as a SFH could be up stepped up into mult-family area as the market dictates. It actually provides more tools to fight blight by not locking an area into a role that may or may not be in demand in the future.
Atlanta core historic neighborhoods do not need to turn into this
Houston loose zonning codes
I keep repeating this most American urban core are tight SFH..... It's creates not only density but a sense of character. This neighborhoods were largely built between the 1850 to 1940's.
New Orleans ............. this is urban
Cleveland ............. this is urban
St Louis............. this is urban
Because Atlanta is an older sunbelt city there are parts of Atlanta neighborhoods that original develop between 1870-1940's.
The issue is it's not continuous, especially in more blighted neighborhoods, To keep character. infilling with traditional urbanity that fits with the neighnorhood, not loosen the zoning to turn it into Houston.
In West side thread a poster said something interesting
I was on W Marietta St/Perry Blvd on yesterday. It seemed like I was 30 miles OTP when I was really just 10 miles from downtown
So instead infilling West Midtown an area that make sense for very high density, an area that has so much land for it................... instead your focus is to loosen Atlanta Historic SFH neighborhood zoning codes. Which would hurt their charcter why?
The rezoning process can be improved but there's nothing wrong with having a review process that includes the affected community, tree cover, watershed, traffic and a host of other issues.
This comes from a position that assumes that upzoning is automatically bringing problems, which is not the case. Certainly not to the point where a city stops functioning. We know that cities can easily support far more density than what modest amounts I've advocated for allowing, all while remaining highly attractive places.
Tree cover, watershed protection, and mobility can all be managed without a public review process for every single project.
Quote:
Folks who have heavily invested a large part of their lives in a community ought to have a voice.
And then it's okay if they use that voice to artificially suppress supply so much that prices rise and both kicks out other long-term residents, and keeps out many potential long-term residents?
Yeah, no thanks. ALL residents get their voice via elected city officials. They don't need to have authority in every new development that comes along too.
Quote:
And it should be up to the person or entity who wants to throw the existing situation out the window to come forward with a rational basis for doing so.
Ironically, by micro managing the situation so much, you're also throwing the existing situation out the window by driving up prices. Change is inevitable. One way just so happens to allow the most people to see the most benefit out of that change, while the other leads to exclusively expensive housing on the large scale.
Quote:
Smart developers simply take that in stride and include these considerations in their proposal from the outset. They are approved by the dozen and I've listed many specific examples of greatly increased density in single family areas.
I'm not saying the process doesn't allow any projects through, I'm saying that trying to tailor to it and pushing through it drives up their development costs while slowing approvals down.
Then that drives up prices, and then that drives out some more low income people who most need access to the amenities, opportunities, and support that the city offers.
This comes from a position that assumes that upzoning is automatically bringing problems, which is not the case. Certainly not to the point where a city stops functioning. We know that cities can easily support far more density than what modest amounts I've advocated for allowing, all while remaining highly attractive places.
Tree cover, watershed protection, and mobility can all be managed without a public review process for every single project.
Managed by who? The developers and property owners?
Quote:
And then it's okay if they use that voice to artificially suppress supply so much that prices rise and both kicks out other long-term residents, and keeps out many potential long-term residents?
Yeah, no thanks. ALL residents get their voice via elected city officials. They don't need to have authority in every new development that comes along too.
This is a fight that you will never win. If you think residents are going to give up the ability to have a voice in their own neighborhoods, and instead leave it up to elected officials (who really only answer to corporations and connected businessmen), you are dreaming.
Quote:
Ironically, by micro managing the situation so much, you're also throwing the existing situation out the window by driving up prices. Change is inevitable. One way just so happens to allow the most people to see the most benefit out of that change, while the other leads to exclusively expensive housing on the large scale.
That statement is as broad-brush as "opening up zoning means that every area will become split up by heavy density".
Quote:
I'm not saying the process doesn't allow any projects through, I'm saying that trying to tailor to it and pushing through it drives up their development costs while slowing approvals down.
Then that drives up prices, and then that drives out some more low income people who most need access to the amenities, opportunities, and support that the city offers.
Sounds like you want to process to be solely up to developers. No.
This comes from a position that assumes that upzoning is automatically bringing problems, which is not the case. Certainly not to the point where a city stops functioning. We know that cities can easily support far more density than what modest amounts I've advocated for allowing, all while remaining highly attractive places.
Tree cover, watershed protection, and mobility can all be managed without a public review process for every single project.
And then it's okay if they use that voice to artificially suppress supply so much that prices rise and both kicks out other long-term residents, and keeps out many potential long-term residents?
Yeah, no thanks. ALL residents get their voice via elected city officials. They don't need to have authority in every new development that comes along too.
Ironically, by micro managing the situation so much, you're also throwing the existing situation out the window by driving up prices. Change is inevitable. One way just so happens to allow the most people to see the most benefit out of that change, while the other leads to exclusively expensive housing on the large scale.
I'm not saying the process doesn't allow any projects through, I'm saying that trying to tailor to it and pushing through it drives up their development costs while slowing approvals down.
Then that drives up prices, and then that drives out some more low income people who most need access to the amenities, opportunities, and support that the city offers.
I don't see a problem with letting the taxpayers have a voice in how their community is developed.
If you strip that away you are putting the city at great risk. Who wants to invest half a million dollars and years of maintenance and improvement if a developer can come in next door and slap up an affordable apartment complex and/or a bunch of inexpensive zero lot line duplexes and triplexes with no provision whatsoever for parking their vehicles?
Again I don't understand the obsession of wanting to destroy the character of Atlanta historic neighborhoods. Than turning in Houston style lose zoning, The zoing codes are there because neighborhoods group don't want their neighborhoods to turn into Houston.
1. Again continuous SFH's creates urbanity, The suburban feel comes from the gaps in development not SFHs. Infill them with something that fits with in the neighborhoods, the neighborhood will become more urban.
2. There are large sections of the city that is open for redevelopment, areas that makes more sense for redevelopment you probably could build 20 Gleenwood Park and Atlantic states on the westside areas.
Again I don't understand the obsession of wanting to destroy the character of Atlanta historic neighborhoods. Than turning in Houston style lose zoning, The zoing codes are there because neighborhoods group don't want their neighborhoods to turn into Houston.
1. Again continuous SFH's creates urbanity, The suburban feel comes from the gaps in development not SFHs. Infill them with something that fits with in the neighborhoods, the neighborhood will become more urban.
2. There are large sections of the city that is open for redevelopment, areas that makes more sense for redevelopment you probably could build 20 Gleenwood Park and Atlantic states on the westside areas.
Amen.
Let's build out the many empty and underdeveloped sections fo the city before we start dismantling the single family neighborhoods that are our pride and joy. Not to mention that they are a tremendous source of revenue, philanthropy and talent.
This is when groups like Pollack Shores who developed at and sold at the peak cash in again. They sell at such ridiculous cap rates. Then the buyers will look to unload when the asset doesn't perform. Pollack Shores buys back for a steep discount, rinse, repeat. Hopefully banks have turned off the faucet for new starts. More news like this will help.
Time to start raising a fund to pick off distressed assets.
Atlanta core historic neighborhoods do not need to turn into this
Houston loose zonning codes
Oh no... houses?
I do agree, though, we shouldn't be like Houston, with their defacto zoning restrictions via heavy-handed neighborhood policies and deed-restrictions. Again, Tokyo should be our guide more in how to do this well.
Quote:
I keep repeating this most American urban core are tight SFH..... It's creates not only density but a sense of character. This neighborhoods were largely built between the 1850 to 1940's.
Because Atlanta is an older sunbelt city there are parts of Atlanta neighborhoods that original develop between 1870-1940's.
The issue is it's not continuous, especially in more blighted neighborhoods, To keep character. infilling with traditional urbanity that fits with the neighnorhood, not loosen the zoning to turn it into Houston.
Ironically to your point, opening up zoning codes would actually better allow development like you're saying, by widening the profit points to (at least hopefully) include new housing that looks like that.
Quote:
So instead infilling West Midtown an area that make sense for very high density, an area that has so much land for it................... instead your focus is to loosen Atlanta Historic SFH neighborhood zoning codes. Which would hurt their charcter why?
Because West Midtown would still fill up, as well as other places, the high-priced SFH neighborhoods would still look mostly the same, and character is a subjective thing that's too often used to suppress non-harmful things in ways that actually have harsh consequences when done all across the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Managed by who? The developers and property owners?
How about the city's departments who are set up to manage these very things? How about just leaving it to code-enforcement? Why do we need entire public circuses for things that are already, or should be, standard law?
Quote:
This is a fight that you will never win. If you think residents are going to give up the ability to have a voice in their own neighborhoods, and instead leave it up to elected officials (who really only answer to corporations and connected businessmen), you are dreaming.
That doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. NIMBYism is building pressure within our city and metro, and leading us to some very real, very tangible problems. I know people don't like to give up power, nor do they like change, but both are needed to avoid the coming issues.
Quote:
That statement is as broad-brush as "opening up zoning means that every area will become split up by heavy density".
While technically correct, there's been more than enough... discussion on the topic to provide context as to specifics of my statement.
Quote:
Sounds like you want to process to be solely up to developers. No.
Not at all. Let's have city laws and ordinances dictating what is acceptable and not to maintain public health, public safety, and environmental integrity. Things like tree re-planting ordinances, water shed buffers, fire codes, etc. etc.. I just don't think we should have those reach beyond actually measurable benefit, and I certainly don't think that deviations to those codes should be up to long, drawn out public review. Leave it to the city and its code enforcement. Leave it to the departments and inspectors.
After all, if the public is the group deciding, and not any fact-based regulation to maintain tangible benefit greater than its cost, then the regulations are, almost by definition, unnecessary.
If protecting streams are so important (and I think it is), then we don't need an NPU public zoning meeting
to say so. Have drainage requirements and stream-shed buffers established, and just stick to them. Do we want to maintain our city-in a forest feel, as well as reap the benefits of trees' shade in handling heat-islands and making walking more realistic? No problem, let's have some protections for existing lot-trees, allow new plantings to replace lost canopy, and even open up a arbor-exchange, where developers can buy and sell tree credits to other developers to comply even if their project isn't going to. Again, no need for an NPU public arboration meeting to say so.
See, it's that uniformity and regularity is the key to improving the process here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
I don't see a problem with letting the taxpayers have a voice in how their community is developed.
What about all the tax payers who would have come in if there was more housing? Do they not get any say simply because of a quirk in timing?
Quote:
If you strip that away you are putting the city at great risk. Who wants to invest half a million dollars and years of maintenance and improvement if a developer can come in next door and slap up an affordable apartment complex and/or a bunch of inexpensive zero lot line duplexes and triplexes with no provision whatsoever for parking their vehicles?
A lot of people, actually. I mean, if a developer can justify the costs to actually do what you're saying, then there's more than enough demand in the area for SFHs to still be a highly-valued item. Those projects are not cheap, even if the unit costs are less than it would be to buy directly in the neighborhood.
It produced some of the most adored and prized parts of our city. Why should we keep it from being able to happen again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
Again I don't understand the obsession of wanting to destroy the character of Atlanta historic neighborhoods. Than turning in Houston style lose zoning, The zoing codes are there because neighborhoods group don't want their neighborhoods to turn into Houston.
And there are significant, negative consequences to that path. San Francisco is the most obvious culprit, where 'character' trumped meeting the needs of a growing city for decades on end until now they're in the midst of an affordability crisis so bad that the sprawl even costs too much for people to reasonably function, and the state is having to step in and fix things.
Quote:
1. Again continuous SFH's creates urbanity, The suburban feel comes from the gaps in development not SFHs. Infill them with something that fits with in the neighborhoods, the neighborhood will become more urban.
Opening zoning doesn't just remove existing SFHs, nor does it mean new SFHs won't be built. It just means that more than SFH can be built at an easier to reach price point.
Quote:
2. There are large sections of the city that is open for redevelopment, areas that makes more sense for redevelopment you probably could build 20 Gleenwood Park and Atlantic states on the westside areas.
Yeah, and those areas would probably be the ones to benefit most from a more open zoning system, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have open zoning elsewhere. Not when we know from experience here in the metro, and in other metros, that you need large swaths of land able to be built up for a percentage of the demand for such to be met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Amen.
Let's build out the many empty and underdeveloped sections fo the city before we start dismantling the single family neighborhoods that are our pride and joy. Not to mention that they are a tremendous source of revenue, philanthropy and talent.
Nothing would be dismantled. It would be added on to, which is literally the opposite.
Also, SFH neighborhoods may be your, and other individuals' pride and joy, but that doesn't mean they should be frozen in time. Things change, and trying to stop that just produces change of a different type. Over the course of generations those neighborhoods were built, added to, degraded, rebuilt, and added to again. There is zero reason to keep that from continuing by forcing your tastes across massive swaths of the city.
Also, also density would bring in more revenue, since there would be more people paying property or rent taxes, sales taxes, and many other taxes for the given area.
Also, also, also SFH is not some uniquity when it comes to generating philanthropy and talent. There's tons of both to be found in the towers of New York, and Chicago's Loop, and on Seattle's Capitol Hill.
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.
