High-Rise Apartment Rents Falter While Older Properties Flourish (Atlanta: daycare, house)

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Atlanta core historic neighborhoods do not need to turn into this

Houston is not something that should be emulated here, in hardly any possible way.



This is exactly what is being advocated here, ad nauseam.

[jhtrico1850]

Originally Posted by ATL Golfer

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.

I read something like that recently. It's weird how more stores are closing than ever, but the stats say the economy is humming. I'm nervous and don't have much invested in the markets.



Credit Suisse Expects Up to 25% of U.S. Malls to Close by 2022 | Fortune
CRE Valuations Are Trending Down, Green Street Researchers Warn | National Real Estate Investor

Apr 06, 2018

Value appreciation has practically stopped in aggregate

Commercial real estate investors can expect that property prices will trend downward in the near future

Green Street's Commercial Property Price Index dipped 1 percent in March and has seen little change over the past two years.

Prices on industrial assets recorded an 11 percent gain year-over-year, but mall valuations have dropped by 15 percent during the same period

Mar said. While the Westfield deal suggested that mall cap rates were in the right ball park, the more recent GGP deal suggests that cap rates are 10 percent lower than thought, Mar noted. This caused Green Street to mark down its mall asset values by 5 percent on average.

[demonta4]

I think we could have a mix of dense developments and SFH. Roads like Ponce, Moreland, Howell Mill and Northside should foster higher density development while the neighborhoods around them on the side streets have SFH. Basically like how our early Inman Park like suburbs were developed.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by JMatl

Houston is not something that should be emulated here, in hardly any possible way.



This is exactly what is being advocated here, ad nauseam.

What exactly are you trying to prevent that you see in this photo that so offends you that you feel obligated to deny people their prefered way of living and raise housing prices?

The drastically different sized homes? The poor streetscaping / lacking sidewalk? Our restrictive SFH dominate zoning laws would not have changed that.

[chiatldal]

Boy I can't wait to reply after work, thanks for proving my point y'all give 0 crap or value about the history and character of Atlanta neighborhoods.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

What exactly are you trying to prevent that you see in this photo that so offends you that you feel obligated to deny people their prefered way of living and raise housing prices?

No one is seeking to deny people their preferred way of living. They're just saying that you can't have it anywhere and everywhere you want, just because you want it. Stop playing the victim.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Boy I can't wait to reply after work, thanks for proving my point y'all give 0 crap or value about the history and character of Atlanta neighborhoods.

Ah, you mean those historic neighborhoods that were built when zoning laws were minimal resulting in housing mixed with "missing-middle housing" and commercial storefronts that zoning laws then banned and required things like SFH only, deeper setbacks, and higher parking minimums than the existing neighborhoods have?

No, this is not about protecting history & character for you. This is about forcing your preferences on how you think neighborhoods should look onto others.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

No one is seeking to deny people their preferred way of living. They're just saying that you can't have it anywhere and everywhere you want, just because you want it. Stop playing the victim.

I am not forcing anyone to do anything. It is their home and their land. I only think they should have the right to build in a more urban format (or suburban format) if they choose to. Regardless of if that land is in the center of downtown or 10 miles out from the core. You are the one playing the victim that if we don't have restrictive zoning laws forcing suburban style living on people your fragile sensibilities for how a neighborhood should look are somehow violated. Get over it. Stop worrying about what your neighbors do with their property.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Ah, you mean those historic neighborhoods that were built when zoning laws were minimal resulting in housing mixed with "missing-middle housing" and commercial storefronts that zoning laws then banned and required things like SFH only, deeper setbacks, and higher parking minimums than the existing neighborhoods have?

No, this is not about protecting history & character for you. This is about forcing your preferences on how you think neighborhoods should look onto others.

Again there a difference between making zoning codes stricter to what you want vs making them looser.

If zoning code are strict to something bad them make strict to something good not get rid of them all together. Otherwise redirect the strictness zoning codes to something better not just open them up to allow anything.

And that issue with yall argument, instead of yall saying the zoning codes should be against suburban and Should allow for more traditional urbanism in these neighborhoods that they were founded on, Yall are asking for the opposite yall asking for them to be loose to include anything.

Just the fact you look at Houston pic..... and thought nothing is wrong as if Sweet Aurburn, Virginia-Highland, Grant Park, Ansley park and etc should to loose them charm and Character to turn.

And please stop it, yall are the ones that are literally at odds with neighborhoods groups. It's like you just tried to make a comeback regardless of contradictory it is.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

No one is seeking to deny people their preferred way of living. They're just saying that you can't have it anywhere and everywhere you want, just because you want it. Stop playing the victim.

The irony is he trying tell the neighborhoods what they should allow

They are the ones who are trying argue against the zoning codes which the neighborhoods want. The hold angle he's trying paradoxical.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

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.

Atlanta Historic neighborhoods are nothing like Tokyo.

Atlanta historic neighborhoods have more in common with parts of New Orleans and Midwestern cities.

Also no......Houston has the most relax zoning in the country,

How a lack of zoning messed up Houston in more ways than one

The weirdest images to come from Houston's lack of zoning laws


https://s.hdnux.com/photos/51/13/40/.../1024x1024.jpg


https://s.hdnux.com/photos/51/13/40/.../1024x1024.jpg

The openness allow randomness. That you could see a Historic crafteman, a generic McMasion and Multi unit all neighborhood each other.

https://i.imgur.com/QZv7MtJ.png

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.

There is a difference between redirecting the zoning codes, which is changing the strictness to aim at a different direction.... which is not the same thing as opening up zoning which allows the Houston situation.

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.

Not in decades it won't.

Atlanta basically have a dream scenario of undeveloped land, The fact that Atlanta could add a third heavy urbanize area at the center of the city addition to midtown and Downtown is crazy. SFH neighborhoods shouldn't be the priority.

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.

First off SF is the second most dense city in the country, they actually have a real lack of land issue.


And Yeah your not getting what I'm saying all cities have something to them that makes them...... them. New Orleans neighborhoods look like New Orleans neighborhoods, Chicago neighborhoods look like Chicago neighborhoods, Boston looks like Boston neighborhoods, Seattle neighborhoods looks like Seattle neighborhoods.


People need to come to Atlanta and feel like they are in Atlanta, not just a city that looks like every other city.

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.

1. Actually does allow that someone can buy up Historic homes and put something tacky in place.

This right near Houston Downtown..... Someone bought up land and because Houston is so "Open" the Historic neighborhood can't protect themselves.

https://i.imgur.com/uAS0NyZ.jpg

But again yall mind set is that the only way Multi units came be in SFH neighborhoods is for them be more "open" when it's not, Your argument should be about changing what the zoning codes are strict towards. Not changing the fact they are strict.