High-Rise Apartment Rents Falter While Older Properties Flourish (Atlanta: houses, subdivision)

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Keep in mind that, just because more people approve of something, doesn't mean it's a good policy to have.

After all, back in October, 2016, only 48% of Americans believed in man-made climate change. Does that mean the science, evidence, and professional consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change is wrong, or that we shouldn't act on that data because we don't have a majority vote of the people?

Just because many people don't like the idea of (simply allowing) densification on a wide scale, does not mean it's a bad policy, nor does it mean it's unsupported by the data and analysis.

Kind of a straw man...in your example, there are actual physical issues affecting people and the planet. In this discussion, it's "I wanna live near the coolest bars, but for what I can afford". Slightly different.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I love that you are showing Inman Park, a beautiful neighborhood built when there were no setback requirements, parking minimums, or bans on missing middle housing and you fear if we reverse those rules now it will turn into some ugly street in Houston which does have parking minimums, and setback requirements.

You do realize that when Inman Park was built there were no cars?

You are not helping your argument at all.

Neither are you. I would say you are very much in the minority here with what you are advocating for.

If you are supportive of legalizing missing middle housing, getting rid of parking minimums, and setbacks then we are on the same page. That is not the same thing as supporting Fuqua-style massive mid-rise wrapped parking decks or Houston's car-dependant sprawl.

This is rich! You were frothing at the mouth a couple of posts prior in defense of that ugly Houston street. Which is it?

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

You know...have we ever done a poll here to see how the people of this forum think? I'm not sure we have. Stand by...

What, and destroy the "narrative"?

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

What, and destroy the "narrative"?

Which one? I feel like we have 3 to 4 going on right now. But, the poll is now active if you want to chime in!

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Which one? I feel like we have 3 to 4 going on right now. But, the poll is now active if you want to chime in!

I do. Thank you, sami.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Kind of a straw man...in your example, there are actual physical issues affecting people and the planet. In this discussion, it's "I wanna live near the coolest bars, but for what I can afford". Slightly different.

Not really. There are absolutely physical issues here affecting people and the planet. Housing affordability, transportation costs, proximity to every day necessities like government services and grocers, and proximity to job opportunities all very much play into economic mobility. Increasing density improves all of them.

Density further reduces energy consumed per person in measurable and tangible ways from shorter transportation distances, more efficient methods of moving large numbers of people, energy savings from shared buildings' heating and cooling systems, and a reduction in transmission-loss since people are closer to one another. That plays directly into doing things like reducing CO2 equivalent emmissions per persona and meeting environmental goals.

Finally, density has very noticeable, positive effects on municipal, state, and federal finances. Governments can serve more people with fewer per-person costs when those people are closer together. Everything from firefighters and police response abilities, to library access, to taxes collected per mile of physical infrastructure all add up to produce more financially efficient and sustainable places.

That's not even getting into things like physical health benefits from more walkable and bikable areas, safety benefits from improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as well as reduction in car use per resident, or any number of other, very real, very measurable benefits.

Here's a paper I've not yet had time to read through from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, but it looks like a good culmination of a lot of my points:

Smart Growth involves various policies that result in more compact, multi-modal development. Credible research indicates that Smart Growth community residents consume less land, own fewer vehicles, drive less, rely more on alternative modes, spend less on transport, have lower traffic crash casualty rates, consume less energy and produce less pollution than they would in more sprawled, automobile-dependent areas. These savings filter through the economy, increasing economic productivity and development. Smart Growth can also increase some costs, including land unit costs (dollars per acre) and local traffic and parking congestion.

All of these impacts should be considered when evaluating development policies. Smart Growth often provides substantial benefits, including net economic savings that total thousands of dollars annually per households, plus significant health benefits, improved mobility options for non-drivers, and external benefits including reduced traffic congestion, accident risk and pollution imposed on others. Since physically, economically and socially disadvantaged people tend to rely on affordable housing and transport options, Smart Growth tends to provide social equity benefits.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by JMatl

Neither are you. I would say you are very much in the minority here with what you are advocating for.

According the other thread I seem to be in agreement with you, most people on this forum, and the CoA's design plan. I don't think you know what I am advocating for.

Originally Posted by JMatl

This is rich! You were frothing at the mouth a couple of posts prior in defense of that ugly Houston street. Which is it?

You don't get it. I am trying to get you to get into detail and get you clarify exactly what policies you are advocating for and what you are not. Do you really think I want streets like that in Houston? No. I am trying to get you to link that anti-urban zoning practices are the contributor to those sort of streets and not a reason to stand in the way of things like the City Design Plan.

Seriously, describe what you think is the real problem and cause with that street in Houston over streets like this that are all over metro Atlanta:

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Here's a paper I've not yet had time to read through from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, but it looks like a good culmination of a lot of my points:

And that does bring up some points that I try to bring up. If you spread your medium density all over the place, you don't create the concentration of jobs and business that leads to reduction in transportation needs. The only way you're going to accomplish a true reduction in the need for driving is to either vastly expand the transportation network that gets people places quickly, or to concentrate people into high-density nodes so that the need to travel IS less, or that a quick transit ride gets them somewhere.

Simply doubling or tripling the density of the city proper as it is now would just create a massive traffic nightmare, as those people would be all over the place, and most jobs and businesses would not be walkable to enough people.

End result: concentrate density into high-density nodes where jobs and businesses can be walkable to enough people to make them viable.

Originally Posted by jsvh

According the other thread I seem to be in agreement with you, most people on this forum, and the CoA's design plan. I don't think you know what I am advocating for.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. I worded #2 specifically to my stance. And I disagree with you frequently. You come across as far closer to one, with maybe a hint of 2.

Seriously, describe what you think is the real problem and cause with that street in Houston over streets like this that are all over metro Atlanta:

Curious what it is about that specific road/intersection that lead you to choose it? FWIW, Log Cabin actually has a lot of walkers. But no one is walking to any of the stuff on the south end of it.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

I'm not sure that's exactly true. I worded #2 specifically to my stance. And I disagree with you frequently. You come across as far closer to one, with maybe a hint of 2.

That is why I sometimes just don't respond to things you post. You are fighting with a straw man.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

And that does bring up some points that I try to bring up. If you spread your medium density all over the place, you don't create the concentration of jobs and business that leads to reduction in transportation needs. The only way you're going to accomplish a true reduction in the need for driving is to either vastly expand the transportation network that gets people places quickly, or to concentrate people into high-density nodes so that the need to travel IS less, or that a quick transit ride gets them somewhere.

Simply doubling or tripling the density of the city proper as it is now would just create a massive traffic nightmare, as those people would be all over the place, and most jobs and businesses would not be walkable to enough people.

End result: concentrate density into high-density nodes where jobs and businesses can be walkable to enough people to make them viable.

See, and now we're back to how Seattle is showing us that that approach isn't working. Heck, our own metro shows us that this doesn't work in practice, since that's functionally what we've been doing for the past how many decades?

We've already talked extensively on this topic, and I'll refer you back to points already made then.

The bottom line, though, is that attempting to quarantine density like you want to continue to do simply suppresses total potential density. That, in turn, means more sprawl, which feeds into the issues brought up a couple posts ago with the positive physical affects of density.

See, it may feel spread out to allow density throughout the city, but it's far more concentrated than the inevitable resulting sprawl if we try to continue to suppress and quarantine density in general. New condos or apartment blocks within the city, even if they're not off one of the main corridors or in one of the clusters, is still better than sticking that same block, or worse yet the equivalent number of housing units in a subdivision, way out in one of the suburbs.

As to doubling or tripping the city's density over all, that actually would do wonders for enabling more walkability. Basically, it would mean the city would have an equivalent density a bit less than Atkins Park & Poncy Highland. That level of density would 100% enable some fantastic frequent buses, strong bike use, and walkability if the build-environment was set up for it.