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.
But what exactly is it that you think looks like "crap" that so offends you that you think we need to deny people affordable urban living options as a result? And Houston still has parking minimums and housing setbacks and those contribute far more to the assetic issues you see there than allowing missing middle housing options you see in great neighborhoods like Grant Park, West End, and Cabbagetown.
And yes, there are some things the "neighborhood" / political leaders should not have a say in. Some of the first zoning laws were to keep out other races the "neighborhood" didn't want. Today zoning laws are being used to keep housing unaffordable and thus keep out people the "neighborhood" doesn't want that way. That is what many of these "Protect Single Family Home" / NIMBY mind set type folks are often really mascorading behind, they still don't want the poor / other races mixing with them. Both those practices are wrong and no, "neighborhoods" should not have that power.
Could you possibly be more deplorable? To make this about race is absolutely sickening to me, and shows that you will stop at absolutely NOTHING to force your will onto established neighborhoods.
You have made it beyond clear by taking it there that you can't be reasoned with.
No reducing these restrictions is advocating reducing the "social engineering" that is in place. You need to get over the possibility that a poor family could move in next door to you.
Don't you DARE put words in my mouth. My block resemble the U.N., and I absolutely love it. I am however extremely grateful that I don't live anywhere near the likes of you. You couldn't be more insulting if you tried.
How about you campaign to put these bombastic changes up for a Citywide vote? It will be so overwhelming defeated all across the City it will make your head spin.
Economic segregation is no better than racial segregation.
I am glad you are offended. You should be. The economic segregation you advocate for so you don't dare have to look across the street and see two front doors on a duplex instead of just another SFH McMansion is wrong.
And you may think your holier-than-thou Single-Family-Only NIMBYs represent most of the city, but I think you will find that is not really the case in most of today's Atlanta. Affordable housing options is a key focus as it should be. You got to realize the decades old official neighborhood organization in my neighborhood is called "South Atlantan's for Neighborhood Development" and was specifically founded around bringing new housing options to the neighborhood. Your NIMBY views do not represent all of Atlanta. You need to stop speaking like you do.
Economic segregation is no better than racial segregation.
I am glad you are offended. You should be. The economic segregation you advocate for so you don't dare have to look across the street and see two front doors on a duplex instead of just another SFH McMansion is wrong.
And you may think your holier-than-thou Single-Family-Only NIMBYs represent most of the city, but I think you will find that is not really the case in most of today's Atlanta. Affordable housing options is a key focus as it should be.
You know absolutely nothing about me, I happen to live in an extremely diverse condo neighborhood.
Take your hateful insults elsewhere, you absolutely disgust me.
But what exactly is it that you think looks like "crap" that so offends you that you think we need to deny people affordable urban living options as a result?
Why does saying that existing neighborhoods should not be torn up and turned loose to developers looking to make a quick buck "denying affordable urban living options". No one has any right to live wherever they want to just by virtue of the fact that they want to. I want to live in a brand new $250k, 3000 square foot house with a big yard walking distance to O4W Park and right on a Freedom Park trail. That doesn't mean that everyone else needs to accommodate me.
There is plenty of room to build plenty of affordable urban housing all over the city. There is absolutely no reason that those options have to be walking distance to the most happening neighborhoods. And, in fact, they won't be. Affordable options will be in the less desirable areas, as is...well, everything in real life. If you need affordable, you get a smaller place in a less desirable area. That's the reality of life, pretty much everywhere in existence.
Quote:
Today zoning laws are being used to keep housing unaffordable and thus keep out people the "neighborhood" doesn't want that way. That is what many of these "Protect Single Family Home" / NIMBY mind set type folks are often really mascorading behind, they still don't want the poor / other races mixing with them. Both those practices are wrong and no, "neighborhoods" should not have that power.
You are absolutely right. I do not want my neighborhood to be filled with certain types of people. You can call me whatever names you want, but it will make no difference. After the recession hit, housing prices in our neighborhood plummeted to just barely over $100k from upwards of $240k. The neighborhood was still being built, so you had half a neighborhood of the people who bought at high prices, and half the neighborhood who bought at very low prices. The neighborhood went from being an extremely friendly place where we had block parties, meet-ups, etc. to a place where few people mingled, because those who bought the very-low-priced homes were just not good people and brought the civility of the neighborhood down a lot. We went from the pool being filled with happy families to rough groups blasting very non-family-friendly music, smoking, leaving garbage, and broken glass (closing the pool frequently). We had car tearing through the neighborhood at 30-40MPH (narrow road with no sidewalks and lined with foliage so you have to walk in the street). Yeah, sorry if I don't want my neighborhood to turn into that. Call me what you will. It can be racist, it can be poor-ist, it can be inhuman. Don't care.
And yes....I realize that I sound like an old man shaking my cane at the whipper-snappers on my lawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
You do realize that even those homes would not meet the zoning requirements in most of the metro, correct? Even their side-yard setbacks are far to close to meet the requirements for most SFH zonings withing the city limits, let alone the suburbs.
Since the Atlanta GIS website has been down for weeks if not months at this point, I cannot look up zoning maps. But, as I recall, a huge portion of the city is zoned at R4 or R5, which have 5'-7' minimums from side of house to lot line, and some of the versions have 5'-7' setbacks. R5 also has provisions for zero-lot-line houses.
That means houses as close as 10'-14' in a vast swath of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
And you may think your holier-than-thou Single-Family-Only NIMBYs represent most of the city, but I think you will find that is not really the case in most of today's Atlanta. Affordable housing options is a key focus as it should be. You got to realize the decades old official neighborhood organization in my neighborhood is called "South Atlantan's for Neighborhood Development" and was specifically founded around bringing new housing options to the neighborhood. Your NIMBY views do not represent all of Atlanta. You need to stop speaking like you do.
Do you really think that most of the City of Atlanta residents want to give up the Single Family Homes that exist here and turn it all into duplexes, apartment buildings, and dense residential buildings. Do you really believe that??
As far as SAND, they cite their organization in the late 70s are being part of an effort "to protect the historic neighborhoods they loved and lived in." Protecting your neighborhood generally does not mean "allow willy-nilly development of whatever type a developer so-chooses". It means to keep its character.
They also mention the Fuqua development, Glenwood Place (and the addition of a Super Kroger and Chik-Fil-A), as part of their mention about how it's such an exciting time to be in one of the neighborhoods of SAND. Now, I may not be up on my urban fabric knowledge, but a Fuqua strip-mall-style development doesn't seem like the type of thing an urbanist-style neighborhood organization would be celebrating.
How about you campaign to put these bombastic changes up for a Citywide vote? It will be so overwhelming defeated all across the City it will make your head spin.
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...
You are very correct on this point. The argument is about changing what the zoning code is strict towards. Zoning and building codes should still be in place for health and safety concerns, that coal powered nuclear waste plant should not be located next to the daycare. But zoning and buildings codes should not be used to dictate stylistic concerns or limit lifestyle preferences.
Noo that not rometely what I said
First off people in that neighborhood have the right to dictate what type of development they want in that neighborhood. An outsider can't just buy up land in that neighborhood and put any type of development against what those communities want.
Inman Park is home to many Victorian and early American crafts homes.... The neighborhood is an architectural jewel. http://www.inmanpark.org/assets/slid...a-slide-06.jpg
In middle of a block, building this crap would conflict with neighborhood character. So your telling you would be perfectly okay with sticking anything in this pic below anything next to those Victorian homes above?
Quote:
You keep using Houston as this horror story of terribleness you get without zoning. But Houston is still guilty of some of the most troublesome & limiting zoning requirements such as setbacks and parking minimus. Sure maybe your McMansion can have a ADU or technically be a duplex, but you better not try to build any housing that more urban in style (close to the street / neighboring buildings and without parking). That is not allowed!
Again noo, there is no "troublesome & limiting zoning requirements" Houston has lack of zoning and this is what happens.
Yall are assuming that that loosening zoning codes would allow just more urban developments, when loosening up zoning codes would also allow worst suburbans styles also. That's how that Houston pic happen.
Quote:
I'd say we need to go back more to the level of zoning laws that were around when some of our great leafy neighborhoods like West End, Grant Park, and Cabbagetown were built (without any red lining of course). No setbacks, missing middle housing is all legal, some commercial mixed in, no parking requirements.
Then make this your argument......... I'm not against building more muti units, but rather whether it's SFH or multi units needs to be something that fits into the character on these neighborhoods.
Your coming off as you if don't value the character of these historic neighborhoods and all multi units are good development,
Even if these neighborhoods allow more multi units their needs to be guild lines along with it, like what street are more appropriate for such development. And ways to prevent a developer from buying a historic homes and then placing it with something tacky in it's place.
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 are not helping your argument at all.
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.
How about you campaign to put these bombastic changes up for a Citywide vote? It will be so overwhelming defeated all across the City it will make your head spin.
Quote:
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...
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.
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.
My block resemble the U.N., and I absolutely love it. I am however extremely grateful that I don't live anywhere near the likes of you. You couldn't be more insulting if you tried.
