U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How should Atlanta's Zoning Codes be updated?
Mostly unrestricted zoning 1 3.23%
Open up zoning along main corridors and disused industrial sites, and allow ADUs/multi-family in some residential areas 21 67.74%
Open up zoning along main corridors and disused industrial sites, but keep residential areas as they are now 5 16.13%
Keep most zoning the way it is now 0 0%
Much more strict zoning 4 12.90%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2018, 10:04 PM
 
4,254 posts, read 2,834,978 times
Reputation: 2789

Advertisements

There has been a LOT of discussion on this forum about Atlanta's zoning codes, with some people suggesting they should be almost non-existent, to those who thing large single family homes should rule.

But, I don't think we've ever had an actual poll to see where the forum stands on it overall. So, here it is.

I'm curious to see what the posters of this forum think about how Atlanta should structure its zoning codes. Hopefully the options have left enough leeway.

Details about the options:
Mostly unrestricted zoning: Open up all areas so that anything can be built on any lot (SFH, apartment building, a tower, or a business), with only health, safety, and environmental concerns as restrictions. No parking minimums, no setback requirements, no floor minimums.

Open up zoning along main corridors and disused industrial sites, and allow ADUs/multi-family in some residential areas: Allow lots bordering MARTA rail stops, major to medium arterials, and the Beltline to build a much wider array of residential (including SFH, townhome, apartments buildings or towers) and businesses, but keep existing SFH neighborhoods mostly as they are, with provisions for accessory dwelling units or multi-family houses in some of the zoning areas.

Open up zoning along main corridors and disused industrial sites, but keep residential areas as they are now: Allow lots around MARTA rail stops, major to medium arterials, and the Beltline to build a much wider array of residential (including SFH, townhome, apartments buildings...possibly towers) and businesses, but keep single-family neighborhoods as they are now, mostly with ADUs and multi-family houses prohibited.

Keep most zoning the way it is now: As the option says, keep most zoning as it is now with development targeted to specific areas and leaving single-family neighborhoods untouched.

Much more strict zoning: Keep single family neighborhoods as they are, and restrict high-density development throughout the city to very specific locations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2018, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
4,647 posts, read 3,028,497 times
Reputation: 3867
Great post and Poll, samiwas1.

I voted for your very reasonable 2nd option. Neighborhoods that collectively agree to ADU's and multi-family in appropriate mutually agreed upon areas is the way to go in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 12:26 AM
 
12,941 posts, read 21,025,520 times
Reputation: 4091
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl View Post
Great post and Poll, samiwas1.

I voted for your very reasonable 2nd option. Neighborhoods that collectively agree to ADU's and multi-family in appropriate mutually agreed upon areas is the way to go in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this.


The Atlanta City Design: Aspiring to the Beloved Community

Last edited by aries4118; 04-16-2018 at 01:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 12:27 AM
 
12,941 posts, read 21,025,520 times
Reputation: 4091
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl View Post
Great post and Poll, samiwas1.

I voted for your very reasonable 2nd option. Neighborhoods that collectively agree to ADU's and multi-family in appropriate mutually agreed upon areas is the way to go in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this.
The Atlanta City Design Illustrated Visual
https://www.atlcitydesign.com/poster...32_reduced.pdf

Last edited by aries4118; 04-16-2018 at 01:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 07:31 AM
bu2
 
8,986 posts, read 5,692,118 times
Reputation: 3545
I voted 2, but I'm on the #1 side of 2. First, I would want to get rid of the large lot sizes. Just have a single minimum, perhaps 50X100. If the lot is more than 50 ft. wide and more than 10,000 sf, they can subdivide (assuming, of course, the geography with gullies and such allows that). Secondly, I would allow low rise condos/townhomes/patio homes in some (not all) single family neighborhoods, not just on the fringes. This would be an upgrade in some areas and would improve housing affordability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 07:35 AM
bu2
 
8,986 posts, read 5,692,118 times
Reputation: 3545
If a neighborhood didn't want to allow smaller lot sizes and wanted to keep their huge lot neighborhood, they could get together and agree to do deed restrictions. It wouldn't be the city or a group of owners telling people what they could do with their property, it would be the owners themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,199 posts, read 16,208,252 times
Reputation: 4918
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
The Atlanta City Design Illustrated Visual
https://www.atlcitydesign.com/poster...32_reduced.pdf
I like this blueprint for how Atlanta can grow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I voted 2, but I'm on the #1 side of 2. First, I would want to get rid of the large lot sizes. Just have a single minimum, perhaps 50X100. If the lot is more than 50 ft. wide and more than 10,000 sf, they can subdivide (assuming, of course, the geography with gullies and such allows that). Secondly, I would allow low rise condos/townhomes/patio homes in some (not all) single family neighborhoods, not just on the fringes. This would be an upgrade in some areas and would improve housing affordability.
I would say that increased density could also be allowed around the neighborhood business villages, since historic development patterns would have a concentrated residents around commercial businesses and streetcar stops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 07:51 AM
 
4,254 posts, read 2,834,978 times
Reputation: 2789
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I voted 2, but I'm on the #1 side of 2. First, I would want to get rid of the large lot sizes. Just have a single minimum, perhaps 50X100. If the lot is more than 50 ft. wide and more than 10,000 sf, they can subdivide (assuming, of course, the geography with gullies and such allows that). Secondly, I would allow low rise condos/townhomes/patio homes in some (not all) single family neighborhoods, not just on the fringes. This would be an upgrade in some areas and would improve housing affordability.
I guess I should have added townhomes/patio homes into the #2 option for some areas. Those would be fine in some locations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
I would say that increased density could also be allowed around the neighborhood business villages, since historic development patterns would have a concentrated residents around commercial businesses and streetcar stops.
Sure. Most of these are centered on some sort of arterial road, so that would happen as part of #2 and #3.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,199 posts, read 16,208,252 times
Reputation: 4918
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
I guess I should have added townhomes/patio homes into the #2 option for some areas. Those would be fine in some locations.



Sure. Most of these are centered on some sort of arterial road, so that would happen as part of #2 and #3.
Speeds should be reduced as the street passes thru a business district with increased pedestrian active.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2018, 08:55 AM
 
1,821 posts, read 1,561,407 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
If a neighborhood didn't want to allow smaller lot sizes and wanted to keep their huge lot neighborhood, they could get together and agree to do deed restrictions. It wouldn't be the city or a group of owners telling people what they could do with their property, it would be the owners themselves.
It's hard to track, but I've heard streets or blocks have created deed restricted HOAs to fend off new density. It'll be interesting to see if this becomes more popular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top