Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (Buckhead: apartments, houses)

[jsvh]

Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth

“Housing scarcity — exacerbated by the ridiculous amount of this city zoned for single-family housing — deserves as much blame for the displacement crisis as gentrification. More. And unlike gentrification…scarcity and single-family zoning are two things we can actually do something about.”

[AnsleyPark]

This article seems amusingly alarmist. Apartments are popping up all over the place. The author appears to have an odd agenda.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

This article seems amusingly alarmist. Apartments are popping up all over the place. The author appears to have an odd agenda.

No where near enough though, we still have a big housing shortage. And missing middle housing is the greater concern. The only way to make the economics work on an uphill battle against zoning and permitting worth while is to build those giant "luxury" multi family buildings. We need to legalize more diverse housing options and lower barriers.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

No where near enough though, we still have a big housing shortage. And missing middle housing is the greater concern. The only way to make the economics work on an uphill battle against zoning and permitting worth while is to build those giant "luxury" multi family buildings. We need to legalize more diverse housing options and lower barriers.

Years ago we rezoned large swaths of Buckhead and Midtown for high density housing and a great deal of it has been built over the last 20 years.

So why not spread that to the east, west and south sides of town? They could all stand a lot less single family housing and a whole lot more intense multi-family and office development.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Years ago we rezoned large swaths of Buckhead and Midtown for high density housing and a great deal of it has been built over the last 20 years.

So why not spread that to the east, west and south sides of town? They could all stand a lot less single family housing and a whole lot more intense multi-family and office development.

To quote the article:

As the afforementioned Seattle article states, we also need to: “Rezone huge swaths of the city. Build more units of affordable housing, borrow the social housing model…do away with parking requirements, and — yes — let developers develop.”

Also, we don't need purely high density. As Jsvh said, we're missing a ton of middle ground development, which has been acknowledged by the city's zoning rewrite team. The article acknowledges that too:

On the “neighborhood character” side, we don’t have a dual choice between bulldozing homes in old neighborhoods and simply doing nothing. There are several shades of in-between options where we preserve existing houses and build new stuff in empty or disused spaces. Or convert some homes to duplexes. Or add accessory dwelling units.

Adding duplexes, adding addiyional floors to existing duplexes, filling in lots with accesory units, filling in empty / blighted lits with low-rise and row houses all needs to be part of our plan to meet demand.

As with anything, this is a complex issue that requires a suite of answers. The good news is, we know those answers. The bad news is, it's a political uphill battle to get them in.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

To quote the article:

Also, we don't need purely high density. As Jsvh said, we're missing a ton of middle ground development, which has been acknowledged by the city's zoning rewrite team. The article acknowledges that too:

Adding duplexes, adding addiyional floors to existing duplexes, filling in lots with accesory units, filling in empty / blighted lits with low-rise and row houses all needs to be part of our plan to meet demand.

As with anything, this is a complex issue that requires a suite of answers. The good news is, we know those answers. The bad news is, it's a political uphill battle to get them in.

Agreed. I'd put the highest density within 1/2 mile around commercial cores and transit stations. Then you can step down from there. That's what we've been doing for years with our biggest SPI's, and was brought forward in the recent update to Connect Atlanta. There's still many decades worth of development opportunities around existing transit.

And who knows? The Tiny House thing might take off.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Agreed. I'd put the highest density within 1/2 mile around commercial cores and transit stations. Then you can step down from there. That's what we've been doing for years with our biggest SPI's, and was brought forward in the recent update to Connect Atlanta. There's still many decades worth of development opportunities around existing transit.

And who knows? The Tiny House thing might take off.

It seems as if the City of Atlanta is trying to focus developmet on corridors, some of which are slated for transit, and some of which have transit.

[AnsleyPark]

Just changing zoning ordinances, while perhaps required, will not in and of itself, solve the perceived problem. It's going to take investors and developers who will spend the rather large sum of money to actually build the homes. That is likely the rub.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

It seems as if the City of Atlanta is trying to focus developmet on corridors, some of which are slated for transit, and some of which have transit.

I think that's fair to say, although rail transit isn't necessarily an ingredient.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Just changing zoning ordinances, while perhaps required, will not in and of itself, solve the perceived problem. It's going to take investors and developers who will spend the rather large sum of money to actually build the homes. That is likely the rub.

We can make it easier for developers of all scales to build here by fixing our zoning and certain regs that come with them.

Originally Posted by arjay57

I think that's fair to say, although rail transit isn't necessarily an ingredient.

I didn't say rail transit was one way or the other, but it should, and is, and ingredient.