NIMBY Brookhaven strikes again (this time against MARTA mixed-use) (Atlanta: apartment, zoning)

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Since when did folks fighting to preserve a little elbow room become evil NIMBY's?

Were the people who battled against freeways just a bunch of backwards NIMBY's? What about the neighborhoods who opposed having their communities razed for a baseball stadium? How about those who were unhappy with being pushed up by yuppie gentrification? And I guess we've gotta put those landfills and cemeteries and airport runways somewhere.

Seems to me there's an awful lot of value judgments being made here.

Fighting against things that actually destroy (as in remove from existence) ≠ fighting to keep density low. The people fighting to 'maintain elbow room' became backwards NIMBY's when they externalized the costs of their low-dense lifestyle to everyone else, while internalizing the profits. Yeah, I don't blame them for wanting to do it, but that doesn't mean it's a GOOD thing for the city as a whole, especially when it completely destroys any mobility in the market.

Originally Posted by bu2

Or you could just do it like Texas and let the market decide instead of another government getting involved. Houston doesn't even have zoning.

Urbanism, Texas-Style | OpportunityUrbanism.org

"....A key part of this opportunity culture rests on housing affordability. Property inflation plagues east/west coastal cities, largely because of restrictive planning policies that slow development, making the cost of living exorbitant. Texas cities are instead pro-development—“self-organizing,” in the words of Rice University’s Lars Lerup—and, as they happily expand their peripheries, they encourage a healthy supply of housing at all income levels. The inexpensive housing, a major draw for those relocating firms, has helped shift a long-standing migration pattern of jobs and people...."

Forget What You’ve Heard, Houston Really Does Have Zoning (Sort Of)

“We do have a lot of land-use regulations,” Festa said. “We still have a lot of stuff that looks and smells like zoning.”

To be more precise, Houston doesn’t exactly have official zoning. But it has what Festa calls “de facto zoning,” which closely resembles the real thing. “We’ve got a lot of regulations that in other cities would be in the zoning code,” Festa said. “When we use it here, we just don’t use the ‘z’ word.”

His evidence? For one thing, Houston doesn’t look that different from other major urban centers, especially other sprawling cities in the American Sunbelt. If Houston really lacked zoning, one would assume the effects would be more dramatic.

Emphasis on sprawling.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

The administration has put forth a general stance on low density developments. That is not a push against any legitimate infrastructure problems, which can happen at any given level of density. What this is, is a statement on the relative inequality that artificially lowering housing supply through NIMBY tactics focused on keeping an area low density no matter what, primarily in the case of non-existent problems only used to scare people into keeping an area under-built.

Or maybe it's a push because they know the infrastructure can't support the high density development

In fact, it's far more likely to run into infrastructure maintainability issues in low-density settings, since the network is so much more spread out. It's generally easier to maintain a wider pipe, than it is a longer one. Extremely low dense areas are more likely to not have enough funding per person to pay for the longer pipes or longer roads since the ratio of revenue to maintenance cost is lower, making maintenance at all, difficult. (See: The Growth Ponzi Scheme)

In a greenfield, new-build installation, you're right. But that's not what we have. Brookhaven already has short, narrow pipes, and making them wider would require destroying a LOT of homes, and be extremely expensive. Brookhaven isn't adding any road length anytime soon if ever, as far as distance, it's fully built out. Is it possible to make better use of the "pipes" we have already? Absolutely. But that has to come first, not later, not "whenever." Think about this exact problem on a small scale. If the sewer pipe coming out of your house was at maximum capacity, but you wanted to add on to your house with lots of water fixtures, would you really wait to upgrade the sewer pipe?

NIMBY's who don't have legitimate worries of infrastructure cost might actually be creating a worse long-term situation as maintainability costs go up and surpasses revenue from the low-density areas. Constant growth is required prop up back-logged maintenance, and as soon as that stops, and without attempts to desnify, the whole thing grinds to a halt.

No one's saying don't densify. But the jurisdiction has to be able to support the increased density before it will work.

NIMBY's who do have legitimate worries often shoot themselves in the foot by attempting to shut down the conversation entirely, in an attempt to keep things at the current (functioning) level of use. If the conversation of higher-density was allowed to happen, then infrastructure buy ins for new developments could be arranged to resolve infrastructure problems. That then lowers the overall cost per person to maintain the area, and the amenities that support more dense development.

Well what's the alternative? Any kind of infrastructure change requires county-level support if not funding. If that isn't there, then what's the alternative?

Originally Posted by arjay57

Since when did folks fighting to preserve a little elbow room become evil NIMBY's?

Were the people who battled against freeways just a bunch of backwards NIMBY's? What about the neighborhoods who opposed having their communities razed for a baseball stadium? How about those who were unhappy with being pushed up by yuppie gentrification? And I guess we've gotta put those landfills and cemeteries and airport runways somewhere.

Seems to me there's an awful lot of value judgments being made here.

I have to agree with arjay here. Though I disagree that it's about "elbow room" I do agree, and originally stated, that not every opposition is worthless.

[whodean]

The traffic concerns around Brookhaven station are legitimate. If MARtA wants to build it up they should pony up the cash to fix the Peachtree/North Druid Hills/Dresden horrible intersection. Build tunnels or something.

[Gulch]

Is there actually any new news on the development around the station or did this just get bumped for an unrelated reason?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by whodean

The traffic concerns around Brookhaven station are legitimate. If MARtA wants to build it up they should pony up the cash to fix the Peachtree/North Druid Hills/Dresden horrible intersection. Build tunnels or something.

MARTA funding going to roads might be the worst idea I have heard on this forum.

The proven solution to improving traffic is more density and alternatives to driving. That is exactly what funding should be going towards. Funding wider & faster roads and deterring denser development is exactly why we are in this traffic mess. Water & sewer infrastructure should be funded from fees charged to users and new developments. It should be up to the developer and water / sewer utilities to resolve that issue, not random people or bureaucrats to speculate about its capacity.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by whodean

The traffic concerns around Brookhaven station are legitimate. If MARtA wants to build it up they should pony up the cash to fix the Peachtree/North Druid Hills/Dresden horrible intersection. Build tunnels or something.

Peachtree is a GDOT maintained road, it's their mess they should fix it.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Peachtree is a GDOT maintained road, it's their mess they should fix it.

I think the people are more concerned about Dresden and the other surrounding residential streets.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

I think the people are more concerned about Dresden and the other surrounding residential streets.

And what do you think the fix is? Take new buildings down & front yards of remaining SFHs to make Dresden five lanes wide? Nope, just invites more drivers to the area and pushes residents away.

[MattCW]

Well what's your solution for this? Try to shove 5 lanes worth of traffic down 2 lanes? Not allow people to flush their own toilets?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Fighting against things that actually destroy (as in remove from existence) ≠ fighting to keep density low. The people fighting to 'maintain elbow room' became backwards NIMBY's when they externalized the costs of their low-dense lifestyle to everyone else, while internalizing the profits. Yeah, I don't blame them for wanting to do it, but that doesn't mean it's a GOOD thing for the city as a whole, especially when it completely destroys any mobility in the market.





Forget What You’ve Heard, Houston Really Does Have Zoning (Sort Of)




Emphasis on sprawling.

Houston doesn't have zoning. They have recently (last 30 years) added some things like setbacks, parking requirements, limitations on putting sexually oriented businesses next to schools and churches or putting oil refineries next to residential areas (there are places where that still exists-now in some of those cases the oil refineries were there first), but other than certain limits like that, you can still build whatever you want wherever you want. There are HOAs that have deed restrictions, but those are relatively few in the city. Mostly they exist in the newer subdivisions in outlying areas.

The point of the article is that Texas has a light hand with zoning where it exists (pretty much everywhere but Houston as Odessa is the 2nd largest city in Texas without zoning) and that contributes to lower housing costs. The west and east coast cities have such tight restrictions that people and jobs are being driven out of the city by the housing costs. The article mentions that the Texas cities were even growing high-tech jobs far faster than San Jose or Seattle.

This proposal, while not mandating changes, is basically adding another layer to the regulations that are driving up housing costs. Its adding more of the same instead of targeting the problem, which is excessive control of private land.