Why suburbia sucks (Atlanta, Washington, Lenox: subsidized, authority, nightclub)

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Where people choose to live is product of many factors. Safety (or at least perceived safety), schools, transportation, cost and long term property values, commuting, convenience, shopping, appearance, elbow room and other considerations all come into play.

When cities offer an attractive combination of these ingredients, they can easily go toe to toe with the suburbs.

How will that play out in Atlanta? Well, for one thing there are already many booming and desirable communities within the city limits and in nearby areas like Brookhaven and Chamblee.

And there are still many, many opportunities for enhancement and redevelopment. The city is far from being maxed out, or even close to it. Initial housing prices may be a little higher, but if people see value in the overall package, plenty of them will go for it.

Well, indeed. But the whole reason this is a topic of conversation and not just a discussion of purely subjective aesthetic preferences (as some people in this thread believe it to be) is because there are laws and legislative incentives that make it uneconomical or downright illegal to do a lot of the enhancement and redevelopment.

That said, going toe-to-toe with the suburbs on suburban terms is part of the problem. No, by definition, cities can't offer as much elbow room as a McMansion on a 2 acre lot. But, in so many words, a lot of the building rules that have to be contended with when doing downtown redevelopment are imported from the suburban shopping strip playbook.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by abalashov

Well, indeed. But the whole reason this is a topic of conversation and not just a discussion of purely subjective aesthetic preferences (as some people in this thread believe it to be) is because there are laws and legislative incentives that make it uneconomical or downright illegal to do a lot of the enhancement and redevelopment.

That said, going toe-to-toe with the suburbs on suburban terms is part of the problem. No, by definition, cities can't offer as much elbow room as a McMansion on a 2 acre lot. But, in so many words, a lot of the building rules that have to be contended with when doing downtown redevelopment are imported from the suburban shopping strip playbook.

I hear you saying that the suburbs are boosted by government policy, but what about the hundreds of millions (billions) of dollars in financing bonds, TADs and other incentives that are provided to developers in the city of Atlanta? What about the density incentives they get for building in the SPI's? What about all the promotion from government funded organizations like ACVB? What about the fact that nearly 2/3 of public transit was built within the city limits? How about the massive commitments to the city that have been made by state, federal, city and county governments?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I hear you saying that the suburbs are boosted by government policy, but what about the hundreds of millions of dollars in financing bonds, TADs and other incentives that are provided to developers in the city of Atlanta? What about the density incentives they get for building in the SPI's? What about all the promotion from government funded organizations like ACVB? What about the fact that nearly 2/3 of public transit was built within the city limits? How about the massive commitments to the city that have been made by state, federal, city and county governments?

That still pales in comparison to the trillions in federal subsidies for suburban life.

Also those subsidies within the City of Atlanta are going to projects in the City of Atlanta. But even if I never drive or set foot in the state, my federal income taxes are going to pay for highways in Utah and of set tax discounts to home buyers in suburban California.

Just because a little bit of something bad is happening on one side of the scale, doesn't warrant a lot of something bad on the other side of the scale. Government should not be pushing people into either lifestyle.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by arjay57

But isn't it choice driven by demand? If you had a bunch of folks clamoring to live intown it's hard to believe the real estate developers wouldn't be all over it.

People are willing to get on a plane and travel hundreds of miles just to experience cities that are truly urban and walk-able. The idea that such places are so rare purely because of lack of demand is just not logical.

In metro Atlanta, developers will oftentimes have to get a site RE-zoned just in order to do a mixed-use development even within the city in some cases. Zoning laws, lending practices, transportation investment, in fact the entire system for decades has been oriented toward suburban development and in Atlanta, toward sprawl development.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, I suspect the city of Atlanta would roll out the red carpet for most developers. In many cases they have provided tens of millions in financing and other incentives.

The city does not provide financing for developers. They do provide tax breaks as an incentive to developers which I am fine with given the decades of disinvestment within the core of the metro.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

People are willing to get on a plane and travel hundreds of miles just to experience cities that are truly urban and walk-able. The idea that such places are so rare purely because of lack of demand is just not logical.

In metro Atlanta, developers will oftentimes have to get a site RE-zoned just in order to do a mixed-use development even within the city in some cases. Zoning laws, lending practices, transportation investment, in fact the entire system for decades has been oriented toward suburban development and in Atlanta, toward sprawl development.

Some people may be interested in traveling to visit more urban and walkable cities, but how many are interested in creating the same thing here?

If there were all that many of them, you'd think developers would be clamoring to meet the demand.

I agree that zoning in the ATL, particularly in the past, has not been done with an eye toward creating mixed use.

On the other hand, zoning codes and their implementation tend to reflect what people want. If you are not convinced, try attending a community meeting where some builder is proposing to encroach on a residential neighborhood with commercial development. Whoo-ee! Folks will get spitting mad.

Here in the city we have created special high intensity districts around transit. For instance, there's SPI-15 (Lindbergh), SPI-9 (Buckhead village), SPI-16 (Midtown), SPI-1 (downtown) and SPI-12 (Lenox). They are all specifically designed to foster mixed use and dense development. Any developer who wants to go for it in those areas has the right to blast ahead, so long as they stay within the bounds of the SPI.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

The city does not provide financing for developers. They do provide tax breaks as an incentive to developers which I am fine with given the decades of disinvestment within the core of the metro.

Well, consider this sampler....

Dr. Eloisa Klementich of Invest Atlanta (a.k.a. the Atlanta Development Authority) confirmed that her organization will play a role in financing the development of Yoo on the Park, a 25-story tower tucked into a small lot at 207 13th St. Namely, Invest Atlanta will offer up about $60 million in public bonds for a lease-purchase agreement. Over a 10-year period, developer Tivoli will pay taxes starting at 50 percent and increasing 5 percent annually. That's news but, according to Klementich, not anything new. She said Invest Atlanta offered to help out with the project when it was originally proposed in 2008, when development in Midtown and pretty much everywhere else was grinding to a halt. "They couldn't find financing," Klementich said. Invest Atlanta's stated goals of helping encourage growth in undeveloped areas was mostly a fit, they thought.

Confirmed: Yoo Tower Launching Soon; Financing Explained - Curbed Atlanta

Atlanta’s economic development agency approved up to $1.12 billion in bond financing for Georgia Tech’s proposed High Performance Computing Center Thursday despite concerns over the size of the tax incentives package being offered to attract the project.

The board of Invest Atlanta passed a resolution authorizing the bond money to help finance the commercial and retail component of the 25-story mixed-use development near Tech Square, to be built by Georgia Tech in partnership with developer Portman Holdings LLC. The 1 million-square-foot project, due to open early in 2018, could accommodate up to 2,500 people.

Invest Atlanta board OKs bonds for High Performance Computing Center

Atlanta’s economic development agency Thursday approved $314 million in bonds to finance the relocation of NCR Corp.’s headquarters to Midtown.

The Invest Atlanta Board of Directors unanimously passed four resolutions that will cover $260 million in planned investment initially and $54 million for anticipated future growth.

Invest Atlanta OKs bonds for NCR relocation

The $227 million bond package Atlanta was slated to sell Tuesday, to help pay for the new Falcons stadium, was rated as investment grade with a stable outlook by Moody’s Investors Service.

Atlanta’s bonds for Falcons stadium rated investment grade, sale slated to close Tuesday

[jsvh]

Yeah, Invest Atlanta does provide financing for developers.

Though the "cost" to the city & taxpayers is usually lower by providing financing than tax breaks since all they are doing is offering a slightly lower interest rate on the loan than they would get in the private market compared to usually millions in taxes being paid each year.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, consider this sampler....

The federal government subsidized suburban living, by financing 90% of projects

The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent. It was expected that the money would be generated through new taxes on fuel, automobiles, trucks, and tires. As a matter of practice, the federal portion of the cost of the Interstate Highway System has been paid for by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.[2]

Financing Federal-Aid Programs - Highway Trust Fund

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by abalashov

That said, going toe-to-toe with the suburbs on suburban terms is part of the problem. No, by definition, cities can't offer as much elbow room as a McMansion on a 2 acre lot. But, in so many words, a lot of the building rules that have to be contended with when doing downtown redevelopment are imported from the suburban shopping strip playbook.

Just to briefly address this.

What do you mean by a "McMansion on a 2 acre lot"? How would that differ from a regular house (or a real mansion) on a 2 acre lot?

I mention this because the term "McMansion" is often used derisively to imply something cheap, boring and mass produced.

Yet we don't talk about McBungalows, McTownhouses, McRanches, McCondos or any other form of housing in those terms. Why single out suburban homes? Millions of people make their homes there and many take great pride in where they live.

Also, I don't know of any suburban building rules that are imported into downtown development. Maybe there are some but I can't think of any.