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.
This idea of preventing new people / density from moving into rich northside neighborhoods and forcing all the new people into poorer south side neighborhoods is sad.
But honestly, we still are not even to that point. The zoning laws are just as restrictive all over Atlanta. Either way you need a major overhaul to zoning. And I think the proposed "growth areas" are pretty fair and do target a lot of the "empty areas". Don't you?
Also, what is this magic threshold where we have "filled in" enough areas to allow more density? There are empty and underutilized lots in every city in the world.
I actually don't mind the city's framework of concentrated growth. I will like it even better if it's done in inclusonary zoning styles a-la Japan.
That said, I think that even the 'least dense' level of zoning should allow the building of low-rise multi-family housing, mixed-use space, remove set backs, reduce floor area requirements, remove parking minimums, easily allow adding floors, easily allow adding additional small dwellings to the property, etc.
It doesn't have to be high-rises, though I doubt any would actually be built out there, but the minimum level should still give the market the flexibility to respond to demand.
You act like those areas where there are houses with big lots, inhabited by people with the money to resist development as they please, are going to be the first targets of densification.
That is flat-out false.
Then we can deal with it when the time comes and we have no choice but to develop there. Until then, I see no reason to disturb those areas because they don't meet your qualifications.
Quote:
As you said, there's tons of land that poses far less resistance on property acquisition in the west, southwest, south, and southeast parts of the city. These are the areas that would be developed first for the simple fact that there'd be less resistance to acquiring land on a lot by lot basis. We just need to make it economical to actually develop the properties by removing barriers to that development.
I have openly agreed to that for many areas. But straight up, 100%, no questions asked: I will not agree to your idea of making it possible everywhere. It's simply not necessary. Growth is not being stifled because some people have large lots in their cul-de-sacs.
Quote:
That doesn't mean that the 'nice' neighborhoods should be exlcuded from having the options, either on the personal land-owners' level or the developer buying land from those who willingly sell it, to densify.
The irony of this being that the landowner is subjected to the will of (a small portion of) the neighborhood, which, when done over and over and over again as it has been, leads to the suppression of housing supply in the metro.
See, not every neighborhood exists on its own pillar either. The metro has needs to handle growth, and yet they get to stifle that. So not only are they hurting the individuals' rights, but the collective good as well.
I can't say I disagree in enough ways. I've said my piece. I don't think I need to respond further.
We just need to make it economical to actually develop the properties by removing barriers to that development.
What are these barriers of which you speak, fourthwarden?
I look at the zoning maps for some of the areas that cry out for development and it looks to me like you've got quite a bit of maneuvering room. If you did need a variance or rezoning I strongly suspect the city would be open to it if you lay out a decent case.
How about this, for example? What do you see as the barriers to development?
What are these barriers of which you speak, fourthwarden?
I look at the zoning maps for some of the areas that cry out for development and it looks to me like you've got quite a bit of maneuvering room. If you did need a variance or rezoning I strongly suspect the city would be open to it if you lay out a decent case.
How about this, for example? What do you see as the barriers to development?
These areas are great examples. Look at Whitehall Street. Less than a mile from downtown, walking distance to a MARTA station, and it's all shi**y, run-down warehouses and empty lots. And then a tons of space in SPI-18.
Huge..HUGE...swaths of open old industrial areas being used for trailer storage and other crappy industrial junk. Much of the area is zoned multi-family or mixed use. ON OR VERY CLOSE TO THE BELTLINE. Why the hell is this area not being swamped by development??? It should be pretty easy to get those areas zoned properly.
Because zoning is a key barrier to development does not mean it is the only barrier to development.
You can't go to the middle of the desert and zone for highrises and expect to get it on that alone.
If you force these areas to be the only ones that allow density, yes, you eventually will force prices high enough elsewhere in the city that it will drive development to those areas. That is already happening. And you will see development come to these areas in a few years. Some is already in the works now.
It really comes down to which is more important: reasonable housing prices or "protecting" existing homes owners from the "terrors" of density.
Reasonable housing prices should win that debate.
And there is a middle ground, which is only open up growth in some areas. And that is exactly what is being proposed.
A few things: Do you not consider zoning laws to be a limitation / artificial influence on the housing market? If we had quotas that limited grain production per acre would you not expect bread prices to increase?
You seem concerned about "property values going down" in town, but isn't that exactly what we want? Housing prices are too high in town because we are artificially limiting supply and not letting the free-market do its thing and increase supply enough to meet demand. (Note: I don't believe there is evidence that property values will go down on the whole with these changes, only the price per unit. Property value per acre will go up, and thus tax collections will go up. A lot of municipalities are getting into trouble by having a lot of infrastructure and not enough density to support it's maintenance. This would help that).
One may personally prefer to look at "8 acres of lush green landscape", but what about those who prefer having places to live, play, shop, and work more than something to look at? Who should get that choice of what should happen to that land? Shouldn't it be up to the landowner?
Also, you seem to get caught up in the mind set that only two choices are large single family homes in Buckhead and 100+ unit apartment complexes. I think more of the concern is around legalizing things like "missing middle" housing. Any thought there?
1. I don't think that zoning laws are a limit to the housing market - who will build a $500,000 home if they thing there's a possibility that a mobile home park or used car lot will go in next door or behind them? I think that zoning is a prerequisite before residential development will take place in the first palce. The reality is that Municipalities and County governments control zoning and they have an inherent interest to get the most revenue from the properties within their jurisdictions. Therefore, they will zone a certain amount of property for commercial because residential doesn't fully cover the cost of schools and they will also zone some percentage of land for higher density residential uses, too because these businesses will need workers living close by. The bottom line is that zoning is not the purview of a small group, but the result of the collective decisions of elected officials and the appointed zoning board.
2. The choice isn't single family houses or 100 unit apartment buildings, but on the other hand, once a neighborhood of single family is already developed, I think it would be a financial disaster to go in piece mill and allow a property owner to have his home be torn down for a duplex or a four unit apartment building. No, I don't think the property owner should have the right to cause a reduction in the values of his neighbors, just to further the cause of providing an opportunity to build housing for those looking for a less expensive entry into Buckhead or other desirable Intown neighborhoods.
3. Instead of looking at overthrowing zoning laws for long established low density neighborhoods like those found in the western part of Buckhead, Brookhaven and the Cascade Rd. corridor of SW Atlanta, it would be a lot more practical to consider developing the numerous underdeveloped areas like the Marietta Boulevard corridor, and other industrial areas which are geographically close to high demand residential areas.
4. One last consideration is that a municipality needs long term residents who will take a long term active interest in the affairs of the community. Specifically, who will volunteer to serve on the boards or run for City Council if they are thinking that they will be moving when their lease is up in six months? The reality is that a lot of the metro Atlanta area is transient, by that I mean that they move between apartments on a frequent basis whereas the cost of moving from an owner occupied house is a lot higher. The reality is that over half of the students in the schools in the Smyrna area are not in the school for the whole year because they are moving from apartments, therefore, the test scores for these schools is not that good. This reality causes the City and County governments to make a concerted effort to insure that they have a strong base of homeowners and to use zoning to protect the property values of their homes to increase the value of their tax digest. (Smyrna had a moratorium on new apartments for 7 years). If these municipalities were to engage in rezoning in the middle of single family home neighborhoods for duplexes it would be completely counter to that purpose and be detrimental to the property values of all involved.
5. As far as middle income housing, I am not sure that real estate that is most in demand will ever be a realistic market for those in middle income. The result is that those who can't afford the pricier areas tend to be the urban pioneers who go into less expensive areas in close proximity to expensive areas. This reality has been seen in areas like Kirkwood/East Atlanta and Old Fourth Ward, where urban pioneers bought homes at bargain prices in the 1990's and early 2000's and are now worth a fortune. This process will continue in other lower priced adjacent neighborhoods.
1. I don't think that zoning laws are a limit to the housing market - who will build a $500,000 home if they thing there's a possibility that a mobile home park or used car lot will go in next door or behind them? I think that zoning is a prerequisite before residential development will take place in the first palce. The reality is that Municipalities and County governments control zoning and they have an inherent interest to get the most revenue from the properties within their jurisdictions. Therefore, they will zone a certain amount of property for commercial because residential doesn't fully cover the cost of schools and they will also zone some percentage of land for higher density residential uses, too because these businesses will need workers living close by. The bottom line is that zoning is not the purview of a small group, but the result of the collective decisions of elected officials and the appointed zoning board.
I have trouble seeing how those things are true. Zoning is an invention that has barely been around for 100 years. And we are not even talking about getting rid of zoning here, just opening it up so we can do things like build duplexes in neighborhoods that were originally built with duplexes.
Also, governments do not have a strong incentive to make money. They have an incentive to get elected, even if it means losing money for the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1502
2. The choice isn't single family houses or 100 unit apartment buildings, but on the other hand, once a neighborhood of single family is already developed, I think it would be a financial disaster to go in piece mill and allow a property owner to have his home be torn down for a duplex or a four unit apartment building. No, I don't think the property owner should have the right to cause a reduction in the values of his neighbors, just to further the cause of providing an opportunity to build housing for those looking for a less expensive entry into Buckhead or other desirable Intown neighborhoods.
Well I guess that is what this ultimately comes down to. I do think property owners should have the right to build more affordable housing if they want to. I believe more affordable housing options out-weigh what someone down the street's visual concerns are about something that doesn't belong to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1502
3. Instead of looking at overthrowing zoning laws for long established low density neighborhoods like those found in the western part of Buckhead, Brookhaven and the Cascade Rd. corridor of SW Atlanta, it would be a lot more practical to consider developing the numerous underdeveloped areas like the Marietta Boulevard corridor, and other industrial areas which are geographically close to high demand residential areas.
Those areas are being redeveloped and will continue to be. And by artificially limiting supply in an area we force up prices there and push development elsewhere.
But the concern is about prices. Not a lack of places to develop if we just go further away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1502
4. One last consideration is that a municipality needs long term residents who will take a long term active interest in the affairs of the community. Specifically, who will volunteer to serve on the boards or run for City Council if they are thinking that they will be moving when their lease is up in six months? The reality is that a lot of the metro Atlanta area is transient, by that I mean that they move between apartments on a frequent basis whereas the cost of moving from an owner occupied house is a lot higher. The reality is that over half of the students in the schools in the Smyrna area are not in the school for the whole year because they are moving from apartments, therefore, the test scores for these schools is not that good. This reality causes the City and County governments to make a concerted effort to insure that they have a strong base of homeowners and to use zoning to protect the property values of their homes to increase the value of their tax digest. (Smyrna had a moratorium on new apartments for 7 years). If these municipalities were to engage in rezoning in the middle of single family home neighborhoods for duplexes it would be completely counter to that purpose and be detrimental to the property values of all involved.
Sounds to me like the problem is that too few people can afford to buy homes. Maybe we should legalize an increase in the supply of homes to lower prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1502
5. As far as middle income housing, I am not sure that real estate that is most in demand will ever be a realistic market for those in middle income. The result is that those who can't afford the pricier areas tend to be the urban pioneers who go into less expensive areas in close proximity to expensive areas. This reality has been seen in areas like Kirkwood/East Atlanta and Old Fourth Ward, where urban pioneers bought homes at bargain prices in the 1990's and early 2000's and are now worth a fortune. This process will continue in other lower priced adjacent neighborhoods.
Then why bother to keep it illegal to build missing middle housing if you are convinced market forces will keep it from ever being built? Shouldn't we let the market sort that out?
Then we can deal with it when the time comes and we have no choice but to develop there. Until then, I see no reason to disturb those areas because they don't meet your qualifications.
Or, we can level the playing field, stop artificially lowering housing supply, thus not needing to return to it, and just letting both the collective market and the individual have the freedoms needed to meet demand.
That would save us the time, effort, and resources needed to come back and have all of these arguments once more, which will only come after housing supply, again, shows that it's being artificially suppressed.
Quote:
I have openly agreed to that for many areas. But straight up, 100%, no questions asked: I will not agree to your idea of making it possible everywhere. It's simply not necessary. Growth is not being stifled because some people have large lots in their cul-de-sacs.
Yes, actually, it is. Level the field, let the market identify where demand actually is, and where it is economic to handle growth. Let the city respond to that in a proactive, rather than passive way, by building infrastructure and applying services in ways that make an area more desirable, thus increasing demand.
It's a way to handle growth actively and with actual ways of handling it, rather than through price-raising mandates.
Quote:
I can't say I disagree in enough ways. I've said my piece. I don't think I need to respond further.
And I can't see how you possibly think you're being fair in any way. You want to 'protect' the 'nice' neighborhoods, but in doing so, you're causing prices to rise, and hurting just about everyone.
That's a cruddy position to stick to for the sake of forcing properties to remain the way you think they should, rather than letting property owners and the market decide.
What are these barriers of which you speak, fourthwarden?
I look at the zoning maps for some of the areas that cry out for development and it looks to me like you've got quite a bit of maneuvering room. If you did need a variance or rezoning I strongly suspect the city would be open to it if you lay out a decent case.
How about this, for example? What do you see as the barriers to development?
Parking minimums, required setbacks, unnecessarily high floor area minimums, non-default mixed use allowances, non-default multi-family allowances, and a system of various procedures and committees within the city that is, by the city's own admission, confusing and inconsistent are all a good start.
As I've said many times now, I agree those areas cry out for development. I just don't think it's right, nor just, to try and force development only in those areas.
I think development, which is already starting in these areas, will only grow with lowered barriers, since they'd allow more cost-effective housing to be built, which might not have been economical before hand. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be up to the property owners what to do with their own land in other parts of the city because they happen to be in a 'nice' (see: wealthy) area.
Y'all act like density is just awful and should be contained at all cost, yet don't seem to see anything wrong with suggesting to contain it in the poor parts of the city. I would much rather let the cold, (mostly) calculating hand of the market, and the individuals, make those decisions than force anything I considered toxic on one part of the city over another.
A few things: Do you not consider zoning laws to be a limitation / artificial influence on the housing market? If we had quotas that limited grain production per acre would you not expect bread prices to increase?
You seem concerned about "property values going down" in town, but isn't that exactly what we want? Housing prices are too high in town because we are artificially limiting supply and not letting the free-market do its thing and increase supply enough to meet demand. (Note: I don't believe there is evidence that property values will go down on the whole with these changes, only the price per unit. Property value per acre will go up, and thus tax collections will go up. A lot of municipalities are getting into trouble by having a lot of infrastructure and not enough density to support it's maintenance. This would help that).
One may personally prefer to look at "8 acres of lush green landscape", but what about those who prefer having places to live, play, shop, and work more than something to look at? Who should get that choice of what should happen to that land? Shouldn't it be up to the landowner?
Also, you seem to get caught up in the mind set that only two choices are large single family homes in Buckhead and 100+ unit apartment complexes. I think more of the concern is around legalizing things like "missing middle" housing. Any thought there?
That is one of the points some of us are making. The city shouldn't be in the business of promoting high housing prices. That Forbes article I linked did link lower prices to more supply in the Texas cities.
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.
