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.
Wrong. We can protect our nice neighborhoods AND build tons of dense housing at the same time. Just because I want to live on Ridgewood amongst stately mansions does not mean I should be able to, and that the people who live there should have to watch their neighborhood get taken over by cheap housing. You are being ridiculous. More and more, it's becoming clear that the real issue is that some people have things you don't like.
No, I'm letting properties remain how the neighborhood of homeowners wants them to be. Just as you think a neighborhood of homeowners shouldn't be able to stop a single homeowner from turning his land into a low-rent apartment complex, a single property owner shouldn't be able to kill everyone elses' value by dropping a low-rent apartment complex in the middle of an established neighborhood.
You keep saying "that won't happen", but then along comes Fuqua who drops a Kroger and large parking lot right on a valuable piece of property steps from Midtown. And, as I recall, you had plenty to say about what a bad idea it was. So, if you think "it won't happen", you are wrong.
So, simplify it and open it up. Not difficult. But changing established single family neighborhoods to become dense areas is going to meet major blowback, as it should. The entire metro area does not need to be dense.
No, we have not. You are reading your own bias into it. We have identified tons of areas which could house hundreds of thousands of people, in various parts of the city.
But this part is clear: you consider it "toxic" to not allow density everywhere, where I consider it "toxic" to drop an apartment building or a Costco into a quiet family neighborhood. This is an argument that neither of us will win.
It screams "****** you and your neighborhood...we're taking everything you worked for and changing it to OUR vision!! Say hello to your 1,000 new neighbors!"
People said that about Old Fourth Ward for the longest time. Ten years ago, who on earth would have gladly lived in Old Fourth Ward? Now, people are tripping over each other to get in there. Even if you flood the Northside with density, the schools aren't gong to be able to take all those new students. New schools would have to be built, just like they would in the areas you speak of.
Hmmm..you know...I always found Houston to be a very unpleasant city. Never enjoyed being there. So, that's not winning any arguments.
"Shouldn't help the rich". Right there shows what this really comes down to. And before anyone accuses me of being one of them, I live in a cheap townhome made of cardboard amongst hundreds of others and am about as liberal as they come. As for estates, the vast majority of the city is zoned R3 or higher, and most of that is on the north side. That's less than half an acre for even those lots. Very little of it is zoned R1 or R2. Even R1, the least dense zoning of the city, allows lots of 2 acres, which is hardly an "estate". Outside of the north, almost everything is zoned R3 or higher.
How about this one: I'll mostly agree to pretty much anything currently R4 and above allowing whatever is desired. All I, C, and NC zones are open game for pretty much anything. Personally, I think most industrial use should be removed from inside the city. R3 and R3A could be be on a case by case basis, with potential impact of the area taken into account. R2 and R1 would require a lot more legwork to break up and would require approval from numerous sources. All these SPI zones..I don't know what they do exactly, but they appear to be in popular areas...open them up. That alone would make the vast majority of the city available for development, while protecting established high-value neighborhoods. I also could support a reduction in the number of MR zones...three types should be sufficient.
Here's the thing: the reason you won't win this argument with me is that the very reason I love Atlanta is the smattering of great wooded, quiet, SFH neighborhoods dotting the city. Not many cities where you can live in a place like Ansley Park, walking distance to Midtown and Piedmont Park. To take that away and make it all just a bunch of dense housing completely ruins what I love about the city and makes it less desirable to be here. If the city were to turn into a place like Houston, I'd probably leave.
Good post. Moreover, I really think the notion of a "housing affordability crisis" is something of a red herring, though I am sympathetic to it in theory. A quick search of the MLS reveals over 800 properties (SF, townhome or condo) priced below $200k within the confines of 285, between Buckhead and a mile or so south of I-20. That's not an insignificant number. Spread the search a bit wider and the number increases several times over.
In many cases, I think that what some call the "affordability crisis" can be better translated as, "I can't afford to live where I want to hang out." That is nothing new. When I moved here two decades ago, Virginia-Highland was fairly recently gentrified, but was all the same certainly out of reach by that point for a mid-twentysomething making a decent but by no means high entry-level salary. So, I, and others like me, had to find other places to buy, even if we might have preferred purchasing there. Some, through a combination of luck and skill, may have chosen the next hot area; others perhaps not so much.
That same cycle has happened several times since then, with new areas becoming the "next big thing" every time. Grant Park, Old Fourth Ward, Kirkwood, Downtown Decatur, even Downtown Marietta, where I now live, were all once places where you probably didn't want to live, but with a combination of civic involvement, municipal leaders with some foresight and a little luck, they've all become pretty desirable. And yes, these areas have largely seen their revitalization come concurrent with an increase in density, and I am all in favor of that. However, those density increases have been accomplished, in part, thanks to guidelines that mandated the preservation or creation of certain amounts of green space, making sure that impacts on schools, utilities, storm water runoff and many other things were manageable and that the community would be as or more liveable than it was before. Doing away with all zoning has the potential to imperil all of that and more, and I think that's what gives some people pause.
Good post. Moreover, I really think the notion of a "housing affordability crisis" is something of a red herring, though I am sympathetic to it in theory. A quick search of the MLS reveals over 800 properties (SF, townhome or condo) priced below $200k within the confines of 285, between Buckhead and a mile or so south of I-20. That's not an insignificant number. Spread the search a bit wider and the number increases several times over.
In many cases, I think that what some call the "affordability crisis" can be better translated as, "I can't afford to live where I want to hang out." That is nothing new. When I moved here two decades ago, Virginia-Highland was fairly recently gentrified, but was all the same certainly out of reach by that point for a mid-twentysomething making a decent but by no means high entry-level salary. So, I, and others like me, had to find other places to buy, even if we might have preferred purchasing there. Some, through a combination of luck and skill, may have chosen the next hot area; others perhaps not so much.
That same cycle has happened several times since then, with new areas becoming the "next big thing" every time. Grant Park, Old Fourth Ward, Kirkwood, Downtown Decatur, even Downtown Marietta, where I now live, were all once places where you probably didn't want to live, but with a combination of civic involvement, municipal leaders with some foresight and a little luck, they've all become pretty desirable. And yes, these areas have largely seen their revitalization come concurrent with an increase in density, and I am all in favor of that. However, those density increases have been accomplished, in part, thanks to guidelines that mandated the preservation or creation of certain amounts of green space, making sure that impacts on schools, utilities, storm water runoff and many other things were manageable and that the community would be as or more liveable than it was before. Doing away with all zoning has the potential to imperil all of that and more, and I think that's what gives some people pause.
Not really. How many people are looking to buy at any one time, at that relatively low price point? And it's not like those are the only properties that will ever be on the market.
Wrong. We can protect our nice neighborhoods AND build tons of dense housing at the same time. Just because I want to live on Ridgewood amongst stately mansions does not mean I should be able to, and that the people who live there should have to watch their neighborhood get taken over by cheap housing. You are being ridiculous. More and more, it's becoming clear that the real issue is that some people have things you don't like.
Make no mistake, just because new apartments go into an area does not mean that everyone and anyone would be able to afford them. Just that, as we build more housing, in aggregate, to meet demand, more people can afford more options across the metro and city.
Mate. My home is Virginia Highlands. I live in the same nice neighborhood I think should be allowed to desnify. Frankly, I don't care if the individual property owners decide they don't want to sell to a developer, or if they don't want to put a business in their front room, or if they don't want to add an accessory dwelling unit onto their property. Sincerely, I do not care.
What I care about, is them actually having that choice. I care about the market having the flexibility to meet demands in a way that can provide affordable housing to as many people as possible.
Quote:
No, I'm letting properties remain how the neighborhood of homeowners wants them to be. Just as you think a neighborhood of homeowners shouldn't be able to stop a single homeowner from turning his land into a low-rent apartment complex, a single property owner shouldn't be able to kill everyone elses' value by dropping a low-rent apartment complex in the middle of an established neighborhood.
See, density, especially mixed use, does not kill property values. If anything, the per acre values will go up in the long run. The per-unit housing costs, however, will go down as supply grows to meet demand.
Even so, your position hurts both individual freedoms, and the collective good. NIMBYhoods drive up the cost of housing across the board by artificially limiting supply. You've made it clear that that's your position, but I can not agree with it.
Quote:
You keep saying "that won't happen", but then along comes Fuqua who drops a Kroger and large parking lot right on a valuable piece of property steps from Midtown. And, as I recall, you had plenty to say about what a bad idea it was. So, if you think "it won't happen", you are wrong.
What do you think could have been done with the property if it was easier to shift its assigned zoning? If it didn't need so much parking? If it didn't need the set backs? What do you think the chances are of that property having been sold to a different developer if the potential Return On Investment was better due to higher density allowances?
Fuqua's style is a symptom of our limits, not a reason to keep them.
Quote:
So, simplify it and open it up. Not difficult. But changing established single family neighborhoods to become dense areas is going to meet major blowback, as it should. The entire metro area does not need to be dense.
Again, it should be as equitably applied as possible for both the individual's rights and the collective good. That allows the market the needed flexibility to properly respond to both current and future demands.
Quote:
No, we have not. You are reading your own bias into it. We have identified tons of areas which could house hundreds of thousands of people, in various parts of the city.
But this part is clear: you consider it "toxic" to not allow density everywhere, where I consider it "toxic" to drop an apartment building or a Costco into a quiet family neighborhood. This is an argument that neither of us will win.
Do you really, really think it's cost effective to drop a Costco into a place like Virginia Highlands, or Inman Park, or pretty much any of the really established neighborhoods? I also question as to why you think that a Costco of all things represents an increase in density, when it's a massive warehouse store with giant parking lots. It's just about as poster-child low-density as I can think of.
What would more likely happen is an apartment building with ground-level commercial space. That COULD NOT HAPPEN unless enough people made the personal decision to sell their property to a developer who believes they can make a return on investment large enough to buy those properties. The other residents can then go to those new shops, to the cafes, to the restaurants. They can make friends with the new residents, and, god forbid, learn to actually embrace the new aspects of the neighborhood.
If THAT is your idea of toxic, then I don't know what to tell you.
Quote:
It screams "****** you and your neighborhood...we're taking everything you worked for and changing it to OUR vision!! Say hello to your 1,000 new neighbors!"
Oh no. New neighbors in the 9th largest metro by population, 10th largest metro by GDP, and one of the fastest growing metro areas in the nation. The horror.
Careful now, we might just actually achieve a level of density that properly supports car-less living, and healthier lifestyles, and which reduces pollution, and which is more energy efficient, and which actually supports the costs of the infrastructure serving the area. How awful.
The neighborhood level has no right to override both the needs of the collective metro, nor the individual liberties related there in. You won't change your mind, but I can not agree with you on this.
Quote:
People said that about Old Fourth Ward for the longest time. Ten years ago, who on earth would have gladly lived in Old Fourth Ward? Now, people are tripping over each other to get in there. Even if you flood the Northside with density, the schools aren't gong to be able to take all those new students. New schools would have to be built, just like they would in the areas you speak of.
1) Old Fourth Ward is a prime example of active development incentives rather than passive. Both the BeltLine and O4W Park brought positive attention to the area while doubling as pieces of practical city infrastructure. This is what the city should be doing (and to an extent are) to other parts of the city, instead of mandates, if it really wants to bring better development to under-developed areas.
2) Old Fourth Ward would likely be far more dense if not for restrictive policies like parking minimums and overly high requirements on floor areas.
3) The increased property taxes from increased property values from density would go to paying for new schools as needed.
Yeup. The combination of rising housing values, and consistently high occupancy rates in the city, and metro in general, are the key indicators of lack of supply.
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.
What is the minimum square footage allowed in these areas and what are the required setbacks?
Why can't you build duplexes or other multi-family and mixed use?
In many cases, I think that what some call the "affordability crisis" can be better translated as, "I can't afford to live where I want to hang out." That is nothing new. When I moved here two decades ago, Virginia-Highland was fairly recently gentrified, but was all the same certainly out of reach by that point for a mid-twentysomething making a decent but by no means high entry-level salary. So, I, and others like me, had to find other places to buy, even if we might have preferred purchasing there. Some, through a combination of luck and skill, may have chosen the next hot area; others perhaps not so much.
What is the minimum square footage allowed in these areas and what are the required setbacks?
Why can't you build duplexes or other multi-family and mixed use?
It's not that you can't, it's that the process, by the city's own admission, is complex and inconsistent. It's that barriers artificially limit the return on investment, which limits the number of potential projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch
This times infinity.
Not really. Again, the rising property values and high occupancy rates speak to a general shortage.
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.
