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

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Yes, that is exactly what we are taking about.

There will always be more affordable options if you go way out in to the suburbs or somewhere with bad crime and schools.

The point is, more people want to live in the city and we should legalize it.

If you don't think housing affordability is a concern, then you should just move further out then and leave those of us in the city to build additional housing to meet the demand.

This "F-U-I-got-mine!" mentality with housing has got to stop!

It's not illegal to live in the city - you just have to be able to afford it.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

It's not illegal to live in the city - you just have to be able to afford it.

It is illegal to build the density to support the people that want to live here. That shortage of supply of housing in nice, safe, intown neighborhoods is what is pushing up prices.

We are using the law to make in-town living expensive and push people further out.

That is exactly the "F-U-I-got-mine" mentality that needs to end.

If people want to live in town, they should have affordable, safe options to do so.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

It is illegal to build the density to support the people that want to live here affordably.

Where is said illegality? Did you look at the zoning sheets I pointed out a few days ago? Looks like you've got quite a bit of maneuvering room there. Zero lot lines, mixed use, multifamily, etc. The city has also demonstrated that it's willing to rezone and/or grant variances in most cases in order to encourage redevelopment.

A lot of that land is undeveloped so it ought to be (relatively) reasonably priced -- if you get in fast. Things are changing rapidly.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Where is said illegality? Did you look at the zoning sheets I pointed out a few days ago? Looks like you've got quite a bit of maneuvering room there. Zero lot lines, mixed use, multifamily, etc. The city has also demonstrated that it's willing to rezone and/or grant variances in most cases in order to encourage redevelopment.

A lot of that land is undeveloped so it ought to be (relatively) reasonably priced -- if you get in fast. Things are changing rapidly.

If you think getting there are reasonably priced lots in nice, safe, in-town neighborhoods where you can build more density. You should get into the real estate development business. You would make a killing.

I am here to tell you that I have been closely involved and that is not the case. Even building density similar to the existing level in a neighborhood, such as a new duplex, is almost impossible. Let alone trying to get approved for more density than exists.

Heck, let's even go with a single family home like we discussed earlier for the outer-suburbs of Australia (pictured below). Can you point to some "relatively reasonably priced" land close in to Atlanta, in a decent, safe, neighborhood where it is legal to subdivide and build a SFH on a 7,000 SF lot, setback 15ft from the street, and take up 80% of the lot?



I mean really, what is so wrong with these houses that we make it illegal to build them on 99% of the land in metro Atlanta?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

If you think getting there are reasonably priced lots in nice, safe, in-town neighborhoods where you can build more density. You should get into the real estate development business. You would make a killing.

I am here to tell you that I have been closely involved and that is not the case. Even building density similar to the existing level in a neighborhood, such as a new duplex, is almost impossible. Let alone trying to get approved for more density than exists.

Isn't it allowed in the areas I pointed out in those zoning sheets?

I've had decent luck getting things rezoned over the years. The key is to do your homework -- get out there and build consensus with the neighbors and make them part of the process.

Now it's much easier to do this along major corridors or areas that are undergoing transition. If you try to waltz into an established single family neighborhood where folks are deeply invested and tell them you want to build something that's totally out of character, then yes, you will get pushback. People generally don't like change. That doesn't make it impossible but you'll have to do some negotiating to convince them that your idea is in their best interest.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Isn't it allowed in the areas I pointed out in those zoning sheets?

Which zoning do you think it is legal to build in? Because there is not a single "R" zoning district in the city where that house can be built.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Which zoning do you think it is legal to build in? Because there is not a single "R" zoning district in the city where that house can be built.

How about the SPI-18 area that I linked to earlier? They allow duplexes and zero lot line development, as well as mixed used and multifamily.

http://gis.atlantaga.gov/apps/zoning...eet_14-075.pdf

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

How about the SPI-18 area that I linked to earlier? They allow duplexes and zero lot line development, as well as mixed used and multifamily.

http://gis.atlantaga.gov/apps/zoning...eet_14-075.pdf

While there are many of the "sub areas" of SPI-18 that still require 20 foot setbacks, Mechanicsville deserves credit for creating a special zoning district to legalize their existing housing stock and joining the ~1% of land in the metro to allow homes like that. Of course they really had no choice. Most of their lots are already well under 7,000SF and so were almost entirely unbuildable under the normal zoning code. It should not take creating a special zoning district to allow things like this.

And note that special zoning district has existed for less than 10 years and in another 10 years that land will not be affordable either. I doubt only a small percentage in metro Atlanta would consider Mechanicsville would consider it a nice, safe place to raise a family today. But in a few years the lack of housing supply will still push housing prices up there too (prices have already more than doubled in the last year if you have been watching). And another corner of the city will become unaffordable and it will fill up most of it's only slightly higher density levels.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Which zoning do you think it is legal to build in? Because there is not a single "R" zoning district in the city where that house can be built.

Why does it have to be an R Zone? Over on the westside, Dupont Commons has almost all of its houses on 3,600-4500 square foot lots (less than 0.1 acre). They have mostly 20 foot setbacks, which includes the sidewalk.

Next door at Westside Station (plan), they are building a lot of houses on less than 0.1 acre lots. I just measured one section at 2.45 acres, and it has 25 houses going on it, AND streets in between. So that means that the lots are less than 0.1 acre.

West Highlands also has lots 0.1 acre or smaller (including sidewalks). These also largely have 20 foot setbacks, including the sidewalk. I don't know why 15 feet is the magical number for you.

All of these developments have/will have dozens or hundreds of houses.

All of these areas were zoned I1/I2 previously, and have been rezoned for PD-H or PD-MU. And there is tons more land to do that over there...much of it bordering the Westside Reservoir Park that will be built in 75 years. And even more in huge swaths around the city, some right on the Beltline. I don't think R needs to necessarily support that kind of density. I would think you'd be ecstatic to turn some of the barren wastelands on the southside and westside into newly-functioning high-density developments, bringing up the area around them. But apparently, that doesn't work for you because it's not in already-desirable and established areas. You seem to think that those areas should give up what they have made in order to fulfill your vision.

You say repeatedly that many of us "don't have the right to drive wherever we want with no barriers". Well, you also don't have the right to live anywhere you want just because it's where you want. You might have to earn it.

[jsvh]

We have been around this before.

If you change the law or change the zoning then of course it is possible to build.

And if you think that is an easy & inexpensive thing to do, then you should get into the dense development business to help meet this demand.

(Spoiler: rezonings are not easy, are not cheap, and often do not get approved anyway).

If not "R" zoning, what zoning class do you think is appropriate to allow for a house like that nice Australian-outer-suburban SFH to be built? Or do you really think it is reasonable to require a site-specific rezoning for every house like that to get built? Do you know what is involved in order to get a rezoning? You are talking at least a solid five-figures and six months (which can result in an additional five-figures in carrying costs itself).

How many people do you know that are willing to bet tens of thousands of dollars that they can get a rezoning approved? Why not just build an already legal 5,000 SF McMansion on that lot and sell it for half million and save yourself the risk and trouble?

Is it that hard to see how that is pushing up housing prices and holding back density?