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.
Yes. Because I think somewhere deep down you know that zonings are not easy and are part of the problem in the city.
But, you will note in an earlier post, that I did say that I'd agree to R4 and R5 being allowed to have pretty much anything built. If 15' setbacks are what is required to make you happy, and 20' is just insane, then go for it. Leave R1, 2, and 3 alone.
Being able to rezone a derelict industrial lot to allow new housing, provided the new use is valuable to both the city and the surrounding areas, is very different from not having any zoning, which would allow anything to be built anywhere anyone desired, like putting a car repair shop between two single family homes on a cul-de-sac, without question.
But if you think rezonings are easy, zoning is not really preventing that from happening is it?
Also, any city built before ~1920 had basically no zoning. How much of a problem do you think this undesirable mixing of uses was?
(Not that I am saying we should get rid of all zoning as you imply)
Which is it:
Zoning does not really matter and you can get about anything you want built fairly easily.
OR
Zoning matters, has the force of law, and takes "an act of congress" to change so we should make sure it allows what we want in our city.
But, you will note in an earlier post, that I did say that I'd agree to R4 and R5 being allowed to have pretty much anything built. If 15' setbacks are what is required to make you happy, and 20' is just insane, then go for it. Leave R1, 2, and 3 alone.
I am okay with that, too. If we need a few simple tweaks then by all means do it.
But if you think rezonings are easy, zoning is not really preventing that from happening is it?
Also, any city built before ~1920 had basically no zoning. How much of a problem do you think this undesirable mixing of uses was?
Would you want to live next to a factory? That's your example? I'm thinking that I would not enjoy what was happening in 1920.
Quote:
Which is it:
Zoning does not really matter and you can get about anything you want built fairly easily.
OR
Zoning matters, has the force of law, and takes "an act of congress" to change so we should make sure it allows what we want in our city.
?
I didn't say you could "get anything you want built fairly easy". Quite the opposite in fact. I said that derelict industrial sites and wide open expanses of land would probably be pretty easy to convert. Not that popular SFH neighborhoods would or should be easy to convert. You keep on thinking you have me caught in some sort of gotcha, but you are consistently wrong.
That's great...YOU don't care, but you're also a very fringe urban-fabric type. You do not represent the average person. And the average person, for the most part, likely doesn't want those things in their neighborhood to the degree that you do. It has nothing to do with **** you, I got mine. It has to do purely with the quality of life people prefer, and not everyone prefers to have a business or a multi-family dwelling next to them.
These types of things may not bother you, because I think you'd be happy even if you were living between a concrete plant and a nightclub, but that's just not a realistic expectation for most people.[/quote]
There have been, and still are, many times where the average person thinks wrong, where the simple facts and reality go against the common knowledge or opinion.
That is why I supplied those links, to show what the math and experts have figured out through study and calculation.
I see no reason for a person to have authority over another's property purely for the sake of what they do and do not like. If it were bad policy for the metro as a whole, or if it actively harmed someone, then yes, but adding a shop and apartments to a block do not do that. Quite the opposite in fact. They can dislike it all they want, but the benefits far outweigh their personal grudges.
Quote:
Let me give you an example of something in my neighborhood. We live in a townhome neighborhood with one-car garages, of tightly packed homes along a single boulevard-style street. Somehow, one of the owners managed to get approved to run an ice cream truck business out of his home. This means that from morning till night, there is sometimes a line of ice cream trucks out in the street waiting to pick up inventory or getting repaired. And all the truck drivers just kind of milling around. This is a nuisance, and should never have been allowed.
So, now...that one guy's choice (and whatever boneheaded person approved it) has affected a neighborhood of 410 homes who have to maneuver around his operation.
Does the business pose a health or safety hazard? I don't expect it does. In the mean time, it's providing jobs to those who might otherwise not have them, and revenue to the city via a whole manner of taxes.
We have plenty of people who don't live in our neighborhood park on the local streets to go to the shops, and bars, and restaurants, and festivals, and all. It's really not a big deal, and I hardly take notice.
How big is the impact on you, anyway? Do they actually impede you from... well, anything? It honestly sounds like you resent the city aspects of living in the city.
Quote:
I guarantee you that if you started dropping duplexes and apartment buildings in the middle of ridgewood, the values of the existing houses would go down.
Well, considering that the only way that people would start building duplexes and apartment buildings in that area is if there were demand for it, and increasing demand raises property values, I would say you're quite simply wrong about that.
Quote:
The property is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial, just like the area was where Atlanta Station is now. It's been sitting there for years as a derelict lot, and was previously an office building. I see no reason more Atlantic Station-style mixed-use development couldn't have happened there. If it happened 1/4 mile away, why couldn't it happen on this lot? Apparently, no one was interested enough. Do you really think parking minimums and setbacks are what left this lot empty for so long?
It sat empty because the State bought it and held it for a potential Amtrak Station. Simple as that. I have no idea what Fuqua did to get it from the state, but I doubt that if this property had been on the open market, and if those restrictions weren't in place, that it'd look very different.
Quote:
No, but it could under your proposals. Think about it.
Oh, and i didn't say a Costco represented density, just that if a property owner is free to do whatever they want with their property, this may well become your reality. Again...think about it.
Okay, I thought about it. I think you have a poor grasp of what developers would do to maximize use of land area if not for certain restrictions. A Costco is a poor use of land for a developer in a highly in-demand neighborhood. They would see much better returns on investment doing other things.
In fact, depending on just how in-demand the area was, they could very well loose money on taxes given the values of the land needed to do such a thing.
Ironically, restrictive land-use regulations in less in-demand areas are exactly what bring us things like strip-malls. I can guarantee you that, if they could legally do it, large swaths of parking would be converted to more profitable lease space.
Quote:
You sound like a House Hunters character. After visiting the cafes, will you sip coffee on your deck before entertaining friends in your mancave?
Ah, good. Caricatures. Mature.
I mean, who actually likes cafes and restaurants and shops? I'll have to ask all those people going to them next time I'm at home. Certainly no one ever learned to like something after it comes in. Never. And, certainly, we've never had an instance of a loud minority speaking for people who wouldn't actually mind. Never.
Quote:
Breaking up established neighborhoods is my idea of toxic.
There you go again. It's not 'breaking up' if you're literally adding commodities to it. Do side walks 'break up neighborhoods'? Do parks 'break up neighborhoods'? Do schools 'break up neighborhoods'? Adding mixed use shops and such are simply bringing in more for people to do, and without needing to constantly drive 5 miles to do it.
Quote:
Not everyone wants to live in dense areas with hundreds and thousands of close-by neighbors. I don't know how many times this can be explained to you.
And I don't know how many times I can explain that that's simply not what would happen. You're delusional if you think that the people who have the most resources, and who are best positioned to resist rising prices and demand won't.
Then again, just because it won't happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't allow it to happen.
Quote:
You're right. We can do that in vast amounts of the city.
And it should be allowed to happen all across the city, and much of the metro at large.
Quote:
I don't care if you agree with me. I find your position completely devoid of reality and not even remotely associated with the desires of most people. There are people who live in 5th floor walkups in NYC who can't understand why anyone would want to live any other way, and there are people who live on ranches in Montana who can't understand why anyone would want to live any other way. Atlanta has what I consider to be a damn good mix of pleasing both.
Associated with the desires of most people, perhaps not (Though I would like to see you try and prove this. Got any polling data?), but hardly devoid of reality. Did you even bother to look at the papers and articles I posted?
The simple reality is that overly restrictive zoning raises costs by suppressing supply. This is a bipartisan, academically, and professionally accepted concept. So much so, that our previous democratic presidential administration felt it necessary to issue a tool kit to help combat this very problem. Even if we started with only where you want to start, we're still artificially suppressing supply. If that doesn't keep prices rising in the near-term, it certainly will in the long-term.
The discrepancies in housing desires and actual housing situations, the rising costs of housing, and the continuously high occupancy rates say that no, Atlanta is not actually a good mix of pleasing both, and that we're failing to meet demand.
Quote:
People move here because of that. I moved here because of that. You appear to want a completely different city...one that pleases the urban, high-density, car-free lifestyle you want, but breaks apart the quiet, SFH neighborhoods with yards that others want. We can have both, quite easily, but that's not good enough for you, because you don't like it. That's where the problem is.
[/quote]You keep trying to say that the rest of us think you want to force high density on others, even though not a single person has even insinuated that. All that others are saying is that some areas should not be up for the chopping block.[/quote]
You must not be reading the same posts I am then. You and arjay seem to be rather persistent that I'm some density-crazed maniac trying to force my ideals on everyone. Heck, you state this in the paragraph above this one.
In fact, arjay literally stated that I wouldn't get a warm reception if, and I'm quoting here, "roll into Morningside or Ansley Park or Druid Hills and start telling people they need to break up their huge lots to allow additional density in the form of smaller low-priced duplexes and multi-family units." As in, if I go and try and force people to break of their lots.
I don't want to do anything of the sort. I want the market to be allowed to meet rising demands, and I want individuals to have the ability to let it.
Again, it's not 'chopping up', it's adding commodities. Heck, I'd argue it's even less of 'chopping up' than the McMansions that replace torn-down houses all the times in some of those so holy of neighborhoods.
Quote:
Jesus Christ...how much more dense do you want it? The place is piled with huge multi-level apartment complexes in mid-level RG zones, and R5 zones, with lots down to 1/7 of an acre. There's so much construction happening there, you can't walk a block without stepping on a nail, yet that's STILL not enough for you? You want even more? Good Lord.
Dense enough to meet housing needs and demand so that the city-wide affordability can increase. That's on a city & metro-wide level though. Specifically for O4W? Just look at how much of the area near the BeltLine is taken up by parking decks and by parking lots. Midtown Place and Midtown Promenade devote over half their land area to surface lots. All those new apartments have gigantic parking decks as their cores. Even Ponce City Market has large surface lots and decks.
We can do far better for our city's poster child of positive urban renewal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
These arguments would apply if we were in a situation where there was a shortage of developable land.
No, actually those arguments apply period. Especially since restrictive zoning policies can turn huge areas into economically infeasible areas to develop. Remove those restrictions, and watch as huge areas of the city become attractive to developers.
Institute active policies and projects in certain other areas, and watch as even more land becomes attractive.
Quote:
However, that's not the case in Atlanta. There are huge areas waiting to be redeveloped that already have very favorable zoning and world class transportation infrastructure. If you want to talk about social justice, why would you let them continue to languish?
Except there aren't. The basic barriers to development still exist in those areas you keep trying to refer to.
Don't you try and catch me on social justice when you're still wanting to artificially limit city housing supply for the sake of what you consider pretty, instead of increasing supply to lower housing costs, increasing density to lower transit costs, and allowing mixed use to increase employment opportunities.
Besides, I keep telling you, that reducing those barriers would make the very 'languished' areas you're so eager to stick what you consider toxic on more attractive for development.
I just don't consider it good policy to then continue to artifically suppress housing and buisness development in the rest of the city as well.
[/quote]It would be the height of folly to start dismantling the city's most successful areas.[/quote]
See. This is what I don't get. In one paragraph, you say you think keeping new development from an area is to keep it languishing, yet here you say that the very same allowances would be to dismantle another area.
So which is it?
Is the new development toxic or beneficial? We're not talking about factories here, after all, we're talking about shops, and housing, and offices. It's just sad to see you so eager to stick what you seem to despise on other people.
No, actually those arguments apply period. Especially since restrictive zoning policies can turn huge areas into economically infeasible areas to develop. Remove those restrictions, and watch as huge areas of the city become attractive to developers.
Institute active policies and projects in certain other areas, and watch as even more land becomes attractive.
Except there aren't. The basic barriers to development still exist in those areas you keep trying to refer to.
Don't you try and catch me on social justice when you're still wanting to artificially limit city housing supply for the sake of what you consider pretty, instead of increasing supply to lower housing costs, increasing density to lower transit costs, and allowing mixed use to increase employment opportunities.
Besides, I keep telling you, that reducing those barriers would make the very 'languished' areas you're so eager to stick what you consider toxic on more attractive for development.
I just don't consider it good policy to then continue to artifically suppress housing and buisness development in the rest of the city as well.
See. This is what I don't get. In one paragraph, you say you think keeping new development from an area is to keep it languishing, yet here you say that the very same allowances would be to dismantle another area.
So which is it?
Is the new development toxic or beneficial? We're not talking about factories here, after all, we're talking about shops, and housing, and offices. It's just sad to see you so eager to stick what you seem to despise on other people.
fourthwarden,
You don't need to rezone Druid Hills and Ansley and Buckhead to redevelop the southside. There's no need to rezone Morningside, Candler Park or Virginia Highland in order to start building cool urban and affordable housing on the west side.
The southside and the westside are ripe for redevelopment. They have the zoning and the infrastructure in place for it. The city government and most residents are eager to see it happen. Get cracking!
You don't need to rezone Druid Hills and Ansley and Buckhead to redevelop the southside. There's no need to rezone Morningside, Candler Park or Virginia Highland in order to start building cool urban and affordable housing on the west side.
The southside and the westside are ripe for redevelopment. They have the zoning and the infrastructure in place for it. The city government and most residents are eager to see it happen. Get cracking!
Arjay, there's no reason to artificially restrain development in Druid Hills, Ansley, Buckhead, Morningside, Candler Park, and Virginia Highland.
In the long run, not doing so will cause harm, and waste resources retroactively handling, exactly like we are doing now.
Give the market and the individuals the ability to meet demand. Reduce antiquated and proven to be harmful regulations across the board, and let the city actually be able to meet the needs of its current and future residents.
Would you want to live next to a factory? That's your example? I'm thinking that I would not enjoy what was happening in 1920.
Yes, I do think neighborhoods like Cabbagetown should be legal to build. Workers should have the option of living next to their work. Of course there should be safety and environmental regulations that didn't exist then, but zoning is doing more harm than good to our cities now.
Again, I am not saying we need to get rid of all zoning, but yes we do need to make drastic overhauls to zoning, not just small changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
I didn't say you could "get anything you want built fairly easy". Quite the opposite in fact. I said that derelict industrial sites and wide open expanses of land would probably be pretty easy to convert. Not that popular SFH neighborhoods would or should be easy to convert. You keep on thinking you have me caught in some sort of gotcha, but you are consistently wrong.
But I thought you were just saying we shouldn't have housing right next to industry as a main example of why we need zoning. Now you expect it to be easier to rezone parcels in industrial areas to allow housing to be built next to factories than it should be to build a duplex?
I think you just need to come out and acknowledge that you care about zoning not because of some real concern about industry and residential mixing, but more because zoning is the only real tool you have to force your preference for low density suburban living on the city at large.
This zoning overhaul seems like some pretty reasonable middle ground. It is not scrapping zoning at all, in fact it is maintaining the majority of the land in the city as zones that where they will not be allowed high density. Just things like ADUs, and gasp, SFH with setbacks similar to the outer-suburbs elsewhere in the world. Is that really so bad? Do you think single family homes 15 ft from the street or an apartment over your garage is really going to have a negative effect on your neighborhoods? No it won't. But it will have a big positive impact on those people who are living in those new more affordable in-town living options instead of having a two hour commute.
So let's chain saw the trees to make room for high density developments right in the street. A city in a forest?
Because no one can ever build density around old trees, nor plant new trees that will grow into old trees, can they?
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.
