Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (Druid Hills: rentals, how much)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

But, don't people have a choice now? You can choose to live in a condo or an apartment on Peachtree in Midtown, in a SFH in Brookwood Hills with a nice yard and garden, or in a gated subdivision out here in the burbs. Seems like Atlanta has lots of choices for all different lifestyles. Perhaps, though, I'm missing your point (unfortunately, my wife tells me that I do that frequently...).

Ansley, there you go again. Being reasonable.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

The elderly and handicapped may disagree with you.

And they may appreciate the shorter trips and better transit service that more density enables, especially for those who can't drive, or who's limited income makes it impractical to afford a car.

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

But, don't people have a choice now? You can choose to live in a condo or an apartment on Peachtree in Midtown, in a SFH in Brookwood Hills with a nice yard and garden, or in a gated subdivision out here in the burbs. Seems like Atlanta has lots of choices for all different lifestyles. Perhaps, though, I'm missing your point (unfortunately, my wife tells me that I do that frequently...).

Originally Posted by arjay57

Ansley, there you go again. Being reasonable.

There's a discrepancy between those choices, though. Our housing supply is being artificially shifted to supply less density than there is demand for it. By lowering barriers of entry for development, we can better meet the pent up demand for more urban living.

The idea is to provide more and more affordable choices, not just pretend that there's a plethera of choices right now when prices are rising, occupancy rates are so high, and the surveyed preferences for living conditions are so out of place with the real distribution.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

There's a discrepancy between those choices, though. Our housing supply is being artificially shifted to supply less density than there is demand for it. By lowering barriers of entry for development, we can better meet the pent up demand for more urban living.

The idea is to provide more and more affordable choices, not just pretend that there's a plethera of choices right now when prices are rising, occupancy rates are so high, and the surveyed preferences for living conditions are so out of place with the real distribution.

fourthwarden, there are TONS of development opportunities intown, including locations in and around our world class transit system.

Believe me, if the demand is there, developers will be flocking to them like a duck on a Junebug.

And they can certainly build affordable urban homes if they want to. It is not mandatory for them to only build expensive housing.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

fourthwarden, there are TONS of development opportunities intown, including locations in and around our world class transit system.

Believe me, if the demand is there, developers will be flocking to them like a duck on a Junebug.

And they can certainly build affordable urban homes if they want to. It is not mandatory for them to only build expensive housing.

It's not mandatory, but many of our development rules and zoning ordinances make it impractical to build both middle housing and lower income housing, implementing a kind of de-facto required. The regulations simply keep the economics of those from coming into play. Things like minimum floor plan ratios, restrictive zoning, long and complicated zoning change processes, and mandatory land use (parking) all accumulate to keep 'the little guy', to use your phrasing, from being able to buy into the development game.

Sure there are plenty of places to develop, but the numbers on anything other than a massive, high-priced development generally don't work due these barriers. That often leaves us with only high-profile developers building expensive housing to be able to meet profit standards, reguardless of how many people want to live in an urban setting but can't afford to, though they could afford it if things were a bit cheaper.

What's missing is the middle development of small lots of duplexes, low-rise apartments, and even small row-house lots, all of which could be priced lower than 'luxury housing'. After all, removing overly restrictive regulations would not only lower the barrier of entry for a wider scale of developments, but we'd also increase supply, meeting the existing, but pent-up demand, and thus lowering housing costs.


Believe you me, if we removed many of these regulations (and enacted penalties on certain types of inactive land banking), we'd see a surge of infill not only in the most attractive parts of town, but everywhere, including many of the historically impoverished parts of town. Certainly that includes around transit stations where it's currently hard to financially justify new development due to the income levels of the surrounding neighborhood despite the positive draw of the station.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

But, don't people have a choice now? You can choose to live in a condo or an apartment on Peachtree in Midtown, in a SFH in Brookwood Hills with a nice yard and garden, or in a gated subdivision out here in the burbs. Seems like Atlanta has lots of choices for all different lifestyles. Perhaps, though, I'm missing your point (unfortunately, my wife tells me that I do that frequently...).

No, having less than 1% of the land in the metro zoned for denser options does not count as a real choice.

Our limits on density are artificially inflating prices on the limited dense options that do exist.

People deserve real choices. Not just expensive high rise condos in midtown and half acre McMansions in the suburbs.

Dense Single Family Homes like are built elsewhere in the world are a key example. A home on a 7,500 SF lot set back 15 ft from the street should be legal to build basically anywhere in the metro. It is not legal even in the densest "R" zoning in the city.

That is just one example. Missing middle housing is another. We need to broadly scrap our density bans. Not just small spots here and there.

Please tell me why nice new Australian-outer-suburban homes like these should be illegal to build basically everywhere in Atlanta (city and suburb):

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

I'm not sure I understand what you want. Most of the SFH in the CoA is already zoned and occupied, so there isn't a lot we can do to add density while keeping it SFH. Atlanta has embraced mixed use residential on commercial land.

So, what would you like to see built and roughly where?

It should be legal basically everywhere, especially our intown neighborhoods. It is terrible that if I choose to tear down my 1940 original duplex in Ormewood Park the only thing I would be able to legally rebuild in its place is a larger SFH set back much further from the street and with parking.

[cqholt]

Look at the shotgun homes in Cabbagetown; modest homes, small lots, no off-street parking, little yard between homes. These kinds of homes are currently illegal, but they allow increased density.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7482...2!8i6656?hl=en

[AnsleyPark]

Somebody please enlighten me as to why a developer would build single family homes, row houses or even townhomes when they could make much more money building a fancy shmancy high-rise condo tower or an expensive Buckhead home? The developer is going to want to maximize profits just like all other for-profit businesses. Sorta like asking why should Apple sell $120 phones when suckers (like me) will pay upwards of $700 for the latest iPhone? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand the economics of what many of you are discussing.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Somebody please enlighten me as to why a developer would build single family homes, row houses or even townhomes when they could make much more money building a fancy shmancy high-rise condo tower or an expensive Buckhead home? The developer is going to want to maximize profits just like all other for-profit businesses. Sorta like asking why should Apple sell $120 phones when suckers (like me) will pay upwards of $700 for the latest iPhone? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand the economics of what many of you are discussing.

I am not sure I follow you exactly, but yes, density will be more profitable for developers. Hence why if we legalize it, it will come.

But just because something is profitable does not mean it is bad and should be outlawed.

That rush of developers will increase supply and push down costs for the rest of us.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Somebody please enlighten me as to why a developer would build single family homes, row houses or even townhomes when they could make much more money building a fancy shmancy high-rise condo tower or an expensive Buckhead home? The developer is going to want to maximize profits just like all other for-profit businesses. Sorta like asking why should Apple sell $120 phones when suckers (like me) will pay upwards of $700 for the latest iPhone? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand the economics of what many of you are discussing.

The problem is that the developer (even if they really wanted to) can't build it at all due to the city's current zoning codes prohibiting that type of housing.

[AnsleyPark]

Just read an ABC article that stated over 98% of the workers in Buckhead cannot afford an apartment over $1,000 / month, thus they are all commuting and causing horrid traffic. The article goes on to say that Buckhead needs more affordable workforce housing. Of course, it neither explained or discussed how that could occur. I'd post the link, but it is behind the ABC's paywall.