Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (Druid Hills: big house, deed)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Those areas already are rural in design / layout / population density. They just propose keeping it that way. Much of Atlanta is rural on an international scale.



What areas in the NW CoA are you referring to?



You doubt that 15% of people in the metro want to live in the city? Seems like a pretty conservative number to me. Heck those 15% are probably just the share that want to live in an urban / highrise area. Bet an even much higher % would love a nice single family home closer in in the city limits if given a somewhat affordable choice.

Rural areas are for rural areas. Not for the 134 square mile core of a metro area of 5-8 million people. If you want green space, build parks.

You didn't read my other comment carefully enough. I said people don't always act on what they wish for many reasons. Many people who might want to live in the city choose to live elsewhere because of cost, schools, job location, relatives, friends or other reasons. So if 15% of the people "want" to live in the city, you will never get 15%.

[bu2]

As for the west areas for more density, I'm including virtually everything south of the industrial zones down to I-20.

They could build a lot of the type of housing you are suggesting, creating a more affordable area than Buckhead. It would also take development pressure of some other SFH areas. There is a lot of underdeveloped land and underutilized industrial/commercial areas in that corridor.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

Rural areas are for rural areas. Not for the 134 square mile core of a metro area of 5-8 million people. If you want green space, build parks.

Well, I personally would support more density in those areas, but I think most of those green / conservation areas are a political requirement to get this done.

Originally Posted by bu2

You didn't read my other comment carefully enough. I said people don't always act on what they wish for many reasons. Many people who might want to live in the city choose to live elsewhere because of cost, schools, job location, relatives, friends or other reasons. So if 15% of the people "want" to live in the city, you will never get 15%.

I doubt there methodology was simply asking everyone in the metro if they "want to live in the city of Atlanta". 15% living inside the city limits seems like quite a reasonable level to design the city to support. Honestly I think they should be planning for more than that, then if all those people don't show up we will still be in fine shape.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

Rural areas are for rural areas. Not for the 134 square mile core of a metro area of 5-8 million people. If you want green space, build parks.

You didn't read my other comment carefully enough. I said people don't always act on what they wish for many reasons. Many people who might want to live in the city choose to live elsewhere because of cost, schools, job location, relatives, friends or other reasons. So if 15% of the people "want" to live in the city, you will never get 15%.

Well, remember that article I posted a while ago about the comparative differences in preferred housing types in Boston and Atlanta?

Over 80% of those who strongly preferred to live in urban areas in Boston (where 50% of the metro is urban) actually did, where as only 40ish% of those who strongly preferred urban areas in Atlanta (where only 10% of the metro is urban) actually did.

Given our high occupancy rates and rising housing costs, I would not be surprised if we could get pretty close to that 15%. Not the full 15%, but maybe something like 12%. Of course, there are also other urban areas in the metro, though, and they could contribute to a reduction of that 15%, especially if connected via high-capacity transit. Even so, we need to build the housing in quantity enough to let them actually live here, physically, and in price point. Other things will follow suit.


So, the two outcomes for building the housing for that 15%, is either we house them, or we drive housing prices down making things more affordable, and eventually attracting enough people to replace those who didn't come.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Well, remember that article I posted a while ago about the comparative differences in preferred housing types in Boston and Atlanta?

Over 80% of those who strongly preferred to live in urban areas in Boston (where 50% of the metro is urban) actually did, where as only 40ish% of those who strongly preferred urban areas in Atlanta (where only 10% of the metro is urban) actually did.

A bit off topic for a bit, but we were just in Boston last weekend. I've been many times before to the actual City on business trips, but this was the first time I saw the Northern suburbs (or the Northshore) all the way in from New Hampshire.

I believe that the 50% of the Boston Metro being urban bit that you stated is accurate, as even the outlying towns like Marietta, Roswell, etc. have very urban centers with dense surrounding neighborhoods. It's SO old though, and we just aren't built that way here. These quaint, British looking towns also have new subdivisions on their outskirts just like here, but they are insanely more expensive! All real esatate is.

BUT, they have wide expanses of the sprawl interrupted by beautiful working farms, State and County/Town parks and protected greenbelts. Their commuter rail extends as far out as places like Gainesville and Madison, and people use it. However, they are much less dense than we are overall in the outer reaches, and it is very dominated in certain Towns by huge minimum lot sizes. It's extremely sprawly, and very low density across wide areas.

But they do SO many things right, and the commuter rail network was very impressive. The cost is very high though, at over $400 a month plus parking for a unlimited network card with access to the subways and buses in Boston!

It was very cool to see the differences between the actual Metro's, and not just the Cities. It's a great place, and I look forward to our next visit.

Sorry for the interruption fourthwarden, but your Boston reference triggered this!

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Well, I personally would support more density in those areas, but I think most of those green / conservation areas are a political requirement to get this done.

Wait...so is your desire just vast expanses of tightly-spaced homes with no green space?

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by JMatl

[Good Stuff]

Sorry for the interruption fourthwarden, but your Boston reference triggered this!

Naw, I actually consider it on topic. I myself have posed the idea of taking advantage of the proposed commuter rail network, and the historic railroad towns that we have, to do something very similar to what you've described.

They're not going to be colonial era, of course, but we can put in a significant amount of density around transit stations using the existing town centers, and the stations themselves, as anchors. With that, we could house many more people in urban areas, even if they're not in the city proper.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by JMatl

A bit off topic for a bit, but we were just in Boston last weekend. I've been many times before to the actual City on business trips, but this was the first time I saw the Northern suburbs (or the Northshore) all the way in from New Hampshire.

I believe that the 50% of the Boston Metro being urban bit that you stated is accurate, as even the outlying towns like Marietta, Roswell, etc. have very urban centers with dense surrounding neighborhoods. It's SO old though, and we just aren't built that way here. These quaint, British looking towns also have new subdivisions on their outskirts just like here, but they are insanely more expensive! All real esatate is.

BUT, they have wide expanses of the sprawl interrupted by beautiful working farms, State and County/Town parks and protected greenbelts. Their commuter rail extends as far out as places like Gainesville and Madison, and people use it. However, they are much less dense than we are overall in the outer reaches, and it is very dominated in certain Towns by huge minimum lot sizes. It's extremely sprawly, and very low density across wide areas.

But they do SO many things right, and the commuter rail network was very impressive. The cost is very high though, at over $400 a month plus parking for a unlimited network card with access to the subways and buses in Boston!

It was very cool to see the differences between the actual Metro's, and not just the Cities. It's a great place, and I look forward to our next visit.

Sorry for the interruption fourthwarden, but your Boston reference triggered this!

That is a great assessment of the Boston area, JMatl!

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by arjay57

That is a great assessment of the Boston area, JMatl!

Thanks, arjay57!

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Wait...so is your desire just vast expanses of tightly-spaced homes with no green space?

No. Why do you think that? Do you think density makes for less green space? Accessible public parks are much more common in denser areas. I'd even say they go hand and hand. Like how some of the highest density is next to Central Park in NYC and Piedmont Park here in Atlanta. Not to mention density in cities allows more wide open spaces / wilderness to exist outside of cities.

If you care about preserving green space you should be cheering for density, not spamming low density suburbia over as much area as possible.

That is why this plan the city is working on where some areas are conserved and others areas allow more growth are so important. The people are coming, we need to be smart about giving them options where to live in order to maintain our green space.