Atlanta’s housing crisis: stop making it worse with bad arguments against growth (living, zoned)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Yep, Eric (Kronberg) is a good guy.

I have to disagree. He is benefiting enormously from a PDU development on his massive parcel in Edgewood, yet all this talk his publishes on his blog, he still choose to include front-facing garages. Shouldn't he be practicing what he blogs?


La France Walk | An Intown Live and Grow Community

[bu2]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

I think the new denser project needs to conform to the neighborhood look and feel. Too often the new density project is a big box structure that doesn't fit. To me, this is the biggest hurdle with adjusting zoning. It's tough to define that feel and look without stymieing all projects. It'll be interesting to see what Tim Keane comes up with.

Absolutely no to taste police. That is what creates disasters.

You have places like Plano, Texas where you have a 3 miles stretch of red brick doctor's boxes. You don't want regulators to have the power to get that specific. They designated the brick color. It then becomes the taste of a small group of people. (note-I like the dark red brick doctor's boxes, just not 3 miles of them).

[bu2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

You would probably agree with most of this post, jsvh. I am okay with it myself.

Big Picture Zoning Thoughts | Kronberg Wall Architecture Design Development Atlanta

Big picture would be scrapping that and simplifying much of it. He is a very small picture guy. Way too much regulation.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

So why would we not start with the many areas that are undeveloped or underdeveloped?

Wouldn't it make more sense to do that, before we begin hacking up stable, successful neighborhoods that folks have built up through decades of hard work and investment?

So you are going to have the city direct developers on which lots to re-develop first?

The idea is to have a long range plan, not a short-sighted one with the heavy hand of government, meaning only the well connected get to do what they want.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bu2

So you are going to have the city direct developers on which lots to re-develop first?

The idea is to have a long range plan, not a short-sighted one with the heavy hand of government, meaning only the well connected get to do what they want.

Yes, I'd certainly recommend pointing them in the right direction. Why come in and take apart successful historie neighborhoods like Druid Hills or Ansley when we've got plenty of undeveloped land elsewhere?

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Yes, I'd certainly recommend pointing them in the right direction. Why come in and take apart successful historie neighborhoods like Druid Hills or Ansley when we've got plenty of undeveloped land elsewhere?

Because there is little demand to live there. The best thing to do is improve the schools and safety of those areas to make them more inviting.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

I have to disagree. He is benefiting enormously from a PDU development on his massive parcel in Edgewood, yet all this talk his publishes on his blog, he still choose to include front-facing garages. Shouldn't he be practicing what he blogs?


La France Walk | An Intown Live and Grow Community

I see a problem with it right there. How are you going to have entire families living in houses with 0 or 1 car garages?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Because there is little demand to live there. The best thing to do is improve the schools and safety of those areas to make them more inviting.

I agree with improving safety and schools all around, but is that a reason for dismantling hard won successes like Druid Hills and Candler Park?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Yes, I'd certainly recommend pointing them in the right direction. Why come in and take apart successful historie neighborhoods like Druid Hills or Ansley when we've got plenty of undeveloped land elsewhere?

There's too much SFH zoning. But I never said you eliminate all of it. However I disagree with government in the inner city (roughly inside 285) zoning for estates. Historic districts can protect some of those areas from being "chopped up." But not everything is historic or needs to be preserved. There is a shortage of townhomes and patio homes close in. Those can be built in this market. You really aren't going to get a lot of "affordable" single family homes built. The lot is either too expensive or the neighborhood is too bad. But with density, you can justify more moderately priced housing.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bu2

There's too much SFH zoning. But I never said you eliminate all of it. However I disagree with government in the inner city (roughly inside 285) zoning for estates. Historic districts can protect some of those areas from being "chopped up." But not everything is historic or needs to be preserved. There is a shortage of townhomes and patio homes close in. Those can be built in this market. You really aren't going to get a lot of "affordable" single family homes built. The lot is either too expensive or the neighborhood is too bad. But with density, you can justify more moderately priced housing.

What did you think of the three projects I mentioned above? Developments like these are proliferating throughout the city.

They are all in or adjacent to traditional single family neighborhoods in the COA:

Z-14-01: 2.99 acres on Shady Valley rezoned from R-3 to RG-4, to allow for 38 new residences.

Z-14-75: 4.41 acres on Wieuca rezoned from R-3 to MR-2-C to allow for 30 new residences.

Z-15-53: 2.1 acres on Haverhill rezoned from RG-2 to PDH to allow for 38 new residences.