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.
Why do we have to have low income areas? With inclusionary zoning ordinances, low income would be spread throughout the metro, creating true MIC.
I'm not necessarily opposed to mandatory inclusionary zoning, although it has its own set of issues. For example, some believe it is anti-growth.
But mandatory inclusionary zoning means adding additional requirements, not relaxing existing ones. That's totally different from the greater density folks have been advocating in this thread.
Well if they can't afford Brookhaven they need to find a cheaper place to live. I don't consider that a housing shortage.
But it is. That is how a "market" works. If you constrain the supply, prices will go up. Sure you will be able to find some available, you just won't be able to afford it.
We need to stop this policy of constraining the housing supply supply in the city and forcing people to move further out due to high prices.
There are several issues that are being discussed on this thread:
1. A lack of supply of housing located ITP, and for a group of posters, here, specifically inside the City Limits of Atlanta
2. A belief that zoning laws prohibit an increase in supply of more housing units, thus forcing many who would enthusiastically choose to live in the City, but can't afford the current high prices, to live elsewhere further out.
3. Inclusionary Zoning is seen as a solution to this problem.
First, most of these arguments ignore the fact that at the present time, the U.S. is a capitalistic economy in which the free market determines the price of goods, including housing.
Second, the City of Atlanta has large areas of low density housing which were developed beginning a hundred years ago when these areas were rural areas outside the City limits - remember, most of Buckhead and a large portion of the City of Atlanta were unincorporated areas until a mass annexation in 1952. These areas were largely developed at the time of annexation. These communities expected that they would continue to have the density and development standards which they had prior to annexation. They didn't agree to annexation to see these residential areas of large estates be broken down with duplexes and apartments intermixed.
Third, why bother to have zoning laws if the government can decide that because there are all these people who desire to live close in, but can't because of the low density neighborhoods of Buckhead, Brookhaven, and much of Southwest Atlanta, therefore, these laws need to be overturned so that all of these people who want to live in their communities can do so. Zoning laws are what keep the property values up.
Fourth, if you remove the zoning laws and allow developers to go in and buy single family homes on acreage in Buckhead and then bulldoze them to build duplexes and apartments, how long do you think that the property values of the surrounding homes will hold up? Presently, the City of Atlanta and Fulton County receive a fortune from this area in which most homes are valued at well over a million.
Fifth, apartments in Metro Atlanta have a history of going down in value - just look at Franklin Rd. in Marietta where most of the complexes which were hot properties in the 1970's have been bulldozed. Also, look at Roswell Rd. in Sandy Springs and Buford Highway in the Chamblee/Doraville area as well as numerous apartment complexes in the Smyrna/Marietta area which were originally homes of high income professionals are far form that now. Do the city and county governments want to have rental property as the greater source of their tax base given this history?
I see quite the opposite taking place in which there is overbuilding of luxury five and six story apartments in the commercial areas of Sandy Springs, Midtown and Buckhead. While the economy is doing well now, what is going to happen when we face the next recession and these apartment complexes struggle to receive the rent they've been getting and are forced to drop their rents? (Remember how things were in 2009) This will lead to less maintenance on the buildings and they will join the numerous other older apartment complexes in Metro Atlanta which are a shadow of the luxury communities for which they were originally marketed.
Sure, I and a lot of folks would love to live on Peachtree Battle like the incoming FBI director (who happens to have an 8 acre estate there), but I can't afford it. However, I would prefer to see the lush green landscape of that area instead of it all being six story apartment buildings looking like something out of Brooklyn and Queens. Numerous cities have low density areas of large homes on acreage - try driving down Sunset Boulevard in L.A. , River Oaks in Houston, or Brookline in Boston. These areas will continue to exist because at the time they were developed, they were in semirural areas when land was plentiful and now are "grandfathered in" yet they are now great contributors to the tax bases of their respective cities.
Overtime, the free market will determine the price of real estate through the laws of supply and demand. This is taking place in Metro Atlanta where the cost of real estate pales in comparison to cities on both coasts.
A few things: Do you not consider zoning laws to be a limitation / artificial influence on the housing market? If we had quotas that limited grain production per acre would you not expect bread prices to increase?
You seem concerned about "property values going down" in town, but isn't that exactly what we want? Housing prices are too high in town because we are artificially limiting supply and not letting the free-market do its thing and increase supply enough to meet demand. (Note: I don't believe there is evidence that property values will go down on the whole with these changes, only the price per unit. Property value per acre will go up, and thus tax collections will go up. A lot of municipalities are getting into trouble by having a lot of infrastructure and not enough density to support it's maintenance. This would help that).
One may personally prefer to look at "8 acres of lush green landscape", but what about those who prefer having places to live, play, shop, and work more than something to look at? Who should get that choice of what should happen to that land? Shouldn't it be up to the landowner?
Also, you seem to get caught up in the mind set that only two choices are large single family homes in Buckhead and 100+ unit apartment complexes. I think more of the concern is around legalizing things like "missing middle" housing. Any thought there?
One may personally prefer to look at "8 acres of lush green landscape", but what about those who prefer having places to live, play, shop, and work more than something to look at? Who should get that choice of what should happen to that land? Shouldn't it be up to the landowner?
Also, you seem to get caught up in the mind set that only two choices are large single family homes in Buckhead and 100+ unit apartment complexes. I think more of the concern is around legalizing things like "missing middle" housing. Any thought there?
Nobody is being prevented from living, playing, shopping or working in the city of Atlanta by the FBI director's estate in Buckhead.
Buckhead and Midtown have been growing significantly, with scores of new higher density projects. The northern suburbs have also been growing like wildfire and adding major density. Folks like to live in these areas and developers have been scrambling to keep up.
However, there remain large areas in the city of Atlanta that have been losing population and that are underdeveloped. Let's work on getting some new development and density there. Many of them have excellent transportation infrastructure but consumer demand has been lacking. I am optimistic that things like Mims Park and the Beltline will help spread the growth and take a little heat off the north and east sides of town.
Nobody is being prevented from living, playing, shopping or working in the city of Atlanta by the FBI director's estate in Buckhead.
Buckhead and Midtown have been growing significantly, with scores of new higher density projects. The northern suburbs have also been growing like wildfire and adding major density. Folks like to live in these areas and developers have been scrambling to keep up.
However, there remain large areas in the city of Atlanta that have been losing population and that are underdeveloped. Let's work on getting some new development and density there. Many of them have excellent transportation infrastructure but consumer demand has been lacking. I am optimistic that things like Mims Park and the Beltline will help spread the growth and take a little heat off the north and east sides of town.
I am fine with the scattered growth and conservation areas that are planned. This 8 acre estate is no doubt in one of those "conservation areas" that will limit density. Probably even one of the "rural" areas that others were concerned about.
But I do think we need to let property owners and the free market have a little more leeway to do its thing to reduce housing costs in all areas of the city.
One may personally prefer to look at "8 acres of lush green landscape", but what about those who prefer having places to live, play, shop, and work more than something to look at? Who should get that choice of what should happen to that land? Shouldn't it be up to the landowner?
Also, you seem to get caught up in the mind set that only two choices are large single family homes in Buckhead and 100+ unit apartment complexes. I think more of the concern is around legalizing things like "missing middle" housing. Any thought there?
I have one: develop in the vast amount of space that is available to develop. This really isn't the difficult concept you are making it out to be. You act like because we have houses with large lots, that there's just nowhere left to build. That is flat-out false. All over southeast, southwest, and west Atlanta ITP, there are huge swaths of land and disused industrial areas (some right on MARTA) that could be used. Downtown alone has an enormous amount of space to develop. Midtown is filling in, but still has quite a few lots which can be developed. If I had the time, I'd make a map of all the areas which were empty or terribly under-used.
As for "the landowner" choosing what to do with "his property", I know this is America, and we like to think we are all on our own pillar, but we live amongst others. Just because you buy a piece of property, it shouldn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. At least, in my opinion.
This idea of preventing new people / density from moving into rich northside neighborhoods and forcing all the new people into poorer south side neighborhoods is sad.
But honestly, we still are not even to that point. The zoning laws are just as restrictive all over Atlanta. Either way you need a major overhaul to zoning. And I think the proposed "growth areas" are pretty fair and do target a lot of the "empty areas". Don't you?
Also, what is this magic threshold where we have "filled in" enough areas to allow more density? There are empty and underutilized lots in every city in the world.
I have one: develop in the vast amount of space that is available to develop. This really isn't the difficult concept you are making it out to be. You act like because we have houses with large lots, that there's just nowhere left to build. That is flat-out false. All over southeast, southwest, and west Atlanta ITP, there are huge swaths of land and disused industrial areas (some right on MARTA) that could be used. Downtown alone has an enormous amount of space to develop. Midtown is filling in, but still has quite a few lots which can be developed. If I had the time, I'd make a map of all the areas which were empty or terribly under-used.
You act like those areas where there are houses with big lots, inhabited by people with the money to resist development as they please, are going to be the first targets of densification.
That is flat-out false. As you said, there's tons of land that poses far less resistance on property acquisition in the west, southwest, south, and southeast parts of the city. These are the areas that would be developed first for the simple fact that there'd be less resistance to acquiring land on a lot by lot basis. We just need to make it economical to actually develop the properties by removing barriers to that development.
That doesn't mean that the 'nice' neighborhoods should be exlcuded from having the options, either on the personal land-owners' level or the developer buying land from those who willingly sell it, to densify.
Quote:
As for "the landowner" choosing what to do with "his property", I know this is America, and we like to think we are all on our own pillar, but we live amongst others. Just because you buy a piece of property, it shouldn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. At least, in my opinion.
The irony of this being that the landowner is subjected to the will of (a small portion of) the neighborhood, which, when done over and over and over again as it has been, leads to the suppression of housing supply in the metro.
See, not every neighborhood exists on its own pillar either. The metro has needs to handle growth, and yet they get to stifle that. So not only are they hurting the individuals' rights, but the collective good as well.
This idea of preventing new people / density from moving into rich northside neighborhoods and forcing all the new people into poorer south side neighborhoods is sad.
It's the reality in which some of us live. Those poorer southside neighborhoods would no longer be poorer if they got to see some development happening.
Quote:
But honestly, we still are not even to that point. The zoning laws are just as restrictive all over Atlanta. Either way you need a major overhaul to zoning. And I think the proposed "growth areas" are pretty fair and do target a lot of the "empty areas". Don't you?
For the most part, yes.
Quote:
Also, what is this magic threshold where we have "filled in" enough areas to allow more density? There are empty and underutilized lots in every city in the world.
There is no magic threshold. But, if I had to come up with a number, I'd say 42%.
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.
