Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-11-2017, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,739 posts, read 13,315,624 times
Reputation: 7171

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Because no one can ever build density around old trees, nor plant new trees that will grow into old trees, can they?
Roll eyes if you want. The residents will never allow it. Nor should they.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2017, 07:58 AM
 
5,633 posts, read 5,334,801 times
Reputation: 3855
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Because no one can ever build density around old trees, nor plant new trees that will grow into old trees, can they?
You live devoid of reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,559 posts, read 4,674,335 times
Reputation: 2284
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
You live devoid of reality.
I'm sorry I'm actually trying to allow us to do things that are known, in both an academic and professional way, to meet the housing demand we have. A way that will save us effort and resources in the future, while bringing new amenities, jobs, and revenue to the city in a non-discriminatory style.

But, you know, I'm the bad guy here for some reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 01:54 PM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,836,402 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
So let's chain saw the trees to make room for high density developments right in the street. A city in a forest?
Moving the goalposts again. But this zoning overhaul is much needed exactly in order to protect Atlanta's Tree canopy.

Protecting the tree canopy is a main goal of this zoning rewrite:
Designing an inclusive, growing Atlanta while protecting neighborhoods and tree canopy - SaportaReport
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3nvye0vfa1...04-sm.pdf?dl=0

Strengthing the Tree Ordinance is a key part of what Tim Keane is working on: Atlanta seeks to protect tree canopy with rewrite of ordinance

Also, the bigger threat to the tree canopy is not denser buildings being built in place other less dense buildings, it is the acres of forest at a time that gets bulldozed to build WalMart parking lots and sprawling SFH subdivisions.

If you care about protecting the tree canopy, you should support legalizing more density so we can offer people living options that will keep our urban footprint smaller instead of spreading out further over more trees.

Last edited by jsvh; 06-11-2017 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 02:53 PM
 
5,633 posts, read 5,334,801 times
Reputation: 3855
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
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.
In the end, I think where we are all coming to odds is the vision and desires we have for our city. People such as myself moved here specifically because it's not a highly-dense urban jungle. That is the very reason we chose the city of Atlanta over other large cities. When I moved here, the epicenter of my career was NYC and to a lesser extent, LA. But I hate both cities, along with other big dense metros. I chose Atlanta because it has a mix of city living and suburban feel right in town.

Many others chose Atlanta because of the same thing. They live here because it's not a dense urban jungle. What you are proposing is ruining that feel to turn it into yet another dense urban city, removing everything that makes Atlanta great. You think you know it all, and that all these people actually will be happy to have all that dense urban development, but here's the thing: you don't. The people who live in the quiet neighborhoods live there for a reason: that's how they want to live. Then along come you urban-fabric types saying "No, no, no...you're wrong and are living wrong. You should live like I want you to."

If you think you aren't going to receive blowback from them, then your head is in a fog. There are any number of places to live if you want to live a dense urban life. Why do you have to kill this city to do it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
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?
If you can't comprehend sentences, I'm not going to keep explaining it. DERELICT, ABANDONED industrial sites, not those next to factories. Jesus Lizard. I thought explaining things over and over to my five year old was bad.

I'm going to ask a serious question: are you just trolling?

Quote:
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.
Nope. I like it because it protects many of our neighborhoods from the high-density stuff they don't want. But you can't accept that not everyone wants it like you and that you are actually likely in the small minority.

Quote:
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.
If 20ft setbacks are ridiculous and 15ft setbacks make you giddy, then what the hell ever. That is easily the least important aspect I could possibly think of. Guest houses are all over the place, especially in rich neighborhoods...so they must not be that hard to get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 03:44 PM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,836,402 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Many others chose Atlanta because of the same thing. They live here because it's not a dense urban jungle.
I think you will find most people actually came because of the affordable housing options. We have wide expanses of land that have made that possible. However, we are now reaching the limits of how far we can spread and still being within reasonable commute distance and that is pushing housing prices up rapidly. Now we need to open up the laws closer in to allow more housing closer in so we can try to keep the increases to a reasonable level, otherwise we will lose a main reason people move to the metro.


Sam,

You seem fine with about every exception to zoning that has been brought up. You have said that you "couldn't care less" about this stuff, so why do you keep arguing? If anyone is trolling, it is you.

You seem OK with most everything being proposed in this zoning overhaul when we talk about details. Can we just give it a rest and let this move forward?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 04:10 PM
 
5,633 posts, read 5,334,801 times
Reputation: 3855
I think you will find most people actually came because of the affordable housing options. We have wide expanses of land that have made that possible. However, we are now reaching the limits of how far we can spread and still being within reasonable commute distance and that is pushing housing prices up rapidly. [/quote]

We aren't anywhere close to the limits. It's just appears to be in areas you don't deem worthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Sam,

You seem fine with about every exception to zoning that has been brought up. You have said that you "couldn't care less" about this stuff, so why do you keep arguing? If anyone is trolling, it is you.

You seem OK with most everything being proposed in this zoning overhaul when we talk about details. Can we just give it a rest and let this move forward?
Sure...leave the R1-R4 neighborhoods alone (R4A is up for grabs), unless they want the extra development, and move on. I'm happy, you're (maybe) happy...

Maybe when I'm sitting around at work next week, I'll work up a little map of some of the many areas ripe for new multi-family or high-density housing development. Enough to house many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. And really, anywhere within a mile or two of the perimeter is a reasonable commute time in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 05:40 PM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,836,402 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
We aren't anywhere close to the limits. It's just appears to be in areas you don't deem worthy.
A lot of major world cities don't even extend out as far as 285 for even their furthest outer-suburbs. Yes, that far out is somewhere I am not interested in living, personally. But I am not the one voicing to put limits on where people can live. I am trying to loosen them up so more people can live intown if they choose. I am not trying to stop anyone from living that far out if they want.

So what exactly is the "limit" where you think our metro region needs to spread to before you are willing to allow more people to live intown (density) that this zoning overhaul is preparing for?

Is planning for this level of density really that extreme?


The population growth is coming to the metro one way or another, and we should allow more the option of living in the city if they choose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Sure...leave the R1-R4 neighborhoods alone (R4A is up for grabs), unless they want the extra development, and move on. I'm happy, you're (maybe) happy...
Ormewood Park is R4 and it is severely broken and needs to see an overhaul most of all.

The whole code needs an overhaul. This rewrite is looking at more of a form based or hybrid code. That means more of a focus on things like front-facing garages and how buildings meet the street than with arbitrary set-back lines.

That doesn't mean the new code is going to let the character our beautiful leafy neighborhoods change significantly. It just means that things like that apartment over the garage that your neighbor already has will be come a little more common for those that want to build them. Or neighborhoods that already have older duplexes and triplexes built in it like Ormewood Park will start to see those start to get built again instead of demolished for McMansions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,559 posts, read 4,674,335 times
Reputation: 2284
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
In the end, I think where we are all coming to odds is the vision and desires we have for our city. People such as myself moved here specifically because it's not a highly-dense urban jungle. That is the very reason we chose the city of Atlanta over other large cities. When I moved here, the epicenter of my career was NYC and to a lesser extent, LA. But I hate both cities, along with other big dense metros. I chose Atlanta because it has a mix of city living and suburban feel right in town.
And there it is. You hate density. You.

Density, though, would bring in much needed revenue for the city and make it more financially sustainable, would allow many more people to live near employment centers, would allow many more people to live near schooling opportunities, would allow many more people to live without a car, would waste less energy per capita, and would pollute less per capita.

Yet, you don't like density. Therefore, it must be contained to preserve the reason you moved here, so it would seem.

I don't care that you came here for less density. I think it was a poor decision on your part considering the dynamics of this city and its path forward, but whatever.

What I do care about is that you're using your personal preferences to try and keep the city from meeting housing demands, increasing socioeconomic mobility, increasing economic sustainability, and reducing the ecological impacts of our population all at the same time.

Quote:
Many others chose Atlanta because of the same thing. They live here because it's not a dense urban jungle. What you are proposing is ruining that feel to turn it into yet another dense urban city, removing everything that makes Atlanta great. You think you know it all, and that all these people actually will be happy to have all that dense urban development, but here's the thing: you don't. The people who live in the quiet neighborhoods live there for a reason: that's how they want to live. Then along come you urban-fabric types saying "No, no, no...you're wrong and are living wrong. You should live like I want you to."
I agree with jsfvh, that it's much more likely that far more people chose the area for both its affordability and the opportunities here as one of the top 10 metros in the county. In fact, the numbers showing a large discrepancy between those who want to live in an urban setting compared to those who do shows a supply gap in just the opposite direction you seem to be suggesting. The rising prices and high occupancy rates simply support that. The very affordability that has fueled growth before is being threatened by a lack of housing.

Yet, here you are, imposing your personal tastes onto the city. You are the one imposing ideals to the detriment of others, not I. Telling me I'm speaking for others, please.

I don't care if certain areas densify over others. I'm not choosing winners and loosers for the sake of my personal tastes. I just want options. I want abilities. I want flexibility. I want real solutions to our growing affordability issues, and our growing economic disparity. We know those solutions. I've been repeating them to you for many pages now. You seem satisfied, though, to try and keep those very solutions as contained as possible to fit your view of what makes this city great.

There is no shortage of low-density neighborhoods in our metro. There is, however, a shortage of dense, urban areas, and it's creating tangible, real-world problems. You want to contain the solutions, but we'll just see the same issues persist over time if we do.

Give the market the flexibility needed to fix this, through the entire city and in as much of the metro as possible. Otherwise, things will only continue to get worse. We've had 60 years of experience with this. We know this.

Quote:
If you think you aren't going to receive blowback from them, then your head is in a fog. There are any number of places to live if you want to live a dense urban life. Why do you have to kill this city to do it?
You and Arjay are a perfect example of the blowback that'd come. It doesn't make it anymore right, morally or mathematically or otherwise.

Why do you have to kill this city to mandate your preferences? Why do you have to kill other peoples' opportunities? Why do you have to continue to contribute to wasting more energy, and making more pollution, and hurting socioeconomic mobility?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2017, 07:40 PM
 
5,633 posts, read 5,334,801 times
Reputation: 3855
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
So what exactly is the "limit" where you think our metro region needs to spread to before you are willing to allow more people to live intown (density) that this zoning overhaul is preparing for?
Every place I have been talking about is in town, and in most cases on or very near the Beltline. I have not discussed a single location OTP for expansion. If you do not believe so, please correct me and provide a source where I have talked OTP.

Quote:
Is planning for this level of density really that extreme?
For the people that love Atlanta for what it is, maybe so.


The population growth is coming to the metro one way or another, and we should allow more the option of living in the city if they choose.

Quote:
Ormewood Park is R4 and it is severely broken and needs to see an overhaul most of all.
I thought R4 was the .17 lots (near the 7,000 sqft you crave), it's .21. So, instead of 7,000 sqft, it's 9,150 sqft. So, I'll give you R4 as well.

Quote:
That doesn't mean the new code is going to let the character our beautiful leafy neighborhoods change significantly. It just means that things like that apartment over the garage that your neighbor already has will be come a little more common for those that want to build them. Or neighborhoods that already have older duplexes and triplexes built in it like Ormewood Park will start to see those start to get built again instead of demolished for McMansions.
That may be all you are talking about. That's not what the other participant here is talking about. Okay with a few garage apartments, but it would get old really quickly to have a bunch of garage apartments, and a bunch of new cars clogging the streets. Street parking is a huge turnoff for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top