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.
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.
I think you misunderstand my comment. I was responding to your notion that we can keep pushing people further and further out. How far out do you think metro Atlanta should spread before we allow more density closer in? Nice, affordable housing is already getting too far away for most people to commute reasonably.
These 1.5 and 2 hour one-way car commutes people are having to do every day in order to live somewhere they can afford is terrible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
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.
Again, you are focused on you. You don't like street parking so no one should.
And if we are ever going to give people real options to get out of their cars, they need affordable options in the closer-in parts of our metro.
Pull your head out of...that place. All I have done is support the people who live in established SFH neighborhoods who don't want to see their neighborhood torn apart by apartment complexes, single lots with ten houses, or businesses thrown up. I have fully, 100% supported massive density in huge swaths of land all over town. That's not enough for you. I can't help you further than that.
Quote:
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.p
Pretty sure I've owned a house here since before you graduated college, so I'm really not concerned about what you think of my decisions. Aren't you pretty new here? So, you get to come in and tell me I and 100,000 other people are wrong? Please.
I just see you being jealous of the people who have their neighborhoods, and you want to see them broken up. It has nothing to do with your list of buzzwords. Or else you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss many of the areas I and arjay have pointed out as wonderful spots. Spots which could be rebuilt to support tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new residents. All within minutes of the city core. Nope...get those SFH neighborhoods out of fourthwarden's world. He doesn't like them.
And if you think this is "my personal preference" (even though I've lived in a dense townhome development for 11.5 years now), why don't you go do a poll through our established neighborhoods and ask them how much they want to see houses around them torn down to install apartments, triplexes, and tiny houses. Get back to me with your results. And no, quoting urban-fabric blogs and research papers is not a source.
Quote:
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.
Didn't you post a graphic not long ago that showed massive number of people not wanting to live in the urban setting?
Quote:
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.
Now, you're just lying. I've gone and found numerous locations to densify. You just aren't satisfied with that. "I just want flexibility". No...you want the ability to break up low density.
Quote:
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.
There's also no shortage of available land and parking lots to densify. But, you just want to go after low-density housing because you don't like it.
Quote:
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?
I'm not the one proposing to break up established neighborhoods, bro. I'm the one proposing to build heavily on vast available property and turning the tons of leftover barren industrial wasteland into something new. I'm not the one killing anything here.
Again, please do a poll of people in established neighborhoods and ask if they want to see their neighborhoods broken up with density. They'll say "No. I've lived here for many years. I've put a lot into my neighborhood. I don't need all these new textbook urbanists who moved here a couple of years ago push their agenda on me." See how many agree with your plan.
Pull your head out of...that place. All I have done is support the people who live in established SFH neighborhoods who don't want to see their neighborhood torn apart by apartment complexes, single lots with ten houses, or businesses thrown up. I have fully, 100% supported massive density in huge swaths of land all over town. That's not enough for you. I can't help you further than that.
...
And if you think this is "my personal preference" (even though I've lived in a dense townhome development for 11.5 years now), why don't you go do a poll through our established neighborhoods and ask them how much they want to see houses around them torn down to install apartments, triplexes, and tiny houses. Get back to me with your results. And no, quoting urban-fabric blogs and research papers is not a source.
You don't need to defend others if you are really fine with this zoning overhaul.
There are plenty of other "F-U-I-got-mine" NIMBYs out there that speak up disproportionately already to try and impose their preferences on others.
You don't need to join their ranks if you are fine legalizing more affordable dense living options in the city for those that want them.
I think you misunderstand my comment. I was responding to your notion that we can keep pushing people further and further out. How far out do you think metro Atlanta should spread before we allow more density closer in? Nice, affordable housing is already getting too far away for most people to commute reasonably.
So, when I'm supporting mass development in town and near the Beltline, and not saying anything about anywhere OTP, I'm saying we can keep pushing people out. Yeah, I honestly cannot take you seriously any more. I think this is some sort of schtick.
Quote:
These 1.5 and 2 hour one-way car commutes people are having to do every day in order to live somewhere they can afford is terrible.
I'd be interested in hearing how many people live that far away because it's the only thing they can afford. You do not have to get two hours out to afford a place to live. Come on...just try, for once, to post something based partially in reality.
Quote:
Again, you are focused on you. You don't like street parking so no one should.
What I said was that garage apartments would be fine, but that I don't like on-street parking. Lots of cars in the street has actually turned me off of looking in some neighborhoods. I didn't say it shouldn't happen...just that it's a turn off for myself (and others)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
You don't need to defend others if you are really fine with this zoning overhaul.
There are plenty of other "F-U-I-got-mine" NIMBYs out there that speak up disproportionately already to try and impose their preferences on others.
How do you know they're disproportionately speaking out. Maybe there are just more of them, and not as many of you as you seem to believe.
Sam, I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore.
You are agreeing with basically everything in this zoning rewrite we are discussing. You have said you "fully, 100% supported massive density in huge swaths of land all over town" (that is even probably a bit extreme for what is really being proposed). You have said you are fine with most of the adjustments to zoning for things like ADUs. And you have said you "don't really care about this stuff".
It almost feels like you are just trying to push laws you don't even like just because you feel some urge to fight a "suburbs vs city" ideological battle every chance you get.
Pull your head out of...that place. All I have done is support the people who live in established SFH neighborhoods who don't want to see their neighborhood torn apart by apartment complexes, single lots with ten houses, or businesses thrown up. I have fully, 100% supported massive density in huge swaths of land all over town. That's not enough for you. I can't help you further than that.
Again, you insist on density being so awful that it will destroy any established neighborhood that so much as gets a new duplex, despite many of those same neighborhoods already having more multi-family housing than I think you'd ever know.
All I'm trying to do is to be as equitable as possible with this, while also giving the market the flexibility needed to handle things in the long-term. It's a reality, that you seem hell-bent to step over, that we have a housing shortage now, and will only have a housing shortage in the future if we don't handle these issues now.
I mean, just ask San Francisco how their housing market is doing.
Quote:
Pretty sure I've owned a house here since before you graduated college, so I'm really not concerned about what you think of my decisions. Aren't you pretty new here? So, you get to come in and tell me I and 100,000 other people are wrong? Please.
Pftahaha. Oh, I'm sure you have owned a house since before I graduated college. Then again, I was actually born in this city, and actually grew up in this city. It's been my home twice as long as it has been yours. Specifically, the East-side and Midtown have been my stomping grounds since well before you owned a home in this city.
I may be new(er) to the forum , but I've been an Atlantan for all my life.
Quote:
I just see you being jealous of the people who have their neighborhoods, and you want to see them broken up. It has nothing to do with your list of buzzwords. Or else you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss many of the areas I and arjay have pointed out as wonderful spots. Spots which could be rebuilt to support tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new residents. All within minutes of the city core. Nope...get those SFH neighborhoods out of fourthwarden's world. He doesn't like them.
I have, time and time again, said that I don't care if new density actually comes to the SFH neighborhoods as long as it's the market making that call in response to our housing needs and demands.
I have, time and time again, welcomed development to those areas you and arjay have mentioned.
I have, time and time again, explained why my suggestions would still bring development to them over the SFH neighborhoods, and even gone through how the city can further incentivize their development through active methods.
It's good to see you're paying attention, though.
Oh, and you're trying to call me on buzzwords when I have actual data to back me up, and you keep insisting that adding amenities to an area would 'destroy' it. Right.
Quote:
And if you think this is "my personal preference" (even though I've lived in a dense townhome development for 11.5 years now), why don't you go do a poll through our established neighborhoods and ask them how much they want to see houses around them torn down to install apartments, triplexes, and tiny houses. Get back to me with your results. And no, quoting urban-fabric blogs and research papers is not a source.
I mean, I already have data showing the discrepancy between the wants and realities of our housing situation. I have data showing the rising prices, and the high occupancy rates showing shortage. I have analysis showing the solutions.
If anyone should have the burden of providing additional data, it's you. If anyone who's word is unsubstantiated it's yours.
In the mean time, I watch people build massive McMansions for single families in my neighborhood, which could easily be a 4 or 6 unit apartment building, and no one really seems to care then about the neighborhood's character, and people buy them. The same building profile could house four times as many people without hardly a change, yet, somehow I'm supposed to just take your word? Nah.
Quote:
Didn't you post a graphic not long ago that showed massive number of people not wanting to live in the urban setting?
I posted a mislabeled graphic, which I'd talked about in that thread, that showed a massive number of people wanting to live in the urban setting. I'd also posted an entire thread about the discrepancy between people wanting to live in an urban setting vs. those who did.
Quote:
Now, you're just lying. I've gone and found numerous locations to densify. You just aren't satisfied with that. "I just want flexibility". No...you want the ability to break up low density.
Not particularly, no.
I wouldn't mind if VaHi stayed as is, nor would I mind if it got new apartments and shops. I love the neighborhood as is, it is my home after all, but I don't mind change. It doesn't scare me. Especially when I look at the larger picture of the metro's needs. Same applies to all other SFH neighborhoods, like Inman Park, Morning Side, and Druid Hills, all of which I've spent much of my life in and around.
I just want the market to have the ability to actually meet demand, and for individuals to be able to help. You can call me a liar for saying that, but it just shows that you have no idea who I am, why I'm saying what I am, or why I do what I do.
Quote:
There's also no shortage of available land and parking lots to densify. But, you just want to go after low-density housing because you don't like it.
Nah. I just want to keep from having all this discussion all over again in a decade when the demand still hasn't been met.
I look forward to that land being filled in, but I still want a level playing field for the market to properly meet needs.
Quote:
I'm not the one proposing to break up established neighborhoods, bro. I'm the one proposing to build heavily on vast available property and turning the tons of leftover barren industrial wasteland into something new. I'm not the one killing anything here.
Still so twisted up in this silly idea that adding amenities somehow means a neighborhood is broken. It's really quite the opposite, actually.
I mean, do you really think that these neighborhoods are the same as they've always been? That they've never changed since their inception as streetcar suburbs? That they've never grown, nor changed, nor built-up? You fight so hard to preserve what's there against the very forces that made them what they are today.
I just want to meet the needs of our metro in known and effective ways such that we don't have to come back to this argument in 10 years' time and waste even more energy and city resources to do so.
Quote:
Again, please do a poll of people in established neighborhoods and ask if they want to see their neighborhoods broken up with density. They'll say "No. I've lived here for many years. I've put a lot into my neighborhood. I don't need all these new textbook urbanists who moved here a couple of years ago push their agenda on me." See how many agree with your plan.
This city has been my home since birth. I've watched both the effects of development do good, and the affects of over-restrictive zoning do bad. God forbid I try and actually do what's best for my home, for my city. For our city.
I have my data. I think it's about time you tried to back up your position with your own data. You insist it's so obvious, so I'd imagine you could get it done pretty easily, surely. I mean, it's only ~$10k to do a proper poll, but what would that insignificant amount be to preserve the 'character' of our neighborhoods that's seized your heart so? Best of luck to you, hun.
In the end, though, we're just going in circles. Unless you have something new to add, I suggest we table this discussion since neither of us will budge, apparently. It's been fun, but I should probably devote less energy to fussing at a brick-wall.
Do you believe that cities should work to make every part of the city affordable to a broad spectrum of people?
This is a serious question. There are a lot of social/economic benefits to people being able to live in the better parts of town, but obviously there are problems with it too.
I have, time and time again, said that I don't care if new density actually comes to the SFH neighborhoods as long as it's the market making that call in response to our housing needs and demands.
The north and east sides of town (including the single family neighborhoods) have absorbed tremendous growth in both actual numbers and in density over the past few decades. This includes scores of highrises, dozens of midrise projects, and countless condos, townhomes and planned developments. In addition, the office, education, retail and hotel sectors have grown exponentially.
This continues unabated. In my opinion it makes for a nice mix. Most people are okay with it, and they have worked hard to ensure that this massive increase in density doesn't destroy the quality of life that made the areas desirable in the first place. Amazingly enough, even though density has naturally driven prices up, there's still a fair amount of affordable housing available.
However, this huge increase in density has not caused development on the south and west sides of town. This is true even though many have been pushing hard for it. Efforts have included initiatives to establish TOD around underdeveloped MARTA stations, down payment assistance programs, special zoning districts, the extension of the Beltline, the creation of Tax Allocation Districts, new parks, major private donations, beautiful new rec centers, tax credits and loan programs, corridor studies and Complete Streets programs, and so on.
Personally I believe we'll eventually see the south and west side really take off in a huge way, and that will be wonderful.
At the same you can't lay the blame for slow growth on lack of density in the north and east quadrants. They've in fact seen huge increases in density but that doesn't correlate to development in other areas.
You don't need to defend others if you are really fine with this zoning overhaul.
There are plenty of other "F-U-I-got-mine" NIMBYs out there that speak up disproportionately already to try and impose their preferences on others.
You don't need to join their ranks if you are fine legalizing more affordable dense living options in the city for those that want them.
I see nothing wrong with the F-U-I-got-mine crowd in this context. Folks have spent a lot money, work, effort and sweat to live in some of the intown single family home neighborhoods. They didn't buy in, say, Ansley Park, hoping that density would develop around them. They bought in a single family neighborhood. To adapt the zoning to change the nature of the neighborhood is boorish and selfish. That's like someone buying a BMW and then, here you come along, and make them drive a go cart instead. These residents bought into the current zoning scheme. They didn't buy into some future zoning scheme that would change the character of their neighborhood. Geez.
That's like someone buying a BMW and then, here you come along, and make them drive a go cart instead. These residents bought into the current zoning scheme. They didn't buy into some future zoning scheme that would change the character of their neighborhood. Geez.
A lot of people did not buy into the current zoning scheme. We last overhauled zoning in the 1980s, many have owned longer than that.
Also, no one is making anyone do anything different. If you like your house the way it is, no one is forcing you to change it with this updated zoning.
It is more like someone buying a BMW then wanting to keep a law that only allows people in the neighborhood to own BMWs. It is great you want to pay for a BMW and I don't want to deny you that. But stop forcing everyone else to do the same, owning a BMW is just too expensive for many people. And "just move to another neighborhood" is not the solution.
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.
