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.
Well I don't think they should be given tax breaks for the development either Arjay. But that was a separate issue and it sounds like they would have moved forward without it.
As for Brookhaven zoning, the MARTA TOD development was in the works for years. How long do you think it is acceptable Brookhaven to drag it's feet before it is clear that it is just tactic being used by the F-U-I-got-mine NIMBYs?
We will never know, since Brookhaven failed to vote on the rezoning.
We will never know, since Brookhaven failed to vote on the rezoning.
If only those NIMBY's in Brookhaven had realized that delaying another apartment complex would have such a catastrophic effect on the whole metro area. Because of Brookhaven, nobody in the city of Atlanta can build TOD next to our many underused MARTA stations, regardless of how much undeveloped land there is.
Well, let them suffer. If these additional apartments had been built in the MARTA parking lot, we'd all be sitting pretty.
I think both of you need to sit down and realize that you're not going to squeeze all these mystery people into Inman Park and Brookhaven, nor any of the other currently-developed neighborhoods. Accessory dwelling units and small setbacks are not going to solve your issues. It's just not going to happen. Your high-density dream worlds need to happen where there is space to build them. And that's in areas which are currently not considered desirable. Places where there are large swaths of industrial, disused, or never-used land.
Oh look, more familiar circles. How many times has this part been discussed?
Perhaps you should sit down and realize that we're not trying to fit the entirety of the very real, pent up demand for housing in those areas. Just as many people who can afford to as the market can sustain. That is, those who can afford the area without those suppressive legal measures maintaining artificially low density in place.
Accessory dwelling units and small setbacks, when coupled with the removal of other suppressive laws certainly will help. If not bring prices down, then at least help stabilize the growth closer to inflation. The people who wouldn't ever look at those other areas without massive increases in desirability (and resulting rises in prices kicking out current residents) still need a place to live.
Doing so does not mean that other places won't also, and to a greater extent, densify. Those large swaths of land would certainly become more economical to develop without the restrictions, opening up development opportunities at price points for the people who would both choose to live there and who can afford it.
Quote:
There's simply no reason we should have huge trailer and towed-car storage yards filling up space ITP. But down in SE Atlanta, we have hundreds of acres of just that...Beltline-adjacent. Further southeast, but still ITP, there are hundreds more acres of towing and trailer lots. On MARTA, just north of Ft. McPherson, hundreds more acres of mostly-disused industrial. Isn't Ft. McPherson itself barely-operational? Use it. Vine City has quite a bit of space. South Downtown, even with the development in the other thread, still has tons of space where super-high-density dwellings can abound. All around Langford Parkway there's space. Then, head up northwest just west of Inman Yard. Lots of room. A few spots along major corridors all over the city still exist.
Just because we want that space to also develop does not mean it's okay to continue to suppress supply elsewhere. Lots of room doesn't mean that there's not still need elsewhere. As I keep having to say for some reason, you can't just cut and paste demand. Not without harm. Not without loosing affordability.
Either you meet current demand, across the board, or it continues to increase prices. Sure some places may be 'discovered' but as we continue to suppress supply, that'll just lead to even higher prices, and even less affordability.
Quote:
But thinking that some duplexes and reducing parking minimums in Virginia Highlands are what's going to create the density you feel is necessary to allow a massive influx of people to saturate the city with bodies...I just hate to tell you that you're dreaming. If all those people truly want to live in town, they will be the first to want to spruce up the areas currently not considered so hot. You're just never going to convince the inhabitants of most of the established neighborhoods that they need to give up their world so that tens of thousands of people can pile in, just because. New inhabitants do not "deserve" to live wherever they want, to the detriment of the people who have already lived there.
There are 450,000 people wanting right now. That is, more than likely, across the full spectrum of income levels. There will be plenty who would move to the less desirable parts of town if only there was the construction, and the lower prices to make it feasible, which there can not happen with the restrictive zoning policies currently in place.
That STILL doesn't mean we should be trying to fit everyone there. To use your own terms, sit down and realize that you're not going to squeeze all these people into West and Southwest Atlanta. Certainly not when you consider the OTHER 450,000 people wanting in.
We're looking at TRIPLING our current population. You can understand that right? It makes us pretty close to modern day Philly in terms of density. Even with the land stocks we have, we won't be able to fit everyone in your quarantine zones.
Quote:
EDIT: A post was made while I was writing this which seems to say that just because someone wants to live in a certain area of the city, that area of the city should make it so that person can live there. I just don't agree. I want to live in the Brandon school district. That doesn't mean that the folks who live there must accept the cutting up of their neighborhoods so that I can. It would be extremely selfish of me to think they should.
It's also selfish to impose your personal tastes for development patterns on the people in that neighborhood to the detriment of the city and metro as a whole.
Quote:
The only way you will get that sort of density in existing neighborhoods is to chop them up and destroy what they are. Essentially destroy what makes Atlanta, Atlanta. If that's none of your concern, which appears to be the case, then it's obvious why you are at odds with others.
Again and again and again you insist that adding amenities, people, and revenue to an area is destruction. It is literally the opposite. It is bringing life and vibrancy. Downtown and Midtown weren't always as they were. None of the streetcar suburbs were always the way they are today. In fact, 'building to completion' is a toxic, toxic thing in the world of cities. Especially when trying to maintain fiscal sustainability.
Rebirth is quite literally part of Atlanta's heritage. Why don't you try it. Rise up.
Quote:
As for "we need to legalize accessory dwelling units", I need something clarified. I opened up the Atlanta zoning code last night and read through it. On every page for R1-R5, the following statements appeared:
What am I missing...why are accessory dwelling units apparently illegal? Are they only legal for servants and watchmen?
With the exception of R-5, additional living spaces are only legal for servants, watchmen, and as guest houses. They're not even ADUs at that point.
Quote:
What I'm really trying to wrap my head around is this: nowhere that I know of, is there a highly-dense, but mostly-affordable city, on a large scale. Almost all highly-dense areas are also very expensive. Apparently, absolutely no city in the US (and mostly the world) has been able to figure this out. But right here on this board, we have not just one, but two, guys who apparently have it all figured out. If only the world would listen to them, housing affordability worldwide would be fixed in five years or so.
How many times do we have to say JAPAN. It's literally the country we've been calling to emulate this entire time, and they manage to maintain affordable housing through density. Not just apartments either, though there are plenty of those too, but even single-family detached homes. You won't get a TON of space, but you don't need a ton of space, and if you still want a country home, you're more than welcome to go buy one, and you'll likely still have great access to transit to the city.
As I keep saying, we KNOW the solutions. Just because we've not done a good job, or even really tried, to put them into practice in this country doesn't mean they're not still the correct course action.
If only those NIMBY's in Brookhaven had realized that delaying another apartment complex would have such a catastrophic effect on the whole metro area. Because of Brookhaven, nobody in the city of Atlanta can build TOD next to our many underused MARTA stations, regardless of how much undeveloped land there is.
Well, let them suffer. If these additional apartments had been built in the MARTA parking lot, we'd all be sitting pretty.
It is just one very large & notable sign that metro Atlanta in not welcoming to urban developments. If you want to do an urban-style development expect to take a lot of extra risk and spend a lot of extra money fighting with zoning and often not winning. The message of "Stick to building more and more strip malls, garden apartments, and single family homes" is pretty clear.
...Now dang it, why do we have these problems with sprawl, traffic, and expensive urban housing again?!
Wow, there is a lot of passion about this subject. I have to say, after house shopping (and coming up empty because we need to change our parameters) I totally understand.
Thanks for keeping this civil and on topic and not making this personal.
And of course those artificially limited single family homes are much, much more expensive than a condo in the high-rise near by.
Wow!!! That's amazing! Who would have ever thought that?
Quote:
Now, of course people are going to prefer to live in more desirable places, so that means density will naturally come about in more desirable / expensive places. And correlation often gets confused with causation. But that does not mean density is the cause of higher prices. Because if you took that same piece of land where 100 people lived and artificially limited it to 1 family, it would be much, much more expensive for that one family.
Chicken and egg, I suppose.
Quote:
Also, your very premise is wrong. Just look at the densest city in the world: Manila. It is much more affordable than Atlanta. You can rent a modest apartment there for ~$300 a month. Or an upscale one for ~$600. Lunch at a restaurant in the city center will cost you about $4.50 and a beer for $1.60 cents.
Have you ever been to Manila? Have you spent any time in the Philippines? I have...well over a month, in fact. The people there are dirt poor. But yeah...let's look at your premise here. A modest apartment costs around $300 per month. The average family income in the Philippines is around 22,000 pesos per month, or around $436. So, that modest apartment would cost nearly 69% of the family's income (not including whatever they are taxed). In Atlanta, with our current density-killing, price-increasing measures, a more upscale apartment in Midtown cost, what, around $2,000 per month? Median household income in the US is around $55,000 per year, or $4,583 per month (nearly ten times that of the Philippines). So, that upscale apartment would cost around 44% of the median household income.
Quite the difference there. A modest apartment there is 25% more of local income than an upscale apartment here. The reason things are so cheap in Manila is because the place is a third-world sh**hole. Now, let's also compare what those two apartments are like and what you get in each. I doubt they are even close to comparable. Was that really the best example you could come up with? It took me like five minutes to debunk that one.
Quote:
That data point alone should tell you density is not the main factor driving costs upwards. (And the second densest city, Dhaka, has housing that is about half the price of Manila.)
Dhaka...have you seen what Dhaka is like?? I'm sure there are some nice areas, but most of it is pretty awful.
Comparing third-world countries is weak-sauce. Please try harder.
And yes, I know that density alone is not what raises prices. It's all the other stuff that comes with it. Fact remains: there is no dense area in the country which is affordable, and it's not because no one has ever figured out the special secrets you think you know. Short of going to sky-high, packed-in, shoebox apartments, which pretty much no one wants, I don't see that changing. Your premise that simply removing parking minimums, changing setbacks, and allowing duplexes and triplexes is going to make even the slightest dent on density and affordability is naive at best.
If Manila and Dhaka are your examples of what you'd like to see Atlanta become, then I have pretty much nothing more to say. I cannot even fathom the thought.
What is your ideal density in the core (Downtown and Midtown)? Within three miles of the core? Within the Perimeter?
Quote:
On the "ADUs", no that section of the code does not allow ADUs. They are not allowed to have their own kitchens and a family is not allowed to live there full time / you are not allowed to rent it out as a second unit.
Easy change. I'm fine with ADUs. I mean what...like two percent of households would probably do it, so it would barely change anything anyway.
How many times do we have to say JAPAN. It's literally the country we've been calling to emulate this entire time, and they manage to maintain affordable housing through density. Not just apartments either, though there are plenty of those too, but even single-family detached homes. You won't get a TON of space, but you don't need a ton of space, and if you still want a country home, you're more than welcome to go buy one, and you'll likely still have great access to transit to the city.
Japan's population has barely changed in the last 30 years, and has been going down for the last ten. It's no wonder they are seeing more affordable living. Even at that, an average 900 square foot apartment in a normal area is over $1,000 per month according to the quick source I checked.
Quote:
As I keep saying, we KNOW the solutions. Just because we've not done a good job, or even really tried, to put them into practice in this country doesn't mean they're not still the correct course action.
Like I said...it's amazing that no one has figured this out, but a tiny handful of individuals.
Maybe, possibly, the market is just going against what you think it should be.
Wish I had more time, but it's 1:30am and I just got home from a 15.5 hour work shift, which I drove to...on highways...and parked.
There should be a rent cap for people who want to rent apartments. It is not like people own it or buying into it so it makes no sense for apartments to charge over 2,000 a month.
There should be a rent cap for people who want to rent apartments. It is not like people own it or buying into it so it makes no sense for apartments to charge over 2,000 a month.
There should be a rent cap for people who want to rent apartments. It is not like people own it or buying into it so it makes no sense for apartments to charge over 2,000 a month.
Sure someone owns the apartment. Someone bought the land, built the building and manages. Someone owns it. They make money by renting them to renters. Doesn't it seem a bit unAmerican to cap the owners income? I doubt you would want your salary potential capped. Same thing.
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.
