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, if you're wanting Atlanta real estate prices to drop, just wait a while. It's a boom and bust economy--it crashed in 1860s, , 1890s, 1930s, 1970s, late 2000s.
And even if the market is cyclical, the market itself is a much safer and more efficient means to meet demand that some kind of central planning you seem to have in mind. It reacts more quickly and can innovate and turn on a dime.
I don't know how you could have taken my position of reducing burdensom regulations, and opening up of the zoning code, and gotten that I want more central planning for the housing market.
Granted, that's only because we have the evidence to show that that is the best way to go. On things like...
Quote:
Likewise for the environment, private property ownership drives conservation more than public ownership--as those that have a claim to the land will protect it voraciously. He is more often thinking about the livelihood of his grandchildren, whereas a bureaucrat is only out to please the boss in the short term. Ecological groups were on the forefront of protests in the former Soviet Union, think Ecoglasnost in Bulgaria--they saw the state polluting and ruining the landscape around them.
It's been proven that the free market isn't actually all that great at handling the issue. Government is needed to keep real negative externalities accounted for, which the market does an awful job of managing. That's why we have things like the Clean Air Act, Clean Waters Act, and EPA in general.
Quote:
You may think I've jumped the shark to compare this conversation to free market vs totalitarian state one--but that's what it sounds like to me. Somehow fourthwarden and friends know what is best for the people better than the people do themselves. History says that never ends well.
I'm literally calling for a REDUCTION in housing restrictions and regulations.
Though, because we also have the data to show it, not a reduction in public health standards, public safety efforts, and environmental protection laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
No, we haven't been doing what I suggest, at all. You obviously have no idea what I am talking about. The fact that we still have blocks and blocks of parking lots downtown and midtown, huge empty fields of grass steps from downtown, thousands of acres of abandoned or disused industrial sites, and vast fields in some of the further periphery areas ITP, all just sitting there for years or decades, shows very much that we have not done what I have suggested. Not even a little bit.
My way hasn't been done.
Your way is to select a few locations to quarantine growth within. Your way is to suppress growth to all but a few locations, and leave everything else mandated as low density.
Your way may include a bit more land area than what is currently available, but otherwise it's the exact same tactic. We currently live in a city with dedicated areas of allowable density, including many of those very areas of large parking lots that you and I would both like to see turned over into actual development. The fact of the matter, though, is that those areas remain undeveloped while demand continues to mount, and prices continue to rise.
Your way, of specifically dictating growth to a few, small, areas of the city has brought us here. I do not see how continuing it, with slightly more, yet still unhelpfully tiny, space will fix things.
Quote:
The fact that you didn't catch the sarcasm in the paragraph you quoted speaks volumes.
No **** it was sarcasm. Granted, given how you see my point of view on allowing densification, and how strongly you believe that it will be the equivalent to destroying a neighborhood, I took your statement to be some perverse play on what you think 'I'm actually after'.
Sorry I gave very real answer as to why it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
What are you seeing in Case-Shiller?
Here's the graph I posted a page or so ago, showing the evolution of Case-Shiller for ATL vs. the representative basket of 20 major metros. ATL's index is way behind that of the basket of 20, and has accelerated at a slower rate since the recession as well.
ATL's index (against Jan 2000) stands around 141. Over 18 years, that equates to around a 1.9% compound annual growth rate. The US inflation rate has averaged 2.1% over this period. Meanwhile, the basket of 20's index is around 205, which translates to a 4.0% CAGR - twice the national rate of inflation.
Are prices going up in Atlanta? Yes, of course. And we should do what we can to keep that from getting out of control. But Atlanta has actually fared considerably better than other large metros in this regard. This is not a problem exclusive to Atlanta, nor is it even as big a problem in Atlanta as it is in most other large metro areas.
Just for fun - here's Atlanta's line vs. that of Boston, which has fared similarly to the basket of 20.
We currently live in a city with dedicated areas of allowable density, including many of those very areas of large parking lots that you and I would both like to see turned over into actual development.
Many of those large parking lots are not still parking lots due to zoning regulations that do not permit them to be developed. Many of those large parking lots remain there until the owner receives a price for the parking lot that compels the owner to sell. That's simply real estate investment, finance and development.
Many of those large parking lots are not still parking lots due to zoning regulations that do not permit them to be developed. Many of those large parking lots remain there until the owner receives a price for the parking lot that compels the owner to sell. That's simply real estate investment, finance and development.
Not to say you're incorrect, because you're absolutely not (which is why a parking tax should also be considered as part of the overall package of land-use improvement policies of which opening zoning is a part), but restrictive zoning reduces the potential return on a given project. That then makes it harder for developer to justify buying out the lot until prices rise enough to justify moving on that lot.
Not to say you're incorrect, because you're absolutely not (which is why a parking tax should also be considered as part of the overall package of land-use improvement policies of which opening zoning is a part), but restrictive zoning reduces the potential return on a given project. That then makes it harder for developer to justify buying out the lot until prices rise enough to justify moving on that lot.
What restrictions are there in downtown and midtown that prevent such developments?
Downtown's codes are actually pretty solid. The only thing I really spotted in there that I may have issue with is the Minimum Residential Usable Open Space Requirements, where, for everywhere except Terminus and Farlie Poplar, the requirement is 15% floor area or 80% lot area (whichever is less). For Farlie Poplar and Terminus, the requirement if 5% of floor area.
I mean, the fairly high FARs, and non building height max are great, but as you build up, you have to dedicate more and more land to 'Open Space' that I would argue is unnecessary in these areas given the proximity to parks.
Credit where credit is due, though, Downtown seems to be mostly set up for success.
Compared to downtown, Midtown is actually quite restricted. The FARs are lower, there are parking minimums for residential units, and there are higher requirements for open spaces.
Now, before someone comes along and starts up with "But you said that lowering restrictions would help! Why is Midtown seeing more development than Downtown? Obviously the zoning isn't part of the issue!"
Well, I've been saying to do large-scale openings of zoning for a reason. This is evidence that you can't just open up zoning rules in one area in an attempt to concentrate development there over other areas.
Midtown has been in demand, let demand build up, saw prices rise to the point where one could justify building within the restrictions, and then building happened until there was a market saturation at that point, and prices are a bit more stable with inflation for now. I wonder, though, if Midtown's boom wouldn't have come earlier, and stabilization point settling at a lower price, if it had zoning similar to downtown's.
Downtown hasn't had as much demand until recently, partly due to the rising prices elsewhere in the city, and so prices were comparatively low. So much so that the parking-lot owners could make more money by sitting on the lots, and having commuters pay fees. That likely could have been helped by putting in an opportunity tax on the lots, and raising the cost of doing business until it became more economical to develop the area. Still though, I think we're starting to see the open zoning pay off in downtown as demand shifts. The recent developments, not excluding Underground, or The Gulch (preempting the MMPT not withstanding) is evidence to that much. It only took 10 years since the district was put into law for that to really happen, though. If the 2008 crash hadn't happened, then we'd likely have seen more use of the open zoning, and, as prices continue to rise elsewhere, we'll likely see more use of it to come.
Ultimately, though, the point behind opening up zoning on large scales is exactly what's been born out here. Demand is, as arjay likes to put it, complicated. It's really hard to transfer demand from one area to another, or permanently trap it. You can absolutely do things to increase and decrease it for a given location, though.
What we should be doing is opening up wide ranges of area with many tenants borrowed from downtown's special district. Not all of it of course, but things like no parking minimums, high(er) FARs, etc. Then, we should use active efforts in the form of infrastructure investment to incentivize an area.
That way, everyone gets more choice as to what kind of environment they want to live in, the market has the flexibility to respond to that demand as well as changing preferences when needed, AND the city has a chance to see where demand for more dense development actually is rather than trying to dictate that location (which we've seen hasn't worked).
All at the same time, the city can use infrastructure investments to nudge and prod areas as it decides. Add a new park, add a high-capacity transit route, refit a school, etc. and increase demand for an area. If people decide not to move, so be it. If enough people continue to choose a location over another, then the city knows it needs to go improve services there rather than try to just increase demand elsewhere.
Downtown's codes are actually pretty solid. The only thing I really spotted in there that I may have issue with is the Minimum Residential Usable Open Space Requirements, where, for everywhere except Terminus and Farlie Poplar, the requirement is 15% floor area or 80% lot area (whichever is less). For Farlie Poplar and Terminus, the requirement if 5% of floor area.
I mean, the fairly high FARs, and non building height max are great, but as you build up, you have to dedicate more and more land to 'Open Space' that I would argue is unnecessary in these areas given the proximity to parks.
Credit where credit is due, though, Downtown seems to be mostly set up for success.
Compared to downtown, Midtown is actually quite restricted. The FARs are lower, there are parking minimums for residential units, and there are higher requirements for open spaces.
Now, before someone comes along and starts up with "But you said that lowering restrictions would help! Why is Midtown seeing more development than Downtown? Obviously the zoning isn't part of the issue!"
Well, I've been saying to do large-scale openings of zoning for a reason. This is evidence that you can't just open up zoning rules in one area in an attempt to concentrate development there over other areas.
Midtown has been in demand, let demand build up, saw prices rise to the point where one could justify building within the restrictions, and then building happened until there was a market saturation at that point, and prices are a bit more stable with inflation for now. I wonder, though, if Midtown's boom wouldn't have come earlier, and stabilization point settling at a lower price, if it had zoning similar to downtown's.
Downtown hasn't had as much demand until recently, partly due to the rising prices elsewhere in the city, and so prices were comparatively low. So much so that the parking-lot owners could make more money by sitting on the lots, and having commuters pay fees. That likely could have been helped by putting in an opportunity tax on the lots, and raising the cost of doing business until it became more economical to develop the area. Still though, I think we're starting to see the open zoning pay off in downtown as demand shifts. The recent developments, not excluding Underground, or The Gulch (preempting the MMPT not withstanding) is evidence to that much. It only took 10 years since the district was put into law for that to really happen, though. If the 2008 crash hadn't happened, then we'd likely have seen more use of the open zoning, and, as prices continue to rise elsewhere, we'll likely see more use of it to come.
Ultimately, though, the point behind opening up zoning on large scales is exactly what's been born out here. Demand is, as arjay likes to put it, complicated. It's really hard to transfer demand from one area to another, or permanently trap it. You can absolutely do things to increase and decrease it for a given location, though.
What we should be doing is opening up wide ranges of area with many tenants borrowed from downtown's special district. Not all of it of course, but things like no parking minimums, high(er) FARs, etc. Then, we should use active efforts in the form of infrastructure investment to incentivize an area.
That way, everyone gets more choice as to what kind of environment they want to live in, the market has the flexibility to respond to that demand as well as changing preferences when needed, AND the city has a chance to see where demand for more dense development actually is rather than trying to dictate that location (which we've seen hasn't worked).
All at the same time, the city can use infrastructure investments to nudge and prod areas as it decides. Add a new park, add a high-capacity transit route, refit a school, etc. and increase demand for an area. If people decide not to move, so be it. If enough people continue to choose a location over another, then the city knows it needs to go improve services there rather than try to just increase demand elsewhere.
In economic theory, "you can't push a string." Getting residential in downtown is tough. Midtown is already hot. And that's part of the problem with very restrictive areas for higher density. You can't push it into some areas. Developers and buyers just won't go there. And so by severely limiting the areas, you limit supply and drive up prices. And consequently, move density further out where it can't be handled as well by mass transit.
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.
