Bloglanta

18 Responses to “Unaffordable Atlanta”

1. BPJ Says:
   June 11th, 2007 at 9:59 am

   I agree with everything except the criticism of the Midtown historic district proposal. There is (and will be more) dense development NEAR the proposed district; but bulldozing 100 year-old homes to put more dense development IN the district is a bad idea. That’s the kind of thing Atlanta mistakenly allowed in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, and it resulted in a major loss of character intown.
   There can be medium density development adjacent to a neighborhood of single-family homes; this sort of thing, handled sensitively, can mark the transition from an area of single-family homes to a more dense urban center. And there are plenty of empty lots all over Downtown & Midtown for building mid-to-high-density mixed use projects. I welcome these. But the older neighborhoods must be protected. As Atlanta goes from being a “young city” to a more middle-aged one, we’re going to have to get used to the idea of permanence: some areas, once they’ve been around long enough, are part of the city’s character and need to be left alone.
   If you want a world-class transit system, tell your state legislators!!!

2. Amber Says:
   June 11th, 2007 at 10:13 am

   You should send this to the AJC as an op-ed. Seriously.

3. Adam Says:
   June 11th, 2007 at 11:44 am

   I have to agree with the first comment. The Midtown Historic district appears to be protecting nothing more than existing houses. Your criticism appears unwarranted.

4. Joe Says:
   June 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

   Part of my objection with the historic district proposal is that it doesn’t really protect existing houses. Using the word “historic” is a bit misleading here. Technically, it only adds a new bureaucratic hurdle to jump through in the process of obtaining a building permit. It doesn’t prevent anything old from being bulldozed and it doesn’t prevent a new McMansion from being built in the neighborhood.

   If you want to keep the neighborhood single-family, with its character intact, there are simple changes to the zoning ordinance that can be made.

   In the long-term, the historic district makes it more difficult for the city to grow in smart ways. The “historic” zoning overlay doesn’t just last in our own generation. Just as there is some sense of character and permanence, a healthy city also evolves over time. The change happens slowly (notice I’m not advocating that Midtown be bulldozed and rebuilt overnight). By “protecting” older neighborhoods, they’re being condemned from ever evolving as the needs of those neighborhoods change over time.

5. shelbinator Says:
   June 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

   Sorry I couldn’t include your concerns in the podcast; you spoke too loud too close to the mic and it came out with horrible distortion.

   I’m still on the fence about the district. I think BPJ is right in that there’s plenty (just look at the cranes!) of high-density development going on at the edges of the district, and I don’t think I agree with the claim that the designation “doesn’t prevent anything from being bulldozed” — the whole point is that the AUDC would be the barrier to bulldozing, no? I’m not necessarily opposed to it but I do agree with Royce’s point that this needs to be decided by an overwhelming quorum of the households affected.

6. Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2007-06-11 Says:
   June 11th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

   […] Bloglanta » Blog Archive » Unaffordable Atlanta “Metro Atlanta is the second-most expensive major city in the nation for middle-class families, a fact that directly contradicts the claims of Atlanta’s pro-sprawl boosters.” Joe should send this as an op-ed to the AJC. (tags: Atlanta transit development preservation urban economics) […]

7. Teashook Says:
   June 12th, 2007 at 4:47 am

   I have read some of the materials the neighborhood group is considering trying to adopt for a colleague that is concerned her property value will dip because she won’t be able to sell her home to someone that wants a bigger house on her lot. The balance between allowing McMansions and protecting historic homes is actually pretty tricky to accomplish.

   I just had to post to say that while were debating whether an old intown neighborhood is allowed to become even more dense, county governments in metro atlanta are adopting zoning ordinances that require 3-5 acre lot minimums while simultaneously sticking their heads in the sand about mass transit needs. Isn’t that the real problem?

8. Joeventures Says:
   June 12th, 2007 at 6:02 am

   Shelbinator - Theoretically, AUDC would be the barrier to bulldozing. However, to bulldoze, even without historic status, a permit is needed anyway. The permit application is required to include — among other things — a justification for the demolition and the planned future use of the property. Additional justification must be provided if the building is not deemed unsafe.

   Like I mentioned, a few simple changes to the existing zoning ordinance would prevent a new, out-of-scale building from taking the place of a demolished structure.

   Check out, for example, the blue house at the corner of 10th and Myrtle. The 10th Street side of this property includes an almost completely blank wall and a fence. The Myrtle Street side of the property looks more like a trailer park property than the typical Midtown house. A developer — someone who actually lives around the corner from the property — purchased the property and proposed building a set of three townhomes in its place, with a more open facade facing both 10th and Myrtle. The ordinance allows for two units on the property — so MNA rallied up their forces and opposed the project, hardly giving a glance at the rather detailed plans the developer presented. As far as MNA was concerned, three units was “too dense,” the existing house was “historic,” and replacing the house would have had destructive consequences on the character of the neighborhood that would have flowed all the way up and down Myrtle.

   A review of the developer’s plans for the property would have revealed that the proposed structure was keeping more in character with the rest of the neighborhood than the existing structure, and the proposed structure would have created a better pedestrian environment at that corner. MNA claimed that the existing structure didn’t look that great only because the owner left it in disrepair. But no amount of dressing up would have improved the structure’s relation to the street.

   Meanwhile, on my side of the neighborhood, buildings facing Ponce are considered “contributing properties.” These buildings include a car wash, a barber shop (where a shooting occurred just a few short weeks ago), and a liquor store. The remarkably low-density character of the Ponce side of the “historic district” is hardly worth preserving.

   Teashook — what you point out is only part of the problem. The real problem is everywhere. People move into a neighborhood and don’t want other people moving in after them. County governments can try to zone exclusively all they want. The “historic district” proposal for Midtown is just another example of exclusive zoning.

9. Joe Says:
   June 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am

   By the way, about permanence. I have to strongly disagree with this idea. But I’ll begin with a brief story.

   A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Bensonhurst, the neighborhood in Brooklyn where my father grew up. Looking back on it, the visit was a powerful experience to me because I saw a great example of a neighborhood that retained its character without losing its affordability.

   We walked along the main avenue, where there were retail shops of many kinds — most of them mom-and-pop shops. My father told us everything about what had changed and what stayed the same — one of the clothing shops, where my father used to purchase his nice clothes fifty years ago was still there! Many of the buildings were the same buildings that were there when dad was a kid. Some of them were brand new. The place was teeming with people of many ethnicities.

   What struck me about Bensonhurst was not permanence. It was continuity. There was no preservation board laying down the law to tell the neighborhood what could or could not be built and where…. or what cold or could not be knocked down. Life simply moved on, and the character of the place overwhelmed anything new there.

   Had some group of homeowners there decided they wanted to dictate their idea of “neighborhood character” on the place, I have no doubt the place would be different today, and my father would not have recognized it. Or, at least he would not have been excited to see and point out what was the same and what was different.

   My disagreement with the idea of permanence is that there is no such thing in a neighborhood, unless the neighborhood is dead. There is such thing as a neighborhood with some sense of continuity — where the place reshapes itself over time, serving the day-to-day life of the residents. (That’s as opposed to a historic district, where the residents live in service of the place)

   There remain some central points about the “historic district” that remain unanswered. What exactly is the problem that’s being solved by creating the historic district? What makes this idea the best solution, compared to possible alternatives? My feeling is that this idea is the legal equivalent of using a sledgehammer to nail a picture hook into a wall. The proposal, if enacted, would have unintended (and unwanted) consequences on Midtown’s affordability.

   In summary, none of the reasons I’ve seen stated in favor of the proposed district go beyond doing it for its own sake, and every legitimate concern about it has been dismissed without any care. (I frankly doubt those in favor of the proposed district even understand the criticisms.)

10. Greg Greene Says:
    June 12th, 2007 at 11:41 am

    My disagreement with the idea of permanence is that there is no such thing in a neighborhood, unless the neighborhood is dead.

    Exactly. For permanence, if you want to see it, go to the Lower Ninth Ward, a rural town in the Rust Belt, or a few parts of central Detroit. I doubt you’ll like what you see.

11. BPJ Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Actually, when I think of permanence in this context, I think of certain wonderful old neighborhoods in Boston and San Francisco…..and London and Paris. (Of course, a neighborhood doesn’t have to be THAT beautiful to be worth preserving.)

12. BPJ Says:
    June 17th, 2007 at 8:23 am

    A further thought: are the Lower Ninth Ward, rural towns in the Rust Belt, or parts of Central Detroit the way they are because of historic zoning? I doubt it. The reasons probably have more to do with the lack of a healthy economic base, crime, etc.

    Take a look at the places in Atlanta which are historic districts, such as Grant Park or Inman Park. Do you really want to tear these places down? Are they dead? Are the historic districts of Savannah or Charleston dead places? Or rather, isn’t it the case that some people looked around and said the look & feel of this place is worth preserving?

    Part of becoming a more mature city is deciding that certain structures and neighborhoods are worth protecting from pure market forces (with varying degrees of flexibility; I’m not in favor of rules here as strict as those in Charleston, where they make more sense). This is, in brief, the notion of “permanence” I’m trying to suggest.

13. Joeventures Says:
    June 19th, 2007 at 4:57 am

    Grant Park and Inman Park aren’t exactly the liveliest of places, much less affordable. I’d rather they be built up than torn down. As our fearless leaders learned on a recent trip to Vancouver, we can turn congestion into a friend. Historic zoning for low-density neighborhoods guarantees congestion remains our foe.

    The Midtown district is a real oddity, even compared to GP and IP. I would argue that the appeal is more the location than the look and feel of the place (similar to Greg’s example dead zones — are Atlanta’s “historic” neighborhoods more attractive for their character, or their location?). Location was certainly my primary motivation for where I decided to move. Living here, however, I can say the area is barely breathing most of the time. The safety factor wasn’t a consideration when I purchased, though I now realize it should’ve been, considering what’s happened on these mostly empty streets since I moved in.

    I’ve also been to enough neighborhood meetings to know that there’s a force within MNA to replace low-rise, muti-family buildings with single-family homes. Their justification is that the neighborhood has a “single-family character,” and that “character” is the “historic” character of the neighborhood. The whole notion is absurd.

    Should any of the low-rise, multi-family buildings be damaged beyond repair, I guarantee you the neighborhood will fight to make sure single-family homes take their place.

    As far as Charleston and Savannah go, their historic districts are a little more densely built up, and there is a bit more variety of use than in Atlanta’s historic districts. I’d choose the character of Charleston and Savannah’s historic districts over Atlanta’s any day.

14. atlpaddy Says:
    June 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Um Joe and Joeventures, you guys are either misinformed or dissemblers when it comes to what constitutes an historic district and whether or not an area is worth preserving.

    First of all, it seems that neither of you are longtime residents of Midtown, so for you, the place has no meaning, just tear it down because you need convenience. Well Joe, your from New York (Brooklyn apparently) and it seems to you that they don’t need historic district designation and no one tears down those neighborhoods - well, guess what - New York city has some of the most stringent zoning and preservation laws in the country - unlike Atlanta and the state of Georgia. You know what else, cities like New York, Boston, Philly, Chicago and San Francisco also have architectural review boards that can influence the design and siting of new construction and also prevent demolition for parking purposes. Guess what, Atlanta doesn’t have it - therefore we have whole neighborhoods and historic buildings wiped out for parking lots or whatever is the trendy urban renewal project of the day.

    Don’t believe me? - well look at all those new parks in Inman Park, Druid Hills and L5P’s - thinkthey’ve always been there or do you know that the city (under Andrew Young) and state (Jimmy Carter, DOT) wanted to bulldoze those areas for a freeway. Also, why do you think Atlanta looks like a new city even though it’s over 150 years old? That’s right - the city and state allowed for the destruction all of our antebellum buildings and a good portion of the city’s late 19th and early 20th century architecture - most of for the same reason you want to - for convenience. For more info - read about the history of the Fox Theater or the Pershing Point apartments. Atlanta and it’s history may not mean a damn thing to you - hey you just got here right? but it means a lot to a good many others and we don’t want to see it lost just so you can shave a few more minutes off your commute.

    And another thing Joe - your mistaken in your views about historic districts. If a neighborhood or building is on the National Register of Historic Places it actually has very little protection - if any. As long as their is no federal money involved in a project that may have a negative effect on the property (i.e. demolition, alteration, etc) than it can be torn down and redeveloped with no penalty. What the Midtown Neighborhood is trying to do is also establish a local historic district designation that prevents tear downs (McMansionization) and also establishes guidelines for new development in the district. Also, just because a property lies within the district does not mean that it is necessarily worth preserving if it does not fall within the period of significance of the neighborhood (i.e. if the majority of the neighborhood was built between 1900 and 1935 - that would be the period of significance. Houses built in the late 1970s and 1980s could be redeveloped, but again, the new construction would be goverened by the new historic district guidelines - therefore you could have multi-family density in the new building).

    He Joeventures - you’ll “choose the character of Charleston and Savannah’s historic districts over Atlanta’s any day” and you want to know why? Because those two cities have cohesive historic neighborhoods - like San Francisco and Boston - because they did not tear down their historic areas - the reused them. Historic neighborhoods and design are the original examples of “smart growth.” Advocates such as yourselves are giving the term a bad name - now it seems to be a codeword for gentrification and government subsidized development.

15. Joe Says:
    June 20th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Atlpaddy -

    #1: Joe and Joeventures are the same. Sorry for the confusion. I make comments from different computers, and there are different cookies set on them. I’ll be more careful about that in the future.

    #2: I’m an Atlanta native. I acknowledge there are historic structures in Atlanta worth protecting because of the public benefit they provide. Pershing Point would’ve been one of them, but it’s regrettably gone. The building that took its place sucks swamp water. I wanted to make sure we were at an understanding of one another about that. Just as I’m not in favor of tearing things down for the sake of tearing things down — I’m also not in favor of preservation for preservation’s sake. There should be a clear public benefit, and so far that still has not been adequately expressed.

    #3: Where, exactly, do I advocate demolishing anything, especially for parking lots or highways we don’t need? Where am I talking about shaving minutes off anyone’s commute? You’re putting words in my mouth, and I don’t appreciate that.

    #4: You haven’t addressed any of the concerns I brought up.

    #5: Where, exactly, did I use the term “smart growth”? Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. That’s not to say I’m not a smart growth advocate — I’ve read up a bit on the literature, and I agree with what I’ve read, with only little quibbles here and there. Where I’m leery is in Atlanta’s case of historic district zoning. It’s not because I don’t like the idea — I’m suspicious of it because the arguments in favor of it have been very vague. Maybe I’m wrong on this point — and I hope I am — but I don’t want historic zoning to be some kind of well-intentioned policy that leads to more sprawl (due to low density where it’s not warranted), less public safety (due to single-use zones stuck in a time warp), and less affordable housing (due to the stifled housing stock). In Atlanta’s case, historic zones have not been helpful on any of those three points — and I tend to believe that curbing sprawl, increasing public safety, and building more affordable housing are more important than preservation. I’m not ruling out the idea that preservation can also help in these areas, but only if it’s done right.

    #6: I understand the difference between the National Register and creating a local enforcement mechanism. Where did I indicate otherwise? Where did I say, “don’t put this place in the National Register”? If I’m mistaken in my views, please address where I’m mistaken — don’t make things up.

    What’s the difference between Atlanta’s historic (proposed and existing) zones and those in other cities that serve as positive examples? Most of the day and night, the local historic zones in Atlanta are dead because there is hardly any diversity of use, or density.

    If existing (historic) structures can be rennovated or — as you point out — new structures could be built within the “historic period” look and have mutli-family density in this particular local historic district, I would feel better about it. However, as I hope you’re aware, the proposal is for a zoning overlay, not a new zone. That means the neighborhood remains primarily R-5 — two-family residential, maximum. Three is — as MNA members have put it — “too dense.”

    If only the design mattered in this proposal, I could be quite easily convinced that this historic zoning idea was a good one. But from all I’ve been able to gather, there’s more to the proposal than its proponents would have you believe.

16. atlpaddy Says:
    June 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Alright Joe/ventures, I have rebuttal’s to your points in no particular order. Here goes…

    - You say in point #6

    ” I understand the difference between the National Register and creating a local enforcement mechanism. Where did I indicate otherwise? Where did I say, “don’t put this place in the National Register”? If I’m mistaken in my views, please address where I’m mistaken — don’t make things up”

    Well, Joe, you also said,

    “Part of my objection with the historic district proposal is that it doesn’t really protect existing houses. Using the word “historic” is a bit misleading here. Technically, it only adds a new bureaucratic hurdle to jump through in the process of obtaining a building permit. It doesn’t prevent anything old from being bulldozed and it doesn’t prevent a new McMansion from being built in the neighborhood.”

    as an answer to your inconsistency, please reread my earlier post - I don’t have time to go through it again.

    As for your point #3, you said’

    “The Midtown district is a real oddity, even compared to GP and IP. I would argue that the appeal is more the location than the look and feel of the place (similar to Greg’s example dead zones — are Atlanta’s “historic” neighborhoods more attractive for their character, or their location?). Location was certainly my primary motivation for where I decided to move.”

    See Joe, this is the problem going on in places like Morningside and the Highlands neighborhoods - the speculators and folks moving in from the suburbs care more about the location, they truly don’t give two shits for the neighborhood itself - otherwise they wouldn’t be tearing down the houses and replacing them with McMansions. You can call it “evolving as the needs of those neighborhoods change over time.” I prefer to call it yuppie selfishness and a shame.

    As for point #5 - we’ll if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. I also don’t think you can honestly say that historic preservation is an inhibitor to affordable housing and density and smart growth development is the answer - how many affordable units do you think Novare is putting in their glass and steel condos on Peachtree? How many do you think ol’ Wayne Mason was going to put in his twin towers that he wanted to build adjacent to Piedmont Park?

    Affordable housing is a CITY WIDE ISSUE that the mayor, city council and NPU’s need to seriously address. To blame one group or a select few neighborhoods for lack of affordable housing is not being fair at all. If you want to place blame - put it on the developers who fight to prevent a percentage of their condo units being designated affordable.

    Besides - I believe that there are numerous historic, multi-family apartment buildings in Midtown - building to that density should be allowed under historic district guidelines, not just single family residences.

    Also to accuse Atlanta’s historic neighborhoods of promoting sprawl is ridiculous - they’re some of the most dense, walkable neighborhoods in the whole metro area with the best access to mass transit. There are PLENTY of places to densely build in Atlanta (ever hear of downtown?) without destroying some of the last remnants in this city that make it remotely livable.

    Finally, I don’t think it’s my job to address each and every point you made. This should be enough.

17. Joe Says:
    June 21st, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    atlpaddy -

    What vision there is in my head and what vision you think there is in my head are so radically different, I don’t know how I could possibly explain it without it getting twisted around by your words any more than it already has. You’re making more false assumptions about my motivations than I could address here, even given the verbosity of this conversation.

    I agree with you on more points than you seem to believe.

    Where we’re disagreeing the most is not how the neighborhood should develop over time. It’s whether the historic zoning overlay is the best tool to accomplish the goal. I believe it is not.

    I agree that affordable housing is a city-wide issue, but I did not place blame, like you said I did. That’s a false assumption you made. I said the historic zoning overlay would not help. My belief is that the proposal is counterproductive. I have reasons for believing that, and maybe I haven’t expressed those reasons adequately enough. But so far, that concern is still not addressed. This is, partly, an issue of housing supply, which Downtown will not be able to adequately provide alone.

    I don’t think developers are doing a very good job at all of even understanding the market, much less providing affordable housing in their glass and steel condos. My rebuke of historic zoning overlays is not a complement to developers. That’s another false assumption you made.

    As far as the density of these neighborhoods, they’re still not really that dense… unless you’re just comparing historic neighborhoods to the rest of the metro area — which I’m sure you’re aware that Atlanta metro is among the least densely populated major metro areas in the nation. Midtown is certainly more walkable than the suburbs, but that’s still not saying much. It kind of saddens me that my neighbors are resigned to believing that what we have in these respects is good enough.

    Have I somehow implied it’s your job to address every point? Thanks for stopping by and trying to explain things to me. But I’m still not convinced I’m wrong.

18. sweatingyankee Says:
    June 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am

    “Midtown is certainly more walkable than the suburbs, but that’s still not saying much.”

    That may be the biggest understatement of this entire conversation. Like many folks here in Atlanta, I relocated from a big city up north. I’d hoped to find a walking-friendly area that was safe and offered the amenities pedestrians need. Midtown is the best we’ve got here, but it simply doesn’t measure up. At least not yet. With the continuing development of condos there is a chance that the neighborhhod will become dense enough to support the businesses and foot traffic needed for a thriving urban area. Anything that might retard this growth (i.e. Historic Districts) should be used only in the most extreme of circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website