Atlanta Community Discussion Thread

[Libertarian]

Any insider ideas on how the ATT-TimeWarner merger impacts Atlanta & NY employment?

[Atlanta3000]

I am curious what the anti-car/parking brigade on here thinks of the recently released study: Congestion Can Be Good

https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/201...-study-reports

[daharris80]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

I am curious what the anti-car/parking brigade on here thinks of the recently released study: Congestion Can Be Good

https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/201...-study-reports

I believe this is consistent with what we've been saying as far as parking:

On the contrary, traffic congestion may entice positive adaptations. “For instance, traffic congestion could potentially lead to positive economic externalities such as infill development (via improved location efficiency), more efficient travel patterns, and/or agglomeration benefits. People may also adapt to high levels of traffic congestion by switching to other travel modes (Wheaton 2004, Chatman and Noland 2014).

In other words: Don't spend money on roads or parking to reduce traffic congestion. Allow congestion to increase thereby making alternative forms of transportation more appealing.

Thanks for your support of the anti-car/parking brigade.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Any insider ideas on how the ATT-TimeWarner merger impacts Atlanta & NY employment?

I guess we will see.

Jeff Zucker has already effectively mothballed the CNN operations and consolidated them in NYC.

[3yonce]

Originally Posted by daharris80

I believe this is consistent with what we've been saying as far as parking:



In other words: Don't spend money on roads or parking to reduce traffic congestion. Allow congestion to increase thereby making alternative forms of transportation more appealing.

Thanks for your support of the anti-car/parking brigade.

Yeah, the points the article drove home seemed to be along the lines of "cancer is good because it promotes cancer research."

[MARTAisSmarta]

Originally Posted by daharris80

Thanks for your support of the anti-car/parking brigade.

This seems pretty straightforward. You absolutely should not be widening roads to try to reduce congestion.

"Our findings suggest that a region’s economy is not significantly impacted by traffic congestion. In fact, the results even suggest a positive association between traffic congestion and economic productivity as well as jobs," say authors Wes Marshall and Eric Dumbaugh.

“Without traffic congestion, there would be less incentive for infill development, living in an location-efficient place, walking, biking, and transit use, ridesharing, innovations in urban freight, etcetera,” Marshall explained by email. “And if your city doesn't have any traffic congestion, there is something really wrong.”

So we can continue to be anti-roads and parking so that we can continue to promote growth and development!

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by MARTAisSmarta

This seems pretty straightforward. You absolutely should not be widening roads to try to reduce congestion.

So we can continue to be anti-roads and parking so that we can continue to promote growth and development!

I admit I did not read the article, but I agree with the general quotation of the article above, which implies that congestion is a necessary evil. I consider myself a very pro-transit individual who prefers living and working in walk able areas, and I generally consider aggressive drivers (esp New Jersey drivers, which I have to deal with where I live now) hostile to the pedestrian environment. I do not own a car.

I'm a bit of a pessimist of the human condition, however, where I believe *most* Americans are inherently lazy and do not enjoy walking and prefer driving, especially when performing daily errands or other tasks like commuting. This seems especially true when the weather is very hot or cold. The majority of people in my life (friends, family) own a car and use one on a regular basis, mostly because it is convenient and more comfortable.

With that said, I believe *most* people (think Trump voters) for the majority of trips would rather drive than walk, if it were more convenient or cost effective. We see this in the MARTA ridership numbers, which fluctuate based on the cost of gas and congestion levels (referring specifically to the I-85 bridge incident).

Unfortunately, I think in most cases, congestion is one of the few incentives for most people to ride transit for people, with the exception of low income people, who rely on transit regardless of congestion. I cannot think of any other US cities where congestion is not a factor in transit use, and I believe congestion plays a similar but less direct role in density of cities as well.

Of course there are ways to reduce congestion while still promoting transit. The best way is to limit vehicle access to dense areas, such as timing traffic lights, reducing street width, or limiting road access to certain areas. This is a marginally effective technique as sometimes congestion might be pushed elsewhere, or even businesses may choose to leave an area if it is not convenient enough to all their employees and customers, so this technique is not heavily used in many cities.

[smArTaLlone]

This is another great initiative from the planning department. Investment in the public realm of city is something that has been sorely lacking for too long.

Mobility and Making a place


Peachtree Street shared street concept

[Martinman]

Now that (Peachtree Street concept ) is a bold idea for Atlanta. Honestly I find all the new planning emphasis as much if not more exciting than any individual projects.

[Libertarian]

The latest episode of Million Dollar Listing involves ace brokers coming to terms with the softening (in the crapper) NY condo market. Contrast all the discussion that some here had until fairly recently about the sad lack of condo starts in ATL. Turns out we dodged a bullet and did the right thing. Instead of overbuilding condos, we built modern beautiful apartments which attract millennials and quality employers to the city. All the product coming online will only keep prices affordable, resulting in steady absorption. It's a win-win. Now if the city could just reallocate some payola and improve the disintegrating streets and sidewalks.

[MARTAisSmarta]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Turns out we dodged a bullet and did the right thing. Instead of overbuilding condos, we built modern beautiful apartments which attract millennials and quality employers to the city.

Why do you suggest that more condo starts in Atlanta would result in "overbuilding"? I too am very happy with the number of apartments that have been/ will be built, but I am also eager to see more condos built (as well as office and retail).

[Libertarian]

Condos are over hyped. NY went overboard at least on the high end (which is all of them) and is saturated and the buyers dried up. Hopefully ATL can absorb the limited supply that's coming online in B-head.

[tinyslam]

There is a difference between the luxury condos being built in NYC and the everyday condo that people are arguing for building more of in Atlanta. The supertall condos in NYC are being built for the rich to invest in. The condos that would be built here would be for people to actually live in. Your argument would be like saying a dip in Ferrari sales means that we should stop making Toyotas.

[Libertarian]

Those Toyota condos sell for $400K upwards plus monthly fees. By Atlanta standards, that's something. But if they sell then good. There's an old dry drunk I know in the business in Miami who can tell you quite a tale about zombie condos.

[tinyslam]

$400k is still more affordable then a million dollar home in the same neighborhood. Condos are about increasing density while giving residents ownership. Apartments are great but at the end of your lease you are left with nothing. Now as a condo owner I should be arguing for building more apartments and less condos as that would make my condo's value increase, but as a proponent for smart urban development I want to see more affordable condos in the city.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by tinyslam

$400k is still more affordable then a million dollar home in the same neighborhood. Condos are about increasing density while giving residents ownership. Apartments are great but at the end of your lease you are left with nothing. Now as a condo owner I should be arguing for building more apartments and less condos as that would make my condo's value increase, but as a proponent for smart urban development I want to see more affordable condos in the city.

Point taken but most often the cost per square foot for a condo is more than a house/townhouse. Not to mention most HOA fees equal a car payment and you pay that fee even after the mortgage is paid.

[MARTAisSmarta]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Point taken but most often the cost per square foot for a condo is more than a house/townhouse. Not to mention most HOA fees equal a car payment and you pay that fee even after the mortgage is paid.

Sure, the cost/sf is directly related to desirability, mainly location. A SFH on the same lot would be incredibly expensive.

The HOA fees are for the services it provides. If you have a house you have to pay to re-roof, clean the gutters, mow the yard, clean the pool, take out the trash. It is not any different by bundling these services.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Point taken but most often the cost per square foot for a condo is more than a house/townhouse. Not to mention most HOA fees equal a car payment and you pay that fee even after the mortgage is paid.

HOA fees are typically only high in very large buildings and/or new buildings with many amenities.

The value of an apt vs. condo varies from city to city, but in Atlanta condos make considerably more sense financially IF you are planning to stick around a few years. Even though we are presumably near the peak in housing prices, the mortgage + HOA on my condo is 25% less than the rental price, which is common in the intown market.

[Libertarian]

Here's another little theory I'll throw out for discussion as supplied by one of my fellow theorists. The elites - leaders of major public corporations and financial companies headquartered primarily in NY - are focused on survival and profits maintenance. They are members of elite religions that worship the golden calf. Many are under fiscal stress due to competition, mergers, trending market developments, operating costs, tech developments, and Senator Warren. To preserve wealth and profits in this environment they must downsize. It is said five elements make for a successful downsizing: One leader, the ability to select the best and smartest people, secrecy, the securing of economic resources for recapitalization and brutality against any factions which may undermine the process. In secret many plan to leave NY and relocate to more viable, secure and livable places where are smart employable young people available such as Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Raleigh. Even DC, although pricier, is also in the mix due to proximity to political influence. The elites need to survive the reset but it's a difficult endeavor that requires excellent vision, leadership and execution.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Here's another little theory I'll throw out for discussion as supplied by one of my fellow theorists. The elites - leaders of major public corporations and financial companies headquartered primarily in NY - are focused on survival and profits maintenance. They are members of elite religions that worship the golden calf. Many are under fiscal stress due to competition, mergers, trending market developments, operating costs, tech developments, and Senator Warren. To preserve wealth and profits in this environment they must downsize. It is said five elements make for a successful downsizing: One leader, the ability to select the best and smartest people, secrecy, the securing of economic resources for recapitalization and brutality against any factions which may undermine the process. In secret many plan to leave NY and relocate to more viable, secure and livable places where are smart employable young people available such as Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Raleigh. Even DC, although pricier, is also in the mix due to proximity to political influence. The elites need to survive the reset but it's a difficult endeavor that requires excellent vision, leadership and execution.

this explains why atlanta has suddenly filled with snobby elitists over the past five years. i don't think we should be a "business friendly" environment when it comes to giving these elites a regulatory haven to relocate. atlanta should be a place where you can start a business selling on the sidewalk in 24 hours. instead we set up all kinds of barriers to small businesses and get down on our knees for corporations. i'm sick of it.