Around Sandy Springs

By Swangirl

January 30, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Maybe Sandy Springs residents aren’t up in arms about McMansions because it isn’t really impacting them yet the way it is in other parts of town.

We rent an apartment in the Toco Hills area and hope to buy a house in the next few months. We won’t be living in this area because we can’t afford to, even with my husband making a nice income. The 50s brick ranch that isn’t worth much in Sandy Springs is gold here. Most go for $300,000 and more. Why? Because a developer can tear it down and build a McMansion on it.

I understand what you’re saying about covenants. But how many neighborhoods planned so far in advance to address wealthy suburbanites who want to move back ITP and build a mansion that looks like a Columbian drug lord lives there?

McMansions go up every day here. And to be honest, some builders actually try to build something that attempts to look natural with the other homes. It doesn’t cast a shadow on the ranch home next door or nearly take up all the acreage. Those I don’t have as much of a beef about.

It’s the monstrosities that leave about a foot of grass around them and totally overpower the neighboring homes that make me queasy.

Trust me, McMansion-ing is coming to Sandy Spring. And the signs against infill that abound in yards here will be popping up, too.

By J.T.

January 30, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

You know…I do believe in freedom and the rights afforded us by our nations Constitution. That said, just because fishermen can take 200 tons of swordfish a week out of the ocean doesn’t mean that they should. Just because allowing clear cutting of trees in our national parks will provide lots of lumber to the building industry doesn’t make it right. How about eminent domain? Supreme Court be dam%*ed. What happened to individual rights?

No where in our country’s Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it speak of corporations or companies. It speaks about the freedoms of individuals. Who really benefits from the recent allowances by our government? It’s not truly the individual, because “individual” actual refers to a collective individual not a singular individual.

So, because a developer or individual can come into an existing neighborhood and build a McMansion because the existing zoning and non-existence of Covenants allow it, does that make it okay?

The founding fathers of our country could have been no more foreward psychic as to envision the Internet than the voters could have been of the rampant McMansion development.

If I buy a home in Midtown, Virginia Highlands or a plain of subdivision of 50’s brick ranches, then I have bought there because I liked what I found there. Sure, the bathrooms are miniscule and the closets non-existent. However, I can reasonably expect to remodel the house to enhance those detrimental features.

However, McMansion-itis is different. Just because the laws, zoining, etc. allow for such building does it give them the right to do it if it cuts out the daylight that the neighbors have previously experienced? And what about what it does to the tax rates of the non-McMansion houses? They usually skyrocket even though they’ve not created a $1 million home. So while their neighbors actually live in a $1 million home, those who have done nothing must pay the taxes for a $1 million home even though they do not live in one.

If you want to live in a mansion, then move to a neighborhood of such homes, don’t change the character of existing neighborhoods to the detriment of your neighbors.

By John

January 30, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Let’s turn this around a bit. Let’s say I can afford a lot in beautiful Buckhead near Habersham, but I can’t afford too put a huge mansion on it, so I’ll just put a double-wide on the lot. Who is going to want to live next to that? The other owners would be howling. Yet if I complain about a house that dwarfs mine, thus making it harder to sell, I’m just supposed to live with it and not be a baby.

I live in one of those post-war era brick ranches and I support zoning and ordinances that regulate the building of these huge houses. Notice I said “regulate” not “deny”.

I’m certainly not hysterical about it, but if I can influence city hall to protect the value of my property, and my quality of life, I’m gonna try.

By Bill

January 30, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

It seems to me that this is also an issue of zoning requirements and the involvement of the local NPU. If the new home meets all of these qualifications, then why can it not be built. If the problem is that the zoning requirements are not stringent enough - then change the zoning instead of placing a moratorium on the rights of the property owner.

My observation is that many of the older homes would fail today’s more stringent zoning requirements and would NEVER be approved! I live intown myself and have a garage built within 1 foot of my property line - my zoning now requires at least a 7 foot setback.

By Scott

January 30, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Here is my solution for Sandy Springs. Use Eminent Domain to force the slum lords to sell the crime ridden, ghetto infested apartments that riddle Roswell road. Turn that land into new neighborhoods for the people that want “McMansions”, and leave the older neighborhoods alone. This solution will open up hundreds of acres of new land while creating a lot of new tax revenue while removing the criminal elements from this newly formed city. Of course this solution requires common sense which NO Politican seems to possess!

By charles

January 30, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

I am recently relocated from Louisiana and we had neighboorhoods like this (Mcmansions in neighboorhoods where the other homes were 15 to 1800 square feet). There was no discussion of consistency in architecture nor desire to govern or regulate what (home type) was placed on the property.
Granted, this direction can erode the aesthetic historical character of most inner loop (I am learning the lingo) neighborhoods and for that argument, I applaud residents here for “sticking” to thier guns; however, from an economic standpoint, who wants to pay $300 to $400k for a house that only has 1 and a half baths? If we are not allowed to reap the benefits of increased value in our homes (that is another discussion), we really can create some problems for our (I now live here too) city. My point, the neighborhoods (though disorganized) need to wiegh in on this and make the call (which means they need to organize and develop some guidelines about what can be built in thier areas). It is to thier benefit or detriment and to allow City Hall to decide is passing the buck. Other areas have allowed this to occur and it does have economic drivers, but I think the local neighborhoods need to have final call on this one and not the mayor nor City Council. Times have changed and we need to change with them….

By Thomas

January 30, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

The problem is not with a homeowner who wants to tear down his home and build something else. Rather, we have speculating builders who buy several homes, with no intention of ever living there, and build homes that are out of place in the neighborhood and block the sun from their neighbors.

By PK

January 30, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

I think the main issue here should be what does the house look like and does it infringe upon my property. zoning should take care to ensure that a house isn’t built to the property line and zoning should take care to ensure the house isn’t 75 feet tall.

I’d rather have a large Craftsman style house built next to mine than an averaged-sized ultra-modern house that would disrupt the feel of the neighborhood.

By Patrick

January 30, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Jim, either you misunderstand the tear-down moratorium or you are being specious and misleading in your arguement. Those of us who are against tear-downs and McMansionization of older in-town neighborhoods do not look to dictate AESTHETICS with the moratorium - therefore no one is going to prevent anyone from painting their house a different color. The whole problem is one that deals with outsized MASSING and SCALE - get it? It is patently wrong to build a humongous house that is out of scale (up to 30 - 50% bigger in most cases) with surrounding historic houses in the neighborhood.

By Proud ranch owner

January 30, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Part of the problem here in DeKalb is that the ordinances regulating height, tree cutting, drainage, stream buffers and setbacks are either weak as written or unenforced or overridden by boards. So a millionaire developer can buy a tiny forested lot, cut down all the trees (claiming “financial hardship”), pipe the stream running through it (because he convinces the county it doesn’t exist), reverse the drainage on the lot so that neighbors who have been there fifty years suddenly get flooded, build an energy-sucking 4000 square foot monstrosity right to the property line (and get a variance from the county because it’s a fait accompli), and sell it to someone new to the area who wonders why the neighbors are so unfriendly.

By Matthew

January 30, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Swangirl - not to call you out, but you are complaining that you cannot afford a home in Toco Hills, and your point is what?

Would you like local government to “do something” for you? Somehow artificially depress property values in a certain neighborhood so that you can afford to live there?

I don’t get it. I love living in Atlanta. I sure would like to own a home in Tuxedo Park, but I cannot afford it. I’d also love a top-floor apartment on Park Avenue overlooking Central Park in New York. I cannot afford that either. Nor can I afford the 200 year old brick row-house in the Whitehall section of London that I’ve dreamt of my entire life.

The point I’m making is that the first place to look to “have something done for me” is YOU, NOT the government.

I have issues with infill housing that encroaches on property, blocks sunlight, or has a quantifiable detrimental effect on a neighbor. When building a new house, one would be well-served in realizing that it’s NOT “all about me” and that your actions DO have an effect upon others. A little common sense and courtesy amongst homeowners, developers, investors, builders, neighborhood associations and zoning boards would go a long way.

That said, let’s not go with hat in hand to the government at the first sign of trouble.

By David

January 30, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Well…I’d say a large portion of Sandy Springs is in need of being rehabed/raised. However, adding these large homes where they are not congruous can marr otherwise interesting neighborhoods…which are almost non-existant in Sandy Springs. So, you all may benefit well from rebuilds. Other more interesting/historic areas could be damaged by things that will surely help you all out.

I think the proposal in Dekalb is best. It will allow each neighborhood to make up its own mind in regards to the McMansion debate.

By Swangirl

January 30, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

The point I’m making is that the first place to look to “have something done for me� is YOU, NOT the government.

Matthew, did I ever ask for the government to do something for me in my post? Uhm…No. I didn’t. Please go back and re-read it. Never did I say that.

In mentioning that we can’t afford to buy a house in Toco Hills, I was merely saying that while we have a good income and have no debt, we can’t live here due to the fact that there’s nothing under $300,000. This was an observation, not a plea for the government to save me. So please don’t put words in my mouth.

By John

January 30, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Proud Ranch Owner,

I live in Dekalb, near Dresden and the situation you describe is about to happen right next to me. A wooded lot that is nothing but a grade is now going to host four new mini-mansions. They are clearing it now. They are going to pipe the stream, which runs through a small culvert in my yard and has never ever crested. Then they are going to throw infill in and shove these “houses” right into the hill. The only good thing is that they can’t build right next to me because of the stream, and the one house next to me gets to look down on my back yard. I’ve sat out on my back deck and watched baby raccoons, red tail hawks, and even a wild turkey…now I get to look at big ugly houses. Sure…readers will say boo hoo for me, but I am worried about the reverse flooding. Do I have any recourse?

By ProUrbanRenewal

January 30, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

I never knew there were so many any property rights, liberal winers in Atlanta/ Sandy Springs. The 50’s & 60’s era ranch house need to be bladed, it is probably the worst architechal style in history, too utilitarian with zero aesthetic appeal. At least most of the McMansion’s are using attractive aged brick and similar finishes. We’re not talking about an area where there is any arts & crafts or bungalow style homes that neighborhood C,C&R’s could be implemented BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD retroactively.

This is what they call ‘urban renewal’ and the market is obviously supporting it. Most of the lots in the Sandy Springs area are sizable and a 6,000 sf house is not out of place. The reason the ranch house are increasing is because land/lot prices are increasing and that’s all most of the house are viewed as, lots (the house is actually detriment to the value since the buyer will have to pay to blade it). If you don’t want to pay the higher property taxes then what you should be advocating is a property tax freeze on houses until they sell then have the seller pay taxes on the realized gain for the period that they benefitted from the property tax freeze.

I live in a 50’s style ranch around Chastain and look forward to one day bulldozing it for a more attractive house with modern amenities one day. Also, trees are protected by tree ordinances not moratoriums. The only thing that will be accomplished by action on the part of the Atlanta city government will be to have builders build less attractive houses that fit within the new criteria (imagine houses with flat/no grade roofs to fit under the height restrictions).

By Getagrip

January 30, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

The future is not postwar 2bdrm/1 bath knock togethers or ’60s ranches.

Granted, some of the new homes replacing these tear downs are certainly out of place for the lots and locations, but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Increased property values mean mean increased wealth to the owners and increased property taxes to the local governments for improved services and infrastructure. I’d rather have a ranch surrounded by upscale homes than a ranch surrounded by other ranches in a neighborhood that isn’t going anywhere.

As it happens, I own a ranch home in Druid Hills on a very desirable lot. We fixed it up, expanded a bit, but its heritage is obvious. We really can’t afford it nor do we have the desire to do anymore. we love it, but if someone wants to offer me an outrageous sum of money just to get the lot for a larger home, then I’m all ears. Dekalb won’t let them build anything out of character with the neighborhood which still gives them a lot room to manuver. Everyone wins.

Get over it people and make the most of it.

By Tina

January 30, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

If you don’t believe infill housing is coming to Sandy Springs, take a drive down River Valley Road. There are literally a dozen houses for sale, several of which have signs that indicate acreage and price outright. One sign says “Assemblage.” What is infuriating to me about the infill situation along River Valley is that there is one development of four houses already underway ($1.2 million and up) that seems to have complete disregard for the county’s/Sandy Springs—and let’s face it, they’re lacking—erosion controls. Last Monday, I drove down River Valley during a heavy rainstorm and for literally a half a mile, the gutter was filled to capacity with red-clay saturated rainwater. All the silt controls on the hilly development were completely useless. This type development can and does have an impact further out beyond Sandy Springs in the form of increased contaminants in our waterways.

By MMM

January 30, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

What’s worse than the McMansions is the atrocious mansions that are over-the-top, poorly designed monuments to bad taste. For examples, just drive down Heard’s Ferry. I understand the need to spend ridiculous amounts of money on real estate - the accountant told you to do it, but shame on Sandy Springs if our new government does not establish an Architectural Review Board to abolish 8-foot block walls being built along major roadways, and mausoleum-like monstrosities from overtaking the streetscape. McMansions will be built if people continue to buy them. What kind of sucker buys an oversized house that says ” I love me!” and sticks out of the neighborhood like a sore thumb? None of my friends, thankfully.

By Lack-itecture

January 30, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Frankly, I’m tired of the same big or small house you see all over the Greater Atlanta area. The 2-stories all look the same albeit with either brick of stucco and the ranches were all punched out too! And forget about anything contemporary. The only place I can see any contemporary residental architecture is on HGTV. If I didn’t have to be here I’d be somewhere else that isn’t so scared about giving a good architect a challenge. Even the McMansions are beginning to all look the same. My kingdom for no covenants!

By Bill

January 30, 2006 09:39 PM | Link to this

Patrick, If your problem is “one that deals with outsized MASSING and SCALE” then why can it not be dealt with by adjusting the zoning requirements of the neighborhood? Why is it necessary to enforce your opinions on what is acceptable by limiting building permits by the property owner?

By James

January 30, 2006 10:13 PM | Link to this

If you like the character and quality of the houses around you and want total control of how they look then BUY THEM. If you want the wooded lot next to you to remain empty and wooded then BUY IT. Respect for the right of private property is a cornerstone of our country. Using government to retroactivly create and enforce building codes simply to make a few voters happy is wrong. If you buy a house in a city, community, or neighborhood with Covenants or other houseing restrictions then you know what you are getting into. When you buy a house in a neighborhood with little to no restrictions then you also know exactly what you are getting into.

http://www.founding.com/declare/princip/dp04.htm

As for property rights, they were at the heart of the dispute which led to the American Revolution. When Americans at the time listed the rights of man, they often said “life, liberty, and property.” Boston’s 1772 “Rights of the Colonists” were typical: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property.” As with happiness, this is not a right to property itself, but a right to use one’s talents to acquire property, and to use it as one sees fit, as long as one does not injure oneself or others.

By James

January 30, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this

Next week City Hall will be working on passing a law to stop revitilization of Downtown Atlanta and to restore Techwood Homes and other government project housing.

By potbelly

January 31, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

The biggest complaint I have against McMansions is that they are just plain ugly. I haven’t seen one that isn’t hideous. 50’s and 60’s ranch houses are much, much more attractive.

I just built a house - a reasonable sized one, at 1240 square feet. However, to build it, I had to pay a lot of money, because the bank and appraiser insisted it wasn’t worth it to build what I wanted to build. I used white marble brick for the exterior, imported from Canada. The interior floors are all hardwood. Tile bath’s. Etc. You can’t build a nice small house, because the banks won’t let you. How much sense does that make? I only managed to build mine because I have a lot of money - much more than is common today, so I could defy “the system”.

Anyway, while I loathe McMansions, I support property rights. Its not a darn bit of my business what my neighbor chooses to do with his property. So, I have to support the right of people to build the eyesores which are modern housing.

By neighbor

January 31, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Having worked on the front lines of this issue for 2 years in DeKalb, so many of these comments of “what’s the problem” “shouldn’t people be allowed to do with their property what they want” and “it improves property value” are familiar. However, those beliefs change dramatically when a 45’ sheer brick wall is built next door, on top of an 8’ high pile of dirt brought in to allow a basement to be built above-ground and all the run-off now floods onto neighboring properties and oddly enough, nobody wants to pay a premium for the house now sitting in the shadow of a looming facade. This infection in DeKalb and elsewhere was allowed to flourish because spec builders could operate under the radar….the current regulations don’t address the unique and unanticipated impact of building in already built-out neighborhoods. People expect change and rennovation…just not Versailles or the White House to be plopped down in the middle of their neighborhood or to find themselves suddenly squeezed between the two. There are many examples of great infill housing that integrates with neighborhoods…primarily those built by people who want to live there. Spec builders don’t live with the consequences of their actions and their actions clearly indicate no respect for the existing residents. If builders did the right thing, then there would not be a need to regulate their actions. However, pushing every boundary and creatively interpreting the current codes is NOT doing the right thing and it IS negatively impacting the neighbor’s quality of life as well as their property value. Yes, there absolutely are property rights….but property rights are not absolute. The majority of the value of a piece of property is its location and its community. When a builder comes in and damages both, he is in effect “taking” the value of the existing resident’s property because suddenly it is only valuable as a teardown.
Its amazing how energized people become when they become victim rather than observer.

By Henry Dillon

January 31, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Before criticizing developers for building homes that all look the same, no character, etc. people need to consider the cost of adding many of the details that older homes have. It is very expensive. I am a developer who has built several homes in East Point, GA. Our first homes in that area had many of the Craftsman details found in older homes such as brick veneer around the foundation, divided light wood windows, etc. Simply put, we did not recoup this expense when the homes sold. Other builders in the area used stucco around the foundation, cheaper windows, etc. and sold their homes for the same price or more than ours. People either did not recognize the value add of the extra details or refused to pay for them. So now guess what? We no longer add those details and our homes look the same as all the others and they are selling. The bottom line is people say they want all the extras details to make their homes more individual but at the end of the day are unwilling to pay of them. I have been through enough contract negotiations to know this first hand.

By Michael Halpern

January 31, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

I have been a home builder/designer for 50 years and have lived in Buckhead since 1962 in house built in 1936 that I have extensively remodeled.

There is no question that the average size of houses being built in the US has grown substantially over the years. People want larger homes and are willing to pay for them.

As much as I like it, the ultimate value of my house may very well be greater as a tear-down than as a residence.

In my experience, the value of a building site runs between 15% and 30% of the sale price fo the completed home. Limiting the size of a house that can be built on a site will, therefore, limit what a builder can pay for the property.

In my opinion, neighborhoods would be better served by having competent design review of proposed replacement housing, with attention paid to architectural quality and siting, rather than setting crude standards that would do little to make a given home more attractive or acceptable to the neighbors.

By John Snider

February 1, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Naturally, if there’s no existing code or covenant, it’s unfair to stop someone who’s in the process of building a new home in an existing neighborhood. But…having lived in Va-Hi for a while, some time ago, I have no problem with the city passing historical preservation ordinances to ensure that older neighborhoods retain their attractive character, and that new homes are compatible with the existing ones. I think those who buy homes should have some reasonable expectations as to how a neighborhood is maintained or develops.