By Brad

April 9, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Stupid zoning laws. They should all be abolished. Zoning is just another layer of dumb government regulation that inhibits the freedom of individuals. Zoning does nothing but make development more costly to builders which makes the homes more expensive and drives up inflation, it inhibits people from living where and how they want to live, and forces development to abide by “standards” that are financially unrealistic.

We need to be more like Houston.

By Sandy Springs Resident

April 9, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Mr. Portman’s ego knows no bounds. His monstrosity of a home in Sea Island ruined the neigbhorhood around it. Now he wants to build a monstrosity in Sandy Springs and ruin the enjoyment of his neighbors here. The Board of Zoning Appeals should turn him down.

By J Smith

April 9, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Mr Portman should be able to build the house he want to build. If those that complain could build a house that big ,they would. Almost everybody wants bigger and better if they can afford it. I don’t thank its right to keep someone from building the kind of dream house they want on their property so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.

By CJ

April 9, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

A big “Boo Hoo” to the Sandy Springs neighbors of Portman. Back in Realityville, two hard-working people can barely afford a house north if I-20 and ITP. Most desirable houses we find are $400k+ and are jammed in on the next door neighbor. You all need a touch of reality… how lucky are you to even have acerage? You are very fortunate! Call me when you have a REAL issue to complain about. If you get tired of seeing Portman’s castle, just go to your beach house!

By al g

April 9, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

as one of the nation’s top architects, he should understand that the protective zoning laws are exactly the reason he wants to build there… those laws have kept it a naturally beautiful site!

does he think he’s the first person to want to build a monster-home on the river? these zoning laws keep the “haves” from destroying the natural beauty of the chattahoochee river and surrounding area. what a loss for the city of atlanta if they allow such a shared treasure to be compromised for one person’s materialism.

By UrbanDeveloper

April 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

A 27,000 sq ft home that can reach as much as 80 feet high is not a home just b/c it will have several bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, and kitchens. You don’t see any other city allowing large hotels being built in the middle of a neighborhood.

I would like to see some of your reaction when a gas station or hotel is built next to your homes if there wasn’t any zoning laws. Yes, let’s be like Houston and make a mess out of this city.

By One on the inside

April 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

You should have seen the house he tore down just to create the 12 acre lot. And after he lied to the original owner about what he was going to do with it when he bought the property. He is calling it his legacy. Sandy Springs do you and your community a favor and turn him down.

By tim in smyrna

April 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Houston is the ugliest city in America but developers can make easy money there.

Zoning laws are on the books and Portman needs to either live by them or move down I-85 and buy a few hundred acres and build what he wants. Of course, SW Georgia does not offer the amenities North Atlanta does but he gets to make those decisions.

By Emma

April 9, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Oh who cares? Have you seen the “hotel” being built to the south of Portman’s land and the “spaceship” owned by Dallas Austin to the north? To each their own!!! As a resident of Sandy Springs off Northside Drive I will take diversity before “cookie cutter” any day of the week. We support John… and will probably get arrested treaspassing to see this home in progress! I bet he will have an amazing view of the city.

By J B Jackson

April 9, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

The question should be, “what is wrong with Sandy Springs! Ever since becoming a city they assumed a Nazi like attitude towards the community. GOD FEAR THE QUEEN OF SANDY SPRINGS!!!

By Joe

April 9, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

I think that any zoning variance depends the details of the situation, building, site, etc. If he has 12 acres, that’s probably not close enough to any neighbors to encroach on them. I’ll probably support him because it will increase property values of my neighborhood.

By Dennis

April 9, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

To the Sandy Springs resident that thinks Portman’s home ruined the neighborhood around it on Sea Island. You have either never seen it or the last time you saw it was when it was built. His home on Sea Island fits in great and the inside is unbelievable. Portman has built Atlanta and has always done it with style. I’m sure his new home will be done with the same style.

By EJ

April 9, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

His house will be far enough away from the road and behind woods and down in a valley as not to be out of conformance with other houses in the neighborhood. Let Portman build his big house on his own land just like some others have built big houses in Sandy Springs. This house would be a plus for the community in so many ways.

By harold

April 9, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

haha! finally a mcmansion to the mcmansioners. suck it up, whiners! that’s what you said when you built your ugly mcmansions next to our bungalows!

By Eric

April 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

John Portman, Charlie Brown… just deveopers with big egos and big money to spend, regardless of what anyone else thinks or cares.

If a giant house is SO important to Portman, buy land in the country and build it there.

If a giant mixed used retail development is so important to Brown, let him find a place where he and it will be welcomed.

By crass realist

April 9, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

I love it! A bunch of crybabies who are fortunate to have a neighbor of John Portman’s stature want to turn down his request because it may have a “negative impact” on the neighborhood.

You should be on your knees daily thanking God for sending a man like Portman to build Atlanta. Otherwise, you would all still be in…Conyers.

By Joe

April 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

I just reviewed all the documents available and now I totally support it unless I hear otherwise in the meeting. The only documents missing were the photos. Has anyone seen the photos of the site or existing houses?

By Brad

April 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

I’ve always found it ironic how liberals and urban elitists will reject big projects under the “aesthetics” banner when these projects can only bring in huge amounts of coveted tax revenue to fund their nanny programs.

You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot.

By RL

April 9, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Brad, what are you talking about?

Move to Houston if you love it so much.

By walt boyle

April 9, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

I’ve been by this site dozens of times in the last 20 years. There used to be a beautiful tudor type mansion on the lot which has been torn down. I’m pretty sure this is the highest point in Atlanta, at least inside the perimeter on the north side. I think John Portman’s plans would greatly enhance the area’s beauty. There is one house next to this site that has a pool and the concerns of the owners should be addressed (shade, traffic, etc), but there really aren’t any other neighbors involved. If there is any place in that deserves a variance it is this one. Persoanlly, I wish he’d build it on the highest point, and not down the culvert…I’d pay to see that view.

By Jennifer A.

April 9, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it telling that each side only has 10 minutes to speak before the hearing is closed? Yeah, right, Our Voices are heard — what a joke.

P.S. He’d only be getting a variance because of who he is and how much money he has. If I asked for a variance, no matter how “tasteful,” I’d be turned down in a heartbeat.

Yeah…That 10 minute thing is really getting to me more than the whole Portman house thing….

By Catherine

April 9, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

I don’t think Portman should be allowed to build something that is literally that much “over the top”. It would just be too ostentatious. I’ve been in his home in Sea Island, and it is NOT a monstrosity. It is absolutely gorgeous, and from the outside, you can’t even see the house. It is surrounded with a wall covered with greenery. It is totally hidden…so whoever called it an eyesore, hasn’t seen it, or needs glasses! Let reason prevail!

By UrbanDeveloper

April 9, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

The best thing that ever happened to Houston was the Galleria. There’s nothing else there but overdevelopment without planning. You have to drive an hour away to Galveston to see anything decent. Yes, let’s follow Houston’s planning…or lack thereof, it’s a ‘ting of beeeaaauty.

By UrbanDeveloper

April 9, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

BTW: Some of you may feel that your property value will go up once Portman’s “home” is done. You think a 27,000 sq ft eye sore costing several million dollars to build will pull up your 2,500 sq ft house which only cost $300,000? You are comparing a big apple to small oranges…it’s not a comp. If your property value does go up, albeit, just a little, you think the good old city tax commissioner isn’t going to slap you all with a higher property tax bill? Well, you can thank Portman for that.

By Brad

April 9, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

Hey UrbanDeveloper, I’ll gladly take the higher property value any day — and even if it means higher taxes. And I would wager that most of Portman’s neighbors aren’t living in 300k homes — more like $3 million homes. So, yes, if ever there was a neighborhood that this thing would fit in, Northside Drive would be it.

And BTW, aesthetics is purely relative. What you call an “eye sore” Portman calls a masterpiece. To each his own. Who the hell decides what is “beautiful” and what isn’t anyway? Oh, I’m sorry… a panel of taxpayer-funded government landscape architechs tells us what is “beautiful”. Thank you government for clearing that up.

Let the man build the thing. I find it frightening that in our so-called “free” America the government tells you what you can and can’t do on your very own property. IHMO, zoning regs are an infringement on private property rights, which just so happen to be the cornerstone of any truely “free” society.

By O Catherine

April 9, 2007 10:04 PM | Link to this

Zoning laws are here to protect us. Anyone who doesn’t want to abide by them should go live and build somewhere else.

By UrbanDeveloper

April 9, 2007 10:15 PM | Link to this

Zoning ordinances and regulations are laws that define and restrict how you can use your property. Cities, counties, townships and other local governments adopt zoning plans in order to set development standards to assure that land is used for the common good.

So if you are thinking about buying property or making improvements to property you already own, you’d better be sure you understand the zoning restrictions before you commit to anything. Zoning ordinances and regulations control what purpose your property may be used for.

Zoning laws will set forth many use restrictions, such as:

• the height and overall size of buildings
• their proximity to one another
• what percentage of the area of a building lot may contain structures
• what particular kinds of facilities must be included with certain kinds of uses For example, zoning ordinances will typically limit the number of stories and total height of a building, require a certain number of parking spaces for a commercial building, and require a driveway and garage on a suburban residential property.

The bulk requirements of a zoning ordinance refer to:

the height and size restrictions on buildings including the number of stories in a building the square feet of space which a building provides the percentage of area it covers on a building lot the minimum lot size requirements, if any The setback and side-yard requirements of a zoning ordinance refer to the distance between the front and back property lines and the distance from the side property lines.

Zoning ordinances and regulations control what purpose your property may be used for.

My point? That the zoning regulations already existed prior to him buying these pieces or property to build his mega mansion. Zoning regulations are not an infringement in this case because it was in existence before he came. Yes, to each his own about aesthetics. Take that advice from someone who loves Houston that, according to him, does not have zoning regulations. Look how “beautiful” that city turned out. You’ve got houses next to stores and gas stations with highways running through neighborhoods.

By Matt H

April 10, 2007 7:50 AM | Link to this

What the Hell do you need a house that size for anyway?

To the guy who said we need to be more like Houston, go live there if you like it so much. I’m sure the petrochemical plant you’ll call a neighbor will show you what zoning laws are for.

By thoughtful

April 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

one should not be so thoughtless as not to consider the impact their actions will have on the living conditions of their neighbors. People who have become empty nesters in the suburbs and have paid off mortgages, no longer have to worry about educating their children, are tired of the traffic on the commute to Atlanta are now buying property closer to the city in older established neighborhoods with charming character with smaller homes on small lots only to demolish the buildings on the property to build a monstrosity of a building with no regard to the impact on their neighbors ability to have access to the same view, access to natural light or breeze as before are selfish and inconsiderate. Zoning laws are made to protect the masses from the few who are financially able to flaunt their ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, whereever they want to whomever they want, however they want. Although I would never be able to afford to live in the area Mr Portman is about to rape, I sincerely hope he is unsuccessful in ruining the environmental integrity of the space. This has happened in my small neighborhood with a lake and beautiful hardwoods. We are a neighborhood which is about 35 years old with homes ranging from $150,000 to $350,000 which all have architecture and color that blends in with the natural surroundings of the trees and lake. Recently someone built an ultra contemporary monstrosity across the lake from me which is solid white and five stories high on the lake side which I have to look at every day. It truly distracts from the beauty and serenity that used to be mine to enjoy every day. The sad thing is that the building is here to stay and no one lives in it. It is on the market for $500,000, but it is too ugly and out of the norm for the area to do any good for the other property values. Portman needs to go down the river and find a place out in the country where he can have the big house he wants without raping an already established area.