Talk of the Town

By Kathy Evans

January 20, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

I am very pleased that the City is making an effort to take a look at the scale of in-fill housing. Out-of-scale housing in dense areas causes many serious problems for existing residents — from loss of light, to a poor aesthetic, to flooding problems… It’s great news that Mayor Franklin is taking this city-wide issue seriously.

By Sally Smith

January 20, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

This is without a doubt the best thing Shirley Franklin has done for intown neighborhoods. Thank you, thank you!

By dyan

January 20, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

I am extremely happy about the temporary halt of “McMansions” in intown Atlanta. These large homes look extremely out of place in charming, historic neighborhoods like Morningside and Ansley Park. They drive up property taxes which often forces long time residents to leave (a new form of gentrification). The lots are typically too small to accomodate these homes, as well. Not to mention the affordability of intown has become ridiculous- you can’t buy a $400,000 home in Morningside or Pine Hills without a developer snatching it up to build a $1.5 mansion- you will soon have to be a millionaire in order to live here. Let’s preserve our intown neighborhoods!

By Brinda

January 20, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

GREAT!!! I think this is a good thing I live in the Grant Park area and those HUGE home take away from the quaint homes in these Intown area such as Ansley, Lennox, Va-Highland. Put those type od home in Alpharetta or Lithonia, we don’t want them intown.

By Kathryn

January 20, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

I applaud Mayor Franklin’s actions. Driving home through the Highlands last night, I was saddened by the McMansions sprouting up among the charming old bungalows. Infill building is not a bad thing when it conforms to the feeling of the existing neighborhood. In fact, good infill building can be a wonderful thing for a neighborhood. Hopefully this moratorium will lead to a happy medium.

By Cheshire Cat

January 20, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

So, my understanding is that a McMansion is a home that is to “over-sized” for the neighborhood, right? Well, wouldn’t the approval of building two large condominium towers near Piedmont Park, within an established neighborhood mind you, constitute as a McMansion as well? Things that make you go hmmm….

By Charles Davidson

January 20, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Way to go, Shirley! It’s refreshing and overdue to see the integrity of our neighborhoods taken seriously. There’s more to building a good city than the monetary interests of real estate developers. If you don’t like it, go build your monstrosity in Alpharetta.

By Jessica

January 20, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

I think that if it’s your property, and you stay within property lines and safety guidelines then it’s none of their business.

By David

January 20, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Halting construction of larger homes in this area is another stupid move by the mayor. She should go back to putting huge slabs of metal of tiny potholes throughout the city. The larger houses are adding land value to the smaller homes in the area and they should be greatful of the gentrification going on in Atlanta. It only helps out the “older, established neighborhoods”.

By kevin

January 20, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

more whining by the ‘have nots’. as a intown resident, Grant park area, I welcome the misaligned ‘mcmansion’. they attract a better quality of neighbor.

methinks that our esteemed politicians want to stop the flow of wealthy suburbanites into thier controlled zones.

By Josh

January 20, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

While I agree that the McMansions are awful, I don’t know that it’s the City’s place to interfere with their construction at this point. Clearly the economics of them work; otherwise, they wouldn’t be sprouting up all over the place. Unfortunately, I believe this is another instance of the City realizing much too late the consequences of inadequate urban planning.

By Laura Ellis

January 20, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

*Homeowners: we are our own enemy. * I support a height restriction in Atlanta. The Dekalb infill ordinance was defeated because homeowners believe statements like “”An outdated ranch might be worth a half-million dollars as a teardown,…” An idea that is false and insulting to homeowners. A lot is worth less than a house. Particularly when you factor the cost of tearing down the house. I know it is hard to believe, but a shocking number of homeowners in Dekalb actually believe they are going to get rich selling their home as a teardown. When in fact, they will be forced to sell at a lower price live in the shadow of the vulgar Mcmansion that towers over their once desirable home. ATLANTA HOMEOWNERS: Go to the meetings. Support Mary Norwood, or at least do your homework.

By Steven

January 20, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

As a Virginia-Highland resident, I have mixed emotions. I “thought” that our neighborhoods were pretty proactive in approving/disapproving home plans, so this takes some of the self-goverence away. That being said, some of the homes I’ve seen go up are way over-sized, while others have been quite tasteful. I do find it interesting that Mayor Franklin signed this order to keep oversized homes out of neighborhoods, but might allow Mason to build huge developments in the exact same area, including dual towers of up to 30 odd stories high. Seems there is a disconnect there.

By Claudia

January 20, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Why would anyone want to build a Manson in a tite space large homes are to be complemented by having large yards and plenty of space.

By Donna Allman

January 20, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

This is a free country or did Ms.Franklin forget. If you can afford it build it. I guess she forgot she can still collect taxes. She doesn’t need to stop growth. Atlanta needs more businesses if she stops this it sends a bad message to new business that would consider Atlanta.

By BPJ

January 20, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Let’s start by defining the issue correctly: it’s not whether a house (outside of a designated historic district) can be demolished and replaced by a larger house. Rather, it’s a question of degree and scale. There are already some limits on building height, and setbacks, in intown residential areas, so the pure libertarian argument that “I can do whatever I want on my land” is bogus. That has never been true in the city. We can decide to fine-tune those regulations in certain neighborhoods to protect the property values of those whose views would be obstructed by looming adjacent McMansions. There are plenty of properties in the city where these large houses could be built, without impinging on older, established neighborhoods.

By Free Market

January 20, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

It’s outrageous! As long as I comply with zoning regs, I ought to be able to build any house I want on my own property. I live in Morningside and Shirley Franklin has just hugely impacted the value of my home. If a home is too large to get the asking price, the developers will scale back on the next one. Stop monkeying in my neighborhood and fix the sewers instead.

By Tim

January 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

This is long over-due but how come it doesn’t include Midtown ?

To the people who complain that it’s none of the Goverment’s business what I build on my land, mind if I put a mobile home next door to your home ?

By WaitNSee

January 20, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

It’ll be funny when these same people applauding this see the value of their homes cut substantially and they can’t sell without taking a huge hit.

By Nichole

January 20, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Thanks Mayor Franklin,

I am a homeowner in the City of Atlanta and I completely approve of the moratorium. For those of you (Kevin) claiming to “have”, you may want to check out the bankruptcy and foreclosure listings or your own checking account. These are the people buying these overpriced, poorly constructed McMansions but can not afford their taxes, maintenance or mortgages.

Take a look at homes that were built 5 or 10 years ago. Most of them don’t look nearly as good as the older (maybe not smaller) homes in the same area. Brick vs Siding, Hardwood floors vs ??? Well maintained lawns vs postage stamp shrubs/grass combo.

This moratorium will give the NPU’s more input in the redevelopment process happening in most of our communities.

By Sandra

January 20, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

I find it very interesting that the restriction is limited to those in-town neighborhoods that are predominantly white. Does Mayor Franklin not care about in-fills in Edgewood, Kirkwood, OakHurst? Apparently the quality of life of the poorer, black citizens is not a concern? Someone explain that to me. Could it be that the unspoken plan is to move the in-fill there, to increase the property value of those poor neighborhoods, allowing those citizens to reap the benefits that come with it (better schools, safer streets, taxable commerce from neighborhhod shops and restaurants)? Watch Mary Norwood freak out when those citizens, their pockets lined from the sale of their teardown in Kirkwood, move into the small ranch in Va-Hi that is now only worth $200k because it can’t be torn down.

By NLE

January 20, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

I think Jessica positioned the nail on the coffin lid and Laura Ellis drove it in. If it’s your property, the government has no right to tell you what you can or cannot build as long as you are not creating environmentally hazardous conditions and there are many in-town residents who will be sick to learn that they waited a tad too long to sell to re-coup their investment. I usually applaud Mayor Franklin’s decisions but this one smacks of gerrymandering.

By marianne

January 20, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

These “McMansions” destroy the soul of a neighborhood, create enviromental problems by overrun and clear cutting, and discriminate against against the majority who cannot afford these houses. Thank you Mayor Franklin. Your progressive and immediate responses to the needs of your community is why you’ve been recognized nationally as an outstanding mayor.

By Jesse Long

January 20, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

I think that if people have problems with what a neighboring owner is planning on doing (or has done) with THEIR property…then those people who have problems should buy the property from the neighboring owner. By the logic used by proponents of this moratorium…we should all be living in the first log cabins that were built in the Atlanta area…as they would be the most original examples of area architecture. There isn’t a right to force other people who live in your neighborhood to conform to your wishes (unless this was expressly written a deed restriction…which I’m quite certain wasn’t in the case of the infill redevelopment).

By Andrew

January 20, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

You know we’re in trouble when private property rights are threatened like this. Since when did it become a bad thing to achieve, work hard, and be able to afford to buy your own land and build what you want? Something has gone awfully wrong here!

By Tim

January 20, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Everyday’s an opening day in the ATL……unless you want to build something on your own property. Another stupid policy by the 5th “best” mayor in the country who’s done nothing but fill pot holes.

By Bubba

January 20, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

I am sorry but what happened to the term private property? Why does the city or a politican get to tell anyone what to do with their private property? If someone has the money to improve their residence why try to prevent them? All of the renovation and expansion is good for property values and good for neighborhoods. And there is the ability to stop your neighbor from tearing down their house….buy it from them. Most every home is for sale for the right price. If you cannot pay the price, you should keep your opinion to yourself.

By EB

January 20, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Shirley can’t have it both ways. She’s attempting to appease the constituency that elected her by vowing to “protect” older neighborhoods, but she’s bright enough to realize that the higher property tax base from larger, more expensive homes will help fund the improvements in city services that she’ll promise going forward. The city just floated how many billions in bonds on the public market to help fix its decrepit infrastructure? There’s a conflict of interest here. The city needs/wants the higher tax base to service that interest - ergo the “yes” to condo towers, but this moratorium is pure political posturing. Shame on you, Mayor Franklin for interfering with a free market AND talking out of both sides of your mouth.

By jan

January 20, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Ok all that’s good and well on the mayors part, but when WILL MLK,BANKHEADAND SIMPSON RD. ALL GET NEW FACE LIFTS AND NEW BUSINESS THOSE AREAS NEED A WHOLE LOT OF IMPROVEMENT IT SEEMS LIKE THE POOR AREAS ARE ALL LIFT OUT NOT EVERYBODY WANTS TO MOVE OUT IF THOSE PLACES GOT FACE LIFTS AND NEW HOMES AND BUSNIESS YOU WILL BE SUPRISE AS THE WORKING CLASS FOLKES MIGHT MOVE IN AND TAKE A STAND.

By brad

January 20, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

This is ridiculous. Yet another governmental skeem to reign in the freedoms of individuals. If a piece of land is not maximized to its development potential it becomes less profitable for its investors. If we restrict intown neighborhoods from redeveloping themselves, they will eventually become functionally obsolete and less-attractive to their less-expensive and more economically viable suburban brethren. And these neighborhoods, dominated by WWII era housing and 60’s brick ranches, HAVE become functionally obsolete. And will ultimately die if they are not economically revitalized to their maximum potential. And all in the name of “aesthetics”. Sure, they may look all nice and uniform, but this aspect won’t save them if they can’t meet the demands of society.

If I made alot of money and wanted to live in an established leafy intown neighborhood, Shirley Franklin’s lock-down would seriously curtail my decision. Am I going to buy an outdated, old 60’s ranch that WON’T meet my needs just so we make sure it “looks good” with the other houses? Its not worth it. Its economic suicide.

By Anne

January 20, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Neighborhoods have the power to re-zone themselves if they wish. Why does Mary Norwood think she has to make urban planning decisions for people who can do it for themselves??
When was the last time the City Council did something smart? Do we really want them encroaching further on our property rights?
Let’s look forward - not backward. If people of the present and future want megamansions in town, they should be allowed to build them. Once upon a time bungalows or ranches were the fad. Things change. Let’s let Atlanta change with the trend even though it might not suit M. Norwood.

By DBH 1

January 20, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

I would like to see an end to the modifications of existing houses by adding soaring rooflines, tremendous gables and painted brick. Those types of “improvements” destroy the architectural diversity of neighborhoods as well.

By John

January 20, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

I’m glad Queen Franklin wasn’t around 200 years ago, or we would all live in log cabins. My point is that EVERY houuse was built to be an improvement over what was there before. Forests become cabins. Cabins because colonials. Colonials became Victorians, which became brick bungalows, which became brick ranchers. But no one wants to live in a single-story ranch with all the troubles of a 50-year-old house. Interest rates are low and construction costs are cheap. It’s time to build UP, not farther out into the farmland.

By Michael

January 20, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

I am not sure a moratorium is the right way to address this, but at least it should give everyone a chance to sit back and devise a plan of what should be considered “smart” urban planning and development. It is rather upsetting to drive through an area like Brookhaven and see entire neighborhoods transformed into huge homes with one or two exceptions on a street that themselves have become odd and out of place looking even though they were there long before these new homes. Infill development should be looked at in two forms: True teardown development and land reutilization (not previously a residence). Standards and guidelines need to be developed that will be acceptable to all sides, preserve the character of a neighborhood, provide a means for gentrification, and improve values. Pie in the sky? I hope not!

By Karen

January 20, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

I welcome those persons who think that they should be able to do whatever they want with their property to see the “Mothership” that has landed on Argonne Ave, NE between 7th and 8th street - no further description is necessary. This is a fine example of what Mayor Franklin is trying to curtail. Kudos to her for at least considering the issue.

By R Walker

January 20, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

I don’t want to hear ‘private property rights’ I have no right to build a sky scraper or cell tower on my property for good reason. The city has every right to regulate what is built on your property and they do it every day already.
Great cities have great architecture and great neighborhoods. Not a mis-mash of whatever Joe from somewhere else thought was a great house. If New Orleans didn’t have restrictions then most of their beautiful turn of the century homes would have been replaced by stucco and paper mcmansions by now. The city if for people who want to live together. If you want your own private world move out.

By thomas

January 20, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

I thought democrats wanted Government out of their private life. Aren’t they the one’s complaining about executive powers? Seems like Shirley has gotten a taste of “power” and feels she can decide what people do in their private lives. Maybe Mary Norwood and Shirley can start a painting and landscaping company and tell each of us what colors our homes should be and what plants we are allowed to have in our yards.

By Stephen Hull

January 20, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Just remember the Eminent Domain decision. It’s not really your property anyway. Mary Norwood and the Mayor control your property; you are just renting it from the city. After all there are so many people willing to move their families into overtaxed, 900 square foot homes in town. Say good by to property rights.

By Tim

January 20, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Unforunately, it’s impossible to zone for good taste and consideration of your neighbors.

By BPJ

January 20, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Most of the above comments fall into the trap I predicted (comment 16 above): they assume any new rules would FORBID tearing down a dilapidated ranch house and putting up a house somewhat larger. That is false. What we are talking about is putting SOME limit on the mass, scale, and position of new houses in old neighborhoods. That does NOT prevent someone from tearing down an old ranch and replacing it with something with more square footage. The people who say “it’s my land and I’ll do whatever I want with it” are making an incoherent argument. As many posts acknowledge, there are existing zoning rules already. Zoning rules get revised and adjusted all the time; that is what is proposed here. And self-styled property rights advocates might want to show more concern for the property rights of homeowners who find their house & yard being loomed over by one of the behemoths.

By Andrew

January 20, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

So it comes out with marianne saying, it “discriminates against the majority who cannot afford these houses.” Tough luck! If you can’t afford it, too bad! So I should feel sorry for you because I work very hard to be able to afford these things?

Next thing you know, these people will be whining because they really want to live in a certain area, but just can’t afford it. Oh wait, they already are!

This is a very dangerous mindset. In the free market, there are going to be things that not everyone can have. That’s just the way it works. Where do we draw the line with this? Are we all entitled to a certain type of car, house?

By Randal White

January 20, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

I think it’s absolutely absurd. I don’t see a moratorium on condos or “mixed use” buildings! I wonder if it is really just the size of the house? If so, it’s because you’re jealously.

So if someone builds a big house and most of it is underground is that ok?

By Jmarsh

January 20, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Good job! Now I can’t control my own land. Fan——tastic. Didn’t someone tell them that it would increase the tax base, giving them more money to throw around.

Gotta run, I have gravel in the driveway that will probably be illegal by sundown.

By brad

January 20, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

For those who read R Walker

This is textbook socialist schtick.

“The city is for people who want to live together. If you want your own private world move out” Group identity. Death to individualism. Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better.

“The city has every right to regulate what is built on your property” What? Did I miss something? This country was founded on property rights. This guy needs to move to Cuba.

By vss

January 20, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Face it folks - the property in the parts of the city held hostage by this moratorium is far more valuable than it was just a few years ago. Homes do not last forever and, therefore, must eventually be replaced. When that occurs, limiting the scope of the house will prevent the property from realizing its true value. Is it likely that people will buy a house that needs to be replaced if they cannot achieve the true economic value of that house? The answer is no. MOST people do not buy a house just to live in it - it is typically part of their overall asset accumulation that occurs during their lifetime. Buying a house and not being concerned of its current and potential value is not realistic. Economically estute homebuyers will not purchase in the city of Atlanta under property restrictions.

The idea of controlling this process on its face is attractive to some people, but think of the consequences. It will require a tremendous amount of government oversight and it will inhibit the economic growth potential of Atlanta. The city of Atlanta just lost a huge portion of its tax base as a result of the birth of the city of Sandy Springs. Among the many things this city needs to address like its useless and outdated sewer system, it doesn’t make sense for the city to restrict the tax base by not allowing property to reach its full value. That will be the case as long as the city waits to determine how to handle this issue with a moratorium and if it decides to input restrictions.

By joe

January 20, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

i have never been one to welcome government dealing in our personal rights, and property is at the top of the list. But when i see the new 3-story block that is going up on mclendon, right across from the park and next to classic bungalows, i have to agree with this move. these are eyesores and completely ruin the neighbors bordering it. if you want to come in and build, then do it on a reasonalble scale, include a full basement and keep it high-end. but keep it in line with our neighborhood and keep it classic…

By Tim

January 20, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

It’s not jealously to object to a huge house that blocks the sun to my backyard and kills my grass.

There needs to be a fair balance of the rights of the home owner and the rights of their neighbors.

By MARTIN

January 20, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

I think it is GREAT that Mayor, Shirley Franklin is putting a halt to this. I hope that the city council recognizes this and stops it before it becomes out of control. First it takes way from the existing neighborhood. I am all for improvements but it becomes an oddity and at what price do we have to pay and what do we have to give up? Next it causes problems for the neighbors, lights, water, etc. There are neighborhoods that are designated for McMansions.

Real estate in the city of Atlants has been skyrocketing for years displacing people who have lived in their homes for generations. Is it fair for these big houses to be built and increase everyone else’s property tax? The elderly and middle class may not be able to afford the increase and that forces them to have to move! How fair is that? Suburbia has plenty of land for mansions, why squeeze one into the green space that we are trying to preserve?

By G, Martin

January 20, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Thank God our mayor finally had the guts to try to preserve the aesthetic integrity of our older intown neighborhoods. Its too late for me. I already have a three story McMonster looming over my backyard. Maybe some of my neighbors will be luckier.

By H

January 20, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Good! The cost of housing is getting out of control.

By Jason

January 20, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

I am just glad that the mayor is spending so much time working on issues that really matter in our city like the moratorium she has placed on big house building and not unimportant issues such as the homeless problem in our city. I am just glad her priorities in this city are focused where they should be!

By Brett Bannor

January 20, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Save Gas, Infill Atlanta Brett Bannor

linings that if not silver at least have a pleasant cast of bronze. When I was an adolescent, this country went through its first peacetime taste of gasoline shortage with the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. There were long lines, short tempers, and dire predictions of gas costing twenty dollars a gallon. For those of you too young to remember, it was sort of like the days after Hurricane Katrina, but the panic lasted longer. … But you know, looking back now there was one favorable result coming out of the fuel crises of the seventies. People stopped fleeing to the suburbs so much. Who wants to live twenty miles out of town and have to pay an arm and a leg to fill the old gas tank? And thus began our current era in which Americans thought that perhaps the proper thing to do with the cities was not to simply abandon them to shattered window panes and despair, but to recast the metropolitan core into a place people want to live. Now in many cities one finds urban professionals and even families with young children living close to downtown. The city has become the place to be. Or, to put a pop culture gloss on it, notice that while in television shows from the fifties into the seventies the characters usually lived in suburbs—think everything from The Patty Duke Show to The Brady Bunch—by the nineties we had Seinfeld and the gang on Friends living, loving, and working in Manhattan. I know I’m overstating the case to say that it was high gas prices that caused all this, because there were a lot of other phenomena involved. Generally I think almost every long term trend occurs because of multiple factors. But regardless of the precise causes, isn’t it clear that having more people live within the city is a positive good? Such a demographic distribution means that commuters drive fewer miles to work, or even better, they have convenient public transportation to use. Fewer miles driven means motorists are making shorter commutes, which means there are fewer gallons of gasoline consumed, which in turn means the air is cleaner and we’re paying less money to nations hostile to us, like Saudi Arabia. Or Canada. That’s why the wisdom of Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin’s recent action is questionable. By executive order, Franklin has issued a moratorium on the practice of real estate developers buying lots in “hotâ€? Atlanta neighborhoods and then tearing down the old home on the property to build a bigger dwelling. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides of the issue. People who live in residential neighborhoods do, I think, have a right to be concerned with the visual character of their street and thus they might reasonably object to a new home being built that is two or three times larger than the one it replaced. Just as surely, I think that property owners have rights, and let’s be fair, a bigger house being built next to yours isn’t the same as having, say, a sewage treatment plant installed on the adjacent lot. But a prominent argument against the moratorium—the save gas/ reduce traffic argument—got short shrift in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s article on the controversy. The paper simply mentioned that a lot of people would like to live within the City of Atlanta, but only if they can have a home as large as what they might find in the suburbs. The dots weren’t connected to raise the issue on whether it would be preferable to have big houses springing up in Atlanta as opposed to contributing to an urban sprawl that has carried the metropolitan area into regions formerly not occupied by any dwellings larger than the holes inhabited by the resident woodchucks. How strange. Just last week, the AJC carried an article reporting that Georgia 400, an alleged expressway stretching from the north side of town far into the northeastern suburbs, would have its speed limit reduced for the next two years so to make a safer workplace for the construction workers adding new lanes to the highway. One wonders if a few more suburbanites abandoning the hinterlands to live in town would reduce the need for such road expansion, thereby also reducing the cost to taxpayers of these never ending highway projects. Mayor Franklin referred to her action as an “urgent need, substantially related to the public health, safety and welfare.â€? That is clearly debatable, and a tad melodramatic. I’m not certain if it isn’t more urgently related to the public health, safety, and welfare to encourage more people to live in town—even at the cost of monster homes—instead of constantly widening Georgia 400 until it has more asphalt than Hartsfield-Jackson Airport.

By Protect your rights

January 20, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Many of the “teardown” homes in question were built in the 1940s and 1950s. America was emerging from WWII and many houses were built as affordable homes. These homes are no longer suitable for families. I believe it is firmly within the rights of the property owners to build modern houses as long as they meet the zoning requirements of these neighborhoods - fwiw, the current regulations do include height restrictions. To restrict what can be built on a home site based on old, outdated houses, is just plain wrong. Mary Norwood’s proposal is based on a vocal minority’s opinion. This vocal minority has demonized the development of nice, large, single family homes with terms like McMansions and gentrification. Teardowns and infill development has become bad words. When in fact, teardowns and infill development are satisfying the demand of families who want to live intown and the 1500 square foot style ranch is not desirable to them. Mary Norwood’s proposal is an erosion of the property rights of all of the homeowners in the affected areas and if it goes through, it will be difficult to unwind.

Next you’ll have the vocal minority telling the majority what color they can paint their houses, what style they can build, how big your master bedroom and baths can be.

By T-Law

January 20, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

While I agree that the city needs to plan, I think the Mayor has overstepped her bounds. The city has zoning ordinances that have been voted on and approved by the city council. If they truly wish to make a change, they should make a change to the zoning ordinances, duly approved city council, (with appropriate challenge sessions by the VOTERS). (These are the same rules/laws that prevent someone from putting a trailer next to your house – it’s all about planning and public approval, NOT the Mayor’s whim.)

The bottom line here is that the cow is already out of the barn. All they are going to succeed in doing is squashing redevelopment — this hurting the people that are planning to buy & sell. This does nothing to stop what has already occurred. If you have a McMansion next to you and you’d like to build your own, you now have to live in its shadow because someone else thought that it was a bad idea to have big houses. My feeling is that so long as the current zoning ordinances permit it … and you’ve got the money, have at it! You’ll not only improve the look of the neighborhood, you’ll effectively increase the tax base and bring more large houses & revenue into the city.

By Leslie

January 20, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I applaude the move by Shirley Franklin and hope that other mayors in surrounding cities consider doing the same. Building homes like that in between older and smaller homes detract from neighborhoods. Clayton county is cutting down all the trees it can and putting houses and apartments everywhere with total abandon.

By Buckhead Family

January 20, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

The people who will really benefit from this are the ones who have been lucky enough to already build an updated, more comfortable home. Now that no one else can jump on that wagon…they get the home and the extra value appreciation..

By Mary-

January 20, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

I’ve just read many of the comments and find them interesting and perplexing. For the libertarians in the group (I can build what I want on MY property), no, you can’t. Living in a community means helping to develop community standards and then adhering to them. The McMansions whether attractive or not create what economists call externalities. They have a negative impact on the neighboring houses without compensation provided to the neighbors. That is why cities have zoning.

By edge770

January 20, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Sounds like political pandering to certain constiuents who complain about those renovating and driving neighboring housing values up the roof. If you can’t afford the city, then get out of the city.

By John

January 20, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

I agree with the mayor and wish the Dekalb County commisioners had the guts to do the same. There’s nothing wrong with buying a teardown and putting up a nice modern house, but the builders in Atlanta have gone too far. In my neighborhood, these behmoths take up ALL of the property they are on..they are plain unsightly. Part of the value of my home (monetary and emotional) is the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. I’m all for compromise but the builders of these mcmansions need to more regulation.

By StevieJ

January 20, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

It is amusing to read statements about it being “my property”. It’s not your property. As long as you have to pay taxes on it, and the govt can take it if you don’t, you are RENTING “your property” and the govt can tell you what to do with it.

By Richard

January 20, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Who has the right to judge the beauty of a home. What is next!!!Should we have kept the Marget Mitchell house in the dumping shape it was when she lived there? Should we keep the homes in Blandtown the same when the beltline comes through?

Well hopfully Senate Bill 30 will pass and the city will have to compensate the property owners who are hurt by this moratorium.

By HDub

January 20, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Nothing but a PR move by City Hall to make them look productive. They say no McMansions, but they aprove a parking garage in the park? The name McMansion is stupid anyhow— All it means is a new house bigger than yours. So much for “opportunity, optimism, and openess”.

By Laura Allen

January 20, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Horrible to think that a “Mayor” can take away property owners rights with a wave of a hand.

One may not like the “look” of the infill housing, or the “idea” of it, but what we as citizens of this free nation will lose, and keep on losing is our right to make our own decisions, and to be able to make those decisions as we see fit.

The liberal thinking astounds me. My perception of the general American public has proven me correct once again. Not too bright.

By Tim

January 20, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

So Laura, can I build a pig farm next to your home ? Property rights are not absolute.

By John

January 20, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

I wonder how many of you opposing the mayor’s moratorium actually live inside the perimeter (and are not a builder or real estate agent). The only Blandville areas I’m familiar with are OTP and now you subs want to do the same thing in Atlanta. Yes, some neighborhoods built in the 30s and 40s should stay the same. Go tear up Cherokee County if you want a big house.

By Joey

January 20, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

To Brett Bannor:

I don’t know if you have priced houses in Atlanta lately but none of these new houses are going for less than $600K. Just how many gas guzzing suburbanites do you think can afford that? If you wanted more people moving in closer there would be more incentive to build smaller more affordable houses. These houses are being built and bought by the very rich…I believe they are more in the minority then those of us who have invested in modest homes and worked to develop the character of our neighborhoods. To hell with these people that think they can do anything they want in my neighborhood just because they can afford it.

By Poster Child

January 20, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Kudos to Shirley Franklin for recognizing that neighborhoods are what make a city great. Although I consider myself a preservationist, I agree that not all old houses are worth preserving. But the character and continuity of good established neighborhoods add value to everyone’s property. Building out-of-scale McMansions compromises the integrity as well as infringing on property owners’ rights to sunlight and the ability to enjoy their own property without some monstrosity looming over it.

But if you think Atlanta has a problem, it’s nothing compared to Marietta, where whole neighborhoods are being demolished for “trendy” condos, townhomes and large houses. In the past month, 4 blocks of WW2 era houses were destroyed, (with only one left standing!) in a once-great neighborhood that the city let fall into decline due to slack code enforcement and the greed of well-heeled and politically connected rental moguls.

Although it labels itself as “historic” Marietta, the city bends over backwards for developers at the expense of its residents, who have 4-5 story buildings only a few feet from their house, blocking out the sun, in National Register Historic districts. As though the survival of these districts weren’t challeged enough, the city placed them in overlay zones to encourage their demise.

So when you think you have it bad, come out to Marietta and see their vision of “progress” under a mayor who cuts the ribbon for architectural felonies like a 5 story faux “mill” condo: http://www.mariettamill.com , and then rewards the same developer with almost half a million dollars of our tax money in a TAD handout (even though the development was already shown to be making a profit!). Check out the 4 story Emerson Hill condos, which also blocks out the sun for our surrounding small homes and whose developer also thinks nothing of destorying a beautiful antebellum house because it’s in the way. The developers who have wrought this damage are Marietta’s “Golden Boys”, so I’m sure there are more travesties on the horizon.

Visit “Historic Marietta”, while there’s still something there to visit. And for those of you who are pro-property rights, enjoy the increase on your tax bills when the McMansions move next to you!

.

By TJ

January 20, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

We live in one of the neighborhoods that both the AJC and Creative Loafing named as some of the best examples of mid-century comtemporary homes in the metro area, this tranlates to split levels and ranch style homes on large one half to full acre lots. In the last year a couple of the monolithic sized houses have replaced the original smaller ones, dwarfing the smaller houses and eating up all the yard, extending to the curb. Perhaps in an area where several of these big homes, maybe, just maybe they look okay. But where they are, they look big and out of place. Luckily for us neither of the two 800K priced houses sold and now they are reduced in price. We don’t want to lose the ‘flavor and style’ of our older neighbrohood to this growth, nor do we want to have the types of people that come along with these big homes. thing North Fulton….UGH! They are out of sync with the rest of the nighborhood. You can’t drive a mile in Atlanta without seeing where the beautiful old trees were cut down, as well as dogwoods and other trees to build hundreds of these types of houses and neigborhoods. You all who want one of these houses, just move to the ones sitting empty, we don’t want to lose our neighborhood to you all. Stay away, by a vote of almost 87%, our neighborhood voted a resounding NO to more houses such as these. Way to go Shirley, save Atlanta, you go girl!

By Deena

January 20, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

As a student of preservation at Georgia State University, hearing that Mayor Franklin was standing up for Atlanta’s history made me immensely happy! Many of these wonderful old homes are well taken care of pieces of architecture, and will outlast the shoddily made McMansions that are basically cheaply made, tacked-together plywood structures that will begin to dilapidate far before their older neighbors Craftsman bungalows. If you want to throw your money away on a McMansion, there are plenty in the ‘burbs. Leave the city’s (rapidly vanishing) history alone!

By Shea Campbell

January 20, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

I think this a terrible move. If someone wants to buy my house for 25% over market value, tear it down and build a bigger home, there should be nothing precluding my right to sell or their right to buy. Absolutely ridiculous, Shirley. Setting parameters for building is one thing. This is simply our local government over-stepping their bounds.

By EP

January 20, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

I have bought teardown houses and built a few ‘McMansions’ intown as an investment. The houses that are getting torn down are not the ‘gems’ of the neighborhood. The lower priced homes that cost justify this investment are very finite and the houses eligible for a tear down are going fast. The nicest ‘classic’ homes in the neighborhood will never be knocked down. A $600K 70 yr old bungalow in the Highlands can never cost justify a tear down. Simply economics will remove the worst quality houses in the neighborhood and the nicest homes will remain. It’s a lot easier than more gov’t intervention.

When the Highlands were a working class neighborhood in the 60s, 70s and 80s, do you think that they wanted the yuppies to move in and drive up the prices? Of course not, but there are no more blue collar families in the Highlands. Now the yuppies in the existing houses don’t want to ‘change’ their neighborhood. Neighborhoods change and evolve. Gov’t intervention will not be able to freeze time and never allow change.

By Jill

January 20, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Should we be ready to give up the keys to our SUV’s because they’re too big? Will the Leyland Cypresses put in along my home have to be torn down so my neighbor doesn’t lose sunlight? Sound pretty stupid, Yep, sure does. Wake up Atlanta and let’s put our focus on the things that matter in this town.

By CH

January 20, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Why should someone have to move out to the suburbs in order to have a home which meets the needs of their expanding family?

If someone wants to expand their current residence via tearing down and starting over, in order to remain in the neighborhood that they enjoy, they should be allowed to do so.

By Keith Forrester

January 20, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Hasn’t there been a lot of work done to encourage people to come back to the city? Well, they’re doing it but now someone wants to tell them exactly HOW to come back. This can only serve to slow the growth of the city and chase away tax dollars. Feels a lot like “I have mine, but you can’t have yours.” I sure wouldn’t be happy if my small ranch went from being a very valuable tear down property to a much less valuable shack.

By homeowner/taxpayer

January 20, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Sure sounds like a lot of selective tolerance regarding visual appearance of homes. Where did all of these intown snobs come from? Possibly look at it from the other point of view - could it be that your “historic bungalow” is nothing but an aging eyesore? There is something to be said for preserving architecturally significant homes and buildings, but, just because it’s old, it doesn’t mean it’s attractive or worth preserving. And you can’t really suggest that someone who tears down a home rebuild the same kind of home or one that you approve to your liking, can you? Get over yourselves. Last time I checked, this is a free market economy. It’s true that, sometimes, parameters are placed on a market, but, as long as you live within those parameters, personal preferences are an opinion, not another parameter.

By Kevin

January 20, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

I live in one of those “McMansions” in town and all I have to say is thank goodness for the attached garage and closet space!!!

By Derek Turney

January 20, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

How dare Shirley Franklin infringe on the property rights of it’s tax paying citizens. Do all of these pro-moratorium people know that their homes just lost at least $100,000 in value? Is Shirley going to lower everyone’s property tax bill? In-fill housing has been one of the big sources of income for the City of Atlanta and now they want to cut off the hand that feeds the City. Smart…

Let Freedom Reign.

By Dale

January 20, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

It just goes to show the greed level that these “new money” people have. Yes, like one other person said, it’s all about the have and the have nots. In this case it’s ALL about the haves, as usual.Let’s reverse the situation. Try to put a 3 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath, single carport ranch home between two of these mcmansions in say Alpharetta, or better yet Chateau Elan, and see what happens. They already have building restrictions in place to keep that from happening. I think it’s great. Stand up for your investment and fight to keep your neighborhoods the way YOU want them. Like they say, what’s good for the goose…..you know the rest.

By Morningside

January 20, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

I bought my Morningside 2 bedroom 1.5 bath house in 1997. My wife and I love our street, neighbors, neighborhood and location (we both work in midtown). We hope to have two children someday and simple math would conclude that a 2 / 1.5 1500 sq’ house is not big enough for a family of four. As stated above we love our street, neighbors, neighborhood and location so we began to plan to see what our options were. After much research the simply finances told us that if we wanted the size house we did that we were renovating, we’re building a “McMansion” of our own.

That fact that I want to have a family and a house we can all be comfortable in should not force me to move out to the burbs. We live in this area for reason, we don’t want to sit in our cars for hours everyday and we like what in town living offers. If my house fits with in the front, side and back yard set backs and meets all the zoning requirements of my neighborhood NPU what is the problem? I am was more then happy to see the empty dilapidated house on my street torn down and a beautiful $1 million home in it’s place.

Forcing up and coming families out and removing their growing tax base is not exactly what I call smart. That’s what will kill the “soul of the neighborhood.” Why invest your money into something that you know has limited growth potential and can not be updated. If you want to limit the houses then limit my taxes, you don’t get both.

By dan

January 20, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

No more big buildings in Atlanta. progress has gone too far! lets digress to the 1960’s when Atlanta was a nice place to live!

By J.Casey

January 20, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

I think the moratorium is a very good thing. I wish something like that could be accomplished in Cobb County. Every where I look new subdivisions are cropping up on every available inch of space and the houses are all huge. There is no way the average family needs such a big house. In addition, they are slammed up against each other. I live in an older neighborhood and am glad to have some space between myself and my neighbors.