Easily the most debated issue in this last election cycle was redevelopment. With seas of parking spaces that haven’t seen a car on them in years and decaying strip malls not attracting much new business, citizens east and west have been begging for the redevelopment of these sites. Along with all the discussion (and debate), the word “gentrification” has been thrown around quite a bit. It can bring about a few different reactions when mentioned, some wincing in disapproval, others nodding in anticipation. A quick google shows it being defined as “the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing current inhabitants in the process,” NPR has a nice short video on Instagram for the uninitiatied describing gentrification and its effects, both good and bad. We have our own two cents on the whole situation, some of which will be below, but we also wanted to just throw some questions out there and see what y’all have to say.
What happens when areas are redeveloped?
It goes without saying. New developments like The Avalon have kickstarted a boom of redevelopment across North Fulton, increasing the Alpharetta’s tax revenue and giving it the funds to improve infrastructure with projects such as streetscape improvements and the Alpha Loop. Developments like The Avalon add shops, restaurants, homes, community gathering areas, and greenspace. They also, however, led to a decrease in lower-income renters in Alpharetta, following the trend outlined in the definition of gentrification. In the City of Alpharetta Rental Housing Study, it was shown that “From 2015 to 2020… the share of renters earning under $50,000 per year decreased from 43% to 34% (-9%) while the share earning more than $75,000 per increased by the same amount, going from 38% to 47%.” It's not clear why this shift occurred. It could be due to increased household incomes from wage raises, or it might be because new tenants with higher incomes replaced the previous ones. However, if it is the latter, then it does follow the definition outlined. So on one hand, the general state of the city improves, but lower-income residents that often work in the city are priced out. We’re sure Roswell is well and aware of this, but where on the spectrum between affordability and quality of life does it want to be?
Is it possible to lift the cost of redevelopment off the shoulders of residents?
This point was touched on by now-elected councilman David Johnson on October 3rd during the Roswell Women’s Club Candidate Forum. When it was mentioned that a new medical mixed-use development on the east side was in the works, Johnson, a medical worker himself, responded, saying “Where’s the phlebotomist going to live… they’re not going to live in Roswell, unfortunately.” Now, specifically in the state of Georgia, local governments do not have the power to regulate the rent of private homes and apartments, and landlords are allowed to drop and raise rent as they please. This leaves one more option: increasing inventory as developments go up. This, in our opinion, is the actual issue splitting the city. With the way the Unified Development Code is currently written though, the construction of new standalone apartment complexes is not permitted. Missing middle housing is another option that isn’t as dense as apartment complexes but not as spaced-out as single-family housing. It’s often described as the “medium density” option, increasing inventory and adding diversity to neighborhoods without increasing the traffic and level of activity as much as an apartment complex would. Some forms of it have been spotted sprouting up around the city, such as the Aurora Park townhouse complex. However, other forms, such as duplexes and triplexes, are defined in the UDC in a way that corrals them together with the definition of apartments. In other words, there is no seperate definition for standalone duplexes and triplexes and thus, they fall under the same rules as standalone apartments. This still leaves mixed-use units as an option, but even there, there are a couple caveats. The average person would think of a mixed-use building as commercial and retail on the first floor and a few floors of apartments or condos above, with maybe the second floor being office space. Mixed-use like this creates the work-live-play environment that residents have been asking for, but according to the code, “(Mixed-use)… shall require 51% of the square footage of a development to be commercial/retail.” Realistically, this does not give developers the leeway needed to execute on mixed-use projects. Given the limits imposed upon the city by itself, it simply could not offset an increase in living costs if an Avalon-like project were to materialize, nor could it build any development similar to the Avalon in the first place.
Has the city put itself in this position on purpose? And our thoughts.
It’s very possible that the city is well and aware of the effects of how it is approaching future development. The way we see it, the city is attempting to lure in more young professionals and therefore increase its tax base. We don’t see this in and of itself as a problem, as more young professionals means more tax money. More tax money means the city can improve upon alternate transportation and sidewalks more quickly than it is now. However, we don't believe this should result in the displacement of existing residents. Many of these residents rely on Roswell's affordability to provide for their families in a safe, suburban environment. They work, spend, learn, and live in Roswell. Many of them opt for bikes and e-bikes over cars. This, whether by choice or necessity, results in less greenhouse gas emissions compared to the average family. Any unaccounted-for shifts in demand would leave these people vulnerable to displacement. As such, they should be recognized and treated as a key factor and a priority in the city’s game plan for redevelopment.
Some may argue that approving high and medium density units would ruin the city’s quaint character. We argue that not only should they be a part of the city’s future, but that pioneering medium and high density housing is a major part of the city’s past. For example, near the mill rests an old set of townhouses called The Old Bricks, built in 1839. These weren’t always townhouses though. They were originally apartments built to house workers of the old mill, and were only turned into townhouses in 2004. According to an educational marker erected by the Georgia Historical Society located on the corner of Sloan and Mill street, “These apartments were the first built in the South and are believed to be the oldest in the United States.” The antebellum architecture and aesthetic of the Bricks and other nearby houses and stores serve as the very basis of the character of Roswell. More units would honor that history rather than keeping it exclusive to those who can afford living near the mill. Again, does this mean the city shouldn’t pursue higher-end projects that would cater more to young professionals and other groups of similar income? No, it should actively try to attract potential residents like these to increase its tax base and attract investment. Rather, what we’re trying to get at is that the city doesn’t have to choose between revitalization and keeping things affordable. We believe it’s in the city’s best interest to reverse course and allow greater housing density in mixed-use units. We are completely confident that the city has the capacity to increase its apartment and certain other housing types while still encouraging redevelopment. It has the history and reach to do so. We know the city can walk and chew bubblegum.
Comments
Post a Comment