Resident Owner

Resident Renter

Non-Resident Owner

Business Owner

Detached Residential

Mid-Century Apartment complexes

Commercial Buildings

Other (please explain)

a little more (up to 60%)

a lot more (65% or more)

Other (please explain)

Address outside Candler Park

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Resident Owner

Business Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Renter

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Business Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Renter

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

We shouldn’t include homes from when CP was a whites only neighborhood. Only people that “opt in” should be subject to these regulations.

It does not tell a story. I do not want a historic district.

We need more units and more low income housing in our neighborhood. We do not need a historic district.

a lot more (65% or more)

We do not need this. Do not tell me what my porch can look like.

No address - entries from duplicate IP

Resident Owner

I do not want a historic district in candler park

we need more density in candler park. Historic districts restrict progress and housing! I do not want a historic district in candler park

a lot more (65% or more)

No address - entries from duplicate IP

Resident Owner

Ignoring any history is (shocker) to whitewash the neighborhood and the city's history. Don't be racist, classist pigs.

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

No. Get over yourselves - Atlanta is part of the nationwide housing crisis, and your inability to stand up and say "hey we have a great neighborhood - we would love to enable OTHER PEOPLE to be a part of that!" is cowardice at best and malice/greed at worst.

a lot more (65% or more)

100% if need be. Protect trees and greenspace, not your pearl-clutching grass lawns. That's the ONLY exception that should matter.

No address - entries from duplicate IP

Resident Owner

I don't want a historic district. what option would I have selected for that?

My house would be designated a contributing structure, but I do not want a historic district. Our neighborhood was development during a time when black residents were displaced and this was an all white neighborhood. That's not a great story to uphold. If we do become a HD all houses built within period should have a marker that states this was built during a whites only zoning regulation.

I want more housing. Large, multi-family condos, town houses, and apartments. I want to emphasize multi-family housing beyond ADUs

a lot more (65% or more)

I do not want a historic district. I do not want others to dictate the aesthetics of my home and any zoning variance measures would have to be the most progressive pro housing and affordability focused measures seen in this city for me to vote positively for this needless regulation.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Built 1925, with minimal exterior renovations .

Resident Owner

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Yes, more units would mean much more tree loss, since there simply would be no more room to preserve a mature tree on each lot.

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

built in 1925, bungalow (non-craftsman) design

need to keep issues of affordability and accessibility in mind when formulating potential guidelines and/or policies.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Our house was built in 1930 and is very architecturally similar to a few on our block, and immediate vicinity. I love the look of a 1930s bungalow in general, and love that a few houses get to tell a similar design story from a moment in time in Atlanta.

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Resident Owner

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

Resident Owner

Resident Owner

Candler Park does not have historic character. CP already has many different styles.

More units will create more issues including traffic, higher density.

a little more (up to 60%)

a lot more (65% or more)

Resident Owner

Business Owner

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

Other (please explain)

As many as currently historic small apartment buildings. Though I content that the historic district should be about mass / scale not unit count which. A high unit count can be achieved with a mass/scale that fits.

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

I do see issues with less units, especially with the growing population of Atlanta I think it really matters to have more units available. If we want to preserve the look and feel of the neighborhood, we should be allowing growth while preserving the feel. More units within same dwelling should help us grow but also keep our feel, putting off the need for any high rises.

a little more (up to 60%)

I believe we should be able to give up tree coverage for additional units, but not large yards that aren't benefiting community. Not sure that's avoidable though.

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Build date in the early 1900s, conforms to the single-family unit style of the neighborhood.

More units would definitely lead to a change in network character. Negatively, in my opinion.

a little more (up to 60%)

Business Owner

Requiring that some off-street parking be available for residents

a little more (up to 60%)

Rental houses and ADUs are important in providing affordable housing.

Resident Owner

Other (please explain)

Depends on size and structure of units

Infrastructure needs to support increased density

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Built 1918. Style consistent with most houses on the street.

The environmental impact is different for different kinds of buildings: size,structure, materials, etc.

Resident Owner

I really value historic buildings and trees and hope we can preserve them as much as possible.

Resident Owner

1912 4 Square House is a contributing structure.

Parking is a problem in this neighborhood. Increasing density will likely make it worse

Resident Owner

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

I live in a early 20th century bungalow. It's a classic Sears style out-of-the-box home.

Only if they are used for Airbnb. If they are used for housing, giving our neighborhood more accessibility, diversity, and affordability, then I am all for it. Tear downs that create more expensive living situation, but argue that they are increasing density are disingenuous.

a lot more (65% or more)

I think this is all interesting about how we have to exist within our current zoning. I believe allowing flexibility for the neighborhood, outside of Historic Designation, is a great conversation.

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Built in 1911 and no additions or alterations (except for the build out of the attic and changes to the roof line)

Just adding on ADU and an existing house, I think that's the most that's feasible without blowing up and back the existing structure while being sensitive to lot coverage. I also think that density should be the same for all of CP and not split like it is now with R4 & R5

a little more (up to 60%)

I think that if you do provide for at least one rental (like an ADU) and you are a historic structure you should be given some 'extra credit' with regard to lot coverage. BUT stay true to only 60%. When I look at the double houses on Candler it looks to me like those are 80%-90% lot coverage. I guess I need to understand all the tricks of calculating lot coverage and put something in place so it does not get abused.

Would be nice to limit ADUs and multiple units on a lot to long term tenants and not AirBnB

Resident Owner

a lot more (65% or more)

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

30307... it's more than a zipcode... it's a lifestyle. We pioneers and many after us picked CP for that. Historic designation will help us retain this... otherwise.. we may become just a zipcode.

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

I am opposed to the Historic designation

Every 5 years or so Historic Designation comes up, and it is always voted down. This is the 5th (probably 6th) in my years in the neighborhood. It seems apparent that residents have not been in favor of the movement.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

It's a craftsman style home. But I'm not opposed to more modern structures.

I would like to see more infill housing to accommodate a wider socio-economic group. We are currently the LEAST diverse school (Lin) in all of APS.

I don't know the percentages, but I'm comfortable with what I see at Glenwood Park.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Dated at 1912 or 1913. 2nd story added on in 80s where attic was.

Resident Renter

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

While the Oak-Pointe apartments themselves have little character, the hills they are built on should not be leveled.

I would be okay with high-rises if they incorporated greenery. Also if there was little to no parking, to discourage residents from having cars and contributing to traffic.

Being forced to use historically-accurate materials for renovations during a time where asbestos was popular and sustainability was not a construction concern seems ill-advised. However, protecting the beautiful houses of Candler park from being torn down in place of cheap, ugly and ecologically disastrous complexes is important for the preservation of the health and well-being of this neighborhood. This action should set a standard for other neighborhoods to protect themselves from harmful development in the future.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

My house was built in 1910 and is an excellent example of the American Foursquare typology with Late Victorian styling. It retains almost a its original features and details, including original cylinder glass windows (which my wife and I restored), interior plaster walls, and heart pine trim.

It depends on context. I general support increasing density across the board because of our urban location, but I also strongly support preservation and sustainably adapting historic buildings for new uses. As long as there are historic protections for contributing homes, I would support more density. Some larger lots could even hold up to five units as long as the main structure is preserved (if it is contributing).

a lot more (65% or more)

I checked 65% or more, but that response is conditioned on preservation of historic structures as well as maintaining enough land area for effective stormwater infiltration and tree preservation (if applicable). I think we need to use our residential lots more intensively, but not at the expense of losing the historic and natural assets we have. The exact percentage of lot coverage would need to be determined by running through various scenarios of site redevelopment with preservation in mind.

This is a pivotal time for Candler Park, and preservation is a critical tool for the neighborhood's sustainable future. I do not want to leave the neighborhood and want to be able to age in place, but I also want Candler Park to evolve (slowly) and meet the needs of new residents and families. I don't think radical change is in the best interest of the city as it relates to this very special place.

Resident Owner

this question is unclear and confusing

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

historic house has been added onto and modernized. when it was moved here in 1932, it had no plumbing or electricity

if the floor are ratio (FAR) rules by the city were enforced, this would not be an issue

again, the FAR addresses this

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

a little more (up to 60%)

With underground storage of water.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

parking, privacy, noise with more units-

a little more (up to 60%)

there needs to be more construction with lower selling prices-$1,000,000 dollar homes will not increase diversity in the Candler park neighborhood which it needs more of-

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

More units creates more congestion and increases the transience of the area

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Resident Owner

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

Other (please explain)

Affordable housing requires more units in a space.

If we want a range of SES in our neighborhood, we need to accommodate all options. This is certainly more important than an aesthetic preference.

a lot more (65% or more)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

My house is a Craftsman built in 1918.

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

Commercial districts are particularly important to me, even the CPMarket building which contributes significantly to the spirit of CP.

It was built in 1909 and looks much the same except for a screened in porch.

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

a lot more (65% or more)

Density is a good thing if it is done consistent with our historical building archetypes. Unfortunately this not usually the case.

Resident Owner

Business Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

The storefront was built approximately 1920s, and has largely maintained its historic character

I'm much more comfortable with increased density if the goal is providing more affordable housing. I am not comfortable if it's just "luxury" level to fund rich developers

Resident Owner

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

Resident Owner

Our house was the oldest one on the street and burned down in 1985. So we re-built in 1990, but we built in the same footprint and same style as the old house.

Resident Owner

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

Our 100 year Old house burned in 1985 and we rebuilt. It is on the old footprint and in keeping with the neighborhood but was built in 1989/90 so, not from a historic time.

We owned 2 apt buildings in L5P and had a 4 unit building on each lot but it was in a commercial setting... not a neighborhood of single family houses. I'm against putting more than 2 dwellings on a 50' lot and think that the 2 should conform to the setbacks.

I do not feel like the cruise ships that are currently allowed to be built on our lots are in keeping with the neighborhood.

Resident Owner

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

No opinion on this

While I am not for historic designation at this time, I do appreciate the hard work the committee has done fleshing this out.

Resident Owner

Opposed to historic designation

Non-Contributing (Non-Historic)

Regulating one classification of homes far more strictly than another set of homes is incredibly unfair.

a little more (up to 60%)

Resident Owner

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

up to 1965 (includes apt complexes)

House is 100 year old craftsman home

Builders wanting to maximize profits

a lot more (65% or more)

Resident Owner

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

up to 1955 (National Register end date)

I would be open to the idea of the entire neighborhood being districted like R5-C. For me, that would improve density options without requiring more structures. Adding more structures to increase density encroaches on Candler Parks greatest assets: trees.