By Andrew Hixon
Councilman, City of Norcross
NORCROSS, Ga. | In 2001, I moved to Norcross and have served on the council since 2009. Over the years, I’ve voted for many apartment projects and will continue to do so when the product, location, and community need truly line up.
Many residents remember the debate over the “400” apartments. At the time, the data suggested the city could support that number in what was then called Town Center LCI, and I pushed forward—perhaps a little stubbornly. We approved what some, including myself, have called a lucrative deal for the Brunswick, followed by Broadstone Junction, The Clara by Broadstone, and the Perry.
I don’t regret those decisions, though I understand the concerns raised at the time and in recent letters. Traffic has increased, and the city feels busier. I see more unfamiliar faces and fewer neighbors I know. I’m not making a moral judgment, but these concerns seem fair, even if I still believe the trade-offs were worth it.
What I struggle with is why discussions almost always default to market-rate apartments. Our residents are clearly asking for senior housing, a need that has been documented in the city’s comprehensive plan and technical addendum, which also prioritize affordability and housing diversity. Many residents have raised concerns about housing costs. According to census data, the average per-person income in Norcross is about $38,800 or $3230 a month. Newer apartments are marketed at roughly $1,600 per month for a one-bedroom unit. This means half of an individual’s monthly income is going to rent alone.
The city’s poverty rate is roughly 20 percent higher than surrounding communities, and most housing experts consider someone cost-burdened when they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, and severely cost-burdened when that figure exceeds 50 percent.
None of the three developments currently under discussion include any affordability options, to my knowledge.
If that’s the reality, why aren’t we talking more about affordable senior housing, workforce or “hero” housing, or other affordable options? These are goals already outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and they could address both affordability and density at the same time. If affordability isn’t the focus, then the conversation is really about density and the value it brings. How do we achieve density without simply defaulting to expensive apartments?
The community has been clear through surveys that ownership options are preferred, and a citizen-led petition calling for a pause and reconsideration of additional apartment construction reinforces that message. Senior condos or high-density townhomes could meet many of these concerns. Corridors like Buford Highway and Peachtree Boulevard aren’t suitable for single-family homes or low-density townhomes, at least in my view.
At the end of the day, development should align with the city’s goals and needs. When there isn’t perfect alignment—but a real need exists—we should be willing to think bigger. Market-rate apartments shouldn’t be the only answer.
True mixed-use development integrates housing, offices, retail, and community space in a single project. In Norcross, we’ve often leaned toward a horizontal approach. The Perry, for example, includes a Zaxby’s and nearby retail. The market may call this mixed-use, but to me, it misses the spirit of integrated development.
I also remember how divided the community was during those debates. As was said at our last meeting, we all benefit when we turn down the temperature and work toward alignment, remembering that compromise is part of the process. Asking questions and listening doesn’t make someone anti-growth. I believe this council has done that and will continue to do so.
- Have a comment? Click here to send an email.
