Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Advocate
I weighed saying nothing, but couldn’t refrain. I try not to be a hard head, although I admit I can be entrenched in views where it takes detailed facts to convince me otherwise. Will note ATL J is right about the townhomes per acre, I was off on that. But 8.5 acres for townhomes isn’t that far off from the units proposed, either (255 units at 30/acre compared w/ 316 units at Skylark). Some economic realities in Atlanta are just too obvious and I don’t understand why people push back so hard without sound logic. My main point is we should be demanding more of our city to demand more from our developers. We have a vast amount of financial investment occurring in the city, far greater than numerous other metros, and people act like we should settle for less than mediocre planning. I’m not of that faith.
|
I'm not sure what is you wanted out of this site and I've asked you a few times. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I suppose you want density, but you're ignoring the economic realities that come with that.
You say demand more, but demand more of what? Higher density? Is that your sole complaint? Again, just curious.
To reiterate, Skylark is an entry development into a low density residential area with densities far greater than any townhome development or other existing developments in the vicinity. Yes, it is surface parked, but its done relatively well and addresses Boulevard w/ active uses. You can't force density on sites if the economics aren't there.
As the area develops, increased density should come, but you can't force a private landowner not to sell his land and demand that he holds only when the economics make sense for higher density development. Skylark is adding relatively affordable rental units at a relatively high density for what exists in the area.
As I mentioned elsewhere, it takes times for areas to create the value necessary for higher density development - just look at West Midtown which led with surface parked retail (White Provision's first phase) and apartments (M Street) over 15 years ago. You can see this value starting to be created along that southern stretch of the BeltLine, but even then, its just not there yet to drive higher densities (nor is that necessarily a good thing).
680 Hamilton is around 40-45 units / acre, but you seem to be okay with that one? Its around the same densities as Skylark and it has two years for the area to develop and create value over Skylark.
I get that you're happy about 1015 Boulevard, as am I! But this doesn't negate anything said about Skylark. 1015 Boulevard probably paid significantly more for the land, they're underwriting rents with 2-years of growth and demonstrated success, thanks to Skylark. And they're asking for tax abatements to make the project work (
https://saportareport.com/complaints...ty-tax-breaks/).
If your issue w/ Skylark is it doesn't address the BeltLine, then you're ignoring the challenges of the site created by the topography.
With all that said, it'll be interesting to see this area develop.
Prev
Linear Mode
