ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[Atlantan26]

The area directly west of 1010 Peachtree is where Phase 4 of the 12th & Midtown project will be located.

I cant wait for phase 3 to get started!

[sevensixtwo]

.

[sunking1056]

I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to Gramercy Park in that area (minus the private park part). 15-20 stories, with a pocket park on one block. Considering the location, I think their needs to be pretty significant density (and considering the proximity to MARTA, their can be) but a small park would be a nice asset.

[ATLaffinity]

Originally Posted by sunking1056

I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to Gramercy Park in that area (minus the private park part). 15-20 stories, with a pocket park on one block. Considering the location, I think their needs to be pretty significant density (and considering the proximity to MARTA, their can be) but a small park would be a nice asset.

they never build pocket parks. this is a pet peeve of mine. the city is not livable for families. you are never going to reach a critical mass with every young couple leaving when the baby arrives.

[Curious Atlantan]

Originally Posted by mgdGT

Right, since the 'burbs or a Beltline were the only two choices possible.

Don't tell anyone but I used to live in the Seattle MSA and we had this very big body of water on one side and the mountains on the other and we still had, gasp, suburbs!

What in God's name do you mean by your post?

I think he means there is no better way than congestion to force people out of their cars and start walking, biking, or taking public transportation. I kind of agree...

[nature's calling]

There should definitely be more Streamline Moderne and Art Deco buildings in Atlanta. I love the Wigwam Lofts. It really stands out.

[sevensixtwo]

Im surprised that this forum is not heavily in favor of a very tall building or two with a parking structure. This would allow nice sidewalks all the way around the block and make Crescent St into a very nice canyon. If that lot could get the high quality street level tenants as 1010 that would be a foundation for extending Midtown's two-dimensionality. Does anyone think those four leases on Crescent would have all been signed in a less fabulous building? The strip from 1010 to One Atlantic Center is ready for some serious urbanity. It's so underdeveloped that 12th St could easily become a major cross street with big sidewalks and granite curbs.

This picture shows how easliy 12th St could be turned into a straight lane from Williams to Ptree.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by sevensixtwo

Im surprised that this forum is not heavily in favor of a very tall building with a parking structure. This would allow nice sidewalks all the way around the block and make Crescent St into a very nice canyon. If that lot could get the high quality street level tenants as 1010 that would be a foundation for extending Midtown's two-dimensionality. Does anyone think those four leases on Crescent would have all been signed in a less fabulous building? The strip from 1010 to One Atlantic Center is ready for some serious urbanity. It's so underdeveloped that 12th St could easily become a major cross street with big sidewalks and granite curbs.

Why build a very tall building when you can build multiple smaller buildings of greater quality across a larger area? You can have a sense of place and enclosure (what I think you're referring to with the term "canyon") just as easily as long as the buildings are tall enough (but not too tall) and meet the street. This would also fill all the empty spaces dotting Midtown and Downtown more quickly.

[sevensixtwo]

Originally Posted by plorenc

Why build a very tall building when you can build multiple smaller buildings of greater quality across a larger area? You can have a sense of place and enclosure (what I think you're referring to with the term "canyon") just as easily as long as the buildings are tall enough (but not too tall) and meet the street. This would also fill all the empty spaces dotting Midtown and Downtown more quickly.

I dont see why the smaller buildings would necessarily be of greater quality. It seems with the greater risk involved in a mega-project that developers would be even more interested in quality assurance. We are talking about Selig here. I think if we just rush to fill right now then later skyscrapers will not have as many centrally located lots to choose from. Im just a skyscraper enthusiast. In the long term Atlanta will benefit more from cool tall buildings and the areas covered by high- or mid-rise buildings will be equal since midtown will get filled out at some point. And midtown's awesomeness at that point is completely contingent on the awesomeness of the buildings that go in now.

[plorenc]

For the sake of convenience, I'm going to go ahead and quote myself, as this post seemed to have been lost lost on the previous page.

Originally Posted by plorenc

As we all know, there is no dearth of skyscrapers in Atlanta. What there is a lack of, however, is urbanism. If you have ever been to Buckhead (which I assume you have), you would know skyscrapers are not a necessary cause, but a sufficient cause for urbanism. Urbanism and skyscrapers do not go hand in hand. Conversly, if you've been to Tech Square, you would know that mid-rises can achieve urbanism just as easily, if not more easily. Cities like Savannah and Charleston have arguably some of the best urbanism in the US, yet there are no skyscrapers to speak of. Smaller buildings have several advantages over skyscrapers:

1. Skyscrapers cost more time and energy to build due to increased equipment costs. This leads to cutting corners on design and construction, which then leads to lesser quality. Mid-rises can be built for less capital, and therefore of a greater quality.

2. Skyscrapers are basically vertical culs-de-sac, congesting the surrounding area with traffic rather than spreading it over a larger area.

3. Skyscrapers tend to raise the property value of everything around them, making it more prohibitive to build out.

4. Skyscrapers have a higher operating and maintenance cost than mid-rises (especially if built at a poorer quality).

5. Skyscrapers require greater volumes of parking in surrounding area. Mid-rises can compensate for parking by surround the parking deck with liner buildings (a.k.a Houston Donuts).

6. Mid-rises can be spread across a greater area of land, contributing to the urbanity of the area.

While skyscrapers are nice for skyline shots, I would much rather a developer focus his efforts on building mid-rises to fill in empty spaces than showy skyscrapers, which we have enough of in Atlanta. Building four quality 5 story buildings can contribute much more to an area than one single mediocre 20 story building.

Can it be possible for a city to be done "developing" and focus on enhancing the public realm? I believe so.

There is no real reason to have skyscrapers to have a complete, livable city. As you can see with Charleston or Savannah, a city can be just as complete, if not more, without them. We should focus our efforts at building complete communities now, and replicate those practices as nodal centers in other areas. We would all be better off if good urbanism was spread across a larger area and accessible to more people than if it were all concentrated very densely in one area.

Regardless, it's going to be much more difficult, nearly impossible, to fund speculative mega-projects in the coming years, with the collapse of the financial system. As sevensixtwo said, with bigger projects comes more risk. Despite anyone's personal feelings, there are going to be many more smaller scaled projects from now on.

[sevensixtwo]

Im not against short buildings. I am just against short buildings going in that lot. It is so prime and there are so many other empty lots for infill. Savannah and Charleston aren't very metropolitan, they're more like large towns and Atlanta shouldn't take too much from them. Theyre more colloquial than urban.

[nature's calling]

Originally Posted by sevensixtwo

Im not against short buildings. I am just against short buildings going in that lot. It is so prime and there are so many other empty lots for infill. Savannah and Charleston aren't very metropolitan, they're more like large towns and Atlanta shouldn't take too much from them. Theyre more colloquial than urban.

On that property, it would look out of place. Probably the Howell Mill Rd. area would fit better.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by sevensixtwo

Im not against short buildings. I am just against short buildings going in that lot. It is so prime and there are so many other empty lots for infill. Savannah and Charleston aren't very metropolitan, they're more like large towns and Atlanta shouldn't take too much from them. Theyre more colloquial than urban.

3 to 7 stories is short? Seems pretty tall to me...

Midtown already has many buildings of this size, namely Midcity Lofts, Post Biltmore and Post Parkside, all high quality buildings. I love skyscrapers as much as the next person, but I don't think we should concentrate all of our efforts on filling Midtown with tall buildings. Maybe that parcel, but as a whole, Midtown should be filled with more modestly sized buildings as to make it a more complete community and be "done" developing quicker so we can move on.

As with Charleston and Savannah, they may be large towns, but they have much more concentrated urbanism than Atlanta does. You could call them complete communities. Large metro areas and urbanism are not mutually inclusive.

[sevensixtwo]

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by plorenc

3 to 7 stories is short? Seems pretty tall to me...

Midtown already has many buildings of this size, namely Midcity Lofts, Post Biltmore and Post Parkside, all high quality buildings. I love skyscrapers as much as the next person, but I don't think we should concentrate all of our efforts on filling Midtown with tall buildings. Maybe that parcel, but as a whole, Midtown should be filled with more modestly sized buildings as to make it a more complete community and be "done" developing quicker so we can move on.

As with Charleston and Savannah, they may be large towns, but they have much more concentrated urbanism than Atlanta does. You could call them complete communities. Large metro areas and urbanism are not mutually inclusive.

Savannah is a centuries old city built on a pretty rigid grid. That is about the only thing I think Atlanta could borrow from Savannah.

As far as that core Midtown area along 12th St, I think there should be skyscrapers. The midrises would be better off surrounding the tall core. Midtown already looks much like this. Midrises surrounding tall skyscrapers. That trend should continue rather than building a couple of seven story buildings in between skyscrapers.

Right now there are skyscrapers being built, but they're scattered between Midtown, Atlantic Station, Buckhead, and Downtown. I'd like to see the skyscrapers build in a central location rather than being spread all over the place.

[briantech]

Originally Posted by plorenc

As we all know, there is no dearth of skyscrapers in Atlanta. What there is a lack of, however, is urbanism. If you have ever been to Buckhead (which I assume you have), you would know skyscrapers are not a necessary cause, but a sufficient cause for urbanism. Conversly, if you've been to Tech Square, you would know that mid-rises can achieve urbanism just as easily, if not more easily. Cities like Savannah and Charleston have arguably some of the best urbanism in the US, yet there are no skyscrapers to speak of. Smaller buildings have several advantages over skyscrapers:

1. Skyscrapers cost more time and energy to build due to increased equipment costs. This leads to cutting corners on design and construction, which then leads to lesser quality. Mid-rises can be built for less capital, and of a greater quality.

2. Skyscrapers are basically vertical culs-de-sac, congesting the surrounding area with traffic rather than spreading it over a larger area.

3. Skyscrapers tend to raise the property value of everything around them, making it more prohibitive to build out.

4. Skyscrapers have a higher operating and maintenance cost than mid-rises.

5. They also require greater volumes of parking in surrounding area. Mid-rises can compensate for parking by surround the parking deck with liner buildings (a.k.a Houston Donuts).

6. Mid-rises can be spread across a greater area of land, contributing to the urbanity of the area.


While skyscrapers are nice for skyline shots, I would much rather a developer focus his efforts on building mid-rises to fill in empty spaces than showy skyscrapers, which we have enough of in Atlanta. Building four quality 5 story buildings can contribute much more to an area than one single mediocre 20 story building.

Can it be possible for a city to be done "developing" and focus on enhancing the public realm? I believe so.

No offense but I think your opinion is going to be a bit in the minority around here.

Take a look at the name of the website in your browser address bar to figure out why. This isn't forum.midrisespage.com

[cybele]

I'm in plorenc's corner on this one.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by briantech

No offense but I think your opinion is going to be a bit in the minority around here.

Take a look at the name of the website in your browser address bar to figure out why. This isn't forum.midrisespage.com

Based on my impression, this forum seems more oriented towards urbanism in general... Should it be called forum.urbanismpage.com?

Anyways, my opinion is pretty pertinent to skyscrapers, though I may not be entirely for them.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

Savannah is a centuries old city built on a pretty rigid grid. That is about the only thing I think Atlanta could borrow from Savannah.

Not Savannah's walkable and sustainable urbanism? No? I'll use Paris as an example then. No tower exceeds 7 stories in the center, yet it is arguably the best, most successful urbanism in the world.

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

As far as that core Midtown area along 12th St, I think there should be skyscrapers. The midrises would be better off surrounding the tall core. Midtown already looks much like this. Midrises surrounding tall skyscrapers. That trend should continue rather than building a couple of seven story buildings in between skyscrapers.

Why? So it can be in all the latest skyline shots? From an entirely urban perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to "complete" Midtown with quality mid-rise projects than a few tall towers with tons open space in between? Concentrating investment in skyscrapers strains the surrounding infrastructure and results in a diminished urbanism, not to mention the lack of financial feasibility with the recession.

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

Right now there are skyscrapers being built, but they're scattered between Midtown, Atlantic Station, Buckhead, and Downtown. I'd like to see the skyscrapers build in a central location rather than being spread all over the place.

Exactly. This reveals that skyscrapers do not make an urban environment. It's going to take some cooperation and coordination (which is where the Midtown Alliance fits in) to create a sustainable urban environment.

Edit: What's this fixation with skyscrapers, anyways? We surely have enough space in Atlanta to develop properly scaled urbanism; there are no natural borders to impede on it. You may see skyscrapers as the remedy for sprawl because there are extremely dense, but they are mutually supported by sprawl and tend to strain infrastructure just as much. I see smaller scaled town centers of 3-7 stories spread across a greater area (and connected by transit) as a remedy for sprawl, as it would then be accessible to everyone and not strain the infrastructure as much. This is not to say Atlanta would lose its prominence as the core of the area, but to democratize the urbanism a bit more across the area.

I see this happening right now in new town centers around the metro area, such as in Woodstock, Lawrenceville, and Marrietta, and I wholeheartedly support the more localized approach.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by plorenc

As we all know, there is no dearth of skyscrapers in Atlanta. What there is a lack of, however, is urbanism. If you have ever been to Buckhead (which I assume you have), you would know skyscrapers are not a necessary cause, but a sufficient cause for urbanism. Conversly, if you've been to Tech Square, you would know that mid-rises can achieve urbanism just as easily, if not more easily. Cities like Savannah and Charleston have arguably some of the best urbanism in the US, yet there are no skyscrapers to speak of. Smaller buildings have several advantages over skyscrapers:

1. Skyscrapers cost more time and energy to build due to increased equipment costs. This leads to cutting corners on design and construction, which then leads to lesser quality. Mid-rises can be built for less capital, and of a greater quality.

2. Skyscrapers are basically vertical culs-de-sac, congesting the surrounding area with traffic rather than spreading it over a larger area.

3. Skyscrapers tend to raise the property value of everything around them, making it more prohibitive to build out.

4. Skyscrapers have a higher operating and maintenance cost than mid-rises.

5. They also require greater volumes of parking in surrounding area. Mid-rises can compensate for parking by surround the parking deck with liner buildings (a.k.a Houston Donuts).

6. Mid-rises can be spread across a greater area of land, contributing to the urbanity of the area.


While skyscrapers are nice for skyline shots, I would much rather a developer focus his efforts on building mid-rises to fill in empty spaces than showy skyscrapers, which we have enough of in Atlanta. Building four quality 5 story buildings can contribute much more to an area than one single mediocre 20 story building.

Can it be possible for a city to be done "developing" and focus on enhancing the public realm? I believe so.

Extremely well said!

People often tend to confuse the presence of tall buildings with urbanism, but the two can be independent of one another. I would concur that tall buildings that rely on cars for access, are disengaged from the street, and ignore the sidewalk are little more than vertical cul-de-sacs that should be discouraged.

I would take a city of 5 to 7 floor mid-rises with good urbanism (i.e central Paris, Rome, or Washington, DC) over one with skyscrapers but bad urbanism (i.e. Perimter Center, Cobb Galleria, Houston Galleria, or Dubai) any day.