ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[gttx]

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.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here with you and with Terminus. None of these points actually makes any sense - sure, skyscrapers cost more and have higher maintenance costs, but they also bring in more revenue by virtue of having more potential space for lease. You have set up this dichotomy between midrise and highrise that ignores the actual facts of developing real estate, none of which cater to your utopian view of how Midtown "should" develop. In truth, what "should" be developed on those plots are buildings that are financially successful and fit with the city's long-term vision for the area, spelled out very clearly in Blueprint Midtown.

You are correct, however, in stating that tall buildings are not synonymous with urbanity. They are also not antithetical. Sure, we all love to throw around Paris and Rome as great examples of low- and mid-rise urbanism, but the truth is that these are not, have never, and will never be comparable to Atlanta. Neither, of course, will places like New York or Chicago. Atlanta has a very unique form that is somewhat new in planning history - and guiding that form in the coming years and decades will really determine what the city looks like long-term. But it will certainly not be either of the two poles, purely mid-rise construction and purely high-rise construction.

I also am sort of intrigued by your idea of "completing" Midtown (which I suppose you define as filling in all the empty lots). I think we all want to eventually see the city develop more, but just throwing in random crap and calling it "done" is the worst way I could think to do it. Instead, let it develop organically, over time, based on rational economic forces. That is how we will get what Midtown "should" look like - not by some utopian vision of urbanity founded on centuries-old ideas that are no longer applicable here.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by gttx

Sorry, but I have to disagree here with you and with Terminus. None of these points actually makes any sense - sure, skyscrapers cost more and have higher maintenance costs, but they also bring in more revenue by virtue of having more potential space for lease. You have set up this dichotomy between midrise and highrise that ignores the actual facts of developing real estate, none of which cater to your utopian view of how Midtown "should" develop. In truth, what "should" be developed on those plots are buildings that are financially successful and fit with the city's long-term vision for the area, spelled out very clearly in Blueprint Midtown.

You are correct, however, in stating that tall buildings are not synonymous with urbanity. They are also not antithetical. Sure, we all love to throw around Paris and Rome as great examples of low- and mid-rise urbanism, but the truth is that these are not, have never, and will never be comparable to Atlanta. Neither, of course, will places like New York or Chicago. Atlanta has a very unique form that is somewhat new in planning history - and guiding that form in the coming years and decades will really determine what the city looks like long-term. But it will certainly not be either of the two poles, purely mid-rise construction and purely high-rise construction.

I also am sort of intrigued by your idea of "completing" Midtown (which I suppose you define as filling in all the empty lots). I think we all want to eventually see the city develop more, but just throwing in random crap and calling it "done" is the worst way I could think to do it. Instead, let it develop organically, over time, based on rational economic forces. That is how we will get what Midtown "should" look like - not by some utopian vision of urbanity founded on centuries-old ideas that are no longer applicable here.

Let me put it this way: skyscrapers are in a large way possible because of cheap energy. With many analysts predicting the imminent arrival of peak oil (I know I'm going to break some unspoken forum rule by mentioning it, but whatever.), it will no longer be viable to continue with large scaled mega projects. Building skyscrapers now may be more economically rewarding in the short term, but not in the longer term, especially when many are built to have a 30 year lifespan. Those "centuries-old ideas" are what's called precedent-how we built and maintained cities before the advent of cheap energy. Sustainability the ability to build buildings and places that last even with the absence of that. And continuing to build skyscrapers is most definietely not the way to sustainability.

We're going to have to start building an environment that's not as dependent on the availability of cheap energy. And that includes both the physical layout of cities as well as the individual buildings. I can only hope that planners and developers wake up to the reality of rising energy costs and realize that conditions that may seem viable now are not sufficient for the future. Regardless, even if peak oil didn't exist and energy costs never rose, it can be demonstrated that high quality, sustainable buildings and places retain their value better than disposable buildings and places.

[KB0679]

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.

Atlanta is certainly looking towards Charleston's King Street for inspiration for Midtown Mile--which goes back to the original point of getting things right at the street level, which I would say Charleston has historically done better than Atlanta.

Don't discount what other cities have done right just because they're smaller. It's about quality, not quantity.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by plorenc

We're going to have to start building an environment that's not as dependent on the availability of cheap energy. And that includes both the physical layout of cities as well as the individual buildings. I can only hope that planners and developers wake up to the reality of rising energy costs and realize that conditions that may seem viable now are not sufficient for the future. Regardless, even if peak oil didn't exist and energy costs never rose, it can be demonstrated that high quality, sustainable buildings and places retain their value better than disposable buildings and places.

This is exactly right, and planners (well, a lot of them) have been advocating for just that approach for a long time. But again, your premise that skyscrapers are inherently at-odds with this mindset is simply false. Some of the most energy-efficient, sustainable buildings in the world also happen to be skyscrapers (see the new Bank of America Tower in New York, for one example). And developers are finally finding ways to build these types of buildings in economically favorable ways all over the world.

Smart planning and development will continue to focus on the very issues you describe. But the result will be, in my opinion, an increase in dense development in urban areas (ie high-rise buildings) rather than, as you claim, a virtual end to skyscrapers.

[cybele]

There's no doubt that skyscrapers can be built in an energy efficient fashion.

But I think plorenc's point is slightly different. Skyscrapers in Atlanta aren't built because there's a shortage of land and a huge population jostling to access it. So it's not as if there is so much density that the only option is to build up.

In my opinion 10 blocks covered with 6 story buildings would provide much more of an urban feel than one block covered with a 60 story building. You'd get a lot more street life with midrise buildings, too -- 40 street level facades of retail, restaurants and service businesses as opposed to just 4.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by cybele

In my opinion 10 blocks covered with 6 story buildings would provide much more of an urban feel than one block covered with a 60 story building. You'd get a lot more street life with midrise buildings, too -- 40 street level facades of retail, restaurants and service businesses as opposed to just 4.

And my point is, in a real city (like Atlanta), there doesn't have to be this either/or dichotomy. Maybe this part of the city will have 10 60-story buildings - we just have to give it time to materialize.

[alleystreetindustry]

Originally Posted by plorenc

Cities like Savannah and Charleston have arguably some of the best urbanism in the US, yet there are no skyscrapers to speak of.

i agree.

Originally Posted by plorenc

. 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.

to say midrises are built with better quality is a little odd. there are very few projects in atlanta of that size that have respectable materials, attention to detail, and design. the most upsetting projects done in atlanta, to date, are those horrible 4-8 story projects that are focused more on a profit than the lasting impact it will have on atlantas "feel" and environment. the best example, lindberghs latest development.

Originally Posted by plorenc

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

sorry, but i would much rather have highly congested traffic in a small area than traffic over an expanse of atlanta. and on top of that, highrise development and their locations tend to decrease the demand for a car. i can easily say a majority of the customers at the publix, below the plaza on spring, dont drive. and the more build (residential, commercial, retail) concentration we get, the less distance one needs to travel, and therefore, no real need for a car.

Originally Posted by plorenc

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

very true, but as can highrises. new york city is as wide as atlanta is between ga tech and monroe drive.

Originally Posted by plorenc

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.

i can see, and respect, where youre coming from. but i personally feel that the central part of atlanta should contain nothing but highrise development. atlanta has such a great chance to become one of americas most favorite urban cities. we have the street grid, we have the demand (used too and will soon), all we need is the real kind of development. 12th & midtown as well as allen plaza (and several others) are setting the tone for what should come to atlanta. these developments are incredible. and atlanta can easily have one of the best skylines in the world if developed correctly (although atlantas skyline is already impressive enough, and already top 5 in the country).

[sabino86]

Originally Posted by alleystreetindustry

very true, but as can highrises. new york city is as wide as atlanta is between ga tech and monroe drive.

I'm assuming you mean the width of Manhattan Island (at 42nd Street) is similar distance to the area between Tech and Monroe Drive (at 5th Street), both are about two miles.

[oldpainless]

Originally Posted by Student

What do you guys think of the space directly west of 1010? Would you prefer more density or greenspace?

No greenspace - you've got the 180 acre Piedmont Park a quarter mile away. If anything, I would want more greenspace added to Piedmont Park than have a pocket park. Pocket parks are nice, but in this case its right smack in the middle of a plot of land that if developed properly, could make Midtown an urban destination.

[boomtown]

According to today's ABC, the Hudson Grill is opening in midtown in the old Artistry location across from Taco Mac....and by football season! Another notch for the midtown mile...

[Atlantan26]

Glad to hear about the Cheyenne Grill. I wish midtown could pull some more destination type restaurants to draw a crowd. Taco Mac has done well but how about a House of Blues or something else unique to the area.

[ATLaffinity]

Originally Posted by oldpainless

No greenspace - you've got the 180 acre Piedmont Park a quarter mile away. If anything, I would want more greenspace added to Piedmont Park than have a pocket park. Pocket parks are nice, but in this case its right smack in the middle of a plot of land that if developed properly, could make Midtown an urban destination.

why would that make Midtown an urban destination? who would the tenants be?

Piedmont PArk is going to be filled in all the way up to Ansley Mall. But we need more than that to make Midtown livable.

[GTviajero81]

Originally Posted by sabino86

I'm assuming you mean the width of Manhattan Island (at 42nd Street) is similar distance to the area between Tech and Monroe Drive (at 5th Street), both are about two miles.

Thanks! As someone raised in New York City, ire is raised by out-of-towners referring to Manhattan Island as 'New York City'. In their defence, however, New Yorkers in the outer boroughs do refer to Manhattan as 'The City' but we implicitly recognise the five components of NYC.

ANYWAY, (back down to wonderful Atlanta!)

I am particularly interested in streetscape and transportation design and infrastructure. I argue that 12th St ought to be straightened and widened (wider sidewalks) on its length from Williams St to Piedmont. Along with that I see the placement of a roundabout with a fountain in the centre of the intersection of Peachtree Walk and 12th. This would then be a truly remarkable feature that would, seemingly, lend to increase the urbanity in the district whilst allowing for a natural feature (i.e., that presence of water) to be centrally located. Four curved buildings, should they be included in the Phase IV plan for 12th & Midtown, fronting this fountained-roundabout would be so very lovely. As far as building heights? That one is tricky, however I am more inclined to the direction of high-rises whilst leaving the supertalls possessing Peachtree frontages.

[L.ARCH]

Atlanta’s fourth-largest law firm is close to jumping into the market for a new lease, potentially becoming the second big Midtown law firm in the past year to consider leaving its building.

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP would join Atlanta’s largest law firm, Alston & Bird LLP, which is using Cushman & Wakefield of Georgia Inc. to assist in its search.

With several new office towers on the drawing board in Midtown, and no chance in the lending climate to finance any of them without a large and creditworthy anchor tenant, a few of Atlanta’s biggest developers will be courting both law firms heavily.

“All things considered, these are the types of deals that are significant enough to anchor or kick off a new building,” said Cushman & Wakefield broker Addison Meriwether.

Kilpatrick Stockton, with 285 attorneys and 1,050 staff in Atlanta, is the largest tenant in Manulife Financial Corp.’s 1100 Peachtree building.

Kilpatrick Stockton has about 240,000 square feet in the 28-story office tower, where its lease expires in 2012.

Kilpatrick may also look at Manulife’s 20-story Phipps Tower in Buckhead, sources said.

Like Alston & Bird, which is seeking more than 400,000 square feet, Kilpatrick Stockton could enter the market early because of the steep rent and tenant improvement concessions a firm its size can generate.

Developers in Buckhead, and to a lesser extent those in Midtown, are seeing vacancies climb as demand for office space continues to slide.

Midtown vacancy is hovering around 18 percent, while Buckhead is near 16 percent, according to Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.’s research director Lanie Rea.

Kilpatrick Stockton declined comment for this article.

The law firm has not officially said it would consider leaving 1100 Peachtree, and it hasn’t named a commercial real estate brokerage team to represent it.

But, that hasn’t stopped some speculation that the firm is getting close to putting out a request for proposals. One developer, speaking on background, said he would expect a proposal in less than 90 days, unless Kilpatrick Stockton intends to renew at 1100 Peachtree.

Some developers have already started inquiring about Kilpatrick’s plans.

At least three developers in Midtown and one in downtown could put together an offer to land the firm, commercial real estate brokers said.

Selig Enterprises Inc. and Daniel Corp. are developing 12th & Midtown, a giant mixed-use project that includes the 38-story 1075 Peachtree, where law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP will move next year.

Selig and Daniel also plan another office building, 1175 Peachtree, as part of 12th & Midtown.

Dewberry Capital’s drawing board includes Midtown Square, a 60-story tower that would be one of the tallest buildings in the Southeast.

Shailendra Group LLC and Jamestown are working on the preliminary designs of their new project, 1400 Peachtree, a 40- to 70 story tower at 17th and Peachtree streets. The developers are talking to prospective tenants that may include Alston & Bird, sources said.

Hal Barry, whose Barry Real Estate Companies Inc. is developing Allen Plaza downtown, may also pitch a new tower to Kilpatrick Stockton and Alston & Bird, sources said.

It’s uncertain how much office space Kilpatrick Stockton would require once its current lease expires. It occupies the 15th through 28th floors of 1100 Peachtree.

Manulife and Carter, which is leasing and managing 1100 Peachtree, could put together an aggressive incentive package to retain Kilpatrick Stockton. “Somebody is probably going to throw a lot of money at them,” said Kristie Abney, senior vice president of the leasing group for Transwestern’s Atlanta office, which is redeveloping Midtown’s Campanile tower.

“In my experience, the incumbent landlord has the advantage because it can offer relief, including immediate free rent and rent reductions and tenant improvements.”

Midtown is probably the frontrunner to keep Alston & Bird and Kilpatrick Stockton.

Among existing Midtown buildings, BentleyForbes LLC, owners of the 55-story Bank of America Plaza, could put together an offer for Kilpatrick Stockton, commercial real estate sources said.

Even so, Buckhead developers may also make a play to land at least one of the law firms, including Manulife, which is the long-term take out partner on Phipps Tower; Cousins Properties Inc., which has the Terminus mixed-use project at Piedmont Road and Peachtree; Tishman Speyer, which is completing the 20-story Two Alliance Center at Lenox Road and Georgia 400; and Duke Realty Corp. and Pope & Land Enterprises Inc., partners on the 34-story 3630 Peachtree at Wieuca Road.

Although it’s less likely either law firm would leave Midtown, such a move would not be unprecedented.

Almost 20 years ago, Alston & Bird left its downtown offices at the Citizens and Southern National Bank, William Oliver and NBG buildings.

When it signed its lease at One Atlantic Center, it became a pioneer for other downtown firms, including King & Spalding LLP, which now lease the office buildings around Peachtree and 14th streets.

[L.ARCH]

With luxury retail in the tank, Midtown’s biggest developers are trying to strike deals with moderately priced stores to anchor their Peachtree Street projects.

Selig Enterprises Inc. and Daniel Corp., partners in 12th & Midtown on Peachtree, and Jamestown, the developer reshaping 999 Peachtree, continue to chase Apple Inc. and a new prospect, Dick’s Sporting Goods, sources familiar with the market say.

CB2, an offshoot of home furnishings chain Crate & Barrel geared toward Generation Y, also recently confirmed to Atlanta Business Chronicle that it’s considering whether to enter the Atlanta market.

Selig and Daniel have been trying to land the retailer.

CB2 is interested in West Midtown as well, sources said.

The focus on frugal rather than fancy comes as the high-end market continues to sputter, with some analysts saying it may not begin to recover until 2011.

As Midtown real estate developers have tried to line Peachtree with new storefronts in the past two years, the effort has included the pursuit of luxury clothing designer Tom Ford, whose flagship store is on Madison Avenue; Prada, famous for opulent handbags and sunglasses; and Dolce & Gabanna, also known for its high-end accessories.

In recent years, Selig Enterprises said it wanted luxury retailers and flagship stores to locate in Midtown.

However, many of those retailers have shelved plans for new locations, as affluent shoppers curtailed spending. Lately, Nike Inc., which has also been a prospect for Midtown, says it has no new store concepts planned for Atlanta.

Any talk of an additional Nike location in Atlanta is nothing more than “conversation,” a spokeswoman for the company said.

Midtown’s shift in strategy comes as the Midtown Alliance, a group of business leaders laying the groundwork for the Midtown Mile, says it’s starting to gain a “critical mass” of stores and restaurants along Peachtree. At a Midtown Alliance meeting June 16, Will Herbig, the group’s director of urban design, said Midtown has added nearly 133,000 square feet of new retail during the past 18 months, primarily at two anchor projects: Novare Group Holdings LLC’s Viewpoint, and 12th & Midtown.

The additions bring the Midtown Alliance halfway to its goal of 1 million square feet of retail on Peachtree Street between North Avenue and 15th Street — the stretch known as the Midtown Mile.

Major projects along the Midtown Mile include Tishman Speyer’s Colony Square, 12th & Midtown, Novare Group’s Viewpoint and 999 Peachtree.

“We’re seeing activity in Midtown from both regional and national retailers, focusing on lifestyle and home furnishings,” Michael Phillips, creative director with Jamestown.

Retailers like CB2 and Apple cater to the Midtown demographic, said Jackie Wammock, vice president of Coro Realty Advisors LLC, who specializes in retail leasing.

Midtown tends to be a younger demographic, and CB2, for example, focuses on a young urban shoppers with good disposable income — something Midtown definitely has, she said.

While retailers geared to 40-year-olds to 50-year-olds seem to be more affected by the economy and lower sales, moderately priced stores that target 16-year-olds to 28-year-olds “seem to be doing well,” said Tisha Maley, assistant vice president of leasing for Lenox Square, owned by Simon Property Group Inc. (NYSE: SPG).

Retail brokers are finally starting to see improved deal activity, Wammock said.

“We’re starting to see things loosen up a bit, in certain categories,” she said, noting restaurants and health clubs have shown improvement.

“Deals are tougher to make, but we are seeing them getting signed,” Wammock said.

Wammock and other brokers are also seeing some traditionally suburban retailers taking a look at space in Atlanta’s urban core for the first time.

Waffle House Inc., the chain known for low-budget late-night meals, is said to be considering a new Midtown restaurant.

Hibbett Sports is also interested, sources familiar with the market say.

In the past, suburban retailers “have not come into urban Atlanta because it was too expensive, but now they are looking,” Wammock said.

With the slumping economy, those retailers can get rental concessions from in-town landlords.

[boomtown]

Whoops!....Sorry yall....It's HUDSON GRILL going into the Artistry location. (Not Cheyenne Grille)

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by plorenc

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.



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.



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.

You may not understand a fascination with tall skyscrapers, but I don't understand yours with mile after square mile of monolithic mid-rises. This is America. We like tall buildings because they are symbols of wealth and prosperity. Many of us, especially in a conservative/libertarian state like Georgia, are independently minded and do not wish to live in a place as dense and crowded as Paris. While we should develop community centers that are filled with the style of mid-risers you're talking about, I simply don't think they belong in the central core city. That should always be the place where you see tall and inspiring buildings.

If you like Paris, move to Paris. If you like modern American cities with tall skyscrapers and a low cost of living, move to Atlanta. Don't try to recreate Paris in Atlanta because you've got a hard-on for their style of urbanism.

[sabino86]

Originally Posted by GTviajero81

Thanks! As someone raised in New York City, ire is raised by out-of-towners referring to Manhattan Island as 'New York City'. In their defence, however, New Yorkers in the outer boroughs do refer to Manhattan as 'The City' but we implicitly recognise the five components of NYC.

I hear ya. Lived in Middle Village, Queens for five years before I moved to the Atlanta area in 1991, so that "only Manhattan is NYC" mentality still ticks me off. Love both places though.

[plorenc]

.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

If you like Paris, move to Paris. If you like modern American cities with tall skyscrapers and a low cost of living, move to Atlanta. Don't try to recreate Paris in Atlanta because you've got a hard-on for their style of urbanism.

The reason why I have a "hard-on" for their type of urbanism is because it has shown to be sustainable through the years. They have existed even without a preponderance of cheap energy, which we have now. Atlanta in its current form is most definitely not going to survive as it is. Whether we like it or not, there will be plenty of changes we'll witness in the coming years.

An ultra-dense commercial core that everyone has to commute to is not something that can exist in the absence of cheap energy. Sure, mass transit will mitigate some of the effects, but only to a certain degree. Gttx made the point that skyscrapers can be built efficiently, so I'm not going to completely discount the existence of skyscrapers in the future of Atlanta, but they will be much less of a staple. If the commercial viability of Atlanta is retained, many more people will live closer to the city in--you guessed it--mid-rises!*

*If high-rises are shown to more viable at that point, then maybe more people will live in then. Based on my knowledge, however, I believe we'll see more modestly sized buildings.