ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

There is less and less need for high-overhead storefront retail. Forcing developers to incorporate it into their plans is not an incentive to develop.

let me put it in economic terms. when a building locates in a location that fronts a street, especially in an urban area where people live, work, and play on a daily basis, the street frontage of the building creates an externality, meaning it affects people who have nothing to do with the project in particular. externalities are a form of "market failure", similar to monopolies and information asymmetry, that require either bargaining on the part of the third party or direct intervention by a community association or government.

if the building was out in a field somewhere, of course, it would be absurd to mandate certain uses for the street level because no one would be affected by the project. however, everyone who lives in that neighbourhood is affected by what fronts the street, in addition to business owners nearby.

if a bunch of developers construct buildings along peachtree with no retail, it will affect nearby businesses negatively, contribute to a "dead-zone" for pedestrians, affecting safety, and will reduce the desirability of the neighbourhood, affecting the number of tourists the neighbourhood gets.

you see, when a building in an urban area is designed poorly, it affects more than just the property owner and its residents. it creates an externality which negatively affects residents, business owners, and tourists. it's the same reason you can't locate a building that pours smoke out constantly in midtown. when development is dense and walkable, individual developments affect a lot more people than they would in a suburban setting. this requires the neighbourhood to set certain rules and guidelines to decrease the probability of negative externalities.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by clexmond

Absolutely, ATL_J and myself are still updating it regularly, but please let use know if you're seeing anything we've missed.

To the extent that you've included Ponce City Market, which is an adaptive re-used, please include:

• 250 Piedmont (conversion to 300ish apartments by Paces Properties)
• 222 Mitchell Street (conversion to 240 apartments by a developer I can't mention)
• Olympia Building (reconstruction as a two-floor Walgreen's following all historic preservation regs - probably the best adaptive reuse we've seen in years).

[AtlantaMustang]

Originally Posted by Terminus

222 Mitchell Street (conversion to 240 apartments by a developer I can't mention)

222 Mitchell Street? Could this be the start of some movement in South Downtown?

Probably outdated, but this was the only thing I could dig up on google.



http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/15094210/222-Mitchell-Street-Atlanta-GA/

This area definitely has potential for some great character you can't find other places in the city. Truly goes back to our railroad roots. Some great old buildings down there.

[Tuckerman]

Well out Bryant3 on why we need storefronts. It seems very hard for some people to think collectively and about the commons. What makes the great cities walkable and so attractive to those who live there and those who visit is the ability to stroll along a street with continuous development that is available to the public. Unfortunately, in America, we have turned over this function in many cases to Malls and strip malls and while i quite enjoy walking around Lenox, it is just not the same as walking along a developed city street. There is no immediacy and there is only a selection of store types. On developed streets there is everything, often randomly placed making discovery possible and walking really a joy. A clothing store, a pet shop, a pharmacy, a hardware store, a grocer, a boutique, a shoe repair, a bar, a restaurant, a bookstore, a tattoo parlor, a gallery, a bunch galleries, a shoe store, etc etc. And mixed in the doorways to where people live. Plus, one can plug into it almost anywhere and it will be interesting. This creates pedestrian traffic and that creates safety. It is pretty straightforward.

[Libertarian]

When you mandate a tax or some other requirement in accordance with a perceived "externality", or presumed needs of a "commons", and put an additional cost on the investor, then you've just eliminated the very "immediacy" not to mention a good bit of the very development you find appealing. I find it interesting that so many identify with "libertarian" only when it suits their own personal agenda - whatever it may be. Other times, we're not appreciated as part of the discussion.

It would be nice if people were more open to compromise. For example, someone mentioned that the 5th/Peachtree proposal could allow for possible future retail use of the ground floor as economic conditions improve without requiring that the empty storefronts be built out from inception.

[Tuckerman]

With zoning and taxation I believe there always has to be a compromise, just as between individual choice and the commons interest. Perhaps this is a discussion to take up on a new thread in the regional ATL section. My view is that every city has certain streets or areas that belong to the commons, that is, they are the "heart" of the metropolis.(e.g.5th Ave, NY; Michigan Ave, Chicago, the Champs in Paris, etc). Also I believe that any development in such places demands the strictest form of zoning and agreement in terms of development, aesthetics, environment etc. The land is not just there for the entrepreneur of the moment to build whatever he/she wants. High value is important and a sense of the commons if paramount. Peachtree is our most valued street and it has to be carefully looked after. The further one is from the prime area, the less necessity for such strict regulations. Nonetheless, there will always remain the need to have some regulation of what can be built and where located.

[echinatl]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

When you mandate a tax or some other requirement in accordance with a perceived "externality", or presumed needs of a "commons", and put an additional cost on the investor, then you've just eliminated the very "immediacy" not to mention a good bit of the very development you find appealing. I find it interesting that so many identify with "libertarian" only when it suits their own personal agenda - whatever it may be. Other times, we're not appreciated as part of the discussion.

It would be nice if people were more open to compromise. For example, someone mentioned that the 5th/Peachtree proposal could allow for possible future retail use of the ground floor as economic conditions improve without requiring that the empty storefronts be built out from inception.

Yikes still going I see. Only a matter of time until all of these posts are deleted including mine hehehe. Look, there are plenty of examples when the government puts in requirements for the good of the people. Look at our streets compared to NY's. Grid vs whatever we have going here. It's obvious which direction is better. We can see other, older and larger cities and easily figure out what works and what doesn't. It makes total sense to me, based on going to other cities, that the "best" ones have a lot of people out and about doing things. It makes the city safer and more fun. It also seems like these active cities have the highest property values (free market in action!) So it makes total sense to me for Atlanta to want to do what, based on data, is most successful. Right now there may be certain spots where active use space goes unused, but right now elected officials think that's going to change so they're planning accordingly, and properly in my opinion.

[Libertarian]

I'm not saying you have no case but it's a trade-off, and I don't know that we can be as demanding of developers as places like NY, SF, and Europe.

[AtlantaMustang]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

I'm not saying you have no case but it's a trade-off, and I don't know that we can be as demanding of developers as places like NY, SF, and Europe.

I can guarantee you Atlanta is being far less demanding. Is that really even an argument?

[cokezero]

Originally Posted by AtlantaMustang

The only real chunks of empty retail space are at Viewpoint, the new Skyhouse developments, and the back of 1075 Peachtree along Juniper. Otherwise these other required retail spaces have added tax revenue, things to do, and jobs in the neighborhoods. Developers want to keep developing here because it actually is profitable. That's why we see Viewpoint renovating their retail and well as multiple of these newer proposals putting forward way more retail than we've seen before. Midtown is finally reaching that critical mass. 77 12th's retail leased up very quickly, even Skyhouse midtown is filling out. That says something about the requirement for your "empty" retail spaces.

I think we hopefully spoke too soon on the long term troubles with Viewpoint's retail. Drawings were released on contractor bidding sites today for a new tavern with an outdoor patio named "World of Beer." From the looks of the drawings, the World of Beer will occupy most of, if not the entirety of, the vacant space fronting Peachtree between the Main Street Parking office directly adjacent to the Viewpoint lobby and the Sprint store.

I've never heard of World of Beer until today, but a quick Google search of the company makes it look like they're an upper-scale bar/tavern focusing on craft beer and not serving a full menu like Taco Mac or Hudson Grille. This is what I found in an April 2012 Atlanta Business Chronicle article about the company:

World of Beer, a Florida-based chain of neighborhood taverns with 24 locations in five states, is aggressively opening new locations across the country.

The chain wants to open 50 new stores this year, says World of Beer Franchising Inc. spokeswoman Beth Tierney.

The first Georgia location is set to open this May in Savannah.

Three World of Beer stores should open around metro Atlanta in the next two years, according to Greg Eisenman, senior associate with Colliers International. Eisenman is the local broker for Atlanta.

“What they focus on is being a community watering hole,” he said.

Hallmarks of the business include a comfy atmosphere and live music from local bands. World of Beer offers 40 to 60 draft beers on tap, and around 500 beers total. No food items are offered at the stores, which on average are 2,500 to 3,500 square feet.

“We want to share everything craft beer has to offer,” Tierney said. “Each location will work with their local breweries and distributors.”

[cokezero]

Originally Posted by joecool

Metropolitan, I knew it was something like that. lol

I left out the third tower on 98th. It's kinda hidden behind the two taller towers. I suppose I can add later.

The 7th and Peachtree I drew but ended up not adding because you cant see it behind the huge 6th and P'tree tower.

Did I not put the 11th and Crescent tower in the right place? I know there is no rendering yet so I just put a question mark.

You were actually partially correct in remembering a MetLife connection to the Metropolitan Center. MetLife is Daniel and Selig's financial partner in that deal, just like with 12th and Midtown, rather than a tenant in the future development.

[Libertarian]

I can guarantee you Atlanta is being far less demanding. Is that really even an argument?

Putting out a requirement to provide 10,000+ sft of retail space is in fact demanding.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by nature's calling

New renderings of the development being erected on the Druid Hills Baptist Church site.

One of the best projects I've seen in a while!

[skapunkskatedude]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

When you mandate a tax or some other requirement in accordance with a perceived "externality", or presumed needs of a "commons", and put an additional cost on the investor, then you've just eliminated the very "immediacy" not to mention a good bit of the very development you find appealing. I find it interesting that so many identify with "libertarian" only when it suits their own personal agenda - whatever it may be. Other times, we're not appreciated as part of the discussion.

It would be nice if people were more open to compromise. For example, someone mentioned that the 5th/Peachtree proposal could allow for possible future retail use of the ground floor as economic conditions improve without requiring that the empty storefronts be built out from inception.

I'm not sure how many people on here would identify themselves as "libertarian," i know for myself i think viewpoints such as yours allow the situation to get out of hand rather quickly.

I grew up in England before my parents moved me to middle Georgia 11 years ago (to Warner Robins). One thing i noticed was the lack of aesthetics in the city; no parks, no sidewalks, just wide roads and parking lots.

This is a fundamental problem with extreme conservatism; if the government (which should be comprised of the will of the people) have no say in what anyone does with their private land, there is no room for anything but profit. Nobody will invest in parks or greenspace, there is no profit to be made with that. There is no profit in aesthetics, and what this has lead to is cities like Warner Robins, which has no center and is essentially a city made entirely of sprawl.

The people should have a say in how they want the city they live in to look and feel, and while the people building the complex might have to shell out some extra cash to make ground floor retail, it benefits the entire street (including them) to have something aesthetically pleasing. Peachtree Street is nothing but a name if it was allowed to look like the dead parts of Spring Street, and if that were the case the builders wouldn't want to build there in the first place. The reason the land is desirable is because the other buildings on the street stuck to those rules this building is trying to break.

My two cents. And my post for the year.

[AtlantaMustang]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Putting out a requirement to provide 10,000+ sft of retail space is in fact demanding.

10,000 sf is nothing in projects of this size.

At this point you're being ridiculous. I've made my arguements, none of which you've substantially countered. I'm done responding to you.

[Libertarian]

I"ll admit my views are different than most of those who inhabit a website dedicated to planning and development. I like to interject my comments from time to time without being trollish, and I hope we're all open to discussion about such philosophical issues.

I believe that quality of development should be predicated upon investor wealth as employed by enlightened people. The theoretical needs of the "commons" should have little input. Some level of consensus, yes, but if community standards have to be mandated on individual decisions, then they are artificial and false. Just my view.

[skapunkskatedude]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

I"ll admit my views are different than most of those who inhabit a website dedicated to planning and development. I like to interject my comments from time to time without being trollish, and I hope we're all open to discussion about such philosophical issues.

I believe that quality of development should be predicated upon investor wealth as employed by enlightened people. The theoretical needs of the "commons" should have little input. Some level of consensus, yes, but if community standards have to be mandated on individual decisions, then they are artificial and false. Just my view.

Why are they artificial and false? The new Old Forth Ward park isn't artificial and false because it was paid for by taxes. It's not artificial and false because the government decided to do it instead of some company trying to make a profit.

If you're looking for artificial and false, i think you could possibly point more towards something like Atlantic Station, where the idea of those common areas has been purpose built to give that feeling that's being strived for on Peachtree Street. It was built that way because there is a demand for it, but it still feels artificial. On the other hand, the concept you're delivering regarding things being "organic" would suggest that America's new cities are doomed to have nothing more than strip malls, 5 lane roads, parking lots, and billboards, because that is the only "organic" development that current developers would be interested in (as it's built for nothing more than profit).

What's happening on Peachtree Street is a mixture of the two. Allowing developers to build their buildings to make a ton of profit while adhering to rules provided to make sure it doesn't take away from everyone else's experience (leading back to the externality argument; why should you be able to build something only to make yourself a profit while that takes away from the desirability of my place and effectively taking away from my profits).

[gttx]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

It would be nice if people were more open to compromise. For example, someone mentioned that the 5th/Peachtree proposal could allow for possible future retail use of the ground floor as economic conditions improve without requiring that the empty storefronts be built out from inception.

This is allowed! As has been said like 10 different times. So why are you still arguing about it?

If a developer doesn't like the rules, he doesn't have to buy the land. I'm sure he can find plenty of projects in the suburbs to invest in.

[scania]

Originally Posted by skapunkskatedude

I'm not sure how many people on here would identify themselves as "libertarian," i know for myself i think viewpoints such as yours allow the situation to get out of hand rather quickly.

I grew up in England before my parents moved me to middle Georgia 11 years ago (to Warner Robins). One thing i noticed was the lack of aesthetics in the city; no parks, no sidewalks, just wide roads and parking lots.

This is a fundamental problem with extreme conservatism; if the government (which should be comprised of the will of the people) have no say in what anyone does with their private land, there is no room for anything but profit. Nobody will invest in parks or greenspace, there is no profit to be made with that. There is no profit in aesthetics, and what this has lead to is cities like Warner Robins, which has no center and is essentially a city made entirely of sprawl.

The people should have a say in how they want the city they live in to look and feel, and while the people building the complex might have to shell out some extra cash to make ground floor retail, it benefits the entire street (including them) to have something aesthetically pleasing. Peachtree Street is nothing but a name if it was allowed to look like the dead parts of Spring Street, and if that were the case the builders wouldn't want to build there in the first place. The reason the land is desirable is because the other buildings on the street stuck to those rules this building is trying to break.

My two cents. And my post for the year.

I'm not sure the relevancy of stating you grew up in England. England is an entire Country with different looks, from urban to the country side. IMO, it isn't fair to compare Warner Robins to any urban city. The entire country isn't meant to have a Manhattan feel throughout every part of the state.

Now it is essential for the government to have a say. This should keep things in order. If it was all up to the people, that would easily lead to forms of discrimination. And there are many types of discrimination. With that being said, there are a lot of people who could careless about having street level retail on every corner, just as it is important to some……

…..On another topic, some people feel that my statements can be harsh/insulting. Even though most of the time it is in response to someone throwing the egg first. Hopefully, we can all move on and I will do my best to express my thoughts without being rude or insulting.

[banksee]

[QUOTE=gttx;6463494]This is allowed! As has been said like 10 different times. So why are you still arguing about it?
/QUOTE]

Because s/he's just interested in airtime to peddle his political views.