ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[arjay57]

This isn't about skyscrapers built it is sort of interesting. Dunwoody is talking about banning stick built for anything over three stories.

Does that make sense? Have other cities done that or is this just a Dunwoody thing?

Builders: New standards could slow Dunwoody growth

[BlueSangha]

I suppose Dewberry is gonna sit this cycle out too?

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by arjay57

This isn't about skyscrapers built it is sort of interesting. Dunwoody is talking about banning stick built for anything over three stories.

Does that make sense? Have other cities done that or is this just a Dunwoody thing?

Builders: New standards could slow Dunwoody growth

I doubt that will happen, but if it does it will probably hinder any further apartment growth... of course that might be exactly what they want.

On an unrelated note, Bill Grant is never going to make it in politics unless he learns not to use analogies about bombs in crowds

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by BlueSangha

I suppose Dewberry is gonna sit this cycle out too?

i imagine that if all of these proposed projects go ahead and open, rents stay high and condos sell out, dewberry will develop that lot. i think they need proof that the market can handle all of this new supply without prices falling tremendously. if they get that proof, expect moving dirt on that site.

[ThrashATL]

Originally Posted by BlueSangha

I suppose Dewberry is gonna sit this cycle out too?

Dewberry? I thought his name was Dewnothing.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by arjay57

This isn't about skyscrapers built it is sort of interesting. Dunwoody is talking about banning stick built for anything over three stories.

Does that make sense? Have other cities done that or is this just a Dunwoody thing?

Builders: New standards could slow Dunwoody growth

i think that is an excellent, excellent idea.

however, i would probably put a caveat on that so it only applies to multifamily residential and office space, not single family homes or other private facilities.

[mayhem]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i think that is an excellent, excellent idea.

however, i would probably put a caveat on that so it only applies to multifamily residential and office space, not single family homes or other private facilities.

Four story single family home?

[mayhem]

That Homewood Suites hotel is a great use of space and will really clean up the Marietta St frontage! Very excited to see some more construction in my neighborhood.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

I doubt that will happen, but if it does it will probably hinder any further apartment growth... of course that might be exactly what they want.

On an unrelated note, Bill Grant is never going to make it in politics unless he learns not to use analogies about bombs in crowds

I think pushing for higher quality buildings is a good move for the long run, even if they do cost 25% more. You don't have to look very far in this town to see gazillions of inexpensive buildings from our prior apartment booms that have not withstood the test of time very well.

However, if stick built is just as good as steel and concrete, maybe it doesn't matter.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by mayhem

Four story single family home?

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I think pushing for higher quality buildings is a good move for the long run, even if they do cost 25% more. You don't have to look very far in this town to see gazillions of inexpensive buildings from our prior apartment booms that have not withstood the test of time very well.

However, if stick built is just as good as steel and concrete, maybe it doesn't matter.

I don't know, arjay. I see this type of construction happening all over the country, especially up and down the West Coast. Just like here, a concrete second floor with wood above up to 5-8 stories. It seems so common now I wonder if maybe materials have improved?

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by arjay57

You don't have to look very far in this town to see gazillions of inexpensive buildings from our prior apartment booms that have not withstood the test of time very well.

I think that has more to do with the desirability of the area than the material. The last booms were happening in cookie-cutter suburban areas. It's hard to convince people to pay enough rent to keep a building maintained when they can trade up to any one of thousands upon thousands of newer buildings all over the country and be surrounded by exactly the same environment.

Conversely, there's only one Buckhead in the world, one Midtown in the world, one O4W in the world, etc. People want to be close to unique things like Piedmont Park and the BeltLine and particular nightlife areas, and unless Atlanta as a whole falls in the toilet again I'm sure the rents in those areas will stay high enough for the buildings to be maintained properly or replaced as needed.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

I think that has more to do with the desirability of the area than the material. The last booms were happening in cookie-cutter suburban areas. It's hard to convince people to pay enough rent to keep a building maintained when they can trade up to any one of thousands upon thousands of newer buildings all over the country and be surrounded by exactly the same environment.

Conversely, there's only one Buckhead in the world, one Midtown in the world, one O4W in the world, etc. People want to be close to unique things like Piedmont Park and the BeltLine and particular nightlife areas, and unless Atlanta as a whole falls in the toilet again I'm sure the rents in those areas will stay high enough for the buildings to be maintained properly or replaced as needed.

most of the apartments in desirable areas are going up stick-built. the developers want to spend the least amount of money for the greatest payoff; they're not concerned about whether or not the building lasts.

[atlantaguy]

I see nothing wrong with quality-built wood midrises.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

I see nothing wrong with quality-built wood midrises.

that's an oxymoron. they result in an extremely noisy environment and require much more maintenance than solid construction. concrete should be the standard for all multi-residential buildings.

[atlantaguy]

Then a lot of development would simply halt. There is absolutely nothing wrong with QUALITY built stick housing.

Edit: What you propose would price a huge part of the population from new construction, and that's a problem. If these buildings turn out to be crap, they will be replaced on the valuable land there are on. We aren't talking about projects off of Jimmy Carter here.

[ATL_J]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

that's an oxymoron. they result in an extremely noisy environment and require much more maintenance than solid construction. concrete should be the standard for all multi-residential buildings.

You've said this before and another poster corrected you. Stick built does not mean low quality, it's just an alternative way of building. Concrete structures can have just just as many sound issues as stick built structures if not property sound proofed. This is a quality of build thing, not a quality of construction thing.

Stick built structures are more cost-effective and can be built quicker (for the most part). Concrete / steel structures offer more design flexibility, but are more costly. A stick built building has to meet certain codes, such as energy efficiency, and are built to keep noise in check, just like a concrete structures.

Concerning "lasting". Buildings generally, from my experience, are built with a 50 or so year life cycle span. That's regardless of materials. For example, my SO recently finished working on a student center that replaced an existing, concrete student center. Regardless of materials, buildings become outdated, damaged, and are demolished and replace with newer, more efficient buildings.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

You've said this before and another poster corrected you.

actually the other poster admitted stick-built structures were much noisier and documented the problems with noise the building had.

where i was wrong was assuming that the real estate value for stick-built structures was lower; that's not necessarily true.

but when you've got 4, 5, 6 story buildings that are stick built (or mounted atop a concrete first floor), you're going to have terrible noise problems. soundproofing is just a property of concrete that wood simply does not have; no amount of insulation can fix that.

in addition, while concrete of course is not forever, it certainly lasts a lot longer than wood which naturally decays over time, pressure-treated or not.

i really don't see how this is such a point of contention; concrete construction is better than wood construction in almost every way.

the debate should be instead, is wood construction *good enough* for multiresidential? some people think it's sufficient and shouldn't be banned, others aren't convinced.

keep in mind i'm not talking about serious structural deficiencies— wood or concrete does not matter, the buildings are safe because of the building codes.

i'm specifically talking about quality-of-life issues, like, can i hear my neighbour downstairs watching TV, what's the floor in this place going to look like in 25 years, can i hear squeaking when people walk down the hallway, etc.

[AtlantaMustang]

The Hyatt House on Ivan Allen and Marietta is making some progress.


Taken by me.


http://www.atlantaintownpaper.com/2014/01/19833/

[ATL_J]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

actually the other poster admitted stick-built structures were much noisier and documented the problems with noise the building had.

where i was wrong was assuming that the real estate value for stick-built structures was lower; that's not necessarily true.

but when you've got 4, 5, 6 story buildings that are stick built (or mounted atop a concrete first floor), you're going to have terrible noise problems. soundproofing is just a property of concrete that wood simply does not have; no amount of insulation can fix that.

in addition, while concrete of course is not forever, it certainly lasts a lot longer than wood which naturally decays over time, pressure-treated or not.

i really don't see how this is such a point of contention; concrete construction is better than wood construction in almost every way.

the debate should be instead, is wood construction *good enough* for multiresidential? some people think it's sufficient and shouldn't be banned, others aren't convinced.

keep in mind i'm not talking about serious structural deficiencies— wood or concrete does not matter, the buildings are safe because of the building codes.

i'm specifically talking about quality-of-life issues, like, can i hear my neighbour downstairs watching TV, what's the floor in this place going to look like in 25 years, can i hear squeaking when people walk down the hallway, etc.

I'm not sure we're referring to the same poster. Here is the quote in question via @arctk2014:

A little digging into the code will tell you that floors, walls, corridors and such must meet minimum sound transmission class ratings (or STC).

As far as long-lasting buildings wood certainly can be long-lasting given proper care and use. The buildings you reference that utilized solid brick, concrete, or other sorts of party walls wouldn't stand a chance in performing in today's energy codes. This is the reason why facades are more veneers and "decorative" because they are actually being driven by performance requirements. These requirements take more into account than just insulation but moisture control and mitigation (not necessarily designing to prevent water from getting in but to design buildings so that when water DOES get in how does it wick outward), as well as sound transmission.

You continue to act like concrete flooring prevents any sound transmission. I've lived in buildings with concrete walls and floors and I can assure you, the stick built structure I am in now does a lot better in sound proofing than the concrete structure.