ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

I don't think you know what garden style apartments are if you think what they're going to build is garden style apartments.

These are good "background" urban blocks of 5 to 7 stories on a transitional site between the high-rise core and the low-rise museums and housing to the west and north. The proposed density comes out at 110 units per acre (427 units/3.8 acres), which is still high density. The developer just (wisely, IMO) chose to spread the units out at a lower scale rather than doing the SkyHouse tower+deck model.

Spreading out buildings across two blocks creates a financeable construction model and also allows the project to create a compelling "place-based" experience along Simpson Street, which will be urbanistically unlike anything the region has seen in 100 years. It will be a narrow, intimate street lined with stoops and landscaping. I would gladly take these street-oriented units over another tower with crappy "afterthought" ground floor retail (i.e. SkyHouse - both of them) or poorly designed units (i.e. back of Spire).

This said, Post has said that they own additional blocks to the east. They will most likely do high-rises here, but there's zero financing for that type of product in Downtown until they've demonstrated sufficient comps and have created the urban environment to justify the rents. That site will likely also include more retail, but retail follows rooftops, and until there are more rooftops, retail will be tough.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

This was Post's Previous Proposal

What is being proposed now is Bullshit! Come one Post - you don't put garden style apartments in DOWNTOWN!!!

And that was mostly a hotel. A Loft has since gone next door.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Few things. First, even New York (the largest and densest city in the US) is mostly mid-rises. Second, Downtown is not a very desirable area and can't support that kind of development yet. Third, Tampa and Atlanta are pretty close to each other in size, so if this is a good fit for Tampa then it's good for us too

Tampa and Atlanta are of similar size??? I don't think so...but I do like this development for downtown. I agree that every residential development doesn't need to be a high rise.

Downtown isn't desirable for some people, but it is very desirable for others. It depends on the person's/couple's/family's needs and choices.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Spreading out buildings across two blocks creates a financeable construction model and also allows the project to create a compelling "place-based" experience along Simpson Street, which will be urbanistically unlike anything the region has seen in 100 years. It will be a narrow, intimate street lined with stoops and landscaping. I would gladly take these street-oriented units over another tower with crappy "afterthought" ground floor retail (i.e. SkyHouse - both of them) or poorly designed units (i.e. back of Spire).

I like this a lot. I hope the materials are are up to the design.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I like this a lot. I hope the materials are are up to the design.

The exterior will be 100 percent masonry, so I hope so. The Downtown zoning is also much stronger than Midtown's in terms of design, so I have faith.

[Buck]

Originally Posted by Terminus

These are good "background" urban blocks of 5 to 7 stories on a transitional site between the high-rise core and the low-rise museums and housing to the west and north. The proposed density comes out at 110 units per acre (427 units/3.8 acres), which is still high density. The developer just (wisely, IMO) chose to spread the units out at a lower scale rather than doing the SkyHouse tower+deck model.

Spreading out buildings across two blocks creates a financeable construction model and also allows the project to create a compelling "place-based" experience along Simpson Street, which will be urbanistically unlike anything the region has seen in 100 years. It will be a narrow, intimate street lined with stoops and landscaping. I would gladly take these street-oriented units over another tower with crappy "afterthought" ground floor retail (i.e. SkyHouse - both of them) or poorly designed units (i.e. back of Spire).

This said, Post has said that they own additional blocks to the east. They will most likely do high-rises here, but there's zero financing for that type of product in Downtown until they've demonstrated sufficient comps and have created the urban environment to justify the rents. That site will likely also include more retail, but retail follows rooftops, and until there are more rooftops, retail will be tough.

Ok, cool. Glad I'm not crazy for thinking they had the two blocks to the east as well. Simpson Street sounds wonderful! Looking forward to it.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Tampa and Atlanta are of similar size???

Yup.

Tampa: 350,000 / 3,000 per sq mi
Atlanta: 450,000 / 3,200 per sq mi

[bfarley30]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Yup.

Tampa: 350,000 / 3,000 per sq mi
Atlanta: 450,000 / 3,200 per sq mi

Ok, let's be clear we know when we say Atlanta we are talking about the entire region and the same goes for Tampa. You can't compare a 2.4 million metro area in Tampa Bay to the 6.1 million in metro Atlanta.

[Buck]

Originally Posted by bfarley30

Ok, let's be clear we know when we say Atlanta we are talking about the entire region and the same goes for Tampa. You can't compare a 2.4 million metro area in Tampa Bay to the 6.1 million in metro Atlanta.

I think it was pretty clear that his context was Downtown Atlanta/the city of Atlanta. I understood his point exactly. No one is going to think Metro Tampa and Metro Atlanta are good analogs.

[mikecolley]

Buckhead Construction Update

Entrance to new Marta bridge:








Crescent Terminus:




Buckhead Skyhouse rising:

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Terminus

The exterior will be 100 percent masonry, so I hope so. The Downtown zoning is also much stronger than Midtown's in terms of design, so I have faith.

Oh, excellent! Transformative is an awfully overused word but this might fit the bill.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by mikecolley

Buckhead Construction Update

Very nice. Buckhead is really coming along!

[ATL_J]

Originally Posted by Terminus

These are good "background" urban blocks of 5 to 7 stories on a transitional site between the high-rise core and the low-rise museums and housing to the west and north. The proposed density comes out at 110 units per acre (427 units/3.8 acres), which is still high density. The developer just (wisely, IMO) chose to spread the units out at a lower scale rather than doing the SkyHouse tower+deck model.

Spreading out buildings across two blocks creates a financeable construction model and also allows the project to create a compelling "place-based" experience along Simpson Street, which will be urbanistically unlike anything the region has seen in 100 years. It will be a narrow, intimate street lined with stoops and landscaping. I would gladly take these street-oriented units over another tower with crappy "afterthought" ground floor retail (i.e. SkyHouse - both of them) or poorly designed units (i.e. back of Spire).

This said, Post has said that they own additional blocks to the east. They will most likely do high-rises here, but there's zero financing for that type of product in Downtown until they've demonstrated sufficient comps and have created the urban environment to justify the rents. That site will likely also include more retail, but retail follows rooftops, and until there are more rooftops, retail will be tough.

Oh, I'm 100% on board. Not sure if you thought differently.

I know this is skyscraper forum, but this is also a development thread. While I enjoy the high rise here or there, Atlanta has a disproportionate amount of high rises for its population. I'd much rather see development like this than some tower, which often serve as vertical cul-de-sacs. What Atlanta needs most is infill to take away all the vacant and under used land, not another tower.

You touch on a lot how I feel. This is perfect and I hope to see more of it.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by Buck

I think it was pretty clear that his context was Downtown Atlanta/the city of Atlanta. I understood his point exactly. No one is going to think Metro Tampa and Metro Atlanta are good analogs.

Right. The population of Woodstock isn't really a factor in how tall a residential building in Atlanta should be.

It's true that the metro areas of Atlanta and Tampa aren't good analogs, as Atlanta's is far more rural and has roughly half the density. Since North Georgia has no other major urban centers, Atlanta's MSA covers an entire quarter of the state; Central Florida is divided into much smaller pieces. If Tampa's MSA was the same size as Atlanta's it would include several other cities (such as Orlando) and have a population of at least 5-6 million.

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll refrain from throwing any more off-topic trivia around

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Right. The population of Woodstock isn't really a factor in how tall a residential building in Atlanta should be.

It's true that the metro areas of Atlanta and Tampa aren't good analogs, as Atlanta's is far more rural and has roughly half the density. Since North Georgia has no other major urban centers, Atlanta's MSA covers an entire quarter of the state; Central Florida is divided into much smaller pieces. If Tampa's MSA was the same size as Atlanta's it would include several other cities (such as Orlando) and have a population of at least 5-6 million.

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll refrain from throwing any more off-topic trivia around

Actually I was just comparing the downtowns of the cities. Downtown Tampa is pretty pathetic, with a handful of office towers and hotels, and basically zero going on at street-level post 7PM. Atlanta's downtown, flawed as it may be, is just on a completely different level, served with big-time mass transit, home to a university, home to a state capitol building, a number of embassies, etc etc.

For the record, I've spent lots of time in Tampa and actually enjoy it. But the downtown is awful, and this is the sort of project that would be cheered there as a big improvement. In Atlanta, this project will be as I said in the previous post: a mediocre use of land long-run, but hopefully something that can be a stepping stone to something better.

Orlando actually has a better downtown imo--people at least actually voluntarily go there, there's some historic feeling there, and a bunch of storefront businesses and some residential towers.

But neither city offers an urban environment remotely comparable to Midtown or Downtown. Or Buckhead, arguably, but that has such major flaws in built environment that it's a much more strained comparison.

[RocketSurgeon]

I can't resist the urge to point out that "pretty pathetic, with a handful of office towers and hotels, and basically zero going on at street-level post 7PM" more or less describes Downtown Atlanta perfectly, but I digress. Let's not get a city vs. city thing going. Forget Tampa. Whatever.

The point is density and you're saying a 5-6 floor building is inappropriate for Atlanta. Let's be honest here: Atlanta's core consists mostly of parking garages and vacant lots, and at less than half a million it's not really that big of a city. Considering the majority of Manhattan is filled with mid-rises I struggle to see why Downtown Atlanta shouldn't have any

Think about it: If we were in a situation where only towering highrises made sense then this Post development wouldn't be replacing two parking lots and adjacent to three others.

[scania]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

Actually I was just comparing the downtowns of the cities. Downtown Tampa is pretty pathetic, with a handful of office towers and hotels, and basically zero going on at street-level post 7PM. Atlanta's downtown, flawed as it may be, is just on a completely different level, served with big-time mass transit, home to a university, home to a state capitol building, a number of embassies, etc etc.

For the record, I've spent lots of time in Tampa and actually enjoy it. But the downtown is awful, and this is the sort of project that would be cheered there as a big improvement. In Atlanta, this project will be as I said in the previous post: a mediocre use of land long-run, but hopefully something that can be a stepping stone to something better.

Orlando actually has a better downtown imo--people at least actually voluntarily go there, there's some historic feeling there, and a bunch of storefront businesses and some residential towers.

But neither city offers an urban environment remotely comparable to Midtown or Downtown. Or Buckhead, arguably, but that has such major flaws in built environment that it's a much more strained comparison.

I have to ask...what happen to Ybor City(Tampa)? That place was awesome for nightlife. It was better than Buckhead Village IMO, mainly because it wasn't only a nighttime operation.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Yup.

Tampa: 350,000 / 3,000 per sq mi
Atlanta: 450,000 / 3,200 per sq mi

Not to beat an already dead horse but city populations in this context are pretty meaningless-- Since cities are a political entity with arbitrary boundaries-- Metro areas on the other hand are clearly defined and delineated by the census bureau to be roughly equivalent units and are therefore more accurate for comparison (of size anyway)-- case in point-- The city of Louisville annexed the entire county that it s a part of and has a city population of 640,000 in a Metro of about 1.2 million-- No one thinks that Louisville is bigger than Atlanta (or Miami, or even Tampa for that matter)-- and yes Atlanta is about 3X the size of Tampa-- as for Metro areas close enough together to be considered a single entity there are CSAs-- The Atlanta CSA includes Athens and Gainesville and is now around 6.2 million-- for accurate comparison Miami is 6.5M, Dallas 7.2M, SF 8.4m, etc. Oh and Tampa about 2.4 M (I think)--

[Verge]

Originally Posted by Verge

Not to beat an already dead horse but city populations in this context are pretty meaningless-- Since cities are a political entity with arbitrary boundaries-- Metro areas on the other hand are clearly defined and delineated by the census bureau to be roughly equivalent units and are therefore more accurate for comparison (of size anyway)-- case in point-- The city of Louisville annexed the entire county that it s a part of and has a city population of 640,000 in a Metro of about 1.2 million-- No one thinks that Louisville is bigger than Atlanta (or Miami, or even Tampa for that matter)-- and yes Atlanta is about 3X the size of Tampa-- as for Metro areas close enough together to be considered a single entity there are CSAs-- The Atlanta CSA includes Athens and Gainesville and is now around 6.2 million-- for accurate comparison Miami is 6.5M, Dallas 7.2M, SF 8.4m, etc. Oh and Tampa about 2.4 M (I think)--

Apologies, Tampa is 2.8M-- MSA (Tampa doses not have a CSA)

[Buck]

Ok, I am going to delete any further references to Tampa.