ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

You are missing the point. The Beltine does not equal a MARTA station. If they built a big box with surface parking even a half mile of MARTA station, everyone on here would be considered reasonable to question "the Fuqua's". But to say Atlanta can go from the least dense (or one of) major city in the US, to then outlawing any development with a surface lot is complete insanity.

The reality is, most of these neighborhoods haven't seen any new retailers in decades. Hell - most of the neighborhoods would welcome a shitty strip mall just so they had options and new jobs. The fact is, Fuqua is bringing density, mixed-use and jobs. At this point, would should be questioning these developers on the architecture and materials they use - not holding them to the zoning requirements you would find in NYC or Boston.

They could at least make an attempt to have it look good...but the fact is that Fuqua built a massive surface lot when there were other affordable choices, and they are continuing to do the same thing all around Atlanta against the wishes of those of us who expect a little more effort. I'm kinda sick of this debate. I don't see how you can argue with the FACT that this is unattractive and unnecessary...of course the retail is great for that area and of course people need a place to park, but does it have to be so damn ugly and in your face? It reeks of "I'm building this and I don't care what anyone thinks."

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by shivtim

But really the point is if a big box store in this location requires surface parking, then don't build a big box store here. Simple as that.

Nailed it.

And funny thing they have to build this many parking spaces under the parking minimums in our current code. Some of the early versions of this project did not meet the minimum parking requirements and had to be reworked:

Jacks' 4-page letter, dated Nov. 20, notes Fuqua's special administrative permit application doesn't meet the required number of parking spaces — 1,075. The project, as presented in the application, calls for 1,021 parking spaces.

http://patch.com/georgia/eastatlanta/cit...finds-problems-with-800-glernw2814133b39

We need to stop our code from forcing suburban design on urban places in Atlanta (and everywhere really).

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Really hoping you're not involved with the city's planning department if you are this shortsighted and confrontational towards tried and true urban planning practices. Rather, you seem swooned by the almighty dollar.

Ditto - I would ask you look at yourself and ask how you are any different from the other end of the spectrum - NIMBY. People like me meet in the middle and weigh both sides and moderate our opinions, not just consider the $'s or only consider utopia.

[jsvh]

Speaking of surface parking, a new render of the Underground redevelopment:



Courtesy of "ATL Urbanist" twitter.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

LOL! "My" Winston-Salem Publix wasn't even built yet in that photo...that's the former Masonic Lodge that was demolished for "my" Winston-Salem Publix.

My apologies. I can see where they got their architectural style from, because it looks exactly the same from above

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

But you can see my point by looking at that photo - there is lots of surface parking in the area and they STILL built one level of parking underneath rather than plopping a sea of parking in front of the building. They simply built the store up one level so it covers the parking...how hard is that?

Very hard, seriously. It adds significant cost, which means higher lease rates that retailers will only pay in certain neighborhoods, not because of greed, but because the only way for a store to survive is to bring in more than it spends. Glenwood is not one of those neighborhoods. It looks nothing like the area around that Publix. It has virtually no retail at all, it's all industrial and low density residential. Notice, as you said, that there is lots of surface parking in the area--another way of saying there is a lot of retail there, and offices too, none of which were built with multi-story parking--that's not because no one had thought of that yet, but because development comes in stages, and you can't just jump right to the top.

Look at how much surface parking is still in Midtown. There are even strip malls, like the one at 7th and West Peachtree. That's a place where land prices and density have grown so much that we're talking about building 70 story residential towers, but that kind of thing wasn't always feasible. The Fuqua development added a grid where there was none before, and eventually--many, many years from now--it may be redeveloped with something better, like what is being planned in front of Disco Kroger in Buckhead. Surface parking is just paved land, my friend. It's easy to build on once the incentive is there. Until then, accept the stage of life Glenwood and similar neighborhoods are in right now, and look elsewhere if you want something more urban.

[MdtwnATL]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

So for Azure the back end of the building is just being painted a dark gray color. Looks decent enough.

Decent? It looks absolutely atrocious. Why on earth would they have solid glass and nice wrap-around balconies on on end of the building and literally an empty, bleak gray wall around the Windows on the city-facing side?

If this is all they are going to do, the look of that development is completely ruined in my opinion and is a bad look for the neighborhood as a whole. I'm ashamed that the DRC allows this kind of lazy, cheap design to get through, and it also shows a lack of respect for Atlanta from these developers. They are just trying to build cheap and make a quick buck. Ugghhh

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

My apologies. I can see where they got their architectural style from, because it looks exactly the same from above



Very hard, seriously. It adds significant cost, which means higher lease rates that retailers will only pay in certain neighborhoods, not because of greed, but because the only way for a store to survive is to bring in more than it spends. Glenwood is not one of those neighborhoods. It looks nothing like the area around that Publix. It has virtually no retail at all, it's all industrial and low density residential. Notice, as you said, that there is lots of surface parking in the area--another way of saying there is a lot of retail there, and offices too, none of which were built with multi-story parking--that's not because no one had thought of that yet, but because development comes in stages, and you can't just jump right to the top.

Look at how much surface parking is still in Midtown. There are even strip malls, like the one at 7th and West Peachtree. That's a place where land prices and density have grown so much that we're talking about building 70 story residential towers, but that kind of thing wasn't always feasible. The Fuqua development added a grid where there was none before, and eventually--many, many years from now--it may be redeveloped with something better, like what is being planned in front of Disco Kroger in Buckhead. Surface parking is just paved land, my friend. It's easy to build on once the incentive is there. Until then, accept the stage of life Glenwood and similar neighborhoods are in right now, and look elsewhere if you want something more urban.

Here some facts to support your case Rocket Surgeon. The average profit margin of a non-organic grocery retailer is 1 - 2 % - the lowest margin for any type of retail. I guess they should be happy with .05 - 1% margins so they can locate their stores to developments that don't have surface parking.

My question: Why stop at unsightly surface parking? I find parking garages to be ugly. Let's force the greedy developers to build below ground parking!!!!

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/profit-margin-supermarket-17711.html

[jsvh]

It doesn't mean no surface parking, but there are still some simple needed improvements we need to make:

First, get rid of parking minimums. If the developer / owner doesn't think they need the parking, then they should not be forced to build it.

Second, zoning should dictate the form of the devlopment. Surface parking lots should not front the streets. They should be required to be behind buildings. Required street grids would also break up the lots into more manageable sizes.

On-street parking is still fine though IMO.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by MdtwnATL

Decent? It looks absolutely atrocious. Why on earth would they have solid glass and nice wrap-around balconies on on end of the building and literally an empty, bleak gray wall around the Windows on the city-facing side?

If this is all they are going to do, the look of that development is completely ruined in my opinion and is a bad look for the neighborhood as a whole. I'm ashamed that the DRC allows this kind of lazy, cheap design to get through, and it also shows a lack of respect for Atlanta from these developers. They are just trying to build cheap and make a quick buck. Ugghhh

The dark grey looks better than it did, but I'm with you on finding the western facade disrespectful. Coincidentally though, the 11th St project has a similar western facade on both towers, albeit a little more glass, and I haven't heard much complaint about them.

[MdtwnATL]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

The dark grey looks better than it did, but I'm with you on finding the western facade disrespectful. Coincidentally though, the 11th St project has a similar western facade on both towers, albeit a little more glass, and I haven't heard much complaint about them.

If you are referring to 77 12th and 60 11th, they both have somewhat more architecturally interesting elements. This Azure building is literally one 25-story wall of painted concrete. Unbelievable.

And while I'm on my little soap box, FUQUA is public enemy number one when it comes to ATL development and needs to be stopped.

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

You are missing the point. The Beltine does not equal a MARTA station. If they built a big box with surface parking even a half mile of MARTA station, everyone on here would be considered reasonable to question "the Fuqua's". But to say Atlanta can go from the least dense (or one of) major city in the US, to then outlawing any development with a surface lot is complete insanity.

The reality is, most of these neighborhoods haven't seen any new retailers in decades. Hell - most of the neighborhoods would welcome a shitty strip mall just so they had options and new jobs. The fact is, Fuqua is bringing density, mixed-use and jobs. At this point, would should be questioning these developers on the architecture and materials they use - not holding them to the zoning requirements you would find in NYC or Boston.

On the contrary it is you who is missing the point. A MARTA station is not required to create a walkable neighborhood. The only requirement is a walkable built environment.

Instead, this development is designed for people to drive from miles away on the two lane roads in the neighborhood to a mega Kroger. It is antithetical to the key element of the Beltline.

The city should have rewritten the zoning around the Beltline overlay Districts which we all know did not happen. In that case, a huge surface parking lot would not be allowed and thats what planning is. By setting parameters today to create a desired future outcome.

This neighborhood most certainly did not welcome this development. The Beltline's ability to attract devepment has been welll demonstrated. Combined with the resurgence along Memorial, there is absolutely no reason this has to be such a suburban development in this location and it will only inhibit the ability to create density there.

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by jsvh

It doesn't mean no surface parking, but there are still some simple needed improvements we need to make:

First, get rid of parking minimums. If the developer / owner doesn't think they need the parking, then they should not be forced to build it.

Second, zoning should dictate the form of the devlopment. Surface parking lots should not front the streets. They should be required to be behind buildings. Required street grids would also break up the lots into more manageable sizes.

On-street parking is still fine though IMO.

Great points. The important feature is buildings designed to be accessed by human beings rather than primarily for cars.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by Martinman

On the contrary it is you who is missing the point. A MARTA station is not required to create a walkable neighborhood. The only requirement is a walkable built environment.

Instead, this development is designed for people to drive from miles away on the two lane roads in the neighborhood to a mega Kroger. It is antithetical to the key element of the Beltline.

The city should have rewritten the zoning around the Beltline overlay Districts which we all know did not happen. In that case, a huge surface parking lot would not be allowed and thats what planning is. By setting parameters today to create a desired future outcome.

This neighborhood most certainly did not welcome this development. The Beltline's ability to attract devepment has been welll demonstrated. Combined with the resurgence along Memorial, there is absolutely no reason this has to be such a suburban development in this location and it will only inhibit the ability to create density there.

People keep talking about the BeltLine like it's one spot, but it runs through many different areas, and one of those happens to be O4W which is closer to the core and was already growing before the trail came along. It has contributed significantly to that one area, but Glenwood is a couple miles away and in a very different state. It's crazy to expect that kind of thing to happen all the way around right out of the box. As Atlanta3000 mentioned, it will be over 30 miles long when complete. There aren't even enough people in the entire state to support that much development. Much of it will remain suburban for our lifetimes, possibly forever. Glenwood is one area that probably won't stay that way, but it certainly is that way now and will be for a long time... thank economics for that. Fuqua's Kroger doesn't inhibit density, it's adding it.

You're acting as if the buildings going up are permanent, but they're not even remotely. Azure on the Park, that's pretty permanent--it will probably be there for 100+ years. Icons like the Bank of America tower could very well be around for centuries. Fuqua's Kroger shopping center, however, will be bulldozed and redeveloped as soon as the area has become desirable enough--but it's not there yet, and all the wishes and hopes and zoning laws in the world aren't going to change that, they will only attract lawsuits (case in point) and make developers look elsewhere. Just be glad it's happening in the perimeter at all, because until recently the Atlanta metro was growing everywhere but.

I'm right with you, I hate suburban development and all the car-dependent crap we're building, it's unsustainable--but so is the Western lifestyle in general if you want to get philosophical about it. Regardless, that's just how things are. Instead of fighting it so hard, just choose an area that's not like that.

[jpk1292000]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Speaking of surface parking, a new render of the Underground redevelopment:



Courtesy of "ATL Urbanist" twitter.

Is the parking lot in this rendering new?

[foxmccleod]

Originally Posted by DWNTWN

98 14th Street:

What I am looking at shows the new design with a reduction from three towers to two towers, but both towers are 70 floors each. Can Foxmcleod or bigstick (or anyone else) confirm this?

I also understand that they will be moving forward with one tower at a time, not both simultaneously.

Yes, this is what I have seen.

Originally Posted by DWNTWN

98 14th Street:
Even if they build one, it will be a stupendous addition to the skyline, and to the canyon like feel of 14th street. If they build both, and YooPeachtree, SLS, related (u/c), and the 17th&Peachtree towers are built, midtown will be positively enormous. What an exciting time in Atlanta.

Also, if all goes well, this will not be the only multi tower project in the immediate vicinity.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by jpk1292000

Is the parking lot in this rendering new?

No. It is an existing lot. So it could be worse. But hopefully it gets redeveloped in a future phase.

[jpk1292000]

Originally Posted by jsvh

No. It is an existing lot. So it could be worse. But hopefully it gets redeveloped in a future phase.

Ok, while not ideal, it's palatable that they're not creating a NEW lot.

[jsvh]

Some additional renders from WRS' web site: http://www.wrsrealestate.com/#!underground-atlanta/pzl7j







These are interesting. The map appears to imply that WRS has also picked up a lot of the store fronts on Peachtree and Broad as well, even stretching a couple blocks south. Anyone confirm?

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by foxmccleod

Yes, this is what I have seen.
Also, if all goes well, this will not be the only multi tower project in the immediate vicinity.

Do you know/mind sharing the location of the other lot, which Cardinal direction the site is located, or whether the first tower was already constructed this cycle?

I'm not sure how one building will make Atlanta feel like another city, I guess I need patience for the design.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by foxmccleod

Yes, this is what I have seen.



Also, if all goes well, this will not be the only multi tower project in the immediate vicinity.

Oooohhhh...Now you got me all worked up. These next 3 years could be good years to Atlanta when it comes to skyscrapers. I've been loving the 20-30 story infill boom we've been having, but even I'm a little thirsty for some actual skyscrapers now(500+ feet).