ATLANTA | Development Thread VI

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Martinman

the planned future retail - Everything left of the dotted line is "future development" none of which is on Georgia Avenue. This site plan bears a striking resemblance to Fuqua's "liner" retail building MO.

To make sure we are all on the same page- you do realize new buildings are going in on Georgia Ave for phase 1, right? I don't like all the insular parking or anything and think they certainly could have ramped up density towards Hank Aaron, just trying to make sure we are on the same page before going deeper into the discussion.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

To make sure we are all on the same page- you do realize new buildings are going in on Georgia Ave for phase 1, right?

SA - Don't tell me you find this plan acceptable. You have never had a positive comment on any development with parking lots. This development has SEVEN. Had Carter and GA State built more density they could have built street level retail with housing above and hidden parking garages.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

SA - Don't tell me you find this plan acceptable. You have never had a positive comment on any development with parking lots. This development has SEVEN. Had Carter and GA State built more density they could have built street level retail with housing above and hidden parking garages.

Nah, if I have time this weekend i may mock something up on sketchup to show what I would deem appropriate for the area. I just want to make sure we aren't ignoring new retail to Georgia Ave. Trying to including pros with the cons of the site plan we've seen thus far.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Nah, if I have time this weekend i may mock something up on sketchup to show what I would deem appropriate for the area. I just want to make sure we aren't ignoring new retail to Georgia Ave. Trying to including pros with the cons of the site plan we've seen thus far.

I was afraid you had lost your mind if you found this new plan acceptable.

Another thing to consider
This area is a 20-25 minute walk from MARTA/not mass transit friendly. Therefore, the new retail establishments will predominately need local residents to drive business. Given the low residential density, how successful will the retail be?

[PhunkyPho]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

I was afraid you had lost your mind if you found this new plan acceptable.

Another thing to consider
This area is a 20-25 minute walk from MARTA/not mass transit friendly. Therefore, the new retail establishments will predominately need local residents to drive business. Given the low residential density, how successful will the retail be?

As long as the development as at least 2 Mattress Firms then all will be right in the world.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

I was afraid you had lost your mind if you found this new plan acceptable.

Another thing to consider
This area is a 20-25 minute walk from MARTA/not mass transit friendly. Therefore, the new retail establishments will predominately need local residents to drive business. Given the low residential density, how successful will the retail be?

I do think the developments need parking. That said, I don't think the proposed configuration is appropriate. I do like that the parking should not impact the pedestrian experience for those along the streets. If the developments address the streets and are not backwards facing towards the parking lots, I think that would go a long way in alleviate some fuqua-esque fears.

[ATL_J]

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Is it the parking? Is it the density?

Lets take a step back and live in reality for a second. This is a small part of the redevelopment of Turner Field and is focused on Georgia Avenue. They're trying to seed the area. This does not mean that all the large surface lots used for Turner Field parking won't be a higher density, developed when appropriate. This section of Georgia Avenue is focused on neighborhood serving retail with a small office and residential component. It goes towards keeping the character of the neighborhood and offering a step up into the more dense development that would occur west of GEorgia Avenue.

The portion along Georgia Avenue is a renovation of the existing storefront with future infill planned to fill in the gaps (this is shown on the plans). The parking, in this case surface, is confined to the back of the development and for the most part, removed from the street front. These developments will require parking as no bank is going to lend to the developer or to a retailer without appropriate parking. With that said, the parking seems to be kept at a minimum. I think people also need to understand how many households and at what income levels retailers need to survive. This is a low density area that in the future, yes, will be more dense, but will still require more households than will be within walking distance to support these businesses -- so you have to have parking.

The second phase, which is primarily the large block they control in its entirety, fits within the existing urban fabric of the area - as in, it isn't a massive block. The required parking, which again is a necessity for development and also to attract any retail tenant, is removed from the street and hidden behind the storefronts. I think they did a good job with it. I'm honestly not sure what people would expect. No parking is out of the question and anything more dense in this area is not realistic due achievable rent levels in this area, the lack of rooftops, and local household incomes (while improving, still very low).

For those comparing this to Fuqua, I couldn't disagree more. They're maintaining the historic street grid, they're fronting the road primarily with active uses, they're renovating historic buildings, they're seeding the area with neighborhood serving retail all while bringing more residential and office and minimizing the negative, but necessary, impacts of parking.

Anyways, I'm curious as to what issues people have. It seems to be a mix of parking and density?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

Opus Place has listings on Zillow now:

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/20...87,33.785148,-84.387701_rect/17_zm/1_fr/

[Sura]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

Opus Place has listings on Zillow now:

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/20...87,33.785148,-84.387701_rect/17_zm/1_fr/

Whoever wrote the listing should be fired.

"No.2 Opus Place will be ATL's tallest residential tower w/ unparalleled views. 14th St in the heart of Midtown. The highest level of amenities/service this city has ever seen. Truly a new level of luxury for ATL."

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Is it the parking? Is it the density?

Lets take a step back and live in reality for a second. This is a small part of the redevelopment of Turner Field and is focused on Georgia Avenue. They're trying to seed the area. This does not mean that all the large surface lots used for Turner Field parking won't be a higher density, developed when appropriate. This section of Georgia Avenue is focused on neighborhood serving retail with a small office and residential component. It goes towards keeping the character of the neighborhood and offering a step up into the more dense development that would occur west of GEorgia Avenue.

The portion along Georgia Avenue is a renovation of the existing storefront with future infill planned to fill in the gaps (this is shown on the plans). The parking, in this case surface, is confined to the back of the development and for the most part, removed from the street front. These developments will require parking as no bank is going to lend to the developer or to a retailer without appropriate parking. With that said, the parking seems to be kept at a minimum. I think people also need to understand how many households and at what income levels retailers need to survive. This is a low density area that in the future, yes, will be more dense, but will still require more households than will be within walking distance to support these businesses -- so you have to have parking.

The second phase, which is primarily the large block they control in its entirety, fits within the existing urban fabric of the area - as in, it isn't a massive block. The required parking, which again is a necessity for development and also to attract any retail tenant, is removed from the street and hidden behind the storefronts. I think they did a good job with it. I'm honestly not sure what people would expect. No parking is out of the question and anything more dense in this area is not realistic due achievable rent levels in this area, the lack of rooftops, and local household incomes (while improving, still very low).

For those comparing this to Fuqua, I couldn't disagree more. They're maintaining the historic street grid, they're fronting the road primarily with active uses, they're renovating historic buildings, they're seeding the area with neighborhood serving retail all while bringing more residential and office and minimizing the negative, but necessary, impacts of parking.

Anyways, I'm curious as to what issues people have. It seems to be a mix of parking and density?

All 4 blocks in Phase I have zero architectural or historical value currently. Go there or view on Google Maps (see GA Ave pic below - beautiful isn't it?) These blocks are the closest lots next to the football and baseball stadiums. Why in Gods name would GA State and Carter not make these lots the densest? Also they would impact the exiting community the least.

I am also not buying your argument they are seeding the area. Again THEY PAID $425K AN ACRE.

[jpk1292000]

EVIVA!

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news...oundbreaking-soon-for-midtown-tower.html

[ATLSkyPalaceOwner]

Originally Posted by jpk1292000

EVIVA!

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news...oundbreaking-soon-for-midtown-tower.html

It is pay-walled for me, but what is the gist of it? The opening paragraph says that it "could" start in Q4. Given the projects history that doesn't really seem worthy of a lot of excitement.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by ATLSkyPalaceOwner

It is pay-walled for me, but what is the gist of it? The opening paragraph says that it "could" start in Q4. Given the projects history that doesn't really seem worthy of a lot of excitement.

"The developer behind one of Midtown’s tallest new apartment towers is targeting a groundbreaking of the 373-unit project later this year.

Atlanta-based The Integral Group is finalizing a partnership with an undisclosed capital partner and Bank of the Ozarks, which will provide a construction loan. The 32-story tower at 811 Peachtree Street, which will be called Eviva, could break ground sometime in the fourth quarter, said Matt Samuelson, an executive on the project.

It would become one of a series of apartment towers in what Samuelson calls “The Village of Midtown,” an area around Juniper Street in walking distance of MARTA and Piedmont Park."

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by ATLSkyPalaceOwner

It is pay-walled for me, but what is the gist of it? The opening paragraph says that it "could" start in Q4. Given the projects history that doesn't really seem worthy of a lot of excitement.

They got bank financing as well. This project is happening.

[Pemgin]

Is Bank of the Ozarks like a lender of last resort? They financed Yoo also and that was another project that took forever to launch.

It will be cool to see two of the most anticipated projects of the past few years, Opus and Eviva, launch around the same time.

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

Is Bank of the Ozarks like a lender of last resort? They financed Yoo also and that was another project that took forever to launch.

It will be cool to see two of the most anticipated projects of the past few years, Opus and Eviva, launch around the same time.

They're one of the only ones left willing to take the risk to finance construction loans.

https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news/cap...ost-construction-deals-in-new-york-77649


http://www.nreionline.com/lending/bank-o...tate-lender-s-reaching-way-past-arkansas

[Sura]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

They're one of the only ones left willing to take the risk to finance construction loans.

https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news/cap...ost-construction-deals-in-new-york-77649


http://www.nreionline.com/lending/bank-o...tate-lender-s-reaching-way-past-arkansas

I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for Arkansas.

[ATL_J]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

All 4 blocks in Phase I have zero architectural or historical value currently. Go there or view on Google Maps (see GA Ave pic below - beautiful isn't it?) These blocks are the closest lots next to the football and baseball stadiums. Why in Gods name would GA State and Carter not make these lots the densest? Also they would impact the exiting community the least.

I am also not buying your argument they are seeding the area. Again THEY PAID $425K AN ACRE.

They're not making this area dense because east of Fraser everything is parks and single family residential. The development west of Fraser starts to step up (where the office and apartments are) and the future development west of Georgia will step up even more. Like anywhere, you'll want step ups and downs in density. The zoning might limit this as well, but I didn't look it up.

But really, they're not making it dense, because high density requires high rent levels. Land costs are a small portion of development costs. You can not build high density construction in this area based on the achievable rent levels that this area could currently, or in the near future, achieve. No one would finance it, no one would develop it, it is not possible. That is why this is surface parked.

[Dettmann1]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Is it the parking? Is it the density?

Lets take a step back and live in reality for a second. This is a small part of the redevelopment of Turner Field and is focused on Georgia Avenue. They're trying to seed the area. This does not mean that all the large surface lots used for Turner Field parking won't be a higher density, developed when appropriate. This section of Georgia Avenue is focused on neighborhood serving retail with a small office and residential component. It goes towards keeping the character of the neighborhood and offering a step up into the more dense development that would occur west of GEorgia Avenue.

The portion along Georgia Avenue is a renovation of the existing storefront with future infill planned to fill in the gaps (this is shown on the plans). The parking, in this case surface, is confined to the back of the development and for the most part, removed from the street front. These developments will require parking as no bank is going to lend to the developer or to a retailer without appropriate parking. With that said, the parking seems to be kept at a minimum. I think people also need to understand how many households and at what income levels retailers need to survive. This is a low density area that in the future, yes, will be more dense, but will still require more households than will be within walking distance to support these businesses -- so you have to have parking.

The second phase, which is primarily the large block they control in its entirety, fits within the existing urban fabric of the area - as in, it isn't a massive block. The required parking, which again is a necessity for development and also to attract any retail tenant, is removed from the street and hidden behind the storefronts. I think they did a good job with it. I'm honestly not sure what people would expect. No parking is out of the question and anything more dense in this area is not realistic due achievable rent levels in this area, the lack of rooftops, and local household incomes (while improving, still very low).

For those comparing this to Fuqua, I couldn't disagree more. They're maintaining the historic street grid, they're fronting the road primarily with active uses, they're renovating historic buildings, they're seeding the area with neighborhood serving retail all while bringing more residential and office and minimizing the negative, but necessary, impacts of parking.

Anyways, I'm curious as to what issues people have. It seems to be a mix of parking and density?

ATL-J - Complete agree with everything you said. I'd argue trying to talk any sense into some people on this forum won't work (ATL3k specifically). They live in a fantasy land where trying to balance a projects financial feasibility and urban design principles doesn't exist (It has to be super urban or is bad development).

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by Dettmann1

ATL-J - Complete agree with everything you said. I'd argue trying to talk any sense into some people on this forum won't work (ATL3k specifically). They live in a fantasy land where trying to balance a projects financial feasibility and urban design principles doesn't exist (It has to be super urban or is bad development).

I have found ATL3k to be in more in the pro-business/pragmatic camp instead of the Urban Utopia camp on this forum. I do agree that the original S9 Architecture concept we were sold on when Georgia State bid on this property was way oversold and in hindsight was pie in the sky compared to the stick frame around a parking garage student housing they are building next to the stadium, as revealed in the rendering above. Disappointing, but probably unrealistic as scotch drinker was arguing.