ATLANTA | Development Thread VI

[Street Advocate]

No meeting for December.

[daharris80]

Originally Posted by robertjhajek

Sorry for gigantic post, but here's the gulch map overlaid on Google Maps, enjoy!

Nice work. BTW Google needs to update the Dome/MBS site.

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Terminus

I’m just saying that they could not make the streets punlock, even if they wanted to. I have been through this with many clients and, unless the city is actually directly paying for and building the streets (which would not be the case in this project) they have to be private under city code. It is an idiotic rule that should be changed.

The city's not going to adopt and assume the liability/maintenance of a private R.O.W unless they're a stakeholder in the project so I'm not sure why the city code needs to be changed just to make it easier for another private developer to give something that's not necessarily warranted for upkeep by the public.

The City of Atlanta is party to the Gulch redevelopment project, but I would imagine we cannot make assumptions until we receive more details on whether or not the proposed ROW's are public or private.

[daharris80]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

The city's not going to adopt and assume the liability/maintenance of a private R.O.W unless they're a stakeholder in the project so I'm not sure why the city code needs to be changed just to make it easier for another private developer to give something that's not necessarily warranted for upkeep by the public.

The City of Atlanta is party to the Gulch redevelopment project, but I would imagine we cannot make assumptions until we receive more details on whether or not the proposed ROW's are public or private.

All public roads serve private developments. If the city took your approach there would literally never be any public roads. At some point the city undertook to maintain the current roads in downtown Atlanta without being a stakeholder in the private enterprises serviced by those roads. What we're advocating is when the Gulch is developed that current roads be extended and new roads developed to make it a part of the city. The initial costs may be paid by the developer (likely with a tax reduction incentive) but then for those roads (built to DOT specs) to be deeded over to the city. This is exactly what they do in residential subdivisions.

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by daharris80

All public roads serve private developments. If the city took your approach there would literally never be any public roads. At some point the city undertook to maintain the current roads in downtown Atlanta without being a stakeholder in the private enterprises serviced by those roads. What we're advocating is when the Gulch is developed that current roads be extended and new roads developed to make it a part of the city. The initial costs may be paid by the developer (likely with a tax reduction incentive) but then for those roads (built to DOT specs) to be deeded over to the city. This is exactly what they do in residential subdivisions.

Terminus was questioning the city code suggesting that private developers cannot build public roads outside of the development of residential neighborhoods -and I was suggesting that it's not always the best interest for the city to assume a private ROW be turned over to the City coffers either.

I wasn't challenging the notion that the ROW's for the Gulch should be privatized - just heeding caution that people are assuming they're already private because of the current city code (even though the City of Atlanta is a stakeholder in the project).

I haven't seen anything dictating that they are or will be private at the moment. I'm just making sure people here aren't jumping to conclusions because of assumptions. And I'll commend the people who are able to attend these public meetings to verify and fight for these streets to be truly public in use.

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

And I'll commend the people who are able to attend these public meetings to verify and fight for these streets to be truly public in use.

I really struggle to see any advantage we as citizens get when a city takes over maintenance and responsibility of a private street. Is it some kind of point about the business being able to decriminate about who walks on their property? Please- if that was the case then I think we would have incidents at Atlantic station. What types of people are being discriminated against there?? This is not like underground Atlanta, where a 100+ year old street was given to a private developer.

I personally don't want the city taking on maintenance responsibility for a grid of elevated streets that do little to serve traffic outside what is being generated by this divelopment. The proposed street grid was designed to reduce 'cut through' traffic from what I see and its main purpose is to 'simulate' an urban environment, just like Atlantic station.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by montydawg

I really struggle to see any advantage we as citizens get when a city takes over maintenance and responsibility of a private street. Is it some kind of point about the business being able to decriminate about who walks on their property? Please- if that was the case then I think we would have incidents at Atlantic station. What types of people are being discriminated against there?? This is not like underground Atlanta, where a 100+ year old street was given to a private developer.

I personally don't want the city taking on maintenance responsibility for a grid of elevated streets that do little to serve traffic outside what is being generated by this divelopment. The proposed street grid was designed to reduce 'cut through' traffic from what I see and its main purpose is to 'simulate' an urban environment, just like Atlantic station.

No - from what I understand, it could take the city/state 2-5 years to build a street because of the bureaucratic process/red tape from scoping, to design, bid and budget. Net - net, this public process is counterproductive to private developers who are working against a tight timeframe. Therefore it is easier for the developer to build the roads to city code and turn them over for the city to maintain. Make sense?

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by montydawg

Is it some kind of point about the business being able to decriminate [sic] about who walks on their property? Please- if that was the case then I think we would have incidents at Atlantic station. What types of people are being discriminated against there?? This is not like underground Atlanta, where a 100+ year old street was given to a private developer.

There have been plenty of cases of discrimination happening at Atlantic Station - even if it's just photographers trying to take a photo on premises there have been instances of people being turned away- it's just not reported as a news-worthy event these days.

[West Peachtree]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

No meeting for December.

Thank you, Street Advocate !

[Verge]

Originally Posted by montydawg

I really struggle to see any advantage we as citizens get when a city takes over maintenance and responsibility of a private street. Is it some kind of point about the business being able to decriminate about who walks on their property? Please- if that was the case then I think we would have incidents at Atlantic station. What types of people are being discriminated against there?? This is not like underground Atlanta, where a 100+ year old street was given to a private developer.

I personally don't want the city taking on maintenance responsibility for a grid of elevated streets that do little to serve traffic outside what is being generated by this divelopment. The proposed street grid was designed to reduce 'cut through' traffic from what I see and its main purpose is to 'simulate' an urban environment, just like Atlantic station.

City zoning rules for things like mandated active streets and percentage of storefront are not applicable to private streets-- See Fuqua's blank walls--

[Atlanta3000]

https://twitter.com/ccmurphy14/status/939626993846505472
*Credit: Charlie Murphy

Video Link

[bigstick]

Beautiful, it was quite an amazing snow, I still have a lot in my yard...

[NickH]

We've got one more week for Eviva to hit their groundbreaking date of Fall 2017. Does anyone want to place a bet?

[boomtown]

Originally Posted by NickH

We've got one more week for Eviva to hit their groundbreaking date of Fall 2017. Does anyone want to place a bet?

Reykjavik has better odds to win Amazon HQ2

[BGump]

Originally Posted by boomtown

Reykjavik has better odds to win Amazon HQ2

So you're saying there's a chance?!

[Ant131531]

People still believe Eviva's breaking ground? The cycle, at least for residential towers in Midtown is over.

[jjordan1023]

It appears NCR II has officially topped out.

[Pemgin]

Did Eviva's construction loan fall through, or something?

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

People still believe Eviva's breaking ground? The cycle, at least for residential towers in Midtown is over.

It's safe to assume development won't stop unless there's another crisis. It'll slow, but Midtown has reached critical mass and something will be going on as long as anyone is building in the South.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The cycle, at least for residential towers in Midtown is over.

New proposals are slim, sure, but there's still a handful of activity occurring in Midtown.

195 13th, Alexan Midtown, Ascent, the dual brand hotel on 14th, and The Standard are all under construction. Domino's pizza (same company as the standard) has a fast pace with it. Opus is moving ground.