ATLANTA | Development Thread VI

[jwbab]

Originally Posted by Verge

I was under the impression that the site is on the east side of Spring St. NOT the west side as you have shown? That's were the Midtown Alliance Site shows it as well--

You are right. Maybe my language was unclear. Phase 1 is entirely on the east side of Spring Street. The rendering is from the perspective of one standing on the West side of Spring Street looking back northeast across spring street. They confirmed that a future phase 2 would be built to the West of Spring Street. This presentation, however, only involved phase 1.

[jwbab]

Originally Posted by 3yonce

Thanks for sharing! I didn't realize that the west side of Spring was part of the project. Do you have any insight on whether or not they will be keeping the existing buildings?

I can't say for sure, but it did not look they would be keeping any of the existing buildings in Phase 1 or Phase 2.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

It's not fast, but that image is from awhile ago. It's taller than that now and most of the brick facade is up on that side.

I counted floors on 880 Alexan today and they're working on the 12th. It sped up once they were past the garage. They're already doing finishing work on the lower floors so I bet there will be move-ins by the end of the year (Curbed says January). That would make this a two-year project if you include the demolition of the law office. Seems pretty typical for a 22-story building.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by jwbab

I can't say for sure, but it did not look they would be keeping any of the existing buildings in Phase 1 or Phase 2.

I am curious if you or anyone else knows why MetLife would go before the DRC with a project that is still in the design phase. I think it is a waste of everyone's time to not a least have a solid concept to present. I am curious on your and others thoughts. Also, did you get a sense of urgency on when they hope to start construction?

[Atlanta3000]

Imagine this picture with the 17th & Spring Project...


https://twitter.com/mckayWSB

[jwbab]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

I am curious if you or anyone else knows why MetLife would go before the DRC with a project that is still in the design phase. I think it is a waste of everyone's time to not a least have a solid concept to present. I am curious on your and others thoughts. Also, did you get a sense of urgency on when they hope to start construction?

I get the sense that most developers, regardless of how final they are in the design process, only want to share the bare minimum necessary to get the committee's approval for their variance requests so they can move on to the next phase of permitting. So they often show little more than site plans and elevations of the areas of the project where a variance is requested. Most often the variance requests are limited to curb cuts, loading docks, set back and fenestration requirements.

They did not share a time frame for project delivery. In their DRI filings, they indicated an expected completion of this phase in 2021.

To clarify my previous response, they are definitely not keeping any of the existing buildings in Phase 1. Judging by the site plan that showed Phase 2, it did not look like any of the existing buildings would be kept in that phase either. They did not share any additional information about phase 2.

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

I am curious if you or anyone else knows why MetLife would go before the DRC with a project that is still in the design phase. I think it is a waste of everyone's time to not a least have a solid concept to present. I am curious on your and others thoughts. Also, did you get a sense of urgency on when they hope to start construction?

Why would this be a waste of time? Any project is going to have to have the DRC presentation regardless of how far you are into the design process - to go in earlier means you're more flexible to work with the DRC's comments.

Presenting a project that appears further designed (like the 14th & Spring project) is risky- particularly when you have a comment like them needing to accommodate the 13th street connection to Williams Street.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

Why would this be a waste of time? Any project is going to have to have the DRC presentation regardless of how far you are into the design process - to go in earlier means you're more flexible to work with the DRC's comments.

Presenting a project that appears further designed (like the 14th & Spring project) is risky- particularly when you have a comment like them needing to accommodate the 13th street connection to Williams Street.

Call me crazy, but I would expect the architect/developer going before the DESIGN Review Committee to actually present a f'en DESIGN. Seriously, the DRC is not called the Site Plan Committee - aka - SPC, for short. I would expect you and a few others here to question the "active uses" and the parking situation you normally scrutinize. How the hell do you get a sense of any of that with what they presented?

Think about if Noble Investment Group (NIG) the developers of the: Element Hotel / Courtyard by Marriott | 640 Peachtree Street and they went before the DRC with just a pic of the site plan where the hotel would go on the corner of 8th and Peachtree? What would be the point?

However, NIG did the right thing and presented a fairly accurate illustration of the intended final product and the final product was nothing short of an architectural POS and the DRC rightfully ran their asses off and said come back with a design appropriate for the site.

Maybe I am over thinking it....

[RocketSurgeon]

You are overthinking it a bit. The DRC meets on a regular schedule, they're not setting up meetings for individual projects. May as well show up at the meeting that's already scheduled. Designs cost money and the farther along they are the more expensive they are to change (and thus developers will be less willing to change them). It's just a way of getting feedback and if they do that earlier they can tailor the initial design to what the DRC is asking for rather than redoing half of it. I think we'd have higher quality projects if more developers did that.

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Call me crazy, but I would expect the architect/developer going before the DESIGN Review Committee to actually present a f'en DESIGN. Seriously, the DRC is not called the Site Plan Committee - aka - SPC, for short. I would expect you and a few others here to question the "active uses" and the parking situation you normally scrutinize. How the hell do you get a sense of any of that with what they presented?

Think about if Noble Investment Group (NIG) the developers of the: Element Hotel / Courtyard by Marriott | 640 Peachtree Street and they went before the DRC with just a pic of the site plan where the hotel would go on the corner of 8th and Peachtree? What would be the point?

However, NIG did the right thing and presented a fairly accurate illustration of the intended final product and the final product was nothing short of an architectural POS and the DRC rightfully ran their asses off and said come back with a design appropriate for the site.

Maybe I am over thinking it....

First off it's the DEVELOPMENT Review Committee (DRC).Midtown DRC Link Here And they only have culpability over making sure the project meets the SAP zoning requirements. They are NOT an Architectural Review Board (much like the ones you hear about in Charleston, SC). The projects do not have to be completely designed to be reviewed by the DRC (FYI project applicants usually meet with the DRC before the public meeting anyways). Such items they're reviewing are "quality of life" zoning requirements that each of the SAP's have created. Items project must address might involve (but are not limited to):

+number/location of curb cuts
+how the building meets the street (ground floor elevations)
+nubmer/location of loading areas
+how is the parking deck being screened
+the intensity and use of a building
+setbacks

Much of these items can be handled in plans and minimal elevations. There have been a lot of presentations where they only presented the building's ground level elevations with materials/fenestration types called out.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

You are overthinking it a bit. The DRC meets on a regular schedule, they're not setting up meetings for individual projects. May as well show up at the meeting that's already scheduled. Designs cost money and the farther along they are the more expensive they are to change (and thus developers will be less willing to change them). It's just a way of getting feedback and if they do that earlier they can tailor the initial design to what the DRC is asking for rather than redoing half of it. I think we'd have higher quality projects if more developers did that.

The DRC is not reviewing projects subjectively on individual site and design elements. The purpose of the DRC is to make sure developers and architects adhere to current zoning requirements. Therefore, I believe it would make the most sense for developers/architects to go before the DRC with a fairly accurate representation of the final product. I would think any recommendations the DRC would make during the presentation would only amount to tweaks the architects would have to make - not starting from scratch.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

First off it's the DEVELOPMENT Review Committee (DRC).Midtown DRC Link Here And they only have culpability over making sure the project meets the SAP zoning requirements. They are NOT an Architectural Review Board (much like the ones you hear about in Charleston, SC). The projects do not have to be completely designed to be reviewed by the DRC (FYI project applicants usually meet with the DRC before the public meeting anyways). Such items they're reviewing are "quality of life" zoning requirements that each of the SAP's have created. Items project must address might involve (but are not limited to):

+number/location of curb cuts
+how the building meets the street (ground floor elevations)
+nubmer/location of loading areas
+how is the parking deck being screened
+the intensity and use of a building
+setbacks

Much of these items can be handled in plans and minimal elevations. There have been a lot of presentations where they only presented the building's ground level elevations with materials/fenestration types called out.

Well I guess someone feels stupid now....
Are you always this nasty arctk2014 - or - just on Friday the 13th's?

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

The DRC is not reviewing projects subjectively on individual site and design elements. The purpose of the DRC is to make sure developers and architects adhere to current zoning requirements. Therefore, I believe it would make the most sense for developers/architects to go before the DRC with a fairly accurate representation of the final product. I would think any recommendations the DRC would make during the presentation would only amount to tweaks the architects would have to make - not starting from scratch.

Typically, a project would have to be mostly finished with the Design Development (DD) phase of a project in order to meet the design requirements to meet with the DRC. Some smaller projects might be able to get away with a Schematic Design (SD) phase where not everything is resolved, but the general massing, materials, and site orientation and parking allocation are configured.

But none of these projects are finished with Construction Documents (CD) when they present to the DRC. (essentially finished with "design"). The design of each of the projects presented is an ongoing evolution in response to detailing, coordination, and pricing. Some projects are ready to show higher-resolution renderings during these presentations more than others because the client needs them for financing packages, tenant leasing, etc.

But let's also stress...you do not have to be "DONE" with design in order to present to the DRC.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by jwbab

I get the sense that most developers, regardless of how final they are in the design process, only want to share the bare minimum necessary to get the committee's approval for their variance requests so they can move on to the next phase of permitting. So they often show little more than site plans and elevations of the areas of the project where a variance is requested. Most often the variance requests are limited to curb cuts, loading docks, set back and fenestration requirements.

They did not share a time frame for project delivery. In their DRI filings, they indicated an expected completion of this phase in 2021.

To clarify my previous response, they are definitely not keeping any of the existing buildings in Phase 1. Judging by the site plan that showed Phase 2, it did not look like any of the existing buildings would be kept in that phase either. They did not share any additional information about phase 2.

This is pretty much untrue-- The DRC's are part of the Building Permitting process-- therefore need to be a finished design, otherwise they would need to resubmit, have another hearing and waste everyone's time on the DRC. Secondly, there is one DESIGN Review Committee and that is the Beltline DRC (a slightly different animal by conception). So no, developers would not be encouraged to submit partial plans-- DRC submittals should be close to the final built project. I know that no DRC would agree to see just a site plan, for instance--

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

Typically, a project would have to be mostly finished with the Design Development (DD) phase of a project in order to meet the design requirements to meet with the DRC. Some smaller projects might be able to get away with a Schematic Design (SD) phase where not everything is resolved, but the general massing, materials, and site orientation and parking allocation are configured.

But none of these projects are finished with Construction Documents (CD) when they present to the DRC. (essentially finished with "design"). The design of each of the projects presented is an ongoing evolution in response to detailing, coordination, and pricing. Some projects are ready to show higher-resolution renderings during these presentations more than others because the client needs them for financing packages, tenant leasing, etc.

But let's also stress...you do not have to be "DONE" with design in order to present to the DRC.

I just going to say that it seems to me A3000 is simply not understanding the various stages of architectural design. "In design" does not mean starting from scratch or even any substantial changes otherwise they would have to go back before the DRC to present those changes.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by arctk2014

Typically, a project would have to be mostly finished with the Design Development (DD) phase of a project in order to meet the design requirements to meet with the DRC. Some smaller projects might be able to get away with a Schematic Design (SD) phase where not everything is resolved, but the general massing, materials, and site orientation and parking allocation are configured.

But none of these projects are finished with Construction Documents (CD) when they present to the DRC. (essentially finished with "design"). The design of each of the projects presented is an ongoing evolution in response to detailing, coordination, and pricing. Some projects are ready to show higher-resolution renderings during these presentations more than others because the client needs them for financing packages, tenant leasing, etc.

But let's also stress...you do not have to be "DONE" with design in order to present to the DRC.

Actually they do have to be finished-- if the design changes they need to re-file an amended SAP for re-approval--

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Verge

This is pretty much untrue-- The DRC's are part of the Building Permitting process-- therefore need to be a finished design, otherwise they would need to resubmit, have another hearing and waste everyone's time on the DRC. Secondly, there is one DESIGN Review Committee and that is the Beltline DRC (a slightly different animal by conception). So no, developers would not be encouraged to submit partial plans-- DRC submittals should be close to the final built project. I know that no DRC would agree to see just a site plan--

Verge - Just so WE are ALL clear, you are saying I am not stupid with my analysis?

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Martinman

I just going to say that it seems to me A3000 is simply not understanding the various stages of architectural design. "In design" does not mean starting from scratch or even any substantial changes otherwise they would have to go back before the DRC to present those changes.

Martinman you are dead to ME!

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Verge

Actually they do have to be finished-- if the design changes they need to re-file an amended SAP for re-approval--

The DRC review is a part of the SAP process, but you don't have to be DONE with the design to create permit documents (Construction Documents) before you present to the DRC.

Most of the time the final review is handled administratively before it's officially submitted for permitting (which often involves a land disturbance permit before vertical construction gets approved for permitting). This is where developers can buy some time to allow architects/engineers to finalize the construction documents on buildings while pushing dirt around for a bit.

You can learn more about the process here: Altanta Permitting Process and Forms

Also regarding the BeltLine Design Review Committee - that's a different committee because they are evaluating compliance/approving variances for projects within the Beltline OVERLAY zoning requirements. But yes they are a bit different of an animal to deal with as well.

[Triptychtwo]

Survey crew working at 1125 Peachtree site today.