Atlanta Project Thread IV

[ATLarchitect]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

We shouldn’t be waiting for developers to lobby the city for FAR increases until the current processes no longer meet their financial models. Increasing FARs introduces new players into the Atlanta market that may want to enter but don’t want the hassle of working with the city to change regulations.

The city needs to lead on this, not private firms. Most simply work within the parameters/box they’re provided. Considering the city and MA already provided recent FAR bonuses, there’s already been consideration to pressure and to allow more in Midtown.

——

That said CoA may not *want* higher FARs for Midtown, however. They may see the growth and want to build out most of the space and have more development trickle into downtown under a shorter timeline than if FARs in Midtown were to be increased.

^Bingo. If you're waiting on private developers to spend their valuable development dollars on lobbying the city and its decision makers for higher FAR's, greater FAR incentives for things like incorporating less parking or more public plaza space into projects, etc. you're already too late.

Couldn't agree more, the city needs to lead on this effort and reward better urban design with bonuses and other incentives (and to their credit are making slow but steady strides to do so). Nobody could have possibly imagined the success of the Midtown subarea just a few decades ago given its condition but there's no reason why it can't and shouldn't be the most attractive and dense part of our urban core.

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

We shouldn’t be waiting for developers to lobby the city for FAR increases until the current processes no longer meet their financial models. Increasing FARs introduces new players into the Atlanta market that may want to enter but don’t want the hassle of working with the city to change regulations.

The city needs to lead on this, not private firms. Most simply work within the parameters/box they’re provided. Considering the city and MA already provided recent FAR bonuses, there’s already been consideration to pressure and to allow more in Midtown.

——

That said CoA may not *want* higher FARs for Midtown, however. They may see the growth and want to build out most of the space and have more development trickle into downtown under a shorter timeline than if FARs in Midtown were to be increased.

I don't disagree with this but you completely missed the point which is that Midtown's FAR limits alone are NOT preventing developers from building taller buildings.  

We can see it in comparing what was the more traditional floor plate of residential towers versus what has become common in the last 15-20 years. How tall would the residential at Midtown Union be if it had a similar floor plate as 1280 West?  I don't know the total Sq ft of either building but the parking deck alone would make the Midtown Union tower taller than 1280 West. The Midtown Union tower isn't designed the way it is because of Midtown's FAR limits but because it's cheaper and faster to build.  

[ATLMidcity]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

We shouldn’t be waiting for developers to lobby the city for FAR increases until the current processes no longer meet their financial models. Increasing FARs introduces new players into the Atlanta market that may want to enter but don’t want the hassle of working with the city to change regulations.

The city needs to lead on this, not private firms. Most simply work within the parameters/box they’re provided. Considering the city and MA already provided recent FAR bonuses, there’s already been consideration to pressure and to allow more in Midtown.

——

That said CoA may not *want* higher FARs for Midtown, however. They may see the growth and want to build out most of the space and have more development trickle into downtown under a shorter timeline than if FARs in Midtown were to be increased.

There is really only 1 downtown in most cities. I can't think of one city that has more than one true downtown. Atlanta seems to be reserving downtown for the taller, bulkier building, which IMHO the way it should be.

Besides, most visitors to the city think Midtown and downtown are one in the same. They only realize the difference when locals explain it to them - and that's a good thing!
I remember seeing a video where Hugh McColl (the former CEO of BoA/Nationsbank) being giddy about Atlanta making a mistake by spreading all of its tall building along Peachtree St - dispersing the urban core. While, Charlotte built from the center out and had/has a much more vibrant city center.

Well, Mr. McColl, I would argue that spreading has allowed for a heavy rail system that is one of the major impetus for the rise of Midtown, and in the near future the two will merge into one helluva city core. The city's core is more vibrant because there are truly different sections that have their own special vibes, which is what make cities pop

[NiffTheFox]

Originally Posted by Terminus

I have never had a developer tell me that the FARs in Midtown were what was preventing them from building a true "skyscraper."

I’d like to see the data that backs this up. I’m not questioning what people have chosen to tell you; I’d just like to see the evidence for myself. If you restrict the ability to efficiently use land, which is what FAR does, then this is going to have an impact on the calculus of what is economical to build. It may very well be that there is no market for 50+ story residential buildings even without FAR, but is it making the difference between 30 vs 40 story res towers?

[Terminus]

Given the recent FAR discussion, there are two changes I think would make sense:

1. Eliminate the distinction between residential and non-residential FAR. The code should acknowledge that buildings can change use over time. Especially from commercial to residential.

2. Grant an FAR bonus for smaller sites.

[ATL Champion]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Given the recent FAR discussion, there are two changes I think would make sense:

1. Eliminate the distinction between residential and non-residential FAR. The code should acknowledge that buildings can use over time. Especially from commercial to residential.

2. Grant an FAR bonus for smaller sites.

#2 certainly encourages a much better use of land in a quickly densifying city

One 40 Story Anthem Tower on a smaller lot seems more practical than two 20story Anthem Towers.. (Substitute NS two 22/17 towers vs one 39story tower; this site required a significant amount of excavation).. I'm not a developer/contractor.. but it seems like it would be more cost effective to build a single tower.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Given the recent FAR discussion, there are two changes I think would make sense:

1. Eliminate the distinction between residential and non-residential FAR. The code should acknowledge that buildings can use over time. Especially from commercial to residential.

2. Grant an FAR bonus for smaller sites.

These would be great additions. Do you know who they could be introduced to to position change? Department of City Planning and a Council Member (Farokhi) or perhaps Midtown Alliance or the city’s Zoning Review Board? I’m curious who is more receptive to and a facilitator of change.

Also, does the city or midtown alliance maintain a table showing what the FAR id allowed for the developments compared to what was built? Would be interesting to the if the average ratio is at 70% of what’s allotted or if most projects are 90%+.

[NiffTheFox]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Also, does the city or midtown alliance maintain a table showing what the FAR id allowed for the developments compared to what was built? Would be interesting to the if the average ratio is at 70% of what’s allotted or if most projects are 90%+.

Yep. That is exactly what I was thinking of in terms of data that could support or refute a claim about the impact of FAR. If we graphed FAR utilization for projects in areas with no height restrictions (i.e. there should be no other major limiting factors that could confound our results) and the distribution is skewed to the "right," (as opposed to uniformly distributed or centered at a moderate utilization rate), then that would certainly make me suspicious.

This is, of course, without getting into the problem of how to assess a counterfactual. Development patterns would have changed over time under different scenarios. There is no way to completely discount the possibility that the development patterns that would have occurred without the current FAR limits would differ enough that we can't make inferences based on current utilization. That said, looking at current utilization is probably the best we can do.

[L.ARCH]

Personally, I'd love for midtown to consider limits on residential tower footprints and tower separation requirements. Would go a long way to encourage taller developments.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by L.ARCH

Personally, I'd love for midtown to consider limits on residential tower footprints and tower separation requirements. Would go a long way to encourage taller developments.

Could pack in a lot more density that way, too. Leads to variety in architecture and retail offerings. The current parcel sizes are generally large. They don’t need to be.

It’s a simple way to preserve tree canopy, too- build more residences where you want density to occur.

[bryantm3]

+1 to most of this. The huge lot sizes of these new developments "put all our eggs in one basket". One badly planned development can ruin the whole block. And sometimes it's not really possible to tell what developments are "bad" without 25 years of hindsight.

[He's Back]

Originally Posted by He's Back

Rumors - take it for what is worth
- Atlanta is on the short list for Verizon's HQ
- Netflix is going to 14th & Spring
- CNN/Warner Media is going to Echo Street West. Wynn Resorts is buying CNN Center. I guess this is why it has remained so quiet because it will be quite controversial. With that said, it could position Atlanta to be the top convention city on the East Coast.
- Both Cousins' projects in Buckhead and Midtown could be moving forward shortly.
- Facebook is in the market for up to 500K sqft.

Gambling companies form coalition to bring casinos to Georgia, show interest in downtown sites

Looks like my rumor was correct!

Developers, operators, vendors, hospitality and gaming companies specializing in casino properties have all hired lobbyists within the last year, according to state records. Casino and gaming companies are interested in downtown sites such as CNN Center and the planned $5 billion sports and entertainment district Centennial Yards, sources said.

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...-politics.html

[bryantm3]

I really hope there's strong enough political will on both sides of the aisle to make it clear that a casino is a "no-go".

[Libertarian]

Being libertarian I am supportive of initiatives to advance free market culture, but there are limits. Many activities need control such as buying of influence with pols (pay to play) as well as discouraging activities destructive to social cohesion, for example addictive and abuse behaviors. Casinos are another scam being employed by the elites to remove wealth from a disadvantaged lower class.

[edg1]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

I really hope there's strong enough political will on both sides of the aisle to make it clear that a casino is a "no-go".

I don't see why people are against a casino but its ok to buy a lottery ticket. Thing is we are all adults and you don't have to go to the casino if you don't like it. Heck I don't gamble but the city should have it at least for the tourist in Atlanta and for the people in GA that leaves GA to go to surrounding states and spend money in those states instead of keeping the money here. I don't drink or smoke weed but just because I don't doesn't mean that I'm against Atlanta banning alcohol even though alcohol causes more problems than gambling. As long as it a Vegas level 5 star hotel Im cool with it

[jpk1292000]

Originally Posted by edg1

I don't see why people are against a casino but its ok to buy a lottery ticket. Thing is we are all adults and you don't have to go to the casino if you don't like it. Heck I don't gamble but the city should have it at least for the tourist in Atlanta and for the people in GA that leaves GA to go to surrounding states and spend money in those states instead of keeping the money here. I don't drink or smoke weed but just because I don't doesn't mean that I'm against Atlanta banning alcohol even though alcohol causes more problems than gambling. As long as it a Vegas level 5 star hotel Im cool with it

Agreed. I personally hate gambling and can't understand why people would take a vacation to spend a whole week in a casino but I support keeping that money (including tax revenue) in Georgia. I also have a personal interest, particularly if the tax revenue goes to bolster the HOPE scholarship as it would help pay to send my daughter to college. If people are against gambling, they could just not go to the casino.

I do agree that it needs to be a high end casino. I wouldn't support a two star hotel casino.

[montydawg]

I believe gambling is stupid, being a very logical person, and frankly I believe they rob money from mostly poorer populations, who are lured by false hopes of getting rich. As a whole, i believe they are bad for populations, as they make your citizens by and large poorer, and other industries money is diverted from support higher quality jobs. I believe casinos and the lottery encourage and exacerbate income inequality by preying on vulnerable populations and governments should not allow or encourage them.

I will add Las Vegas is a little different, in that it is in the middle of nowhere, and the majority of people have to fly there in order to gamble. There is a higher 'cost to entry' in having to pay for hotel and flights, and taking off work, in order to gamble. A downtown Atlanta casino would mostly prey on locals, since I would estimate the majority of people who are flying would go to Vegas over Atlanta to gamble if given a choice. Go to Atlantic City or one of the casinos near the gulf of Mexico in Alabama or Mississippi and you will see what population of people will patronize an Atlanta Casino. A 'high end' casino will do little to discourage poorer residents- casinos take everyones' money.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by montydawg

I believe gambling is stupid, being a very logical person, and frankly I believe they rob money from mostly poorer populations, who are lured by false hopes of getting rich. As a whole, i believe they are bad for populations, as they make your citizens by and large poorer, and other industries money is diverted from support higher quality jobs. I believe casinos and the lottery encourage and exacerbate income inequality by preying on vulnerable populations and governments should not allow or encourage them.

I don't mind gambling, but casinos are a terrible land use. If one comes to town, it should not go in Downtown. This emphasis on tourist destinations is not healthy for the neighborhood. It needs a more balanced mix of uses. Put a casino in Midtown or Buckhead, or maybe right by the airport.

[daharris80]

Originally Posted by Terminus

I don't mind gambling, but casinos are a terrible land use. If one comes to town, it should not go in Downtown. This emphasis on tourist destinations is not healthy for the neighborhood. It needs a more balanced mix of uses. Put a casino in Midtown or Buckhead, or maybe right by the airport.

Sounds like a NIMBY. Just kidding. But in all seriousness, if a casino is not healthy for the neighborhood why do you think people in Midtown, Buckhead or "down by the airport" want one in their 'hood?

[Labtec]

I wouldn't mind a casino near centennial olympic park, especially if it can attract a lot of people and more development in the area.