ATLANTA | Development Thread VI

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

A partial cap is better than nothing at all and we will probably get nothing if opposition to the design is strong. Reminds one of the stupid objections to the TSPLOST because it didn't have enough public transit money (even though it had a lot) = controversy killed it and we got nothing. Take what is now possible and we may ultimately see a total cover in the long run.

I disagree. Reject half-planned jobs and approve ones worthwhile. TSPLOST compared to the current proposed TSPLOST for the CoA are vastly different. Full cap or bust!

[Neighbor]

Full cap or bust. No more half ass projects to silence the plebs.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

A partial cap is better than nothing at all and we will probably get nothing if opposition to the design is strong. Reminds one of the stupid objections to the TSPLOST because it didn't have enough public transit money (even though it had a lot) = controversy killed it and we got nothing. Take what is now possible and we may ultimately see a total cover in the long run.

Huh? The TSPLOST only passed within the ITP. It was the OTP that rejected the TSPLOST. If we are going to invest a lot of money in a park over the highway it is better to do it right in the first place. Than to be stuck with an inferior product for decades that'll eventually be redone properly eventually.

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

Huh? The TSPLOST only passed within the ITP. It was the OTP that rejected the TSPLOST. If we are going to invest a lot of money in a park over the highway it is better to do it right in the first place. Than to be stuck with an inferior product for decades that'll eventually be redone properly eventually.

This reminds me of the original plan for the 17th street bridge. they totally cheeped out and it looks it. Hopefully this will not be the case.

[testarossa50]

Fine, I'll take it a step further and say a full cap doesn't appear any less feasible or expensive to me than what is shown.

The design shown is a bunch of wild angular cantilevers at varying elevations that seem mostly focused on supporting a trail through the area, and creating a grade-separated crossing to some mysterious egglike structure on the south side of Peachtree St. The latter item imo shouldn't be part of the project scope at all, and the grade separated pedestrian crossing to it seems like a really expensive tidbit that ultimately adds very little to the overall experience of the park.

Look up an aerial of Klyde Warren Park. Much less fancy design.

[jpk1292000]

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...lpture-at.html

This is pretty slick.

[Atlanta3000]

Some of you would rather have NOTHING than this:

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

Fine, I'll take it a step further and say a full cap doesn't appear any less feasible or expensive to me than what is shown.

The design shown is a bunch of wild angular cantilevers at varying elevations that seem mostly focused on supporting a trail through the area, and creating a grade-separated crossing to some mysterious egglike structure on the south side of Peachtree St. The latter item imo shouldn't be part of the project scope at all, and the grade separated pedestrian crossing to it seems like a really expensive tidbit that ultimately adds very little to the overall experience of the park.

Look up an aerial of Klyde Warren Park. Much less fancy design.

Testarossa, what engineering/landscape design firm do you work for? I am curious as to where you are coming from with your cost analysis.

Rogers Partners Architects, the firm who designed the Park over GA 400, is one of the world's leading architecture and urban design firms. I have to believe they considered all of the options with respect to coverage over 400 vs cost.

http://www.rogersarchitects.com/

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Testarossa, what engineering/landscape design firm do you work for? I am curious as to where you are coming from with your cost analysis.

Rogers Partners Architects, the firm who designed the Park over GA 400, is one of the world's leading architecture and urban design firms. I have to believe they considered all of the options with respect to coverage over 400 vs cost.

http://www.rogersarchitects.com/

I work in industrial transportation development, mainly railroads.

I guess I'm questioning mainly WTF that egg thing south of Peachtree Street is, why it's in the project, why it warrants a grade-separated crossing of Peachtree Street, and what the costs of that aspect of the project are versus a Klyde Warren type of solution.

These aren't questions of design, they're questions of project scope and priorities. And you don't need to have any specific expertise to ask them.

[Neighbor]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Some of you would rather have NOTHING than this:

Correct. Reject projects that are settling and start demanding projects that set a precedent for the city. We know that the full cap will would recoup the costs even is it was double the price, this is Buckhead. Stop making excuses for half ass work, because you end up with a half ass city and you're the one who has to live in it.

[mikeatl77]

Originally Posted by jpk1292000

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...lpture-at.html

This is pretty slick.

the ball reminds me of the bean in Chicago.

[Tuckerman]

Of course I would like to see a full cap on the Buckhead 400 park. But I would also like to see something occur within the next 2-5 years. Now we have something on offer that is viewed as feasible and there are those who want it as proposed. In my view and experience, controversy often begets no action at all and/or highly delayed action. Compromise seems to be a lost art in the current political landscape. If the project becomes more complex and more costly (and a tunnel or full cover certainly will be), then one can expect it will be a long time before anyone reading this will see this development. I guess if you are 25, then another 10-15 years is not a problem.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Neighbor

Correct. Reject projects that are settling and start demanding projects that set a precedent for the city. We know that the full cap will would recoup the costs even is it was double the price, this is Buckhead. Stop making excuses for half ass work, because you end up with a half ass city and you're the one who has to live in it.

Well that is not how I see it. Atlanta has a full plate of competing projects: Airport, Falcon Stadium, Philips Arena Redevelopment, The Gulch, Beltline, The Stitch, Civic Center, MARTA, GWCC expansion/hotel and other transportation projects. Our city does not have an endless supply of money. The project as presented for the Park over GA 400 is far from being half ass or a reject project. I would gladly welcome it and would do so with higher taxes to support it.

[Atlanta3000]

New Project in Buckhead Village


http://buckheadview.com/2016/09/08/camden-moving-forward-2nd-apartment-project-face-roswell-road/

[bryantm3]

the reason i don't care for this half-cap is that it doesn't accomplish the goal of increasing the value of, or providing connectivity to, the properties that back up to 400. isn't the goal of this whole thing to spur economic development, increase connectivity, and create an inviting space for pedestrians? if they simply can't afford to do a full cap, this is a good compromise... but in this case, they're losing a great deal of the benefit along with the reduced cost.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by scania

Seriously, this is a great start! And as far as the air pollution, that would mean none of the development around NCR, Tech Square, Plaza Midtown, etc. should be built. Hence, the air pollution there is worse than the Ga. 400 park area.

I was wondering the same thing...and how about the 5th Street bridge park over the connector? Do people use that very often and is it hazardous to their health? I guess most people don't stay on it as long as they would a larger park, but it's a similar concept just on a smaller scale.

I changed my mind on this after I looked at the renderings more closely. At first I said that a partial would be better than nothing, but this proposal just looks unfinished to me. I say go for the entire cap or spend the money elsewhere - but don't do it halfway. The limited access points would cause lighter use and it really looks more like a trail or strollway than an actual park. Maybe the renderings don't do it justice? But I agree with the folks saying to take it all the way - do the project right or move on to something else.

At least we'll have the world's largest bird sculpture. It's really gorgeous!

[sbrptree]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Well that is not how I see it. Atlanta has a full plate of competing projects: Airport, Falcon Stadium, Philips Arena Redevelopment, The Gulch, Beltline, The Stitch, Civic Center, MARTA, GWCC expansion/hotel and other transportation projects. Our city does not have an endless supply of money. The project as presented for the Park over GA 400 is far from being half ass or a reject project. I would gladly welcome it and would do so with higher taxes to support it.

As you may know, these projects vary in their sponsor: some are public, some private, varying jurisdictions, and some may receive federal and state funding, grants, and/or private contributions. Not a true apples-to-apples comparison; however, the market, lending restrictions and ability the put together full funding packages (not just taxes) will determine if any or all of these projects come to fruition.

[Atlanta3000]

[bigstick]

What is this a rendering of??? ^^^^^^^^

Thanks

[darkcarrington]

Originally Posted by bigstick

What is this a rendering of??? ^^^^^^^^

Thanks

Looks like The Standard, the new student housing that is starting between 3rd and 4th on Spring St. Overall I think the development is alright, but I'm not a fan of the Starbucks drive-thru dumping out mid-block.