ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[jsvh]

Not quite to Midtown level yet, but downtown is picking up steam. 22 Downtown Developments Mapped: Downtown Atlanta's Latest Projects, Mapped | Curbed

[ATL_J]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Any idea how the surrounding residents feel about the memorial linear park? I despise it, tbh, but I'd like to hear how those that live adjacent to the proposed park feel about it. Seems like a massive waste of land directly adjacent to downtown and walking distance to two transit stops

I believe park space to be an important community asset, so I would never consider it a massive waste of land. Should we get rid of portions of Piedmont Park considering the massive demand for development in that area? Surely you wouldn't say Piedmont Park is a massive waste of land.

My only complaint about Capitol Green/Memorial Linear Park is that they haven't activated the current space. You've got large areas of green space now that, if given the proper treatment, could be great park space.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

I believe park space to be an important community asset, so I would never consider it a massive waste of land. Should we get rid of portions of Piedmont Park considering the massive demand for development in that area? Surely you wouldn't say Piedmont Park is a massive waste of land.

My only complaint about Capitol Green/Memorial Linear Park is that they haven't activated the current space. You've got large areas of green space now that, if given the proper treatment, could be great park space.

Your first part compares apples to oranges. Atlanta's most heavily used and largest park adjacent Atlanta's densest block compared to dilapidated land adjacent a major thoroughfare and primarily single-family-home neighborhoods where most parcels have private yards. The park itself would likely still have multiple streets cutting through the park, which is also not inviting to pedestrians. Cap the connector and make it the park, sure, but use over 15 acres of land for a park with relatively few residents living adjacent is simply irresponsible, IMO.

Your second comment is more in line with my actual gripe, as I'm not against parkspace. Memorial already has significant parkspace nearby with Oakland Cemetery, Cabbagetown Park, Grant Park, and soon the BeltLine easily within walking distance. While it would be awesome if more of Atlanta's linear parks were tied with one another (other than our emerald ring of the BeltLine), housing costs soaring in the city with our limited supply, and hopes of reinvigorating street activity within our core of downtown, I think the loss of potential ROI by not developing so close to transit and downtown would far outweigh the benefit of an additional park here connecting downtown with Oakland Cemetery. I may be in the minority here, so I welcome discussion to potentially enlighten me.

Originally Posted by jsvh

As someone that is moving near by, I love it. Especially capping the connector. The strip of land between MLK and Memorial is too narrow to build something like a mixed use wrapped garage, so I am not sure what developers would be able to do there that would have any sort of density in the near future (at least until we can reduce car dependency enough).

The highlighted statement is not factually accurate. The parcel sizes are fairly generous, albeit not superblock size, which is better for cities anyhow. Again, this is over 15 acres of land within a 1 mile radius of our city center of Five Points.

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

...over 15 acres of land for a park with relatively few residents living adjacent is simply irresponsible, IMO.

...Memorial already has significant parkspace nearby with Oakland Cemetery, Cabbagetown Park, Grant Park, and soon the BeltLine easily within walking distance. While it would be awesome if more of Atlanta's linear parks were tied with one another (other than our emerald ring of the BeltLine), housing costs soaring in the city with our limited supply, and hopes of reinvigorating street activity within our core of downtown, I think the loss of potential ROI by not developing so close to transit and downtown would far outweigh the benefit of an additional park here connecting downtown with Oakland Cemetery. I may be in the minority here, so I welcome discussion to potentially enlighten me.

Relatively few residents living adjacent?- yet the pipeline of projects proves there will be a LOT more residences. You must be forgetting what the Historic O4W Park was like before the multifamily developments were there.....

Also you can't compare Oakland Cemetery as sufficiently providing the need for parks in this area considering you'd be tripping over headstones just trying to throw a Frisbee. The loss potential for ROI is negligible when it comes to a public amenity like a park - which is way vastly more difficult to put in place once development density has increased all around it.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

The highlighted statement is not factually accurate. The parcel sizes are fairly generous, albeit not superblock size, which is better for cities anyhow. Again, this is over 15 acres of land within a 1 mile radius of our city center of Five Points.

This is true. Small block size is better for urban development patterns.

But how do you feel about Woodruff Park (6 acres of formerly mid / high rise buildings turned into park) or Centennial Park (21 acres)? Do you think our city would be better without those spaces too?

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by jsvh

This is true. Small block size is better for urban development patterns.

But how do you feel about Woodruff Park (6 acres of formerly mid / high rise buildings turned into park) or Centennial Park (21 acres)? Do you think our city would be better without those spaces too?

No, I consider myself a major proponent of greenspace and my thesis had a major greenspace component associated with it. While I think Atlanta should absolutely preserve park space while it can, it should also acknowledge when a major park isn't appropriate for a location. IMO, Capital Green is at one of the worst locations in the city to put a major pedestrian plaza with its proximity to downtown, Georgia State, and King Memorial stations. There are plenty of pocket and larger parks nearby (Liberty, Capital Gateway, Rawson-Washington, City Hall, Oakland, Grant, Cabbagetown, BeltLine) and most parcels have their individual private lawns.

While Atlanta could and should absolutely improve it's % of park land in the city, there is certainly ample walkable parkspace at this location. What it doesn't have is an appropriate level of density for its location, nor an inviting pedestrian experience that could help reinvigorate downtown and the neighborhoods along Memorial. I would love to eat my words one day that Atlanta doesn't have enough park space for the hoards of developments along Memorial, but with current levels of parks, developments and development proposals, and parcels in the area, I don't see it happening.

[ATL_J]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Your first part compares apples to oranges.

No, I’m comparing park space to park space. For the sake of discussion let us call this park Capital Green.

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Atlanta's most heavily used and largest park adjacent Atlanta's densest block compared to dilapidated land adjacent a major thoroughfare and primarily single-family-home neighborhoods where most parcels have private yards. The park itself would likely still have multiple streets cutting through the park, which is also not inviting to pedestrians.

Piedmont Park has only recently been near the densest parts of the city, but when it was established it was on the outskirts of town. In fact, Piedmont Park wasn’t even in the City of Atlanta until 1904. The fact that Midtown and the area around Piedmont Park is one of the densest and “most heavily used” is why parks are important. They are essential to city life and allow areas to grow in density. Areas around parks are some of the most desirable, providing premiums to all types of real estate.
I also have trouble with your statement concerning the current state of the proposed Capital Green. You claim it is “primarily single-family-home neighborhoods…”, making the assumption that because they have yards, they don’t deserve a park. However, Piedmont Park is surrounded on three sides by single family home neighborhoods (Ansley, Historic Midtown, and Virginia Highland). It is no coincidence that these are three of the most desirable parts of town, in no small part because of the park. It is because of this park, which you believe would be wasted space on Memorial Drive, that has driven growth into these areas. You seem to feel as if the park was created because density existed and we should only build parks where density is at, but that is rarely the case.

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Cap the connector and make it the park, sure, but use over 15 acres of land for a park with relatively few residents living adjacent is simply irresponsible, IMO.

I’m not sure how you think providing 15 acres of space for a park for an emerging area is a “waste of space”. Piedmont Park is 189 acres.

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Your second comment is more in line with my actual gripe, as I'm not against parkspace. Memorial already has significant parkspace nearby with Oakland Cemetery, Cabbagetown Park, Grant Park, and soon the BeltLine easily within walking distance.

Honestly, this is insulting. Oakland Cemetery might have 3 acres of space (and is a cemetery) while Cabbagetown is about 4 acres. So you’re telling me that north of I-20, that is all these people get? Not to mention that Capital Gateway would serve South Downtown, Summer Hill, and even Sweet Auburn.
I would like to point out again that you claim you want density, that it is the “highest ROI” (all though this would be false), but then you don’t want to build something that would attract density or improve the desirability of a neighborhood to draw in more residents and increase your tax base. There is a reason development is occurring around the BeltLine, Historic Old Fourth Ward Park, Piedmont Park, and Centennial Olympic Park – its because green space. People want it, people need it.

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

...housing costs soaring in the city with our limited supply, and hopes of reinvigorating street activity within our core of downtown, I think the loss of potential ROI by not developing so close to transit and downtown would far outweigh the benefit of an additional park here connecting downtown with Oakland Cemetery.

There is plenty of affordable housing in many parts of the city. They might not be the trendiest or the “safest”, but not developing 15 acres of land because you might be able to cram a few more apartments would be a horrible idea. Yes, this area is close to transit, and that is why you have over 3,000 apartment units (and some condo and townhomes) going up on Memorial in and around MLK and Inman Park station.

If your goal is to bring people downtown and increase land values, you build a park. The increased land values over time would be far much greater than the very few developments you could fit on 15 acres.

With that said, this discussion is probably left for another forum.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by thepope117

A 10 million dollar land purchase makes it unlikely they will build a midrise on the site. The land cost per unit would not make sense in the Atlanta market. I'm fairly sure they will be building up. If they don't integrate parking into the Atlantic station deck and build it above grade it will probably be wrapped with stick built apartments but there will still be a highrise on that lot. you also have to consider the value add of the views and visability from here.

Agreed. Seems like a high basis for Atlanta land ($5M/ac), not sure of the FAR or what's allowed, plus there are structural considerations for that site I would imagine, however, would seem that they will maximize density to the extent they can.

Point about views - also, you really don't even need to build that tall there. There will never be another building on really any side of that one to block its views, so I think it's a given that we'll see condo product there (given land basis, and given where I would think we are in cycle, the irreplaceability of that site...it smells of luxury condos). Could be tall but not dense - large condos selling for $500-800+/sf, or wherever pricing is for high end to luxury product in Atl.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

http://saportareport.com/metro-atlanta-forecast-target-real-estate-investors/

Yes. Absolutely. I think this forum page is proof positive, Atlanta is ON FIRE. It is just crushing it! Reminds me or perhaps even exceeds in some ways the 2006-2008 time period, except this one is less "frothy" feeling so far (it will get there at some point, but we were already there in the last cycle by the time permits/construction activity was at this level) and more "late to the game we're just catching up" feeling, which is good, because it's just further proof of how much Atlanta is still a growth city, how much it is collapsing in on itself under its own weight (I mean that in a good way...as in look at the concentration of infill everywhere).

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

A new render of Portman's Buckhead Condo tower in Bizjournal as well... (rather boring view though)

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/print...ndos-will-be-among-priciest-in-city.html

View still looks stunning - I think that's about as good a view as you can get in Atlanta. I know where this is, I remember that view corridor. It's one of the best in the country. And it's not like these buyers are at risk of losing their view anytime soon. This will elevate the city in quite a few ways - it's the kind of project that attracts "better" and younger rich people with more eccentricity and more "mmph" to put out there, so providing housing for them is still key...it breaks up the monotony of the "feel" of stodginess purposefully presented in most of those Buckhead high rises. And it's a postcard ready building, a little thing but a thing nonetheless that's always good for a city. It'll attract people interested moreso in design/architecture than those interested in floorplans and space planning. That's a big thing.

I'm happy that Portman is doing one in Midtown, for the Midtown market, and one in Buckhead, for that market.

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Nice looking building, but $500 Million???

Hospitals require the most expensive technology and FF&E. An advanced office building gets some basic riser service for cabling/fiber. Ok, big deal. Maybe a telecom equipment on the roof. So you can get away with 12' slab to slabs in an office building, still, without limiting yourself in what you can provide tenants.

Also, you lease space to a tenant, you give them some allowance, but the tenant will spend more money on their own to finish buildout, and unless your allowance includes a certain percentage allowable for FF&E (generally a landlord doesn't want to give allowance for that because it's mostly personal property that becomes worthless to landlord and isn't a depreciable asset the way improvements to the building are).

Long-winded way of saying there is a cost burden on a tenant in a building that never gets added to the all-in construction cost of that building. So you might see $100M for a new office building in Atlanta, which likely includes some proforma estimate on what the landlord will spend on allowances based on what they think they'll get in rent, but it doesn't include another probably $5-20M depending on tenant of costs that a tenant could put in.


So the hospital is essentially an owner-operator. It is its own build to suit, and it is its own tenant. Not to mention it's a fuckin' hospital - if your average financial services firm or architectural firm needs 6-18" riser for cabling, your average hospital needs like 3-5' for more than cabling - needs to fit hoses and all sorts of shit in between floors, in walls, etc. Needs the most advanced HVAC and life safety systems, because hospitals are usually under totally different building spec guidelines as they are seen as pseudo-utilities vital to the commerce and well being of a civilized society, and the technology requirement of all that equipment, not to mention the design of the layout of a hospital, or even just a medical office building such as Piedmont West at Howell Mill...so complex. Everything is more expensive and the budget includes all of that FF&E, which is a building full of medical devices. Think about it..

Contingency also probably built in. Given all the above, if a budget includes a contingency of ~8-14% of hard costs in a regular building, and 5% on soft costs, and a development fee of 4% on hard costs, etc etc, just double that for a hospital.

Hopefully that explains why hospitals both "appear" more expensive and actually are when you do try to make them apples to apples with budgets for private non-medical use office buildings.

Originally Posted by RATBOYKEV

Their studios are 643 Sq Ft, so that's right at $3/sq ft.

Skyhouse & Skyhouse South are ~$1,500 for 621 sq ft, so $2.40/sq ft. Thats a 25% premium for 77 12th.

Yea, that's getting up there for Atlanta, but still presents a huge gap for what you get in size, quality, and price in many other cities. As long as that gap exists, Atlanta will be in high demand by companies and people.

Originally Posted by ATL_J

I also don't know how "accurate" that pricing is. A lot of these companies use revenue management software that fluctuates pricing daily based on availability and other algorithms. Chances are they have 1 studio to lease, they'll have it listed for this insanely high price for a bit, because why not? And when no one rents it, it'll go back down.

You'll note that this studio is a "penthouse" unit as well.

All true and fair points.

Originally Posted by AtlantaMustang

1400 West Peachtree:

This is Greystar's Ascent product...hasn't really started it yet anywhere to my knowledge, but Denver is another city where this is proposed in its new hip neighborhood (Union Station). Portman is also building hotel/office in Union Station in Denver, so there's an Atlanta connection there. I see the two cities similarly, and that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by ATL_J

No, I’m comparing park space to park space. For the sake of discussion let us call this park Capital Green.



Piedmont Park has only recently been near the densest parts of the city, but when it was established it was on the outskirts of town. In fact, Piedmont Park wasn’t even in the City of Atlanta until 1904. The fact that Midtown and the area around Piedmont Park is one of the densest and “most heavily used” is why parks are important. They are essential to city life and allow areas to grow in density. Areas around parks are some of the most desirable, providing premiums to all types of real estate.
I also have trouble with your statement concerning the current state of the proposed Capital Green. You claim it is “primarily single-family-home neighborhoods…”, making the assumption that because they have yards, they don’t deserve a park. However, Piedmont Park is surrounded on three sides by single family home neighborhoods (Ansley, Historic Midtown, and Virginia Highland). It is no coincidence that these are three of the most desirable parts of town, in no small part because of the park. It is because of this park, which you believe would be wasted space on Memorial Drive, that has driven growth into these areas. You seem to feel as if the park was created because density existed and we should only build parks where density is at, but that is rarely the case.




I’m not sure how you think providing 15 acres of space for a park for an emerging area is a “waste of space”. Piedmont Park is 189 acres.



Honestly, this is insulting. Oakland Cemetery might have 3 acres of space (and is a cemetery) while Cabbagetown is about 4 acres. So you’re telling me that north of I-20, that is all these people get? Not to mention that Capital Gateway would serve South Downtown, Summer Hill, and even Sweet Auburn.
I would like to point out again that you claim you want density, that it is the “highest ROI” (all though this would be false), but then you don’t want to build something that would attract density or improve the desirability of a neighborhood to draw in more residents and increase your tax base. There is a reason development is occurring around the BeltLine, Historic Old Fourth Ward Park, Piedmont Park, and Centennial Olympic Park – its because green space. People want it, people need it.



There is plenty of affordable housing in many parts of the city. They might not be the trendiest or the “safest”, but not developing 15 acres of land because you might be able to cram a few more apartments would be a horrible idea. Yes, this area is close to transit, and that is why you have over 3,000 apartment units (and some condo and townhomes) going up on Memorial in and around MLK and Inman Park station.

If your goal is to bring people downtown and increase land values, you build a park. The increased land values over time would be far much greater than the very few developments you could fit on 15 acres.

With that said, this discussion is probably left for another forum.

I agree with both of you guys simultaneously.

1) 15 acres is nothing, so who cares if it's a waste of space now, build the park and eventually it should serve its purpose

2) City shouldn't make this a #1 priority if there are better uses of the funds froom whichever bucket it will come out of

3) Atlanta is absolutely not at a density level where people need to be complaining about lack of greenspace. If anything, despite what one group trust for public land or whatever says (Atlanta has lower % of space in parksspace), Atlanta "feels" very well parked, and it has more beautiful and well-maintained parks in it in all parts of town than most cities have in even just one part of town.

[Ant131531]

What...?! Simms making positive posts about Atlanta???? Been a while since I've you seen you post. Hope you're enjoying SF.

[Verge]

The Capitol- Oakland Park is an idea that has been around for at least 20 years and was codified in a 1999 planning study-- Invest Atlanta has purchased approximately 70% of the land for the park so far-- the landscaping on purchased lots is clearly temporary until full plans for the park crystallize. The idea of connecting the State Capitol and Oakland Cemetery is a powerful one and far from killing development the park will spur a lot of new construction in the area. The Memorial Corridor is designated as a mid-rise shell, simultaneously protecting adjacent single family neighborhoods and providing a place for increased density and neighborhood commercial and retail spaces-- and that seems to be exactly what is happening. The park has the potential to be a beautiful centerpiece for it all. See Boston's Commonwealth Ave or New York's Hudson River Greenway--

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

If your goal is to bring people downtown and increase land values, you build a park. The increased land values over time would be far much greater than the very few developments you could fit on 15 acres.

With that said, this discussion is probably left for another forum.

I think this is an item we're just going to disagree with. There's not silver bullet to build a better city, increase land values/desirability, and make an area more walkable (and I'm sure you agree with that sentiment). Whether it be just adding a park or more residents in an area, it takes a remedy of options to make an area more appealing. You say it's insulting that this part of town has access to a handful of parks, and yet I'm sure other neighborhoods would consider it pompous and entitled for a neighborhood with so much nearby already promoting even more parkspace nearby, especially when the purpose of the park is for the egos of elected officials rather than nearby residents who barely frequent the park at its current state.

But yes, to get back on track, more parks and developments in general for Atlanta, please. The city is getting a lot better, but it still feels empty to me. Atlanta will never feel like Chicago or SF while I'm alive, but it will definitely feel a lot more urban rather than suburban in the coming years.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Verge

See Boston's Commonwealth Ave or New York's Hudson River Greenway--

Is this a joke? Commonwealth Ave is lined with brownstones in one of the most affluent urban neighborhoods in the country with major architectural significance and the Hudson's Greenway is adjacent a river and is more comparable to Chicago's Lakefront Trail. Maybe I'm not looking enough centuries into the future, but comparing a SFH & industrial corridor to either is ridiculous. There's even severely limited space for current and future residents, other than downtown, to access this park based off current adjacent developments and infrastructure. Even if this park has been in the works for 20 years, I believe it should be reevaluated.

Would it hurt to preserve the land and create a great park between the Capital and Oakland? Absolutely not. I'm positive it could turn into a great park that is heavily trafficked if Atlanta ensures appropriate developments in the area. However, Atlanta needs to do more with its planning department to ensure something like that could occur and it would require eminent domain, which I doubt Atlanta's would promote the use of to redevelop a neighborhood.

[smArTaLlone]

Originally Posted by ATL_J

No, I’m comparing park space to park space. For the sake of discussion let us call this park Capital Green.



Piedmont Park has only recently been near the densest parts of the city, but when it was established it was on the outskirts of town. In fact, Piedmont Park wasn’t even in the City of Atlanta until 1904. The fact that Midtown and the area around Piedmont Park is one of the densest and “most heavily used” is why parks are important. They are essential to city life and allow areas to grow in density. Areas around parks are some of the most desirable, providing premiums to all types of real estate.

I also have trouble with your statement concerning the current state of the proposed Capital Green. You claim it is “primarily single-family-home neighborhoods…”, making the assumption that because they have yards, they don’t deserve a park. However, Piedmont Park is surrounded on three sides by single family home neighborhoods (Ansley, Historic Midtown, and Virginia Highland). It is no coincidence that these are three of the most desirable parts of town, in no small part because of the park. It is because of this park, which you believe would be wasted space on Memorial Drive, that has driven growth into these areas. You seem to feel as if the park was created because density existed and we should only build parks where density is at, but that is rarely the case.


I’m not sure how you think providing 15 acres of space for a park for an emerging area is a “waste of space”. Piedmont Park is 189 acres.

Honestly, this is insulting. Oakland Cemetery might have 3 acres of space (and is a cemetery) while Cabbagetown is about 4 acres. So you’re telling me that north of I-20, that is all these people get? Not to mention that Capital Gateway would serve South Downtown, Summer Hill, and even Sweet Auburn.

I would like to point out again that you claim you want density, that it is the “highest ROI” (all though this would be false), but then you don’t want to build something that would attract density or improve the desirability of a neighborhood to draw in more residents and increase your tax base. There is a reason development is occurring around the BeltLine, Historic Old Fourth Ward Park, Piedmont Park, and Centennial Olympic Park – its because green space. People want it, people need it.


There is plenty of affordable housing in many parts of the city. They might not be the trendiest or the “safest”, but not developing 15 acres of land because you might be able to cram a few more apartments would be a horrible idea. Yes, this area is close to transit, and that is why you have over 3,000 apartment units (and some condo and townhomes) going up on Memorial in and around MLK and Inman Park station.

If your goal is to bring people downtown and increase land values, you build a park. The increased land values over time would be far much greater than the very few developments you could fit on 15 acres.

With that said, this discussion is probably left for another forum.

I agree with all of this. One of the primary reasons that the area around Piedmont Park is one of the densest and busiest parts of the city is without question BECAUSE of Piedmont Park.

I personally feel that a lot of the random "plazas" are nothing but wasted space that rarely get used but this is a legitimate park space that will not only provide usable greenspace for residents but create an attractive vista to the Capitol. This has a lot of potential to become a great asset to that neighborhood.

[daharris80]

It would be great if there was a place to discuss parks, like an Atlanta Community Discussion Thread!

[BunkyWay]

Who cares??! Shut up!! It makes scrolling through here annoying AF. You're not going to change someone's mind over the Interwebs.

[BlueSangha]

blah, blah, blah...

[cabasse]

sb369 passes, deal vetoes the anti-lgbt bill and simms returns to say some nice things about his previous home?

i'll take it! what are we attempting to argue about again?

atl is back baby, i can't wait to return in the next 6-12mo.

[AtlantaMustang]

Old apartments coming down where 525 North is slated to go.

Plans have been in the works for a year for the 525 North Ave. site, and Atlantans are now seeing tangible evidence of progress. Tuesday morning, developers Seven Oaks and RPG Holdings hosted a celebration as a large excavator tore through fire-ravaged two-story apartments, which had languished vacant for years on North Avenue, just minutes from Midtown.

http://atlanta.curbed.com/2016/3/30/11328118/525-north-office-old-fourth-ward

[Martinman]

Grow Up people! It's a forum where projects are discussed.

That being said, I have always wondered why most the Atlanta project discussion takes place on one thread when there is a dedicated Atlanta section on two different sites.

[testarossa50]

The building at 15th and West Peachtree in the location of the proposed Hampton Inn is officially gone!