ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[BunkyWay]

Originally Posted by Martinman

Considering that no one has even suggested writing codes that require retail everywhere, we're all safe from your ignorant label.

I am arguing that it is the missed opportunity for this development to add the growing vibrancy of the neighborhood and of this specific location. Instead, this will continue the schizophrenic street-level environment in Midtown - one block has street level retail, the next block has a plaza, the next block has retail, the next block is a parking lot, and so on. Is it any wonder that the retail already in existence struggles?

It has certainly been suggested. I am not going to dig through 800 pages to find out exactly where, but as a lurker since this specific thread was started, it has been stated.

[clexmond]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

This is silly...

It's always the same. Allowing NIMBYism to drive zoning just leads to protection of older homeowner's property values at the expense of keeping cost of living low and keeping neighborhoods diverse.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by Martinman

Considering that no one has even suggested writing codes that require retail everywhere, we're all safe from your ignorant label.

I am arguing that it is the missed opportunity for this development to add the growing vibrancy of the neighborhood and of this specific location. Instead, this will continue the schizophrenic street-level environment in Midtown - one block has street level retail, the next block has a plaza, the next block has retail, the next block is a parking lot, and so on. Is it any wonder that the retail already in existence struggles?

Many Districts, Midtown, Downtown, Memorial Drive DO require active use at the street-- no blank walls and this is a really good thing--
David

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Martinman

Considering that no one has even suggested writing codes that require retail everywhere, we're all safe from your ignorant label.

I am arguing that it is the missed opportunity for this development to add the growing vibrancy of the neighborhood and of this specific location. Instead, this will continue the schizophrenic street-level environment in Midtown - one block has street level retail, the next block has a plaza, the next block has retail, the next block is a parking lot, and so on. Is it any wonder that the retail already in existence struggles?

A vibrant neighborhood can have all kinds of buildings with all kinds of uses...this is a corporate headquarters that does not want or need to invite the public in for casual dining and shopping. I'm wondering if people complaining understand how a corporate headquarters works? I'm excited that a fairly new to Atlanta Fortune 500 corporation is building a brand new HQ building in an area of Midtown that was dead only a few years back. I don't see any need to complain about it not having a Starbuck's in it.

I'm sure NCR would be glad to build out in Perimeter if some of you guys don't like it. Let's stop being ridiculous.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2016...rezoning-for-home-park-mixed-use-project



Nimby's are pushing back against the rezoning for this project.

I mean, it's Home Park, not Historic Midtown, Inman Park, or Grant Park. None of the homes are spectacular and a lot of the neighborhood still looks like a dump, not to mention crime is high because there's no real activity in the area. It's very transient.

I don't believe the actual city should vote against the zoning change. 14th street deserves to be a high density retail corridor.

Atlanta cannot let NIMBYs win when it does not affect historic structures or character and there's almost none of that in Home Park.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

I mean, it's Home Park, not Historic Midtown, Inman Park, or Grant Park. None of the homes are spectacular and a lot of the neighborhood still looks like a dump, not to mention crime is high because there's no real activity in the area. It's very transient.

I don't believe the actual city should vote against the zoning change. 14th street deserves to be a high density retail corridor.

Atlanta cannot let NIMBYs win when it does not affect historic structures or character and there's almost none of that in Home Park.

I agree about the NIMBYs and that 14th Street should be a higher-density area, but I disagree with your characterization of Home Park as if it's unimportant. Some of the neighborhood is run-down (mostly because of the student rental market), but there has been a master plan in place for the community since 2002 . There are some nicer areas that are very worthwhile and Home Park has improved tremendously in the past 15 years, especially with the development of Atlantic Station adding to it. http://www.homepark.org/Housing/

"The oldest house dates back to 1890. The neighborhood features an urban blend of bungalow, traditional, and contemporary construction built over the last 100 years." http://www.homepark.org/history/

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

A vibrant neighborhood can have all kinds of buildings with all kinds of uses...this is a corporate headquarters that does not want or need to invite the public in for casual dining and shopping. I'm wondering if people complaining understand how a corporate headquarters works? I'm excited that a fairly new to Atlanta Fortune 500 corporation is building a brand new building in an area of Midtown that was dead only a few years back. I don't see any need to complain about it not having a Starbuck's in it.

I'm sure NCR would be glad to build out in Perimeter if some of you guys don't like it. Let's stop being ridiculous.

It's interesting that you use the word ridiculous when your post practically defines the word.

Are you saying that a F-500 company can't have retail in their building or is this a joke? NCR is building in the Midtown because they believe it is beneficial to them and their future and the financial incentives do not hurt either. If they preferred to locate at Perimeter they would have done so.

The idea of retail on Spring Street is so ridiculous that Midtown Alliance has this segment Spring Street designated as a "storefront street" in the blueprint Midtown plan. Crazy isn't it?

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Martinman

It's interesting that you use the word ridiculous when your post practically defines the word.

Are you saying that a F-500 company can't have retail in their building or is this a joke? NCR is building in the Midtown because they believe it is beneficial to them and their future and the financial incentives do not hurt either. If they preferred to locate at Perimeter they would have done so.

The idea of retail on Spring Street is so ridiculous that Midtown Alliance has this segment Spring Street designated as a "storefront street" in the blueprint Midtown plan. Crazy isn't it?

And yet they allowed NCR to build this building! Crazy! What's crazy is that you actually seem to think that EVERY building should be forced to have retail and I'm saying that it's great to have a new F500 HQ in Midtown and I don't give a shit if this one building has it or not. I'm all for creating a walkable neighborhood that has active uses at street level but I'm not going to cry about THIS ONE. They obviously wanted to build in Midtown and didn't want retail or they would have included it. People will just have to purchase their bagels next door I guess.

Yes, I'm saying that many corporate headquarters are not open to the public and therefore choose not to have retail in the building. Have you ever been to another large city? Some buildings have retail while others don't, and headquarters buildings usually don't in my experience. It's not the end of the world if one building, a sought-after corporate headquarters, doesn't have anything to draw you in. Walk on by and take in the beauty of this lobby - it looks pretty fabulous to me.

Last comment from me about this...it's not worth an argument about a building that is already approved and on it's way up and is going to be a great addition to Midtown.

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

And yet they allowed NCR to build this building! Crazy! What's crazy is that you actually seem to think that EVERY building should be forced to have retail and I'm saying that it's great to have a new F500 HQ in Midtown and I don't give a shit if this one building has it or not. I'm all for creating a walkable neighborhood that has active uses at street level but I'm not going to cry about THIS ONE. They obviously wanted to build in Midtown and didn't want retail or they would have included it. People will just have to purchase their bagels next door I guess.

Yes, I'm saying that many corporate headquarters are not open to the public and therefore choose not to have retail in the building. Have you ever been to another large city? Some buildings have retail while others don't, and headquarters buildings usually don't in my experience. It's not the end of the world if one building, a sought-after corporate headquarters, doesn't have anything to draw you in. Walk on by and take in the beauty of this lobby - it looks pretty fabulous to me.

Last comment from me about this...it's not worth an argument about a building that is already approved and on it's way up and is going to be a great addition to Midtown.

I AGREE.... Wish it was taller though... Retail in corporate headquarters is a security risk these days..

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I agree about the NIMBYs and that 14th Street should be a higher-density area, but I disagree with your characterization of Home Park as if it's unimportant. Some of the neighborhood is run-down (mostly because of the student rental market), but there has been a master plan in place for the community since 2002 . There are some nicer areas that are very worthwhile and Home Park has improved tremendously in the past 15 years, especially with the development of Atlantic Station adding to it. http://www.homepark.org/Housing/

"The oldest house dates back to 1890. The neighborhood features an urban blend of bungalow, traditional, and contemporary construction built over the last 100 years." http://www.homepark.org/history/

My problem is exactly to do with the guy they quote in the article who lives across the street from the proposed development. The proposed development is:

a. On a major throughfare
b. Knocking out 9 houses, some that looks to be too low density with larger yards, and some that look decrepit.
c. Is adjacent to high density uses: Apartments across the street and catty corner, and high density townhouses/rowhouses across the street as well.

The guy quoted in the article seems to believe the city has a right to protect his property values on the basis he thinks will maintain them artificially driving up home values at the expense of being able to offer more residential options for people to live near to the CBD and along a major through-fare.

“The concern is that they were going to wipe out nine single-family lots,” said Mobley. He said that he and his neighbors are putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into renovating their older homes, and that new homes nearby are selling for big bucks.

“We want to continue that,” not put in hundreds of apartments, he said. “It’s at the point where it’s just too much."

Yeah, I mean how dare hundreds of residents want to move into an area and make it more vibrant and safer. A handful of people should be able to hold properties hostage in the interest of inflating their home prices to keep the riff raff out. These people with their suburban mentality need to head back to Smyrna, or John's Creek.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2016...rezoning-for-home-park-mixed-use-project

Nimby's are pushing back against the rezoning for this project.

I'm quite familiar with that area and I'm with the NIMBYs on this one. A six story building with a parking deck is too much for that block. There are similar buildings close by, but they're not across from single family homes. Something like townhomes along State and Mecaslin with retail along 14th would be a much better fit.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

I'm quite familiar with that area and I'm with the NIMBYs on this one. A six story building with a parking deck is too much for that block. There are similar buildings close by, but they're not across from single family homes. Something like townhomes along State and Mecaslin with retail along 14th would be a much better fit.

That doesn't make developers money though. There's a reason you hardly see new 1-2 story commercial strips along major corridors because retail itself doesn't make developers money anymore.

The only way you get retail along that part of 14th street is if you build 4-6 story apartment blocks else that part of 14th street stays inactive and Home Park remains dangerous for residents.

GeorgiaPeanuts is right. They're trying to limit supply in the area so that rents and property values go up. The problem is there isn't really a huge demand to live in Home Park(because there's not much there). There's a reason why it's rented to Georgia Tech students and not young urban professional who are actually renting and buying in neighborhoods like Inman Park, O4W, and Midtown.

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

And yet they allowed NCR to build this building! Crazy! What's crazy is that you actually seem to think that EVERY building should be forced to have retail and I'm saying that it's great to have a new F500 HQ in Midtown and I don't give a shit if this one building has it or not. I'm all for creating a walkable neighborhood that has active uses at street level but I'm not going to cry about THIS ONE. They obviously wanted to build in Midtown and didn't want retail or they would have included it. People will just have to purchase their bagels next door I guess.

Yes, I'm saying that many corporate headquarters are not open to the public and therefore choose not to have retail in the building. Have you ever been to another large city? Some buildings have retail while others don't, and headquarters buildings usually don't in my experience. It's not the end of the world if one building, a sought-after corporate headquarters, doesn't have anything to draw you in. Walk on by and take in the beauty of this lobby - it looks pretty fabulous to me.

Last comment from me about this...it's not worth an argument about a building that is already approved and on it's way up and is going to be a great addition to Midtown.

I never asked you to give a shit. I'm stating my opinion. And I am aware of no requirement that comments on the thread must agree with your point of view. You apparently don't give a shit about reading either since I said from my first post on the topic that I do not believe that every development should have retail. But every development is not on a major Midtown thoroughfare surrounded by residential towers and office jobs.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

That doesn't make developers money though. There's a reason you hardly see new 1-2 story commercial strips along major corridors because retail itself doesn't make developers money anymore.

The only way you get retail along that part of 14th street is if you build 4-6 story apartment blocks else that part of 14th street stays inactive and Home Park remains dangerous for residents.

GeorgiaPeanuts is right. They're trying to limit supply in the area so that rents and property values go up. The problem is there isn't really a huge demand to live in Home Park(because there's not much there). There's a reason why it's rented to Georgia Tech students and not young urban professional who are actually renting and buying in neighborhoods like Inman Park, O4W, and Midtown.

The lot already has retail, which those apartments would replace. It's not the supply, it's the scale. There are already thousands of units within a few blocks of there, and the councilman who opposed this was fine with a similar rezoning on a nearby lot that wasn't adjacent to homes.

You should take a walk around there, you'd get some perspective. It's just not a good fit. The point of zoning is to keep scale and usage from interfering with surrounding properties. If you're going to remove restrictions whenever a developer wants to make some money, why have them at all?

Townhomes are definitely viable... in fact that's what's along the streets up to the lot in question. They usually run in the $500-750k range. Home Park north of 14th is much nicer than it used to be. South not so much, it's more like you described.

[NewUrbanist90]

This forum is now 90% people bitching at each other and 10% development news.

First person to bitch about this comment proves my point! LOL

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

The lot already has retail, which those apartments would replace. It's not the supply, it's the scale. There are already thousands of units within a few blocks of there, and the councilman who opposed this was fine with a similar rezoning on a nearby lot that wasn't adjacent to homes.

You should take a walk around there, you'd get some perspective. It's just not a good fit. The point of zoning is to keep scale and usage from interfering with surrounding properties. If you're going to remove restrictions whenever a developer wants to make some money, why have them at all?

Townhomes are definitely viable... in fact that's what's along the streets up to the lot in question. They usually run in the $500-750k range. Home Park north of 14th is much nicer than it used to be. South not so much, it's more like you described.

I've walked there plenty of times. It's replacing that country looking decrepit building and a surface parking lot. I mean, just down the street is the new apartments they built(The Station 16 or whatever it's called), then another 2 blocks down are the new apartments being built right now on 14th.

I don't really understand why Atlanta has to cater to every single family home neighborhood. That's not how you build an active vibrant city. There are already so many single family home neighborhoods(then you still have the thousands of square miles of suburbs). Why is it such a big deal if a few homes go away to build high density apartments with retail that is needed for the neighborhood?

Different story if Atlanta was short on single family home neighborhoods and was mostly a high density 4+ story scaled city, then I 100% understand, but Atlanta is a few high density neighborhood nodes, a high rise urban center, then single family homes awash the rest of the city. It's one of the least dense major cities on earth. Building apartments here won't "ruin" the neighborhood. Give me a break.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

It's replacing that country looking decrepit building and a surface parking lot.

That's just one corner, it also includes several homes and the shopping center on State.

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Building apartments here won't "ruin" the neighborhood.

You keep saying neighborhood, but this is a specific lot. As you pointed out, there's already density in parts of Home Park. You wouldn't say the restrictions leading into the areas near Piedmont Park are holding all of Midtown back, would you? Good planning transitions gradually from block to block. Having such different uses on adjacent lots would be silly and make the area feel disjointed.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

Great article about how City of Atlanta is outgrowing the suburbs now since the last downturn. Unclear if this is the start of something more permanent though
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/print...lanta-rivals-suburbs-in-residential.html

In 2015, the city of Atlanta issued 6,028 residential building permits, substantially more than either Gwinnett, Forsyth or Cobb individually
For all of 2015, Gwinnett issued 3,636 residential building permits; Forsyth, 3,270; and Cobb, 2,017, according to the data.

In the first two months of this year alone, the city issued 2,023 residential building permits, which is more than the combined total of 1,992 for Gwinnett (612), Forsyth (523) and Cobb (857).

Still, the data shows that since the recession ended, the residential development boom has been far more concentrated inside the city. That point is driven home by the large number of cranes dotting the skyline for new apartment buildings, especially in Buckhead and Midtown.

The boom is so concentrated that some intown neighborhoods are running out of vacant land. Consider the Buckhead Village, where existing buildings are being demolished to make way for new apartments.

[BlueSangha]

Originally Posted by NewUrbanist90

This forum is now 90% people bitching at each other and 10% development news.

First person to bitch about this comment proves my point! LOL

Sadly, so very true. Everyone is an expert, everyone has an opinion, and the rules of the forum do not apply. They can't even be civil to one another, "you're racist, you're ignorant, an asshole..." I miss Betty Bowers.

[shivtim]

Permits filed yesterday and today to demolish 4 commercial buildings ("Remaining Starbucks Building to be Demo on a later date") for the site of "the Standard" on Spring St between 3rd and 4th.