ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by montydawg

I forgot that the Ecco apartments right next door have a parking deck- however, I think apartment dwellers are a bit more picky when it comes to covered parking than people stopping in for groceries.

Residential leases are more lucrative in an area like that. Residents will pay a lot to live somewhere just because they like it. They don't need to turn a profit or have potential customers around like a business does. In fact, I'm willing to bet the residents are subsidizing the retail in Glenwood Park (that is, the retail lease rates are probably below average, while the residential ones aren't).

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by rmckibben

"Another view of the new Fuqua Glenwood development. This is a complete slap in the face and middle finger to the Beltline and the people of Atlanta."

I agree. How did this get approved? I understand that these types of developments are needed, even Intown, but permitting this adjacent to the Beltline is criminal.

Originally Posted by skyscraper_inspector

No one can ever answer this question for me either. How did this get around the Beltline Overlay requirements?

Originally Posted by jsvh

I live a couple blocks away and was somewhat involved, it is longer and complex explanation. I will try to type up my understanding of it later today.

Take all this with a grain of salt because I was not “at the table” or anything, just followed it closely and have heard a lot of details second hand:

As pointed out above, the key thing is that the Beltline overlay does not over-ride the underlying zoning. This was a surprise to many.

800 Glenwood was originally zoned “I-2” which basically allows you to build about any thing you want besides residential. So the owner / Fuqua initially submitted to build a giant WalMart strip mall. The neighborhood was not happy and started to organize. But the development did not need to go through any rezoning to allow them to build the WalMart so the neighborhood actually showed up in force at city hall and had the city rezone the parcel out of “I-2” to stop the development. The owner / Fuqua sued saying they had their property rights taken. The judge implied that the rezoning out of I-2 was illegal and the main part of the Beltline overlay that would hold up were the street grid. The underlying zoning overrides the overlay anywhere they conflict. But the judge said that the neighborhoods and the developer should work it out on their own and neither side would be happy with the result if he has to decide. So neighborhood leaders and Fuqua came together and agreed to the still controversial compromise you see today (Added residential, parking garage, better street-fronting buildings, future plans for senior living, office space, and some other concessions to try to make it a little more urban).

So, the end result is kind of a mixed bag, but I am personally think it is overall a good thing. I think the street grid is the most important frame work to build off of and having that in place can allow these parcels to redevelop piece by piece and more true urban density to come in in the coming decades. In the mean time, having a grocery store in walking distance is great. This has also helped drive some improvements to prevent things like this in the future. Pro-active rezonings are in the works and there is a beltline design review process being put in place.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by montydawg

Retailers won't move to an area unless there is ample parking and they are not willing to finance the $15,000-$20,000 a parking spot for a parking deck unless they are going to get really good margins, like perhaps Midtown or Buckhead.

Or Downtown, or Lindbergh, or Atlantic Station, or West Midtown, or Emory Point, or Old Fourth Ward, or Decatur. Hell, even Avalon in Alpharetta has deck parking for retail. Parking can and has been decked/hidden all over the city. Surface parking near the Beltline is ridiculous. Tim Keane better get on this quick, because Fuqua is already planning more of the same city-ruining development just the other side of I-20.

But really the point is if a big box store in this location requires surface parking, then don't build a big box store here. Simple as that.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by shivtim

But really the point is if a big box store in this location requires surface parking, then don't build a big box store here. Simple as that.

Bingo.

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by shivtim

But really the point is if a big box store in this location requires surface parking, then don't build a big box store here. Simple as that.

There's that on-paper urban planning I was talking about... Simple indeed, but certainly not realistic.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Bingo.

You seem to be high and mighty to anyone whom differs with you about surface parking. I am curious if you own car or do you just use MARTA, bus, bike or walk for transportation? Also, where do you grocery shop and do you shop daily since using a car is not an option in your world?

[Atlanta3000]

Peachtree and 17th is DOA

From the Atlanta Business Chronicle 6/17

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by montydawg

There are no large surface parking lots in the area because there are no big-box retail stores in the area. The only big box retail store that uses a parking structure south of Ponce is the Edgewood Target (perhaps I'm missing one). Retailers won't move to an area unless there is ample parking and they are not willing to finance the $15,000-$20,000 a parking spot for a parking deck unless they are going to get really good margins, like perhaps Midtown or Buckhead. I think the only reason Fuqua put in the parking structure at the Target is because he didn't have enough land on the Edgewood site to accommodate all the various retailers who wanted to be in that shopping center. I think if Fuqua had more retailers who wanted in on the Glenwood site, he would have built some sort of parking structure- but I think Kroger was the only big box he could get.

Edit: To add, I think this is purely an economics issue. If this land were $2 million an acre, then it would make sense to shrink the Kroger and build underground parking, and use the rest of the land for more residential or some other use. Since this land is probably worth much less, no one could justify spending the extra cash to build something more dense. Remember, there are acres and acres of vacant industrial land in the area, mostly along Memorial. Once the area gets built out, land values will rise, and with no vacant land, these large parcels will be developed into something more dense.

You and RocketSurgeon are spot on. It is unrealistic to expect developments with surface parking and/or big box retail not be allowed on or by a 34 f'en mile walking trail around the city.

[scania]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

You seem to be high and mighty to anyone whom differs with you about surface parking. I am curious if you own car or do you just use MARTA, bus, bike or walk for transportation? Also, where do you grocery shop and do you shop daily since using a car is not an option in your world?

The problem is that you live in Buckhead. You don't quite get it...you understand the thought of urbanism, but you've yet to comprehend what true urbanism is to the people who travel only by foot and aspire to live in Midtown. LOL

I'm kidding, being an..... I totally agree with you.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by scania

The problem is that you live in Buckhead. You don't quite get it...you understand the thought of urbanism, but you've yet to comprehend what true urbanism is to the people who travel only by foot and aspire to live in Midtown. LOL

I'm kidding, being an..... I totally agree with you.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

To that point, massive exposed surface parking lots are not the norm for the area, either. Only locations are at the high school and the mess north of EAV. Everything else is either hidden or street parking. The developer butchered the neighborhood for their net gain and that's about it.

I pointed out earlier that grocery stores in smaller cities are building above-ground parking under the store. It's not that costly and looks much better.

At the new Winston-Salem Publix there are a few parking spots directly in front and the rest is at ground level underneath the store. This would look much better along the Beltline than a horrendous eyesore.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=publ...88b8ccf468fb01021c1dbd8fbfbo0&ajaxhist=0

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

You seem to be high and mighty to anyone whom differs with you about surface parking. I am curious if you own car or do you just use MARTA, bus, bike or walk for transportation? Also, where do you grocery shop and do you shop daily since using a car is not an option in your world?

There are options outside of a massive surface lot that aren't that expensive. This isn't the only - or best - choice.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

You seem to be high and mighty to anyone whom differs with you about surface parking. I am curious if you own car or do you just use MARTA, bus, bike or walk for transportation? Also, where do you grocery shop and do you shop daily since using a car is not an option in your world?

Yes. In fact, I walk to my local grocery every couple of days and some weeks nearly every day, purchase the items I want, place them in the bag I carry there, and walk home. I own a car in Atlanta since my place of work is not readily accessible by transit. I telecommute occasionally and usually commute during atypical hours to lessen my impact on congestion instead of contributing to peak hour traffic. I also adamantly do not use my car more than I have to and you'll be hard pressed finding me using a car at all on the weekends. The FHWA's Office of Operations has a lot of publications about mitigating traffic and creating an environment that incentivizes a change in the "typical" commuter behavior. I encourage you to read them.

[Martinman]

Originally Posted by montydawg

There are no large surface parking lots in the area because there are no big-box retail stores in the area. The only big box retail store that uses a parking structure south of Ponce is the Edgewood Target (perhaps I'm missing one). Retailers won't move to an area unless there is ample parking and they are not willing to finance the $15,000-$20,000 a parking spot for a parking deck unless they are going to get really good margins, like perhaps Midtown or Buckhead. I think the only reason Fuqua put in the parking structure at the Target is because he didn't have enough land on the Edgewood site to accommodate all the various retailers who wanted to be in that shopping center. I think if Fuqua had more retailers who wanted in on the Glenwood site, he would have built some sort of parking structure- but I think Kroger was the only big box he could get.

Edit: To add, I think this is purely an economics issue. If this land were $2 million an acre, then it would make sense to shrink the Kroger and build underground parking, and use the rest of the land for more residential or some other use. Since this land is probably worth much less, no one could justify spending the extra cash to build something more dense. Remember, there are acres and acres of vacant industrial land in the area, mostly along Memorial. Once the area gets built out, land values will rise, and with no vacant land, these large parcels will be developed into something more dense.

So essentially structured parking is not feasible for such a development UNLESS it is in the best interest of the developer? Honestly the excuses for this awful development just keep getting better.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

Yes. In fact, I walk to my local grocery every couple of days and some weeks nearly every day, purchase the items I want, place them in the bag I carry there, and walk home. I own a car in Atlanta since my place of work is not readily accessible by transit. I telecommute occasionally and usually commute during atypical hours to lessen my impact on congestion instead of contributing to peak hour traffic. I also adamantly do not use my car more than I have to and you'll be hard pressed finding me using a car at all on the weekends. The FHWA's Office of Operations has a lot of publications about mitigating traffic and creating an environment that incentivizes a change in the "typical" commuter behavior. I encourage you to read them.

You are a model citizen and environmental stewart - I guess my theory was wrong.

In the spirit of reciprocity, I would like to offer you a FREE online course on Economics 101. I would encourage you understand the other side of the environmental/urbanism equation that developers face.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/econ101

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

There are options outside of a massive surface lot that aren't that expensive. This isn't the only - or best - choice.

Garages cost many times more than surface lots, there's no escaping that no matter how creative you get--it would add several million dollars. You say they work in "smaller cities," of course they work in all kinds of places where land is more expensive and commercial real estate more lucrative... it's not about what city it's in, it's the specific neighborhood and lot. Side note, it appears your Winston-Salem Publix is surrounded by surface parking:

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Peachtree and 17th is DOA

Seems all of 17th Street is cursed this cycle... I think that Hines office development is dead as well, since nothing has happened in over a year. Hopefully I'm wrong... that would have been a good project, and--speak of the devil--the first I know of with no parking.

[llamaorama]

You guys are harsh...

Maybe he has a point, why waste effort and money on urban pedestrian and transit infrastructure largely for catalyzing development if the ass end of a Walmart or Publix is the kind of thing that's going to built next door. That's not what the public was promised.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Garages cost many times more than surface lots, there's no escaping that no matter how creative you get--it would add several million dollars. You say they work in "smaller cities," of course they work in all kinds of places where land is more expensive and commercial real estate more lucrative... it's not about what city it's in, it's the specific neighborhood and lot. Side note, it appears your Winston-Salem Publix is surrounded by surface parking:

LOL! "My" Winston-Salem Publix wasn't even built yet in that photo...that's the former Masonic Lodge that was demolished for "my" Winston-Salem Publix. Good try though. But you can see my point by looking at that photo - there is lots of surface parking in the area and they STILL built one level of parking underneath rather than plopping a sea of parking in front of the building. They simply built the store up one level so it covers the parking...how hard is that?

Even the massively popular Whole Foods directly across the street (with the smaller triangular parking lot) has less than half the parking of this Kroger. It can be done and does work.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Martinman

So essentially structured parking is not feasible for such a development UNLESS it is in the best interest of the developer? Honestly the excuses for this awful development just keep getting better.

You are missing the point. The Beltine does not equal a MARTA station. If they built a big box with surface parking even a half mile of MARTA station, everyone on here would be considered reasonable to question "the Fuqua's". But to say Atlanta can go from the least dense (or one of) major city in the US, to then outlawing any development with a surface lot is complete insanity.

The reality is, most of these neighborhoods haven't seen any new retailers in decades. Hell - most of the neighborhoods would welcome a shitty strip mall just so they had options and new jobs. The fact is, Fuqua is bringing density, mixed-use and jobs. At this point, would should be questioning these developers on the architecture and materials they use - not holding them to the zoning requirements you would find in NYC or Boston.

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

You are a model citizen and environmental stewart - I guess my theory was wrong.

In the spirit of reciprocity, I would like to offer you a FREE online course on Economics 101. I would encourage you understand the other side of the environmental/urbanism equation that developers face.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/econ101

Really hoping you're not involved with the city's planning department if you are this shortsighted and confrontational towards tried and true urban planning practices. Rather, you seem swooned by the almighty dollar.