ATLANTA | Construction Thread V

[jtwong]

An outstanding article in the Atlantic magazine about Atlanta's predicament.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/des...s-and-ac/1619/

[ATLaffinity]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I think the point is that downtown is the most densely-built environment we have and our best chance at urban living.

I'm not so sure downtown has more crime...if you look at the crime statistics they are usually very low, but the perception of downtown crime is very high.

I don't know. I find downtown dreary and low-rent. The theater, museum and Symphony are all in Midtown.

I'd love for Downtown to improve but it seems less livable than Midtown right now. Things like Philips Arena and Turner Park don't even seem connected to downtown at all.

That said, I have a lot of issues with Midtown, namely surface lots and lack of greenspace.

[ChadK]

Originally Posted by ATLaffinity

I'd love for Downtown to improve but it seems less livable than Midtown right now. Things like Philips Arena and Turner Park don't even seem connected to downtown at all.

That said, I have a lot of issues with Midtown, namely surface lots and lack of greenspace.

Downtown is definitely on the upswing. Pemberton Place (Aquarium, WOC, COP, soon to be Civil Rights Museum) had a lot to do with that IMO. And it looks like Regent / Worthington will be adding to the livability and connectivity to the area as well.

If the Multi-Modal Hub fills in the gulch I think we'll see real change in both downtown and Castleberry Hill areas.

And while I agree with you that Midtown needs to loose a lot of the surface lots, I have to disagree about the lack of green space. We have Piedmont Park, the Botanical Gardens and other smaller areas around Arts Center and Pershing Point. I personally lump O4W park in the midtown category as well although I know that isn't technically correct.

[DPC]

Originally Posted by scania

I disagree. After living in Plaza Midtown for three years, I totally understand the idea and principle about the urbanity downtown offers. IMO, downtown is more pedestrian friendly and probably has more restaurants. I know most of the people on this forum have this love for Midtown being the best. I myself moved from Buckhead to Midtown, but if you visit DC, NY, and for those of you that don't know the stats and the history of San Francisco, which is the epic of mass urban besides NY, Midtown has much further to go in comparison to Downtown as far grid, buildings, and how buildings engage the street.

I agree. Downtown is our most densely developed area in the city. Midtown is wonderful, but it's creation and momentum has actually hurt downtown's full buildout in my opinion. When I visited DC, I was blown away at the sheer size of their downtown. The craziest thing is, even with a downtown that size, there wasn't an open lot in sight. No surface parking lots either. They don't even have parking garages. All the parking was underground. They barely have any single family homes in the whole city. The craziest thing was, there were cranes everywhere which is mind blowing considering their downtown is probably five times the size of downtown Atlanta. I know Atlanta will never have anything comparable to DC or NYC, but we can improve on what we do have.

Honestly, we don't have the land to build a downtown even a quarter the size of DC without destroying entire neighborhoods. We can however build infill development on the open lots and the fringes of our downtown. Once downtown is fully built out, we can start to build north connecting to the bottom of midtown. I love the development we have going on across the city, I just wish it was more centralized. Atlanta has benefits the older cities up north don't have, but urban living is not one of them sadly. Making sure development is centralized is the only way we will ever come close to having a dense urban core comparable to DC or NYC. This probably has zero chance of happening this way, but I can dream can't I.

[hamster]

Originally Posted by DPC

I agree. Downtown is our most densely developed area in the city. Midtown is wonderful, but it's creation and momentum has actually hurt downtown's full buildout in my opinion. When I visited DC, I was blown away at the sheer size of their downtown. The craziest thing is, even with a downtown that size, there wasn't an open lot in sight. No surface parking lots either. They don't even have parking garages. All the parking was underground. They barely have any single family homes in the whole city. The craziest thing was, there were cranes everywhere which is mind blowing considering their downtown is probably five times the size of downtown Atlanta. I know Atlanta will never have anything comparable to DC or NYC, but we can improve on what we do have.

Honestly, we don't have the land to build a downtown even a quarter the size of DC without destroying entire neighborhoods. We can however build infill development on the open lots and the fringes of our downtown. Once downtown is fully built out, we can start to build north connecting to the bottom of midtown. I love the development we have going on across the city, I just wish it was more centralized. Atlanta has benefits the older cities up north don't have, but urban living is not one of them sadly. Making sure development is centralized is the only way we will ever come close to having a dense urban core comparable to DC or NYC. This probably has zero chance of happening this way, but I can dream can't I.

I still prefer to live in Atlanta to NYC or DC due to better weather and lower cost of living. Atlanta did not have the luxury of growing before the auto age and must deconstruct a lot of past planning mistakes. I like the general direction Atlanta is headed with GSU and the State Govt cleaning up Downtown, and new apartments construction in Midtown and Buckhead. It would be great to see multi-modal transportation pushed more, especially biking and rail (TSPLOST). The eastside trail will make a huge impact when it opens this summer. I cannot wait to bike from Piedmont Park to Decatur without having to fear for my life most of the way.

[Slog]

Originally Posted by DPC

I agree. Downtown is our most densely developed area in the city. Midtown is wonderful, but it's creation and momentum has actually hurt downtown's full buildout in my opinion. When I visited DC, I was blown away at the sheer size of their downtown. The craziest thing is, even with a downtown that size, there wasn't an open lot in sight. No surface parking lots either. They don't even have parking garages. All the parking was underground. They barely have any single family homes in the whole city. The craziest thing was, there were cranes everywhere which is mind blowing considering their downtown is probably five times the size of downtown Atlanta. I know Atlanta will never have anything comparable to DC or NYC, but we can improve on what we do have.

Honestly, we don't have the land to build a downtown even a quarter the size of DC without destroying entire neighborhoods. We can however build infill development on the open lots and the fringes of our downtown. Once downtown is fully built out, we can start to build north connecting to the bottom of midtown. I love the development we have going on across the city, I just wish it was more centralized. Atlanta has benefits the older cities up north don't have, but urban living is not one of them sadly. Making sure development is centralized is the only way we will ever come close to having a dense urban core comparable to DC or NYC. This probably has zero chance of happening this way, but I can dream can't I.

DC is a whole different situation. They have really good job growth numbers and can support that kind of growth and development. Plus, they are in an apartment boom(or bubble...). Their projected pipeline is INSANE. Get ready to see a lot more cranes popping up. Regarding underground parking, unlike Atlanta, they can justify the cost because the cost of living is so high there (higher rents, prices, etc). Atlanta won't have underground parking for a very very long time.

And I somewhat disagree on your points about hoping things were centralized. Atlanta has the footprint of being an amazing city. Just think 40-50 years from now...A connected and very linear/dense core that goes from Downtown to Midtown to Buckheadwith great neighborhoods on the side (Inman, homepark, Ansley,Collier Hills, etc.) The next 10 years will be huge for Atlanta. I am hoping for some growth in the Gulch area and more infill will occur between downtown and Midtown. Buckhead's density can only go south toward Midtown

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by ATLaffinity

I don't know. I find downtown dreary and low-rent. The theater, museum and Symphony are all in Midtown.

I'd love for Downtown to improve but it seems less livable than Midtown right now. Things like Philips Arena and Turner Park don't even seem connected to downtown at all.

That said, I have a lot of issues with Midtown, namely surface lots and lack of greenspace.

I guess we just have differing opinions then...I love the historic fabric of downtown and find it very interesting and quite liveable (if you like urban living). The arenas are a huge part of downtown and not at all disconnected, so I'm not sure of your logic there. With a population of +-25,000, downtown isn't far behind Midtown, and GSU adds a lot of pedestrian activity. I would never write off the core of the city just because it needs some TLC and will always support our downtown...if you really take a more intimate look at the area it's probably much better than you imagine.

I agree with the other responses about greenspace in Midtown. Besides Piedmont Park and Central Park, there are several very nice park spaces in the Ansley neighborhood as well as a golf course; Georgia Tech campus; several smaller parks in the Morningside/Lenox Park neighborhoods; and the beautiful green neighborhoods themselves (Ansley, Historic Midtown, Morningside, Piedmont Heights, etc.). I see a wealth of greenspace in Midtown.

[DPC]

Originally Posted by Slog

DC is a whole different situation. They have really good job growth numbers and can support that kind of growth and development. Plus, they are in an apartment boom(or bubble...). Their projected pipeline is INSANE. Get ready to see a lot more cranes popping up. Regarding underground parking, unlike Atlanta, they can justify the cost because the cost of living is so high there (higher rents, prices, etc). Atlanta won't have underground parking for a very very long time.

And I somewhat disagree on your points about hoping things were centralized. Atlanta has the footprint of being an amazing city. Just think 40-50 years from now...A connected and very linear/dense core that goes from Downtown to Midtown to Buckheadwith great neighborhoods on the side (Inman, homepark, Ansley,Collier Hills, etc.) The next 10 years will be huge for Atlanta. I am hoping for some growth in the Gulch area and more infill will occur between downtown and Midtown. Buckhead's density can only go south toward Midtown

The problem is, 40-50 years from now, I will be too old to enjoy it. What about the near future? I think from an urban core perspective, if development is not focused in downtown and expanded outward by overflow, we will not achieve a high density core. Downtown is the only area where the buildings come right up to the street. I agree, downtown DC is a different animal. The comparison is not really fair. I like the urban improvements Atlanta is making. Atlanta is going to get better and better over the next couple years.

[RudyJK]

Originally Posted by DPC

I agree. Downtown is our most densely developed area in the city. Midtown is wonderful, but it's creation and momentum has actually hurt downtown's full buildout in my opinion. When I visited DC, I was blown away at the sheer size of their downtown. The craziest thing is, even with a downtown that size, there wasn't an open lot in sight. No surface parking lots either. They don't even have parking garages. All the parking was underground. They barely have any single family homes in the whole city. The craziest thing was, there were cranes everywhere which is mind blowing considering their downtown is probably five times the size of downtown Atlanta. I know Atlanta will never have anything comparable to DC or NYC, but we can improve on what we do have.

Honestly, we don't have the land to build a downtown even a quarter the size of DC without destroying entire neighborhoods. We can however build infill development on the open lots and the fringes of our downtown. Once downtown is fully built out, we can start to build north connecting to the bottom of midtown. I love the development we have going on across the city, I just wish it was more centralized. Atlanta has benefits the older cities up north don't have, but urban living is not one of them sadly. Making sure development is centralized is the only way we will ever come close to having a dense urban core comparable to DC or NYC. This probably has zero chance of happening this way, but I can dream can't I.

There were cranes everywhere in DC because that city is the beneficiary of an expanding federal bureaucracy and the largesse of the US taxpayer. Don't forget those minor details.

[smArTaLlone]

Originally Posted by Slog

DC is a whole different situation. They have really good job growth numbers and can support that kind of growth and development. Plus, they are in an apartment boom(or bubble...). Their projected pipeline is INSANE. Get ready to see a lot more cranes popping up. Regarding underground parking, unlike Atlanta, they can justify the cost because the cost of living is so high there (higher rents, prices, etc). Atlanta won't have underground parking for a very very long time.

The differences between DC and Atlanta, as mentioned in the Atlantic article, have more to do with when the majority of the cities were built than the current economic reality.


"Older cities are inherently compact and walkable because no one was driving anywhere when they were built."

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

The differences between DC and Atlanta, as mentioned in the Atlantic article, have more to do with when the majority of the cities were built than the current economic reality.


"Older cities are inherently compact and walkable because no one was driving anywhere when they were built."

That is exactly why downtown Atlanta is "inherently compact and walkable"...because it was built before people were driving.

[testarossa50]

DC's cap on building height also plays a big role in why underground parking is so prevalent there--space is limited in three dimensions, rather than two, so going underground is the only way to get more real estate. Of course, there are a lot of horrible consequences of having building that low of a height cap (it drives housing and real estate prices skywards, which is very bad for lower income folks), but it does have certain positive effects on urban environments.

[ATLaffinity]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I agree with the other responses about greenspace in Midtown. Besides Piedmont Park and Central Park, there are several very nice park spaces in the Ansley neighborhood as well as a golf course; Georgia Tech campus; several smaller parks in the Morningside/Lenox Park neighborhoods; and the beautiful green neighborhoods themselves (Ansley, Historic Midtown, Morningside, Piedmont Heights, etc.). I see a wealth of greenspace in Midtown.

Those neighborhoods aren't Midtown. Piedmont Park is wonderful. I live in Midtown and don't have a park within 1.5 miles of me. So it looks different to me than to someone who sees Piedmont Park on a map. Some pocket parks would go a long way towards making Midtown a place for both singles and families.

As far as downtown, I guess I'm not thinking Castleberry or Centennial area. I suppose the Underground area is what pops into my mind and colors my opinion.

[testarossa50]

Why don't green areas around office buildings count for anything? For instance, at West Peachtree and 14th, Peachtree and 5th, in front of the Fed, etc. They are required by zoning (when building massive towers, you need a certain percentage of the property to be open space) and open to the public. For all intents and purposes, they are parks to me.

I would also consider the parks in Ansley Park an asset to Midtown--they are just a couple blocks from some major condo and office towers.

Parks and greenspace are actually a big part of the reason I chose Midtown over Downtown. Downtown does really have the concrete jungle feel in many places. Midtown doesn't have it whatsoever, and the zoning prevents that from ever being the case.


Now, I would certainly support the addition of some pocket parks, particularly on land that isn't readily developable and has poor vehicle access.

[DPC]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

DC's cap on building height also plays a big role in why underground parking is so prevalent there--space is limited in three dimensions, rather than two, so going underground is the only way to get more real estate. Of course, there are a lot of horrible consequences of having building that low of a height cap (it drives housing and real estate prices skywards, which is very bad for lower income folks), but it does have certain positive effects on urban environments.

That is a very good point. I have been thinking about a better apples to apples comparison in relation to Atlanta. Like many others have said, it's not fair to compare DC to Atlanta since DC was developed during a time when the car was not king. It's the reason cities like DC and NYC are completely different animals. I do think I have a better comparison that is apples to apples though.

When I was visiting with my friends in DC, we spent sometime in an area just outside DC called the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. My friends told me it was built after the metro came through in the 1970s. Its design is very similar to our downtown-midtown strip. It is built around 5 metro stops and also has lower density neighborhoods on either side making the built environment very narrow but very long as well. The metro stops remind me of our marta strip from downtown Five Points Station - Arts Center Station in midtown but on a smaller scale. This Rosslyn-Ballston corridor was however denser than ours and more walkable in my opinion. I think it could prove to be a model for what we could accomplish since both were built during the automobile age if we concentrate development.

Some barriers we can't overcome are that our stations are a lot farther apart than the metro stops were on the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor dropping our walkability a bit. Also, the interstate cutting off downtown from midtown is a huge barrier. We can't do anything about those things but other than that, we can achieve the same continuous walkable strip. Our goal should be to develop the closest vacant lots to our marta stations first and then work our way out. That is the only way we will achieve a dense core. It may be narrow, but it would be a start in developing a walkable core that won't take 40 years to achieve. There has never really been a push to develop as close to marta stops as possible and work our way out. That is the biggest issue. If developers were actually trying to achieve this, I believe we would have a connected strip already. Development is however spread so far in Midtown that it leaves gapping holes around our marta stops. It may be wishful thinking on my part, but every movement starts with an idea.

[delarosa]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

Why don't green areas around office buildings count for anything? For instance, at West Peachtree and 14th, Peachtree and 5th, in front of the Fed, etc. They are required by zoning (when building massive towers, you need a certain percentage of the property to be open space) and open to the public. For all intents and purposes, they are parks to me.

Maybe not too interesting parks...or lawns...but think the difference in many cases is usability. For example, I've been accosted by security at one of these buildings for laying down for a moment on a bench...and I even worked in the building. Apparently it was against policy to lay on a bench (no joke..that's actually what I was told).

[scania]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

I would also consider the parks in Ansley Park an asset to Midtown--they are just a couple blocks from some major condo and office towers.

Parks and greenspace are actually a big part of the reason I chose Midtown over Downtown. Downtown does really have the concrete jungle feel in many places. Midtown doesn't have it whatsoever, and the zoning prevents that from ever being the case.


Now, I would certainly support the addition of some pocket parks, particularly on land that isn't readily developable and has poor vehicle access.

That's kind of unrealistic. I'm not sure where you live in Midtown, but living at Plaza Midtown, I nor anyone else living in the vicinity of PM, would walk to Ansley Park. That being said, the way the grid is setup, there isn't a large area where residents live, that would walk to Piedmont Park and or Ansley Park. If one was to live in Downtown they would use their cars, just like people living in Downtown or Buckhead for that matter.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by DPC

Midtown is wonderful, but it's creation and momentum has actually hurt downtown's full buildout in my opinion. When I visited DC, I was blown away at the sheer size of their downtown. The craziest thing is, even with a downtown that size, there wasn't an open lot in sight. No surface parking lots either. They don't even have parking garages. All the parking was underground. They barely have any single family homes in the whole city.

Downtown DC is almost entirely office space and hotels. You won't find much residential there, so actually in reality there isn't a classic mix of uses in downtown DC. If you head west towards the circles or north or across the Potomac, you will find a better mix of uses, which in my opinion differentiates truly 24-7 areas from vertical office parks. If there were no tourists in DC, then its downtown would be a lot quieter than what it in fact is. Also, the convention center is not very centralized and is in an "up and coming" area with a lot of new construction, but also a ton of vacant lots.


If you were to travel straight from DC to Boston or Chicago, you would notice a difference in true urbanity. DC still has a ways to go.

Also, downtown Atlanta was doomed for a while just as every downtown outside of the largest 5 were doomed for a couple of generations. It's fortunate we didn't do as my hometown did and just completely raze downtown, and it is still there, on its way back.

Having Midtown nearby is a plus for downtown. The Downtown-Buckhead spine creates a momentous "path of progress", with downtown at the south end immediately adjacent to arguably the hottest RE market in the city right now: Midtown. It will benefit just from the adjacency, but if it were completely isolated and it were a choice between Buckhead and Downtown with the no-man's land in between, downtown would suffer IMMENSELY while Buckhead would literally take everything and everyone.

Having Midtown as an anchor for young professionals and urbanites since the 80s has arguably led to the rebirth of the other intown neighborhoods surrounding Midtown AND downtown, and downtown is and will ultimately benefit.

I used to think AS detracted from retail potential in Midtown, but in all reality it doesn't at all. Midtown has to evolve separately as a true urban 24-7 destination with foot traffic for retail to come. AS is essentially a mall and is entirely different.

Originally Posted by Slog

Regarding underground parking, unlike Atlanta, they can justify the cost because the cost of living is so high there (higher rents, prices, etc). Atlanta won't have underground parking for a very very long time.

And I somewhat disagree on your points about hoping things were centralized. Atlanta has the footprint of being an amazing city. Just think 40-50 years from now...A connected and very linear/dense core that goes from Downtown to Midtown to Buckheadwith great neighborhoods on the side (Inman, homepark, Ansley,Collier Hills, etc.) The next 10 years will be huge for Atlanta. I am hoping for some growth in the Gulch area and more infill will occur between downtown and Midtown. Buckhead's density can only go south toward Midtown

You're right in that sky-high rents can pretty much justify anything in DC, but another difference between DC and Atlanta is that much of Atlanta sits atop really hard granite and DC sits atop what was a swamp. Rents are much higher there, but the cost to build underground is lower. Atlanta would have to be even more expensive with even tighter barriers to entry to justify underground parking like DC has.

I do agree that the next 10 years will be huge for Atlanta. Huge. I hope.

[DPC]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Downtown DC is almost entirely office space and hotels. You won't find much residential there, so actually in reality there isn't a classic mix of uses in downtown DC. If you head west towards the circles or north or across the Potomac, you will find a better mix of uses, which in my opinion differentiates truly 24-7 areas from vertical office parks. If there were no tourists in DC, then its downtown would be a lot quieter than what it in fact is. Also, the convention center is not very centralized and is in an "up and coming" area with a lot of new construction, but also a ton of vacant lots.


If you were to travel straight from DC to Boston or Chicago, you would notice a difference in true urbanity. DC still has a ways to go.

Also, downtown Atlanta was doomed for a while just as every downtown outside of the largest 5 were doomed for a couple of generations. It's fortunate we didn't do as my hometown did and just completely raze downtown, and it is still there, on its way back.

Having Midtown nearby is a plus for downtown. The Downtown-Buckhead spine creates a momentous "path of progress", with downtown at the south end immediately adjacent to arguably the hottest RE market in the city right now: Midtown. It will benefit just from the adjacency, but if it were completely isolated and it were a choice between Buckhead and Downtown with the no-man's land in between, downtown would suffer IMMENSELY while Buckhead would literally take everything and everyone.

Having Midtown as an anchor for young professionals and urbanites since the 80s has arguably led to the rebirth of the other intown neighborhoods surrounding Midtown AND downtown, and downtown is and will ultimately benefit.

I used to think AS detracted from retail potential in Midtown, but in all reality it doesn't at all. Midtown has to evolve separately as a true urban 24-7 destination with foot traffic for retail to come. AS is essentially a mall and is entirely different.



You're right in that sky-high rents can pretty much justify anything in DC, but another difference between DC and Atlanta is that much of Atlanta sits atop really hard granite and DC sits atop what was a swamp. Rents are much higher there, but the cost to build underground is lower. Atlanta would have to be even more expensive with even tighter barriers to entry to justify underground parking like DC has.

I do agree that the next 10 years will be huge for Atlanta. Huge. I hope.

Which part of downtown DC are you referring too? I have three friends that live in different parts of downtown DC and their neighborhoods were very mixed use at least from what I experienced. One of my friends lives in an area called Penn Quarter or Mt. Vernon Triangle, I can't remember which one but his neighborhood had tons of residential buildings and an area that looked like times square with huge video screens and hundreds of people on the street all day and well into the night called Gallery Place. My other friend lives in an area called Logan Circle which also had tons of residential high rises and offices with tons of restaurants. The third friend I have in DC lives in DuPont Circle which also had a ton of residential high rises as well as offices and tons of restaurants. What part of downtown DC were you talking about? It was so large, I'm sure there are other areas that are dead. The place felt like it never ended.

I have been to Boston and it was very urban and dense, but their downtown was very small in area. It felt like it stopped before it started. I feel like when traveling through downtown Boston, Im in backbay before I know it and then I'm at the river. It's very dense but it's very small also. I have also been to Chicago and it is definitely a huge city. The downtown felt like a thin strip similar to ours though. It was extremely long, but it was narrow like ours. The only places I have been that give me that massive downtown feel that goes on forever in all directions has been Manhattan and DC. I just visited DC so I tried to compare DC and Atlanta because they are close in size at least in Metro population. They are built very different though so the comparison is not fair.

I agree with you about Midtown. That is reality. I just wonder why developers in Atlanta aren't attracted to very urban areas like downtown. Midtown is suburban compared to the other cities we have been discussing so I just felt that the only way we will ever get an urban core without surface lots as large and wide as NYC or DC is too develop from downtown up. The demand isn't there apparently so it's a mute point I guess.

You have a ton of great information so keep up the good work!

[scania]

IMO, I think that mainly because of tourists and conventioneers, downtown is the closest we have now to 24/7 atmosphere. When the development and marketing are in sync our downtown can really be an awesome 24/7 district. Now we have so many things split up. We have great shopping mainly in Buckhead, and some of the shopping is in AS. We have a lot of hit and miss restaurants in Midtown, and somewhat Buckhead. Then there are all tourists people who are downtown walking with nothing to do, but a few restaurants and Centennial Park. I am mainly talking about at night. But you all really should visit San Francisco, as well NY. I personally don't think DC is that great in comparison to the other two cities.