Planned 22-story apartment highrise on track to break ground this fall at 12th & Midtown

77 12th Street ~ what now atlanta
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Gmail
Lobby Rendering | Photo courtesy of Rule Joy Trammell + Rubio

Developers file ‘land development’ permit for 77 12th Street Apartments.

UPDATE (Nov. 29, 2011): 12th & Midtown owners spending $40 million on phase 4

Sign up now to get our Daily Breaking News Alerts

Opt out at anytime

Several upscale apartment buildings are being constructed simultaneously in the heart of Midtown.

The developers of 12th & Midtown are moving forward with plans to add a fourth high-rise to their upscale project called 77 12th Street. Daniel Corporation and Selig Enterprises filed a permit Thursday to develop the land for their 22-story apartment tower at 12th Street and Crescent Avenue.

The estimated cost to develop the land for the mixed-use project is $4,700,000.00, according to the permit.

77 12th street should break ground this fall, according to Steve Baile, senior vice president at Daniel Corporation. It should be built by quarter one, 2013.

Novare Group is also constructing an apartment highrise in Midtown.

The developer of mixed-use highrise communities in southeastern urban markets filed a permit earlier this month to construct a 12-story luxury apartment tower called Sky House. The apartment highrise will be built at 1120 West Peachtree Street.

 

Caleb J. Spivak

Caleb J. Spivak

Caleb J. Spivak

Caleb J. Spivak

43 Responses

  1. Is there really enough yuppie fodder in Atlanta to support all these new complexes? There’s not that many high-end jobs opening up here it seems, and most of those with such jobs already prefer suburban life.

  2. Mikage. Many new college graduates are preferring to live in the city. I’m graduating this year and the majority of the people I know are planning on staying in the city even if they have a job in the suburbs.

  3. Amusing. Lots of college grads have been locating in the city for fifteen years. There’s still lots of housing available, and it’s affordable. Job growth isn’t supporting new development. Wonder who’s financing the deal. Are they crazy or just sucking in investors that don’t have a clue.

  4. Actually CIndy, there are NOT a lot of APARTMENTS available… condos yes, but apartments NO. This city needs more urban apartments and less condos. College grads like myself do not want to buy a condo or a house anytime soon. For those of us that want to live in “the city”, there are not as many urban apartments to choose from as you think.

  5. @ Cindy – Lots of college grads have been coming to the city, but an equal or greater amount of young professionals have been moving out, so as far as that demographic is concerned, your growth is pretty static. There is tons of housing available (but not a lot of rental). Some of the mass supply of spec housing has gone rental, but a lot has not.

    Job growth in Atlanta is poor, you’re right. I think a big reason for that is because when new companies look to where they want to locate, Atlanta is no longer that appealing. It’s still relatively affordable, and there’s still a lot of vacant office space up for grabs, but the city itself isn’t really a big draw for talent anymore. This is so, because I think for the young, innovate, and energetic, they don’t see Atlanta as a good destination for their careers or their lives. You have to remember that 22 something’s want to work hard, get paid well, party hard, and be amongst a lot of new/interesting people. Atlanta doesn’t really offer that like other cities do.

    I think Atlanta had an opportunity maybe 10 – 15 years, to really become a major urban force, but it totally squandered it. People (and companies) starting looking at Atlanta as a destination with good job growth and a lot of opportunity. Instead of corralling that interest and opportunity and bringing it into the city, to use it as a platform for growth, the city let those people and employers spread out. So, instead of having a well connected city full of employers, people, residents, talent, intelligence, and energy, you have a huge swath of land sparsely populated with isolated homes and employers. That’s simply not the environment that a lot of the young, ambitious, and energetic are looking for.

    Bringing people into the city – like apartments do – will foster good urban growth, and hopefully start to draw more young people in. It’ll take a lot of new thinking, and time to make it happen though…

  6. Urbanist, all you have to do is look at the census data to realize your statements about young people moving out is completely false. The areas of the city that lost people were mostly in South and West Atlanta. Other parts of the city like Midtown, Virginia Highland, Inman Park, Buckhead etc where young professionals tend to congregate have added people over the 10 year period. Young, educated people aren’t living in South and West Atlanta, but in the areas of the city that continue to grow. Just because the net population of the city was only 3,000 or so according to the census doesn’t mean young, educated people are leaving… it means poor, uneducated people are.

    I also don’t agree with you at all. Atlanta is the best place for young, educated people IN THE SOUTH. Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Birmingham are not that appealing at all unless you have 5 kids and love to go to church. You think Atlanta’s time has passed, but I couldn’t disagree more… the city finally has the critical mass it needs to move it in the right direction and there is a lot more awareness now to fix what we did wrong in the past. It’s pretty obvious that momentum continues to build and I think there’s enough exciting things happening here in the near future that will help attract more young, educated people here.

  7. And before you snap back at me Urbanist, I want to mention that I do agree with you in that instead of spreading jobs out everywhere (like the Perimeter and Cumberland), these could have been in Midtown and Downtown in a more centralized area. All we can do now is continue to do streetscape projects, incentives, etc to make these areas more attractive in the future.

  8. How many major law firms are located in Midtown? How many of Atlanta metro areas top 10 law firms are located in Midtown? Urbanist, do you have any idea about what has happened to the population of Midtown in the last 10 years? I remember one month ago you said midtown only added 3,000 people in the last ten tears. Are you still forming your ideas under that idea?

    As a young 20-something, there are a lot of young 20-somethings coming from all over (especially the south) that love what Atlanta has to offer. I dont know why you think you are qualified to speak about how much Atlanta appeals to young 20-somethings (well I do, because you think you are qualified to speak about anything).

    From what I understand, it is fairly easy to rent the limited amount of rentable condo units in Midtown. So I expect these apartment buildings won’t have much of a problem filling up…

  9. @ Mike, I understand that population has been “re-allocated” from some areas to others. I’m also not saying that certain neighborhoods (like VaHi, etc.) haven’t added people. They have, just at an anemic pace, which doesn’t bode well for the future of our city – particularly when you compare the urban growth to the suburban growth in our metro area.

    What you have is this kind of anti-gravity pull, where the force gets stronger the more sparse and spread out it gets. People moved to the metro area at an alarming pace over the past 10 years. There was a trickle of growth in the city, and that shows in the way this city interacts. Walk around Midtown Atlanta on the weekends, and it’s a foot-traffic ghost town compared to what it should be.

    Atlanta is not the best place for young people in the South – Dallas is, and it’s proved it by taking a lot of jobs from Atlanta, attracting a lot of employers that Atlanta was vying over, etc. Perhaps Dallas is the new Atlanta. If they are, I hope they manage it better than we did, for their sake.

    I don’t think Atlanta has a critical mass either. In order to grow into a real city, you need a critical mass that makes you a dense and definitive urban center. Atlanta doesn’t have that, and the best evidence of that is our complete lack of foot traffic in this city. If Atlanta was accessible as a city, people wouldn’t feel compelled to drive….everywhere. I don’t know what the tipping point is, but perhaps these two new residential towers will be it. Perhaps we need 10 new residential towers. One thing is for certain though – we need A LOT more density, a lot less parking, a lot more public transport support, and a much more pedestrian friendly city.

    I think the best approach for this city’s growth, if you’re actually serious about growing the city, and not playing politics is (i) Dense mixed use development (which would require a loosening of zoning regulations) – above existing structures via air rights, on empty lots, absent of any new parking (unless it’s entirely hidden from the street), etc., (ii) the inclusion of new developers and architects, other than the typical boring cast of few that build stuff here, (iii) a congestion tax for everyone who commutes into the city from the suburbs, (iv) incentives (tax breaks, subsidized rents, etc.) for corporate tenants to relocate into the city, (v) the development of new public transport (preferably rail) along heavily populated/trafficked in-town corridors (Ponce, Howell Mill/Westisde, Atlantic Station, etc.).

    @ DBag – First, it’s good you live up to your name. Second, “metro area” top 10 law firm doesn’t mean anything. The best “metro area” furniture store was Ikea. Midtown is littered with law firms. That means that a lot of the employment base in Midtown works similar hours, does similar things, and thinks in a similar way – sounds like a little suburban enclave in the city. Great.

    I can tell you that the people who are serious about the careers and social lives, and want to do something better than be a “metro area” best aren’t looking to Atlanta anymore. They’re looking to DC, Dallas, etc.

    You also understand wrong about the condos. Condo buildings only allow 20-25% of their units to be leased, and there are hefty waiting lists at a lot of the condos for residents to lease their units. It’s not easy. Further, because so many of the buildings were built by Novare, and got the cookie cutter Novare job, buildings that should be great residences (Viewpoint, Metropolis, Spire, etc.) all look the same, and look like crap. Many of these condo’s bathrooms (that haven’t been re-done by the owners) are worse than the apartments I lived in, during college (no joke). I think the Atlantic is the only exception in Novare’s portfolio.

  10. “You also understand wrong about the condos. Condo buildings only allow 20-25% of their units to be leased, ”

    Thanks, thats why I said that there is a “limited amount of rentable condo units in Midtown.” As in, only a limited amount of condo units in Midtown can be rented. Because yes, I know, only a limited amount of the condo units in Midtown are rentable. Of all the condo units in Midtown, there are only a limited amount of them that can be rented. Which is exactly why I said there are a “limited amount of rentable condo units in Midtown.” And they are fairly easy to rent, like, you know, they don’t usually sit vacant for a long time. Which is why I anticipate these apartment units won’t have a problem being rented.

    Thanks for going off on the unrelated tangent of how having a lot of law firms makes it a “suburban enclave in the city,” or whatever you wanted to say. This isn’t about mixed income apartments, or section 8 apartments, it is about a upscale apartments. And, yes, a lot of people living in these units will be people working in the law firms in Midtown, especially recent law grads with decent income, who got a job at one of the big law firms, and dont want to buy but want to live close to work .

    And thanks for saying again that young 20-somethings don’t want to live in Atlanta. Say it two more times and it will become true. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/the-best-and-worst-cities_n_555901.html (And no, i dont trust these stupid lists but I trust them a lot more than you. Go re-read the thread where you swore Midtown population only increased by 3,000 people in the last 15 years).

  11. Urbanist, I live in Midtown and it is far from a ghost town, even on the weekends. It’s not Midtown Manhattan foot traffic, but it’s not dead either. It’s hard to take you seriously when you say things like “Midtown is a ghost town”. I really question why you even live here? And are you oblivious to every positive thing happening here? Or do you just focus on everything negative in life?

    I really don’t know how many times it needs to be said, but the ghetto of Atlanta lost people and the rest of the city added people, particularly “young professionals”. Foot traffic in Midtown has been increasing, not decreasing. I think the next growth cycle will be in the city’s favor as more people are choosing to move in-town. And Dallas isn’t technically “the South”, but I could care less about how many low wage jobs Dallas and Texas are adding because I would NEVER ever live there, even if I got an awesome job opportunity there (and no, I’m not even an Atlanta native… I’m from NYC and Texas scares me more than Georgia).

    Atlanta has a lot more potential than Dallas with A LOT more foot traffic and pedestrian friendly areas. Want to talk about a foot traffic ghost town? Go to Dallas! As someone who is interested in urban development, I’m surprised you think Atlanta should follow in Dallas’s footsteps. Despite them building a large light rail system, it still carries less people than MARTA rail.

  12. @ Mike, I live in midtown too. Compared to what it should be, it’s a ghost town. I’m not saying it is, because nobody lives there; I don’t think that’s the case. I’m saying it is, because the people that could be walking choose to drive. I believe they do that, because Atlanta is not an enjoyably walkable place. And before anyone posts some survey that deems Atlanta one of the most walkable cities – save your time. There is a ton of dead space, and not a lot of foot traffic (save for when there’s a big festival), that makes walking feel onerous, not interesting.

    I get it. The ghetto lost people, the better areas gained people. I get it, there’s been an increase (a minor one) in the young professional population. However, there’s been a massive increase in the suburban population, which undermines Atlanta’s capability to become a truly vibrant city. And now, as other cities become more attractive places to live, Atlanta struggles with the fact that over 0% of it’s “population” lives upwards of 40 miles away form the city. How can you argue that a structure like that isn’t going to destroy the capability to grow as an urban center?

    I never said Atlanta should follow Dallas’ footsteps. I don’t think Atlanta should follow anyone’s footsteps. That doesn’t mean I think they should continue doing what they’re doing – allowing the continuous development of car-centric developments in town, expanding public transportation on the suburban fringes, but not within the city, etc.

    I have said it many times before – I think the city of Atlanta has tremendous potential, but they have to start making some right (and non-politically motivated) decisions. The world’s busiest airport is here, there’s a relatively well educated population in the city here, the climate is great, and within the city, there’s a relatively open canvas to create on. But I keep seeing so many opportunities wasted. So, it looks to me like Atlanta is making the same mistakes it made 10-15 years ago, when there was really an influx of people coming in, and jobs were being added at a really impressive pace. Eventually those are going to catch up with you, and really do some damage.

  13. I agree with Urbanist here. But it all depends on where you come from. For the South, it’s still good compared with the Macon’s and Columbus of the world. Most people I know are looking to leave Atlanta when the time is right for them.

    And We all know what happens to apartments here. Midtown is sealing it’s long term fate.

  14. Urbanist’s posts always remind me of the famous quote:

    “There are some people who knock the pyramids because they don’t have elevators.”

  15. does anyone know what it going in the space next to half moon outfitters in vahi? i see the brown paper up on the windows so i assume someone’s getting ready to move in. thanks.

  16. Urbanist us right about the poorly planned development and Novare’s awful architecture. These rental properties will be very very good fir midtown. The other MAJOR problem with midtown is the pine street shelter which houses 700 (that’s right, 700) men. Many of them are aggressive panhandlers and a significant proportion comity property crime. The other problem is George Rhorig’s awful parking lot on the corner of 6th and Peachtree.

  17. @ Terry – I don’t disagree with your assessment, re: homeless shelter. However, I think with proper development surrounding things like shelter’s they have a considerably smaller impact on the area. The simple reason is that, as a place becomes more and more populated with people who live/work in an area, there are more people that are less tolerant of any bad behaviour. There are plenty of shelters in more heavily developed cities that go almost unnoticed to the passing eye.

    Your second point is a perfect example of one of the first steps towards moving in the right direction – i.e. getting rid of the dead space in our city (which is more often than not a parking lot).

    There are a lot of interested parties, who would love to develop in-town land – that is in addition to Novare, Daniel, etc. The city could create public/private partnerships to bring in smaller developers, with different/better architects, and a new/interesting vision of development for the city. This would likely require the city modifying zoning codes to allow for greater density, and lessen parking requirements.

    One of the ways I see this being done is by having the city re-purchase land from the lot owners, then turn around and sell it to new developers, with a “must build within XX days” covenant. The city would likely lose a little money on the sale of the land, but that’s clearly an investment in future tax revenue and urban growth that they would make. The other thing the city could/should do simultaneously is offer tax incentives & abatements to corporations for relocating out of the suburbs and into the city, or by starting a new office with at least “x” number of employees, in the city.

    How to finance this? First by a congestion tax on commuters. Second, by implementing a small city sales tax (say 0.125% – 0.25%), on goods within the city, if needed.

  18. “This would likely require the city modifying zoning codes to allow for greater density, and lessen parking requirements. ”

    First, residential buildings in Midtown have no minimum parking requirements. You can build a condo tower in Midtown with zero parking. In fact, the parking regulations in Midtown residential dictate MAXIMUM parking allowed– that is, you can only have one space per bedroom. So I dont know what exactly you mean by “lessen parking requirements” when the requirement is zero, but maybe thats why you are the expert.

    What kind of density increases do you suggest the city implements? Do you know what kind of densities the current zoning calls for? Most of midtown is already zoned for the highest densities allowable (decreasing slightly as you get toward the park, and then sharply along the park). Maybe you mean easing setback restrictions? But I think most people like the setbacks, but at least its a suggestion.

    Surface parking lots have been banned from new Midtown developments for years, and parking decks are required to maintain an aesthetic rigidly similar to the building itself. Mixed-use ground-floor retail is required. Ironically, all this happened about 15years ago–before this mixed-use was not common in Atlanta– in the period that you say Midtown Atlanta ‘missed its opportunity’.

    A lot of the ‘dead space’ is because land owners dont want to sell their land, because they see it as an investment that will increase in value. When the economy is unstable, land holdings/real estate is a pretty strong invesment. Most landowners dont want to sell, unless you suggest the city pays significantly higher prices than market rate. What price do you suggest the city pays per square foot of land in Midtown? You’ll have all kinds of financing issues if you have a “must build within XX days” covenant. Does the city buy *any* parcel of land that any seller in midtown offers? What if the seller offers land that in itself is not sufficiently large enough to develop without neighboring properties? Your ‘suggestion’ has about 1000 things you need to think through and you will see the problems with it.

  19. First, I wasnt speaking in strictly residential terms. While I think residential is the most important need right now, not diversifying the types of development, as you’re adding density, would be a horrible idea. Thus the reason for needed easing on parking restrictions. Remember, this is big picture kind of ideas, not narrowly focused, restrictive thinking.

    Second, “most of midtown” – like I said density increases, particularly along the park, would be wise. Since you mentioned it, setback rules could certainly stand to be modified too. Setbacks are a horrible waste of space.

    Third, I never said anything about new surface lots, I suggested ways to get rid of the existing ones, and we all know there are a LOT of them.

    Fourth, you missed the point. When I said Atlanta missed it’s opportunity to capture the population growth in the metro atea over the past 10-15 years, and use it to create a real city, I was right. The fact that the city imposed a “required” ground floor retail rule, does nothing when it’s matched with the simultaneous pandering to the wants and desires of suburban communities. The fact that any new surface area lots were banned 15 years ago, yet the city remains littered with them, is more than enough proof.

    “when the economy is unstable, land/real estate is a strong investment”. Really? Perhaps you should re-think that, unless you’re too busy peddling that kind of crap to more poorly informed people than yourself (hard to believe).

  20. Urbanist, if you think selling high valued, undeveloped land right now is better than holding onto it and selling in 3-10-20 years more, well that’s why you dont own high-valued land in Midtown. Its a pretty safe long-term bet, especially against inflation. Hint: What happened to land prices in Midtown since the last recession and real-estate slump in the late 90’s/early00’s? What happened to land prices in Midtown in the last 25 years? You may think they are at their top, but a lot of people dont– you know, the people who actually bought the land and still hold onto it. And so far, they have been right.

    Density decreases as you approach the park. This was done intentionally because most Midtowner’s dont want 600 feet high rises along the park’s edge. If you disagree with this idea, fine, but it was well-planned with this in mind because most people wanted it that way. And, just FYI, the areas with ultra-high density zoning are not anymore developed (actually less so) than the areas zoned for less density closer to the park. So I don’t know how you can really argue that slightly decreased densities along the park are what is hindering development.

  21. “Third, I never said anything about new surface lots, I suggested ways to get rid of the existing ones, and we all know there are a LOT of them. ”

    Did you? Until surface lots or other underdeveloped housing/apartment units (1)stop making a monthly profit and (2) stop increasing in land value, then there is no reason for the owners of the surface lots to sell them. The only thing to do is either increase property taxes, so they are high enough that operating income doesn’t pay the taxes, or to have the city way overpay on market rate for the land.

    There are no parking requirements for residential. But condo developers still put parking– why? Because not many people would buy a condo without offstreet parking. You can extend this to non-residential. Even if you require 0 parking for office buildings, the developers will still put parking because, without it, no company would lease the offices. I dont know why you think ” parking restrictions” really hinder development.

    Atlanta is not New York. Atlanta is not New York. Atlanta is not New York.

  22. ““when the economy is unstable, land/real estate is a strong investment”. Really? Perhaps you should re-think that, unless you’re too busy peddling that kind of crap to more poorly informed people than yourself (hard to believe).”
    ——————-
    Thanks for the advice. So you’re saying I should have sold my land when I was offered 800,00 for it in 99? Or when I was offered 1.2 for it 4 years later (after the ‘slump’)? Or when I was offered 1.8 for it in 2006? Or the 2.2 that I still have on the table? (I paid $210,000).

  23. What I’d really like to know is why this and every other in-town development has to be “upscale?” Is it really any wonder why people choose to live in the suburbs when it costs half as much and you can be surrounded by grocery stores and drug stores instead of luxury furniture galleries and other ridiculous boutiques that you will never use?

    I know land is expensive, as is new development, but why are they still taking the luxury angle with all these buildings with the economy the way it is? Normal people need a place to live too. If Atlanta is ever going to become a “real city” as you imagine it should be, it needs to cater to EVERYONE, not just the upper class. Buckhead took the upper class angle and now it’s full of self-important douche bags who wear suits and work 100-hour power weeks.

    There has to be an apartment building in town that’s not either ghetto or an obscenely expensive Lifestyle Centre (TM), but if there is I haven’t found it yet. Maybe $1200/mo isn’t much for a big city, but it’s a dang lot of money for a studio apartment when for the same price you can get a 2 bedroom place that’s a 10 minute drive away, particularly when said studio apartment is surrounded by abandoned lots and blocks of parking garages. They build upscale this, luxury that, and boutiques out the ears, in the middle of an economy like this no less, and then everyone wonders why most people choose to live elsewhere. Just sayin’. I don’t know what these apartments will cost, but I’ll be shocked if they’re much less than $3/sq ft. The place I’m in now is a third of that but it’s very nice and convenient to everything. It’s a pretty obvious choice for most people, really.

  24. Actually let me expand on that a little to make my point a little more concise… this is a “mixed use” building, right? Do you think it’s going to have a Publix or a CVS? No, it’s going to have some fancy hair salon, a clothing store with 1 or 2 letters in its name, and some interior design gallery that sells $500 lamps. I imagine people will be paying $3 / sq ft to live in a walkable urban area and then hoofing it 15 blocks (past a dozen empty lots) to buy a loaf of bread or some Advil. Exaggeration intentional for effect. In my eyes that’s the problem with what Midtown is becoming: lots of lifestyle, lots of luxury, absolutely no conveniences. As far as I know there isn’t even a pet supply store anywhere in that entire area, and Piedmont Park has a dog park… there must be thousands of people living there with pets… what do you make of that?

  25. Agree 100% with Dr. Gibbs…

    I think a lot of this is growing pains. Midtown has seen incredible development in the last 20 years, but the problem is we have people who come from New York with no knowledge of how Midtown was in 1990 and who think that every single development site should be filled in one development cycle, and anything less is due to some grand failure by the city planners. In my opinion, in the long term, its better to have buildings built during a variety of times, so you get a ‘final product’ with a good variety of urban design ideas, building materials, price-ranges,etc.. If everything is built out in one cycle (which isn’t really possible anyway), then you get stuck with that suburban look where everything was built in the same 5 year period, all the architecture and building materials follow the same general trend, and in 15 years it will look extremely dated.

    An example is with the apartments. A lot of the ‘older’ (although none of the high-rises are truly ‘old’) not-so-luxury apartment units were converted to condos in the last cycle, and so there arent a lot of older apartment units that would be a bit cheaper than the newly built ‘luxury’ ones. Incentives for affordable housing is something I think both Urbanist and I agree on (though they already exist in some areas but are almost never used). I hope that as these buildings age, and the meaning of ‘luxury’ changes, and new apartment units are built, the relative price of these will drop a bit. (Although I suspect that a lot of these new apartment projects are being built with an eye on how to convert them to condo’s as soon as the market turns).

    I’ve been dying for those small convenient store combo places. There used to be a few around, in the underdeveloped lots that everyone hates so much, but as things got developed they disappear. I wonder what kind of rental prices per square foot these developers are charging retail tenants. Probably is too high, considering there are so many empty retail sites around. I also don’t know that Publix (or even CVS) would rent something without easy, direct parking access. But I hope that as the growth continues, especially as the off-Peachtree lots are developed, we will see some non-gourmet, non-luxury, normal stores pop-up.

  26. @Dr. Gibbs
    There are some everyday needs in Midtown. Not enough, but there is a Publix and a CVS. While there could be more everday type developments, there are a multitude of locations not far away that also offer them. Once Midtown hits a high enough density of people I am sure more will open. Both Publix and CVS have shown interests in urban developments as seen here and in other cities.

    @Urbanist
    Usually I am lock step with what you say but I will have to dissent in regards to the scale around Piedmont Park. The way at which the scale of the buildings steps down as it approaches the park works fantastic. The mix of single family and multi-family walk ups offers a break from the high rises while fostering a great human and pedestrian oriented scale. If the density were to be increased it would just create an urban wall of buildings around the park, making the park no longer a part of the urban fabric but an island. Washington Square Park in NYC and Fourth Ward park in Charlotte have done a fantastic job of this, preserving its lower scaled buildings around much of the park, giving it a much greater neighborhood feel. What could be improved is the width of Piedmont Rd. This would really help tie in the park to Midtown if the road wasnt so wide.

    Overall, Atlanta is leaps and bounds ahead of the other regional cities mentioned. Having moved here from Charlotte, a great deal of family in Nashville, and frequently done business in Dallas and Birmingham – Atlanta is a much more vibrant urban atmosphere. The cities listed also suffer from the exact same problems Atlanta does. Charlotte’s Tryon Street turns into Five Points once the sun goes down, Nashville’s downtown is not so friendly at night outside of the main strip, Birmingham rolls up its sidewalks at sundown, and Dallas’ crime and homelessness problem is just as bad if not worse.

    Atlanta has not missed its opportunity to become a “real city”, as one suggested, or even to make a great Midtown/Downtown. Rather Atlanta is in a great position to improve on all those elements. There is still enough land to be developed to warrant change once demand picks up. Car use is down, transit use is up feeding the desire for walkable areas – which Midtown is. Atlanta still has the flexibility in its urban core to expand and improve, and the historic elements to not become homogeneous. The same cannot be said for the other regional cities. Dallas, Birmingham and Nashville are mainly comprised of commercial and office zones and Charlotte’s downtown is no different than a suburb, just with tall buildings. As long as city leaders, developers, and people like us continue to engage in these conversations, there is no reason to say that Atlanta’s best is behind it, or that it missed out on any opportunities.

  27. Man great convo guys! This is what we need more of – intelligent ideas.

    As far as Midtown’s livability, I definitely agree that there’s been too much focus on “upscale”, “luxury”, blah blah blah marketing terms. I appreciate having unique shops for clothes and furniture, but there needs to be an equal mix of accessible, practical stores. Somewhere to pick up a gallon of milk, and it doesn’t have to be free trade, free range, shade grown, certified organic and $12. (I kid, of course)

    The Midtown Alliance realized this after they came to terms with the economy being in the shi**er for the long term, and tried to redefine their vision for the Midtown Mile (i.e. less bling, more value). The Daniel Corp. (12th and Midtown) fought back saying they were committed to the previous version of the Mile. And I think that’s where many developers stand – marketing practicality isn’t sexy enough, even if it is the new normal.

  28. @ Jabz: First, I didn’t argue that the densities along the park are the role reason development has been hindered. I think it has less to do with density, and more to do with the long term planning of the city over the past 10-15 years. However, I do think allowing for higher densities (where they don’t currently exist), reducing parking requirements, etc. will all help.

    Second, you’re entirely wrong about your assessment regarding surface lots. Under your premise, anyone who owns something that produces cash flow or increases in value would never sell. That’s clearly wrong on many levels. Yes, the city would probably have to pay a premium to market – which is what I said initially. This is what’s known as an investment in your city. Given the right price, there are plenty of sellers out there, and yes, the city would take a loss on the acquisition of the land, in order to spawn future growth, future tax revenue, and a better, stronger city.

    Third, you’re wrong about parking requirements for commercial space. Commercial businesses must have a certain number of parking spaces, per sf of space. I’ve been through that song and dance.

    @ Dr. Gibbs – I agree wholeheartedly. That’s part of the reason I think the city needs to find better partners than Novare, Daniel, etc. It adds to the aesthetic, to have a varying sample of architecture, and it adds allows developers who have a different discipline than “shitty construction stamped as fancy” to build in the city. I’ve advocated for more affordable (not Section 8) housing in the city for a long time.

    @BC – agree to disagree, re: density around the park. However, I fervently disagree with widening Piedmont. The wider the road, the more accommodating to cars, the less accommodating to pedestrians. If you did that, you would see a decrease in foot traffic around the park, which is the last thing the city needs.

  29. @Urbanist

    Sorry for the confusion. When I said the width could be improved I mean to make the street more narrow. There is no reason for Piedmont to be more than 2 lanes (I would love to see it down to 1 but I know thats not practical). And I see your point on the density, I just think it would be a shame to lose some of those more pedestrian scaled buildings to something done by say Novare. As far as I am concerned there has yet to be a developer that will produce a high rise building that incorporates a human scaled street level.

  30. “Third, you’re wrong about parking requirements for commercial space. Commercial businesses must have a certain number of parking spaces, per sf of space. I’ve been through that song and dance.”

    I said “even if you require 0 parking for office buildings, the developers will still put parking because, without it, no company would lease the offices.” “Even if” is the key word here. It doesnt mean thats how it is now. It means even if you changed it, it wouldnt matter in most cases.

  31. “Yes, the city would probably have to pay a premium to market – which is what I said initially. ”

    Actually, initially (maybe 4 months ago) you said the city would pay market rate, not a premium. We got in a discussion about what ‘market rate’ means (I pointed out the city would have to pay more than market rate to encourage sellers to sell, you disagreed) but it looks like you came around and agreed the city would have to pay a premium. Either way, what is the advantage to this buying land/selling at a loss instead of just paying developers directly a price per square foot (or price per unit) that they develop? It has the exact same affect of reducing development costs.

    “Second, you’re entirely wrong about your assessment regarding surface lots. Under your premise, anyone who owns something that produces cash flow or increases in value would never sell.”

    Exactly. If you own something that produces cash flow and increases in value, you have little motivation to sell. You wont *never sell*. Some people are old and want to retire. Some want another venture. Some need liquid assets to pay for another investment. But the motivation is fairly low. Ask Dewberry about that land at 10th/Peachtree.

  32. @ Jabz – Because I’m talking about trying to transform vacant lots into economically and socially useful buildings. If I’m a parking lot owner, and I know nothing about development, you can’t just pay me to develop. You have to buy my land from me, and put it in the hand of a developer. You’re effectively using a subsidy to get land in the hands of someone who wants/can/will develop it.

    Again, entirely incorrect. Real estate that produces cash flow, and increases in value is exchanged every day. The reason is simple: everyone has an exit price, otherwise known as
    F You money. Motivation is nothing more than a price, you just have to find it.

    I’m not serious about this, but a small part of me wishes the city would exercise eminent domain over every piece of undeveloped land that Dewberry owns. They are shitty owners/investors, as a number of their give-backs demonstrate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Search