The 13-acre mixed-use project owned by the Church at Wieuca in Buckhead came one step closer to reality on Tuesday when the Neighborhood Planning Unit-B reviewed the plans. The Zoning Review Board will now review the project either today, August 5th, or August 12th to give their decision on the rezoning case. The project’s developers, Greenstone Properties, are requesting that the property be rezoned from R-3 zoning to SA-1 zoning, to “allow a mixed-use development comprising office space, single-family and multifamily dwellings, and the expansion of some church facilities” according to the project rezoning application.
Developers submitted plans for the project in May which propose a 400-unit apartment tower and a 512,000 SF office building connected by a shared parking deck on the southern corner of the property, at the intersection of Peachtree and Wieuca. This would presumably mean the existing fellowship hall currently occupying that space would be demolished.
In addition to the towers, the project would also include 39 townhomes, 18 detached cottages, and two more parking decks to the existing parking garage that would provide more than 2,000 parking spaces, contributing to a net addition 2,351 spaces for the entire project. Finally, the church facilities would eventually also be expanded by 158,672 SF, mostly located just north of the existing sanctuary to accommodate expanded daycare and administrative facilities, connected to the existing parking garage via a pedestrian bridge.
The site plan also depicts significant changes to the transportation infrastructure surrounding the church and within it’s campus. Most notably, the project site plan depicts a roundabout replacing the current configuration at the intersection of Phillips Boulevard, Wieuca Road and Park Avenue. The improvements would also include a two-way shared-use path on the east side of Wieuca Road, 10-15ft sidewalks and the elimination of the northbound slip-lane between Peachtree Road and Wieuca Road. The project would also significantly reconfigure the campus interior circulation roads, and create new local roads and pedestrian connections to service the proposed townhomes and cottages.
3 Responses
Last year I sat through a big presentation from the city planning office about how the move away from single-family zoning was necessary to provide more affordable missing middle housing and I totally bought it…yet every rezoning request I have seen seems to be replacing single-family housing with high-density luxury units listed for millions of dollars. My neighborhood just fought off one of these false pretense rezoning requests. I encourage everyone to take a close look at every rezoning request impacting their neighborhood and fight off these cash grabs. And shame on the city for trying to sell us a false narrative. This is about lining pockets, not helping people. I was supportive of mixed use zoning and integrating missing middle into our SFH neighborhoods, but the reality is there is no intention of providing affordable missing middle housing – these new builds will just ensure property taxes skyrocket and those of us in single-family housing will be priced right out of our neighborhoods.
Looks like a thoughtful project that increases density and preserves some greenspace, so I would say this is a win. 18 units instead of 5 units regardless of cost or level of luxury is a win as increasing the total amount of supply is better than doing nothing.
Some will argue that if the housing is at a higher price point, building it is a bad thing. The number of high-income people in the market to buy housing does not change, so these buyers will simply bid up the cost of other housing more affordable regardless. (See Old Fourth Ward and other neighborhoods). At the end of the day, more housing to meet overall supply creates housing for everyone. The most restrictive cities (to development) end up being the most expensive — see San Fran, New York, Boston, LA… On the flip side places like Houston and Dallas remain more affordable because they build a crazy amount of housing. Whether developers get rich doing it, shouldn’t matter. It’s a job with lots of risks — a lot of projects fail, and developers go bankrupt. They put their personal capital at risk. They are the ones building the housing that all of us are living in. If there was more supply, there would be less opportunity for developers to increase supply based on scarcity.
I’ll be moving to Atlanta this spring and I’m gonna be looking for up and coming new construction that’s affordable for all!!