The Toco Hills Battle Over the Williamsburg Apartments
March 19, 2009 | 8:45 amWheatley forwards a call-to-action from StandUpDeKalb, over the land use redesignation of the Williamsburg Apartments at the southeast corner of Clairmont and N. Druid Hills Road.
The note promotes opposition to the redesignation because the apartments were not part of the County Planning Department’s original list of “appropriate town centers”, and because the developer JLC (not to be confused with 315’s JLB) has turned down the neighborhood’s request to submit a detailed site plan. However, a site plan isn’t required for land use redesignation in the county, only for rezoning.
This project is part of the larger ARC project to create senior-oriented mixed use development in this car-centric area of DeKalb County. Duany talked the neighborhood specifically in his opening address to the ARC a few weeks back, and though the neighborhood says the apartments weren’t part of the county’s original “town center” list, I believe Duany showed inital plans for this very intersection.
Unfortunately for everyone, with the advent of sprawl, today we have these huge plots of developed land that rely solely on automobile use. And whether you believe in “climate change” and our “dwindling natural resources” or not, you must admit that the only 50 year-old concept of “retirement homes” is a rather depressing result of our car culture. The only feasible way to “start over” in these massive plots, and allow our aging population to “live in place” (read: avoid the retirement home) is to let developers take them on at once, building these large mixed-use communities.
Its NOT the optimal solution. I’d much rather see individual properties with different owners, slowly redevelop their individual plots to create more organic mixed-use growth. But that ship sailed long ago. Now, thanks to the huge land grabs made 50-60 years ago, these large-scale redevelopments are about our only option. I’m not advocating that we let the developers run wild. Do your part. Go to the meetings, challenge their plans, make them second guess everthing. If you have a critique, make it known.
But don’t stand in the way just because its new and different.
Well said, DM.
So what would be built at a Willamsburg mixed use development that would allow its residents to not need a car?
Good overview, DM. One note: I wouldn’t characterize what the ARC is exploring as “senior-oriented mixed use development.” Orienting exclusively to any stage of life is part of the problem we’re grappling with now, because it forces people out of their homes when their circumstances or mobility change.
What the ARC is exploring is how denser, mixed use centers provide better “whole life”-oriented solutions. That’s the key — a place that works equally for the young single, the divorcee, the couple with no kids, the empty nester, the advancing senior and the disabled. That way, there’s no need for wholesale demolition and reconstruction every time the mix of people changes.
The Willimsburg proposal is a little messy, and brings up legitimate issues on both sides. The intent of the County Comp Plan was to encourage redevelopment of Toco Hills. Beginning the redevelopment at Williamsburg is the tail wagging the dog. At some point Williamsburg might be a logical extension, but the timing is off. Could redevelopment of Williamsburg spread to Toco Hils? Possibly, but I think the owners have to put forth a very compelling case for the land use change and that probably means presenting a site plan.
AMB, any kind of essentials within walking distance. Groceries, pharmacies, mixed demograhics of neighbors etc…
Scott, good point. I certainly shouldn’t have only singled out the seniors. The goal is mixed demos. But I don’t think I’m the only one that thinks “seniors” when he hears “aging”. As we’ve discussed in the past, the aging boomers are a key concern in the coming years, but I’m curious to know why ARC used this vantage point to market these “livable communities”? Is it just in terms of being an effective marketing tool, or is there an actual, specific focus on the aging, “Largest Generation”?
Prog Dem, thanks for the insight. I definitely need to learn more about this project in general. So the problem is that they have a developer for Williamsburg (a great, ridiculous name BTW) but not for the planned CBD up the street at N. Druid and LaVista?
To say “they” have a developer implies the County has been actively involved in implementing the Comp Plan. That is so much more credit than the County deserves. (My snarkiness is directed at the County , not DM). To call DeKalb’s Planning and Development Department, errr… lackluster, might be an overstatement.
ARC approached every local government asking them to suggest potential sites for Duany’s charette. Each site required a financial committment from the property owner or local government to help offset some of the costs of hiring the firm for an extended period. I don’t know why Decatur didn’t have a site? In this market, it is difficult to find a developer willing to pony up any cash for a conceptual planning effort when cash reserves are needed to stave off the creditors.
The Toco Hills area is a very appropriate location because the existence of a naturally occuring aging community in the surrounding area.
Great take on developing this type of difficult site. The Williamsburg site is similar to the Briarcliff/LaVista/Sembler site and obviously the Toco Hills. All three are big, have can’t-get-there-from-here feeder streets (aka infrastructure), and big mixed-use development plans.
For community due diligence, I might suggest taking a look at similar developments or planned developments of the developer like the site at New Peachtree Road and the south side of 285 near Dunwoody. I believe a similar development at the Williamsburg site would be, at best, imprudent.
I support redevelopment in the area but not at the cost of building bigger and more when these streets are in pitiful shape and can barely handle the current traffic load.
Unfortunately these proposals are not required to ask the developers for any money to build out the infrastructure to support their development. They could build the next Disney World at Williamsburg and be under no obligation to add even a turn lane.
I would recommend anyone against unbridled development without specific plans to contact their Commissioner and tell them no. We can’t be letting the county continue letting big business to “ready, fire, aim.”
The problem with any of these attempts at mixed-use redevelopment is the top-down approach, where a developer is required to lay out the entire final product, based on guesses as to what and how much the market will desire. By requiring that there be a single developer with one large vision for a property of this size, you almost guarantee failure.
The simple way to redevelop the site and make it work is to tear everything down and replace it with a grid network of streets, and rezone the setbacks and designated uses so that each parcel can be uniform and thus flexible. Scale is key – the streets should be narrow, for pedestrian safety and encouragement. The grid must connect out to the world at multiple points.
etc. etc.
Atlantic Station, Edgewood, you name it, are examples of getting it backwards. The right way is to simply zone the scale and texture, and let the market fill in the space.
I agree with much of E’s post and little of Chi’s. If we are in favor of redevelopment, we must find ways to accomodate it without harming the quality of life of future residents. Current residents are already harmed by awful traffic that shows no intention of getting better. When these large properties come into play, we must take advantage of the opportunity to reshape our communities so they work better. Even if all new development is stopped (a very distructive policy over the long-term), traffic is going to continue to deteriorate these communities.
Widening arterial roads throughout central DeKalb is a non-starter. It would be totally disruptive. We’ve all seen the impact of a road widening on the exisiting businesses and homes. It is a nightmare. So if we want redevelopment and we don’t want road widenings, what are the options?
The traffic on these roads is mostly regional and destined to and from employment centers. Therefore a regional solution is more housing closer to employment centers. More peple can walk or bike, or take a shuttle. This regional solution needs to be employed everywhere so more DeKalb residents can live closer to work and so more of Rockdale and Gwinnett residents don’t drive through DeKalb.
Another option particularly for local travelers is to connect a grid street pattern. This gives us options to avoid the arterials and the worst congested intersections. Some people will also discover a pedestrian route that is faster and more direct than driving for a few of their shopping erands.
The most important policy to ensure a successful redevelopment of these older shopping districts is to create a Transportation Management Association to operate shuttle buses that connect these sites to MARTA stations and neaby employment centers. The TMA’s should be financilly supported by the businesses and residents that live within the district served. Businesses in these areas should be limited to how much parking they can provide and there should be parking fees to encourage alternative transportation.
Doesn’t sound like this land-use redesignation has much chance of passing this time around.
This is a really good summary, E, but I was hoping you could elaborate a little. You refer twice to the simplicity of the process but I’ve found in similar scenarios all kinds of obstacles that are really quite difficult to work around and that that’s a big reason for the sluggish pace of reform. Some of the biggees:
> Zoning is a political process. Without a champion for zoning reform in both the planning department and government commission (DeKalb has neither with any coherent end goal in mind), there is inertia. Furthermore, governments shudder at the prospect of “down-zoning” the value of a piece of property to avoid litigation. Given what is or would be allowable on the Williamsburg site, it may be hard to match the return potential at a finer grain with greater required infrastructure.
> Historically, laying down the grid would either be paid for by the municipality or required by code to continue an existing grid at the property owner’s expense. None of those apply here, so a binding master plan of the area would be required (another pot-hole ridden political nightmare) with a new code. The property owner’s not going to pay for that and the county lacks the required champions (or political will) to pull it off themselves.
> If the new blocks are to be subdivided and sold/developed on a parcel by parcel basis, the property owner would want to turn the streets over to the municipality for long term management and maintenance. But the narrow streets you suggest don’t meet the specs of the DOT’s beloved Green Book, so they wouldn’t be allowed. A private street network is often the way to achieve ped-friendly streets in spite of that, but that responsibility makes the individual parcels less marketable.
Do you have any thoughts on strategies to make these royal pains in the azz less onerous?