Fixing the Atlantic Station Model
March 30, 2009 | 11:48 amOK. I admit in the past that I”ve spent a lot of time relieving developmental angst by railing against Atlantic Station. I sit here at the corner of Ponce and Smart-Growth Ave. and let the damning adjectives fly. I mock. I sarcaz. I scoff.
But really, how does that help anything other than my blood pressure?
So this morning, after reading a very interesting op-ed over on Maria Saporta’s new blog “The Saporta Report” by the developer of Atlantic Station, Jim Jacoby, about the new “Aerotropolis” he plans to build on the site of the Ford Hapeville Plant, I’m taking a step back. And instead of just cuing up a snarky rant, I’m going to attempt to be a bit more constructive. (BTW, the Atlantic recently used Hapeville as a great, graphic example of how much $ it costs to dissemble an auto assembly line. Highly recommend a look.)
If we must continue to endure these examples of “auto shrines cloaked in smart growth” metro-wide we might as well learn from our mistakes for the next time around, right? So…the following are my specific gripes with Atlantic Station from a development perspective. I don’t claim to have any background on how these things are make money. This looks at the long term success of these projects, not the short. Take them for what they’re worth…
1. The near complete separation of residential and commercial/office is a tragic concept.
While this split has allowed the creation of an “outdoor mall”, it does nothing to promote a walkable, vibrant community. That’s why the place is packed with “out-of-brownfielders” on the weekend and you can’t sell a majority of your condos. You sacrificed the reliable dollars of a stable community, for those of the mobile, fickle auto-dependent. And once AS is no longer the next big thing, that mobile money will move on to the next big locale.
2. Don’t put a 4 lane speedway through the center of your district.
Even if you completely separate residential from commercial, you can still create a community if you provide accessible and safe paths to and from these areas. But instead you tried to have it both ways. By catering to those that can’t wait to get to load up their cars at IKEA or the underground parking deck, you have destroyed any chance of residents walking along this main strip to the commercial center. And certainly no one wants to relax in your stately highway park if they have to risk life and limb to get there (not to mention the hum of engines that can’t be drowned out by a water feature).
3. Invest in quality and variety in your buildings.
As a single developer, you work at a disadvantage when you try to create a community from the ground up. Price points and tax incentives promote low costs. And what suffers as a result? The quality and variety of your urban environment. So here’s my suggestion. Put a little more money into your buildings. Give them a little more individual character. The result will be a more desirable community that takes pride in its surroundings. Right now, the condos that line the strip along AS make even the transient motorist uncomfortable.
In terms of variety, I suggest a somewhat revolutionary approach. Don’t just hire a team of architects that attempt to manufacture “variety” along your streetscape. Hire architects from a variety of different firms, completely unrelated to each other. Then you stand a chance at contributing real variety to your project. Give them the specs and let them have free rein. Real variety is hard to imitate…as Atlantic Station proves time and again. Of course, this approach will end up costing you more in the end, but if you care about your legacy, this gives your project a fighting chance 30-40-50 years from now.
4. Attract local retailers.
Has a lot to do with #3 above. People have no loyalty to national brands, big boxes, except when it comes to price. And “cheap” never a community made. So, seek out retailers from the area and perhaps give them reduced rent while they start up. They may not immediately attract the auto-philes, since they lack “brand recognition”, but they can provide an immeasurable service to both your community and its image.
Now, make no mistake, these suggestions are given under the impression that you, the developer of said brownfield, are most concerned with things you cite in your op-ed, like the “transfer of intellectual capital” and the “velocity of ideas”, and not necessarily just getting the most bang for your brownfield investments up-front. If that isn’t the case, then please disregard. I’m sorry to take up two minutes of your time. Continue on your quest to marry auto-dominance with density. But unfortunately for the rest of us, its a marriage doomed to failure.
Because while you can still make a tidy profit at the end of the day, regardless of a projects long term success/popularity, Atlanta is little better for these current projects – even when new variations sound like they are the brainchild of Howard Hughes. Masking the auto in New Urbanist clothing does a disservice to our city and the movement to reinvigorate our cities. Be honest and commit to your creed.
Anyone can make money. Stand out by doing something better than that.
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about, DM. Excellent post, though I’m sure it doesn’t surprise you that I’ve got a couple things to add…
> You’ve hit upon the key Catch 22 for nasty, large scale conventional brownfield redevelopment in an urban area: The numbers for a project so ambitious don’t work without national retailers who pay top dollar per square foot; national retailers require much larger catchment areas than what’s accessible by foot, so car-coddling in the form of rapid arterials and ginormous parking decks is inevitable.
Unfortunately, we can’t just say “no chains” in that system. Achieving a better place means a reordering of priorities, and I don’t just put the burden on the developer. Our national retail models — not to mention our national obsession with the lowest possible prices — are equally to blame. We need new models, sized to serve human-scaled, pedestrian environments, and a desire on the part of everyone to find value in things other than just price. With more modest catchments, there’s a need for less intensive infrastructure, which frees up capital for other uses. In the case of AS, Jacoby chose to play the hand he was dealt rather than take on the more ambitious task of redefining the system. And, given the financing required for something so massive, I don’t find it all that surprising.
> Don’t confuse Jacoby, in their role as master developer, with being the *only* developer of AS. There are actually many developers involved in that project, purchasing and developing the different pieces. Beazer, Lane, Novare, and more. Jacoby built the “mall” portion which, despite its flaws, is still the most realized part of the development in terms of housing, office and retail in a single district. So the scorn for the quality of product throughout definitely needs to be spread around.
More than anything, your comments hit the nail on the head: AS attempts to be all things to all people instead of something really great for one segment of people. There’s no shortage of condo pods and power centers out there. Dropping them into the city with some modest nods to mixed use does not equal endearing and enduring urbanism, and that’s what city people want. I give ‘em a fair amount of credit for some of their accomplishments (and AS does represent some progress in the face of the present system) but, ultimately if we want cities to remain competitive, we need to do better.
Thanks Scott. Much appreciated.
I should have been more specific regarding attracting local businesses. I certainly don’t believe that businesses could or should all be “local.” Only more than say the 5% that currently operates at AS. As we’ve shown here in Decatur, national brands can also be appreciated and valued in a community…but they have to participate to do so.
And thanks for the clarification on Jacoby. If that’s true, then he definitely deserves the most credit for “mixing uses”. Too bad there ain’t much residential in there. Do you know his level of involvement with Hapeville?
I agree with much that has been written. To a large extent AS is a suburban power center with some housing mixed in. Of course with the amount of land they had, it had to have a substantial residential component. A couple of points:
- I give them some credit for creating a decent pedestrian experience in the retail district.
- I hate going down into that massive underground parking deck after a movie.
- AS stole market share from Midtown. Much of the retail and office market in in AS could have ended up on Peachtree, Spring and West Peach.
- AS is a Sembler project on steroids.
I have railed against Atlantic Station a fair amount, but I’m not sure I agree with your specific criticisms here. For one thing, they DID mix the residential with the commercial and the retail – there are residential units above lots of those retail stores, Novare’s 12 has condos mixed with hotels, and there are townhomes directly behind what will become offices (they look like shit, but they are there). The Atlantic is also directly across the street from more offices.
I do agree that the “commons” residential portion along 17th street gets lost, though, and that it isn’t integrated much with the “district”. I also agree that 17th street is quite busy, although I believe it will be much improved once all the office pads there are built out. Atlantic Station is not nearly as built-out as people think. If anything, I think 16th and 17th street could have been integrated better – the retail component is quite insular, and embracing 17th street as a boulevard might have made it feel more like a part of the city. 16th street and the beazer townhomes is a throwaway, and a lost opportunity. Better architecture would have made a difference, but there is a lot of traffic going down that street. Negotiations with Home Park limited the options of what could go there, though (which is reasonable).
I kind of disagree with using multiple architects for ‘variety’. A complete hodgepodge of styles can create a discordant effect if you aren’t careful, while a unified style can be very powerful. FWIW, the styles of Novare’s projects, Lane’s apartments, and Jacoby’s retail are all rather different, and I think the architects were different. I’m pretty sure that Novare always uses the same folks for their projects, Lane used James, Harwick + Partners for the Commons, I think Beazer’s townhomes were in-house, Perkins and Will did Carter’s 201 17th street building, etc. Each developer hired their own architects for individual components.
I completely agree with the building quality issue. It isn’t surprising they are having to go re-do exteriors on lots of the buildings right now. Much of the place just feels cheap.
I think people underestimate how hard it is to pull off something like Atlantic Station. Look at Glenwood Park – it “feels” a ton better, but none of the retail is doing well and I know the developers didn’t make much. I’m not sure if I would call it “successful”. (As it relates to the architecture note above, I think that TSW did most of the architecture work there, or at least developed a strict building typology to make sure future developments “fit in”. Also, the development partners were chosen with a careful attention to the style and market for their product).
Ack. Thanks for the front-end qualifiers, DM. Else the critique might sound … naive’ to the realities of developing real estate.
Coming from the perspective of big national development shop, there are a couple things that one may want to consider:
1. A lot of the citizenry believes they know how to develop. Sure, everyone has opinions and mine is that AS stinks (for many of the same reasons described above). But that does not make me a developer, architect, or planner. Rather than “how to’s” for the developer, examples of well done developments and direction form development professionals who get the vision and know how to execute the vision have much more influence than amateur how-to advice.
2. Suggesting that a developer “Put a little more money into your buildings.” is a bit heavy-handed to the point of maybe even sounding pedantic. And with the spate of developers going BK and laying off staff, where is this money suppose to appear? The banks certainly have tons of money they are getting from the government. This statement also seems similar to saying your neighbor should be required to re-roof with slate shingles or use decorative pavers rather than asphalt. No question these improvements would better the neighborhood. But just saying “do a better” job is too… uh… uh… facile. A better strategy here may be better architectural requirements in building and zoning codes – but that is pretty complex too.
As one other whine, Hapeville is way outside the core, it is directly under the flight paths, and it is a silly place for a “visionary” development. How about just some common sense uses and buildings that support Atlanta’s main economic driver – the airport.
My bet on AS is that +/-15 years from now it’s design will doom it to become the “upscale” Underground. Sad outcome of what could have been something really interesting.
Give Atlanta an opportunity and it can guarantee a screw up.
There’s a thread that connects your comments with Brad’s, DM, and it’s one most people don’t want to acknowledge because the next step after acknowledging it is to immediately feel totally powerless.
It’s this: The entire system — from zoning to transportation to tax and subsidies to retail to financing to God knows what else — is structured so that it is far easier (and with it probably more profitable) for a developer to build something average and unremarkable (even detrimental to our cities) than something innovative or extraordinary (or even comparable to things built as a matter of course for centuries).
Breaking all these rules in pursuit of excellence is brain-damaging, not to mention financially risky, work. Strangely, when you’re operating from a pool of other people’s money, financial risk is frowned upon.
Which is all to say that we can’t have it both ways. We can’t lay out a system and then demonize the players that operate comfortably within it. We need to assume our share of culpability in why cities develop the way they do. We need to demand municipal codes that deliver the development we want. We need to work towards transportation networks that don’t require auto-dependent models as the sole solution. We need more financing institutions to reduce the walls between their residential and commercial operations. We need to perceive value — at a mass scale — in things other than just price (such as service or merchandise or walkable convenience). We need to do a lot of things, with the key word being “we.”
But it’s easier to lash out at some developer as the reason we’re so dissatisfied. I don’t blame you one bit.
There are idealistic, passionate, committed — even revolutionary — developers out there. I’ve had the privilege of working for a number of them. I’m not saying Jacoby is or isn’t one of them (I have no idea), but I can virtually guarantee that more than a few things on your list were considered during the process and simply found to have the deck stacked against them in too many ways.
At the end of the day, Jacoby is just one small part of why AS turned out the way it did.
You raise some good points, but I will take AS any day over Amsterdam Walk, Midtown Place, etc., that are in the heart of the city but make me feel like I’m in some dowdy suburb even as I go to see an obscure independent movie at the Landmark.
I also like the fact that there are big national retailers at AS — saves me a drive to Lenox Square, which I will probably only visit once or twice a year now.
But I would be curious to hear your take on Glenwood Park. It successfully combines business with residential, and definitely favors local retail. But I believe its preference for local retail has saddled it with a significant number of vacancies, including every space in the row that includes Shed, a fantastic restaurant that I imagine would appreciate some company to generate walk-in traffic.
Thanks for the forum.
Scott, I think you make a good point about the value of well designed space, but the fact that you describe the businesses as “hanging in there” is telling. None of the restaurants I have been in are as busy as anything I go to in East Atlanta, for example, and they draw on essentially the same local populace if a slightly different market. I’ve never heard Glenwood Park’s retail described as a success.
Slice went out of business pretty quickly, iirc, and it took a while for the coffee shop to do well. I remember talking to the employees there early on and they were a bit frustrated. It has taken a while for the retail to stabilize. Most of the empty storefronts on the Glenwood Connector were built later than the initial retail, and I think the struggles early on turned retailers off.
I also think excluding any sort of chain limits your market significantly. Really, I think the bigger picture might be that the location for Glenwood Park isn’t a great spot for as much retail as they programmed. Glenwood doesn’t have enough traffic to support any more retail than they already have. I don’t know what their rates are, either, and that might have something to do with it (although at this point you’d think they’d rent them for whatever it took…).
Still, you are right about the fact that the square does add value to those establishments. I’d be nice to know what potential tenants are telling the leasing agents for the connector retail.
Back to the problems at AS – Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) President John Norquist is so right on so many times – and he does it again with this story in which he posits that “it’s not roads vs. transit — it’s good street networks vs. mindless out-of-scale roads” (such as 17th Street).
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/03/26/back-to-the-grid-john-norquist-on-how-to-fix-national-transpo-policy/
Ben – I’ve seen a lot of NU (and lots that call themselves NU but aren’t even close) and one of the best non-resort projects, in my opinion, is also here in the Atlanta area – Vickery in Forsyth County. They may have overshot the retail just a bit there too, but not by much. So you don’t have to travel too far to get feel for that (granted it is way ITP, but you can do it in half a day). It’s not perfect by any means but is a good comparison point for GP.
BTW – The national meeting for the Congress for the New Urbanism will be in Atlanta in 2010, so we will get to show off all of our cool new and old urban places to lots of devoted new urbanists.
I agree on a lot of the shortfalls identified for the Atlantic Station area, but want to point out that a few initial quality partners (maybe it was Cousins or Weiland or both) fell out of the project as the tech bubble burst and economics became hard. At that time, the mixed (even a little) uses of AS was a complete gamble for the Atlanta market, and they weren’t willing to make the gamble during tight money. In stepped some residential development partners who had a lower price point/lower product. I’ve always thought it a big shame that the original quality partners didn’t do the project and envisioned the “might have beens.” I also agree that as the site continues to develop w/ the office towers, it will have a better urban feel.
Question for the person who said they don’t like the underground parking lot- would you rather some stairs and a basement or an unending view of a sea of concrete and cars? I’ll take the dank basement any day- though of course would prefer a light rail stop on site!
Wow I am really glad my mention of Glenwood Park yielded so many thoughtful responses!
A couple of comments. GP does have direct access to I-20 — on Bill Kennedy Way which is the road that links Glenwood to Memorial. I also have heard from tenants that the developers have been a bit too hard-headed on insisting on local retail, as opposed to regional or national. I think some of the larger spaces could be ideal for a small Trader Joe’s (not sure if they even do this but just thought I would throw it out there).
Ben knows much more about this than I do, but I would argue GP is a good place for retail because neighboring Grant Park has very little retail, largely because anything around the park is more or less off-limits or already developed into successful residential. That means Grant Park folks are dying for more restaurants, stores, coffee shops, etc and would happily support those businesses in GP (and already do).
To me, it would be great spot for a twin of the Candler Park Market, which I always think is something that could be duplicated. A real estate agent rather tartly said to me that these markets don’t make a lot of money — duh, I know! — but obviously that market stays in business and I think it could work in a few other places.
Great, great discussion!
I am not positive, but i’ve heard that the podium parking model at Atlantic Station meant that they had fewer environmental remediation requirements for the ground it is on (since there would be no direct inhabitants). The TAD did pay for a significant amount of infrastructure, as well.
I think one reason a GP level development wouldn’t work there is because of the visibility from the highway. No matter what you would put there, the remediation would need to happen. Once that is done, the visibility would drive up the land costs significantly. I’m positive that a GP, low-rise development would not pencil out.
I also think at GP-style development there would be sacrificing the future for some rather NIMBY-ish reactions. In the big picture, the city should encourage higher density development where we can have the infrastructure to support it, and right off I-85, on a major road (17th street), with potential future access via the BeltLine is the right place. Sure, in the short run it cannibalized market share from Midtown, but in 50 years a low-rise development there would be a missed opportunity.
Great dialog on ATL NU challenges/successes, particularly WRT to Atlantic Station BUT a few facts are missing…
1. 100% of the residential in AS is within 1/4 mile of the retail district.
2. AS is so not overparked it had to get a waiver from the City to park at ratios significantly less than code at 1 space per 1,000 SF of commercial development. FYI – retail typically wants 5:1000, office 2-3:1000 in the ATL market.
3. There weren’t a lot (any) people (vertical developers) beating down the door to get in and after Post, Mills and Hines walked time=money. The debt service on the $76M purchase price was close to $70K PER DAY. EPA spent $0 on remediation. $300M of infrastructure (sewers, utiltiies, roads, sidewalks, etc.) were built in 2002. Just over half of that has been reimbursed via TAD bonds.
4. Look at the Beazer product on 16th and hopefully you’ll notice the phased development. Beggars can’t be choosers and with each phase additional negotiations/leverage re. design influenced the product. Single family on State Street could have been in GP.
5. Atlantic Station self-funded transit (bus) carried 67,000+ people last month.
6. Good interstate access is vital to ANY commercial core in ATL – Midtown, Downtown, Buckhead, etc. This same interstate access already provides for direct MARTA, CCT and GRTA transit connections.
7. No remediation requirements were reduced via the construction of the parking podium. The 17th Street bridge had to be built at an elevation of 905′ to clear I-75 NB. 905′ was 30′ higher than the existing grade of the steel mill.
8. 17th probably is too big for the neighborhood alone but it is a very important E-W reconnection across the downtown disconnector to the west side. DOT drove this from day 1.
9. The AS developers spent the extra $$$ to upgrade 17th Street to accomodate light rail in the future. Also, at State Street the turning radius of a light rail vehicle has been preserved via a 75′-wide linear park bisecting the site. AS has also worked to incorporate both the NW-Cobb alignment, the “Brain Train” and Emory-Lindbergh-AS-GT-Dome-Turner-Zoo “C-Loop” into the master plan.
10. Read the annual environmental report re. driving, etc. http://www.atlanticstation.com/concept_green_projectXL08.php
Oh yeah, AS is an evolutionary development NOT a visionary one. 45% of it is built with close to 2,500 residential units, 1.5M SF of office, 100 hotel rooms and 1.2M SF of retail. Be patient, grasshopper!
Sorry Brad. I know it makes you a bit uncomfortable when I get all high-and-mighty. But I can’t just scoff all day, every day.
In terms of my points, they are certainly amateur, but I think there is a pretty strong argument and field of research behind them.
And there’s something I don’t get. You admit that AS is a failure – in so many words – but don’t believe we can make educated observations/critiques? Your faith in the hindsight of developers/architects is noble, but many of them just build and move on…with no real post-analysis. So guess what? Its left up to the amateurs or to no one.
And while my idea to put a bit more money into a project may seem pedantic in the current economy, but I didn’t think the already long post would benefit from talk of zoning and tax code reform.
Thanks for the feedback Ben. I wonder what the total percentage of residential is within a 1/4 mile of the retail district. Probably more than I think.
In terms of the variety argument, I disagree with you about style. While I do believe that too many different TYPES can be discordant in a packed, residential district, I think a variety of style is just what the doctor ordered for these cloned districts. Every organic city center in America is a mishmash of style (and type for that matter). I say give each architects some basic type parameters (height, massing, setback, roofline) and let them go at it. I think that would be much more powerful.
Ha, we have very different ideas of what happens when you let architects loose. I have nightmares of buildings that are ridiculous shrines to architects, that don’t relate to what people want to actually live or work in, and that are too expensive to build to every make money with.
As far as development goes, a developer typically has very specific needs for a building that go way beyond height, size, setback, etc. I know developers who obsess about what sort of handles to use for doors and cabinets, much less whether a project should be stucco or brick exteriors. Developers are constantly trying to balance the cost of a project with what the market can support, and it is a lot more difficult to make the numbers work than most people realize, especially in an unproven market or area (like Atlantic Station was). I’d be more than willing to run you through some sample pro formas to see what I’m talking about.
Sounds fun!
I’m well aware of the shrines architects build, that’s why I suggested parameters to work within. But you’re probably right…might be better to remove them from the process entirely. Perhaps we don’t need architects at all! Let’s just use one model, with slight variations, and then let designers do the exteriors!
Come to think of it, that’s exactly what my pre-WWII neighborhood is. Lots of slightly different houses with almost identical floorplans, that look surprisingly different. Works pretty well IMO.
That’s a good point Ciambellina. Believe me, I’m no huge fan of Atlantic Station, but it sure does beat prior attempts at intown redevelopment (Ansley Mall, the Trader Joe’s/Landmark Cinema theater on Monroe, the list could go on and on in Atlanta). And what was on that site before? A decaying industrial complex out of use for several decades.
And Glenwood Park might be a perfect example of what DM talks about – they put more money into the buildings, is more walkable, no big boxes, etc., and I admittedly like the asthetic over there better than AS … but it is EMPTY.
The biggest problem with Glenwood Park is that they buried the retail. Retail success depends on visibility, and all their storefronts face inward on the square. No one knows anything is there. I think the residential took off early on, but this mistake on the retail has made the development largely unsuccessful. Plenty of people live there, but no one knows it because the shops are empty.
I’m not sure I’d read it the same way, Ben. If anything, I’d counter that a closer look confirms the value of the well designed, urban place.
If you look at Glenwood Park, there’s the interior retail on the square you speak of, but there’s also a fair amount more on the external rim of the site, along both Glenwood and the GW Connector (I think it’s called). Conventional wisdom suggests that these spaces, on the higher traffic through-streets, would be the winners but, instead, GP’s earliest retail gravitated to the square and the block leading in to it. The wine bar, Vickery’s, the salon gallery and the coffee shop are all hanging in there, it could be argued, because that’s a really comfortable square, nicely detailed architecturally all around, and people like going there.
On the flip side, GP’s highest visibility storefronts — which were put on the higher traffic outer edge specifically to address the recommendations of the retail consultants — have been the hardest to lease.
Any thoughts on why this might be?
I think it is worthwhile to add that retailers succeed because customers spend money at the retailer and the retail has a viable profit margin. I would say that the design, location and other aspects of the real estate are secondary to other more fundamental underlying retail business – example: WalMart – horribly uninteresting architecture in the middle of no where, but obviously wildly successful. Certainly, WalMart is not inline neighborhood retail, but the example underscores the notion that a good business trumps good design.
Good thoughts all, Ben. Thanks. Funny thing is, I think, that GP’s locational challenges factored heavily in the lower cost of the land, which factored into Green Street’s ability to develop at a more human scale and fight more of the good fights in terms of architectural quality and coherence, street widths, full-site water handling, and neighborhood-scaled, indie retail.
Despite their present situation, I still feel they’re better suited to evolving and remaining relevant over time than AS is (given its inherent reliance on autotopia to prosper). If nothing else, GP certainly lends credence to the idea of an inverse relationship between a project’s quality of urbanism and its scale.
The fact is that GP possesses few attributes that make it a good location for regional and even community-serving retail. There is no direct interstate access, low traffic counts on the collector streets nearby, and a low density of residential within walking distance (although that is about to improve with the addition a hundreds of units of apartments coming on-line soon). Because of these factors, the market is demanding no more space at that location, whether it is facing Glenwood or the square. I am happy to see the relative success of the spaces on the square to help make the case that not all of the old, auto-dependent retail rules apply when we develop our “places” properly (BTW I’ve been to Vickery’s for lunch quite often and it’s always busy, and the food is great). But at the same time, many of those old rules are still relevant. GP overshot the retail and they are paying for it. I happen to think that they have a real opportunity to market the retailers there by inserting some signage on Memorial directing folks across the interstate to the site. It’s so close to the happily redeveloping Memorial corridor, but you wouldn’t know it just driving along there. The thing is, GP will sustain, it will be an attractive place years from now and the retail spaces may be worth more then than they are now. The reason: they had patient money to build it with – Mr. Brewer had the luxury of not having to prove himself to a bank that doesn’t understand mixed use, nor having to turn a quick buck, and thankfully he did build it right the first time. It will succeed over-time. Patience is a virtue.
good point – I certainly haven’t seen many examples of large scale new urbanist projects that I felt really worked, but I also haven’t traveled as much as I’d like. And GP certainly FEELS a ton better than AS.
one problem with new urbanism is that it misses a few things that makes neighborhoods successful – they have the mixed use portion down, but fine-grain and mixed age buildings are just as important. The economics of fine-grain development are verrrry difficult to make work, as GP exemplifies. I agree that they have come closer to a sustainable model, at least from a neighborhood perspective. I think with some tweaking, GP could have been a lot more successful.
Yes, the parking arrangement may be better than those options, but like most projects in Atlanta, it is vastly over parked. I find the design disorienting and easy to get lost in. Finally, because of it’s size and hidden nature, I feel vulnerable to crime. If someone doesn’t feel safe, I think you have to conclude the design is a failure.
A sustainable and more authentic new urban experience would be on a transit line. It is wonderful to have reclaimed a brown field, but I am not certain this was the best location for high rise, big box development. In a perfect world, that stuff would have gone into Midtown where we have 4 Marta stations. The Atlantic Station site would have been better with a product closer (perhaps slightly larger) in scale to Glenwood Park. It certainly would have fit better into the Homewood Park neighborhood. Part of the problem is that Jacoby was essentially a suburban shopping center developer before AS, so the vision was skewed from the start towards national credit retailers.
As mentioned in others’ posts, it wasn’t necessarily Jacoby’s vision that turned it into what is, it was the economics of the deal. At the cost of reclamation and everything else that went into it, a Glenwood Park-scale deal would never have gotten done. If it had to be that, it would still be sitting there as an abandoned steel mill.
A sustainable and more authentic new urban experience would be on a transit line.
Wouldn’t it have been great if they had used the huge investment in AS to begin the process of builing a much needed northwest rail line from Arts Center through Atlantic Station and up I-85 up through Marietta and beyond?
Maybe someday … but it wouldn’t it have been much easier and cost effective to do so when AS was a blank slate?
The economics of the deal is somewhat a circular arguement. The value of land is dependent upon availble utilities, location and most importantly – the entitlements. If it is zoned for high-rises, the land can be priced ahelluva lot higher than if it is zoned for 50 units per acre of wrapped stacked flats, 15-30 units per acre of townhouses and some single family and some cottage. That massively expensive and massivly large parking deck required to support the high-rises and bix boxes isn’t needed for a lower density development. AS is a TAD so much of the development costs were underwritten. I think EPA tossed in some money for reclamation and DOT rebuilt the interchange. In a typical development, none of those financial resources are availble. No doubt the economics were extremely complicated, but I’m not convinced another type of project could not have been built. BTW Glenwood Park was also a reclaimed site.
There is no direct interstate access.
Maybe I’m wrong, but isnt’t GP directly accessible from I-20?
I think Grant Park’s retail needs are met decently by Memorial (Ria’s, 6 ft. under, daddy d’z, mi barrio, stella, redfish), boulevard/cabbagetown (solstice, the CVS), and Cherokee (Grant Central, Dakota Blue, the salon next door). I also used to go over to East Atlanta and the Little Azio’s on Ormewood a lot. Grant Park just doesn’t have a central village like East Atlanta or Cabbagetown.
The failure of the Zocalo Taqueria is maybe an indication that there isn’t a lot of pent-up demand in the Grant Park area, much less on buried on Glenwood. Perhaps some better signage on Glenwood itself, as well as from the highway, would have helped. GP certainly does have good access to and visibility from I-20, but I don’t think they capitalized on it very much.
I think something like the Candler Park Market only works in an older building with low rent, not something new. Perhaps one of the empty storefronts in EAV would be a better match, although a market like that might need more convenient parking than is available in EAV. I went to the CVS a lot. More realistic is the planned supermarket on Memorial at the old Atlanta Dairies site, because Grant Park and Cabbagetown ARE under-served when it comes to grocery stores.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that there are no on/off ramps on Bill Kennedy. GP is difficult to get to from I-20 unless you really know where you are going.
Lots of recurring themes here…
1. Need of major artery to support retail
2. The inherent need/want of a downtown grocery store (and the inevitable call for a Trader Joe’s
3. The whole “should you cater to your walking or driving public?”
I don’t know nearly enough about Glenwood, but it doesn’t sound like lack of highway access should be that big an issue. This isn’t the Forum at Peachtree Parkway right? They want to create a community, correct? These two goals are at complete odds with each other. That’s most of what my AS points above revolve around.
Downtown groceries are damn hard to support with such low profit margins. You need really dense centers or tons of parking to make them work. I’m still trying to personally determine whether Decatur could support one (without the huge parking lot). Its not easy.
Oh and forget TJs. They’re only trendy in image. They are only interested in big box with lots o’ parking in trendy areas. Decatur has approached them and been told its too downscale.
No intown neighborhoods can afford to forgo their driving public. Its all about how easy you make their experience. How much will they put up with before the convenience of closeness is overtaken by the inconvenience of say pay-parking and 1 lane roads? And how do you build a walking public to fill the gap?
So many questions…
I don’t follow your second paragraph?
I agree that the city should encourage high density redevelopment where we have infrastructure, and that is in Midtown and Downtown on the Green Line. Those are the places with the most Marta statiosn and highest public investment.
The entire urban core has excellent interstate access so I don’t see that being a particular attribute to AS. Good interstate access is more of an advantage for suburban locations than downtown where there are multiple access points to the connector and I-20. Highway visability is a suburban, car driven attribute. The object should be to create an excellent pedestrian experience where people want to live and walk, not where they see something big and glossy from the interstate and want to drive to. You can have that in Anywhere, USA.
You can get off I-20 at Bill Kennedy Way if you are going west from downtown, and get on it to head back in to town.