Carter Officially Announces $40 Million 315 West Ponce Development Project
Decatur Metro | April 24, 2013Received this press release from Carter this morning…
Carter to Develop $40 Million Mixed-Use Project in Decatur
Development to include 233 apartments with street-level retail in one of Atlanta’s most livable cities
ATLANTA (April 24, 2013) – Carter, one of the nation’s leading real estate development, investment and advisory firms, announced today that the company will develop 315 West Ponce, a $40 million mixed-use project in Decatur, Ga. The five-story residential buildings will comprise 233 apartment units and approximately 10,000 square feet of street-level retailspace.
“Carter is incredibly excited to be developing a Class-A mixed-use project right in our backyard,” said Conor McNally, chief development officer at Carter. “While Decatur has experienced significant population and retail growth during the last 10 years, no new apartment projects have beendelivered since 2001, which makes the timing for this project ideal.”
315 West Ponce will target young professionals with a mixture of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, as well as a full line of amenities including a pool, clubhouse, fitness center and two outdoor courtyards with green space. The development will also include a structured parking deck to be shared between the new retail and residential buildings and the existing 10-story office building located on the site.
The Decatur Downtown Development Authority has approved the site plan for the project, which is located two blocks from the DecaturSquare and approximately 20 minutes from downtown Atlanta. The Preston Partnership is the architect for the project and Brasfield & Gorrie is the contractor. Construction is anticipated to begin later this summer.
Carter has a rich history of developing multi-family projects and specializes in developing complex, urban mixed-use projects across multiple asset classes. From complicated mixed-use developments to high-rise condominiums, Carter’s leadership brings a depth of experience to a variety of project types.
What does “target young professionals” mean? No children allowed? Upper age limit? Weird design like the open floor plans of the Ice Lofts or the incomplete concrete room walls of the condos above Jimmy Johns?
I imagine it means that the apartments will be contemporary in style with modern amenities. As you are probably aware, it would be illegal to institute an age requirement/ceiling.
I also don’t think that the Ice Lofts or the condos above Jimmy John’s should be described as “weird” in design; I believe they would more accurately be described as “loft” or “soft-loft” spaces. Perhaps not suitable for a family with children (though it could be done), but that does not make them weird.
Agree. Plus, most units will be smaller 1 BR and 2 BR units that don’t exactly cater to families or retirees either. So don’t expect a jumpy house out front when they start leasing.
Sorry for sloppy/incorrect assertions – it would be illegal to discriminate on age in terms of not allowing children who are part of a family, for example. Need to check myself (before I wreck myself?).
Edited to add: I’m clearly not a legal expert. Shutting mouth now.
The five-story residential buildings will comprise 233 apartment units and approximately 10,000 square feet of street-level retailspace & Zero Greenspace
… “two outdoor courtyards with green space”…
As best I can see from the last batch of renderings, this new project actually increases the amount of greenspace currently on-site. Yes, it replaces the front yard section on Ponce but it also introduces two courtyards around back where there’s currently asphalt. The two courtyards together exceed the square footage of the front yard. So, unless they’ve changed the design, it looks like a net gain.
Any greenspace at all will be an improvement on the sea of asphalt surface parking lot that currently exists on this property.
+1 to the original post for using the word “comprise” correctly since no one else on the planet does.
PS–to “treesrock,” it does say “two outdoor courtyards with green space”
+1 on the use of “comprise”!
We all learn on DM! Thanks to great moderation and great contributors, the learning to hate/snark ratio on DM has to be one of the highest among blogs!
It’s a shame the Mature green buffer on the rear of 335Ponce will be removed. The homeowners on the rear of that building will be looking at a parking deck taller than their building.
what are these going for again? 1k for 1bdroom?
Do they have 9′ ceilings (more like a condo than an apartment)
I’m not sure that I like this scheme better than the old one a couple years back…I like the idea of shared parking.
Better than a parking lot though!
The design looks good and I think it will be a great addition to that end of Ponce. Anyone know when it is scheduled to be completed?
I’m interested to hear what type of retail DM readers think would be nice to have on that end of Ponce. What are we missing that we really can’t live without? Bonus to the first person who says it would be a great place to have Trader Joe’s…
I would like to see a Brooks Brothers or maybe a Banana Republic.
A liqueur store? Oops, are we nor suppose to say that? Or too close to a church?
I support this, and if we need to shutter a church or two I support it even more!
This concludes my daily militant atheist activity.
I’m OK with the churches staying put (although letting them off the hook for taxes is a pet peeve, but that’s another thread). What I don’t get is why a church gets to determine what goes on in its vicinity.
The church doesn’t. Your government does.
I am an Episcopalian. We prefer liquor stores as close to church as possible.
Which is why we are often called Whiskeypalians.
That makes you a Whisky-palian, right? But I believe the original poster was interested in a liqueur store. Obviously, they make a lot of Harvey Wallbangers and Rusty Nails… On edit, So Many Books: Jinx!
+1
I’m all for revoking their tax free status if they don’t stay out of politics, actually who am i kidding, i want them all to have their tax free status revoked
I’d like to see a small Office Depot like the one at Edgewood. You can ship packages there, too, via UPS or USPS.I print a tiny fraction of what I printed a few years ago, but when you need a ream of paper or a printer cartridge, you need it right then and nothing else will do.
“when you need a ream of paper or a printer cartridge, you need it right then and nothing else will do.”
… which is why many of us keep spare cartridges on hand at all times, so we never have this emergency situation.
And I’m sure you never, ever forget to replace the spare after installing it. Alas, I am an inferior being and sometimes find myself in an office supply emergency. And when it’s not an emergency, I’d still rather be able to buy what I need in Decatur than having to traipse somewhere else.
I would really like a Fresh Market. Those stores are awesome!
I think something like a Metro Fresh or Alon’s would be good especially if it could be combined with a proper European corner market (this means a good selection of produce, fresh breads, cheeses, wine etc. – not a glorified convenience store.) Then maybe a Tea House and a gelateria (ok if some yogurt goes away as a result).
An Alon’s in Decatur would be amazing!
+1 on Alon’s! +1000 on gelateria! We had one briefly ages ago where Cafe Lily is now. It was too early in Decatur’s gentrification. A gelateria might make it now. Especially if it also offered coffee and wine.
There aren’t any gun stores or pawn shops downtown.
I’m giggling thinking of what would show up in a City of Decatur pawn shop. iPhones, cappucino machines, Big Eggs?
Surplus little trailers for babies to ride in behind bikes?
Subaru titles.
Branded glassware lifted from Steinbeck’s.
Ha. This is a rich topic. There wouldn’t be any old electronics, we know that.
The gun store would be too boutique, and 7.62 x 39 would cost $1 per round. So that wouldn’t work.
There are no pawn shops anywhere. They have all been converted to television studios dedicated to shows about pawn shops.
I’d like to see a fedex or ups type store. That’s about all I can think of that we don’t have that would go in a space like the one proposed. I guess a UPS would be more likely since there is already a Fedex fairly close by.
Bookstore (that doesn’t mind losing money), NY bagel shop, children’s shoe store, tailor/seamstress,patisserie, Metro Market, Flying Biscuits, nail salon with gel nails/massage chairs. We’re pretty saturated already with frozen confection, coffee, and pizza places in case anyone was wondering.
YES to the children’s shoe store!
Flying Biscuit went to Hell soon after they agreed to chainify themselves. And why in the WORLD would you need it when the best biscuits on the planet are already available right there at Pastries a Go Go?
Oh, didn’t know that about FB. I love Pastries-A-Go-Go but it often has long lines. We seem to have an infinite capacity for brunch places in Decatur.
If The Grit folks from Athens and the Tupelo Honey people in Asheville both opened spots in Decatur as rumored at various times, we would hit the maximum capacity for brunch options because none other would be necessary.
MOVIE THEATER
TOY STORE
Yes to movie theater!
I’m with you, except for the fact that we’re talking about single-story retail space here.
Comic book store.
(good luck with that.)
A comics/gaming store would be sooooooo great. But I agree, will never happen, alas.
Craft store. That’s one of the only reasons I leave Decatur–to go to Michael’s over by Northlake.
+1 on craft store!
I’ll definitely be grieving the loss of the trees out front. Too many are going down all around me. Very healthy ones, I might add. But on the bright side, this construction doesn’t appear to be using stucco…at least I hope not.
Not sure which trees you’re referring to, but it should be noted that the building facing Ponce was moved forward (necessitating the loss of those street parking spaces and the current landscaping) in an effort to preserve the mature dawn redwoods. Which I think was a good decision on the developer’s part (one the neighboring residents encouraged them to make).
Looks like the NIMBYs and BANANAs have filled an appeal. The single family neighborhood and the next door condo owners are combining together on this. So, according to Commissioner Kathie Gannon who is leading the NIMBYs, they are trying to protect themselves from “from intrusions like massive exposed parking decks.” In other words, her eyes will hurt if she has to look at this. Now, here’s what I don’t get. Commissioner Gannon doesn’t want a deck? Fine, I think there’s enough parking downtown and on nearby streets to accommodate – so leave out the deck all together. But wait – the single families next door are afraid of people parking in front of their house – so they must have parking on site. But yet they have banded together to file an appeal? Credibility = lost. My source of the above info is the latest story on Decatur Patch – written by Commissioner Gannon’s down the hall neighbor.
I don’t see this as an all or nothing issue and there is no credibility lost. For example, both sets of opponents could be accomodated (at least partially) with an onsite parking deck which is deemed less intrusive by the affected neighbors. Besides, I would much rather have these groups working together (and, in theory, be willing to compromise amongst themselves) than fighting two separate battles.
As noted previously, I am one of the single-family neighbors adjacent to this development, and this is the first I’ve heard of this latest attempt to halt the development. Based on my reading of the Decatur Patch story and on my experience with the players in the previous rounds of negotiations, it’s not really accurate to depict it as “the single family neighborhood and the next door condo owners are combining together on this.” It sounds like you have ONE single-family resident (and I suspect I know who it is) and the condo owners. These were the most irrationally intractable parties at the design review meetings (and that’s saying something, because we were all pretty intractable at that point), so it doesn’t surprise me that they’re still trying to halt or fundamentally alter the nature of the development. I wish them luck, and understand some of their frustrations, but based on the disconnect from reality demonstrated by some of their demands/attitudes in those meetings, I don’t see how those demands can be reasonably accommodated. It seems like they’re just attempting to wage a war of attrition at this point.
I like the shared parking in theory, but I worry that they could not get it right. How do you determine how many spots to make? Evening vs weekday retail demand? And do the owners have any plans to sell monthly parking?
Let’s use the Artisan as an example (I live there). We don’t have shared parking – owners own their parking spots in a section of the garage with a separate gate. But some examples from our building could highlight a couple of possible issues.
1) How do you estimate shared parking?
In our building, I would estimate that on a typical weekday, 60-65% of owner parking spaces are vacant . But would that number be different (higher or lower) with a different demographic (we have quite a few retirees, for example, I expect fewer in the new development). There is a much lower % vacant at night, but still much more than zero.
So you might think Carter could assume “75% of residents are gone during the day” and use estimates like that to figure out how much parking they might need.
But even that will still be a guess. What if there are businesses with a large evening draw? What if a higher percentage of these young professionals ride MARTA?
2) What about monthly parking?
Now let’s look at the public part of the Artisan deck. Those spaces are owned and managed by a commercial parking company. And they are nearly filled up by 9-930am every day, and not primarily by retail visitors to Kaiser or Ted’s. Rather, they are all monthly parkers who pay for monthly permits and work (I presume based on where they all walk) next door at Emory Clinic. What do we know about any plans to sell monthly permits? I can see why parking companies like them – at $40-$50/month/car, it provides a rather steady-stream of income.
My real concern with this development is that parking and resulting traffic patterns will not get the thoughtful attention they deserve. This could really impact Ponce as well as the adjacent neighborhood.
And there is one final concern:
3) Building design parameters with wiggle room (based on “guestimates”) are an easy target for cutting costs. I have worked in 2 buildings over the last 14 years, both of which were newly constructed. When it came near the end and funds were being more closely watched, in both cases they started targeting design features that could be justified as “extra but not needed” or “at the high end of the estimated range of what we need.” I’m not talking about parking spaces here (things like electrical outlets and other building infrastructure), but you get the idea. I worry that parking could be one of those targets.
Sorry to be so long winded. I simply would like to see a more comprehensive presentation of their parking and traffic plans than any presentation so far. Even at present that stretch of Ponce can easily get backed up if even one car decides to make a left turn across traffic. Even real data from past building projects on such shared parking (and what the retail mix was) would make me feel a lot more comfortable with this idea.
DrB – my default position on this, from day one, has been – ram it through because it’s the right idea in the right location – we’ll work out the details later. Well, hopefully later has come. And your thoughtful presentation on the details has me thinking that, yes, there should be some detailed analysis on the parking issue. Thank you for your long windedness, and I hope it moves someone to action. I only wish the NIMBYs would take your approach, rather than trying to obstruct things with some trumped up “charge” that someone didn’t dot an “i” somewhere along the way at city hall. That comes off as petty. DrB, you come off as credible. NIMBYs take note.
Sorry WB, but your ignorance is showing. In your eagerness to dismiss the “NIMBYS and BANANAS,” did you ever stop to consider that in those initial design meetings, in communications with the city, at EVERY STEP OF THE PROCESS these exact parking and traffic concerns were raised, time and again, in just as thoughtful a manner? Just because you were busy overlooking them doesn’t mean we weren’t. It’s a serious issue, and in those meetings it became clear that we are forced to take the city and the developer at their word when they told us that they had considered all of the ramifications to parking and traffic and would be taking additional steps to help mitigate any negative impacts. I guess we’ll all find out together.
I live in the neighborhood near this project. I have no involvement in the appeal you mention. Didn’t know about it until the Patch report.
I’ve lived in Decatur for several decades. I can say first hand that the ” ram it through because it’s the right idea in the right location – we’ll work out the details later” project is NOT a good approach. Once something is approved , developers and City administration ( not just Decatur but any local government) do not stop to focus on those small but important details. They switch to full speed ahead mode to get the project built to begin producing income and tax revenue.
When I and many of my neighbors spoke out against the previous project proposal for this land, we pointed out all of the parking questions mentioned here by DrB. The lack of detailed analysis of the parking proposal was exactly why I opposed that previous project.
Here we are again with another proposal for this tract. City parking ordinances have been changed so that this time the project required no variances. Same questions remain about the complexities of shared parking for this particular site. These questions may be new to the developer but they certainly are not new for City administration. I don’t understand why these things weren’t studied before the project was approved . To me, it feels like the City is simply unwilling to seriously address these questions. The developer has no incentive to deal with the issues because the project is already approved.
Warren, you say you hope the comments of DrB move someone to action . Who would that someone be and how would they take action ? What action would you consider non-NIMBY yet be forceful enough to get the attention of the City and the developer ?
I don’t oppose it. People in my building are on both sides of the issue.
I moved in much later (2011), and I knew quite well that someday the CVS parking lot could become a development, or another of the other local parking lots. I won’t like it, but it was a known possibility, given the zoning, when I moved in. I stare at 315 W Ponce out my window, and at least for me the devleopment might make it nicer to look at
I previously lived in another incorporated part of Dekalb (Pine Lake). A few years ago, when the economy was good, we went through a multi-year process of rezoning. One lesson from the consultants who ran the process was clear – “you get the development your zoning asks for.” You can read lots of books of the rise of suburbia and development that make the same points. Strip shopping centers and large parking lots were the indirect result of parking requirements, and not thinking about about overall aesthetics or impact. We know that zoning ordinances need to be forward thinking, not backwards looking.
Decatur has done a very good job revising its zoning ordinances to reflect what it wants in the downtown area. 315 Ponce could never be built today. Streetscapes and frontages reflect walkable city we want to become. The sometimes-malign box of a building across from the high school is an example of this — some may not like it not, but it was built to a new standard, and when neighboring structures get knocked down, it will all (hopefully) transform how McDonough looks.
To a point. Maybe Decatur never had to think about traffic in the past. I’ve searched the ordinances on Municode. Maybe I missed it, but I see nothing in our zoning rules requiring a traffic study. Or mentioning traffic impact. Likely because until recent years, nobody ever considered it to possibly be a problem. But I think everyone who lives around there (mid-rise or neighborhood) already sees traffic as a huge potential problem. Ever see how far traffic can back up (from Commerce all the way down past 335 W Ponce) at 530pm? Or if one person crosses the street by Dancing Goats at the wrong time of day?
Personally, I would like to see a wholly revised future looking traffic plan. Imaging Ponce and Trinity each being one way, single lane, wide sidewalks, with a circular traffic circulation pattern. Just my dream …
I’ve read the 2010 LCI plan, the Strategic Plan, the Conceptual Growth plan. They barely mention traffic, except for Complete Streets (yeah!) and lots of “traffic calming measures”. I have seen nothing in Decatur’s zoning or planning that has seriously or broadly looked at 1) traffic impact of large developments in the high density downtown area or 2) considered the idea that maybe with all these pending and future developments downtown, it would be a good idea to take a whole-downtown view of traffic.
On a related note, I don’t believe that all who are part of this suit are NIMBYs. This development is certainly zoning compliant “enough” to ultimately get built, and due process is important. I lived in Brookhaven for 9 years. I saw repeatedly how developers can promise the world and deliver much less to adjacent neighborhoods (like the megacomplex that Woodley etc. built on Dresden Drive – the county commission rejected all the variances Woodley asked for twice, but ultimately the county commission laid over and gave Woodley every single variance that they asked for). Similarly, neighborhoods north of Atlantic Station were promised pedestrian access – never happened. Admittedly, Decatur planning/zoning has more teeth (in my experience) than Dekalb or Fulton and may not cave as easily to builder whims. But when faced with such opposition, filing such a lawsuit is sometimes the only vehicle a community has for achieving compromises from a builder.
“my default position on this, from day one, has been – ram it through because it’s the right idea in the right location – we’ll work out the details later”
Credibility = Lost.
Why in the hell are you so opposed to taking a closer look at the effects of these developments, both short-term and long-term? Other residents of Decatur (meaning those not named Warren Buffett) have valid concerns. Although I believe that ultimately the benefits will outweigh the costs, I still think taking a very close look at all aspects of developing every square inch of Decatur is in order.
DawgFan – a project that is planned by committee, particularly a committee of self-interested individuals with varying levels of expertise (but mostly very little) will usually lead to a half-baked and ill-conceived project that attempts to make everyone happy rather than apply all the best practices that should be applied. People like Kathie Gannon have no business designing parking decks. It’s not her bag, and she, apparently only cares about the view from her window. So why should we let her derail the process? We have an updated zoning code that deals with this. We have competent professionals that made the zoning code, and an experienced developer that put together a project that met our codes. We have Rick Logan that will bust your b@lls if you don’t meet our codes. The time to debate whether or not this project was appropriate was during the community visioning process and the re-working of our zoning codes. Same principle as the Wal-Mart fight. If we don’t like the future land use of a particular piece of land, then we need to try to change the zoning on that land before redevelopment happens. Once that zoning is in place in a popular location like Decatur, then yes, developers are going to come in and see if they can get a development done. They will follow the rules we have in place. Trying to micro-manage their work – especially when its THEIR time and money on the line – in OUR town – especially when they have agreed to meet all of OUR already in place regulations – is ridiculous. You make the rules before the game, if they’re fair, you attract players to play the game as you explained it to them. If the spectators are unhappy with how the game is turning out, they don’t get to change the rules in the middle of the third quarter.
You and I are somewhat in agreement. The ship has sailed on this development.
I was referring to your general refusal to engage in any meaningful conversation about the cons of development. I am not in favor on your approach of densing up and figuring out the mess we have created for ourselves later. Let’s do it right the first time.
I don’t want to speak for Warren but I have to assume he’s not actually advocating that we rush into something. My take is that he’s responding in context.
Directing development in general, and density in particular, to downtown is not some new scenario that just came up. It’s been the city’s explicit development strategy for over 25 years and has been continuously cultivated and fine-tuned throughout that time as new lessons, challenges and opportunities have presented themselves.
This latest dust-up reflects last December’s updates to our zoning code, which were developed by a citizen task force working just short of a year and representing all facets of the community (business, government, neighborhoods, downtown residents, etc.). A resident of 335 was among the task force members.
None of this is to say that our current regulations and growth plans give everyone what they want or that there won’t be modifications in the future. Only that the suggestion that there has been any sort of rush, or that what’s happening with 315 represents some new, unforeseen threat, is patently false. For better or for worse (depending on where you sit), the development happening now has not sprung up arbitrarily or surprisingly, but as the result of over 25 years of community conversation and tireless work on the part of our leaders, city staff, business community and participating residents. Those contributions should not be discounted as though they never happened.