6-Acre Avondale MARTA Station Development Moving Forward

It was a year ago when the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported on the revival of the large, mixed use Avondale MARTA Station parking lot project that the City of Decatur has been pursuing from over a decade.

Now Decaturish reports that the MARTA Board of Directors recently voted to begin negotiations with the Decatur Downtown Development Authority of redevelop the site.  The two orgs have selected Columbia Ventures as the developer, which will include 604 apartments, 74 condos and 25,000 of retail space, according to Decaturish.

More HERE.

Map courtesy of Decaturish

104 thoughts on “6-Acre Avondale MARTA Station Development Moving Forward”


  2. Interesting that Decatur would approve a development on a 6 acre site in the heart of downtown ( Gateway ) with less than 1/3 the units as this one and no commercial WHICH also perpetuates the last vestage of segregation in our city. I don’t get it.

    1. I am sure someone can give more precise details on this, but it is my understanding the Gateway project is funded by DHA, which is not exactly a rich developer who can afford to put in a mixed use project. It seems they designed the best the could do with funding available and I’m not sure Decatur could expect to approve more.

      1. Yes, and it requires way more than 20% of the units to be “affordable”, as the Decaturish report highlights for the Avondale Station redevelopment.

    2. Wow – that’s quite a jump there. Are you implying the Avondale station development will be segregated?
      And I believe that the Gateway property is not too far from the development next to the high school which will have a large retail component (maybe Deanne can fill in the blanks there.)

      1. No – I am suggesting that the current plan for Gateway reinforces it’s segregated past. Also – BTW it has THE biggest moneyed developer – local, state, and FEDERAL government. Also free land and no taxes.

          1. Good grief – no – Decatur Housing Authority gets federal and state grants.I am contrasting the MARTA project with the Gateway project ( across from Beacon Hill ).

            1. Just trying to understand what you meant. Especially when you put federal in all caps.

        2. The government has potential to be the biggest housing developer, but federal and state resources towards housing have been shrinking for years.

      2. Arriba, I don’t know any more on the Callaway building project than other DMers do– just that it’ll be developed by Cousins as a mixed use development to include retail. I’m very hopeful that the retail mix will take into account how beneficial it’d be to have affordable useful businesses there for the nearby residents and the many downtown workers and visitors. It’s an excellent opportunity to expand beyond offering mostly niche type shops. In turn, it’d benefit the existing shop owners by making Decatur more of a one stop shopping destination.

        (Re Cousins– I’d dearly love to meet Tom Cousins some day. I greatly admire him for envisioning the East Lake Foundation and successfully transforming an entire community. I used to go pitch in on a kids related effort in East Lake Meadows– aka Little Vietnam– and a more soul shattering environment would’ve been hard to find. It was difficult enough to process how the adults were getting by (believe me, very few of them felt safe enough to even come out of their apartments) but the toll that growing up there was taking on the kids was absolutely gut wrenching. Tom Cousins’ efforts truly gave the kids a way to break free from having very little hope to seeing the possibility to really be able to set their aspirations high. There’s no better gift he could’ve given them.)

    3. It is a housing authority development. Most units will be for people at certain income threshold.

      1. And “most” is actually an understatement. At last check, the project contains only one market rate unit. I have to assume its inclusion allows the project to qualify for some sort of additional “mixed income” pool of funding, but I don’t know for certain. Seems weird to have just one. You’d think there’d be either none or some notable amount.

        1. To get a tax credit, usually there has to be a certain percentage. They should not be able to qualify. That is outrageous.

  6. Not sure what you meant by that comment, but this project is located in Decatur, not Avondale.

    1. That lot is less than half a block away from Avondale, which will likely grow as a result of that many people moving in. That stretch of road between this lot and downtown Avondale could become more appealing to developers…

  8. Does anyone have information on the construction on Columbia behind Sherwin Williams?

    1. New apartments, but don’t know any details. There’s a sign on the fence around the construction.

      1. It’s DeKalb’s new seniors community. Excellent shopping convenience and MARTA bus stops right at their door. It definitely ROCKS!!

        1. I remember there was always a plan for a retirement community on the corner of Arcadia and College in the old LCI plan.
          Has that thing totally gone away or is it still lurking?

            1. The original LCI plan (from 10 years ago) had an assisted living facility planned for the corner of Arcadia and College (where the used car place is now). They were going to buy out all the rental properties on Arcadia and Derrydown from Craigie to College.

                1. I wish someone would do this. Was the plan to make it low income accessible? Some states and housing authorities have leveraged HUD money and Medicaid waivers to great thing to help low and middle income seniors access assisted living. AHA (where I once worked) is in bed with developers and folks with housing needs are low on the list. The rest of the HAs are not much better. However, tax credits could be used to get seniors access to affordable assisted living even without local housing authorities…

                  1. I don’t know specifically about assisted living but the parcel described in this article was originally on the wish list of the DHA, who was going to manage the development of a mixed affordable/market-rate project. For reasons I’m too uncertain about to list here, I believe they walked away after the housing bust.

                    1. In 2001, I did a policy study at AHA that found a great model (in Portland) for leverage public funds for assisted living for low and moderate income seniors that would actually work and be cheaper than nursing home warehousing,etc. Of course no one was interested….

              2. Here’s the link to the original LCI plan presented in 2004 for anyone interested. I didn’t read through it to see if I remembered correctly about the assisted living thing, but we were all excited about this walkable park-like development:
                http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=829

          1. I don’t know, but every time I drive past, I’m thinking it’d an ideal place to retire to too! :0)

            * Major props to the County for saving so many of the trees!

  10. Looks like MARTA is finally making a push to develop more of the land it owns around its stations. It’s long overdue. With this project, the possible ones at King Center and Candler Park, plus the recently announced, huge State Farm development connected to the Dunwoody station, there is going to be a significant increase in transit-oriented options in the near future. Combined with some other positive changes at MARTA, new CEO Keith Parker is off to a very good start.

  12. I have 2 friends, in separate developments, who were incredibly grateful they moved into an apartments where condos were selling before they bought, both wound up not purchasing. That’s all I’ll say about that.

      1. Damn, I have to agree with DawgFan again. I can’t tell if this is a “condos suck” or “renters suck” rant, or something altogether different. I think Daydreamer either started happy hour early or has been watching too much Forrest Gump.

        1. excuse me, i speak Daydreamer:

          (s)he said:

          “I have 2 friends who rented condos in a development where they were considering purchasing one. Based on their negative experience as renters, both decided not to purchase.

          And that’s the fact, Jack.”

      2. That in the Atlantic Station case, and lofts in the 4th ward, not all, but SOME of the renters didn’t keep the properties the way the condo owners did. That isn’t a slam on renters at all, but investing a couple of hundred grand in a place where some of the tenants don’t have the same pride and financial investment of ownership comes with a risk. And it’s the same reason that many condo building have a cap on what percentage of units can be rented at a time.

    2. Guess the comment is referring to the fact that many condos intended for sale were converted to rental apartments after the real estate crash. Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.

  14. And, where will the great multitude of residents park? Another mammoth Decatur parking deck? What about the children living out on Decatur’s frontier? Decatur leaders may believe that there will be few, which I doubt, but, nonetheless, what schools will they attend and how will they get there?

    1. considering this is currently a massive parking lot, not sure how a massive parking deck would be any worse.

    2. “What about the children living out on Decatur’s frontier?”

      What does this mean?

  16. Yes, a mammoth waste-of-space parking lot will be converted to a mammoth parking deck that people actually use.

    1. Did the virtues of a park with trees, shrubbery, and flowers ever occur to you?

      1. Did the virtues of adding additional housing stock that will allow people who can’t afford to buy in our city to also live here ever occur to you?

        2. Thanks for saying it. I don’t plan to live downtown or next to Marta anytime in the foreseeable future and the idea of change can be as unsettling to me as anyone else but I find the idea of an overwhelmingly single family home community raising the drawbridge to anyone but conventional, house-with-a-yard residents considerably worse.

          Downtown and Marta-based development isn’t landing in anyone’s front yards. If ever there was an appropriate place to build such types, that’d be it.

        3. Why is that a virtue? I mean other that alleviating white, liberal guilt.

          Benefits? Some (with corresponding costs). Virtue? No.

          1. Inclusion (as opposed to exclusion) is virtuous. Diversity in housing types contributes greatly to inclusion. So why is that not virtuous?

            1. It also can help to curtail the purposeful exclusion that can happen when an electorate is dominated by higher income people, achieved both directly (apartment bans) or indirectly (tree ordinances, lot minimums). I’d say preventing such exclusion is decent and honorable, the definition of virtue.
              Oh, and a favorite quote of mine from a Georgia native (white, not sure about the liberal part):
              “Guilt is magic.”

      2. feel free to turn your property into a park. for some reason, marta and their lack of funding/positive cash flow decided against giving up money in their bank in order to provide decatur residents with a park.

  18. Yes, of course, and I’d love to see the City of Decatur build such a park. On land they already own.

    1. Winnona Park, same as the Talley Street Lofts, which were also a DHA effort but exclusively sold as condos. And since I live there, I can tell you the place is NOT overrun with kids. We’ve got a few, but most units are just adults. (We’ve got SCADS of dogs, though, so I hope the local veterinarian population is braced for an influx of canines.)

  22. It’s in City of Decatur. I get the concerns about the schools, even though I don’t think the increase in enrollment from these kinds of developments will be that significant. That said, it’s time to start to planning and building additional school space.

  24. God ain’t makin no mo land. To prevent it from becoming a concrete jungle, foresight must be used in planning. “Brianc” mentioned building additional school space. That takes up land. Trees get chopped down. New landscaping often leads to short-lived plantings: species of a relatively short life span (they’re cheap) or iddy-biddy trees that don’t survive because of an inadequate footing area. This project on E. College is another example of inappropriate scale. Six hundred apartments and forty condos? It’s a ghetto of the future. I am not opposed to renters, as some of you have previously charged. I am opposed to monster construction projects approved by Decatur leaders who, in my opinion, have given inadequate attention to their consequences for the character of the city, their effect on traffic and city services, and for the overall welfare of the residents. City leaders plead for more taxes and see these housing developments as the solution, but I say, “let’s look at the city budget.” When I look at the most recent Decatur Focus and count ninety-six camps planned for the coming summer, I wonder if it is the responsibility of local government to be the babysitter for Decatur children when public schools, the foremost American babysitter, are out of session. It’s got to be expensive, even if participants do pay a fee.

    1. #1. The site is concrete/asphalt now. I don’t know what a “concrete jungle” is, but I rather like commercial districts with activity that are created by developing dense properties. There’s a reason I leave my non-concrete house to visit areas filled with large, masonry structures. Contemporary architecture features more glass and steel than concrete anyway… I like parks too, but they don’t belong on US highways connected to the only rail transit in the state.

      #2. Density does not equal “ghetto”

      #3. If you’re going to build many units, what better place to build it then next to multiple modes of transportation? We don’t have a lot of great examples of transit-oriented development in this region, but this could be a gem.

      #4. This mixed-use development will pay commercial taxes that will help pay for those 96 camps a whole lot better than an empty parking lot will.

      1. “#3. If you’re going to build many units, what better place to build it then next to multiple modes of transportation? We don’t have a lot of great examples of transit-oriented development in this region, but this could be a gem.”

        Agreed. Of all the proposed developments in Decatur, this one makes the most sense to me. I’m actually least convinced about the one near DQ, in terms of location. But I guess it would be pretty cool to live steps away from Kimball House and Dairy Queen. Talk about mixed-use.

    2. Penelope, do you know for a fact that the City spends tax dollars on those summer camps? Or are you just opining?
      The parents do pay for the camps. And they provide a tremendous public service.

      1. For the specialty camps which is the vast majority, DAL camps work on a revenue sharing basis. DAL provides the facility and administrative support; the independent contractor putting on the camp pays all the other costs (supplies, wages, etc). The revenue is split according to a formula. Given that the facilities would otherwise be sitting empty and unused, I suspect the DAL actually comes out ahead.

  26. Penelope,
    I respect that you have a different view of what an urban city should be, but clearly the city leaders as well as developers believe that, rather than these developments becoming the “ghettos of the future”, they will attract young professionals who want more density, more walkability and more access to transit. I happen to think they’re right. That said, I do think there is room for discussion about scale (number of units) and what can be done to limit the number of cars on the road that result from these units.

    1. +1 (disclaimer – I am a downtown resident who got tired of yard maintenance, hiring house painters, replacing the roof, falling trees, and all that — kudos for all of you that enjoy it). High density should stay high density, and single family should stay single family. That is what makes “neighborhoods.” And I think Decatur is getting it right. As someone pointed out weeks ago, the height and scale of downtown buildings is a best practice for creating urban centers that are still walkable and neighborly. People can live it in, and the single family home denizens can still walk to it. Washington DC has many walkable urban neighborhoods that are like this.

      Having said all that, two thoughts on this development.

      1) This really is big. 678 apartments+condos. Every other condo built downtown, as well as the proposed complexes being built or approved to be built, are around 200 units or less.
      2) What is an affordable unit? And are these tax credits legally binding? Or can they opt out at a future date and just not take the credits?
      3) Obligatory school fear – what is the mix of unit sizes?

      I ask #2 since I have heard that the Artisan (where I live) was originally pitched as providing a degree of affordable housing, and market demands resulted in smaller units getting recombined to create larger ones. (and is likely why my 1500sf condo bizarrely and unnecessarily has 2 water heaters and 2 separate HVAC units)

      1. For #2, “affordable” means the maximum rent that can be charged is based upon the area median income (AMI). Typically the project is tax-credit eligible if: 20% of units are occupied by those with income 50% or less of the AMI, or 40% of units are occupied by those with income 60% or less of the AMI.

        This isn’t Section 8. There are no vouchers. The “affordable” units are restricted to those who make less than AMI. So if you make a lot of money, you won’t be able to rent those units that are set aside. Though developers will try to get as close to “market” rate as they can (though the gap will be wider in a market like Decatur than the suburbs), so even the “affordable” units will be decently priced and you will need a good job to rent them.

        Failure to comply with the rules, or selling the project before the end of the agreed period, leads to recapture of credits claimed and the inability to claim future credits.

        1. To put this in context, current AMI in the Atlanta MSA for family of four is $64,400 (see HUD income limit data set). Even adjusted for family size, teachers, city workers, restaurant workers will qualify for the affordable units. Credit checks are also run on potential residents, so these are financially stable people who will be filling the affordable units.

  28. Penelope – I ask you to consider this quote from Steve Mouzon: “The best way to save the wilderness is through compact, beautiful communities that are more, not less urban.”

    That is, we build desirable places for people, where people belong – in compact communities. That allows us to not have to sprawl out all over the wilderness, so we preserve it. By building homes here in Decatur, where we already have a high density of homes, we do our part to stop the destruction of the rural wilderness, and add to our own vitality.

  30. “This really is big. 678 apartments+condos.”

    I was surprised by that number too. If it’s accurate, it would seem they’d have to be mostly one bedrooms (which would be a good thing for the school system). Regardless, it will be essential to plan for increased traffic in that area and look for ways to encourage transit use (discounted MARTA cards? reduced rents for non-car owners?).

      1. Because that’s a lot of units for a building that will be limited in height ( I assume). What’s the COD limit? Six stories?

        1. Thanks for the answer. That makes sense. But it’s six acres, no? Seems like even with a four story limit you could fit a lot of apartments. But I haven’t done the math.

          1. True, but extrapolating from Town Square, which sits on 2 acres and has 105 units (mostly 2brs), that would equal just over 300 units for 6 acres. I’m sure that’s a major over-simplification, maybe somebody knows of a more similar development. . Also, isn’t there a per acre maximum for density in COD?

  32. My idea of an urban jungle, not well-developed here or stated in a sophisticated fashion, is of a high density urban area fairly devoid of greenery and packed with people. Avoiding the trap I might find myself in if I mentioned an American example, I’ll suggest some foreign cities that I know well: Mumbai, Chennai, Hong Kong. If it helps all of you who wonder “where I’m coming from,” I grew up on a farm and I value the open road, but, as a teenager, I witnessed the public housing debacle in Baltimore in which high-rise apartment buildings were built like tall statues, row on row (same thing that is being done in Turkey right now to accommodate the great rural to urban shift in the population). Other cities perpetrated the disaster in their public housing construction. These projects were the ghettos of the future and, subsequently—but, not soon enough—were torn down. I hate to see Decatur, where one can enjoy the sky above the building lines, seeking a high density dwelling style, making streets into canyons, such as that being created now by the monstrosity going up on W. Ponce on the old First National Bank site, and, apparently, aiming to make the city look like mid-town Atlanta.

    1. A review of Decatur’s building code for downtown might bring you some relief, in particular the height restrictions that are in place. High-density is not the same thing as high-rise.

  34. “aiming to make the city look like mid-town Atlanta.”

    Key difference: Decatur has height restrictions. None of these buildings are taller than buildings that were already here before those restrictions were put in place.

  36. There will be 25,000 housing units built in metro Atlanta this year. If not in places like this, where shall we put them?

    To Penelope I would caution that concentration of poverty is not the same thing as density, and it was the former that doomed the public housing projects you describe.

    1. That is such an important point to point out Bo. These mostly market rate apartments. Yesterday’s apartment model, as well as yesterday’s government housing model, has been generally swept aside. The experiments that we undertook in the late 20th century with housing and our built environment turned out to be failures in many, many regards. Sprawl and concentrated poverty turned out to be horrendous for social, environmental and health reasons.

      Mixed-use, mixed-income Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), such as is being proposed at Avondale Station, is seen across the nation, by all flavors of housing and economic development experts, as a solution and remedy to the last generation failures mentioned by Penelope. I don’t know if this makes you feel any better Penelope, but it should. You haven’t seen this type of development in Atlanta. Even our previous attempts at TOD (think Lindbergh) were not really fully-baked. This type of development has been wildly successful in places like Washington DC and Denver. This will be cutting-edge stuff for the South, and current national examples point to a great potential for success here.

      1. Mixed income and poverty deconcentration were buzzwords of the late 90s and early 2000s with HAs and HUD and developers. The experiment succeeded in destroying communities, creating a boom for developers and leaving a large number of low-income people without access to affordable housing and many more homeless (there is a direct correlation to spiking in homeless women and children populations in Atlanta to the tearing down of housing communities like Capital and Grady and Carver). Those of us who actually work day to day with marginalized populations do not think that these experiments with mixed income were successful, not the least of which is the lack of one for one replacement housing. There is renewed interest in actually admitting the huge negative impact of these teardowns and community decimation. In fact, in my current job, I am working with media and policy folks on these very issues. I am also hearing on ground that academics are finally catching on that these projects failed to actually house people that need housing, something advocates on the ground were saying 25 years ago, before the first wrecking ball hit the buildings.

        While I understand you are not primarily referencing government housing, I also think the idea of truly affordable housing is lost in these developments and you should not kid yourself about these types of things being truly mixed income or poverty deconcentration mechanisms. They are great for the PR machine, but the realities are very different.

        1. “I also think the idea of truly affordable housing is lost in these developments and you should not kid yourself about these types of things being truly mixed income or poverty deconcentration mechanisms.”

          I’ve read a bit about this subject and would be interested in knowing if a theory I have is valid. My theory is that “affordable” housing in these mixed-use developments is less affordable that regular, market-rate housing, not because of the price but because of the restrictions on occupancy. For example, three rent-paying adults might share a small apartment, a scenario that might not be allowed in these mixed-use developments. I know the housing projects have such restrictions too, but of course the price is lower. What do you think, NB?

        2. To my perspective, the problem with the era of housing project redevelopments you’re referencing was not the redevelopment per se. I continue to believe that mixed-income trumps homogenous concentrations of poverty any day of the week. The devil, however, is in the details.

          The problem — again, as I see it — is that policy was set through the lens of those accustomed to having sufficient financial resources. If you have livable amounts of money, you think in terms of “what can I afford?” but, if you don’t, you think in terms of “how can I survive given the resources at my disposal?” For those dealing with the latter, there is tremendous value — perhaps even greater than what you can pay for — in one’s social ties and affiliations. You don’t “budget” child care in the conventional sense if you have a neighbor who’ll watch your kids while you work, knowing such action will be reciprocated in some way down the line. You lean on people who, in turn, lean on you. The safety net is wrapped up in human capital as much, if not more so, than financial capital.

          That’s where the experiment failed, IMO. Projects were redeveloped containing fewer subsidized units than they had before and residents were cast off to scattered Section 8 elsewhere. They may have received a comparable voucher but they lost all the benefits of community, which are substantial. Thus, it could only be viewed as a fair trade when considered through the perspective of someone who already has money.

          Redevelopment should, I believe, bring mixed income to former projects but never at the expense of subsidized units. Avoiding displacement should be weighted far more heavily than it was in the last wave. For the most part, I think DHA has done a good job with this. They’ve updated facilities while maintaining unit count and are poised to add a healthy dose of market-based housing to the Allen Wilson neighborhood (the site at the corner of Commerce and Trinity, now fenced off for demolition) in the near future. I’m not hugely fond of a lot of their site planning and design but credit where credit is due. They exist to provide housing to people who need it and they’re doing that.

        3. Old units should not have been demo’d until new units were available, in numbers and sites large enough to provide the community resources to which Scott references. This was a huge fatal flaw of all the housing authority development of the past 15 years.

          1. Agree. A voucher for lodging is not the equivalent of a home in a community with good schools and a network of friends and family. I believe that some folks who really didn’t want to disrupt their family and children’s schooling were allowed to stay if they would agree to keep moving apartments as the renovation progressed. But taking vouchers was encouraged. Hopefully, former residents who want to return, can. Anyone know if that’s really a promise that’s been kept? But the community they left behind may not be there anymore. I know there’s folks who feel that if you accept subsidized housing, you have to take what you can get. But remember, the original Beacon Hill community members, who owned their land, were not given an equivalent neighborhood back after “urban renewal”. Their community was here first.

            1. Though it’s not politically correct to say it, I believe the concentration of poverty within housing projects was not as big a problem as policies that had the effect of discouraging the presence of fathers in those projects. This issue continues with vouchers, in that the prioritization of voucher approval tends to skew toward single-parent households (usually led by the mother) because they tend to be the lowest income households.

  38. I grew up in a typical cul-de-sac, drive-everywhere suburb and couldn’t wait to leave it. So I was glad my son got to grow up in walkable, urban Decatur. Now he and his new wife want to live, and eventually raise my grandchildren, in Our Fair City. But they’ve been unable to find affordable housing in the city limits. I’m encouraged that, with smart development like this — that not only provides lower-cost options, but options that don’t require the expense of maintaining multiple cars for commuting — they will be able to fulfill their dream of staying in the town they love. And that will mean a stronger, better Decatur down the road.

  40. It’s mighty lonely out on this limb, but I have enough advice to keep me warm.

    1. Penelope I may not agree with everything you say, but I look forward to you saying it (and kinda dig your style! :0)

  42. Anyone want to speculate on the question I asked two days ago: Where will the children who live in the new E. College Avenue project go to school and how will they get there? So far, there have been only several meek answers whose main import has been that, since most of the 600 apartments are one bedroom, there won’t be enough children to matter. Knowing myself of one recent incident in which a family of three lived in ONE room, not a one bedroom apartment, and the teenager went to Decatur High School, I believe that a small living space will not discourage parents who want to send their children to our fine Decatur schools. Yes, it may have been a unique incident, but I’ll bet that, scratching under the surface, many other scenarios of sacrifice will be found.

      1. That is undoubtedly true, but no one on this forum has addressed the particulars of what schools these students will attend and actually determined whether public transportation, if the children are not within a walkable distance of the schools, will be available or likely to be offered in the future to accommodate their needs. For example, if a child out on E. Ponce attends Renfroe Middle School, how will he/she get there unless someone drives him/her? Will there be a school bus?

        1. The school district has busses and adjusts its routes every year to meet the needs of residents… The district also adjusts school attendance zones as that becomes nessasary- never popular, but the district is getting a little better at it.

    2. Penelope – no one is dodging your question. There are CSD attendance zone maps all over the internet because of the recent rezoning (make sure you get the approved version). I would imagine you could find your answer via Google, maybe even Bing.

      I see children of all ages walking down College from this direction toward the MS and HS every single school day. Winnona Park Elem. is even closer to this future development than those schools, as is Glennwood Elem.

      I imagine some will walk, some will ride a bike or unicycle, some will ride a bus, and some will be dropped off by their parents – just like every other CSD student.

  44. “I believe that a small living space will not discourage parents who want to send their children to our fine Decatur schools.”

    Sorry, I just don’t see that happening. There are easier ways to get into a good school district, and it’s not like CSD is the only good school district around. And as to an easier way to get in CSD, given what’s come to light at Grady High in Atlanta, maybe CSD should be taking a close look at some of the documents used for proof of residence. Apparently things like phony but authentic-looking power bills are easily acquired.

    1. I’m not at all against density–my next home will be in a more dense, less yardy location–but I do think there’s more and more children in high density domiciles as the expense of homes in Decatur increases and the schools around us decline. Since the last time we all had this discussion here, I have come across more evidence–two families with two children each who have gone from a single family home to a condo/townhouse situation, all within COD. In both cases, the sale of their single family home eased up financial burdens and/or worries about the expense of college. I agree that one bedroom apartments won’t have a whole lot of families but structures with two and three bedrooms are going to have more CSD students in the future. I’ve seen this happen in other cities and I believe it’s already happening here. It’s a smart choice for many. (The only thing that I think will slow this trend would be if the number of BATHROOMS were restricted……:) ) This is not a knock on high density living-I like it–just a caution that it’s not CSD student-free. The proportion of children may be low but a lot of low proportions adds up to a number that must be dealt with.

      Another side of this is that I work with someone who grew up in Oakhurst, went to CSD schools, and would love for her children to go to school here. No way her family can afford it, not even in a condo/apartment. It must be hard to not be able to afford to live in the place you call home. It’s why I wish there was more affordable housing, not that I have a clue on the best way to implement it.

  46. Wow, I go on vacation for a few days and look at all of these articles. My perspective on some of these comments:

    Brian: Re Marta TOD: The Marta ranked all of their stations for TOD feasibility 2 years ago and is now actively planning the first round using their top 10 (you can peruse all of the documents on their site under About, Planning & Projects, TOD & Real Estate; it’s interesting). In addition to the ones you mentioned, station plans are currently being drawn up for Chamblee, Brookhaven, an additional build-out of Lindbergh, Lakewood/Ft. McPherson, and eventually HE Holmes. East Lake ranked #9, but they switched it out for Kensington b/c Decatur & Atlanta didn’t show interest for their respective parking lots and DeKalb County solely owns 100+ acres at Kensington. Avondale Estates will benefit (station’s only 1 mile away), especially with their new downtown master plan. Don’t forget the other proposed developments of the Midtown station parking lot, mixed-use south of Inman Park station, and overhaul of the 3 Midtown stations.

    As a former Talley St. Lofts owner, I can tell you this project has been in the works for a long time and is just the first phase of the Avondale LCI (renamed Columbia Park). It would’ve happened earlier, but the Marta balked a few years back. If they follow relatively closely to the master plan (which was heavily touted to potential buyers, along with affordability), there will be a mixture of residential (apartments, condos, townhomes, and a few single family houses), retail, bike lanes, a better street grid, and a large park, based around a retention pond with a fountain, as well as a couple pocket parks. As with everything, we’ll see.

    With the coming downtown Avondale build-out, I’m happy to see this finally happening; if they provide better connectivity, it will provide more amenities in an area with a lot of potential that felt cut-off from Decatur. That was our personal experience, along with not being fans of the DHA.

    At Talley St, out of 90 units, there were maybe 4-5 total school kids as residents; they rode the bus. From memory, the old proposal for this project included an even mix of 1 and 2 br apartments in 3 or so 4-6 story buildings. A parking deck wrapped into the project would provide resident parking (and maybe still additional parking for commuters.)

  48. Thanks for the interesting info. Good to know there might be a park included in the Avondale station TOD. Of those others you mentioned, Brookhaven would seem to be a good choice for some TOD, as it has a vast parking lot that’s at best 1/3 full most of the time. And that’s a hot area right now. Chamblee already has quiet a number of multifamily units right by the station. For some reason, that area doesn’t seem to have caught on. Still feels industrial. Also, you mentioned a “Midtown station parking lot”. I wasn’t aware of any MARTA lot in that area that could be developed.

    1. The parking lot next to the Midtown station isn’t owned by the Marta, but for lack of a better description… The project is called 33 Peachtree Place.

      1. Peter in Decatur:

        Thanks for the heads up on that TOD link, which is sort of buried on the MARTA website. The TOD station profiles are interesting reads.

    2. one of my MARTA friends mentioned a potential food truck area near the Midtown MARTA- that would be great…

Comments are closed.