A notice we received from zoning attorney Den Webb features new rendering of the “Decatur Crossing” development slated to take the place of the Scott Boulevard Baptist Church and the two neighborhood streets behind it at Scott and North Decatur later this year.
The notice also announces a March 2nd community meeting to “to preview the concept for “Phase II” of its development at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and North Decatur Road, shown on the attached rendering.”
According to the meeting notice from Fuqua, Phase II will feature…
· Community green space· A continuation of the sidewalk and streetscape treatment proposed for Phase I· A new north/south roadway between North Decatur Road and Scott Boulevard, with traffic signals proposed at each intersection· An authentic mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment, with retail, restaurant, office and residential uses
Meeting details are as follows:
- Date: Monday, March 2, 2015
- Time: 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 pm
- Place: North Decatur United Methodist Church
- 1523 Church Street Decatur, Georgia 30033
Greenspace?
For a sense of scale, this development does not just include the church property, but the two streets behind the church. Plus a proposed new road and traffic lights.
Good point. I’ll clarify.
Huh? The picture above shows a building right at the Scott/North Decatur intersection, which is where the church is.
The church is empty and will be torn down.
Right. And a new building will go up in the same spot. So it does include the church property. What am I missing here?
the just in “…does not just include…”?
Damn just. Well then, carry on…
I took the Evelyn Woodhead sped redding course and it inproved my comprension 100 per cent.
That is A LOT of surface parking. I’m assuming the square building in the center of the development is the rumored Sprouts grocery store. Did the Medlock group know this much surface parking was going to be included??
I’ve harped on this before (the project where the car dealer used to be) but this seems to be another example of how DeKalb’s present ordinances — clearly intending to manage density and foster urban development — fail at the level of the details. Looking at what appears to be the Phase 2 residential units, I’m seeing a front lawn that separates the building from the sidewalk and at least three quarters of the outward facing units gazing out over seas of surface parking. That may put residential in closer proximity to commercial, eliminating some trips for basic needs (which is good), but I see no signs that this place will ever take on a truly pedestrian character. The end result, in many ways, adds up to a garden apartment complex pushed up closer to traffic — removing the quiet such apartments provide well without delivering the walkable, urban engagement possible with mixed uses and higher densities.
I know the surrounding neighborhoods have been very engaged and I’m sure this project is better through their efforts. I just wince seeing missed opportunities associated with so much money being spent.
They slid these details in under the radar while everyone was busy fighting the Wally World development.
+1000000 This looks about as pedestrian friendly as his Lindbergh development and everyone know how that turned out. Since this is being submitted to a Cross-Neighborhoods Committee meeting, does that mean there is still time to provide input into the design? Phase 1 of this project (where the church currently is) was very different initially than what was finally approved.
The Medlock group did a great job making sure that Phase reflected the needs of the community. Will they be providing the same advocacy for Phase II? Or are they too busy fighting Decatur annexation?
Hi PJ,
I’m sure the area civic associations would welcome your help.
Jeff
This rendering shows 3 parking decks. Grocery stores are very reluctant to accept parking decks since many customers do not feel safe using them.
It shows 2 partially wrapped parking decks, 1 completely exposed parking deck, and 3 surface parking lots. That runs completely contrary to the development of this area outlined in the Medline LCI study plan.
Further, the argument “grocery customers don’t feel safe using parking decks” is insufficient rationale to depart from the Medline plan.
And yet there are a variety of groceries developing solid urban models. Just because national retailers have a suburban predisposition for business-as-usual doesn’t mean they represent the best interests of the surrounding community. Surface parking can still be mid block. The (presumably) grocery store could front North Decatur with parking in the rear, with liner buildings along the new street. Walkability could still be prioritized.
It’s difficult to create “authentic pedestrian-oriented environments” if every status quo proposition is justified and accepted by saying “national chains don’t like that.”
adding, it’s also difficult to create “authentic pedestrian-oriented environments” sandwiched between a 6 lane highway and a 4 lane road.
Not if you have good interior block structure. Lots of good neighborhoods have less-than-ideal edges.
i guess i’m having trouble picturing a pedestrian dreamland in this spot. i’m sure someone with unlimited funds and no desire to make any money could come up with something much better, and given enough push back from the community fuqua might do a bit better while still making the project worthwhile to their bank accounts, but having lived across the street from that spot for over a dozen years, i can tell you that this, to me at least, is a welcome development. i’m sure there are lots of good neighborhoods with less than ideal edges, but this one is a couple blocks stuck between a highway, a walmart, a massive intersection and an oasis of car dealership in various states of disrepair. i just don’t see that spot ever being turned into a good pedestrian-centric neighborhood. whatever businesses open up shop there will need more than the local residents to stay afloat. i don’t see too many outside customers walking to this place.
I’m not necessarily at issue with anything you’re suggesting. It’s perfectly fine to say, “It’s a hostile, auto-dominated environment and this project does a decent job of serving that context,” so long as meeting the context is what you want.
My issue is that I don’t believe it is. Isn’t the whole point of the LCI effort to change the context over time? Because, if it is, that takes more discipline, commitment and yes, vision on the part of the developer than is reflected in this plan.
Of course, I also believe that, over time, there’s more money to be made creating great places, offering high quality of life, than there is in simply building apartment complexes and strip malls close together. So it’s not like anyone’s suggesting the developer should take it on the chin.
i agree with the changing over time thing. based on what used to be there, i think this is a step in the right direction. going too far in that direction might lead to the thing failing, though. whatever end game or final product we might have in mind, i don’t think this is the spot to put it right now. but maybe if someone ever does something with the banner ford spot behind it, they can get a little closer. and then maybe (god forbid!) some traffic calming can be done to scott to make it less of a pedestrian death zone. add some light rail through there, maybe… there’s progress to be made, but it will have to be incremental.
A statement in favor of some development where there once was none? Very un-DM of you.
And what in the world is so un-walkable about this plan to begin with? Based on the drawing it has sidewalks aplenty. Anyone living in this development will be able to walk to Wal-Mart and obtain various necessities, in addition to whatever retail is actually housed in the development itself. Yes, the developers are also offering places for the residents and customers to park their cars, but how does that make it unwalkable? Or is the simple fact of accommodating cars at all what is so objectionable?
By that logic, the parking lots surrounding Turner Field make that area a pedestrian friendly environment.
It goes without saying that walkability requires the actual pavement that makes walking possible. But it also requires creating an environment someone would have a desire to walk through. Giant surface parking lots are not environments that people want to or are encouraged to walk through. Quite the opposite.
Not the parking lots themselves, but the sidewalks that connect the lots to the stadium make the immediate area perfectly walkable. That’s how people get from the lots to the stadium — they walk. It’s not a stroll in Lullwater Park, but it’s perfectly adequate.
I’m all for walkable development, but in my view that means you can walk safely if you want to. Forcing developers to meet some subjective standard of “encouragement” is overboard.
i agree, which is my point regarding the location of this pedestrian friendly area. a six lane highway as a border to this makes is very pedestrian unfriendly. the best we can hope for is a perfect little pedestrian island surrounded by a sea of unfriendliness. a lot will have to change with the area to make pedestrian travel to and fro decatur crossing a reality.
The developer had a choice: get a grocery store with a parking lot in front; or not have a grocery store. The retailer insisted on this configuration. Having a grocery store is a huge feature for a mixed use development. It creates tremendous value for the residents and increases the probability of success for other retailers. And everyone knows how difficult it has been to keep retailers in new mixed use projects.
This is not a downtown location. There are over 400 acres in Medline. This development was started before the LCI was finished. There is time for Medline to develop with a more urban character, but only if it has transit service. In the meantime most of the Atlanta market requires cars and parking. Unless people have alternative modes, we will continue to depend and design around cars.
I really do not see why this area needs another grocery store. SuperWalMart across the street. Huge Kroger right down the street. YDFM a little further down. Couple of Publixes.
Why would a grocery store locate in the middle of all that?
I think we can be assured that the grocery store has done its homework on demand for their product before they select a location. I doubt they see Kroger or Wal-Mart as competitors for their products/customers.
Because it will be Trader Joes.
Mr. Fuqua, thanks for your comments. Can I ask why the retailer wasn’t shown the countless examples of grocery stores with parking decks wrapped or underground? The Publix at Georgia Tech being one intown example of how this works. Or ya know, the Wal Mart they’re putting in across the street.
Wal mart will be on a pedalstal deck with huge amounts of surface parking in Suburban Plaza. Their willingness to pay for that pedestal is a measure of their desire and financial wherewithal that few corporations can afford. “Countless” decks for grocery stores will be in much better markets than Medline.
MANA and Medline are not a serious impediment to Fuqua. Dekalb County is not serious about Medline and has no long-term vision.
remember when the coffee shop going in on the west side of this intersection was a bad idea because of the impact on traffic?
I’m still pissed that I didn’t get my Dunkin’ Donuts there.
at least you can go across the street and get some delicious fox borthers win…
oh what could have been.
For serious!
Calm down . . . it’s an “authentic pedestrian oriented environment”. Whatever that means.
I think it means “an environment where the developer will make authentic money from people, some of whom will be pedestrians.”
Or maybe it just means “there will be sidewalks”
Could someone provide information on the date/time/location of this cross-neighborhoods meeting?
Apologies. Meeting details are now included in the post.
Phase I of the project only included part of the development shown here because Fuqua hadn’t yet acquired the remaining property. This is actually quite in line with their “draft Phase II” that was shown a while back. I know MANA and the Cross Neighborhoods Committee have been very involved and have most certainly kept this from being worse than it is. They have also asked that senior- and workforce-units be included in the plans, but so far Fuqua has not agreed to that.
Do these Phase II parcels require the zoning change that Phase I did? According to the Medline plan they are zoned as single family residential and would require a zoning change to mixed use or commercial. Unless that has already occured as part of the Phase I negotiation.
Lastly, this is not at all similarl to the previous draft of Phase II. The previous draft did not include renderings of this detail. It showed no buildings or parking lots, just blocks of space. Second, it did show a cut through street that would run parallel to North Decatur that would turn have turned the grocery superblock portrayed above into two smaller, more walkable blocks. As portrayed above, this is just a giant suburban car-centric block.
It looks like close to 1/3 of the development will be surface parking. I’m calling bs on this pedestrian oriented environment statement.
I am the the Medlock Area Neighborhood Association Zoning Chair and a member of the Cross Neighborhoods Committee. I just want to clarify that this is Fuqua Enterprises’ announcement of their community meeting required for all rezoning applications in Dekalb County. I hope you’ll plan to attend the meeting on 3/2. The Cross Neighborhoods Committee has seen the plans and has suggested (and will continue to suggest) many changes and modifications. We look forward to hearing your feedback as more information becomes available so that we can continue to advocate for the larger community as the proposed redevelopment project moves through the rezoning process.
Thank you. I’ve adjusted the wording in the post to reflect this.
Thank you.
This is the kind of development you get from the DeKalb County government. DeKalb won’t be nearly as responsive to the community as a smaller government like Decatur, and this is why cityhood movements exist and why people might rather see this property annexed by Decatur, rather than lose the opportunity to re-develop this corridor the right way for the next 50-100 years.
I understand that MANA might get some small concessions from someone like Fuqua, but you are still left with a suburban-oriented development that has been window-dressed as the best case scenario. Its sad.
have you seen how “well” Decatur handled the DeVry property?
Even if every project isn’t great, at least they are 90% right in Decatur. There is at least some accountability.
You mean the site that “could” have potentially been a big part of the solution to our school issue? But instead will predominately stay off the tax grid? Nice job Decatur.
It’s cute how Decatur gets so much praise for the hypothetical things people assume the might do.
I hope the project turns out well and I’m glad Fuqua initiated it.
My wish is that the whole thing could become a massive soccer complex. That would be some nice green space.