Here’s What a Downtown Decatur Park Might Look Like
Decatur Metro | April 28, 2016 | 8:51 amYou may recall back in August that we reported the news that the Decatur McDonald’s location (@ Commerce/Church/Clairemont) could one day be a downtown park. We predictably then debated the merits of such a plan, but we never came across a visual.
Well, apparently there was one! Check out the sketch above from the city’s Parks and Greenspaces presentation from last August.
It looks to include a water feature (?) and some tables (?) in addition to a sizable grass pad in the center.
In fairness, there are SO MANY different kinds of parks, even if there was general agreement that Decatur should build another park, I’m sure there would be a thousand options of what KIND of park it should be.
A performance space. A quite spot to read a book or eat your lunch. A place to walk to lose yourself in thought.
So let’s get a little ahead of ourselves and consider: what kind of park should Decatur build?
I have mentioned this here in the past and will mention it again – if the City of Decatur is going to create more green space, in my opinion, the first two spaces to start with are those two roundabout surface level parking lots on the north and south side of the square. They don’t provide much parking and all they end up doing is causing people to loop endlessly hoping to find the almost always elusive parking space.
The third space that would be great to convert into a plaza/green space is the surface level parking lot between Victory and Sapori di Napoli. I assume that this is a private lot, so acquiring it may not be possible.
As for the lots that some are suggesting on Commerce (Bank of America and McDonald’s), as they are so close to the cemetery and Glennlake Park, it would probably be better to redevelop them as high density residential/commercial.
I love this idea! They are such a waste!
Although Scott rightly points out the impracticalities of closing the loops, the north side loop in particular is a beacon for cars as those few spots seem to be the most coveted in the city. If it could somehow be done I think we would see far less vehicular traffic along that stretch of Ponce.
Agree 100% about the parking lot off Church. If the lot could be purchased and the parking spots provided for elsewhere, that would make for fantastic passive park space, with its perimeter lined by the patios of the surrounding restaurants (Victory, Raging Burrito, Brush, Big Boss someday).
The lot in front of the new courthouse is frequently used to drop off and pick up visitors. If the lots were converted to a park, I hope the city would create a space for this function to continue in some fashion. It creates problems when drivers stop in the middle of the road on Trinity to drop off and pick up.
It seems that for every car that parks in those loops, another 20 drive in circles hopelessly not finding one. I think it actually creates traffic tie-ups.
I am all for a pickup and dropoff zone, just kill the parking. Or make it metered and 15 minutes.
Other forward looking thoughts:
1) Parks and pedestrian plazas build community, and catalyze economic development. Once enough people live downtown and pedestrian density goes up, it will open up a broader range of retail businesses that are willing to invest there.
2) Why not shut down the central stretch of Ponce to all but deliveries (other cities make these kind of pedestrian plazas work), and make it a pedestrian zone? Why not have Clairmont end in a cul-de-sac/turnaround/dropoff for the hotels (and I hope to be built retail in the next decade+). Both these changes, plus a park, would change the landscape of how future building N of Ponce would integrate.
3) Find a way to incentivize cheaper or free one hour parking. In pay decks (we have plenty). I live in the Artisan, and I observe that 95% of the spaces in the non-residential part of the deck are taken by monthly parkers (who work at the Emory Clinic next door). The local shops say the deck owner (private company) has no interest in working with them on discount parking, and it appears to me that, at least for this deck, they can’t be bothered since they have their captured revenue stream of monthly parkers (all those cars paying $50+/month). Can cities tax parking structures? Do they? Could that be utilized for something like “there is a 1% tax on your monthly parking receipts, that tax will be waived if you offer 1 hour of free parking to visitors.” I don’t know if these numbers make sense economically, but I do wonder if the city has really dug into the economics of the various city parking decks, and what incentives the owners have or don’t have to cater to hourly parkers (vs monthly parkers).
I find paying for parking a natural consequence of high density, but for some retail at certain price points per transaction, the hassle or cost of parking can kill business.
Any planned park on the grounds of the Downtown Decatur Mickey D’s needs to make display room for that creepy statue of Ronald McDonald just sitting in the solarium of the drive-through (with MIKE scratched on his foot).
I’m all for more greenspace. But this proposes we build a park between the two of the busiest intersections in the entire city?
Assuming that location’s fixed, performance or gathering space is a terrible idea. I can’t imagine a throng of people spilling over onto crowded sidewalks with that level of traffic inches away.
I’d suggest something more passive – perhaps smaller gathering spaces (gazebos, tables, bench clusters) with, and here’s the fun part, some large scale iconic public art.
If memory serves, the drawing shown is a concept drawing from some time ago. I believe it was from the Community Transportation Plan (years ago) or the Church Street/Commerce streetscape intersection studies of a few years ago. The consultants did a quick sketch of what the area between the Commerce/Clairemont and Commerce/Church intersections might look like IF that corner was redeveloped as greenspace. The drawing is only an artist concept!
Why don’t we tear down the Gazebo and put up a water feature in it’s place? This along with extending the square into the north side parking loop would be great. It would be nice to keep one parking loop but I would like to see it as handicapped parking, drop off / pick up, & valet parking only.
If I recall, some aspect of MARTA’s air rights makes any kind of water feature unlikely in that space. Not positive, though.
As for the north side loop, buildings on its east side (Brick Store, etc.) have existing access rights to their side alley and rear parking so, given the degree to which BSP and others have been instrumental in the city’s turnaround, I don’t see that being particularly attractive, politically speaking. There’s parking along the south loop as well that would also be landlocked with a loop closure. Not saying these rights would make the closures impossible. Just that you’d have to add in the additional cost impacts in the form of either negotiating deals or enduring litigation of some kind.
I know there are issues, I was just describing was I think would be good without considering logistical complications. It seems like we can do so much more with what we already have without going out and spending money to acquire more property.
I do agree that prioritizing quality of design over quantity of raw space is the more responsible approach in areas where land runs millions of dollars an acre.
If we’re talking about ideas regardless of complications and cost, I’ll say again, bury the railroad in a tunnel from Eastlake to past Commerce. Make the train companies pay for it. We could put a great long golf course on top.
Oooh! the DeQuator Links! I can see it now!
I’m sure there would not be any political push back on that (use ironic font here)
I love it. Trump Decatur style – bury the railroad in a tunnel from Eastlake to past Commerce and make CSX pay for it. I guarantee you, it will be great.
Although this is something that will never happen, this really would be great.
That wouldn’t be more than $30M or $40M and the railroad has nothing to gain for it, so they have no interest. On the contrary, it would become a major maintenance issue for them.
I should add that I was considering cost, just not the finer complications that Scott pointed out. If cost and lost revenue was not a consideration then I would love for the city to buy a few houses across the street from me so I can have my own personal park. Of course I would share with neighbors.
As a resident living off of Clairemont, I would love to see some TLC given to the north entrance to downtown. That particular McDonald’s is outdated and mostly unused by local residents. Woodlands is next to a busy road too, but I love that it is protected space. In closing, I would take any green space over what is there now.
“mostly unused by (the new, rich) local residents.”
There, fixed it for you. That McDonald’s is also one of just two restaurants in the city limits I can think of off the top of my head that you can walk into and expect to see any sort of significant racial or economic diversity. I’m not a fan of McD’s but I go to that particular one every now and then to remind myself of what Decatur used to be, for both better and worse.
Now, the other restaurant fitting that description I’d be totally fine with getting rid of in favor of a park. Or in favor of anything. Worst service ever…
I do like and agree with your point about diversity. It is one of the things that makes Decatur a great place to live. However, there are options available that are trying to promote that diversity. The weekly farmer’s market offers double EBT points which is a great way to shift cultural leanings and get people eating healthier at the same time.
I’d go there more if they actually carried Shamrock shakes. But I strike out whenever I ask …
The Callaway Building and massive surrounding lot. I lovely park and amenities could be shared by down-towners and highschoolers and everyone else. Create unpaved paradise and take down a parking lot!
Oh yeah, and never mind the developers!
That’ll be one expensive park. McDonald’s is a real estate company that happens to sell hamburgers.
Good point about McD’s being a real estate company. And so is Sears, which appears to be on its last legs. Others here are talking about 40 years from now and the infrastructure for cars…will a place founded on cars and highways like McD’s still be around? The Oracle of Omaha would probably say yes, but he does get it wrong occasionally. After all, who 40 years ago would have thought Sears would be in the position it’s in today?
Not much unlike what the Braves have morphed into. At least McDonalds doesn’t “force” public funding of their development.
Since we’re getting ahead of ourselves about talking about this anyway, I suppose that’s why we’re talking about converting all these parking lots into greenspace. I guess we all think no one will be driving in 40 years?
Of course you can replace surface parking lots (be that with a park or retail or residential or whatever) without a net decrease in parking spaces with the use of above or below ground decks.
But to answer the question, I believe in 40 years there will be virtually no one driving. That is not to say that there will be no cars.
Desirable urban places, whether they are small towns or large cities, are less dependent on cars. Decatur will be a better place if the city continues to make improvements that allow people to get to their destinations by walking, biking, or via public transportation. If the City of Decatur plans correctly, in 40 years fewer people will be driving. We’ll look back a photos of all of these parking spaces and be shocked at how much valuable urban space was wasted, like in this recent Throwback Thursday post from the Decatur Minute: http://thedecaturminute.com/2016/03/24/throwback-thursday-east-ponce/
One of the most notable things about those old photos is how barren the streets were. People complain about development as the opposite of anything “green” but it’s worth noting that one of the city’s most remarkable environmental achievements — the planting of hundreds of trees downtown — was not driven by or done in response to environmental advocates. It was always an economic development initiative. Which is a good reminder that strange bedfellows often get a lot more done than entrenched opponents.
By 40 years from now you will ask your wrist phone to call a driverless, electric car for you. It will come from its most recent drop-off nearby, deliver you, and maybe some other riders picked up along the way, then move to the next job. You will pay by waving your phone near the car’s computer.
Cars will never need to park other than in private corporate decks where they will be cleaned and charged. Why would anyone want to own such an expensive thing when it sits doing nothing 85% of the time?
“Why would anyone want to own such an expensive thing when it sits doing nothing 85% of the time?”
Yeah, it is a total mystery. Stranger still, a few weeks back there was thing called an “Auto Show” at the Georgia World Congress Center. The place was packed with people who paid money just to look at, sit in, and talk about cars. And I hear there are TV shows, websites and magazines aimed at something called a “car enthusiast.”
Could it be that people — many thousands, perhaps even million of people — actually like cars?
I agree with the sentiment (one car family, happy to car share, I bike everywhere), but not the argument.
The stove in my kitchen also sits idle 95% of the time. But that 5% it is being used is rather important. Which is also why we have rush hour traffic and cars full of lonely drivers.
Yes, but you cannot readily access a stove when you need it if you don’t have one already sitting in your kitchen.
That’s really my point. My idealism is wrecked by reality. As much as I think cars are inefficient and wasteful from a utilization point of view, there are times when I need one absolutely now. Even ZipCar requires me to plan ahead, and that’s not always possible.
Don’t forget Caffeine and Octane at Perimeter Mall every month. Packed with car people and hundreds of cars.
First Sunday of every month, which means there’s one coming up in a few days. Arrive early. Space is tight after 7:30 a.m. Hope to see you there.
http://caffeineandoctane.com/
You had me until I read “Perimeter Mall” and “7:30 am.” 😉
Like I said, there’s no accounting for wants. The event you’re describing sounds hellish to me. Except for the caffeine part. 😉
There is a car show at The Corner Pub this Sunday at 11:00. More my speed.
” Why would anyone want to own such an expensive thing when it sits doing nothing 85% of the time?”
Replace the word “want” with “need” and the question is more answerable. I’m often baffled by the things people “want” to own–boats, swimming pools, fur coats, to name a few. There’s no accounting for wants.
Exactly. Own one and you have to fill it up, clean it, repair it, pay insurance, not to mention add dead space to your house to park it and worry about what people do to it when you aren’t looking.
We won’t need them anymore when they drive themselves and communicate with each other. They will be ubiquitous, easy, fast, clean and cheap. Not only will they know where the traffic is slow but they will know where all the other cars are going and where the traffic will be slow twenty minutes from now.
Combine Zip Car, Uber, BitCoin and Google Maps and we can get rid of most of the parking spaces in urban cores.
“40 years from now…driverless electric cars…”
Terrifying. Then skynet goes online and we are all worshipping our robot overlords.
Do you want terminators? Because this is how you get terminators.
I don’t eat at the McDonald’s and don’t mind losing the fast food establishment (for multiple reasons, although I appreciate the comment above about that being a place to see more diversity in our increasingly homogeneous city), and I’m all for parks and greenspace. My question is given our upside down commercial to residential tax base, how can we afford to voluntarily eliminate a commercial tax payer from our city when there appears to be no likelihood of annexation (which I am not actually in favor of) and only limited options to expand our commercial tax base within our existing postage stamp geography?
Exactly. We can’t afford to give up prime commercial real estate. As a long-time taxpayer whose rapidly rising tax bill may soon force me out of my modest home, I want to see far more taxable commercial development, not less, especially in Decatur’s prime commercial real estate zones. Decatur’s commercial-to-residential ratio is way out of balance and needs to be addressed asap. I do not support removing any additional non-contributing parcels from the tax rolls. There are public green spaces a short walk away from any point in downtown. Closer, in fact, than the proximity of public green spaces near my Decatur neighborhood.
George dusenberry’s comments are all right on. It’s easy to find a million reasons why we can’t find more park space. But if we are creative we can find the space and the money. Naysayers are just unwilling to look at possibilities. This community has many creative people who need to be listened to.
That’s actually not true at all. Naysayers to George’s plan, like me, are more than willing to look at many possibilities for additional parks in the city, even downtown. But I’ve looked at this particular proposal and I’ve decided that it’s not a good idea for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere and others have stated above. Any other proposals?
My spouse would love a calisthenic park like they have in Brooklyn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3bR3Su6kQ. I would love to see something like The AMP in Carrollton somewhere in Decatur. http://www.carrolltonmainstreet.com/amp/
McDonald’s has been doing a lot of store replacements for outdated stores nationwide. They replaced the one from 1974 in the small town I grew up in a few years ago. I assume the downtown Decatur one is an early or mid 80’s vintage. If it really is as successful as people assume, it will soon be replaced. I’m sure they have an “urban” protoype, it will be interesting if the City can push for that version over the standard strip, drive thru version. I would offer if ChickFilA replaced this one like they did the Hardee’s at Trinity, it would have the same crowds as the Trinity one, and Trinity would still be busy. 🙂
http://www.omahabydesign.org/2012/11/urban-design-meets-mcdonalds-on-cuming/
Remember that the Chick-Fil-A, for zoning and permitting reasons, used the same footprint as the Hardee’s. If you look at contemporary CFAs built from the ground up, they are generally larger with more land. I think the difference is not in the store itself, but in the brand.