315 W. Ponce (aka Decatur Court) Plans and Studies Now Online
Decatur Metro | July 18, 2008
Lain points out that the city has just posted a ton of documentation on the 315 W. Ponce development on its website. We’re talking application letters, site plans, design studies, traffic studies, parking studies and working group minutes [all pdfs] It’s like Christmas in July!
For those who haven’t seen these before (like myself), its going to take some time to go through it all. I took a cursory glance at everything and the traffic study especially is quite detailed and therefore very long (38 pages).
I don’t have many observations thus far, except that the buildings look like they will have a nice upscale appearance if the design plans are any indication (Mongomery/W.Ponce) and the site does look kind of cramped. But I guess that can’t be helped with a 10 story pre-existing office tower. Also, from first glance, I’d almost say that Fairview residents might endure greater adverse effect than those on Montgomery that we’re always discussing. A 3-story brownstone across the street seems like a much nicer alternative than a (5 story?) parking deck behind the backyard. But that’s always the hazard of buying next to C-2, I guess.
Lain also reports that at the DDA meeting this morning “the board passed a resolution to approve the project and noted their desire for a parking and traffic contingency plan (in case the shared parking doesn’t work out), research on performance bonds, and approval of the building materials and landscaping designs.” So Scott, at a minimum you were on the same track as the DDA with the parking contingency idea, or perhaps they just flat out took your advice! Either way…great suggestion.
Alright everyone…take a look and lets hear some observations. I’ll certainly be chiming in once I finish the 38 page traffic study.
Latest from Decaturish
I’ll drink to that… as long as no EIFS is involved (like the smattering of it they put in Artisan, which kind of devalues it, IMO). Looked through the architecture firm’s web site. Looks like they do good work. If this project maintains the kind of quality as some other LAS projects, then I think it will be an asset to the area. I like the courtyards, setbacks, and the existing tower as the centerpiece. I hope they can keep it contextual to not just the surroundings, but the tower too. (yes, I like the tower, always have … respect)
Hard to tell from the picture. Looks pretty dense. Hopefully they don’t allow it in stucco.
I like the tower too dedogur.
And from my own limited exposure to architecture firms in the city, I believe Lord Aeck & Sargent is one of the most well-respected.
http://www.lordaecksargent.com/
decaturite: that’s good to hear. I like what I see on their site. I was worried this would be apartment-grade architecture and construction (like some in Atlantic Station), but it looks like that’s not going to be the case. (Nothing against Atlantic Station, there is plenty of good stuff there too).
So many apartments are built for a 20-year lifespan, with low cost design and materials. When they age, they hurt the surrounding community. Quality design and construction is so crucial for the long term character of a city. For the most part, I think Decatur has a good diversity and quality of buildings, and it looks to me like this project has the potential to add to, rather than subtract from, Decatur’s character. Both in the short term and long term. I hope that is the case … and seeing Lord Aeck & Sargent behind this makes me think we’re in good hands.
Looks like the dated, stark, now-way-out-of-proportion bank driveup windows are staying?? Or have I missed something?
Steve, that’s always been the case due to the fact that Wachovia has a long-term lease (thru 2015? 2030?) on that drive-thru, which I believe includes the right-of-way.
It sure does enhance the project. (LOL)
It must be logistically and financailly difficult for them to operate those windows since they now have no other presence in the building.
Looks nice. Something needs to be done to hide the office building that looks like a prison. Think this would be great for the community!
It’s interesting to note that page 13 of the traffic study backs up Scott’s assertion that current C-2 zoning generates a lot more traffic (if retail is involved) than the proposed residential/retail.
Apartment/Retail: 2,680 gross daily trips
General Office Building: 2,842 gross daily trips
General Office Building/Retail/Restaurant: 5,170 gross daily trips
Now I’m not sure why “restaurant” is included in the third scenario but not the first…but regardless…this apartment/retail set up seems to register the fewest number of trips of the bunch. And I gotta say that I much prefer the diversity of an apartment/retail than a plain old office building.
But here’s a question…is an office building without first floor retail even allowed under existing zoning anymore? Or is that just along Ponce?
Since Lain is the nephew of Linda Harris who works with Lyn can he get us some better info on materials? The architect said it would be stucco, masonry, hardiplank, and metal shingles. How good is that stuff?
That’s a lot of choices. I think they left out everything but vinyl siding?
When they say ‘stucco’ with apartments, you’d assume it’s the fake stuff (EIFS). That’s not good news, if it’s the case. That echos 20-year apartment grade construction. But I’m guessing they would use it as an accent along with brick, like on Artisan … not great, but it isn’t so noticeable if the EIFS is way above ground level.
Hardiplank is a form of concrete siding, which is fine. It looks good and works well on houses, but siding doesn’t seem right on a structure like this. I would much rather see something all brick.
I was really glad to see those tall trees retained in the plans.. they went out of their way to note their inclusion on the otherwise ambiguous drawings, which I think is great (love those trees).
Using too much Stucco is setting a dangerous precendent for city over the long term. Life can turn on a dime…the pretty modern day Stucco buildings can turn into ghetto buildings if not properly constructed and cared for. Recognizing that resources are expensive these days, it is still a much better precedent to set by setting standards of architectural quality developed with a long term (at least 100 year) view.
Whats wrong with insisting on brick or stone? Most of the great old buildings in the Decatur area are made from these time honored materials. If we want to keep the look of this area unique I think we should insist on it. Too bad if its too expensive. If you can’t afford it, don’t build it here.
If they let too much of this cheap construction continue in the downtown area we’ll have a slum for sure in about 15 years.
Decatur’s code doesn’t cover materials — they’re only addressed by our Design Guidelines, which lack any power of law — so we’ve got no authority on that front.
That said, though, the developer will want to avoid a back-and-forth process because it’s a time killer, which means we’ll have leverage as it relates to the proposed reduced parking. Above-ground, structured parking spaces costs about $20,000 each to build so maybe the city could suggest that every approved reduction of 40 spaces be valued at fifty cents on the dollar and translate to a $500,000 materials upgrade.
You know. Use what *they* want to get what *we* want.
The codes aren’t written in stone. Why don’t we change them? The best thing that happened to Decatur was that nobody wanted to develop this area for a long time. That allowed structures from other eras to escape the developers bulldozer. We weren’t completely spared but enough was left that Decatur became a destination.
I feel that the city should shift it’s focus from growth at any price to preservation and enhancement of that ambiance. Blogs like this one are on the front line of this battle. Ten years ago most of us wouldn’t have known anything about this until the construction fence went up. Now gov knows they have to tread much more carefully when they make deals with developers.
David…thanks for the kinds words! Keeps me goin’.
And you don’t have to change the code to impose stronger design standards…all you have to do is support a downtown historic district.
@ G.G – Despite my relationship, I’m sad to report that I don’t receive much juicy insider information, let alone top-secret facts about proposed developments. I wish! Mostly I hear about who in the office is having a baby, etc. Yawn.
I only knew about the 315 documents when I asked and was told that they’d put up a link on the News Flash part of the Decatur web site.
@ Everyone else, I think that quality materials are crucial to a great, neighborhood-friendly, lasting development. Let’s hope their already planning on using something those and not something like EIFS.
I think I’m missing something. Hasn’t all of downtown’s notable growth for the past ten years has been built on old parking lots? Which ones displaced historic buildings (and the Relapse Inn doesn’t count!)?
At some point, though, the potential infill lots are going to fill up, which will increase development pressure on our small-scale historic stock. I agree with DM that it would be a good idea to have a HD — or other protection — in place before that happened. Otherwise, David’s fears of bulldozers will become all too real.
Downtown historic district… I think we need historic districts just about over the entire city.
Hagus…we would probably have to caffeinate the heck out of the HPC if we did that.
It’s not about building in parking lots its about what they build in parking lots. The quality of the construction and the way it blends in with the surrounding area. Most of the buildings in Decatur date from the early part of the 20th century. Most of whats gone up lately has been a sort of ad-hoc post modernism so beloved of develpoers because its cheap and and looks sort of ok for a while.
I really think what the blogs can do best is get enough info out there so we can create enough friction that the cheap devs won’t want to deal with the hassle. The high end folks won’t have a problem. But mister bait and switch oh by the way we need a tad and 100 more units to make the numbers work will go else where.
A historic district is good but it didn’t seem to help the folks in Druid Hills much on the Emory Village issue. Rader asked for hard numbers and wasn’t much interested in aesthetic concerns when they approved the overlay. But then most of our elected officials are involved with developers in one way or another.
I’m not anti-dev I just want more than money to drive these decisions. For the area we live in Decatur is pretty unique. I’d like to see it stay that way.