Growth Happens. Manage Wisely. (c)
Decatur Metro | July 21, 2008HA! Wouldn’t that be an awesome City of Decatur bumper sticker?! Hmm…Decatur Metro reserves all rights…there! Let the pennies start rolling in…
Anyway…back to the issue at hand.
In response to a July 15th commentary in the AJC by DriftGrift favorite Jim Wooten, which argues that Atlanta needs to increase road capacities before allowing any other new development projects, David Allman (chair of the Buckhead Community Improvement District and the Livable Communities Coalition) has written a response, which uses Decatur as a central part of his argument.
“Build neighborhoods that combine housing and retail stores. It’s almost possible to imagine living without a car in downtown Decatur. There are apartments, condos, single-family homes and townhouses within walking distance of coffee shops, restaurants, a drugstore, a park and bandstand, a MARTA rail stop and much more. You don’t have to give up your car or like downtown Decatur to appreciate the fact that many of those good people who do aren’t driving as much as the rest of us and leave the streets at least a little less crowded.”
Love us or hate us…we’re freeing up the streets for the rest of you. Wow…we’re so great, even ultra-sassy Buckhead wants to be more like us! (Lord…I’m such a sarcastic cheerleader this morning…)
OK, in all seriousness, I do think Wooten has a valid point to convey about developers disguising projects as “mixed use” and then bringing in big box stores and building massive parking decks below ground so it still draws an endless parade of cars. (type “Sembler” into the search field to see all my old posts regarding that once ridiculous “smart growth” project) This garbage gives real smart growth a bad name. However, I obviously take issue with Wooten’s conclusion that we need a greater number of roads/lanes. Even if we choose to forgo the whole sustainability argument, did he even stop to see the price of gas this morning? People can’t afford a transportation system dominated by the car anymore. Sorry. Welcome to 2008.
We need more REAL smart growth, which actually allows people to get around without using 20% of their income on transport. And the only way that developers will even begin to consider such projects is with the proper infrastructure (a more expansive, better-funded light rail/bus system, bike lanes, etc…)
Latest from Decaturish
I agree with your assessment. However, it brings to light the opposition regarding the new project at the Wachovia building. If we are to follow and grow the “smart growth” plan of adding people that would want to take advantage of this great city, we need more people…..
Monday morning grammar check button broken
I think you’re misreading his article a bit. He’s not necessarily saying we should go on a road-building binge, but that if existing transport options can’t support growth in certain areas, don’t build there unless some appropriate solution — whether it’s roads, rails, etc. — is planned. It’s pretty reasonable. And certainly better than the current scenario, which is to add more stoplights everywhere but not do anything else.
I also think it’s a pipe dream to think the rising price of gas will result in a lot fewer cars on the road. It is far more likely to change the types of cars (e.g., SUVs to hybrids) than to convince people to leave the car at home and take MARTA. The 70s oil crisis did not convince us to stop driving; it just convinced us (temporarily) to drive smaller cars. In other words, the traffic problem is going to stay with us, and we do need a solution that will work.
DEM…you’re right that Wooten does say at one point “Some clearly prefer high density —- and that should be approved in areas with sufficient road capacity or next to rail.” So building next to existing rail is ok, but when it comes to putting future funding towards rail and similar alt means of transportation he calls them “boutique transportation adventures”. So I don’t personally think I’m that far off when I assert that he’s opposed to rail funding.
In regards to gas prices putting fewer cars on the road…my personal opinion is that if gas prices stay at $4 a gallon or higher, we will eventually see a population shift back to the city center, which results in higher densities that can only be adequately supported by public transit. Yes, the initial move for those with 30 mile commutes will be to the smaller car, because they can’t just go out of their house and move next to a MARTA station tomorrow…but enough people will eventually do just that with time. This is not a quick process. There are still millions of people stuck with SUVs that can’t get out of them until they can justify the expense. I agree with you that regardless many will still drive in years to come…but not nearly as many, if we put our transit money where our mouths are.
The Wooten Philosphy: Money spent on roads is an “investment.” Money spent on rail is a “subsidy.” Ah, the fun one can have with semantics!
You may be right about the long-term effects of $4 gas. Hard to say. But the pain is so severe now because our fleet is so incredibly inefficient. Families can massively reduce their gas bill by downsizing cars, even if they don’t cut miles driven. But who knows, they may do both.
Sorry to belabor the point, but I had a final thought on this interesting discussion.
Atlanta doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Every day it competes with other cities nationwide (and worldwide) for population, commerce, tourism (among other many other things). Though it seems conservative to continue a policy that bets on cheap gas (as Wooten suggests), its actually extremely risky. Not only are many other U.S. cities light-years ahead of Atlanta it terms of public infrastructure, but if we remain complacent while our contemporaries (other second-tier cities) create better, more efficient public transit…we will begin to see populations drift away from Atlanta.
As I see it, right now we are living in a buffer-period (for lack of a better word), since there are still areas around the heart of the city that can absorb greater population density. But if citizens continue to feel the pinch of cheap gas, they will look for public transit…and if they don’t find it, many will go to another city. It’s not something we can build overnight. We can only be ahead of the curve or behind it.
Place your bets.
This points to one of my biggest personal concerns about the 315 development. Atlanta does not have the infrastructure for people to give up their cars.
I bought a new mini in 2002 and am just about to hit 14,000 miles – I walk when I can, combine trips and try to make the most of it when I do drive but the plain truth is that as a person living in the greater Atlanta area – I need a car.
Most of my doctors are at piedmont except one, who happens to be in Marietta. I also have a teenager, three dogs and a love of fresh produce : Decatur makes it easy for me to leave my car parked at home in most situations, but I still have one.
I’m very concerned that with the proposed shared parking model that the number of people doing exactly what we would like them to do (walking to local businesses, taking marta, telecommuting) increases, so does the risk that the parking at 315 will overflow during the day and the concept will fail. Apartment renters are not going to sell their cars to move to Decatur and I’m quite sure “Sell your car and join us!” is not going to be on the leasing literature.
It’s not just about what we can get to in Decatur – it’s about what we need to get to *outside* of Decatur and is it reasonable to expect any people moving into Decatur to become car free. Having a city that is not car dependent ( minus a decent walkable grocery store) only goes so far when we are smack dab in the middle of a metropolis where most people (even if they don’t use them daily) still need cars.
If I leave Atlanta – crappy public transportation will be at the top of my “why” list.
Sorry to be so rambling. The problem is much larger than Decatur and what is about to happen in one small corner of it but I do have this sinking feeling that I am about to get smacked on the head with one giant symptom of said problem.
Decaturite,
You state:
“Not only are many other U.S. cities light-years ahead of Atlanta it terms of public infrastructure, but if we remain complacent while our contemporaries (other second-tier cities) create better, more efficient public transit…we will begin to see populations drift away from Atlanta.”
I am curious, what cities, specifically, are you referencing here? And are you stating that Atlanta is a “second-tier” city?
One word Stacy: Flexcar.
Also, if you read the parking study for the 315 West Ponce development, it assumes that 40% of the apartment residents will leave their car in the garage during the day and they will still have enough parking for the office and retail components. I think that is pretty conservative.
Eric,
I think Decaturite means that Atlanta is not a New York, Chicago, or LA (which it is not) and that it is more comparable to the smaller big cities in the U.S. like, oh lets say, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Denver, etc.
I don’t think that Decaturite means that Atlanta is “second tier” in a negative way, just that it is not comparable to the largest metropolises in the U.S.
Stacy, I certainly understand your concerns. But it doesn’t seem like parking experts agree with your position. Regardless of this, the DDA is listening to residents’ concerns and is pursuing a parking contingency plan in case what your suggesting does happen. To build extra parking right out of the gate that will never be used (according to analysis) is a waste of time, money and resources. Also, it will require a larger, taller parking deck, which based on its location might not be something your neighbors on Fairview will be in favor of supporting. In my mind, its better to test out a more consolidated model and then expand as necessary, instead of risking a huge waste of resources based on a hypothetical.
Eric…urban theorists sometimes classify cities into different tiers based on multiple factors, but they often have to do with world trade…here’s one that ranks on accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law. Often times things like “culture”, which is a byproduct of a rich population, are also measured to determine rank (how many art museums, orchestras…). Often the rankings are as versatile and flighty as U.S. News’ college rankings, but it does give us a way of thinking about cities in comparison to each other….plus there is little disagreement about the very top tier of cities (“world class”), where a large majority of world capital flows into and out of. In the U.S., you’re talking about NYC, Chicago and L.A. San Fran is debatable but also sometimes finds itself in this group.
When I said “second tier” I was referring to cities like Boston, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. That’s where Atlanta falls. We can strive to be top-tier, but right now if you’re an overseas company looking to open a U.S. branch in the highest profile location and money isn’t an issue…you’re going to a top tier…most likely NYC…not Atlanta. Yet.
And I wouldn’t have it any other way. It much more interesting to be an ambitious, growing metropolis where the sky’s the limit, than to already be on top…fat and content.
Decaturite,
I guess I’d have to say that what we disagree on is how valid the parking projections for 315 are. I think what they allocation on paper for the residential looks quite reasonable – what they are planning for the current office space seems more than a bit on the low side to me. I would love to see a real, enforceable parking
contingency plan but I’d still like to see this project be a little bit smaller and err a bit more on the side of caution with the shared parking. I still feel like at the end of the day the owners overpaid for this property and the surrounding neighborhood and businesses are being asked to bear the burden so that they can try to pull themselves out of a bad financial decision – but that is simply my opinion.
It’s funny – looking at the decreased parking numbers (and living on one of the corners mentioned) I can tell you that I find those numbers hard to believe. These numbers are nothing like what I have seen out of my own front door or my bi-weekly trips to the farmers market between 9 and 10 am for the last 5 years.
Bill,
I’d love to see statistics on how many people have given up their cars completely for flexcar. I think it’s a great option for some – but not at all viable for most. If most people were to ask themselves “how many cars are owned in my household?” I think most people would have the answer. I’m not willing to give up my car so I certainly don’t expect that anyone else should or would.
Understood…I thought that’s what you meant….
On a side note, you mention that some second tier cities are creating better more efficient public transit. While I myself am a huge proponent of clean public transport (It kills me that I can’t take the train straight to Turner Field), I think that the only cities that you mention that can attain this are cities that were settled and established before the car became a mode of transportation. Been to Dallas recently? Houston? Miami? I have, and there is nothing worthwhile I could find. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places (or not hard enough
I love that I can go to NY, Chicago, Boston, Paris, and London and not have to use a car. But let’s be realistic.
Sometimes I feel that those who are pro-public transport, will push that agenda even if it is not economically or infrastructurally feasable. More important, SHOULD IT EVEN BE TRIED? Or should it be done just to do it? What are the costs? What are the benefits after all is said and done? Instead, should there be a rule on fuel efficient cars registered in the city limts?
I think the Beltline is a great idea, but I have heard it is being sidetracked.
Charlotte is building a light rail, and from what I have heard it sounds just like Marta. N/S E/W, thats it. Not a strong recipe for success. We should know!
God a person could drive themselves crazy doing this for a living!
Eric,
I have been hearing about the beltline project for years now – has it just completely stalled? I think it would be a great start toward solving some of our transportation woes – and what a great way to bring people into Decatur without cars.
Flexcar doesn’t have to eliminate a household’s cars, it can simply reduce them. I know a couple that shares a single car and then uses flexcar as their “second vehicle”, whenever the need arises. This has effectively freed up one parking space.
The Charlotte light rail is having ridership 30% over projections and it’s only been operating since November. The current line is the intial stage and planning includes lines to all parts of Mecklenburg County. Note that they have a BIG advantage over Atlanta – the entire light rail would be all in one county, so you don’t get into the squabling that marks any attempt at progess (on many fronts) in the metro area.
Charlotte is also doing something Atlanta failed to do — enact policies and regulations that encourage growth along these corridors. Transportation infrastructure, in the absence of compatible land planning, is a waste. A good example is East Decatur Station. Marta stuck a station there but its real value and viability will ultimately result from Decatur’s efforts to direct more intense growth to the adjacent area.
To respond to one of Eric’s earlier comments…
When I referred to other second-tier cities creating better transit, I believe I said “if”. You are right, all the other second tiers I mentioned are a mess of sprawl…except Boston. And though no one would argue that older, denser cities are in a better position to institute public transit, I don’t think its a natural transition to believe that a sprawled out city couldn’t consolidate in a similar pattern today. How much more dense is Midtown today than 5 years ago?
Even two years ago, I wouldn’t have been comfortable making all these grand claims about public transit. Gas was just too cheap and convenient. But now oil has increased the price of everything, foremost being transportation. Therefore, the natural inclination is to cut back and consolidate. And that doesn’t even mean everyone needs to come back to downtown Atlanta. If we had decent, far-reaching transit options, folks could live tens of miles from Atlanta, and still get around without going broke as long as they lived near a train station.
Stacy,
The office building parking numbers are the ONLY numbers that can be certifiably attained right now, since the office building is not changing in anyway, and by counting the cars currently in the parking lot at various times of the day, you know exactly how many cars are will be there.
So, if you believe that the apartment numbers are “quite reasonable,” and we know for certain how many cars will be parked for the office, what is the problem?
According to Flexcar’s own literature, every Flexcar replaces 15 privately owned cars.
Bill,
“Certifiably attained” is an interesting concept. Is the building at max capacity? (no) What if the office building renter demographic changes substantially during the surrounding construction process. 2 spaces per 1000 square feet is low and frankly depending on when the car counting was done there is a large margin for error here. They are making a lot of assumptions based on what they hope will work, I’m simply looking at it from the perspective of what might go wrong – which seems fairly logical to me.
I’m not saying that I think flexcar is a bad idea by the way – I’m just saying that even as infrequently as I use it (around 2000 miles per year) I’m not going to give up my car and I suspect most people out there feel the same way.
I have been looking at some of this data for months and I still think that this location is the wrong one to implement the first shared parking model of this type in the city.
I believe that the surrounding residential neighborhood would take a real beating if their numbers turn out to be wrong. If this type of shared parking is as good as it sounds I’d rather have the city test in out in one of the already approved dense residential sites that does not abut R-60. I think density is good for our city I would simply like to see our existing residential neighborhoods given the consideration and protection that they deserve.
Obviously you are a fan of density in general – but is there nothing at all about a development that would include more residences than exist in the adjacent neighborhood that bothers you? How much density would you like to see in Decatur? (I’m not trying to be a smartass here – I’m actually curious).
I have no problem with the Artisan or the 335 Ponce development but I remain unconvinced yet open to discussion about this one.
Beware of the ‘Growth God’. Density does not always translate to good quality of life. We are being conditioned to think that is the case from all directions, particularly the media. Many prominent people are starting to wake up to the fact that the whole economic model being used these days that was developed prior to overpopulation, wide scale environmental degradation, etc. and is a now a sham. I’m not saying density and growth is always bad, just that I wouldn’t readily accept it as always being good.
Stacey,
The Decatur Court office building is 90% occupied (at least as of November 2007).
http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=F7650508757754261E4F74EA34187E8A
One more thing. What I think that the neighbors haven’t thought out fully is this fatal flaw in their argument against this project.
Their main argument is that there is not enough parking for this project. They are leaving themselves open to the developer just saying, OK, we’ll build more parking. Yet, more parking would mean a larger parking structure, encouraging more people to drive, and meaning more cars and more traffic in their neighborhood.
Another flaw is this. Under current zoning, the developer could build another office building back in that parking lot. And if it includes no residential component would require no public hearings or city approval as long as it met other zoning requirements. Office buildings generate far more (like 3-4 times) traffic than the same amount of residential square footage. Think about it – the average resident may make 2-3 trips a day from their apartment or condo, while an office building has the people that work there, multiple office visitors/customers/clients visiting per day, multiple deliveries, etc.
All I’m saying is be careful what you ask for.
Eric wrote: “I love that I can go to NY, Chicago, Boston, Paris, and London and not have to use a car. But let’s be realistic.”
Eric, there are plenty of places you can go and live a normal life while not owning a car. Off the top of my head, I can name several cities. How about Portland, Oregon? Or San Francisco? Or even the amazing resurgence of Washington, DC as a livable city? Or just a bit north of the border, how abut Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or Quebec City? Or further afield, you could live in practically any European city and never own a car – take a look at Berlin’s public transit system, or how people in Amsterdam ride their bikes everywhere. Not to mention small towns in the States like Boulder, CO, Princeton, NJ, or Charlottesville, VA, that one could easily live in without a car.
Or – here is the real shocker – I, myself live in Decatur without a car, as does my next door neighbor and some other friends up the street. I make do with buses, my bike, and my feet. It’s been far more interesting, exciting, cost effective, healthful, and environmentally responsible than my former days sitting in traffic on I-495. It’s so much better that I swore to myself I would never go back.
In light of our current oil crisis and the bankruptcy of our car-based urban planning, how is it possible that we are refusing to think of ways to create a city that is walkable and full of transit options like NY, Chicago, Boston, etc? Seriously, let’s be realistic.
Oh, and Kurt wrote: “I’m not saying density and growth is always bad, just that I wouldn’t readily accept it as always being good.”
You could say that about anything: too much sleep isn’t good; drinking too much water can be bad for you, too; too much growth is bad. Sure. But the proper amount of density for an urban environment like Atlanta is, in light of what we’re doing to our world and our economy, so much more dense that it is now that we don’t have to wonder if we’re becoming too dense for quite some time. It’s like the folks living at Lake Lanier worrying that the upcoming thundershowers may flood the area because there is a theoretical point at which there could, in the distant future, be too much water in the reservoir.
Brennan,
I understand that not having a car is a source of pride for you. It shows!
However, once again the cities that you mention were built (for the most part) at a time before the car became an economical mode of transportation. I believe for the most part that the majority of people on this blog ride bikes, walk, and take public transport when it is convenient and accessible. I sure walk into Decatur whenever I have the time (and my wife does about 5X as much as I do!) I would love to run in a rickshaw down S. McDonough to get my family to the square and take Marta to work (1 hour), but with both parents working 50+ hours a week it is not a SUSTAINABLE alternative.
But we are not Washington DC (established before the car) Berlin (established before the car) etc…etc….etc….
We live in Atlanta, HOME of SPRAWL!!!! (I take that back, Dallas takes the cake on that one) and we need to act accordingly. And I am more concerned with what is possible economically and environmentally here than someplace else.
That’s why we write on this blog, right?
Brennan,
One more thing…Boulder (Univ of Colorado)? Charlotesville (UVA)? Princeton (Princeton)?
No one SHOULD have a car in college
Washington, DC was but a two bit government town that resembled a real city for only a few months out of the year before the invention of the car. It didn’t become the metropolis that is is until after WWII … well after the car was standard.
Eric,
I understand we are the home of sprawl. I just don’t think that is an excuse to neglect making immediate, drastic plans to change that. In fact, it makes it all the more imperative that we change that.
I also don’t quite understand the “invention of the car” timeline. Denver – which was, when I lived there, an incredible ode to sprawl, entirely built around the car – has, in the past decade or so, realized that it needed to change. So it quickly built light rail into the suburbs and on-street trolley systems in the downtown area, fostered a walking culture by making a huge pedestrian-only area downtown, built so many bike trails all around the metro area that it now has the most miles of trail in the States. In that same span of time, Atlanta hasn’t done anything similar. And, when I visited Denver a few weeks ago, the difference was clear. They still have suburbs and traffic, but I spent a few days downtown and was very impressed with what they have done. Denver was, like Atlanta, synonymous with sprawl; but they decided that was motivation enough to change.
It’s possible, here and now. At first, all it takes citizen action and governmental responsibility. If we let folks know that we want density, more public transit money (and options), and trails for walkers and bikers, it’s there for the taking.
And it’s not just that biking is a source of “pride.” For all the external reasons I listed, I made it a goal. Then I did what I could to achieve that goal: namely, I moved here because I could bike to work. You could do the same, and it’s not crazy for families to do this (my neighbor has three children and no car in Decatur, and somehow it works). It sounds like most people around here are intrigued by the notion of a walkable, public-transit-negotiable city, but aren’t willing to even consider making any of the commitments that it would take to get there. For example: why doesn’t the state DOT build a transportation network that would get you from Oakhurst (or wherever) to downtown in a reasonable amount of time? You could make it happen!
Brennan, the way to start making things happen is through your elected representatives. The DOT Board is elected by them and that Board sets policy. The representatives also are the ones who create and help fund planning and fecilitate the funding of projects. They are also to ones who, by 3 votes, didn’t allow local entities to tax themselves for local transportation projects thru a TSPLOST in the last legislative session.
Hey Eric…I appreciate the alternative perspective. And while you’re right that a majority of the comments are from public transit advocates, I’m sure there are a bunch of readers out there that agree with you. Only a very small percentage of readers actually post (though perhaps a greater percentage than on other blogs…which I greatly appreciate)
I’m curious to know your argument regarding why public transit wouldn’t work in a sprawled out city. Transit-friendly cities and more modern interstate cities alike have a great deal of sprawl around them (NYC, Chicago, San Fran…)…so its hard to see how the sprawl itself would deter transit. And isn’t it a pretty reasonable assumption that Atlanta-proper can get progressively more dense? Hasn’t that been happening up and down Peachtree for the past 5-10 years?
Now I recognize that the layout of the city is quite different from the grids in NYC (the 16 or so blocks downtown are all that remain of that idea)…so transit has to adapt differently. But still it seems that a large majority of the skyscrapers are still all clumped along one long line. It looks like a city center to me.
Zoning code mandated parking ratios are crap. Don’t let the posers baffle the argument by their ability to quote arcane Byzantine zoning code. How about this: big ol’ buildings in grown up cities with essentially NO parking (see the cities in prior post)? It means that if you wan to drive, you have to pay the appropriately high cost of driving and parking, which Atlantans seem to believe should be cheap or free. Gasp – an entitlement. That makes a lot of people walk. Can we get consensus on evolving and walking (not driving) upright? Not supporting the plan at 315 seems to make Decatur smack of liberal hypocrisy.
B. Steal
It is not either walk or drive. It is not suburban vs. urban. The two always occur together and planning must be for their healthy co-existence … so we do need more focus on pedestrian environments but …
There is no question in my mind that vibrate, pedestrian-friendly areas are a critical asset to a city of any size and add to the quality of life. I think, though, that viewing the long-term city planning in a bi-polar way around the automobile vs. pedestrian is not helpful.
The truth is that regardless of the price of a barrel of oil, or even the availability of alternative fuel sources, the majority of Decatur residents (and Americans) love the independence and utility of automobiles and view the associated mobility nearly as valuable as their right to free speech (some, perhaps more).
Could we/should we drive more efficient vehicles and drive less often? Yes; probably good for many, many reasons – economic, social, and health. But a free city of any size must remain friendly to BOTH public and private transportation. In the end, I think a viable alternative to automobiles is a good thing for Decatur and Atlanta but it won’t be a replacement for but rather an alternative to automobile traffic.
Does Chicago have great rail? Yes. But it is still a minority of commuters that use it daily. Even if Atlanta becomes “Manhattan-like” within the city limits, it will be surrounding by automobile-driving suburbs.
So, let’s maximize the “human” environment of Decatur with walkable neighborhoods and local businesses but let’s not pretend that we don’t need to accommodate the car-commuting public, too.
Someone above mentioned the Sembler developments as bad examples of sustainable mix-used – I couldn’t agree more. The Town Brookhaven project was _supposed to_ consist of many locally operated businesses and restaurants to add to the live/walk atmosphere. With many business tenants _rumored_ to be bailing out, It seems less and less like a nice place to live and more like a re-configured strip mall.
I don’t think any free city of any size MUST remain friendly to BOTH public and private transportation. Larger cities are becoming choked by congestion which has significantly degraded quality of life and many people are becoming downright hostile to the automobile. (I lived in London for a number of years and when the congestion charge was brought in life improved intown immensely. I hear NYC is considering the same) You say people love the independence and utility of automobiles and view the associated mobility nearly as valuable as their right to free speech. I can’t say people look real happy sitting imprisoned in thier cars on the arteries of the city of Atlanta surrounded by a disgusting wasteland of sprawl. Public health has deteriorated to where we have an epidemic as people ‘expect’ to be able to drive everywhere AND park for free. And as social medicine becomes more and more inevitable (its a moral issue, not a capitalistic issue) we will all end up paying for this in one form or another. When is the last day we had a day that was in the ‘green zone’ for ozone content? I’m not sure if you noticed but been a while. You have kids? If they are playing outside between 8am and 10pm they are probably burning the little linings of thier lungs causing permanent damage. Sorry…I’m probably a bit more radical in my view, but I am not willing to bend anymore on the car issue. It dehumanizes people, pollutes the environment, destroys communities by putting swaths of traffic through neighborhoods. You’ve gotten so accustomed to seeing something that has come to be seen as normal (the car taking over everything) you can no longer see clearly.
As far as the new development on Ponce, the neighbors have every right to be concerned that their neighborhoods will be overwraught with autos. Welcome to a democracy. Without those concerns crony politicians would just do whatever they wanted. I’m not saying the development won’t be good for the city, but it should be questioned from every angle. Also, I go back to an original rant…there is alot of emphasis on density and commercializing the environment (stores, restaurants) but there is a lack of greenspace… open space in the center of town for people to relax and congregate. The majority of the Square is concrete and parking lot. To add density without taking into consideration greenspace for people to access is another example of backwards thinking and political cronyism. Do you honestly think the majority of people are going to go hang out at the “Cemetery”? Please.
Compliments on the blog by the way. I can tell the people that really care about this town are on here and are involved in some way. The other local blogs are not attracting very much traffic at all. This seems to be the place to be to have dialog if you care about Decatur and surround region.
Your words are a bit harsh Rick but in many ways I agree with what you have to say.
I think it would be tough to get that parking lot removed. It would be possible but there would probably be alot of loopholes to go through. The community would need to be behind it and somehow convince the car addicts that its not needed. I sit outside at the Brick Store Pub sometimes and most of the time that parking lot is full. Because its full there is an endless parade of cars that keeps driving around and around looking for parking spots. People probably look there first because it is out in the open. I don’t look for parking downtown because I live downtown so I’m not sure how easy it is for people coming from outside of town to find parking. I see signs around but I’m not sure if they are easy for people to navigate.