315 W. Ponce Development May Be Big…
Decatur Metro | July 25, 2008…but it doesn’t seem all that dense in comparison.
Asst. City Manager Lyn Menne has crunched a lot of numbers for us and compares the 315 W. Ponce project with other well-known past Decatur condos in terms of scale and density.
- 335 W. Ponce – 70 units- This site is exactly one acre. Density is 70 units per acre and abuts the R-60 zone.
- Artisan Phase I – 77 units – Phase I and II are both located on the same 1.9 acre tract. This tract was zoned for 70/acre, and with the 20% density bonus for affordable units the total approved unit count was 162 which works out to about 85 units per acre with the density bonus. The demand for larger units resulted in smaller units being combined so the final product is about 77 units instead of 105 units in Phase I and about 50 units in Phase II instead of 57 bringing the total to 127. The final density of the project as developed is around 67 units per acre. While the number of units did decrease, the size and scale of the building remained unchanged.
- Artisan Phase II – 50 units – Same as above
- Decatur Renaissance – 168 units – Harold A. Dawson/Lane developed this 2.67 acre site. The City calculated the site including the existing office building and parking deck associated because it was considered one site — similar situation to the 315 W. Ponce project. It works out to 63 units per acre. The height variance was important to us because it was so close to the out of scale office building and we wanted to blend the height difference to help “hide” the earlier grandfathered structure. Because it fronted Ponce we had the ability to encourage the taller structure.
- Townsquare Condos – 105 units – Developed by Ultima Properties with 105 units on 1.9 acres. As built, it is 58 units per acre but the property is zoned for 70 units per acre. This project was originally approved for more units and therefore a higher density but they ended up combining some smaller units into larger units to respond to market demand so the unit count went down to 105. While the total unit count went down, the size/scale of the building remained the same.
- Although the 315 W. Ponce site is zoned for 70 units per acre, the developer isn’t close to that density. The site is 4.9 acres so the project is actually closer to 44 units per acre making it less dense than every example above.
Geez…I didn’t realize the site was so much larger than the Artisan’s! But if I think back to that large, grassy, fenced parking lot…it actually begins to make sense.
Latest from Decaturish
Doing the math then, the actual total number of condo units downtown is 470.
One thing to remember is that the 4.9 number includes all the existing structures and the drive through space that can not be used. The actual space that is free for development is *much* smaller than 4.9 acres. I’m still not sure why they calculate the “usable” lot size with the existing structures that they know are not going to be taken down. Does anyone have an idea why it is done this way?
I’m not sure of the exact numbers but if you take away the acreage for the current building and the drive through – my guess is about half of that 4.9 acres is already being used =)
The density is simply a measure of dwelling units per parcel. If you have a single family home and, say, a garage where you run a mechanics business on an acre, your residential density measure is 1 unit to the acre. If you add a garage apartment, your measure is 2 units to the acre. If you then split your house into a duplex, it jumps to 3 units to the acre. But whatever you do residentially, your commercial use on the same land has no impact on the count.
Why does it matter whether or not the drive through or office space can be used? We’re looking at a parcel of land and counting the number of dwelling units. So long as they’re stepping down the design as it approaches the residential side, what difference does it make where they put them?
Because they are saying that the size of the parcel is 4.9 acres and they are using that number to calculate the density. They make it *sound* like the new apartments, retail and parking structure are going to be spread out over 4.9 acres – which is simply not true. I just don’t see how space that is not free and available for building residential units should be included in the units per acre calculation.
It’s like buying two acres of farmland and finding out one of those acres is covered with giant boulders – if you can’t actually use it for farming it seems wrong to “sell” it as two acres of farmland. If they can only develop half of this lot – or it may be split up at some point why should they get to use the entire 4.9 acres for their calculation?
I would love to see the calculation of units per acre if they used only that part of the parcel that was actually being allocated for the residential development. You can’t have it both ways – the large current office building is either part of the density or it’s not part of the parcel. You can’t claim the land that the 10 story office building sits on to dilute your density without taking into account the people (and their cars) who will be at that building every day.
Couple of things about this density stuff. Like Scott pointed out, density is a simple measure of units/area. This concept is not unlike the concept of percentages. If I say 80% of these people like chocolate, that sounds significant, but it could only be 4 people (of 5) or 2 people (out of 2.5) or 800 people (out of 1000). That’s why folks say “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Nothing illustrates this better than the first “comparison” made using the 335 building. I’m honestly taken aback by this! To try to claim that the 335 development is in /any way/ comparable to what is being proposed next door takes the idea of “strawman” to a whole new level. 70 units per acre? Abuts R-60? Seriously?
The 44u/acre number is very misleading because JLB’s not actually /building/ on all 4.9 acres, only on about 2.5(ish). JLB is not applying to develop the entire property, they are applying to develop apartment homes on what is essentially the parking lot surface. So, in reality the density of the newly-developed parcel is much higher than 44 (approximately 70-75u/acre).
Scott, you say that that the commercial use should not be reflected in the residential numbers. If that’s truly the case, then why factor the office building into the parking numbers? Why worry about the impact of the office building on traffic?
If you’re going to count the whole 5 acres, then you should also consider the density of the office tower as well. If you’re not gonna count the tower, then you should not get to count its 2.5 acres that it sits on. I’m sorry, I’ve really tried to come up with a justification for calculating the partial development against the total acreage but I just don’t see how a reasonable person can selectively divorce the proposed development from the entire land context into which it is being deployed.
You ask what difference does it make where they put them as long as they step it back? This question carries with it a lot of unstated assumptions, and one of those is that it assumes the impact of density is uniform across the lot surface (it’s not). JLB is proposing 160 units be built on the back half of that property — the very space that is closest to the abutting residential neighborhood most at-risk to the impact of whatever is put there. I don’t see how a step-down adequately addresses that.
One thing to clarify, Baron. I didn’t say commercial numbers “shouldn’t” be counted in the calculation; I simply explained that they aren’t. The calculation is just residential units per parcel, whether it pleases anyone or not.
More importantly, though, is that your comments basically make my point: Numbers are just numbers. They can be stated in many ways and shifted around to make different points seem more valid. However you slice ‘em, though, one thing is certain: Numerical measures are a terrible way to try to quantify quality of life (for either the project’s residents or the neighborhood’s residents).
What matters is form and that’s why DM’s comparison to 335 is perfectly reasonable. Because, at the end of the day, the question is simply whether or not a big lump, carved into a particular shape, can work on a particular site. The 3D renderings seem to show a “lump” on the front side that is comparable in massing and street relationship to 335. And on the back side, they show a “lump” that scales down to 3 stories at the residential street and provides a transition to the tower. Both of these lumps seem perfectly reasonable to me, regardless of what’s inside.
There’s been talk now and again about how the Artisan was approved for a good bit more units but, because the market preference turned out to be for larger floor plans, they ended up with fewer units overall. The density went down but guess what: The form of the building, as viewed by its neighbors, stayed exactly the same.
I know we’re not going to convince each other, Baron, and that’s okay. The neighborhood should work to get what it wants. But at the end of the day, I have to assume what you want is to maintain your quality of life, not celebrate an abstract and meaningless number.
Sorry, one more thing and then I’ll bow out. Before anyone says “Numbers matter because of the traffic and parking issues,” remember what I’ve been saying all along: There are other (and better) ways to address traffic and parking — even ways that provide enforceable guarantees that the quality of life of surrounding residents will not be adversely affected. Settling on a density number will never provide you any guarantee of anything. What’s better? 100 units of folks who park wherever they want and cut through residential streets or 220 units of folks obligated to behave as you want them to?
Scott,
Maybe I misunderstood, but my read was that 335 was being compared to all of 315, not just the front quarter of 315. The 60-unit street-facing building is certainly a more analogous “lump” to 335. And, lest anyone misunderstand, I know that DM is simply sharing the data received, no beef there. You have some good input, and I would like to talk more offline. If you’re interested, hit me up at baron aht livablegrowth dawt org (sorry to say that like a dork, but spam sucks).
Question here: Can someone please define for me “20% Density Bonus for Affordable Units?”
What does that mean? Affordable?
You have to ask yourself why the city would even put out this kind of info if they weren’t trying to grease the wheels for devs. This is the real problem here. The mindset of growth at any price. Maybe we all need to get together and decide what kind of city we want and not leave it to folks whose sole purpose in life is bring more and more to area.
I believe “affordable” refers to units sold at lower than market prices to low income, handicapped, or elderly people, SWT.
As an aside government will almost always vote themselves a pay raise ie more tax base if they can. More apartments does not equal sustainable growth. We will lose the sense of place that Decatur has if we’re not careful. No matter what they tell you that’s one thing that can’t be built. Also beware of the hard number argument. It cost Druid Hills dearly.
David said: “Maybe we all need to get together and decide what kind of city we want and not leave it to folks whose sole purpose in life is bring more and more to area.”
Not to point out the obvious, but we did all get together. First in the 80s, with the Town Center Plan, and then 15 years later with the Strategic Plan. Both plans affirmed a community-wide desire to densify at our core so that we could, among other things, reduce development pressure on our historic neighborhoods. The Town Center Plan made two key recommendations: First, for the city to adopt the plan. Second, for the city to set up a coordinating authority (the DDA) whose responsibility it is to implement the plan. The city did both. What we’re seeing now has been 20 years in the making.
I’m getting a little tired of people acting like a community that actively engaged its citizens, put a plan on paper, stuck with it instead of filing it on a shelf somewhere, and then actually achieved results (!) is being victimized by evil forces. The development we’ve been seeing the past five years is not some sort of random happenstance. Acting like we’re getting screwed is insulting to everyone — including many citizens — who took the time to participate, contribute and work to get the job done.
We can argue over the details, like how big is too big, but enough with the poor victim routine. I suggest any Decatur newbies familiarize themselves with our community vision before demonstrating an apparent unfamiliarity with the documented goals of the town they live in.
Stacy, I’m a little unsure about the whole existing buildings thing too. If I hadn’t been so distracted when I posted I would have asked that ahead of time. My GUESS is that even though part of the lot is already used for office space that doesn’t change the zoning laws in regards to number of dwellings per acre. So if the developer really wanted to develop 70 units an acre (instead of the current 44) he still could. OR say this developer up and left the parking lot…and sold to someone that was married to maximum use who built something even more dense. But as I said, I’m not positive and will try to get clarification.
David, thanks for weighing in, but I can’t say I agree. I could start making similar comments about your comments, using the acronym NIMBY much more frequently than necessary, but I don’t because its most likely an inaccurate generalization of your concerns. Just because the city is promoting growth downtown, doesn’t mean its on a blind money hunt. I’m sure no one would be saying the same thing if it was Church north of Ponce getting the rehab. And sometimes I feel like people think the city can pick and choose what gets developed. Yeah ,not so much. They take what they can get and work with it.
And I’m not sure how getting rid of a massive parking lot is destroying the character of the town. Now if a developer wanted to tear down (or move) a historic building, I would be the first to stand up.
I think we already destroyed much of the character of the town back in the 60s and 70s, when we built the “golden triangle” of ugly skyscrapers and approved every project regardless of how unsympathetic it was. Urban renewal with the backing of the commission and business owners ripped this town’s landscape apart in a failed attempt to bring people back from the ‘burbs. For the past 20 years or so, many city employees have been try to repair that damage. This cities’ residents and its employees embraced smart growth years before it was ever a buzz word, and the state of the city today speaks to their success.
Because of that, I give deference to the city’s vision.
Scott, great points.
The master plans for Decatur are online here–
http://www.decaturga.com/cgs_citysvcs_ced_masterplans.aspx
–if anyone is interested.
okay..the site w/out the exising highrise building and small parking lot to its west and drive through to the east is about 250 x 250 feet (62500 sq ft/ 1.4 acres) subtract this from 4.9 of the total site is 3.5 or 63 units per acre (220 units proposed?), still less than many of the projects here in town.
its far far from half the size, look at an aerial and you’ll notice how HUGE the lovely parking lot is. Decatur is nothing but parking lots/decks as it is, it would be nice to get rid of this one (obviously an exageration, but there really is a ton of parking)!
under legal terms though, the project is mixed use and on 4.9 acres, so leagally it is 44 units per acre.
(I posted this on another blog)-I agree that Decatur needs to maintain its small town feel, but if you look at its historic population it was quite a bit higher than it is now…was it less of a small town then? Is a European town of comparable population, but more multi level dense living less quaint? ie Cambridge England is not a city full of parking lots and, taking land area in consideration, is comparable in population to Decatur, and substantially quainter. (granted its hard to compete with a 1000 years of history!)
My opinion, dont be scared of this project! you know the song “paved paradise to put up a parking lot”?…sounds like in Decatur/Atlanta/Georgia the parking lot is paradise! oh well.
Things have changed in the last 20 years. The ideas that were current then have been completely rethought. Maybe its time for our plan to be rethought too. Been here almost 30 years btw.
Back then they were happy if anybody came here at all to develop.
Times change so should we… or is everybody happy with the status quo?
I just feel that its more important to maintain a since of place then to adhere to urban planning du jour.
One year we put all the poor people in high rises the next we tear them down and put them in projects, then we tear those down and spread em out into mixed use. All viable, academically sound urban ideas of the time. Whats wrong with this picture?
Sorry it’s late and my cats sicker than you are of newbies. Oh well.
Well, let’s see. Building cities parcel by parcel, filling in the gaps from cross street to cross street, engaging the sidewalk to create a street life where commercial, civic, residential and religious uses can all thrive, and evolving in intensity over time are urban development ideas that are older than Christianity. Exactly when do you think they’re going out of style?
Decatur has chosen — wisely, I think — to leverage the things that make it unique and abandon its failed re-invention schemes of the 60s and 70s. And, we’re ahead of the curve in doing so. It should be the basis of community pride, not scorn.
I do agree, though, that our existing parking lots contribute to a particular sense of place. A crappy place.
Well how about parks instead of mixed use. Oh I forgot, no tax revenue, no developer junkets to exciting places just nice amenities for the people that live here. It’s too bad that the biggest park in Decatur is the graveyard.
What makes you think that in the future the 15 year construction mixed use projects going up now aren’t going to look just as silly as the failed urban renewal projects you mentioned?
Parking lots to parks, green space for all! No more condos! Every built acre requires 1 acre of greenspace. Lets put Decatur on the map in a way that will really make a difference instead of turning it into anywhere USA condo canyon land.
Ack! fell off my soapbox.
David, greenspace is great, but you make it sound like there are no parks here, there a lots, especially compared to Gwinnett County! Bigger isnt always better when it comes to open space too. That area would not be a very good spot for a park anyway, not enough density to keep “eyes” on it.
Keep in mind that property is also privatly held, so the only way it would become park land is if the owner gave up the millions its worth to turn it into greenspace, or if you believe in eminant domain ie govt stealing… Maybe we should turn your house into a park?
Compare Decatur to any large and small town, Portland Or, Madison WI, Savannah Ga, any Eurpean city, the difference is they are not all parking lots as Decatur is.
“What makes you think that in the future the 15 year construction mixed use projects going up now aren’t going to look just as silly as the failed urban renewal projects you mentioned? ” – Good urbanism is not really an experiment, its a form of development that has been used for thousands of years, from ancient Rome to New York City. You can debate the architecture itself, but its the functionality of a mixed use-address the street-density where its appropriate (near transit, and downtown as this project is) project over an older auto dependant single use urban renewal project of the 60’s is not debatable!!!
I just dont get the add more parks centiment…I live in the city, can walk to multiple parks, how many do I need to be able to get to?? If you truly want to make Decatur a “green” city, let look at creative stormwater management a la Portland OR. green roofs a la Chicago, and more bike lanes to get poeple out of their cars.
adding condos will not make Decatur “anywhere USA”, but the parking lots and strip malls (like across the street) and fast food joints (miccy d’s around the corner) do…
Thanks for letting me borrow your soap box!
I meant to say “Compare Decatur to any -great urban- city like Portland….etc etc
just wanted to fix that…
I agree with David. Its great to have a master plan and add lots of density to the core of the city…but there are no decent parks centrally located. Here’s a concept…for every parcel of land put up as development and equal size parcel must be set aside for greenspace. I understand they do this in Perth Australia. Very progressive. Of course, if you like living in a city where the only place people can relax is if they are spending money in a commerical environment…well, just wait to see what kind of city you end up with. Just don’t say we didn’t tell you so…
Funny you say that, i just spent both Saturday and Sunday running around the sqaure with my small children. I suppose we should tear down the historic city hall and make it a park! Downtown is w/in walking distance of parks as well, Glen Lake, the Cemetery trails that are being redesigned, or just walk through the beautiful Agnes Scott campus! Greenspace is great, but this is not really an appropriate site for it anyway.
Plus, as this project is drawn, it is actually ADDING greenspace to the site!
regarding what kind of town we will end up with – I think what we will end up with is a real city not a suburban strip mall-suburban office tower surrounded by parking as much of the city is now.
again, i say look at great cities across America and Europe, they dont look like Decatur!! Decatur has beautiful residental neighborhoods with wonderful parks/greenspace in them, but the downtown itself is a VERY lackluster…to change that we need to add density – add architecture – remove parking – and I say green the city through green roofs, better stormwater managment and other green building practices.
Decatur is not a great city. It’s an moderately upscale small town. Hence its attraction. Atlanta is a city. Why many of us live here and in the surrounding neighborhoods is because it offers us a good scale while being close to a big city. As far as I’m concerned Decatur doesn’t need more density at all. However proper urban planning has always allowed for greenspace or open squares even in those great cities you speak of. The plan as I see it just to add more commercial and condos not greenspace. I’m not for tearing down the courthouse Hah Hah, but there’s a whole lot of unused commercial space on church north of Ponce that might seem right park space.
While I agree that a substantial downtown park would be a great, especially if we plan to attract a lot of condo dwellers that have no piece of nature of their own, how do we pay for it? Saying it is one thing, implementing it is another. Most of the world’s greatest public spaces were created before land got expensive or substantially built upon.
Buying the property is expensive enough. Tearing down a building or parking lot, hauling away the debris and recreating a greenspace has gotta at least double the cost. Where will this money come from? We’re not exactly lush with funding…see our $400k deficit this year.
Oh and by the way…the city has budgeted $2.2 million for park space under the bond fund projects.
Details…
Budget: $2,203,000
Status: Underway
Melrose Avenue property-purchased ($50,000)
North Parkwood property-purchased ($100,000)
Westchester-FEMA grant approved
($1,240,000 FEMA, $413,000 local)
Westchester – 3 properties under contract
Glenn Creek pedestrian bridge
Hidden Cove Park – Westchester-Chelsea Heights Greenway workshop on May 17
This might not be what you’re looking for…but its a step in the right direction. If we collectively want to buy a large piece of land downtown and reassemble it as a greenspace, we’re going to need another bond referendum.
Well, downtown property runs, give or take, around a million bucks an acre…
I’d like to mention one other thing, lest I get painted as some “anti-greenspace” nut. Greenspace (or, more specifically, Open Space), in and of itself, is an abstraction in terms of quality of life. What’s key is that a community have a fully-realized *hierarchy* of park types, with each relegated to its most appropriate spot.
For example, rolling hills, ballfields, or Olmsteadian forest (while all delightful in their own ways) are not appropriate park types for the center of a modest downtown. Given Decatur’s size, the most reasonable park types downtown are a square, plaza or green. With our square and plaza at the center of town, we’re certainly not hurting for accessible community space in that regard.
Greener and more expansive parks, as well as tot lots, fit better in or adjacent to neighborhoods and this plays out well in Decatur, too.
My main point is that a random patch of green isn’t automatically good any more than a random building is. The key is how it contributes to the greater goals of the community. We need to get past the simple mindedness of green/good, construction/bad. Decatur will always be more competitive by offering greater choice to more people. That means the folks who dream of a single family home on a big lot can live here, but so can the folks who want an apartment, window box, and life’s everyday basics within a few blocks. Each of these, and all the lifestyles in between, have different types of park space that serve them best.
Keep in mind too, that the population of Decatur was quite a bit higher than it is today…about 18k people today, 22k back in the 70’s and even more in the heyday of Decatur before urban renewal.
looking at the plans there are two courtyards that are about 50 by 100 ft. good spot to read a book. Better than sitting on a parking lot.
I’m all for getting a bond referendum for greenspace downtown, I’m not for forcing greenspace or eminant domain though.
Dont you want Decatur to be a great city/village/moderatly upscale small town (whatever you want to call it symantically)? I do.
The towns I speak of also have real streets that arent bound by parking lots and strip malls. David you make it sound like there are no parks here, there are a good amount though…something to be proud of!
well put Scott and decaturite…
I’m all for greenspace as well, but like you said, it must be in the proper context and location.
“My main point is that a random patch of green isn’t automatically good any more than a random building is. The key is how it contributes to the greater goals of the community. We need to get past the simple mindedness of green/good, construction/bad. Decatur will always be more competitive by offering greater choice to more people. That means the folks who dream of a single family home on a big lot can live here, but so can the folks who want an apartment, window box, and life’s everyday basics within a few blocks. Each of these, and all the lifestyles in between, have different types of park space that serve them best.” – This sounds like the cratel to grave concept, that you can live in a community and have a housing type for each moment of your life…new grad needing cheap apartment-single family house for a family-empty nester who wants to be near grandkids in a condo, all in the same community…
As has been pointed out by other bloggers, our square/plaza at the center of town is not fully accessible. A significant part of it is dedicated to automobiles. The top of the MARTA station, while nice to have the space for larger gatherings, is a slab of concrete which is really not very attractive or welcoming. What little actual greenspace that does exist in the Square is now too small for the size of the city.
So more while more density is added to the center of town as part of a master plan, the amount of (non-commercial) central communal space to accomodate the citizens of this city is not being taken into consideration.
Slightly ot here but I’ve always wondered why we need those marta palaces. In new york for instance there’s just stairway down on each side of the street usually. Why do we have palais de transportaione? I think Decatur got hosed with the bus subway thing taking up so much of its main downtown square. There are much better and less obtrusive ways then making it the focal point of downtown. Oh and don’t get me started about the plaza redo. I think I’ll redo my patio and bring all stone back from china with me from the Olympics.
Hey I just call it the Marta-Decatur kill zone. I guess it was a vote buyer back in the day. As in see what we did for you.
Actually the more I think about it why doesn’t that big Dekalb CG building on the South side of the square take a hike and we’ll use that for our square extension program. Yeah that’s the ticket! Get a great view and they can donate the land too!
New t-shirt. Dekalb County out of Decatur!
I sense a movement.
I do agree with you on that, they had to tear down old buildings on the other side of the street to make that station…not sure what they were like, but I’ll bet they were nice old brick buildings. and it completely killed the interconnection of the downtown area.
yeah, its too bad it wasnt like a NY or London or Paris type underground station.
I wasn’t around at the time, but my understanding is that the powers that be in Decatur at the time of the MARTA contruction, just HAD to have it run through downtown as opposed to the original plan which would have kept it over by the railroad like it is the rest of the way. And, that was further complicated by the fact that an engineering problem arose which meant the line had to be built 30 or so feet closer to the surface than even the revised plan called for. Had it been deeper, there would have been much less disruption all the way around.
I think its great that the MARTA station is in the center of town. Now that improvements have been made to the station, its time to take a look at further improvements that can be made to enhance the overall quality of the Square. This is our community meeting place. The vision of the Square should be incorporated into the overall planning of the city. As someone else said in a previous blog, the Square really needs to be taken to the next level. As a I am a downtown condo resident on Ponce, I think this would really improve the quality of life for the all the condo dwellers.
I think its ok that its in the center of town too. But I don’t think its ok that it dominates the center of town. I also don’t think its ok the way they handled the redo. Its really not much different then it was before and to my eye its also singularly ugly. It also in no way reflects the surrounding community. Has it even been noticed in any journals or professional pubs for it’s outstanding design? Not to my knowledge. Why, because if you pardon the pun it’s a less than pedestrian design. Not to mention they usually hand those awards out like candy at halloween to anyone who’ll pay for the plaque so it must be completely off the radar.
You almost have to wonder whose brother-in-law worked at the firm that designed it. Don’t laugh, alot of Gov business is done that way.
Oh and the lighting is almost laughable too. Straight 80’s mall stuff. Where’s the Spencers gifts? I’ve got work to do, sheesh!
I was looking at and considering a larger house house in another neighborhood from my own about the time the Marta station rehab was completed. When I walked in the door there were two local agents talking about how dissapointed they were about how it turned out (they were excited about it while it was covered up and they were waiting for it to be completed) and resigned that they were hoping there would be planters added to the concrete deck or ‘something’. (thier words, not mine) I think a certain amount of effort went into the planning of it and hey..it didn’t come out that functional or pleasing to the eye but now that its done…rather than knock it (because its not going anywhere), the opportunity exists to figure out how to utilize it effectively. Someone said its good for large events but not the day to day stuff. If all that concrete straddled a larger park instead of an asphalt parking lot it could be a huge improvement.
The big issue, as it’s been explained to me, is MARTA’s “air rights.” Meaning, the choices — especially as it relates to greening — of what they’ll allow on top of the station is very limited. That’s why the redo, while a bit more functional for community gatherings than it was and with a more inviting MARTA entrance on Church, it’s essentially what we had before. MARTA really screwed downtown by not fully burying that line. It’s not that engineering issues prevented them from doing it. There were issues, but they were solvable. They simply required greater investment to address that MARTA wasn’t willing to spend.
Long story short, until that station gets buried 25 more feet (which is to say, never), a raised plaza is what we’ve got to work with. So I’ve got two words: Beer Garden.
I like those two words a lot. Beer… Garden… mmmmmmm.
Is there anything a beer garden can’t do?
David, you made the following comment earlier regarding the MARTA plaza “Has it even been noticed in any journals or professional pubs for it’s outstanding design? Not to my knowledge. Why, because if you pardon the pun it’s a less than pedestrian design. Not to mention they usually hand those awards out like candy at halloween to anyone who’ll pay for the plaque so it must be completely off the radar.”
I just noticed city commission notes from 7/7 records the following:
“City Manager Merriss stated that the City received an award for the MARTA Plaza from the American Concrete Institute.”
BRAVO!
lol
More of a reason for that parking lot on the Square to be ripped out and replaced with greenspace.
Geez guys. You can’t be stopped!
Rick…did you see Scott’s comment about air rights?
Oh and in case anyone remembers the original topic of this post, which had nothing to do with lamenting the MARTA plaza, I got confirmation from the city that the maximum allowable density is based only on the entire property size, regardless of the existing office, retail or other commercial. Also a 20% density bonus is allowed when life-cycle dwellings are included.
Hi, yes I saw the comment about air rignts. (also sorry to get off the original post) I’m not so much lamenting the MARTA plaza as I am pointing out that the vast majority of the community square is cemented over by concrete and asphalt. Alot of us have been living in Decatur for a while and have gotten accustomed to the way things are. The next time you are in the Square just stop for a moment…just for a moment… and really take a good look all around you. Bring your full awareness to the surroundings and what is taking place there.
I think we all recognize that the MARTA plaza design is not going to change and we are all stuck with the concrete Beer Garden above the station. The one area that can be changed is the parking lot.
I think the whole grassing over of East and West Courthouse Square is an interesting idea, but I’m not sure logistically what would need to be done to get approval to completely remove those streets. (I’m pretty sure they’re still designated as “streets” and not parking lots)
Assuming it can be done, I predict that it would then turn into an all out battle with business owners…because, as one noted on this site recently, they already feel they’re losing business due to lack of viable parking.
That said…its an interesting idea.
As a business owner in Decatur I can tell ya that the Marta redo was a catastrophe from the get go. They imported all of the granite from China when North Georgia is the granite capital of the world. Besides, if a public works project is buying granite from China who is supposed to buy georgia granite? The plaza screams “welcome to Six Flags” with its turquoise columns and horrible design. They should have gone with a neo-classical design to match the Old Courthouse. The stupid plaza already looks outdated.
The other issue was the disruption of business in Downtown for about two years. Many of the businesses that have gone under this year attribute their demise to the construction period. People have pride and will hold on as long as possible, but that construction slowed the commercial progress of Decatur like the Dark Ages did to science. The delay from the Chinese granite costs us merchant millions of dollars collectively. Those lost dollars would have generated tons of sales tax revenue. Bottom line–The city and its merchants and its citizens were screwed so that Archer Western (the builder) could save $100,000 on its Chinese granite, whilst our city officials protected the builder from our critique. Now we have a great place for the poorest segment of City. They can sit on some really expensive five million dollar benches, and ask my customers for spare change daily. I’m glad at least that the homeless population in Decatur likes the Marta plaza.
Steve made my point precisely. Its not just about the Marta plaza, it’s about the mindset that allows it to happen. 315 isn’t going to come out any better because the powers that be are going to be on the side of the devs. I don’t think they can help it. Growth, any growth is the reason they exist.
Decatur didn’t need a new Marta station. Not in the least. But what did we get? A new Marta station. Why? Just because the money was there and had to be spent?
Marta is a joke as trans system. It’s really more of a works program/power center than a viable trans system. Why should we let them decide what our downtown should look like? Lets buy the air rights from them then we can do what we want there. They don’t have enough money to say no. Or just do it anyway. What will they do come and arrest us with their Marta police. Why do they need their own police force? In most cities the cops are the cops.
I need a drink. Heading to the brick.
David, I think you would find most large transit systems DO have their own police force, Washington, New York, Boston, Chicago, Amtrak.