Why 315 is Unique
Decatur Metro | August 13, 2008The AJC has a recap of Tuesday’s meeting. Nothing new, except I’m not sure that the meeting room was packed with only opposition. I think many in favor just chose not to stand up for whatever reason.
But today I want to address an assertion that’s been bothering me a bit as of late.
For those on both sides and outside of this battle that have been arguing that this is a much bigger, endemic problem that Decatur needs to deal with…sorry, I just don’t buy it (except perhaps in regards to parking).
Sure there are those that will always resist change and want to keep the city the way it is, but I think they are a small minority hitching themselves onto the more specific concerns of the neighborhood. Though we may have split on this issue, I believe that most of us agree on the city’s development philosophy.
The issue with 315 W. Ponce, in addition to the Hillyer property in Old Decatur, is its location on the edge of a historic, residential neighborhood. Where will the crowds be when the Trinity Triangle development goes up in the same mixed-use format? Where will they be if anyone wants to redevelop Church St.? They’ll be at home watching Idol or contemplating Nietzsche (or whatever it is you’d like people to envision you doing when you’re not out in public). And where will they be if someone proposes to tear down the old Post Office on Trinity? They’ll be in the commission room! Why? Because from what I’ve experienced, most people in this city believe in its direction. They smile when condos and street-level retail go up in empty parking lots or replace the Relax Inn. They appreciate that the CVS is on the corner of Ponce/Commerce and not set back in the plaza. They appreciate that Crescent Moon and Sherlocks make the 1 West Courthouse parking lot bearable. They appreciate the variety of its architecture.
But the one place where we have a big problem is these two parcels. What caused it? In regards to 315 West Ponce, blind construction during urban renewal and Decatur’s popularity. With Hillyer its just the latter. Expensive property zoned by past generations as poorly as the British fashioned Iraq.
Those that don’t know Decatur or its history well will write about and assume that the city is divided on its future. Yes, its a better and easier story to write, but overall I just don’t believe its true. This is a unique problem where our damn expensive property is exacerbating the problem of C2 next to R60 in a couple locations.
So, keep up the conversation. This is probably one of the most difficult development issues we’ll deal with in a decade and perhaps the silver lining will be a more thoughtful parking plan for the city’s future. But when this is all over, remember on many things, we agree. And if C2 next to R60 is still an issue, let’s try to be proactive, not reactive about it.
Latest from Decaturish
I was at the meeting and I can confirm there were people in attendance who were in support of the development. I was one, but I did not stand up and speak.
Having said that, I do agree that we Decaturites are largely in agreement as to the direction of our city. Of course, there will always be people that come out in opposition to any development, and many of them are classic NIMBYs. While they are very vocal, they generally make up a small minority.
The issue for this development, and many Decatur issues in general, is not where we want to go, but how to get there. IMHO, Decatur is on the leading edge of urban development. Decatur has taken brave steps to think progressively about development as well as services in general (i.e., “pay as you throw”). Decatur is what sterile developments like Atlantic Station are trying to be. Most of those fail miserably because they do not have a community to guide them. So it is not surprising to me that the issue of shared parking (referred to as a growing trend- or something like that at the meeting) creates healthy discussion. There are some valid issues with shared parking that need to be addressed. For example, what happens if the apartments are converted to condos? Are parking projections really correct? What really is Decatur’s parking supply? Etc.
To the extent there is healthy debate on these issues, I believe the healthy debate is good. Where I draw the line is where that healthy debate of valid issues is used as a veiled attempt to topedo a development- any development- just because it’s a development. The people who asked me to sign petitions against the variance ultimately just complained that they didn’t want apartments and apartment dwellers. Sorry, that’s not valid (to me, anyway). City’s are not static entities. They are either growing, or they are contracting. You simply cannot cut off all development and freeze a city because you think it’s perfect just the way it is.
To those folks who live right across the street from the proposed development that are just complaining because they never expected to be next to apartments, what did you think would happen when you bought right next to an office building and parking lot? It’s zoned C-2. Go look at what is allowed there with no variance. Do you want a bowling alley and a funeral home? Do you want a hotel (and not a really nice one)? Do you want huge communication antennas? That parking lot could look like a UFO communication center if the owner were so inclined.
I can’t fault the BZA for tableing the variance. That was probably the right move. They probably need more information, and the developer should explore additional avenues to address the parking. But I think this development sets Decatur on the precipice of making a very bold move toward what kind of development we want. I think we all agree that we want less traffic, more walking, continued community, and a more sustainable city. My belief is that people will not change their actions until it becomes too painful. I think that if we create an overabundance of parking spaces, then we’ll create an overabundance of cars. Create a situation where the people who want to rent the apartments choose a lifestyle that does not include total reliance on cars. And I do recognize we have to balance that with the fact that Decatur is quickly becoming a destination for our great restaurants and shops- not to mention concerts, festivals, etc.
So there’s my $.02. And it’s worth what you paid for it!
This is what those home owners are worried about.
Economic Obsolescence: Properties that suffer from road noise, proximity to high tension power lines, a new strip mall starting construction next door or a zoning downgrade suffer from economic obsolescence. Often the homeowner does not have a choice and the problem cannot be cured.
Economic obsolescence problems can be subtle — yet costly. For instance, the first house located in a posh subdivision can be worth up to 20% less than the exact same house 2 blocks in, if it is located on a busy arterial and the other house is on a quiet street.
Valid concerns I’d say.
Downtown Avondale Estates is the perfect example of what you get when you fight progress. Some crumbling buildings with some second hand merchandise. Population density is sustainable–sprawl and strip malls are not. Look at Europe, NYC, SFO, etc. We should make the infrastructure of the future by copying some of our culture’s past successes. One day when gas is $8 a gallon (don’t laugh) Decatur will be worth a lot more if it can provide smart growth for all the bicyclists, scooters riders, and peds.
David,
With all due respect, what MC was trying to say was that the 315 W. Ponce parking lot is already zoned commercial. They could build a strip mall there today under current zoning ordinances. They could build another office building. They could build a movie theater. How about a series of free standing restaurants surrounded by parking? Outback, Lonestar, Applebee’s anyone? Maybe you’d prefer a big box retailer.
All these uses, which are perfectly legal under current zoning without a variance, would bring far more traffic and hardship to the existing neighborhood to the north than what is currently planned. While it may not be a perfect project where the neighbors are concerned, it could definately be worse. I’ve heard it said here before, but the neighbors really should be careful what they wish for.
last year’s city budget included funds allocated to form a citizen task force to study issues related to R60 ajoining C2 and make reccomendations for changes to current zoning. This was a result of concerns expressed by many citizens during and after the Hillyer project controversy. City staff was to get this thing up an running.
it didn’t happen…I don’t know why.
A word to the wise , if you live near one of the older multi family parcels – like a small apartment buildings or townhouse complex – start a dialogue with the City now. When the ecomony rebounds , those may be among the next properties to transform . Under current ordinances, such properties can be built to fairly significant height and density even though they are next door to single family homes.
Excellent post. You grasp the local flavor in a way I never could for this development. Thank you for the insight. It actually helps me understand the neighborhood reaction – considering the embrace of projects like the Artisan, I was surprised by the level of opposition in this case.
It’s fairly easy. Nothing, and I mean nothing taller than two stories for a 1 block transitional zone between R60 and C2. Reasonable property setbacks. You know where maybe you can still see the sky sometimes when you’re walking down the streets. You may not like parking lots but at least they do relieve the canyon effect of Mixed use built up to the property line.
Hey maybe they’ll do this to help the citizens instead of the developers if we fund some fact finding trips for them. I’d kick in a few bucks.
David — What you describe is called downzoning and, legally speaking, it’s what’s known as a “taking.” I’m not saying it can’t be accomplished. I’m saying the trade off is significant liability on the city’s part.
Do you feel strongly enough about it to open up our tax dollars to that cause? If not, how do you suggest we accomplish it?
Thanks.
one more thing – to MC .
Granted a small few of the Liveable Growth petition people just want to stop apartments at all costs. They have a right to their but it doesn’t mean they represent all involved. I can assure you not everyone opposed to the project feels that way.
Many of us simply want to see a comprehensive parking plan put in place before approving a large shared parking deal for a single property. If City ordinances are outdated ( I believe they are ) then we should change them – based on independent data and independent expert recommendations. Don’t legislate something this important through variances and don’t accept data provide by experts working for the interested parties .
If you don’t do something like that what will happen is the the houses adjacent to the complex or commercial zone eventually become economically obsolete. In other words the development tends to spread out block by block. Variance after variance. If that’s what you want hey go for it. I don’t think the folks in the surrounding neighbor hood are going to like it but lets sacrifice them for the greater good right?
Or maybe we can put at least transitional buffer zone around the density and perhaps save home owners a great deal of pain. Nah, that doesn’t make anybody any money in the short run.
David,
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. And I’m reading your “economic obsolescence” to mean “decreased property values” since rendering something “obsolete” would result in not just decreased property values, but rather, property values of $0. First, that was never a concern I ever heard voiced. I’ll admit that that doesn’t mean it’s not a concern. And I’ll grant you that you may have just put into words concerns that the homeowners are unable to verbalize.
The reason I don’t buy it is that I’m looking at this on a macro level. With development and progress, there are ebbs and flows. It is virtually impossible to have any kind of development that doesn’t have some sort of adverse effect on at least a select few. The key is to maximize the positive. If 315 were built, then “economic obsolescence” may or may not occur at all. And it may occur for only 2 or 3. The key for the development is to maximize the good, and minimize the bad. And if one or two homeowner suffer some sort of decrease n property value in exchange for a development that adds a substantial amount to the overall picture, then so be it. In fact, we already have that kind of thing in Decatur. Look at the houses along Scott, and compare them to the houses a block in on Woodlawn, Clarion, Coventry, Lamont, etc. That’s the same issue you cited in your posh subdivision example.
I think the 315 plan is a good stab at maximizing the good and minimizing the bad. I hope that this exercise will result in a development that does so even more. What Suzie says is right. The owner could put up a big ‘ol Applebees with no need for a variance or anything. Then what would the neighbors say? Granted, that would be stupid as us Decaturites would not eat there and it would close down. But then we’d be left with a closed Applebees.
I am in no way saying the residents should just roll over. But at some point, you’ve got to be careful what you ask for. They could end up with a development with a big ugly parking deck right on the corner.
I’m just glad this is the discussion we’re having and not whether they’re going to put a big box there!
I’ll give you three guesses why the citizen task force didn’t happen and the first two don’t count.
Actually the quotes are taken from a text book on real estate. Pretty common knowledge in the profession.
David, don’t dance around the question. I flat out said you can create a transitional zone. And I also asked if you supported the city taking on the liability. But I noticed you ignored that part.
At some point, you need to join those of us operating in the real world where getting things done is a little more complicated than “text book.”
fifi,
Your second paragraph hits on reasons I think the commission was right to table the request. I’m not convinced Decatur has a good idea of what the actual parking supply/demand is. And it’s a better idea to clarify the code regarding shared parking.
B King, no problem! Thanks for giving us an “outsider’s” perspective on the issue…we kinda get wrapped up in our bubble here sometimes.
David Said:
I don’t think the folks in the surrounding neighbor hood are going to like it but lets sacrifice them for the greater good right?
I’m sorry, David, but in a comment to another post, you were the one who said that if the city needed the revenue instead of encouraging development of our downtown core that it should instead “raise taxes. Let them that can’t afford it move.”
Way to “sacrifice” our elderly residents who want to stay in their homes, but who can’t afford the property taxes on the homes they have lived in for 30 years. Way to “sacrifice” anyone less than upper middle class who might want to live in Decatur for the good schools, high quality of life, but can’t afford to live here because we don’t have a diverse tax base.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but you are all over the place, my friend.
The older folks get a pretty big tax break I believe. And whats the old adage about a bird in the hand?
I’d support pretty much anything that would help preserve the neighborhoods around downtown. That includes downzoning and a historical district. Not that I see that happening. Municipalities take on that kind of liability in the name of growth all the time. Maybe they should do it in the name preservation too. There are many ways to skin this cat that aren’t growth oriented.
Fear of the unknown is scary to most people. If a home went on the market right now across from 315, many people would be scared to buy it. Property values are probably at their lowest point right now because of that uncertainty. If no redvelopment ocurred at that site, there would still be uncertainty and fear of the unknown and values would be hurt.
It is truly amazing how concerned we are about cars. With increasing oil and energy prices, with increasing amounts of mixed-use pedestrian friendly communities, with climate change and with car ownership costs steadily rising, isn’t it likely that the peak demand for automobiles has passed? People choose in-town living precisely so they don’t have to rely on cars.
I think this is a reasonable development that will improve the quality of life in the immediate area. I think the change and the new development will be good for the surrounding single-family homes because the matter will be settled. The increased number of people will strengthen the business climate and encourage more diverse businesses.
No doubt the change will disrupt the past and present, but it will probably lead to a better future. Many people believe that everyone sees life the same way they do. If they percieve that the change will be negative, they believe everyone will perceive the change is negative. That isn’t necessary so. We are a very diverse society. While some current residences may see the change as a problem, there are many prospective buyers who will see the change as a benefit.
@ David,
Downzoning or creating a historic district in the name of preservation would be a bizzare solution to this “problem.”
If there are any preservation questions for this particular project, they’d be in regard to the office building itself. And since construction wouldn’t affect the current building, I don’t see a problem from a preservation perspective. And I am allegedly a preservation professional.
If anything, the 315 development will add character, texture, diversity, and vitality to a few streets that currently house an expansive parking lot which sits unused for many, many hours of every day.
Frankly, I’d be so lucky to have this project going in across the street from where I work. It would certainly improve the area surrounding our historic property and historic district.
Lain, my issue with the development in terms of preservation is mainly about building over that classic 1960s landscaping out front. Also, I’m not sure about the fate of the stylized walkway that surrounds the southern and western facades.
A hardcore preservationist would also object to building over the parking lot because it destroys the “context” of the building on the site. These parking lots are part of the “design” of that era. I know that many of these 1960s-1970s buildings are disliked for both their look and what they represent, but of all the office towers in our city from that time this is my favorite. The landscaping and the undeniable character of the building makes it a pristine example of modernism. I really wish we were talking about Commerce Plaza or the freakin’ new Courthouse…but we’re not.
And every time I see the architect’s plan, I cringe a little before regrouping and rationalizing the benefits of the project. And recognizing that the building won’t be torn down. That’s a concession I’m willing to make.
@ Decaturite, while I certainly agree with you that the context of the building is important for many preservationists, I guess I’m not of that school.
For me, adaptive reuse is just as important as preservation itself, for relevancy’s sake and for the sake of preserving the integrity of the structure. In my experience preservation for preservation’s sake alone is often just asking for something to be torn down or to be completely irrelevant, especially in affluent and totally sweet areas like Decatur.
I’ll very respectfully disagree with you regarding the green space in front. While it is important in context of the building, I think it’s detrimental within the context of the city in regards to the pedestrian experience. That’s a personal beef though (and not a preservation-minded one,) and I totally see your point. I’d be happy keeping that green space if they could instead build over the annoying bank drive through.
All that said, I’m glad I’m not alone in liking the 315 building. I think it’s really cool, and I too hope they’d keep those walkways.
I’m with you, Lain (no offense, DM!). Modernism, as it applies to architecture, is still alive and well but modernism as it applies to land planning has been wholly discredited and contrary to the fundamentals of good people places. So, while I recognize that the building was intended to be viewed in isolation as the classic tower in a park, I don’t think that carries enough weight to prevent increased pedestrian engagement — in the form of commercial and residential activity — along Ponce.
It’s a trade-off, to be sure, but one I personally feel is the more worthwhile alternative.
I like the French approach. As I understand it, historic French buildings are graded one of four designations. These designations then determine how strict their preservation must be. The four are:
Of national importance
Of local importance
Acceptable
Regrettable
I love this, because it acknowledges that there are other considerations besides just age. Not everything in history was perfect. If something was a bad idea initially, it doesn’t ripen over time.
Preserve for excellence, not just age. And in that regard, the tower at 315 is the stronger candidate for sure.
All offense taken Scott! I can’t believe you’d just throw me under the bus like that! After all we’ve been through! (cue flashback clip show set to “raindrops keep falling on my head” )
But seriously, I understand the argument. And as I said, after weighing priorities, I’m willing to make the concession. And I recognize that NO ONE uses that little “park” except to let their dogs relieve themselves. There are just so many other “regrettable” things around town I’d like to see “improved” before that landscape. The building just won’t look or feel the same without it…there I go talking about context…
And also by saying “preserve for excellence, not age” makes the whole theory of preservation a lot more subjective….and thus more open to attack (legal and just plain verbal). I won’t get on my preservation high horse (ok, just for a second…whoa Nelly!) but if it was all about excellence, we’d have already torn down half of Inman Park because all the shotgun houses would be gone.
The downzoning refers to making a transition zone between 5 and 6 story buildings and single story residential neighborhoods. It has nothing to do with preserving the building itself. The parking lot as it exists now does help with this transition if unwittingly. 5 story buildings built up to the sidewalk even with Leyland Cypress in front would not.
I wish it were the new courthouse too that we’re talking about. What were they thinking?
If I could pull you out from under the bus for a moment, don’t mistake excellence for grandeur. That’s not what I meant.
I meant excellence in the sense that the ideas retained merit. To use your example, in light of more expensive resources, environmental concerns over big yards, baby boomers looking to downsize and the need for options in affordable dwellings, the shotgun house is still a valuable model.
I think you’ll find a lot of agreement that the 315 tower has lasting influence, but the way it plugs into the city doesn’t. Remember, building along the frontage isn’t destroying context. It’s restoring a context that was leveled when they built the tower initially. Street frontage is Decatur’s original Main Street context.
My horse says “neigh”.
Try sitting in that little park sometime. It’s fun. That park could be part of a wonderful outdoor cafe where students and everybody else could have a little breakfast, drink coffee over a book, meet friends, your Decatur European cafe. I think that could be a great little place with all of our pretty good weather. Tourists would like it too.
It’s a really interesting debate Scott. The preservationists were first to cry foul about modern design and layouts, and eventually the planners also signed up. Now preservationists are at a crossroads and many of the “mission statements” that have worked for decades are coming up against the very buildings that the movement was created to oppose.
Either way something’s gotta give. Either give up the Main Street ideal of street frontage or throw out the 50 year rule. I could take a guess about which you would choose to ignore…but for me, I’m a little more on the fence about wiping out all traces of an important piece, be it a notorious one, of our architectural past.
The context of the 315 Ponce parcel prior to construction of the Wachovia building was single famly houses including a very large one belonging to a prominent family that fronted on Ponce de Leon.
Fifi, I was speaking of Decatur’s original context in the sense of how buildings behaved historically, not as a parcel by parcel comparison. Obviously homes maintain a different relationship with the street than businesses do.
DM, don’t get me wrong. The building on the other side of town with J Christopher’s is a good example of a modern building that also does a fairly good job of holding the corner (i.e succeeding both architecturally and urbanistically). I’m not for the wholesale destruction of anything out of hand but, when confronted with a building that may be more of an achievement or lasting success in one regard than another, I see nothing wrong with evolving to address the deficiencies. All things considered, I think the current proposal at 315 comes fairly close. Not that I don’t understand your concern about the landscape and other exterior design elements. I do. But city making is a long term proposition. We celebrate our achievements; we learn from our mistakes. There’s honor in both.
Atlanta and environs has a terrible history of preservation. One of my favorite games to play as I drive around is What was there? So much was torn down in the name of progress or what people thought was right which seems to change about every 15 years.
Hope I answered your question about where I stand on these issues Scott. II really don’t find anything attractive about buildings like this proposed one or the Artisan. Just too much like suburban anywhere to me. I don’t really think anyone’s going to be having the discussion about either of these buildings that you and dec are having about 315 in it’s all it’s Miesian glory.
Just make Stucco illegal and most will be happy.
stucco is cement. it has been around for centuries. it is a great material for quality building. sythetic similarities? – not so much. don’t let ignorance mislead the flock.
I think we should have buffer zones like David suggested. That would solve a lot of problems. The city has every right to change zoning. They may have a law suit but I can’t imagine any way they would loose. I have a C-2 property behind me (the AT&T training center). It’s 5 or 6 acres $$$. If AT&T got smart they would sell it and move somewhere cheaper. This property was first a farm owned by William “Sly” Howard’s family and then the Oakhurst Baptist Church expansion. It currently looks like a church and is no real nuisance to the R-60 around it but when it sells someday there will be another 315 Ponce fight. If we change the zoning on it now it would have no adverse effect on AT&T except maybe property value but its value would still be very high especially compare to what they paid for it in +-1995.