Trinity Triangle Moves Parking Deck, Has Stupid Name
Decatur Metro | April 22, 2009InDecatur has some great pics of the proposed Trinity Triangle development from Monday’s city commission meeting.
Apparently the project is before the commission again because the developer wanted to relocate the parking deck to face Howard Street (not sure where it was previously located.) Dave reports that the commission approved the changes contingent upon improving the facade facing one-way E. Howard.
Dave also reports that the commission dislikes the proposed name for the project: “Cityville.” And how can you disagree with them?
If we’re shooting for something banally generic, might I propose “Townland” or “Villageburg?”
Seriously, if you’re going to put up a throw away name like that, how about instead you do a little good community PR and let city residents name it? Let them submit names and then put it to a vote. As long as Stephan Colbert doesn’t get involved, it should be a cheap and easy way to show a little individual care for a project.
Wouldn’t it be great free press for Decatur if Colbert DID get involved!
I know where you’re coming from, DM, but am going to have to disagree on this one. Not because I think it’s a good name but because I think it’s an irrelevant distraction. It’s exactly the kind of thing that will end up being a big topic of conversation, with our Commissioners (!) weighing in, despite the fact that it has absolutely no tangible impact whatsoever — positive or negative — on any Decatur citizen.
It’s a private marketing decision. Seriously, who cares?
We should be focused on how development adds value to our community — its relationship with the streetscape, its financial contributions and impacts, its impact on traffic, its role in fulfilling long-term city goals, and its ability to enhance quality of life vs. what previously occupied the property.
I’m not saying the city isn’t addressing these issues. I know they are. But we should too.
I’m probably the exception to the rule but, as a citizen, I’d much prefer to chime in on the garage facade along Howard than name the thing. As something I’ll probably look at darn near every day for the remainder of my life, at least that matters.
I do like “Colbertville” though.
I agree that the name is no big deal, but why not just “Trinity Triangle”? Nice alliteration, distinctive, and descriptive to boot (it’s a triangle on Trinity).
I actually care because it is a contrived marketing decision. I think all the other points matter a LOT, too, but let’s at least use actual words when we name things. Think of the children!
I am putting my request for DairyQueenville.
It sounds like a LEGO town.
Navel gazing at its finest. It’s a non-issue.
Feel free to suggest to devs, but there are so many more important challenges ahead.
“Cityville”? I love it! It would take the marketing genius of a generation to think of a more insipid name.
The beauty of “Cityville” is that it rides atop the pantheon of dumbness. No one will forget it. Hence, pure marketing genius. It’s like trying to rid your brain of Anna Nicole Smith nasally voice or Gilligan’s Island memories.
Now, let’s start working on a motto…. How about…”every day is opening day” or “the development that’s is not too busy to hate.”
How about Zombietropia. Zombietown? Zombie Trace?
Drop Dead Devaville
Atlantic Station Jr.
In the grand tradition of developers naming their projects over what they pave over (see the hundreds of variations of suburban subdivisions named something like “Highland Creek” where they shaved off a hilltop and put a local water source in a concrete retention pipe ) they should call this No-Tell Commons – named after the dingy “No-tell motel” that graced our presence before it was thankfully demolished.
But you’re right Scott, the name is the least of our worries – we’ve wasted too much time on it already. Let’s make sure that it fits into our urban fabric, and assess the future view coming up E. Howard, the view from the other side of the tracks. And even more than ascetics, let’s make sure that they will provide the right kind of rental housing that will enhance our residential offerings to a wide range of citizens, and provide retail spaces that will complement the rest of downtown. They have a good design firm working on it (LRK) but can the developers execute and give us something that we can all be proud of? Now’s the time to find out and provide input before they start moving dirt.
Fitting in with the community goals and social fabric is more important, but names are more fun!
In keeping with the DQ theme, I nominate Banana Splitsville or DillyTown
Dillytown…..ROTFLMAO…
Blizzard Acres?
How about RelaxLand?
Seriously though… Cityville sucks…. it sounds so suburban and planned.
Hight Tax Estates?
Seriously, though, I did not like the pictures. It looks like a high school and not in a good way. I can’t imagine THAT there, in that little spot. Do we really have the sewage and infrastructure for another development?? Sigh.I am feeling maudlin all of a sudden
I propose TownTown.
I also won’t be happy unless it’s allll fake stucco.
Where’s John’s Creek?
210 rental units — one and two bedrooms. I assume that this means to target young professionals. I don’t know what the price-point is expected to be. I do see that the applicant is building additional units as a “lifecycle density bonus” — i.e. affordable housing.
My guess would be that this won’t have a huge impact on the school system, though these apartments may be attractive to single-parent families. In any case, I see no indication that this question has been raised or CSD consulted. (Is this ever done for such projects?) I’m sure it’s possible to try to identify similar apartment complexes and produce an estimate, which sure would be preferable to relying on my or anyone else’s guesses.
I’m all for “smart growth,” but to be truly smart, this should all be standard operating procedure: Consult with CSD. What type of housing is being proposed? How many students can be reasonably expected? Where would they go? How much revenue would be raised by the project? How much would it cost to accommodate the expected students? Do the math. Net gain or loss to the Decatur tax-payer?
I agree with Nellie. I don’t like it. The facade is hollow looking, uninspiring and that parking deck is immense. This structure looks similar to new construction in the metro area and in my opening those structures aren’t aging well. New to this issue, so I am a little suprised that traffic assessments about impact aren’t impeding this project. Trinity is a bottleneck most peak times of day already.
I’m glad the Relax Inn is gone, that seemed to be a true blight, but I am enjoying the open space. I like being able to leave the library (and while waiting to get out on Trinity) looking over and seeing the train tracks, and the green around Agnes Scott. My opinion? Throw down some sod, trees make some park benches – it would be nice to have more greenspace to enjoy my Blizzard. Maybe the City of Decatur could set up a lemonade stand?
The name Cityville is apparently a “working title” for the project and a condition of the approval was to find another name.
Scott is correct that one and two bedroom, downtown residential projects attract very few families with school-aged children. National demographic trends continue to show a continued drop in the number of families with school-aged children and a marked increase in the number of single occupancy households for a wide variety of reasons that I won’t elaborate on here. These apartments will be marketed to the young professional market with a focus on people currently working in downtown Decatur, Emory area or downtown Atlanta looking for alternative transportation options. The specific design issues are a work in progress so what you are viewing are concept drawings that will become more detailed as we work through the process. To Brad Steele’s point, these projects contributer significantly more in tax revenue to the school system with little to no requirement for service. In fact, these types of project provide a more efficient model for all of our city’s service delivery so they generate more tax revenue than they cost us in services. Also, this wasn’t a rezoning — the property is located in the downtown commercial zoning district which allows this type of project. And . . . for what it’s worth, Cityville is the generic working title for all of this developer’s projects. We hate it, everyone hates it and we have been assured that it will be changed. I’m kinda liking Banana Splitsville.
Steve, as a tax-paying resident of the City of Decatur, I would support the purchase of the property to become a greenspace, thank you very much. This development is hardly a castle, it looks like the ‘intown living’ solution that are up and down Peachtree Industrial near that Wal-Mart.
If most of Midtown isn’t rented/sold, where presumably alot of these ‘young professional people’ work and transportation opportunities abound, what makes anyone think that Decatur will flourish in this capacity?
Plenty of time in the meantime for some grass and trees to grow! Hopefully, the developers of this project won’t just ‘plant’ sewage lines and concrete/rebar shrubs. Living in Oakhurst near Lenore, I am tired of those kind of ‘projects’…
So for the foreseeable future let’ dub it Eyesore Heights.
Or Impermeable Acres…
tpreed, you beat me to it !
I don’t really care all that much about the name, and agree that its a bit ridiculous that the city commission is throwing their weight around to change it. But to say its unimportant is to devalue marketing.
I agree that the debates on the actual physical makeup of the site should take precedence, but names do matter.
Does it matter that the city changed the name Oliver Street to Commerce Drive in the mid-1980s? Yep. Absolutely.
Is this the same thing? Absolutely not.
But could the developer come up with a name that was a better fit for the community? Could it be more than just a throw away? Probably.
If you want a less controversial and more thoughtful critique of this name I would say that “Cityville” is just one aspect of the larger problem about NU and everything else modern and post-modern.
It can easily become generic.
Is there a local, unique alternative to large-scale development? Not that I’ve seen. But that doesn’t mean that I have to like it (or ignore it.)
Regardless of whatever confusion we’ve caused, I think Scott and I agree that debating and questioning the name of the development is more well-suited as a blog topic than something that should take up more than 3 seconds of the City Commission’s time.
Personally, I like “Howard’s End” for the place.
Yeah, what you said.
Was Commerce Drive supposed to be better than Oliver Street? Ewww.
I thought we had rules limiting zombies to East Ponce?
Zombietown!
What about Decaturville?
Ha…..pure genius.
WPMom, Oliver St. was one of the old streets that made up western side of the current Commerce Drive. What makes the situation even worse is that the name “Oliver” has significant historical importance to the city, since Henry Oliver was the first and largest black landowner in the city.
When the City Commission voted to change the name to Commerce in the 1980s, they promised to build Oliver a statue in return. They never did that. What they ultimately decided on was a name over the door of one of the meeting rooms at the Conference Center. Kind of a slap in the face if you ask me.
However, not all is lost. I’ve been told by Commissioner Cunningham that when DHA rebuilds Allen Wilson Terrace, the street name “Oliver” will be restored to the section of Commerce between Howard and Trinity. I need to look back and see if it was only that section that was called “Oliver” or whether it stretched all the way from Howard to Clairemont.
I understand that its easier to only have to rename part of that street (and not all the government buildings and other stuff along that northern section of Commerce), but I think we should at least give the city all the known facts before they’re faced with a decision.
Obviously, I have a strong interest in this idea, so I’ll certainly keep you posted!
Only if they offer cheap porn and massages.
Come on Nellie. I believe the answer to your question is yes, we have the capacity to take this on. Our wish can’t be – no new development. That ship has sailed, we just have to make sure that what we get fits with the rest of downtown, which is already mid to high density, mixed use. The basic premise of this proposal is on the right track. If you want to do nothing but fight development then maybe Johns Creek is the place for you.
Judd, I know school impacts is your issue and I think you’ve made some very positive — even critical — contributions to the annexation debate, but I think you’re undermining your credibility when you suggest that consideration of school age children living in our downtown development is some novel concept that city government isn’t clever enough to have thought about. Of course they have.
Don’t quote me on this because I don’t have data in front of me but, as I recall it being told, after we had a significant number of projects completed downtown (Town Center, Renaissance, etc.; somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds of condos), an analysis was done to determine school age residents and the figure was, like, less than ten. Perhaps Lyn or someone else with the city can provide the actual numbers that came up.
My point is that this issue has been explored and found to be statistically insignificant. So, to engage the school system on a non-issue sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem. How much unnecessary bureaucratic process do we need if we already know we don’t need it?
I know people make the assertion but, to suggest that a strategy that largely maintains existing neighborhoods, directs growth to the central core, attracts the type of tax paying residents who pay the most per square foot yet take out the least in city services, and has proven to improve downtown both economically and socially, is somehow not “smart” baffles me. Is it perfection you’re waiting for? That’s gonna be a long wait.
Well articulated, Scott – as usual. Thanks.
As another anecdotal data point, similar to the high-end condo and apartment properties in almost all urban areas, one and two bedroom units have few children and pay huge property tax bills. In essence, one and two bedroom dwelling units significantly subsidize almost all public services, especially schools.
Scott: Read my post again and slow down. There’s a lot that’s obvious about how the city and schools should work together on matters of common concern that isn’t done, and after the annexation fiasco, I’m not as trusting as you that all these questions are carefully and competently looked at.
You say you have been told that this has all been studied (I assume that such a study would have to have been done by CSD). I’ve talked to a few people in a position to know, and I cannot confirm what you assert. In fact, every single data point I have says otherwise. I have heard that a number of school-age children associated with the Artisan, but this is a very different sort of project. High-end condos vs. affordable rentals.
But you say someone told you such a study was done, fine. The point is that what I say above should be standard operating procedure is not done, and I don’t think you can seriously contradict that. As I say, in this case I’d expect the result to be an expectation of little impact. My gut agrees with yours. But so what? Are you saying that such a procedure should not be in place? It should just be a box that is checked. Report from CSD on Project A? Check. Report from CSD on annexing 11 parcels on Midway Rd (also from Monday night’s meeting)? Check.
You have my name, Scott. I don’t have yours. Please give me a call and reason with me. I’m in the book.
Navelgazing? Perhaps.
More fun than real problem solving? Absolutely.
I’m voting for Howard’s End also.
I resent that last comment, quite frankly. I have been in Decatur most of my life and for some of us these downtown developments are not as welcome as they are to others. I see my little town expanding rapidly and it worries me a bit. I think the building is ugly, I don’t know if the roads around the area can support that many units, I am not sure of how much pressure a 100 plus units will put on our sewers and public works, and I have the right to think that.
Infrastructure issues are extremely important. City of Atlanta grew unchecked and is a complete mess. I spent semesters in grad school in urban planning studying the mess of Atlanta development for the last 60 years (and there are books that use Atlanta as the example of how not to grow. See a lot of Clarence Stone’s work, for example, especially Regime Politics if you want to understand the mess that is MARTA), and believe me, we don’t want that. “Believing” the answer is yes is not the same as a definitive yes. Growth has to be considered and careful and I hope our city is thoughtful in this process.
Yes, thank you, Scott. But I still think the building is ugly!
Great! A formal mechanism for confirming that would make for stronger projects.
You can’t legislate aesthetics. One person’s castle is another’s dump.
Maybe we should both slow down, Judd. I was clear that I was not pushing particular numbers so much as I was making the point that the relationship between downtown housing and school impacts has indeed been considered. Perhaps someone with the city will provide the counts they came up with. I don’t know but, as Brad also indicated, this is not an unexplored phenomenon.
My larger point is that the annexation issue presents many “strange new world” scenarios for Decatur and I was equally clear that your diligence — especially as it relates to data — has been both influential and beneficial to the proceedings. However, in contrast to that, the city’s downtown growth strategy is now well into its third decade. I simply don’t agree that we need to approach our downtown development in the same way we approach the baby steps of annexation. Accumulated wisdom matters and there’s empirical evidence of positive impact all around us, especially for anyone who spent time downtown in the 80s and early 90s.
I think you’re right that the two of us have different levels of trust in our city leadership. But that’s a matter we can probably better address through counseling than further debate! ;^)
I don’t have a general mistrust of city leadership. Far from it. The city on the whole has done a stellar job. I benefit and am grateful. And impressed. (I recently completed Decatur 101, which I recommend highly to all!)
And even on this one, admittedly big, issue — coordination with the other branch of government on matters that affect the whole — I wouldn’t say my mistrust is of the leadership. There is definitely some hostility between the two branches of Decatur gov’t that needs purging, but the problem I think is more systemic or in the culture of the institutions.
And what, again, is wrong with formalizing the coordination between the two branches? Is there an objection to that? Both would benefit, as would the city as a whole.
(And by the way, I really would like to talk.)
As in my prior post: “You can’t legislate aesthetics. One person’s castle is another’s dump.”
If you’re willing to come up with the not insignificant $$ to buy the property, maybe it could become a park.
I support DairyQueenLand
Thanks for that, Lyn. I would expect a systematic study by CSD to confirm that national trend in Decatur, although the schools also make Decatur something of a special case. I’d be interested to know if there’s a difference by price point and depending on whether the units are condos or rentals. I would expect, for example, more children in a project like Columbia Park in the Decatur-Avondale LCI.
Decatur has been much more thoughtful and careful about planning than the rest of the Atlanta region, and that’s part of the reason why much of the dense development you’ve seen has been focused on downtown Decatur.
Earlier today I had to drive through the Dunwoody/Perimeter area, where there is dense development over a hierarchial street layout. It took nearly an hour to travel two blocks — and it wasn’t even during rush hour.
Decatur’s grid layout, in stark contrast, can sustain much more mixed-use development precisely because it is on a walkable grid.
Get on Peachtree Industrial and head north. Keep going.
Keep going.
Almost there.
Actually, a little bit longer.
That’s a really good point, grumble.
grumble, maybe my point wasn’t pointed enough. A park there would be very nice, but the reality is, with development patterns the way they are, purchase of that land would be in the multi-million dollar range, far beyond the City’s capability.
As for market conditions, the developers are not going to put large $$ into a project that isn’t viable, especially right now, so I imagine things will wait until conditions improve and money is easier to come by. The earliest I’ve heard that any construction would begin is mid to late 2010.
Grumble,
Do you have so little faith in our fair city? Decatur isn’t made up of people who took it as a second choice to midtown. Decatur offers a whole menu of reasons to prefer it over Midtown, even for the ‘young professional people’. Decatur really is a unique place to live, and the fact that housing occupancy rates suck in Midtown now, while downtown Decatur seems to be holding its own is evidence that expectations for those regions should not be the same.
As far as the park/greenspace is concerned, I think the lost potential tax stream from a developed property is much more of a concern to the city than the cost of acquiring the property. 210 units in the plan. I think a safe guess would be $5K per unit per year in city and school taxes. That’s before you get into the commercial end of the property.
The problem is that the “hard” debris, basically ground up concrete and cinder blocks, is 2 or 3 feet deep and not very amenable to anything growing.
As for the motto, what about “The place that is a locale” or “The home that is also a house” or “A place where you can be where you are”?
Or how about “The excitement of the quaint”.
By the way, you can legislate aesthetics. What do you think building heights and certain codes are all about? What about sidewalks? What about R60s and R40s and no exceptions? That’s really all aesthetics.
To be clear on this, it’s absolutely possible to legislate aesthetics. However, it’s moot because Decatur downtown doesn’t.
When I say aesthetics, I’m referring to style, color, adornments, etc. The things you refer to are more physical. They are objective in nature, as opposed to subjective. I may think your house is ugly, even though it conforms to all codes and regulations.
Too bad. If Decatur looked more like Williamsburg, I could finally dust off my three-corner hat. Then people might not be so surprised when I busted out my Old English accent.