Beltline Opposition Gives Decatur Resident Horrible Flashbacks
Decatur Metro | August 5, 2009
A Decatur resident nearly fainted this morning after reading portions of a Fresh Loaf post about neighborhood opposition to a Beltline plan that would add a crapload of density at the edge of Piedmont Park at the intersection of 10th and Monroe.
The individual, described as a 30 year-old male with a passing interest in planning & zoning, told website authorities that after having read two paragraphs in a “gripping post” by Creative Loafing reporter Thomas Wheatley, he started having violent, uncontrolled flashbacks.
The following is a sample of the article, and should only be read by those with no history of zoning-coma disorder.
“Allowing any development at 10th and Monroe, let alone an eight story building and four story buildings on land that is currently designated as single family residential, will constitute the worst form of bait and switch,” Jenifer Keenan, a Virginia-Highland resident, recently wrote in a letter to Beltline officials (and here in Fresh Loaf comments.) More than 120 homeowners have already signed a petition opposing the Beltline proposal.
Keenan, who was part of the grassroots effort to block Mason’s plan for two 38-story towers at the same corner, says the resident opposition isn’t about NIMBYism, but protecting Piedmont Park and the neighborhood from inappropriate development. She worries that dense development would mar the charm of the city’s most iconic greenspace. She also says that the city risks establishing a dangerous precedent if it decides to rezone property it owns. (Last year, the city purchased the unused railroad tracks and nearly 66 acres in the corridor from Mason.)
Asked to recount what he saw during these flashbacks, the man replied through tears, “All I can remember is first seeing a giant 60s style skyscraper and a large empty parking lot. Then I saw a large group of people yelling at each other about building heights, parking variances, NIMBYism and something called “Livable Growth”. Then everything changed and I was outside of a university, standing in the middle of a giant 5-way intersection. The people here were very nicely dressed, but were obviously very angry about something and kept screaming about character and density.”
And while this one individual claims to have regained his composure for the time-being, it is unknown how many near-faintings caused by density-fighting flashbacks go unreported every single day.
Latest from Decaturish
Wow, not knowing much abou the project it doenst look too horribly dense (from the rendering). While not really close to transit, I suppose there is the possibility…some day…many many moons from now…transit along the beltline will happen. No harm in planning ahead though.
eh…just make it a parking lot as is the MO of Atlanta (sarcasim).
I wonder how the neighborhood would feel if these developments existed prior to their moving in…ie…would the people who live in the neigborhoods near the 60’s style cinder block still have chosen to live there if the proposed development existed prior to their decision to move in?…or would they have moved someplace more suburban.
If the buildings being proposed in VH already existed as older infrastructure would people fight to tear it down cause its “just too dense” for the neighborhood.
I think maybe some of the VAHI folks are “dense”. Ummm…HELLO, you live DOWNTOWN next to the city’s only major PARK and greenspace. Do you think it is just there for you neighborhood homeowners? You do not live in a suburb.
Besides, Central Park seems to have managed pretty well in NYC. Talk about density.
less the park…sounds like a good responce to the west ponce project!
That’s a really good point, SJ. I’d go as far as to suggest that the juxtaposition of NYC’s Central Park immediately adjacent to some of the most intense urbanism in the world is a big part of what makes it so compelling.
Buildings around a city park are the frame. They don’t undo a park. They help it stand out.
I agree with having density around Piedmont Park – duh, it is already one of the densest areas in Atlanta – and particularly for the Beltline – its the only way transit could actually work. And considering what is at that intersection now – a storage place and strip shopping centers – it will most definately be an improvement.
But to clarify, people in VA Highland do not live DOWNTOWN. They’re not really even in Midtown. Virginia Highland was developed as a streetcar suburb around the turn of the century in what was considered the outskirts of town at best. Lots has changed since then, of course, and it is now considered an urban area.
But the real conflict here is beween an area that was developed as suburban meeting the now reality of being in the middle of urban Atlanta. How do you keep the character of the area, while accommodating the inevitable growth in the area and transit in particular? Of course, I agree that many don’t want to see anything change and want to keep the Park and the Beltline for themselves.
Sorry, but nothing frustrates me more than people referring to Downtown Atlanta anything south of Buckhead.
I live in VaHi and work in Decatur. Piedmont Park & Central Park have one big difference: Piedmont has endless residential just east of the park that stretches over to N. Highland then over to Druid Hills, etc. Central Park is surrounded by density. Piedmont Park serves as an ideal buffer between the density of midtown and VaHi single-family resedential. That was how it was planned, and it makes sense.
Introducing something THIS large in that area would be a throwing a huge wrench into the extensive thought that has already gone into developing Atlanta. Buildings of this size should be relegated to larger streets and main corridors. Monroe already gets bottlenecked between Piedmont and 10th, and introducing something of this size would inevitably require more road widening and would destroy that community atmosphere.
One alternative is to move the beltline out to Decatur…
Density has to start somewhere.
Thought going into developing Atlanta? It’s the lack of thought that has caused so many problems.
I would love the beltline to go through Decatur!…wow.
If it went through Decatur…where would it go? Through Oakhurst then maybe down Clairemont somehow. Past the high school…
I know it wont happen, but its fun to think about.
How is 10th and Monroe Virginia-Highland? That’s Midtown (and no where near downtown), running into Ansley. Virginia runs parallel to Monroe and somewhere around Ponce Place becomes Virginia Highland.
I’m sorry but a lot of our problems come from seeing growth as inevitable. How about making sustainability and preservation inevitable.
Oh I forgot, nobody in the current money channels gets any richer from that. Sorry my mistake.
Problem is that a lot of existing infrastructure is currently unsustainable in a world of more expensive energy. So, while preservation might have been a catch-all solution back in the 1920s (especially if our neighborhoods were still streetcar suburbs), all the subdivisions and strip malls don’t really scream “sustainable.”
The other issue is that people keep having that extra .5 kid and the population keeps growing. If we have to accommodate a growing population and decrease energy consumption, city’s like Atlanta need to increase their density. If the rest of the country’s cities catch onto this and Atlanta pretends that cheap gasoline is a universal truth, we’ll go the way of the Motor City.
I am also wary of New Urbanist density and it’s reliance on new construction, just because there’s so much money at stake. But at this point, we all need to make a choice…either we’re committed to reinvigorating our communities by employing both new construction and preservation to correct many of the planning mistakes of the past half-century, or we subscribe to strict preservation mantra, which will eventually have us saving subdivisions for no reason other than we can’t reconcile our love of old buildings with broader urban theory.
Can preservation principles perhaps be narrowed a bit to include quality as well as oldness? In other words, Victorian homes, Tudors, and craftsman cottages all have some aesthetic value in addition to being from an earlier era. On the other hand, my home before being remodelled was classic low-ceilinged, asbestos shingled, 1940s stock remodelled poorly in the 1970s with panelling and rolled roofs. Not one single visitor thought it was worth preserving even if it inspired nostalgia, kind of like Cheese Whiz or Fizzies. I don’t think it would have been considered any more worth preserving in 100 years.
David-where would you propose the next million Atlantans live? In the city, close to transit…ie-Decatur needs more density…or out in the burbs, far from transit and auto dependent?
I dont think our population will stall at where it is today. Pretty sure it will grow, regardless if we want it to or not.
Yes, David, lets preserve sprawl, strip malls, and unsightly storage places. That’s the ticket to a sustainable future!
I get where David is coming from. Alot of it is just inherent frustration of everyone mindlessly worshipping the god of “growth”. Every economic model is based on it. And this type of thing happens because of the fallicy of the current growth/profit economic model.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009593728_garbage04.html
I understand that people need to be living in intown walkable neighborhoods around transit. It just mostly seems like all the transit orientated development is still focused primarily on growth/profit and for the most part it still comes off as pretty shallow, empty, and dehumanizing. Here’s an article that illustrates my point exactly:
https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/84/thinking-unthinkable.html
What makes you think that the area, not just the infrastructure, I’m talking about water, garbage disposal, runoff, sewage from another million peoples crap, can take it?
Please, it’s not just an issue of beauty it’s about what the area can reasonably sustain.
Drive down Moreland Avenue sometime and look behind the Starlight Drive-in. That’s not a natural hill it’s a mountain of garbage. One of the many scattered around Atlanta.
Or try to swim in the Chattahoochee south of Atlanta. Good luck.
It’s not just the evil auto that’s the problem it’s too many people in too small a place.
If you want to live in Manhattan please do so, just don’t try to recreate it all over the country.
There’s got to be a better way than cramming more and more people into the same area. To me it seems like a real failure of imagination.
David, getting serious about sustainability means investing in less consumptive patterns. Even though it seems contrary to the 20th century, faux-agrarian American Dream ideal, residents of Manhattan have the lowest per-person environmental footprint of anywhere in the U.S. They walk more; they take transit; they live in, and heat and cool, less space.
But most importantly, they do so willingly. Even happily. That’s why there’s no reason to fight dense urbanism — it’s simply providing a choice for those who want it. No one’s being forced to live some way that doesn’t suit them. Why be afraid of lifestyle and economic options?
We’ll never stop having lower density neighborhoods and country solitude for those that want (and can pay) for it. But no matter how much Thoreau you read in high school, you can’t manage present populations sustainably if everyone lives that way. It needs to be balanced with areas — appropriately situated — of high density.
If Atlanta had grown more dense, instead of sprawling over 30 counties almost into Alabama and Tennessee, all the things you complain of (water/runoff/garbage/sewage) would be much more managable.
What do you suggest, David, we continue to sprawl outwards so that any greenspace or farmland is wiped out completely? What an environmental disaster that would be.
Atlanta’s environmental problems, David, is that instead of developing responsibly, we sprawled.
Manhatten is one of the most sustainable cities in the country due to density. If it was spread out like atlanta it would take up most of New England.
“There’s got to be a better way than cramming more and more people into the same area. To me it seems like a real failure of imagination.” – I understand your frustration…but its planning 101 that you put density where transit is. Ie – Decatur, or where future transit is planned..where this development is planned.
Again…where then do we put the people?? They gotta go somewhere. Create the south metro area to mirror the north side? Traffic and smog will be a nightmare.
We, the atlanta metro area, do not live in a dense city. Decatur, as far as I know, is the densist municipality in the state…yet many of us have a yard big enough for dogs, kids, to play ball, create a garden,…etc. Atlanta will never be Manhatten, or Chicago, or San Fran. Dont worry about that. If it ever does our great grandchildren will be great grandparents!
Just my opinion.
It would be interesting to know how the VH/Midtown community feels about the density of the 3 to 4 story apartment buildings across the street.
“Even though it seems contrary to the 20th century, faux-agrarian American Dream ideal, residents of Manhattan…”
“Manhatten (sic) is one of the most sustainable cities in the country due to density.”
Manhattan is one of the most fragile urban areas on earth. It’s almost entirely dependent on a single viaduct for fresh water and an armada of barges that carries it’s garbage away to the four corners of the globe every day. Viaduct goes and it’s chamber pots out the windows again. Phew!
None of the studies I’ve seen includes the energy density necessary to number 1 build the place over the last 300 years or 2. Account for what it takes to maintain
the city as a whole.
Individuals in the city may have a lower emissions footprint because they don’t drive but the city itself has enormous effects on the surrounding environment.
Just look at New Jersey. Sorry.
Actually my family’s from there so I can take my shot.
I am seeing arguments about growth, sustainability, preservation,etc. But to me the biggest issue with this type of wholesale growth is Atlanta’s lack of infrastructure. Frankly, the sewers and the roads just can’t handle this. Density is not necessarily the answer to anything. It’s the mantra of the ARC and modern urban planning, but when the basic services of the city can’t handle DENSE, then is cramming more people into a small space a solution?
Harvey Newman, a native Atlantan, professor of public policy at GSU and a regular planning consultant to the city, has warned ARC for years that unless the city addresses water, sewer and transportation issues BEFORE continuing to cram in more people, the city is headed for disaster. None of those issues have ever been reasonably addressed. (and Newman recommended against Atlanta’s current sewer plans because the plans merely constituted an expensive band aid and not a solution).
Atlanta’s infrastructure problems will be much more manageable and less expensive if our growth comes from density instead of continuing to grow outward. Infrastructure is much less expensive in high population density areas vs. areas with 3 people living each on 3/4 acre lots.
But most of the sprawl areas aren’t in the city and the systems aren’t strong enough now to sustain the population. Disagree with you completely. Atlanta needs a plan to fix its innards before it puts on another sparkly dress.
This is a great discussion! Kudos DM. I wrote something about this as well, also juxtaposing Central Park and its urban surroundings.
I think it makes no sense to talk about the extremes. Atlanta will never be as dense as New York so there’s no sense in using that as a bogeyman. The two cities’ have radically different DNA. So much of the residential core of Manhattan that provides its density was built while Atlanta was still recovering from the Civil War. The cities developed at different times, and Atlanta has no geographical boundaries.
That said, Atlanta is like a half-baked cake. We need to finish cooking it. We’ve already decided we’re a city; we can’t undo it. And that means where we can, we should increase density.
Oddly enough we’re always putting the cart before the horse. So now we have New Urbanism sprouting in the unlikeliest suburbs but a neighborhood that’s five blocks from Midtown — i.e. the CORE of the city — wants to keep out most development that’s not single-family homes.
Of course, I think all of the concern about increasing density SLIGHTLY (because a three or four-story building ain’t The World Trade Center, folks) is predicated on two things: a preference by most people to continue to drive everywhere and/or a fear that more transit is never going to arrive in Atlanta.
Thanks again for such a thoughtful discussion.