Should Decatur Encourage Converting Older Office Buildings Into High-Rise Residential?
Decatur Metro | May 12, 2011 | 10:51 amYou may think I’m just hypothesizing for the sake of clicks and conversation, but this is straight out of the Decatur 2010 Strategic Plan Appendix B (page 33)…
A critical component in attracting new office uses is to ensure that existing office is successful and sustainable. Many of Decatur’s office buildings are old, and becoming obsolete. One way to deal with this is pruning, which basically means that having a whole lot of noncompetitive or low-quality space is actually worse than having less space, but of higher quality. Removing some of the older and less viable office buildings from the market could incent more competition. One way to handle this would be converting them to residential, which could shore up office rental rates, and possibly encourage new office construction in the City. The resulting residential units could provide a more affordable housing product, if the office buildings sell at low enough price points. The “retro loft” architecture could also serve to broaden the residential market.
An interesting idea, but it seems predicated on the notion that residents – and not businesses – have a lower threshold for “old and obsolete” than businesses looking for a new space. I suppose that could be true if the price point was attractive enough to the residential buyer.
I dunno. Interesting food for thought.
Yes, there is a lot of late 20th century commercial building stock in Decatur. It’s not the most attractive lot of buildings but there is potential to adapt them to new mixed uses. What’s wrong with first-floor commercial, upper floor residential? It’s environmentally sound because each building has what’s known as embodied energy: the energy used to create the building materials that went into it; the energy used to construct it; and, the energy invested in its use and upkeep during its first life. Additional energy would be expended in demolishing the building, trucking away the debris, and depositing it in a landfill. And then there’s the energy that would go into building something new.
Not that these old office buildings are historic, but preservationists and preservation architects do like to remind people that the greenest building is the one that’s already there. Decatur has a remarkable central business district and thriving locally owned businesses. There’s also lots of talent here who could come up with some creative ideas to adaptively reuse these buildings for another chapter in Decatur’s story.
“I suppose that could be true if the price point was attractive enough to the residential buyer.”
It would be a great way to add to the affordable housing stock. I’m no expert on the City’s code requirements by any means, but if these buildings could be exempt from some of them it would make it a lot easier to make such conversion’s economically feasible. I’m reading “The Triumph of the City” at present, and I’m really coming around to the notion that zoning and code requirements can effectively keep out lower and middle income people from some cities, regardless of the good intentions of those regulations.
So yes, I believe Decatur should encourage this idea. DM, who would you advise contacting to express that support?
An overhaul of our zoning ordinance is one of the first Strategic Plan goals to get underway. As I understand it, there will be a resident/business/city task force to lead the effort with anticipated completion in about 18 months. They’re expected to look at the issue city-wide, for everything from downtown uses to transitions between higher and lower densities to accessory dwellings on residential lots, and more.
I agree completely with your take. Offices and residences are both completely acceptable uses for a downtown. It should be up to the market to determine where the demand is. The ordinances should address health, safety and noxious behaviors but, beyond that, they should get out of the way.
It seems to me that it’s not the hi or mid rise buildings that should be the target of “downzoning” or conversion from commercial to residential but rather the apparently undesirable smaller spaces that are scattered around town.
Personally, I would love to see some of these turned into loft-like residences and have even pondered what one could with them. A few examples: 1. The building on Church across from the parole office that borders the BOA parking lot. 2, The “must see inside!!!” building across from Burnt Fork that has been for rent FOREVER. 3. Corner of College and Mead.
Other neighborhoods like Inman Park have good examples of this, with many mixing commercial and residential in the same building.
The economic reality though is that these are owned by private citizens or entities. And despite the fact that they’ve been vacant for years and not providing a dime of cash flow (the basis of value for commercial property), the owners probably still believe that their property is worth its commercial appraisal value. Without some conversion under duress (i.e. foreclosure) that perceived value won’t likely reset and it would be hard to make the numbers work for residential use.
For a great example of a residence above a street level store and restaurant check out the corner of Auburn Ave and Randolph Street. If you don’t want to drive by, use Google street view. That building was a vacant eyesore (and worse) for years, and now it is an asset to the Old 4th Ward neighborhood.
Runswithdogs,
So you don’t think there would be enough economic incentive for the owners to convert them to residential rentals?
Does anyone know how large the large white building across from Farm Burger is? (Wachovia was there years ago). I’ve wondered, too, what they could use this for. Would be great if a good-sized corporation (sorry), with deep pockets, would buy it, giving locals jobs, and a MARTA commute. Or an outpost for a university. I can’t think that many developers are ready to tackle anything yet, especially when there are condos in Decatur that are empty. Anyone know any numbers for this issue?
Are you talking about 315 West Ponce (aka Decatur Court)? If so, that’s across from Garlic Thai, not Farm Burger.
Also, though it insists on keeping its “For Lease” sign out permanently, I’ve heard its like 95% occupied.
Yes. Okay, so, if 95% occupied, that’s alot better than I thought! Thanks for info.
Bring it on! I want to be able to afford to BUY in Decatur. Sigh.
I like the idea but always surprised when we always strive to “broaden the residential market” downward. It is the expensive housing that brings the high income families that spend the money that keeps our businesses alive. Look at Decatur 10 years ago. Having some affordability is good and so is having some exclusivity.
Well, exclusivity is ok up to a point until the exclusive become so exclusive that they are not really interacting with the community but living in gated homes, sending their children to private school, sending the help to buy whatever wherever rather than shopping locally, and certainly not walking and rolling and growing their food in Oakhurst Garden! I would rather live in City of Decatur than some of Druid Hills, most of Buckhead, most of Dunwoody, and whatever that area is around Mt. Paran road with 6-car garages and automatic gates on the driveways. In fact, if Decatur became like those areas, I would move to Clarkston, Avondale Estates, Kirkwood, Lake Claire, Candler Park or most likely, out of state. Even more than the great restaurants and stores in Decatur is its community. That’s what I’m paying for.
“It is the expensive housing that brings the high income families that spend the money that keeps our businesses alive.”
But I think it is possible to attract people with more affordable housing also, and perhaps living downtown they can spend less on transportation and more at Java Monkey, Taquiera del Sol, etc.
Just a thought.
sounds like a good idea, but it’s specious.
the cost of an adaptive re-use/retrofit is more expensive and MUCH more complicated than ground-up construction.
romantic notion, but unfortunately not feasible.
Interesting. I was sorta wondering about that, as I’ve often heard that line in discussions of preservation. So even with a 10 story building, tearing it down and rebuilding it from the ground-up is cheaper?