315 West Ponce Development is Back and “Zoning Compliant”
Decatur Metro | February 21, 2013 | 1:32 pm
One of the most talked about pre-“Great Recession” Decatur development projects is back from the dead.
The city has sent a letter to residents surrounding the 315 West Ponce 10-story office building and its giant wind tunnel parking lot stating that “An application for a building permit has been submitted for a new mixed use development at 315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue.” The city will be hosting a meeting at city hall on Tuesday February 26th at 7pm for adjoining property owners.
CLICK HERE to view the full size site plan and the variety of elevations of this project.
As this is a new development project/plan for this site, the development must follow new downtown multiple dwelling ordinances, who’s “R60 next to C2″ components were developed in no small part with this property in mind. And according to Planning Director Amanda Thompson, the current plan is “zoning compliant”, which was not the case the last time around when the developer desired a parking variance (under the old pre-ZOUTF revisions). After the neighborhood meeting, the developer will likely “present to the DDA [Downtown Development Authority] in March or April depending on what changes come out of the neighborhood meeting. Then once those are finished they will submit for a permit.”, according to Ms. Thompson.
Feel free to point out other differences between this project and the previous one, but two of the most obvious ones to me are the inclusion of the sidewalk-smooching West Ponce building (“Building A” for those who lived and breathed this development debate back in 2008) and the open courtyard along Montgomery Street.
h/t: Patch
Related Posts:
-
April 19, 2015 City Commission To Decide on Drive-Thru Juice Bar After Planning Commission Recommends Denial (21)
-
April 23, 2015 Learn More About the Avondale MARTA Mixed Use Development Tonight! (6)
-
April 27, 2015 Check Out the Latest Avondale MARTA Station Development Site Plan (1)
Yuck.
My understanding was that the surrounding neighborhoods had a problem with the density being focused in the back, the elevation and the traffic that would inevitably come to Ponce Place. The old iterations had traffic flowing one way onto W. Ponce from Ponce Place. I thought the old version had brick townhouses.
This looks like a big punch in the gut to the neighborhood concerns. It looks like a high-rise in their backyard. A cheap one too. What is cement fiber paneling? Sounds like cheap stucco.
I generally support downtown development projects, but this one looks poorly planned and ugly. Very dissapointed.
I assume by cement fiber paneling they mean a product like hardiboard, although that is designed to look like clapboards. I’m not sure what this is supposed to look like.
Yet another dominant culture “consumer” speaks out.
Cement fiber paneling that is not vertical (Hardiplank) is stucco board – ick!
I hope there is some real focus on the aestetics of that building. Science is showing that the beauty of our everyday environment has a huge impact on the mental health of individuals and communities. Taking into account architectural design and landscaping is huge.
Speaking of landscaping…a big question outstanding from last time…are they going to preserve those huge trees or chop them down in the name of “progress.”?
Another hope? That these developers in sync with the govt do not sell out the community as with what happened with the Walmart development.
A vocal minority does not equal the selling out of a community.
+1
well said.
+1
Well, gee whiz. I’m a little speechless. This like a case of be careful what you ask for…..
looks like a case of be careful what you ask for….
But what will Good Growth DeKalb say?
Looks like it would greatly improve the “gap” on Ponce and improve the streetscape/ pedestrian rhythm. I think the design is nice although I’m interested to understand how it will go with the existing building there. That building is pretty tough to match with anything. Glad to see more development and high density downtown.
I agree with the Ponce gap comment, though as a resident of Montgomery St, I’m not very pleased with the way the back end of the development is planned out.
So will the exterior of the existing building be changed in anyway? Or is that not feasible?
I like it!
Speaking as the brand new owner of a house on Fairview that backs up to 315’s parking lot, I’m having a hard time summoning words right now.
See if you can find some online pics of parking structures that are more visually appealing than the usual decks, and bring them with you to the neighborhood meeting with the developer. Make sure they explain if it will be an open deck or more like a wall, and if a closed side, do you want that towards your yard or not? There are decks that have “green” walls of ivy etc. maybe they would be open to something like that…
I wonder if the project between the Artisan and the Fidelity building will be revived any time soon as well. I bet there will be some interest in the Decatur First Bank property before long.
For all the discussions on this parcel with the neighborhoold residents about the transition between C-2 and R60, and the valid concerns that people expressed about outsized houses, building materials, traffic, buffers, etc, this just looks like some developer designed a high rise that “technically” complied with the code without considering any of the value considerations behind the new zoning.
As a homeowner in the neighborhood, I would actually like to see the site developed, but not like this. I would like to see something more low rise in the back like townhomes with stoops, like the previous design. I would also like to see high-quality building materials (brick). It seems like this would be a great parcel to develop condos or townhouses, considering the residential neighborhood, instead of high density apartments. I am fine with the piece facing Ponce (except for the building materials). However, the Montgomery side looks like a high rise with a perfunctory “courtyard” setback that will look bizzare and contrived next to the old residential homes in the neighborhood. It is Atlantic Staion-esque, and not worthy of the city.
“…the Montgomery side looks like a high rise with a perfunctory ‘courtyard’ setback that will look bizzare and contrived next to the old residential homes in the neighborhood. It is Atlantic Staion-esque, and not worthy of the city.”
Agreed, 100%
For a quick point of reference as to the massing of this proposal I suggest folks drive by the new Emory development on Clifton Road. These building are almost the same height and seem to be about the same distance from the street. This includes the residential buildings across the street from the one story homes on Montgomery.
I am officially a new resident here (though I’ve been in the area for a while and have family who have been residents for years). Just bought a townhouse on the other side of downtown. I have a planning, downtown & economic development, and construction background. Just laying that out there as a point of reference…
I am generally excited when owners want to develop a surface parking lot into a “higher use.” However, that is tricky in this instance since one side of the development touches an in-town residential neighborhood.
Density is not a bad word, and I hope close-in residents to downtown realize that Decatur would not be where it is now without building up over the past decades. How you build it and transition the “up” back down to stable single-family neighborhoods is the tricky part.
I assume this will be rental apartments, since financing condos is still difficult. Townhouses would be nice but in order to build enough units to make money they would need to fill up the entire site with them. But then they would need, and the area would want, to replace all that parking but you couldn’t build enough townhouses to justify structured parking.
The linked document looks like a concept plan, something likely needed to apply and get the process started with the city. I have never been involved in permitting a project in Decatur, so I’m unfamiliar with the specific process. Hopefully this is just a starting point. The developers could get run out of the DDA meeting or they could take input and come back with something more palatable with their neighbors. Nobody should panic or rejoice at this point.
What is the reputation of Decatur’s city staff (and elected/appointed officials) relating to development? Are residents suspicious? Is staff open, thoughtful, etc?
Just curious since I’m not that familiar.
Howdy neighbors.
Rival, city staff has a reputation for being some of the best, most professional, community-minded, folks in the business; and at the very least in metro Atlanta. Excellent instincts about development, and a good sense of how to balance out community needs.
That said, and as I’m sure you’ve experienced yourself, nobody can made everybody happy.
I don’t understand how the removal of one of the few green spaces in downtown Decatur (pocket park currently in front of 315) and possible remove of 5 dawn redwoods (Georgia State Champions) benefits the community. Of course it is privately owned, but I wish the City would extract more value other than additional retail. Back in the 80s when retail was at a shortage, this pursuit made sense, but now green space is scare and retail abundent. The lack of a Tree Ordinance that at least extracts some compensation for more trees or at lest to a tree bank is short sited. Moreover, why doesn’t the City ask tthe developers to investigate the Wells Fargo Lease to at least save the redwoods. Does any one care?
Im impressed that they can do anything with that bank building – if I recall, hardly any windows so not very inviting. Look forward to hearing/seeing details as the process moves forward.
yeah I agree. talk about an architectural challenge- make a solid beige monolith appear inviting! Anyway, I think apartments are preferred over condos given how they could tax the already overburdened school system.
I just wonder how long it will be before Decatur looks just like Midtown.
As a downtown resident, this plan looks pretty good to me, and certainly an improvement on the current site. I’d hate to lose the dawn redwoods though….maybe, as Trees Rock mentioned, this loss can be offset somehow.
It looks to me like they are leaving room for the redwoods though the new retail building may be shading them to the south. I don’t know if they are shade tolerant or not.
This looks good to me. Can’t wait to have those new househoulds, in the new residential homes on this property, paying their city taxes and walking around downtown spending money in our local businesses. Looking forward to this and am glad they were able to meet our new zoning requirements so we can avoid a protracted fight.
Don’t rule out a protracted fight just yet…
On what basis would there be a fight? The zoning was updated since the last fight, this meets the zoning. There might be some frustrated grunts coming from NIMBYs, but what arrows do they have in their quiver?
Well, I could walk around naked in my backyard, disgusting their tenants for a start.
I don’t think he said, “what do you have that would make them quiver.”
just snorted ice water up my nose. y’all are killing me.
Sounds like you’ve reached the end of your argument against this redevelopment, Lump. Let the building begin . . .
The details that they seem to be obfuscating concern the parking deck —
none of the renderings include it in the field of view;
there is a dotted line set back on the plan view to apparently correspond to the fifth floor roof line but no notation that the deck is five floors (or more or less);
no mention whether the south or west sides are open or solid and what material it will be;
no indication whether they will have parking at, below or above the grade of the residential to the west and down hill from the overall site grade — seems like the parking deck could be 7 or eight stories high if measured from that corner.
And what’s with the red walls sticking out from the back?
If your neighbor paints her house a color you don’t like, what recourse do you have? Not much in this part of town, right?
If she builds a garage that meets the setback and lot coverage limits, even if she might be able to see into your window if she stood on the roof of her new garage, what recourse do you have? Not much in this part of town.
If a property owner of a high-rise building on our busiest street wants to dense up the land (which is good for 99% of our community and society at large) and comes forth with a plan that meets all of this community’s brand new requirements, what recourse do you have?
Do you want my answer or Good Growth DeKalb’s?
J_T, I’m hoping to inject logic into this discussion. Therefore, I’ll take your answer and leave out GGD.
I don’t disagree with your ultimate position that there is little recourse. But, you seem to indicate that there is no room for community input in the process. The developer might want to try to be a good neighbor. Or, maybe he will simply pretend he cares what the neighbors think like Selig. Regardless, the neighbors get a chance to speak at the public hearing.
” Or, maybe he will simply pretend he cares what the neighbors think like Selig. ”
Not to get into a threadjack, but what do you mean by this, DawgFan? I’m asking you sincerely– you’ve been one of the “realistic about Walmart coming” commenters, so I can’t pinpoint what your concern is. As a neighbor who’s working with Selig on Suburban Plaza’s redevelopment, I’ll vouch for the Selig folks’ sincerity in wanting to do right by the neighborhoods. Actions in the 37 Point Agreement are already being worked on.They’ve put a lot of effort into providing the community with information, and they’ve been very receptive to constructive input– they brought in an award winning architect and redid the entire design based on it! What is it you feel that they’ve not done?
Sorry Deanne. I was just stirring the pot a little and trying (but failing) to point out that no matter how many concessions a developer may make, many people just aren’t going to be happy. But mostly just stirring the pot.
That’s some piss poor stirring. You know full well that Selig could have scrapped all plans, apologized to the community and submitted to a good public flogging. Just you watch, that’s what a superior court judge is gonna make him do when Good God DeKalb’s lawsuit gets filed!
DawgFan- Whew! :0)
J_T- Behave! (or not! :O)
Exactly…The one glaring omission in all of these elevations is what Fairview residents will see from their backyards. And I suspect little consideration was given in that regard by the developers at least partly because there was not much noise made by that contingent five years ago (at least as compared to the Montgomery folks). Rest assured, that will be remedied Tuesday night. But it cannot be denied that building a high rise immediately abutting single-family homes sets a terrible precedent for Decatur and fundamentally compromises the vision for the city.
Technically, what they want to build would be considered a mid-rise. A high-rise is what is already there and, I might add, is what was there when the abutting single-family property owners bought their properties, most likely.
That is, no abutting single-family property owner can justly make the case that they don’t want to live next to a high-rise, because unless they bought their house in the 60’s, prior to the construction of the current office building, they’ve been living next to a high rise since they moved in. And said high-rise was there when they chose to purchase their property. It’s not as if they bought a house next to a dairy farm, with the expectation that the only thing that would set eyes on their humble abode would be Daisy the cow.
Very good point. Although I suspect it’s the fact that residents will be abutting them rather than an office building that is the issue here, not the view.
FWIW (the aerial plan does not reflect it accurately), the new zoning ordinance stipulates an evergreen buffer with a minimum installed height of 30′ between adjacent properties. So, for the most part, that would define the view from adjacent backyards.
So, in effect, the view would be improved?
So would you be good with the plan if the high-rise apartments were in the front (facing Ponce) but townhouses were in the back?
…And if so, how about allowing a height variance in the front if there is going to be less density abutting the existing single family homes in the back?
one way or another it will be nice to have some more “eyes on the street” considering two women were help up at gun point right here a few weeks back. I look forward to more pedestrian activity.
“one way or another it will be nice to have some more “eyes on the street” considering two women were help up at gun point right here a few weeks back. I look forward to more pedestrian activity.”
A good point and one that often goes unmentioned in these types of discussions.
One question to all those who enjoy this design. Would you want to walk out of your house and have it staring back at you? Aesthetics on this place are below contractor grade.
Probably not, but didn’t those who currently live there buy a house where they walk out their front door and look at a couple acres of blacktop?
“Aesthetics on this place are below contractor grade.”
What, exactly, are contractor grade aesthetics?
And what if my aesthetic preference skews toward contractor grade? We can argue all we want over aesthetics, but that should not slow down this project. The city needs this to happen.
Also, at one point I think I remember a boutique hotel in the plan for this site. I think. I regret that that has gone away. Someone should build one of those somewhere in downtown Decatur. The city needs that to happen also.
I haven’t made it to the boutique hotel discussions in the long ago 315 posts, but WOW! You should click on the 315 tag above and start reading!!! Drama galore!!!
Aesthetics do matter, and there should be some discussion about it. If it slows down the project, so what? This neighborhood is our home, and for those of us that live in this neighborhood and are invested in it, it does matter. The developer is wired to get in and get out with the highest profit and cheapest materials. That can create a 45 year problem when they leave behind an eyesore.
Why not demand the developer use high quality materials and build an attractive project that takes into consideration the desires of the neighbors? There are 5 or more high density apartment projects aleady on the books. The area is in high demand, and the city can make asthetic demands, so it should.
The problem with your bad aesthetics is that they might be my good aesthetics. Who gets to decide? I don’t like the look of the empty parking lot every time I drive or walk by, I don’t like the look of the ugly front of that building on Ponce. I might even like the look of this rendering, or I might wish that it was inspired by the Parthenon, but you might think that Greek architecture is outdated. I might wish it looked like a spaceship. In 45 years, the look that they build will have been outdated for a while and then might come back in retro-vogue, because that is how these things go.
I guess it is majority rule then. The majority decides. You go to the meeting and argue about how attractive you think cheap stucco, synthetic building materials and shiny aluminum cladding look, and I will argue the opposite. Based on most of the people I know in Decatur, my view will be favored.
See you there.
Moderate – you are missing my point. The majority doesn’t get to choose what this looks like. The people with the land get to do what they want with their property as long as it is within our rules. There are no rules against bad aesthetics, unfortunately. You might think you could force them to build with gold plated bricks, but if they aren’t going to make any money doing it, then they won’t do it. And if they don’t do this, we are stuck with a tower surrounded in asphalt that is only marginally helpful in supporting a thriving urban area. The majority wins when we get a higher-intensity development on an important piece of our downtown.
This isn’t a civic building, this is a money making operation. They aren’t going to put this up to a vote and ask you what color the curtains should be. Good luck with that one. What is there now is not that great for the community and the world at large. I applaud the land owner and developer coming forth with a plan that will be helpful in supporting our local economy in various ways.
I think you are missing the point. I’m not saying the majority can control how the landowner designs his property, I’m saying that there is a MANDATORY public input process before the developer can submit his plans for a building permit. If a majority of these folks (in adjacent parcels) voice strong opinions about the standards for building materials, then there is a good chance changes will be made. There has been public input in most all recent Decatur developments, and this input has changed the development most of the time. Decatur, unlike unincorporated Dekalb, acutally considers the input. That’s why I live here.
Again, I am for the development of the parcel. You seem to presume otherwise and set up straw men with pretty ridiculous hypotheticals. I was invited to the meeting next week to share my concerns. The builder is required to meet with me and other landowners by law. I am going to exercise my right to voice my opinion and push for improvements to the proposal.
We’ll see what happens.
Unfortunately, Moderate, our past Mayor Floyd, our current Mayor Baskett and Commissioners Cunningham and Garrett recently voted to punt on their (and the Planning Commission’s) obligation to hold public hearings on such projects (as long as they were “zoning compliant”) and their right to set conditions for project approval. The Zoning Task Force recommended dropping the public hearing and the conditional approval process, the Planning Commission passed that recommendation on to the CC, and the CC approved.
The public input process is now limited to city-facilitated meetings (minimum of one) between the developer and the adjacent property owners. If anyone wants to voice an opinion on the project beyond this blog, I guess you’ll have to write the Commissioners, the city planning director and the members of the downtown development authority. You can attend the meeting on Tuesday, but the City respectfully requests that you hold your tongue. (If you would like a neighbor to hold your tongue, please bring latex/vinyl gloves. Flu season is not quite over.)
My bad, Moderate. You’re an adjacent property owner. You CAN comment! Go for it!
Yes, your view will be favored by some majority of the voters. And if all the people opposed to the project aesthetically pool their money together to buy the property, they can do with it as they please – within code and zoning requirements, of course, just like the current owners.
At this point I get the sense that you’re just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. You don’t live in the surrounding neighborhood. You’re not the developer. Doesn’t even sound like you’re a potential renter in the proposed development. So it’s easy to toss off opinions without fear that the actual outcomes would ever impact you directly, other than when you walk past the result every so often.
As Moderate says, these are our homes. This is literally our backyard. And mature oaks and open sky is soon to be replaced by five stories of eyeballs peering down at my children playing in the backyard and into my family room, 24/7. You’re equating this to a neighbor painting their house an ugly color? Please.
We’re not naive. We knew this development was a likelihood when we bought the house, and we have no illusions that we can stop it. I’ll even concede some of the positives you and others have pointed out. But to just throw up our hands and accept whatever the developer chooses to inflict upon us, as you seem to suggest, is asinine. While you’re right that we may not have any direct ability to influence them other than appealing to their sense of community and goodwill, we DO have the city and the Decatur Development Authority to hold them to account and ensure that the development we do end up with is sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood (and the city). We’ve already been in contact with the DDA and they have been very supportive so far. At the very least, we want to maximize the plantings in the buffer and ensure the species used are the best possible for the application. It’s going to hurt a lot to lose those oaks, but based on the plans they’ve released so far, it doesn’t look like they can be saved.
Long story short, it’s very easy to be cavalier about this when you’re not the one directly affected.
I was being contrary to try to make a point. You’re right, I don’t live next door. But I’m looking at the big picture. You said right away that you might be ready to fight it. The city needs this development to happen and fighting over the color of the curtains at the risk of prolonging or eliminating this opportunity seems dangerous to the overall good.
I will admit, if they are planning to leave a big red ugly fire wall at the back of the units as shown in the rendering then they clearly have the most unimaginative architects the world has seen since the Bauhaus spawned copycats – and we deserve better. So if you can get that changed without blowing the whole thing up, then I got your back.
Why does the city “need” this to happen?
Dawg – Having vast expanses of blacktop smack dab in the core of our downtown is bad for the economic and environmental vitality of Decatur. And that’s just the problem with the back of this piece of land. The front detracts from the walkable streetscape that we are trying to enhance throughout downtown. Right now, this property screams “DRIVE HERE.” When our core asset of our downtown is the fact that it gently asks you, me, and all those who are attracted to it, “slow down, walk around.” This proposed project will enhance our core asset.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but why do we need this particular development to happen? Are there not other potential developments which would accomplish your stated goals and have less of an impact on neighbors? Are there other properties that don’t adjoin residences where we can further this mission?
Dawg – under it’s current use, that particular property is vastly underutilized and only marginally helps to accomplish our community goals. It sits on Ponce . . . this is our core of downtown. It’s not tucked away in a neighborhood. We need to encourage development on this scale in our core – on multiple properties. I’ll let you and Lump and Moderate decide if it looks good or not – as long as you don’t impede on the overall trajectory of this sort of positive progress for our downtown. We have a community plan and land use regulations that back me up on this. We encourage this type of development, in this type of location, according to the outcomes of our visioning process.
“as long as you don’t impede ”
Now I really want to impede.
You know, WB, the City appears to be letting the property owner keep that drive-through. Now that screams DRIVE HERE and then DRIVE AWAY.
Have to disagree with your feeling that the front area is unwelcoming or discourages pedestrians. A walkable urban environment doesn’t have to be restricted to a continuous wall of sidewalk-adjacent consumption opportunities. What’s wrong with a few breaks in the commercial façade, like a pocket park? In that front area, I’ve seen kids play-marching along the curving walk and climbing on those walls, people eating lunch or just taking a mid-day break on the bench, older people with their dogs, and plants blooming throughout the year. I like a little variety when I walk Decatur’s commercial streets.
To me, lining all of downtown Decatur with one retail store, personal services shop or restaurant after another would really be monotonous. And why does every storefront have to be pushed to the sidewalk? Many cities have downtown commercial areas that feature transitions between the sidewalks and storefronts, pedestrian friendly open spaces that often contain seating areas or fountains, for example.
And, strange as it may sound, I think the building itself is interesting as a historic artifact of a particular architectural style and period in Decatur’s history. (I believe DM made a similar observation about a previous proposal that awkwardly stuck a building in front of the 315 property.) Should we also hide the Sharian Building behind some mall-like façade similar to what’s proposed for the 315 property?
BTW, I certainly agree with and applaud your earlier observation: “we deserve better.” Cheers!
Many small towns do try to encourage developers to comply with the communitys vision of how architecture is best presented. Most of us have gravitated to Decatur (not Atlantic Station or Midtown) for this ‘look and feel.’
The City of Roswell has done outstanding work at this complicated task for decades. The results there are visually and ECONOMICALLY apparent. The list of other towns doing this same good work is endless. So are the ones that have lost their identity to the endless ‘latest & best ever design’!
Decatur is a historic town. Without proper guidance from its leadership, the balance of historic ‘small town feel and look’ will quickly tilt to just another part of ‘everything the latest look’ ie Atlanta. This is one reason Atlanta goes thru slumps of popularity. It constantly dates itself with the ‘latest.’ It must periodically tear down and rise from the rubble. We CAN achieve economic development and preserve what we like to refer to as ‘our town.’ The private property owners will actually make more money if we do this right.
I also loved the idea of a boutique hotel although I can’t remember if that was an actual plan or just a hope like those for a Trader Joes. On nights when I rush from work to carpooling to activities to figuring out an adequate dinner that takes 13 minutes to cook, serve, and eat, and then someone has the audacity to say “We’re having that AGAIN…? or “Why do I always have to be the one to set the table…?”, I’d love the option to calmly get up, pack a few things, walk out, and check in for a serene overnight at the downtown boutique hotel. A few fresh flowers in the room, comfy fresh sheets and pillows, and a nice book to read are in my fantasy.
I’ve never considered that as a reason to need another hotel option in Decatur, but now that you mention it – thanks.
Cheap, stucco materials, faux stone, thin brick tile, cheap fixures. See the end of East Ponce, Atlantic Station or any Sembler “town” project that looks like a Potemkin Village.
It doesnt really look much different to me than the stuff that is right next door. Its not amazing, but im fine with it.
The site slopes approx. 16′-18′ from h.p. on Montgomery to l.p. on Ponce. The City storm and sanitary sewer lines (control points) are let’s say another 5′ under Ponce asphalt. That means the site could be ‘graded down’ significantly and still make ‘things’ flow downhill to satisfy site engineering.
This engineering design could lessen the impact of the ‘finished height’ (top elev.) of the proposed apartment and parking deck structures on the adjoining single family homes and existing 335 Ponce condo building.
Yes, ‘hauling off’ dirt’ costs money. This is where a ‘skilled’ City Government and its able politicians get involved in the ‘gives and takes’ of development. ie broker the ‘deal’ for all parties involved.
As a neighbor that has a view of The Monolith and the ugly parking lot… I say hurray! Hurry up and build it!
As a Decaturite I say hurray! More people to support local businesses and maybe now we can get a nice grocery store!
As a REALTOR, I know there is an incredible need for more housing in Downtown… So hurray!, on that point too.
For any neighbors that want to sell their houses in protest, I’d be happy to help you. You won’t lose money, it’s a Seller’s Market!
-1000
Thanks for confirming all of my worst suspicions about realtors (yes, I refuse to capitalize it).
This new design by Carter and partners is superior to prior proposal. The architects and Carters rep obviously worked hard on this tough design. My take from observing the meeting between neighbors and Carter was that with some requested design tweaks a development that will be profitable to the owner and best for the community is close at hand. Cheers to all.
+1000
Speaking as one of those seated at that table, I’d generally agree with this assessment. There’s still some tweaking to be done obviously (our biggest focus now is on the plantings in the barrier areas), but my wife and I feel like that for the most part they are making a good faith effort and, despite some our more intractable tablemates, will eventually get to a place where most of the abutters can at least live with the result.
Honestly at this point much of my sympathy lies with the condo folks on the east side of that building who will soon be facing that parking deck, but I don’t know that much can be done to ease that pain, unfortunately. There’s just not much room to maneuver or mitigate there.
Hey, Lump, can you clarify which condos to the east? Directly east is the Artisan, but their view is essentially blocked by the tower.
Do you mean the 335 Ponce building? That matches the description, though their back units already look down on their own structured parking and then the existing parking lot, so I don’t know how different it’ll be.
Whose view we talkin’ ’bout here?
Sorry. Directionally challenged. I meant the NNW side of 335, the one that faces the direction of Montgomery, which now has a view (even if it’s primarily of an expanse of blacktop) and soon will have naught.
Incidentally, for those who did not attend the meeting, residents of 335 seemed to make up the vast majority of the audience (and a couple of the participants at the table, in what appeared to be a last minute addition by the city). Because 335 is zoned commercial, they technically are not even afforded the cursory input we R60 folks get, but it seemed to be the feeling of all concerned that regardless of the law, both the single family neighbors and the developers were open to hearing their complaints/ideas, even if accommodating a lot of them will be difficult.
There are actually some really cool things that are being done w/ parking decks these days. For instance in Savannah you have to look twice to tell the difference between some of their newer decks and any of the other surrounding buildings. No more concrete blobs there that obviously read as ‘parking deck’.