There were some trees lost, this is true. However, making a strong town doesn’t involve easy either/or scenarios as simple as just “keep trees/remove trees.” It’s perhaps more worth noting that this project contributes to all facets of sustainability’s triple-bottom-line:
1. Environmental. This project will house 250-300 people on less than 2 acres of land. Anyone concerned with wasteful land consumption can’t deny that similar single family housing would consume almost 60 acres of land to accomplish the same thing. Plus, its proximity to Marta, entertainment, some employment, and most daily needs also makes it possible for more people to live a car-free or car-lite lifestyle. Try counting up the carbon on that.
2. Economic. As has been discussed here many times, projects like this attract people who, taken together, contribute much more in tax revenue than they take out in services. In short, their lifestyle helps finance my child’s education. Perhaps yours.
3. Social/Cultural. Projects like this make living in Decatur much more accessible for young people, service workers, and all kinds of other folks who want to be here but aren’t ready or cut out for the single family ownership route.
So, yes, no one is arguing that taking down some parking lot trees is a good thing. But it has to be weighed in context and, in that respect, it’s a non-starter.
As lovely as any particular one may be, we can’t let parking lot trees become a metaphorical drawbridge to thwart positive action.
As I understand it, developers downtown can meet the ordinance through a combination of street trees, trees in their courtyards, and the tree bank. The new ordinance will have no impact on our downtown plans.
It will also bring a considerable traffic problem. Don’t forget how under utilized Marta is. This development will probably add at least 75 cars to downtown Decatur at some point during peak travel times.
It’s not necessarily the slam dunk you are making it sound like.
I do that to distinguish myself from all other internet users, who post opinions they believe to be wrong. 😉
Seriously, though, I don’t get the criticism, as I wasn’t even arguing that the project is a slam dunk. I was responding to a comment about the loss of trees and making the point that there was enough positive potential in what’s happening to more than compensate.
You may be right that there’ll be a traffic uptick, at least initially. On the one side, it seems like simple math. On the other, though, we’ve added many hundreds of downtown residences since 2000 and traffic counts have remained stable. So there’s clearly more to the dynamic. We’ll just have to see.
All that said, let’s say you’re completely right on the traffic point. Even then, just weighing pluses and minuses, I still believe the project offers more than sufficient benefit to offset the loss of the trees that were on the site.
But if anyone can offer a list of drawbacks mighty enough to tip the scale, I’m listening.
Both the traffic problem Bulldog mentions and the affordability for service workers (assuming Scott wasn’t talking about fast food workers) Deanne mentions could be mitigated if people who work nearby or near one of the MARTA train stops were to forego car ownership in order to afford rent here. Of course, most people want even consider that, even if it’s quite possible for them to do so. But as I see it, that’s a “them” problem, not an affordability problem. (OK, maybe it’s also an “us” problem to the extent that they add to the traffic).
Really? That’s all you got? DM, I think Bulldog’s comment may qualify for a personal insult.
Scott (along with Steve, Judd, Deanne and a couple others) is one of the few people on here that truly think before they speak, and when he speaks, yes, he is usually right. He doesn’t let emotion, bias or ideology skew his comments, and he is always a voice of reason.
Maybe I’m blanking out on it– which of the new high density residential builds will be a viable option for service workers? This one is for luxury apartments and 315 W. Ponce is geared to young professionals and will offer a full line of amenities ($$).
Another parking lot lost. So sad. In 50 years we’ll all look back and say “what were they thinking back then, rebuilding cities for people! I really miss the days of massive asfalt fields dotting every city.” Hopefully not. Seriously though, these high density buildings are excellent.
I should know this, but what is happening here?
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2014/02/18/more-info-on-paces-clairemont-development-commerce-drive-road-diet-part-of-project/
Paces Clairemont, a roughly 175-unit apartment building.
They are tearing down more trees.
There were some trees lost, this is true. However, making a strong town doesn’t involve easy either/or scenarios as simple as just “keep trees/remove trees.” It’s perhaps more worth noting that this project contributes to all facets of sustainability’s triple-bottom-line:
1. Environmental. This project will house 250-300 people on less than 2 acres of land. Anyone concerned with wasteful land consumption can’t deny that similar single family housing would consume almost 60 acres of land to accomplish the same thing. Plus, its proximity to Marta, entertainment, some employment, and most daily needs also makes it possible for more people to live a car-free or car-lite lifestyle. Try counting up the carbon on that.
2. Economic. As has been discussed here many times, projects like this attract people who, taken together, contribute much more in tax revenue than they take out in services. In short, their lifestyle helps finance my child’s education. Perhaps yours.
3. Social/Cultural. Projects like this make living in Decatur much more accessible for young people, service workers, and all kinds of other folks who want to be here but aren’t ready or cut out for the single family ownership route.
So, yes, no one is arguing that taking down some parking lot trees is a good thing. But it has to be weighed in context and, in that respect, it’s a non-starter.
As lovely as any particular one may be, we can’t let parking lot trees become a metaphorical drawbridge to thwart positive action.
But they will have to abide by the new tree ordinance moving forward, right?
As I understand it, developers downtown can meet the ordinance through a combination of street trees, trees in their courtyards, and the tree bank. The new ordinance will have no impact on our downtown plans.
It will also bring a considerable traffic problem. Don’t forget how under utilized Marta is. This development will probably add at least 75 cars to downtown Decatur at some point during peak travel times.
It’s not necessarily the slam dunk you are making it sound like.
Yes, it is. Scott is right on with every single point he’s making.
Scott thinks he is right on everything, all the time.
I do that to distinguish myself from all other internet users, who post opinions they believe to be wrong. 😉
Seriously, though, I don’t get the criticism, as I wasn’t even arguing that the project is a slam dunk. I was responding to a comment about the loss of trees and making the point that there was enough positive potential in what’s happening to more than compensate.
You may be right that there’ll be a traffic uptick, at least initially. On the one side, it seems like simple math. On the other, though, we’ve added many hundreds of downtown residences since 2000 and traffic counts have remained stable. So there’s clearly more to the dynamic. We’ll just have to see.
All that said, let’s say you’re completely right on the traffic point. Even then, just weighing pluses and minuses, I still believe the project offers more than sufficient benefit to offset the loss of the trees that were on the site.
But if anyone can offer a list of drawbacks mighty enough to tip the scale, I’m listening.
Both the traffic problem Bulldog mentions and the affordability for service workers (assuming Scott wasn’t talking about fast food workers) Deanne mentions could be mitigated if people who work nearby or near one of the MARTA train stops were to forego car ownership in order to afford rent here. Of course, most people want even consider that, even if it’s quite possible for them to do so. But as I see it, that’s a “them” problem, not an affordability problem. (OK, maybe it’s also an “us” problem to the extent that they add to the traffic).
Its not a slam dunk at all. Its a 3 pointer from WAAAAAAY down town!
Really? That’s all you got? DM, I think Bulldog’s comment may qualify for a personal insult.
Scott (along with Steve, Judd, Deanne and a couple others) is one of the few people on here that truly think before they speak, and when he speaks, yes, he is usually right. He doesn’t let emotion, bias or ideology skew his comments, and he is always a voice of reason.
Maybe I’m blanking out on it– which of the new high density residential builds will be a viable option for service workers? This one is for luxury apartments and 315 W. Ponce is geared to young professionals and will offer a full line of amenities ($$).
(Hmmmm… now what could we point to as a prime example of folks throwing a fit over parking lot trees and failing to grasp the bigger picture …?)
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees…
Another parking lot lost. So sad. In 50 years we’ll all look back and say “what were they thinking back then, rebuilding cities for people! I really miss the days of massive asfalt fields dotting every city.” Hopefully not. Seriously though, these high density buildings are excellent.
Oh, please don’t give the historic preservation crowd any ideas. 😉
Lyrics Occasionally Guy sez:
They made a high rise
And tore up a parking lot.
like