DM has obtained these newly released renderings of the Trinity Triangle development, which is supposed to break ground this year. Note the large DQ sign at the center of the project along the first floor retail.
One more set of renderings below.
114 thoughts on “New Trinity Triangle Renderings Released”
Comments are closed.
wow. massive.
Ouch.
Plant. Ivy. Now.
I guess I’ll have to stop cutting through the DQ parking lot on my bicycle. 🙁
Wow – the first Cafe Montpelier location outside of Vermont. Quebecois/New England fusion comes to Decatur!
Poutine on the Ritz!
Has anyone heard anything about price points or sizes of these apartments? Wonder how they’ll impact the Ice House Lofts.
It will be great to have an active, pedestrian street frontage there.
Break ground this year? I thought it was supposed to have broken ground in June.
Good thing Dairy Queen shut down in February.
Note that it does show a DQ shingle in the rendering, so they’re at least sticking to the story that DQ will return as part of the development. But yeah, you’d figure they could have worked out the timing a little better in terms of closing the existing location.
Yep. According to this month’s Decatur Focus, the DQ deal that’s been hinted at and generally expected has been formalized. C’mon!
Great! Now they just need to make sure they’re up and running in time for us to stop there for Blizzards on the way to the hospital to deliver planned Lumpling #3, upholding our most holy tradition.
DQ will probably have to raise the price to three bucks a scoop in order to make the rent.
Our thoughts exactly, every time we drive by the overgrown weeds. DQ could’ve been open all summer.
+1
it does seem like kind of a huge uninteresting monolith… Hate that it cuts off the view of Agnes Scott. Gonna be a bit darker back there now.
Good news: I see the DQ logo in there!
SerIously ugly design. Let’s hope this was just an intern’s renderings and not what it will actually look like. Plus with all that lot coverage and the new “green” building designs it is going to need a lot of trees.
That is a REALLY ugly complex. It looks like something the Soviet Union built. Seriously, after all this time and that’s the best they could come up with. This property is sitting on one of the major corners of Decatur. Has the city provided any input on the design? Why didn’t they look at Serenbe or Savannah or Charleston for inspiration?
I can’t speak to the specifics of this project, but I will say this: If a stripped down, no-frills design will contribute to more cost-conscious rentals, I’m all for it. We’ve got a number of rental apartment projects underway, but they seem to be leaning towards the high end. They still contribute to our goal of bringing residents downtown, as well as some of the environmental benefits of car car-free/car-lite living, but not so much to housing options for a lot of the folks working here in service jobs.
If they’re choosing to compete with the other projects on the basis of price, it’d be a real boon for a lot of people, especially young ones. Or, it could just be crappy design. Hoping for the former.
+1 on hoping for the former.
Not defending this design necessarily, but Savannah? Charleston? Serenbe? I don’t see how any of those places are architecturally relevant to Decatur. Yes, they’re all very nice places with lovely architecture, but it doesn’t mean you can just uproot that and plop it in the middle of Decatur and have it make sense. For better or worse, Decatur has a somewhat motley aesthetic with a variety of styles. Hence, most new development understandably seems to be striving for a more muted design so as to blend in.
+1000. Downtown Decatur has never been known as a shining aesthetic example of anything. Not even close. If fact, except for the old courthouse and a couple of the churches, it’s long been downright blah. The more recent buildings (including this one) have been an improvement.
+ some more
Lord, Decatur just gets uglier and uglier.
Really? This is uglier than that crappy looking parking lot with a 1970s-era DQ on one end? One thing not to like the design, but to say it isn’t an improvement makes no sense to me.
+1. It’s a vacant lot full of gravel, and before that was a decaying parking lot full of weeds. ANYTHING is an improvement, and regardless of the architectural nitpicks, this will only strengthen Decatur.
And keep in mind I say this as a resident abutting the ongoing West Ponce development, so I’m well acquainted with the “we’d prefer the parking lot” mindset.
Before that, it was a decaying hotel full of weed.
Seriously, new folks to town may not believe this, but the hotel that was there as recently as, what?, 2008-09, was similar to the type of hotel you find out at Memorial and 285. Right there, in the middle of precious little Decatur. It was sketchy to say the least. Honestly, we avoided DQ while the hotel was there. Of course we had Coldstone creamery as an option for a while.
I recall “stolen Glock found under pillow” being a particularly common phrase in police reports of the era.
Wow. Was it that recently? I don’t remember that.
I was living in Decatur while it was still standing, and was not at all sorry to see it knocked down. Just did not expect the resulting gravel to hold sway for so long…
Scott is talking about incidents at the Relax Inn, which has been gone at least 10 years, so no, it’s not recent.
The infamous Relax Inn closed at the start of 2007. Not sure when it was demolished but probably within a year or two thereafter. So I think mention of “2008-09” is in the ballpark.
I was close. Your memory is better than mine,
Moved here in late 2007, so that’s why I only remember the empty building.
It was definitely alive and functioning in 2004 & 2005. So it’s been less than 10 years since it has been gone.
I still have dreams that I forgot my Glock under my pillow at the Relapse Inn, so it can’t have been that long ago… late 2007-early 2008 sounds right; I think they demo’d it just a few months before the economy tanked.
Considering what a festering crime hole that place was, it’s hard to believe it was around so long. So while you may not think much of the new building’s design, it’s far superior to what was there before or what’s there now.
I’d really like to see a site plan for this project — those renderings show what looks like parking spots along the street, but I’m not sure which street. If I have to pay to park in a deck to get my Blizzard fix, that’s going to be a problem.
The linked flyer says free parking for retail use so I think you’re good to go. Commence belt loosening in 3, 2, 1…
where’s this flyer? is it the graphic with the text that says the three retail spaces will have “access to free parking spaces in the building’s parking deck”?
free parking for the retailers is good, but not so great if it’s in a confusing deck and there’s some sort of token or pass you have to get from retailer to get you out without paying. that raises the PITA factor enough to consider other soft-serve options… not necessarily bad for my diet. the ease of getting in and out of the old DQ was definitely not good for my diet.
Hopefully it will be like the 355 Ponce building, where retail parking is just drive in, drive out. No tokens, tickets, validations, or anything else.
It never ceases to amaze me how an area as “in demand” as Decatur has a government which sets such low (or no) standards for the aesthetics and architectural beauty of its new developments. The old design was somewhat pretty. At least it had some curves and architectural flourishes. This design is bleak.
I always liked Decatur because it wasn’t Atlantic STation. Looks like we’re trying to be.
“Decatur has a government which sets such low (or no) standards for the aesthetics and architectural beauty of its new developments.”
Except for some say-so in historic districts, the City has nothing to do with and no control of appearance or aesthetics of building projects,
But if they did set high standards, then I’m sure all we’d hear is “Look at those busy-bodies in the government telling private property owners what their building should look like!”
The code sets minimum standards for architecture. It’s the property owners’ and architects’ job to make the building look appealing. That is going to be a very subjective measure, so take it up with Oakhurst Realty or their architect.
How does the historic commission then get to dictate my house design and the city arborist what trees are in my yard? How come the city doesn’t just let my neighbors “take it up with me?”
Guess the libertarian outrage only runs one way in your world.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance gives the Historic Preservation Commission review authority for exterior design in designated local historic districts. That applies to structures only and specifically does not include colors.
The new UDO expands the historic commission to do design review for ALL zoning areas when an increase in allowable floor area ratio is sought by the property owner- this is not just in the historic districts (but it is only in the case of designs for bigger than usually allowed houses). See Section 11.2.5 of the proposed ordinance.
Downtown development is subject to a variety of aesthetic-type controls. It has to adhere to a particular cornice line, it has to have a certain amount of glass/transparency at street level, height is limited, etc. It also has to adhere to city streetscape standards, which dictates not just the trees they plant, but their spacing and the lighting and furniture used around them. That seems like fairly consistent regulation across the board, for either big developers or homeowners. Even in an Historic District, developers/businesses (Kimball House, for example, or those new townhouses on Hillyer) are held to the same standards as surrounding residences.
#1 – I’m not libertarian
#2 – I’m not outraged
#3 – Trinity Triangle is not included in the Old Decatur Historic District. Your house apparently is in one of the residential historic districts. There are (or were) opt-out provisions for historic districts.
I’m almost always of the opinion that the one who is investing his/her money is the one who gets to set the design parameters. Aesthetics is a tricky enough business without having to please a lot of people who have no ‘skin in the game” apart from their proximity.
I say the owners bear the burden and reap the rewards of the design – crappy design, reluctant tenants, lower rents; brilliant design, eager tenants, higher rents.
If not, we become just like the subdivision POA boards that everyone Decatur seems to despise: “Your mailbox has too many plants, $100 fine!”
I agree with your sentiments and do not wish for even more government busy boddiness or a citizen’s aesthetic review panel or anything of the like.
The developer has the right to build something that I think looks terrible.
And though I wish him luck, I also wish that he had the foresight and design sensitivities to make better aesthetic decisions on a site that should offer enormous opportunities.
Architectural standards as in the Dunwoody/Williamsburg travesty? No thanks.
I actually kind of like it, hard to see too much detail on an iPhone but it appears they’ve made a good attempt at breaking it up with different textures, the street level retail scale looks good, and the parking is hidden.
Thank God. Reading the other comments, I thought I must be missing something. My first thought also was “hey, that looks pretty nice.” I didn’t realize we had so many architectural critics in town, nor did I realize just how out of touch I must be with the “experts” on these things. Methinks that most of the grumbling comes from people who are pissed that ANYTHING is being built there, let alone apartments.
Think you nailed it. From henceforth let’s just refer to them as the PWPPL–People Who Prefer Parking Lots.
You are once again too quick to ascribe the worst intentions to those you disagree with. It’s an aesthetic judgement we’re talking about here, nothing more. Some will like it and some won’t. No need to call our neighbors a bunch of jerks for disagreeing.
Huh? Did you miss all the threads where many people were complaining about the fact that ANYTHING was being built here? And at 315. And wherever else new buildings are being built…
You guys are both jerks.
True.
Ugh.
Raise your hand if you remember how beautiful that old hotel was before they tore it down.
Ah, the old Relapse Inn…
Laughed out loud at that one.
It’s Edgewood.
Edgewood is a much nicer design imo….
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy! Urban design.
Booooooooooo!!!!Architectural design.
Feels like an eastern block housing unit.
on the other hand, if there’s a frickin’ comic book shop in that space, I will forgive a LOT.
(not that it’d survive long given the probable rents…)
Right on.
I wonder when that comic book/craft beer joint will open. If it would just include a cigar lounge, we’d all be set.
That cigar smoke is really going to wreak havoc on your condition grading.
on the other OTHER hand, if you wanna park at Twain’s, you’re gonna need to either try and cram into the half dozen spots out front or pay to park in this monstrosity.
Hope they work out a deal for Twain’s employee parking.
Why are they only showing one side of it? The lot is a “triangle”. Are the other two sides all parking lot?
Oh look, they’ve rendered in another frozen yogurt place to keep us in that sweet spot of one FrYo per 3,000 residents.
Don’t worry. It will be an ice cream shop in the next rendering (look out, DQ!).
Reminds me of Emory Point or Asheville Biltmore Park Town Square.
Maximize sq footage, minimize costs, aesthetics are tacked on.
I get the feeling most of us would like a little Lake Oswego look, but I suspect being near Portlandia, they do have a architectural review for city planning.
I bet there’d be far fewer complaints about aesthetics if there was a big Trader Joe’s sign on the building.
Yes, my head hurts.
Design matters regarding quality of long term tenants and community building. It’s extraordinarily difficult to fix an ugly building in an important location after it’s built. Not a quick fix! What ever happened to function and form? This is a disappointing, outdated eyesore. I’m excited for more restaurants and, hopefully, affordable apartments, but wish the design were more innovative.
Yeah this just feels like Lindbergh and we should expect better. Just because it isn’t a rundown hotel or an empty lot, doesn’t mean this is a great choice.
In the end though, I can live with the design as long as they don’t price out small businesses from leasing the spaces below.
This is a brutally uninspired design, and terribly disappointing to see here in Decatur, especially when compared to some of the very thoughtful projects that have been completed by the City in recent years (Fire Stations, Rec Center, Beacon School, etc.). The private-sector developers completely “screwed the pooch” with this lame effort.
As a pro-growth aficionado, I am pleased that something will finally replace the gravel lot and other previous iterations of rubbish on this property. However, even an inkling of imagination would have been better than this brick-coated box of square footage. This design says NOTHING at all about Decatur, the “Triangle” that is the namesake of the development, the history / future of the City, or the way we live here in this pedestrian-friendly, “green” community. It would be equally suitable or unsuitable in any location of the world that has an interest in providing nothing more than leasable area. It says nothing at all about the place, or about the time from whence it came, and cannot be considered architecture by any stretch of an imagination. The building has no sense of human / pedestrian scale or proportion, terrible massing, and no real differentiation between living space and parking garage. Please also keep in mind that the designer must consider this to be the “good” side, as they went to the effort to render it and present it to the public. I imagine the south side, facing the railroad tracks and Agnes Scott, will be more of a monolith, with fewer windows, and even less articulation.
A building of this size, with its multi-million dollar construction budget, and located on a highly visible corner site, is deserving of a little thought and a little imagination, and I am certain that the design fee was sufficient to support that inkling of thought and imagination…..so shame on the developer, and double shame on the architect, as neither of you have anything at all to be proud of here.
It is truly heart-breaking to think that this will be the “south gateway” into Downtown Decatur for the next 50 years….we all deserve better.
Couldn’t have said it better.
It really is too bad Decatur wasn’t in the market for Renzo Piano.
Annnnnd…BOOM. *drops mic*
So you are a pro-growth aficionado, but you don’t want a physical manifestation of growth to be seen from those entering the city? Kinda ironic, don’t cha think?
I imagine the developer was shooting for something neutral that would appeal, or not offend, the masses. IMHO, most of the time when someone gets cute and tries to turn a building into modern art, it looks like hell and leaves people scratching their heads trying to figure out the inspiration. Uninspired may not be a bad thing, especially as norms and preferences change over the several decade life cycle of that building.
didn’t people around here complain and threaten to move to portland/asheville/burlington about the modern building on N. McDonough across from the HS?
And Marfa
“I imagine the developer was shooting for something neutral…”
+1. I wish someone would post a link to a photo of a building of similar size on a similar footprint, with the same function, that they think is significantly more appealing visually. Let’s see a couple of examples of those and see how much agreement there is over them. But please don’t bother with pictures of places that contain $5k a month apartments.
I thought the Waffle House Museum was the South Gateway to Decatur. (It’s a tossup with Pin Ups.)
Sorry to disappoint – the Waffle House Museum is in Avondale Estates. Central Auto Sales, on the other hand, is first to greet folks traveling west into Decatur, (and Pin-Ups, on the Ponce de Leon parallel).
Waffle House Museum is in Decatur, 30030. May not be City of Decatur, but I’m too lazy to look it up.
Somebody told them to break up the facade and they went for it. It’s like 6 buildings in one. I’d rather just have them build twice as high, reduce the amount of retail and preserve a little green space. But then I’m just a caveman.
This is absolutely awful. A four story complex will create the canyons that you see in large downtown areas.
I really think this is the beginning of the end for the quaint, small town feel that Decatur has had for so long. That could still be achieved with a design that fits the area. Or we could just put a park there instead.
By “we” do you mean you and your investor group that will buy this property?
Also, as for the “beginning of the end” – I challenge you to count up how many buildings in downtown are 4 stories or greater. It’s at least 10, right? So how will this be the one that sends us into the canyon, when residential buildings of this scale have been going up for over a decade and true “skyscrapers” where going up before that? Have you looked around? Think about Ponce – lined with 4+ story buildings. Does it feel like a canyon?
Nope, I mean “we” as a City. We deserve better than Atlantic Station.
If this goes in as planned, what’s to stop more buildings like it at the 4 other (or is it 5, I can’t keep it all straight) going up?
Those buildings on Ponce aren’t bordered by a railroad track on one side. The street doesn’t dip down on Ponce like it does here. So basically you’ve got a railroad bank on one side (Canyon 1) and the street on the other (Canyon 2).
I hope City officials read this board and notice the overwhelmingly negative response to this rendering (and then there are those who want to defend this ugly building just because they want to argue).
So if City officials note the “overwhelming” (what, 20 comments?) negative response to the aesthetics of this design, what are they supposed to do then? Your objection is clearly to the size and function, so you’re exactly one of those JT and I referred to who are using aesthetic complaints to mask your real objection–which is denser development. Denser development was and is a part of the long term plan here, one that has carried over from several elections.
Anyone know what we can expect from a commercial leasing standpoint?
I’m fine with the uninspired design as long as we can have some community and not a Target or other franchises taking up that space.
That’d be an awfully small Target.
They have been piloting stores for smaller locations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/business/target-is-testing-a-small-store-for-city-shoppers.html
While obviously Target was just an example, I think the sentiment is pretty clear.
” what are they supposed to do then”
The City has very little control over the appearance of buildings outside of a local historic district. There are a few things like height restrictions that are part of zoning, but little else, so, what are they supposed to do? There’s very little they can do.
If you’re lumping me in the category of people who “just want to argue” you are wrong. You’d often be right, but not on this. I really don’t understand the over-the-top reaction to how “ugly” it is. It looks just fine to me, nice even, for it’s purpose and location. I’m sorry it’s not your cup of tea. I just find the outcry amusing and bewildering.
Minimally amusing. At some point, post after post of complaints and declarations of what people “deserve” just gets boring. With some notable exceptions, this thread is entitlement on parade.
OK, DEM–try not to go into shock, but I agree with your comment 100%. 😀 Apocalypse begins in 3…2…
And STG agreed with me about something just last week! I am getting concerned that maybe I’m losing it in my old age . . . 🙂
Brace yourself…I’m with you on this comment, too.
Was actually shivering on a FL Panhandle beach late yesterday afternoon (after a long swim in an oddly cool Gulf), and concluded that maybe the “cold day in July” I’ve been hearing about all my life has finally arrived. Who knows what will happen next?!
So Bulldog- how much more in taxes would you be willing to pay to have the city buy this site and turn it into a park? Don’t forget that the “cost” of your idea is also $1000s of dollars in annual taxes that this new building owner won’t be paying to the city.
Better than a parking lot…..but awful.
WALRUS!!!! SOOOOO HAPPY to see you back on here again!!!!! :0)
I agree it could be a lot better, but …
Is it worse than Ice House Lofts? Wacovia (now getting wrapped up like a birthday gift)? Decatur Federal Bldg?
And thank you Earth_Dude for laying the blame squarely where it belongs on the private sector. Amazing how many people want to blame the City for everything.
Wow – interesting exchange!
While I wouldn’t say it’s ugly, it certainly is an uninspired design. It is a building designed to meet very specific utilization with explicit code requirements, at a manageable cost.
While we would all like to see it be much more of an architectural showcase, that is a decision for the developer – are they willing to invest (allot) more time with an architect to add additional complexity and cost to this building?
The only reason the developer should rationally do that, is if they can charge higher rent on their tenants. We all recognize that the other developments are aiming up market, so it makes the most sense for them to enter the market with a cost effective building where they can deliver a good return at a lower rent (which does not mean they WILL charge a lower rent – the rent will be set by demand).
If anybody has specific recommendations for improvements or wants to donate some architectural time pro bono, act now. Reach out to the developer, they might be receptive if you are constructive and pleasant. But don’t blame the city – our city government is not responsible for aesthetic decisions made by private property owners, nor should they be.
It seems like most of us hate the design. Aesthetically this is a huge zero. I love Earth_Dude’s comments. Bravo! Well stated. I have no problem with growth and development in Decatur. I really just hate the Atlantic Station, uninspired design. I think it’s fine to be 4-stories outside of the historic square- even makes sense from an urban development standpoint. Apartments bring residents, which means more money for Decatur. This is a great thing. The density does not bother me. My question – is there anyone who knows this developer or anything we can do so the developer hears our concerns regarding the design? What can we do that is proactive to change this horribleness rather than complain on Decatur Metro? I would think that the developer would want to hear the community’s response as it’s in his best interest. We are partners in our growing community. A community meeting? Letters to the developer – a petition of sorts? What do y’all think? The good news is that we are seeing this BEFORE it’s built – so our voices may still count.
“We are partners in our growing community.”
This simply isn’t true. The developer will finish the building, lease it up and cash out.
And besides, if he changed it to something you prefer, he may receive more negative feedback than the current design. Why put a lot of time and energy into a no-win situation?
It could use a plaza full of frog statues, if you ask me.
Well, no one can say we don’t express our opinions freely! 🙂
Seriously, though–I can appreciate that this new development’s design isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, and we’re all entitled to our opinions. What we’re not entitled to is to expect that every developer/builder or suchlike should let our tastes dictate what they do with their property, except where our City ordinances allow. I’m just happy that, after having been stalled for so long, this project is finally becoming a reality. I wasn’t terribly fond of the new subsidized housing that DHA was putting up, but now that they’re built, they’re not nearly as bad as I’d feared (and the residents seem to really like them). I personally would’ve loved to have had a park there, but I didn’t have the $$ to buy it & make my desires a reality. That’s life. Let’s not lose sight of the most important thing, which is that this should bring some much-needed diversity of housing to this heavily single-family-house-focused city.
“What we’re not entitled to is to expect that every developer/builder or suchlike should let our tastes dictate what they do with their property”
Clearly you haven’t been following local matters lately! I guess you missed it, but our esteemed commissioners recently passed a tree ordinance which entitle us to do just that. And don’t forget about the UDO – CoD is about to become one giant HOA, except in this case the vocal minority gets to set the rules.
I do know that the developers of 280 Elizabeth provided design sketches to Inman Park’s community and presented the design. This is not unheard of from a commercial real estate standpoint. I’m not suggesting that we block development – by any means.
Yes, but the developer didn’t seek the community’s approval b/c he wanted to be a good neighbor. In that case he needed to re-zone the property, and he knew that if the very organized neighborhood association opposed his plans, his zoning application would have been denied.
How can you compare this to Emory Point or Edgewood Retail District? It’s one mixed use building, much like the Artisan, Town Square, and Renaissance.
And can somebody point out to me any building in Decatur from the last, I dunno, 40-50 years that’s an architectural gem?