MM: CSD Receives “Green” Award, Downtown Greenspace, and Not So Green Roof Racks
Decatur Metro | April 27, 2016 | 9:22 am
- City Schools of Decatur win ‘Green Ribbon Schools’ award [Decaturish]
- Downtown leader frustrated with Decatur’s ‘passivity’ over park space [AJC]
- Painters gather for Olmsted Plein Air event [Atlanta Intown]
- Hop City and The Spotted Trotter Will Open a Beer Garden at Avalon [Eater]
- Creature Comforts’ Bibo cans coming in May [ABC]
- The Hidden Costs of Having a Roof Rack on Your Car [CityLab]
Photo courtesy of Olmsted Plein Air website
George Dusenberry wants the City of Decatur to seize the BofA parking lots through eminent domain. Um, no thanks George.
I’d prefer the City encourage higher density buildings on under-performing asphalt downtown in order to collect more taxes in our commercial areas. These increased commercial tax collections will help to shift the burden of the City’s budget off the backs of home owners.
I’d prefer the City not get in the habit of large scale eminent domain initiatives – even for parks.
But, to each their own, I suppose.
+1 Geoff, Also, does he not realize that Glenlake park and the cemetery, (which is very park-like, with trails, creek, bridges over the creek) can be entered a block away from the BofA? The amount of greenspace in the cemetery and Glenlake is about equal in area to the entire Decatur downtown square, inside of Commerce Drive.
Oakland Cemetery has lots of interesting events throughout the year. Seems Decatur Cemetery could emulate them to some degree.
Geoff is right on. The City of Decatur should focus on increasing density – both population and commercial density. I would go further and say that the City of Decatur should also focus on improving pedestrian and bike access to Glennlake Park and perhaps work on making the CSX corridor more park-like. The Bank of America lot and pretty much every other lot near it is very under developed and extremely car-centric. I would like to see pedestrian-focused, high density development in that area. This would transform downtown Decatur for the better.
“…and perhaps work on making the CSX corridor more park-like.”
Yes! As a denizen of the D’equator, I’ve been in support of this idea for a long time. It’s an excellent green space and there are actually moments when you’re along the tracks, separated from the street by the tree line, that it actually feels quite isolated and quiet. It’s also got some expansive open fields frequently used for pick-up neighborhood sports and people exercising their dogs. There’s even a guy (though I haven’t seen him in a while) who uses the span west of the crossing at the Thinking Man as a driving range.
I know the railroad is completely onerous to deal with so I’m a fan of just doing it. The city already does the maintenance at the taxpayer’s expense and Trees Atlanta did all the plantings so it’s kind of ours already. And no, I am not trying to provoke Steve!
When considering the railroad’s sovereignty in practice, I always refer back to the wise words of former Mayor Bill Floyd, who said “Sometimes on my walk, I walk right past that sign that says ‘do not cross the railroad tracks.”
Matter settled.
It’s not either or with parks and density. Density without greenspace does not make an enjoyable place to live. Think the BeltLine – imagine what we can do to integrate greenspace with all the condos and apartments. Former City Commissioner Lyn Deardorff gets it (https://downtowndecaturneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/april-22-email-from-lyn.pdf). So does Viola M in her comments over at the AJC (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/downtown-leader-frustrated-with-decaturs-passivity/nrB2y/). Decatur has never had a greenspace plan and it hasn’t updated its downtown plan since 1982. We need more parks in a lot of communities. Unfortunately, in Downtown all the land is going, going, gone.
Here’s Viola M’s comment from the AJC (No, I don’t know who she is – would like to thank her).
The City of Decatur only has 2.2% parkland (57 acres of parkland/(CoD area of 2669 acres – 21 acres of 3 MARTA properties)). This is far below City of Atlanta’s 6.1%. Furthermore, Atlanta is growing parkland immensely. The Beltline alone calls for 1,300 acres of new greenspace – a 40% increase over what exists now.
The City of Decatur claims 5% of the city’s land is dedicated to parks and recreation but they include all the rec buildings (gyms, kitchens, bathrooms, meeting rooms, elevators, etc.) AND building courtyards/lawns.
As far back as 1995, the CoD’s Comprehensive Master Plan assessed the needs of Decatur citizens and concluded there was a shortage in available park acreage compared to national standards. Beyond looking at total land area, Decatur also has too few park acreage in relation to total population. Recommendations are 6.25-10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. Decatur has 2.9%.
No matter how you splice it, Dusenbury has plenty of data to back up his assertion.
While a new park in downtown Decatur is a good idea, I’m not sure that it is necessary. Glennlake Park via the cemetery is basically downtown. Plus there are playgrounds at the First Baptist Church, the Decatur Recreation Center, and Decatur First United Methodist Church. Also, this type of comparison with Atlanta is not fair. It would be more reasonable to compare the park space in Decatur with several Atlanta neighborhoods that are similar in development and size, such as Inman Park, Candler Park, and Lake Clare. If you take out the park space in Inman Park and Candler Park that now exists because of the stopped Stone Mountain Freeway project, I bet that Decatur’s park space numbers would be similar.
” The core function of government is to provide public space for citizens.”
Can you please provide the data to support the statement?
All of this may be true. However, the proposal as spelled out in the article puts a park in the wrong spot, and accomplishes this in the wrong way.
I have no problem advocating for more parks – who doesn’t love parks?!?!? I love parks! We just need to find the locations and go about the land acquisitions and park development in a more prudent manner. This is not a good park site and eminent domain is not a good way to get a park there.
Any other proposals?
The city’s own “Parks, Greenspace and Recreation Facilities” report (http://www.decaturga.com/home/showdocument?id=6912, August 2015, page 37, “2040 Vision Plan”) includes a proposed downtown park bordered by Clairemont, Commerce, Church, and Williams Street just across Commerce from the Bank of America property. If someone in the city is willing to suggest acquiring those properties, why not look at the proposal from the Downtown Decatur Neighbors group as well?
In addition to being disappointed by the city’s efforts to acquire additional greenspace on any significant scale, I’m concerned that the city is failing to expand its recreational facilities (ball fields, tennis courts, etc.) at a pace that matches the increase in the number of Decatur residents. Considering Decatur markets itself as a “live-work-play” community, we hear lots from the city development group about creating new places to live but not so much about to attracting new employers that offer places for residents to work or creating new places for residents to play.
Great link. Thanks! I never saw the rendering before.