U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-26-2012, 09:50 PM
 
28,132 posts, read 24,659,949 times
Reputation: 9534

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by archlab View Post
NPU-B (or the 'good' residents of Buckhead) has always been full of it.
How so? They're in lockstep with NPU-F (Morningside, Virginia-Highland, Atkins Park).

Are the neighborhoods supposed to cave on 15 years of planing and say, "Oh, okay, never mind that old city code and the CDP. If you want to put in a superstore you just go right ahead and put it anywhere you'd like. All this transit and stuff only cost the city a few billion dollars and we could probably build it again somewhere else."
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2012, 10:13 PM
 
12 posts, read 51,615 times
Reputation: 25
Let's put it another way: After years of lamenting the vibrant nature of their area, Buckhead-ians finally got their wish - a dead zone (P'tree & Pharr). BTW, no, I don't believe that developers should get their way on everything. Far from it. However, I don't get the dogma about a Wal-Mart coming into an area that is already used to being, ummm, what's the word...Urban? So, at Lindbergh, it's OK to have a Home Depot, a Pep Boys, 100 fast food joints, tons of bars, several car dealerships, etc, etc? But a Wal-Mart is a no-go?

Last edited by archlab; 09-26-2012 at 10:14 PM.. Reason: clarificn
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,261,125 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by archlab View Post
Ya Know...I live somewhere between Smyrna / Vinings and have to say that if the NPU-B Wal-Mart gets rejected, I'd gladly take it in my area. We've got plenty of space & could use some development.

Kind of funny how the BeltLine folks are against this as well. One interesting point is that with the decent number of bike-trails that we have around here, a Wal-Mart (or any other large-scale developmt) like that would certainly gain a few LEED points in the transportation category.
Dude... relax... We went through a recession that happened to hit the city hard... of course many large, unbuilt projects stalled out. It wasn't Buckhead or its lack of potential that did it in... it was the economy tanking. That simple

But anyways... here is why city planning is important... well two reasons.

city infrastructure of different sizes and types costs different amounts of money. That area has a ton of money invested into it in some of the areas largest roads, freeways, a transit station. The city has paid a huge amount for that infrastructure vs. some of the quieter areas further away. Part of what has to happen is the tax digest value of the land-use needs to meet the value of the public infrastructure. Being that it is close to the core area of the city... things aren't going to operate like things would Smyrna.

But the problem I am more concerned about is this...

The city spent a long time coming up with the zoning, community input, and working with private developers too. While this property hasn't been redeveloped yet, much of the land around it has or is in the process of being redeveloped.

Many of the decisions/choices made for denser properties to the south and north for both buyers and developers were made on the assumption new development would follow the zoning land-use patterns making a walkable urban district.

There are residential areas to the south of the parcel that are built to work with a larger walkable community.

The problem that makes this case so bad is this property is smack in the middle between city center/MARTA, dense residential to the south, and denser developer big box stores further away from the MARTA station. This is a key property in the central part of the neighborhood to connect everything together and all the other property owners bought/developed in a way that works with the zoning and needs that zoning to work really well.

By allowing a property to deviate from the zoning, it negatively affects neighboring properties that worked with the zoning.

To an extent the first developed properties need the rest in the area to follow the same plan and not have a bunch of disjointed developments neighboring each other.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,261,125 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by archlab View Post
Let's put it another way: After years of lamenting the vibrant nature of their area, Buckhead-ians finally got their wish - a dead zone (P'tree & Pharr). BTW, no, I don't believe that developers should get their way on everything. Far from it. However, I don't get the dogma about a Wal-Mart coming into an area that is already used to being, ummm, what's the word...Urban? So, at Lindbergh, it's OK to have a Home Depot, a Pep Boys, 100 fast food joints, tons of bars, several car dealerships, etc, etc? But a Wal-Mart is a no-go?
Its the location of that particular parcel, but it is also the development style they proposed. It is close to a suburban wal-mart.

It is less like the other urban-suburban hybrid big box stores that are built without surface parking.

Some people are screaming about Wal-Mart

Some people are screaming about Wal-Mart on that specific parecel.

Many are screaming by the development style being pitched by Wal-Mart.... not nessecarily that Wal-Mart is coming into the neighborhood.

Their current proposal isn't like the Wal-Mart at Howell Mill along I-75.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 11:35 PM
 
28,132 posts, read 24,659,949 times
Reputation: 9534
Quote:
Originally Posted by archlab View Post
However, I don't get the dogma about a Wal-Mart coming into an area that is already used to being, ummm, what's the word...Urban?
I don't see how Walmart has anything to do with it. NPU-B voted it down before Walmart entered the picture.

The issue is about whether the city can create (and enforce) forward thinking long term planning. It's also about whether the city will support the NPUs -- all of whom have stated their opposition to this -- or whether the city will roll over when a shipping center developer comes along and tells them to throw out the plan because he'd like to build something else (and do it his way, regardless of what the city code says).

You've obviously got the same issues brewing down at Glenwood. The same developer has proposed another big box center on property which the Beltline had tagged for TOD high density residential, as is the case at Lindbergh. The Glenwood proposal has even more surface parking.

Last edited by arjay57; 09-27-2012 at 12:06 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 11:59 PM
 
28,132 posts, read 24,659,949 times
Reputation: 9534
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Many are screaming by the development style being pitched by Wal-Mart.... not nessecarily that Wal-Mart is coming into the neighborhood.
Some folks may not like Walmart but the NPU's don't get into stuff like that. NPU-B turned this down before Walmart entered the picture, the reason being that it doesn't comply with SPI-15.

In this case I don't think Walmart is the one pushing things, since It wouldn't be a company-owned store. The folks actually trying to overthrow the city code are private shopping center developers who would hope to lease to Walmart. According to the paper, the actual owner of the property isn't pushing for change either -- they probably bought the property knowing it was in SPI-15.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2012, 08:37 AM
 
12 posts, read 51,615 times
Reputation: 25
Living in a City has its tradeoffs & contradictions - We want the conveniences, but many don't want the realities involved in having them. Best of luck to that area getting the Wal-Mart (& other developments) that they really want.

BTW, a comment on the transit/transportation situation along the Piedmont/Lindbergh district - I've been driving that route off & on for about 25 years. I've gotta tell you, it's developed a fair amount, but traffic is about the same today as it was in the 1990s. It's not great, but it ain't really worse. BTW, our US traffic is great compared to most of the world, so let's put it in perspective.

Anyway, the traffic situation might tell us a few things, just a couple off the cuff: That the 'corridor' can handle the development, or that maybe the development that has occurred (i.e. - the Marta-centric development) has worked to keep traffic manageable.

Another thought: If the City really cared about transit & making traffic less of an issue, it would have constructed that huge Marta Yard alog I-85 eleswhere, cut a bypass through that former industrial park area, joined it up w/ Monroe & made the Piedmont -to- 14th Street -to- Peachtree trek into a reasonable, logical route. But, instead, MARTA used up a tremendous amount of prime real estate that had great possibilities for enhancing that area. I find that to be a real irony.

Either way, the opposition really seems to come down to the dislike of Big-Boxes. In the end, that district will probably get the Wal-Mart & Wal-Mart will probably do some design mods (concealed parking, landscaping, a cutesy 'new-urbanist' motif, etc) that will appease most of the opposition.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2012, 01:19 PM
 
28,132 posts, read 24,659,949 times
Reputation: 9534
Quote:
Originally Posted by archlab View Post
Either way, the opposition really seems to come down to the dislike of Big-Boxes.
Um, I don't think that's the issue. The NPU and the neighborhoods all supported high density development in that area, but not stuff that doesn't comply with the zoning law. There are plenty of places to put more big boxes around there if some developer really thinks that's the ticket. Remember, the old Home Depot site sat vacant for years until they leased it to the Dump. The same with the former PGA Superstore on Garson, which sat empty for years until they finally got a church to lease it.

However, this particular tract was set aside for high density residential, not commercial. The actual owner seems to be fine with that.

If you've been following this thread, you may have seen some of the examples of "large format" stores that would probably meet the zoning law at Lindbergh.

Walmart at Lindbergh?


Re the MARTA yard at Amour, you should take a look at the Beltline plans for that area. Start reading around p. 55.

http://beltlineorg.wpengine.netdna-c...aster-Plan.pdf
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2012, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,261,125 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by archlab View Post
Either way, the opposition really seems to come down to the dislike of Big-Boxes. In the end, that district will probably get the Wal-Mart & Wal-Mart will probably do some design mods (concealed parking, landscaping, a cutesy 'new-urbanist' motif, etc) that will appease most of the opposition.
I'm not sure if this will help the point trying to be made, but some of that cutesy stuff has practical purposes too.

That stuff can help limit the amount of land to parking, greatly reduce the land foot print of the Big Box store, and make it more attractive to walk through, which helps connect properties to the west, east, and south, to the transit-oriented area.

If you look at the Wal-Mart on Howell Mill and compare it to the site they want to use now, it is pretty close to taking up half the amount of land and there are actually more big box stores on site. I mention this, because it leaves more room for building walking infrastructure, mixed-use shops, and residential areas.

In any case! I really hope the city could take more proactive action to work with any developer (regardless of what it is) to create a safe path across Piedmont for Bikes and pedestrians directly to Main st (via tunnel/bridge). The only way that development can truly take advantage of MARTA access on foot is to prevent Piedmont from being a huge barrier.

Here is their proposed site plan:



Here is google earth drawing I have showing the space in question:


Here is how a urban wal-mart can change the area:
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:32 AM
 
1,587 posts, read 2,422,515 times
Reputation: 1387
God, every time I see that site plan I cringe. Who do they think will want to actually live in those residential units in their plan? Who would want to look out their window and see a Wal Mart parking lot? And who exactaly is going to use that park? The people who give up trying to find their car? The reality is that the greenspace there will end up littered with plastic bags and abandoned shopping carts and the residential units will sit empty because no one will want to pay 1,000/month or more to look at a surface parking lot.

This development was always meant for the big box retail space portion. The rest was an afterthought.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top