College Park aims higher with new $700M+ Airport City master plan (Atlanta: apartments, hotels)

[citidata18]

Due to creative differences that couldn't be resolved, the city of College Park ended their relationship with the previous master developer last October and is now working with a new master developer (Sizemore Geoup), who played a role in the planning of Cumberland and Perimetee.

It is now going to be a $700+ million project over 20 acres with nearly 5 million square feet of class A office, including corporate headquarters; as many as six hotels; and 758,000 square feet of retail, including multiple restaurants and a premium outlet mall. The plan would also add a 5K loop walking/running trail around the development and a golf-related entertainment venue, and it would convert the city's historic golf course to 18 holes using a reversible 9-hole design.

The LOIs include seven proposals for residential development, multifamily, townhomes and single family residential projects; four for hotels that would be new flags to the area; two for class A office; and two for retail development

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...m-airport.html

[908kiddo]

Really hoping something comes into fruition. The actual Atlanta metro needs it more than the City of Atlanta, College Park, ITP, or the Airport for that matter needs it.

I hope it’s more than just a ploy to facilitate contract and “study” money.

[cwkimbro]

I'm not willing to break the paywall for just this article, but I'm a bit concerned.


I'm not sure the city should develop things themselves and it is possible to over-ask from a private developer beyond what demand warrants. The more cities try to over-dictate what a development should be, the more they add costs, minimize profits and can simultaneously deter development.

The city of College Park can potentially shoot themselves in the foot or take too big of a risk for the city, if they are not careful.

We need to remember when they list all of the items in the master plan, this is a plan of what the city wants.... not what someone is currently offering to build. The city is trying to control what is built on each parcel is initiates a negotiated contract for each part. Right now they only thing I'm aware of is interest in some new apartments and townhomes.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

I'm not willing to break the paywall for just this article, but I'm a bit concerned.


I'm not sure the city should develop things themselves and it is possible to over-ask from a private developer beyond what demand warrants. The more cities try to over-dictate what a development should be, the more they add costs, minimize profits and can simultaneously deter development.

The city of College Park can potentially shoot themselves in the foot or take too big of a risk for the city, if they are not careful.

We need to remember when they list all of the items in the master plan, this is a plan of what the city wants.... not what someone is currently offering to build. The city is trying to control what is built on each parcel is initiates a negotiated contract for each part. Right now they only thing I'm aware of is interest in some new apartments and townhomes.

As stated in the OP, two corporate offices have have signed LOIs for the project, one of which is a regional tech HQ (this was revealed in an article last year).

Instead of taking such a negative and unhelpful view on things, College Park should be applauded for taking creative steps to attract high quality investment to its city. Cities that sit around fiddling their thumbs for the free market to work things out, when they lack geographic, demographic, tax revenue advantages that communities they're competing with have, is a sure fire recipe for a lower quality of life, stagnation and eventually decline.

[cwkimbro]

With all due respect, being concerned over government process that involves risk and possibly deterring developments by trying to dictate it too much is not merely taking a negative and unhelpful view of things.

The fact that they are switching master developers downstream, citing creative differences is indicative of this problem, especially citing that it is a plan to be owned by the city.

If what I am seeing is correct College Park is turning away the previous plans and trying to own and control the master planning in a way that was already detracting other would-be developers.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

With all due respect, being concerned over government process that involves risk and possibly deterring developments by trying to dictate it too much is not merely taking a negative and unhelpful view of things.

The fact that they are switching master developers downstream, citing creative differences is indicative of this problem, especially citing that it is a plan to be owned by the city.

If what I am seeing is correct College Park is turning away the previous plans and trying to own and control the master planning in a way that was already detracting other would-be developers.

With all due respect, it would probably be helpful to read the full article for context before jumping to pessimistic conclusions.

We're never going to agree when it comes to economics and urban planning. The last I will say to you directly (and then I'm done) is that local government taking action to attract investment that will pay for itself multiple times over from the economic impact is good leadership, and certainly beats letting developers run roughshed over the environment in the community and falling far short of their promise after asking for a bunch of no-string attached incentives.

[jsvh]

College Park needs to either get out of the way and let the developers master plan it, or "master plan" it through normal city functions of laying the street grid / infrastructure out, zoning, and subdividing and selling any property they own to individuals and businesses to develop themselves.


Either way, incentives should not be part of the equation.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by citidata18

With all due respect, it would probably be helpful to read the full article for context before jumping to pessimistic conclusions.

We're never going to agree when it comes to economics and urban planning. The last I will say to you directly (and then I'm done) is that local government taking action to attract investment that will pay for itself multiple times over from the economic impact is good leadership, and certainly beats letting developers run roughshed over the environment in the community after asking for a bunch of no-string attached incentives.

You've never really talked to me very much, so I feel you're likely jumping to conclusions.

No one is suggesting local government shouldn't take actions or do nothing. To the contrary, you're choosing to create those arguments for me. (ie. it would also be helpful in discussions to not do that)

I'm taking issue that there seems to be too much friction between a government and a private developer or master developer, it can be born of city leaders pushing for things that have costs that demand doesn't warrant. So when the city, tries to take ownership of the master planning without working with private developers it is concerning. Cities can deter development by adding to their costs as well. This is why most "plans" don't come into fruition or full fruition over time.

I'm sorry if I was unwilling to pay to read that particular article, but he article's lead sentence and your post gave me enough information to merely state my concern as it is directly a potential indicator of the problem I'm concerned about.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by jsvh

College Park needs to either get out of the way and let the developers master plan it, or "master plan" it through normal city functions of laying the street grid / infrastructure out, zoning, and subdividing and selling any property they own to individuals and businesses to develop themselves.


Either way, incentives should not be part of the equation.

The issue is "developers" who have even a remote interest in College Park don't want to master plan the type of development they want to see, which is fair. That's why they're managing and paying for this project themselves. It's sort of like a mini-marshall plan.

The leaders in College Park have to start somewhere if they want to attract more high quality investment.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by citidata18

The issue is "developers" who have even a remote interest in College Park don't want to master plan the type of development they want to see, which is fair. That's why they're managing and paying for this project themselves. It's sort of like a mini-marshall plan.

The leaders in College Park have to start somewhere if they want to attract more high quality investment.

Not exactly how it works.... And to an extension I can see how you don't understand my first opinion.

The city is trying to take ownership of the land and the plan and then they sell plots to developers who are willing to build by their standards.

The problem is the more the city asks.... the fewer they will attract. This is where my concern comes in, is the fact that they were having a dispute with their previously chosen master developer is partly an indication they're asking for more than the market is willing to take.

The gamble the city then takes is they invest in infrastructure too early, than they get in revenue to build it.

The city shouldn't pay for a project themselves entirely and take that much risk to the long-term financial viability of the city. That is why the private market exists. Private players take risks and fail and boom all the time, however the risk/rewards goes to those investors.

My opinion is born out of concern that the city will deter development by being too demanding and in-fighting with their previously selected master developer. I don't mind the city being involved, but the more a city asks the private market in terms of costs, the more the private market will go elsewhere too.