Downtown Atlanta about to see a $500 million-plus round of development? (houses, living)

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Way too much parking for a site 1/2m from a MARTA station

The reality is that most people still need a car in Atlanta. Unless the density rapidly increases, many developers feel they probably need enough parking to attract high quality owners/renters. It's kind of a catch 22 because without enough parking their project will probably be less attractive in the short term, but continuing to add parking and taking up more space detracts from efforts to build density and TOD.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Way too much parking for a site 1/2m from a MARTA station


https://www.bisnow.com/atlanta/news/...erations-90754

Most people aren't walking half a mile to MARTA. They're just not. Secondly, with 512 units and 25,000 square feet of commercial space, that's a single parking spot per unit and 88 spots for 25k of retail. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Most people aren't walking half a mile to MARTA. They're just not. Secondly, with 512 units and 25,000 square feet of commercial space, that's a single parking spot per unit and 88 spots for 25k of retail. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Agree on parking (as long as that is the number the developer arrived at and not a parking minimum required by law).

But disagree "Most people aren't walking half a mile to MARTA". My old condo in Midtown (Viewpoint) at 6th and Peachtree was half a mile to MARTA and I never heard of a single person there that thought it was too far to walk. Many (including myself) did it for their regular commute every day.

On the flip side, the parking deck was mostly empty. The condo builder never sold all the parking spaces in the deck despite discounting them down under $10K a spot (they cost $20K a spot to build). They ultimately ended up selling the to another condo building built on the same block with zero parking.

I think something similar could happen here. In ten years when this area has developed more and all this parking is not needed, new projects can be built with zero parking and tenants can just buy the extra spaces in the 600+ car deck.

[Atlanta3000]

I am not sure if the folks here also read skyscraperpage forum, but I posted details on this last week before news broke.



Whitehall Mixed-Use - Downtown








[quote=Atlanta3000;8253820]
More Details

MARCH 30, 2018|TONY WILBERT



California Developer Plans 512 Apartments at Hazardous Downtown Site
Mixed-Use Community Near Garnett MARTA Gets $100 Million in Bond Financing


An ambitious plan to convert a contaminated site in Downtown Atlanta to hundreds of apartments and retail space recently received a huge shot in the arm.

The boost comes from the Development Authority of Fulton County (DAFC), which approved a letter of inducement to issue $100 million in revenue bonds to help finance the 500,000-square-foot mixed-use project planned at 409 Whitehall St., about a half-mile from the Garnett MARTA Station.

San Francisco-based Eagle Environmental Construction (EEC) plans to develop a mixed-use project with 512 apartments, 25,000 square feet of retail and commercial space and a 520-car garage plus additional retail parking.

But the site is listed on the Georgia Hazardous Site Inventory. HSI is a list of properties where a regulated substance has been released into the environment above a reportable quantity and not yet cleaned to state standards. For years, the site was home to Simmons Plating Works.

The total cost to remediate the site is $13 million, Eversheds Sutherland attorney Will Pickens told the DAFC. To date, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division has spent more than $3 million to clean up the site, and as a result, has a lien on part of the property. For years, Simmons Plating made coatings for metals at the site, which rendered it contaminated.

Because of the required remediation, the Whitehall project likely is not feasible without bond financing, EEC CEO Ronald Batiste informed DAFC members at its Feb. 27 meeting. "Mr. Batiste informed the Authority of his extensive experience developing contaminated sites and that it can be very difficult to generate financing for such sites," according to the meeting minutes released his week.

DAFC CEO Al Nash recommended the board approve the request to issue bonds "considering Eagle Environmental Construction's experience and ability," the minutes state. Batiste "is an international businessman involved in the development of communities around the world," EEC's website says. The site lists the Whitehall project and construction of Beth Eden Baptist Church sanctuary and offices in Oakland as EEC's current projects.

The industrial parcels that make up the land assemblage for EEC's project must be rezoned to allow for the new mix of uses. EEC Development, an affiliate of Eagle Environmental Construction, filed the rezoning request with the city of Atlanta in February.

EEC selected the site because the area near the Garnett MARTA Station is an "underutilized boulevard that connects Downtown to I-20," its project summary states. "The city of Atlanta finds there is a need to preserve and restore existing, traditional, historic districts, as well as create new pedestrian-oriented commercial nodes."

If plans were approved, EEC would build four residential buildings - a nine-story concrete structure with 189 studio and one- and two-bedroom apartments, and three five-story wood structures with the remainder of the units. Rents would average $1,125-$1,450 per month.

The retail portion, to be developed along Whitehall Street, is designed for a grocery store, dry cleaners, cafe and possibly a jazz nightclub, according to the rezoning request. To satisfy zoning requires that 20 percent of the project be public space, EEC would build a retail plaza with wide, tree-lined sidewalks and landscaped walking trails.

EEC expects to complete the Whitehall mixed-use development by October 2020. But it first must win approval from the Zoning Review Board (ZRB) and Atlanta City Council. The ZRB will take up the request at a May 3 hearing

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

But disagree "Most people aren't walking half a mile to MARTA". My old condo in Midtown (Viewpoint) at 6th and Peachtree was half a mile to MARTA and I never heard of a single person there that thought it was too far to walk. Many (including myself) did it for their regular commute every day.

On the flip side, the parking deck was mostly empty. The condo builder never sold all the parking spaces in the deck despite discounting them down under $10K a spot (they cost $20K a spot to build). They ultimately ended up selling the to another condo building built on the same block with zero parking.

So, you had a condo building which charged $10k per spot for parking, and ended up with a building full of people who were walkers. Gee, I wonder why that worked out the way it did (even though I don't buy it).

In other news, if a steak house charges $1,000 for a steak, people might just go to Applebees instead.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So, you had a condo building which charged $10k per spot for parking, and ended up with a building full of people who were walkers. Gee, I wonder why that worked out the way it did (even though I don't buy it).

In other news, if a steak house charges $1,000 for a steak, people might just go to Applebees instead.

Yes, funny how that works huh? Driving is expensive. If people have to pay the real, expensive costs of driving / parking suddenly it is less appealing and they will go to other options instead.

So who should be paying that $20,000 it costs to build a space in a parking deck? The developer is not going to pay it out of their pocket. They just add that price on top of the cost of the condos. Those that want to use the parking space should be paying it.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So, you had a condo building which charged $10k per spot for parking, and ended up with a building full of people who were walkers. Gee, I wonder why that worked out the way it did (even though I don't buy it).

In other news, if a steak house charges $1,000 for a steak, people might just go to Applebees instead.

Charging the true cost of parking... for once.
That is what happens when we separate the cost of parking from the cost of housing.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Agree on parking (as long as that is the number the developer arrived at and not a parking minimum required by law).

But disagree "Most people aren't walking half a mile to MARTA". My old condo in Midtown (Viewpoint) at 6th and Peachtree was half a mile to MARTA and I never heard of a single person there that thought it was too far to walk. Many (including myself) did it for their regular commute every day.

On the flip side, the parking deck was mostly empty. The condo builder never sold all the parking spaces in the deck despite discounting them down under $10K a spot (they cost $20K a spot to build). They ultimately ended up selling the to another condo building built on the same block with zero parking.

I think something similar could happen here. In ten years when this area has developed more and all this parking is not needed, new projects can be built with zero parking and tenants can just buy the extra spaces in the 600+ car deck.

IIRC, Viewpoint's deck was designed for three buildings, the current Viewpoint plus two slightly-smaller ones planned before the housing bust (here's a rendering from before it became a three tower project):



Obviously, this never came to pass (and Skyhouse South ended up building a smaller deck).

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So, you had a condo building which charged $10k per spot for parking, and ended up with a building full of people who were walkers. Gee, I wonder why that worked out the way it did (even though I don't buy it).

In other news, if a steak house charges $1,000 for a steak, people might just go to Applebees instead.

I see zero problem with parlaying out the cost of parking.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Gulch

IIRC, Viewpoint's deck was designed for three buildings, the current Viewpoint plus two slightly-smaller ones planned before the housing bust (here's a rendering from before it became a three tower project):

Yep. When I bought they were still showing the bigger three tower renders in much of the marketing materials. But it should be noted that plan also included an additional larger deck built between those two towers with a massive pool & amenities deck on the top.

Originally Posted by Gulch

I see zero problem with parlaying out the cost of parking.

Agreed. Parking will sort itself out if people have to pay directly for it.

[joey86]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

In other news, if a steak house charges $1,000 for a steak, people might just go to Applebees instead.

This isn't a good comparison. They are charging less than what the parking is worth. A better comparison would be if a restaurant sold their baked potatoes seperately from their steaks, and for less than the potatoes were worth. Some people might not want a potato, or parking, no matter how much of a deal they are getting.

Everyone that has purchased a condo that came with a parking spot has paid for a parking spot. It added value to their condo. Just like sides add value to an entree.

I live in a 50+ year old condo building with a small surface parking lot. My unit didn't come with a parking spot, and if I wanted to buy one (I don't), I would need to pay someone who owns one of the spots somehere close to $10k, so the price they would need to pay for a parking space in that deck is a deal.