Are our apartments too generic? (Atlanta: residential, buildings, developments)

[jhtrico1850]

The new ones look much better than the shiny blue glass skyscraper/condo craze of 2000s.

[Perverse Instantiation]

Originally Posted by jhtrico1850

The new ones look much better than the shiny blue glass skyscraper/condo craze of 2000s.

Yeah, IMO, half the apartment buildings U/C and proposed in Midtown are good looking buildings.

Eviva, Greystar, Azure on the Park, Yoo on Peachtree, Modera, etc are all solid looking apartment buildings. Atlanta has it much better than cities like Vancouver or Asian cities where all the buildings look the same. That doesn't stop them from being great cities though.

[wasel]

Originally Posted by Perverse Instantiation

And the funny thing is when do get good proposals like that Terrace condo development that they want to build along Piedmont Park and the future Beltline, people reject it because of scale and NIMBYism.

Wait, what? There are NIMBY's along Piedmont Park and the Beltline that reject something due to scale? Do tell! I thought that was something only Brookhaven people did -- so say the C-D Intowners.

[arjay57]

I will have to admit I'm not a big fan of the 4-5 story stick-builts.

The height is great and I am glad to see infill development. However, somehow many of them don't seem to exude a sense of quality or permanence. That is just my personal take.

[ATLTJL]

However, somehow many of them don't seem to exude a sense of quality or permanence.

What do you expect, arjay? They're apartments!

They aren't permanent -- at least not to the people who built them. I'm guessing that within 10 years, pretty much ALL of those buildings will have gone condo. Apartment owners won't be interested in the buildings anymore when they start to require renovation and major work, they'll just go build new units in whatever the hot part of town has become.

And you know, if I was an apartment developer, I wouldn't veer too far from a standard look, either. The name of the game is keeping units full. That means appealing to as many people as possible. If you go for something different, it might look cool, but it's also divisive. For everyone who loves it, someone else hates it. Big boxes are pretty much ok with everybody....nobody loves them, but as a utilitarian place to live for a few years, it's just dandy for most people.

Thinking about this idea, it kind of explains the very old notion that having a lot of rental property in the neighborhood isn't good for values. Apartment owners need to make a profit, and even though they want to maximize profit, they will do what it takes to keep units full. If it gets to the point where that means $600 rents with no credit or criminal background checks, that's what they'll do. If they lose money, they'll bug out and sell. That's just the way the model works, they have to make money for their shareholders.

I think he bottom line is that apartment developers have no motivation to go above and beyond the most bland standard design. Not only does the cost not justify itself, it risks turning some potential renters off.

That's why it's up to communities to draft tough architectural standards and tell developers the only way you're building here is if you comply with what we've dictated. But even then, developers will always do the bare minimum.

[residinghere2007]

I agree with the consensus that all new apartments look the same. I was involved in the development of some apartment complexes in metro Atlanta, not just the city and ironically though this was one of my complaints that all of them always looked the same. The developers say that is what people want, but I think it is good to get some new architectural trends started sometimes and I especially felt they should do so in Atlanta where there is a lot of multi-family construction activity.

[demonta4]

Hasn't it always been this way? There are old apartments in New York and LA that look exactly the same so what's so new about this?

[arjay57]

Well, you make some valid points, ATLTJL.

A good many of the apartments built in the last several years may have already been flipped to other owners. Some developers like to get in, build and then and get out.

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

What do you expect, arjay? They're apartments!

They aren't permanent -- at least not to the people who built them. I'm guessing that within 10 years, pretty much ALL of those buildings will have gone condo. Apartment owners won't be interested in the buildings anymore when they start to require renovation and major work, they'll just go build new units in whatever the hot part of town has become.

And you know, if I was an apartment developer, I wouldn't veer too far from a standard look, either. The name of the game is keeping units full. That means appealing to as many people as possible. If you go for something different, it might look cool, but it's also divisive. For everyone who loves it, someone else hates it. Big boxes are pretty much ok with everybody....nobody loves them, but as a utilitarian place to live for a few years, it's just dandy for most people.

Thinking about this idea, it kind of explains the very old notion that having a lot of rental property in the neighborhood isn't good for values. Apartment owners need to make a profit, and even though they want to maximize profit, they will do what it takes to keep units full. If it gets to the point where that means $600 rents with no credit or criminal background checks, that's what they'll do. If they lose money, they'll bug out and sell. That's just the way the model works, they have to make money for their shareholders.

I think he bottom line is that apartment developers have no motivation to go above and beyond the most bland standard design. Not only does the cost not justify itself, it risks turning some potential renters off.

That's why it's up to communities to draft tough architectural standards and tell developers the only way you're building here is if you comply with what we've dictated. But even then, developers will always do the bare minimum.

[Domitian]

Sameness ss, utilitarian, and mundane fit the current generations penchant for socialism and fairness. How very un-hipster to live in something flashy or trendy (although living in minimalist architectural design is trendy). Heck, soon we might have the concrete block dwellings of the ever-so-succssful astern bloc.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Hokiehaven

What I think is unfortunate is the lack of any architectural intrigue, it doesn't have to be a lot. I was just in Seattle and while they had a lot of standard apartment style buildings that we see in ATL, there were also numerous new buildings that had just something unique about them to make them standout a bit, a slight slant in the windows, colors, something different, wish we at least saw that with our construction.

Doesn't have to be architecturally mind-blowing like the curved building between Juniper and Peachtree announced or the various high-high end condos expected on Peachtree, but something that at least makes it look just a bit different/slightly unique.

I thought Seattle was awful. Just row after row of those same style apartments with 50s style colors that will look ridiculous in 10-15 years.