Superblocks

[nick]

I like all the new development in buckhead, midtown, and downtown, but I'm not sure if I like the way it is being handled. It seems that a lot of the projects are being built as superblocks where a company buys an entire square block of land and develops it in one project, or buys a large footprint for a building that doesn't necessitate as much space as the developers use. Some exaples are plaza midtown, metropolis, the mansion, viewpoint, among others. It just seems like a waste of land to me, personally. Most of this land is spread out with giant parking structures to serve a building with a footprint that is less than half of the block. It seems density is being sacrificed by laziness. Yeah its great there is a publix saving the west side of plaza midtown, but why couldn't there have been something above that instead of a giant parking garage?

I don't know, call me crazy, but why can't more buildings be like aqua or 1180 peachtree where the building footprint is essentially all the land that is needed? 1180 built the deck up, not out, and it looks great without wasting precious land. Even spire did this because it was forced to with a smaller lot. My point is I'd rather a block develop naturally with different buildings instead of superblock after superblock. The lot with aqua is a great example. Soon aqua will border mac's on one side with the other half of the block primed for further development. It will create a nice mix once that whole block is built out. I guess I'm just not convinced in the urbanism being pushed in my hometown. I know people need their car, but things can be done creatively to address parking structures to accomodate smaller footprints to increase the overall density of the town. I am cringing inside thinking of what will be done with the huge lots on each side of plaza midtown (the one on spring and the other one across the marta station on w. peachtree).

[pksiv]

I like all the new development in buckhead, midtown, and downtown, but I'm not sure if I like the way it is being handled. It seems that a lot of the projects are being built as superblocks where a company buys an entire square block of land and develops it in one project, or buys a large footprint for a building that doesn't necessitate as much space as the developers use. Some exaples are plaza midtown, metropolis, the mansion, viewpoint, among others. It just seems like a waste of land to me, personally. Most of this land is spread out with giant parking structures to serve a building with a footprint that is less than half of the block. It seems density is being sacrificed by laziness. Yeah its great there is a publix saving the west side of plaza midtown, but why couldn't there have been something above that instead of a giant parking garage?

I don't know, call me crazy, but why can't more buildings be like aqua or 1180 peachtree where the building footprint is essentially all the land that is needed? 1180 built the deck up, not out, and it looks great without wasting precious land. Even spire did this because it was forced to with a smaller lot. My point is I'd rather a block develop naturally with different buildings instead of superblock after superblock. The lot with aqua is a great example. Soon aqua will border mac's on one side with the other half of the block primed for further development. It will create a nice mix once that whole block is built out. I guess I'm just not convinced in the urbanism being pushed in my hometown. I know people need their car, but things can be done creatively to address parking structures to accomodate smaller footprints to increase the overall density of the town. I am cringing inside thinking of what will be done with the huge lots on each side of plaza midtown (the one on spring and the other one across the marta station on w. peachtree).

All of the structures you mention, including The Spire, use the exposed top floor of the parking deck as an Amenities deck. The one at Plaza Midtown is more than an acre (I think) and is a selling point.

I also don't think Atlanta is anywhere near the point where we must build highrises right next to each other thus depriving the residents of any real view - other than their neighbors. If developers thought that they could sell units with less than 1 parking space per bedroom, I'm sure they'd do it.

The new Viewpoint project in Midtown will attempt to wrap the (eventual) 3 buildings around a single parking structure with a large amenities deck on the 10th floor of the deck. I think the people who live in town are slowly(very very slowly) reducing their dependence on cars, but they'll always want to have access to a pool.

[Andrea]

If developers thought that they could sell units with less than 1 parking space per bedroom, I'm sure they'd do it.

Yeah, I've heard developers say they'd much rather skip the parking decks because they are expensive and don't directly generate any revenue. However, I think offstreet parking (i.e., decks or something similar) is required by law.

[Andrea]

It just seems like a waste of land to me, personally. Most of this land is spread out with giant parking structures to serve a building with a footprint that is less than half of the block. It seems density is being sacrificed by laziness.

I think part of it is that in cities like Atlanta the land actually isn't all that precious. We've still got huge expanses of undeveloped or underdeveloped land throughout the city. So there's little economic incentive to jam in as much structure as possible on every lot. In addition, there's no aesthetic or cultural tradition of doing that here. You also have to factor in that jobs are scattered all over the place rather than being clustered in a central city, and that there's no effective public transportation system for the vast majority of metro Altanta.

[pksiv]

Yeah, I've heard developers say they'd much rather skip the parking decks because they are expensive and don't directly generate any revenue. However, I think they're required by law.

I went to a couple DRC meetings for ViewPoint and it definitely sounded like the 1PS/BR was more of a requirement of the current market than a legal issue. Atlantans still prefer/need to drive. The only thing I remember being discussed specifically about parking was they received a variance to eliminate the "charging station" that was supposed to be required since electric cars pretty much don't exist.

Personally, I rarely get in my car except to go to work. And would certainly take the train if it went near my office @ 75/Windy Hill.

[Andrea]

I went to a couple DRC meetings for ViewPoint and it definitely sounded like the 1PS/BR was more of a requirement of the current market than a legal issue.

I don't know if it's one parking space per bedroom but I'm thinking that the zoning code specifies some ratio for required offstreet parking.

[verge]

I don't know if it's one parking space per bedroom but I'm thinking that the zoning code specifies some ratio for required offstreet parking.

Parking requirements vary with zoning classification... but generally speaking its less than 1 space per unit and there are often no requirements for parking urban retail... In reality, developers will almost always provide 1.5 spaces per unit (roughly 1 per bedroom) in town and 2 per unit in the 'burbs.. its seems to be what the market demands right now...

[Andrea]

Parking requirements vary with zoning classification... but generally speaking its less than 1 space per unit and there are often no requirements for parking urban retail... In reality, developers will almost always provide 1.5 spaces per unit (roughly 1 per bedroom) in town and 2 per unit in the 'burbs.. its seems to be what the market demands right now...

I may be looking at the wrong section but I think there's a table in Sec. 16-08-010 that tells you how much parking you have to have for RG zoned projects.

Table

[verge]

I may be looking at the wrong section but I think there's a table in Sec. 16-08-010 that tells you how much parking you have to have for RG zoned projects.

Table

Thats right and as you can see anything with a substantial FAR (as any highrise would have-- sector 4-6) has a parking requirement of less than 1 space per unit... All that parking is driven by the market--not by zoning... This chart applies to ANY city zoing... including the new MRC (Mixed-Use) categories...

[Andrea]

Thats right and as you can see anything with a substantial FAR (as any highrise would have-- sector 4-6) has a parking requirement of less than 1 space per unit... All that parking is driven by the market--not by zoning... This chart applies to ANY city zoing... including the new MRC (Mixed-Use) categories...

verge, I'm not arguing with you, and I haven't suggested that there's a parking requirement of 1 space per unit. I've simply said that off-street parking (in some ratio) is mandatory, not optional.

A developer may decide to include more than what the code requires, but it's my understanding that they can't do less, no matter what the market conditions may be.