Beltline proposal near Piedmont Park prompts concerns about density
August 5, 2009 at 11:04 am by Thomas Wheatley in News
Beltline officials have proposed allowing future developers to build up to eight stories at 10th Street and Monroe Drive. (Looking northeast from Grady High School)
Some intown residents who’ve never been ones to shy away from city and developer battles say they’re none too pleased with the proposed vision of the Beltline near Piedmont Park.
According to preliminary plans for the Beltline’s segment that stretches from Ansley Park to City Hall East, future developers would be allowed to build up to eight stories at the congested corner of 10th Street and Monroe Drive.
That’s a far cry from the twin Towers of Babel that Gwinnett County developer Wayne Mason wanted to build on the same spot in 2006. But the reduction in size — and the fact that no specific development project’s been proposed — hasn’t stopped some residents from voicing concerns over what they say is an inappropriate vision for one of intown Atlanta’s most popular neighborhoods.
Some residents of Virginia-Highland, Morningside and Midtown say the proposal contradicts several land-use plans already on the books, including the TAD redevelopment plan approved years ago by its Neighborhood Planning Unit and City Council. Residents say that plan shows the properties to remain open space.
“Allowing any development at 10th and Monroe, let alone an eight story building and four story buildings on land that is currently designated as single family residential, will constitute the worst form of bait and switch,” Jenifer Keenan, a Virginia-Highland resident, recently wrote in a letter to Beltline officials (and here in Fresh Loaf comments.) More than 120 homeowners have already signed a petition opposing the Beltline proposal.
Keenan, who was part of the grassroots effort to block Mason’s plan for two 38-story towers at the same corner, says the resident opposition isn’t about NIMBYism, but protecting Piedmont Park and the neighborhood from inappropriate development. She worries that dense development would mar the charm of the city’s most iconic greenspace. She also says that the city risks establishing a dangerous precedent if it decides to rezone property it owns. (Last year, the city purchased the unused railroad tracks and nearly 66 acres in the corridor from Mason.)
“It would pave the way for additional changes or at least support an argument for changes,” Keenan told CL. “If I were a developer, and the city was willing to rezone the land they owned from single-family residential to multi-family, I could say, ‘I want you to do that for me, too. If you’re willing to do it for property you own, there’s no legal or historical basis for not doing that for my property.’ There can’t be a double standard that [says] ‘we’ll rezone city-owned land, but we won’t rezone privately owned land.’”
Beltline officials, however, think the proposal is more favorable then the original redevelopment plan. They said they’ve scaled back that plan’s number of proposed development sites, from 11 to four, and marked the seven other areas to become greenspace. They add that any development, whether it’s two years or 20 years from now, will be required to go through the city’s zoning process.
With smart development, officials say, the dysfunctional corner could serve as a “new gateway” to Piedmont Park and spur a nearby walkable village. They say the project also needs adjacent development to boost transit ridership, compete for federal funding, and fuel the tax allocation district that’s the chief funding source for the 22-mile loop of parks, trails and transit.
The issue of density in the Beltline’s northeast segment has been a frequent topic of debate at recent planning meetings. (At last month’s presentation, the only topic neighbors wanted to discuss was the 10th and Monroe proposal.) Many in attendance were opposed to the concept for the same reasons outlined above. Others, such as Angel Poventud and Sally Flocks of pedestrian advocacy group PEDS, said that the Beltline plans outline a long-term vision for Atlanta, which is only expected to grow. Flocks said many of her friends’ children can’t afford to live in the city and that the Beltline might offer them an opportunity.
But the debate also raises the issue of how binding the various plans that undergo public participation and City Council approval actually are. Also interesting is the argument over whether the city can rezone property it owns — property that’s part of a project which City Hall poobahs by and large support. Then, of course, there’s the larger citywide issue: increasing density in some areas that abut single-family homes while respecting the character of existing neighborhoods. There are lots of moving parts and unanswered questions here, so it’ll be fascinating to see how this pans out.
Officials have invited a group of residents to conduct a “walk-through” of the 10th and Monroe area on Friday at 9 a.m. Residents have requested another meeting in addition to that meet-up to tour the spot and speak with project planners. Officials say they’ll continue to discuss the project with residents over the coming months to address concerns. Office hours to review the plans with Beltline officials are scheduled to be held in September.
The plan must still undergo the NPU process and gain city approval, which Beltline officials hope will happen before the end of the year.
To view concept sketches of the entire project segment, check out this recent presentation. (Warning: It’s a 15 MB file. Some text might not format correctly.)
UPDATE: Design Director Fred Yalouris today sent the letter pasted below to Northeast study group members. Included was a PDF that includes office hours for residents and groups to review the design plans.
Dear BeltLine Northeast Study Group members:
I am writing to thank you for your participation thus far in the planning process, update you on its status and next steps. We have had very strong participation from community members in the Piedmont-Monroe area that has served to help meaningfully shape the master plan. The planning process for this subarea began in December 2007 with the first of 14 community meetings. The final Study Group meeting was held on July 9, 2009. To the originally scheduled six community meetings, we added eight additional community meetings and dozens of smaller meetings, site visits and walk-throughs with members of the community to address specific concerns. Below are some of the highlights from the Subarea 6 Master Plan.
The key issues that have emerged in this process have been pedestrian safety, the preservation and addition of greenspace, traffic, transit-supportive redevelopment and the street framework.
We feel the results of this process thus far are a reflection of the feedback from the community, balancing the hopes and expectations of the community with the needs of the BeltLine project and the city overall. In the master plan, we have modified streetscapes to improve pedestrian safety, which is a fundamental priority. The plan calls for the creation of “complete streets” to safely accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicular traffic and transit, with particular focus on the mobility of the pedestrian and the enhancement of the walking experience with wider sidewalks and safer, more rational intersections. For example, the plan introduces a road diet on Monroe Drive, changing a stretch of this thoroughfare from four lanes to three to improve pedestrian and driver safety, create wider, more attractive sidewalks and safer pedestrian movement, make more rational and safe intersections, smooth flow of traffic with better sight lines for turning lanes, and better accommodate transit.
In response to thoughtful proposals put forth by the Piedmont Heights neighborhood, we added additional trail routing alignments in the Piedmont Heights neighborhood and have forwarded these options to the Environmental Impact Statement team for their consideration as they conduct their work on the trail alignment determination. There also were concerns about new street connections in the Midtown neighborhood that we addressed in the master plan by proposing a new north-south street, offsetting connections from Virginia Highland to Midtown and reducing potential street crossings of the BeltLine from five to two.
We have taken great care to propose appropriate transit-supportive redevelopment in the Subarea 6 Master Plan, and our proposals have evolved significantly since the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan, as you recall, was developed to determine the financial feasibility of the TAD and took a very broad brush approach to a multitude of planning issues, many of which have changed substantially for the better as a result of the master planning efforts, and indeed will change again once specific projects go into design. This is a natural metamorphosis. For example, the Redevelopment Plan included 11 sites for potential development in the Northeast Corridor where excess property exists adjacent to the ROW needed for transit and trail. This planning effort has revisited all the assumptions in those development locations and reduced the total from 11 to four, eliminating eight of the previously considered locations and adding one at 10th and Monroe. Indeed, we have replaced those eight proposed development sites from the Redevelopment Plan with greenspace in the Subarea 6 Master Plan.
Since the Redevelopment Plan, planning has matured and the design thinking has improved greatly in many cases in response to more public involvement and more detailed attention by planners and designers, and a better understanding of technical realities. This will show itself to be true throughout the BeltLine corridor.
In all of our recommendations in the Subarea 6 Master Plan we are advocating substantially less building density and height than what the current zoning allows in places like Ansley Mall, Midtown Promenade, the Sembler development (where Home Depot is located), and Amsterdam Walk. At all of these sites, we are also recommending a more pedestrian-friendly environment with more greenspace than exists today. Our approach is also consistent with the principle of locating greater density adjacent to transit stations. This includes the site at 10thStreet and Monroe Drive.
At the intersection of 10th and Monroe, we are recommending a holistic approach that addresses several major challenges: safer, more rational pedestrian and bicycle movement; addressing transit movement through the intersection by creating an environment that is safe for transit and trail mobility; improving the flow of vehicular traffic; eliminating the vast eyesore of a gravel parking lot bordering Piedmont Park; creating 18 to 20 more acres of designed, usable parkland than currently exists in this area; and introducing good design in the form of a new transit-supportive development at this intersection. By taking this broad-based approach we can create one of the most handsome urban nodes in the area.
The master plan does not propose development adjacent to the park. The design scheme is the same as in other great cities, where the park has a clear, defined edge with a worthy entrance, instead of the current situation where people must walk through an unsightly gravel parking lot to get to one of the jewels of the city’s park system. Adjacent to the park is the BeltLine right-of-way (ROW), where the trail and transit will be located. On the east side of the ROW, we are proposing a development of up to eight stories on a site that is currently zoned commercial with a step-down to the north of up to four stories on a residential-zoned parcel. The proposed development envelope ends approximately 250 feet before the Cresthill path. Our original proposal for this site was a 15 story development, but to accommodate concerns from the community we lowered the proposed height to a maximum of eight stories. We feel this is a good compromise that will allow for a design that can set the tone for other redevelopment in the area. This proposal also satisfies a legitimate fiscal obligation to the taxpayers of the city that will create more resources for the project and the city.
The proposal for 10th and Monroe remains the single issue where there is not a clear consensus, and indeed, some vocal opposition. We are continuing a dialogue with the community on this issue. On Friday, August 7, we are holding a site visit for members of the community to clarify exactly what we are proposing. I am also making myself available for smaller groups and individual visits at this site on weeknights during the month of August- reply to this email if you wish to set up such an appointment. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding regarding the development envelope and the impacted areas. We are hopeful that through this continued dialogue we will achieve a result that is good for the community, the BeltLine and the City.
We have scheduled Office Hours from September 8th through the 17th at the offices of Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. as the final stage of the master planning process for Subarea 6, where small groups can make appointments with our staff to address specific issues. A flyer with the schedule is attached. We will present the master plan to the affected Neighborhood Planning Units in October and November and plan to bring the plan to City Council for a vote in December.
Thank you for your participation in the planning process thus far. We are extremely appreciative of your input. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
E. Fred Yalouris
Director of Design
(Courtesy Atlanta Beltline Inc., photo illustration by John Yardley)
August 5th, 2009 at 11:40 am
What’s up with these people who hate sprawl, and also hate density? I too live along the Beltline, and I strongly support high-density development — both in my neighborhood and in theirs.
If they’re afraid of traffic, they need to resign themselves that cars are not part of the future anyway. They’ll be grocery shopping on the Beltline, not in their Buicks.
And if they’re simply afraid of people, they have no business in the city at all.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I fear the beltline has become too complicated. I wish they would just acquire the RR tracks and pave over them a-la Silver Comet. How hard can that be? All of this planning for light rail and housing and so on has hopelessly bogged this project down. Pave the tracks and let us enjoy it. The rest will come later.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Joe, you’re absolutely right. The anti-urban bias in this region in many ways extends right into the heart of the city, and it is absolutely baffling why anyone would have a problem with multi-family housing in this kind of setting. What would be the advantage of having open space next to open space? To extend the park across 10th Street, or Monroe, with the traffic issues that are sure to follow??
Just to illustrate the ill-informed opinions and “facts” of some of these so-called activists (read: reactionary NIMBYs): In Jenifer Keenan’s missive in the earlier article’s comments sections, the following appears:
“Central Park in New York, Boston Gardens in Boston, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Lincoln Park in Chicago have all confirmed that they would not allow development on land that is adjacent to their park.”
What does that even mean? First of all, are we really to believe that Central Park would not allow development “adjacent to the park?” I think what this really means is that there is no room for building anything on that park anymore without tearing something else down – a completely different situation from the one we have in Atlanta. The same goes for Lincoln Park, Boston Public Garden (and the Common adjacent to it) and Golden Gate Park. More to the point, all of these four parks are predominantly surrounded by multi-family housing, much of it WAY above 8 stories. Piedmont Park is somewhat unique in that it is not, save for in its southwestern corner.
Piedmont Park is in my opinion one of the five most beautiful urban greenspaces in this country, but I think it is quite clear from the comparisons given above that the park stands to lose nothing from a few condo buildings being built on its perimeter. So let’s leave dear old Piedmont Park out of it and focus on what this really is: NIMBY.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I like how they complain about 8-story buildings not “keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood” — even though there’s already a 15-story condo tower at Virginia and Monroe, and you can see nothing but skyscrapers looking across the park.
Neighborhood associations are luddite wankers when it comes to updating development.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Joe:
I dont think the neighbors hate sprawl. I am not one of these neighbors, so I cant speak for them. But there is a ton of undeveloped land within half a mile of piedmont park that is zoned for high density, 250-400′ residential condos. So lets not act like theres nowhere developers can go to build high density in midtown along the park.
There are land-use projects and studies which have been done, which call for density to be focused in a certain area (not this one). The city doesnt even have a specific proposal for the area. NOT every area should be high density. Why create more ‘high density’ zones when the current high density zones havent even been developed yet??
August 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
A few points of clarification:
1) The highrises on the Midtown side of Piedmont Park are across the street from the park, not on the park.
2) Development on the Midtown/West side of the park (between Piedmont and Park) is limited to 4 stories by SPI 16 and SPI 17. Why should any higher development be allowed on the East side?
3) The development at 10th & Monroe would result in the removal of a large grove of mature trees and open space along the park. It is inconsistent with the vision of the BeltLine to remove park space.
4) Putting an eight story condo building ON THE PARK will damage the character of the park. The parks noted in my letter have development across the street from their parks, not on the park.
5) The BeltLine plan is proposing 4880 units in Subarea 6. The units in the 8 story building are not needed for “transit supportive density.”
Protecting historic neighborhoods and historic Piedmont Park is not NIMBYism. One of the things that makes Atlanta so unique is the fact that there are historic, single family neighborhoods so close to urban business districts. There are several empty lots, as well as hundreds if not thousands of unsold condos, in the Midtown Business District that can support appropriate increases in density. Density on the Park and next to historic single family homes just doesn’t make sense.
The bottom line is that the proposed development for 10th & Monroe goes against public input and BeltLine planning that has been going on for five years. Allowing the BeltLine planners to ignore years of public input and go against the representations they made in the BeltLine Redevelopment Plan just because the city now owns the land at 10th & Monroe goes against everything the BeltLine is supposed to represent.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Building up instead of out makes sense, but my question is how is the core infrastructure going to accommodate this? Aren’t water mains bursting right and left in Atlanta? How will the sewers handle it? What about the roads? And mass transit? I think before more builders go in and erect all over there needs to be a near gutting and reconstruction of the basics required to sustain an increased population.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Joe & T:
Not to mention, if you rezone to allow high density in other areas, you will end up with a lot of areas which have sporadic high rises surrounded by undeveloped land. This is the worst. You will end up with some high density pockets in North midtown, but not enough to sustain retail or public tranportation and some high density pockets east of the park, but not enough to sustain retail.
IMO, its smarter to start with ONLY allowing high density on one side of the park, and when that area is fully (or at least substantially) developed, then start to allow high density at other parts– if the demand is there. Right now, the demand isnt there. So you will end up with one high rise surrounded by open space, and any dreams of retail will never be realized.
Theres a lot more that goes into opposing a redevelopment than being ‘anti-development.’
August 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
RE: JeniferKeenan’s “One of the things that makes Atlanta so unique is the fact that there are historic, single family neighborhoods so close to urban business districts.”
Atlanta is overly rich in historic neighborhoods with single-family, detached houses. It has been a mistake to designate so much land space in the city, covered by these houses, as historic. It has prevented increased density from developing where it should — near important, shared resources such as Piedmont Park, MARTA stations and major business districts.
Mixed-use development is the way to go for diversity, vibrancy and walkability in Atlanta. Too much of the land east of Piedmont Park is single-use: low-density, residential housing.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I find Aaron’s argument that he can see skyscrapers from the park very compelling. How come everyone laughed at me when I said I had foreign policy experience because I could see Russia from my house in Alaska?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
re: Jenifer’s post-
“Putting an eight story condo building ON THE PARK will damage the character of the park. The parks noted in my letter have development across the street from their parks, not on the park.”
Funny, but from looking at the picture above and the plans, it sure looks like that development is not ON the park, but rather across the Beltline from the park. It’s sad that Jenifer has to resort to misinformation and pathetic scare tactics to make her NIMBY case.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Excuse me, but I fail to see anything but a semantic difference in being “across the street” from a park and being “across an active transit line” from it. Judging from the presentation Wheatley linked to, we’re NOT talking the same kind of development here as the apartment buildings on the west side that directly abut greenspace. To say otherwise seems a bit disingenuous.
And, by the way, I would love to hear some of the same “activists” that get all rowdied up over a single 8-story building (the rest of the proposed development is no more than the vaunted 4 stories, as far as I can see) get equally crazy about the absolutely hideous Amsterdam “Walk” shopping center, which will also be directly across the train tracks from the park once the expansion is complete. Consistency, please: shouldn’t we be razing that POS? Or does the idea of a strip mall on the park conform too much with some people’s car-happy suburban sensibilities?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. The beltline must happen. I do not care how it affects me where i currently am. So quit your bitching and let’s turn our city into the jewell of the south that it should be.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I’m so tired of hearing about the Beltline. I’ll probably be dead before this thing is complete. I want to use this thing tomorrow. There are no bike trails in the city and the city needs this desperately tomorrow, not 20 years from now. Things take forever to get done in this city, and there is a reason why this city ranks near last among major cities for green space. Government leaders in the entire region have handed the key over to developers to pave over and ruin this entire region. I’m practically hitting bikers who are resorting to riding on major streets in Buckhead because they have nowhere to bike. You go to other major cities and they could get the Beltline developed in a few years. Here, we’ll probably all be dead before anything happens.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I’m excited about the 10th and Monroe plan for more density.
This convo is an opportunity for the CITY AS A WHOLE to GROW UP and MOVE FORWARD. We can decide what kind of city we want to be. One of the past, controlled by a few NIMBYs, or one of the future. Time to decide, ATL!
August 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
solasaur: the problem is that every 5-10 years we have the same conversation of ‘what we want this city to be.’ Meetings are held, people are paid, money is spent, and master plans are made. Then 5 years later the plans are ditched because some developer wants to build somewhere where the plan doesnt call for it.
Even NYC, Boston, LA, etc. have low density neighborhoods. Theres a place for low density and a place for high density. Just because someone says ‘this might not be the place for high density’ doesn’t make them a NIMBY’er.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
One of the things that makes Atlanta so unique is the fact that there are historic, single family neighborhoods so close to urban business districts.
“Unique” is a very diplomatic word to use here. “Idiotic” would be a more appropriate word to use.
This argument is really about the perceived right of a few homeowners whose single-family homes abut the park to treat Piedmont Park as though it were their personal back yard.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
20 years to develop a paved path. pathetic.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Even NYC, Boston, LA, etc. have low density neighborhoods.
I thought Atlanta’s low-density neighborhoods were… “unique!”
August 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Here we go again with the neighborhood groups around Peidmont Park. Some of these people think the park is their personal park.
It’s not. It’s the city’s park. Get over yourselves please.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
The original promise of the Beltline is dead as a doornail. Yes, there will be some trails, and some new parks. But the 22-mile transit loop, connecting people around the City and fostering economic development throughout Atlanta, is deceased. This is partly due to the poor economy, but it is mostly due to the bungling, mismanagement, and misdeeds of the BeltLine honchos, including Mayor Franklin, her top aides, and the Boards and CEOs of ADA and Atlanta Beltline Inc. The Beltline is now just a convenient excuse to ram unacceptable development where it is not needed, not wanted, inappropriate, and unsustainable. Plus, the Beltline has become a slippery scam through which enormous give-aways are and will be regularly bestowed on developer-friends (who, by some coincidence, generously support the leaders who are endorsing their pet projects). Enough of the sophomoric blog discourse about density, nimbies, sprawl, transit, green space, and traffic. The Beltline is nothing more than quintessential good ol’ boy networks, politics, money, and greed.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
This whole thing has become a farce.
The City pays Wayne Mason $66 million for property Mason purchased for $25 million with 100% debt financing. Mason’s rate of return is infinite.
The City/ABI get taken for a ride by Barry Real Estate, forced to pay them a couple million to go away, because some dumbass at ABI didn’t even realize the ROW had to be publicly owned.
The City/ABI now have to offload the developable “pods” in the NE quadrant in hopes of recouping some of the $66 million they threw at Mason.
To make the “pods” more valuable for re-sale, they have to increase the density from what was originally planned.
The notion of the City buying land and then granting itself greater zoning entitlements for re-sale purposes should send chills down your spine.
Yet they will never be able to recoup the money wasted on the purchase.
On top of that, the proposed October bond issue to refi the October 2008 bonds is going to get jammed in litigation once again, because the APS has not legally consented to participate in the BeltLine. The 2005 APS consent was voided by the Supreme Court, and APS’ game of purporting to simply amend the 2005 consent resolution is a legal a non-starter. You cannot amend something that was void from the inception. You have to re-enact. They have failed to re-enact.
It gets worse. Before the City can use school tax money for the BeltLine, they need a new local law authorization from the General Assembly, followed by a voter referendum.
The ABI is phucked.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Are the ADA and Beltline Boards involved in the decision to approve this plan in the NE? Does Liz Coyle still sit on the Beltline Board? Does Alex Wan still sit on the ADA Board? Is Liz Coyle still running for City Council? Is Alex Wan still running for City Council? Are developers allowed to make contributions to candidates for City Council? Are developers making contributions to the election campaigns for Liz Coyle and Alex Wan? Have Liz Coyle and Alex Wan agreed to not accept any money from developers for their election campaigns? Do developers stand to gain millions and millions from the decisions made by the ADA and Beltline Boards? Is this all phenomenally stinky?
August 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am
The Beltline is a multi-headed hydra, such that creating sound-bites to explain opposition to the unconcerned masses is exceedingly difficult.
The bait-and-switch that has gone on with Liz Coyle first opposing the development of the Piedmont Park corner to now tacitly supporting it because she traded sides and took a job with the City is a very small but aggrevating thread in all this. Early on there was a chance to steer this project into a better means of funding, keep transit on the front burner, make strides with affordable housing – all lost.
If the development of the corner was low, I think many in opposition could agree. Some of the 54 new road segments as part of this train-centered development are very needed and supported by the dreaded “NIMBYs.”
However, knowing the financial disaster that is the Beltline, the horrific land deals that took taxpayers to the cleaners, so the City is now pushing heavy development in the over-developed area of town, instead of in the undeveloped areas, makes helping these fools out hard to stomach.
The only reason the City of Atlanta isn’t skidding into bankruptcy as is Jefferson County/Birmingham is that the incompetent nitwits of Maynard Jackson’s old firm are too stoopid to figure out how to work the bond market.
The City Machine is fronting multiple candidates in every council seat that has a strong outsider as a contender, many with connections to McKenna Long and Aldrich (sp) who handled the Beltline bond issuance, because any outsider with municipal financial brains or knowledge of the bond market is going to have a stroke and drag the books out into the cold light of day, and the city machine cannot afford that.
Transit as a high priority disappeared off the docket about four years ago; we’ll be blessed if we even get a PATH out of this by the time the economy recovers and i sell my house.
Have fun with the taxes to support the City’s TADs; if you think we don’t have enough APD now, just remember NONE of the tax dollars from the TAD for all this high density development can be used to hire even one City employee to support them all….
(oh, “T says” : Amsterdam Walk is slated for razing – go to the meetings)
August 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
“just remember NONE of the tax dollars from the TAD for all this high density development can be used to hire even one City employee to support them all”
100% false – TADS rely on the INCREASE in property taxes. There is this constant misinformation being broadcast that development in TADS do not pay taxes which is completely FALSE.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:03 am
they just don’t want black folks or low income folks in their neighborhood. lets call a spade a spade.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Greg — I think it’s more like.. they don’t want anyone in their neighborhood other than themselves and those like themselves.
Though I live in the neighborhood and have paid my neighborhood association dues, it’s been made clear to me that I’m not really wanted.
Frankly, what ABI is proposing is no threat whatsoever to the neighborhood, much less to the single-family homes within, much less even to the “historic character” of the neighborhood, or of the park.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The big mistake is trying to come to a “concensus” on planning. Its a waste of time. The people opposing this plan have the agenda of preserving their own little slice of heaven just the way that it exists today (which really isn’t all that great) while the Beltline planners have the goal of building a sustainable, pedestrian-friendly, transit-friendly city. The Beltline wins this debate HANDS DOWN.
Of course you want density around the transit stops! And the idea that there needs to be open space across the street from the park? Thats the problem with Atlanta today – too many people want open space next to a park, adjoined by a plaza, connected to a square. That is not the way to build a city. It is the way to build a complete MESS.
What Atlanta DESPERATELY needs is urbanism. Urbanism is what will make the city more livable.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Just a question: All this growth and development we’re fighting over will presumably only happen if enough people move here….and people will move here only if there’s enough water. If we continue to lose the Water Wars, won’t all this sound and fury be moot?
August 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
The development/density proposed by the City’s changes to the CDP would mostly occur anyway as the economics permit, so only the really pigheaded/ignernt folks think there’s some chance of stopping that. Most the rest want to steer into something that melds better, and the ABI has been doing that in degrees, on some parcels more than others. The “new urbanism” will occur in the NE quadrant irrespective of the Beltline becoming a wheeled-trolley running to Emory or a circular train going to SW Atlanta. It’s where the money is and the zoning is already conducive.
I disagree with Joeventures – it is a threat – high density development with little to show for infrastructural improvements, brush-off responses from ABI to serious questions about traffic congestion and sewer lines in particular (I’ve lost track of the number of proposals for the intersection of 10th and Monroe). It really is much more likely to become Roswell and Alpharetta than a walkable NYC.
Oh Frankly – thanks for the attempt at smoke and mirrors confrusion. Never said, and no one ever has, that the TADs won’t raise the tax base. They do. Just all the extra money has to stay IN the TAD area for infrastructure – it can’t go into the kitty for support. So, with all the redevelopment that would/will occur in the Beltline TAD before the Beltline ever was mentioned, like City Hall East and Lindburg, now all that extra incremental tax $$ will not go to paying for APD, AFD, schools, traffic engineers, planners, arborists, building inspectors, etc.
Don’t forget, the TADs were sold to the public based on the statement that property values will never go down. Straight from Miss Shirley’s office. It’s playing well with the bond issuance – the next one is mostly to re-finance the last one? So how are we supposed to fund transit -???
Most of the NIBMYs railed against here were the first ones on board with the Beltline, advocating it to their neighborhood associations and neighbors, looking to spread the word and volunteer, bringin up issues of historic preservation and affordable housing, meeting with Cathy Woolard and all the rest of it. They WANT the train, and planned, coherent development – and what it’s turned into is dubious development on the back of one sliver of town to foot the bill for bad land deals, while the rest of the Beltline neighborhoods are looking for their share of the pie…
August 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
That’s funny. What I see happening is exactly what you asked for: there is a coherent plan in support of the transit you say you want. It just so happens that the plan isn’t for more single-family homes and ugly, unwalkable strip malls.
In the meetings I attended, I never heard concerns about sewer infrastructure. Concerns about road infrastructure, I thought, were quite adequately addressed. The NIMBYs in the room, however, really didn’t seem to care what the project managers had to say. But in any case, the concerns were certainly not “brushed aside,” as you say.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
What a bunch of disingenuous, rhetoric designed to mis-lead and obfuscate.
Those opposed to the 10 story plus development are not anti-urban, racist or development. Great it’s not 38 stories, but that is not measure and starting for conversation. We want honest, intelligent design that fulfills the promise and mandate of the beltline. Argue the facts. Otherwise one could successfully make the case that you all are the developers, architects, city planners and their contractors hoping to profit or maintain employment by cheerleading the lies and distortions.
The TAD is supposed to encourage development in areas where development has not occurred or would not occur with the tax incentives of the TAD. The NE corridor would be built with or without TAD incentives. The focus of development was promised to be and should be the SE, SW and NW sectors which have been substantially bypassed by city’s re-emergence.
1) The TAD is not supposed to be a backdoor to undermine the CDP. Those against the current NE plans want buildings in scale and size with CDP and the neighborhood. The Beltline has consistently made representations of moderate height in the NE sub area 6 in public discussions but when the plans and details are read, moderate is much taller than either necessary to make the density requirements for Beltline or their representations. Stop listening to the voices and read plans. Remember the road to the deck in Piedmont Park was “only” for accessing the deck and now it’s an artery thru the park.
2) When the ADA and Beltline people made their pitch, many people questioned the economics and assumptions. Some of us have graduate degrees in Economics and Finance unlike the realtors and developer experts that ADA relied upon for their analysis. We called into question many of the points previously made. The School Board could not expect to give up 80 million in revenue while expecting an influx of students and not raise the millage rate. We made the same observations regarding other city services. We openly mocked the idea that real estate would continue to appreciate at 5% to 12% per annum during the term of TAD. Prescient, no. Obvious yes. The present numbers represent mis, mal and non-feasance of their fiduciary responsibilities to the citizens. The TAD cannot pay for itself. Moreover, the Beltline has consistently overpaid for properties from Vulcan to Mason. The valuations did not reflect the economic cost of the development and paid for outsized returns based upon profit estimates that were specious at best. They laughed to the bank.
3) The TAD was predicated upon stealing revenue from shovel ready and approved/started projects to makes its numbers. The plan to pay for the Beltline by foisting excessive over development in the NE strips the city of needed revenue in the future to support all residents. No financial numbers have been submitted for public review or analysis that demonstrates that only with NE development as proposed could the TAD makes it numbers. Rather this is one more case of bogus financials being passed off as a fact. Publish the analysis then make the case. Don’t state it as fact without any support.
4) It begs the whole question, the TAD was to foster a ring around Atlanta to support transportation and that by extension would lead to development. Think about it. People move to where the interstates and roadways are built because the infrastructure is there. People will move to areas of the beltline when the transportation component exists not in reverse. Over building the density in NE is providing a massive tax payer subsidy to developers to pad their profit margins. They were building profitably before the TAD. The TAD is to provide funding where developers could not previously profitable afford to build. The NE development is antithetical to good policy and governance.
I want the Beltline, but the proposed density and height of development along the NE is NOT the Beltline. Respond to the neighborhood meetings and focus groups and stop attacking us personally.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Joeventure – sewer was raised in the early Mason-era meetings. This has been going on for what, four-five years now? It becomes a blur. Also, the density discussed at the very earliest charettes years ago (when the City was not directly in the Beltline development business) were less than what has appeared in the recent iterations – because then the density proposed was to support rail transit, and now it’s to support overpaid land acquisitions – which has been admitted off the record by ABI staff. I personally can live with development on the park, and also think there is no other way to get thru this morass – the City has backed so far into it the tar baby is sticking to us all. There are ways to get the density without rending asunder the existing neighborhoods, but many of the suggestions continue to fall upon deaf ears. The concerns I know my neighbors have raised time and again have indeed been brushed aside – given lip service and a tweak on the map but functionally ignored. Conversely, other areas I know have been very well listened to – and i can’t not think it has as much to do as collecting votes in November as it does good planning. Thus, I disagree. I also disagree re:traffic – the earliest propositions for 10th and Monroe made more sense than the last three iterations. That each meeting produced two or three different plans gives me great concern. I also am convinced that the traffic issue still has not been looked at holistically in terms of development just outside the study area, which will greatly impact Monroe Drive – which is the spine of all the development, not the rail corridor. Promises are made regarding traffic on Monroe, but the actual how and when it will be accomplished have been brushed aside at the Steering Committee meetings. They can say what they want, but by refusing to indicate how and when it will be functionally accomplished in conjunction with rezoning and the developers already lining up to pursue pulling their permits, it’s all just lip service.
Where’s my train…
August 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
The BeltLine is a perversion of the very concept of TAD.
A TAD in theory is supposed to jump start a defined redevelopment site by directing positive tax increment from and after the “base year” into funding redevelopment costs within the TAD site, usually through bonds but not necessarily.
The BeltLine, on the other hand, was the Ryan Gravel thesis for a transit loop around some abandoned, and some not abandoned, ROW. It was a thesis by a student, not a professional planner.
Cathy Woolard got all hot and bothered about it, and then the idea was how to fund this transit loop.
Someone came up with the idea of a TAD, a circular TAD that follows around the ROW loop a couple hundred feet to each side.
You don’t use TAD’s to fund transit systems. You use TAD’s to fund discrete redevelopment sites.
When they made their first iterations of the layout of the district, it quickly became obvious that there would not be adequate, organic development within the TAD loop to fund the transit project.
Then the games started. They started to re-draw the district with various spurs running off the circular TAD to pull in projects that were just underway or in the permitting stage, so as to steal the tax increment off those sites.
The Sembler redevelopment at Sydney Marcus is the most notable example. They pulled that site in right after it had been demolished, but before they were going vertical, so the “base year” value of that site was land value only. The increase in value of that site from the 2005 base year has nothing to do with the BeltLine. The project was under construction and is now completed. None of the tax increase from the 2005 base year of that project goes into the general fund. It all goes to the BeltLine TAD.
They did this with about 40 other sites, siphoning off tax dollars from projects completely unrelated to the BeltLine, which dollars would have otherwise gone into the general fund.
All this to fund a transit loop, a transit loop which the Mayor’s blue ribbon panel of transit experts stated in their 2005 report was not financially feasible.
That report was quickly thrown in the trash.
And you Kool-Aid drinking cheerleaders still think this farce is Atlanta’s New Jerusalem.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Okay… disclosure time.
My name is Joe Winter. I live in a “shoebox” 1950’s condo, right around the corner from the Krispy Kreme. I am not — nor do I work for — a developer, city, architect, or any of its contractors. Nor do I work for a related business, corporation, enterprise, or other type of entity that stands to gain financially or otherwise from the Beltline.
Any financial gains I stand to make from the Beltline, or any similar projects, are entirely indirect. For example, my property value would rise, and when I’m ready to sell my condo, I won’t sell it for a loss. Or, the area would become more walkable/bikeable, and I may have a better chance of being able to ditch my car.
I happen to have studied planning in college, but I do not intend to make a career in the field.
I have no doubt that you, Ron, are sincere in your arguments, even if some of your arguments are irrelevant to the discussion of density.
Of all the people I’m aware of working on behalf of the project, I can think of only one that I know personally. I will not disclose here who this person is. He is someone you accuse in your argument of being insincere. Knowing him personally, I know he is not only sincere, but that he has extensive knowledge and understanding in his field of study.
On a couple of points you mentioned:
The “influx of students” you refer to assumes that many of the people who move into the new developments along the Beltline would be families. Judging from past experience, this is highly unlikely. Many of the people who move into these sorts of developments, historically, have been without children.
The development or transportation first argument is one that has existed for a long time in the world of planning. It’s pretty clear that transportation goes first, or else it would have made sense to build Wayne Mason’s 40-story towers in the middle of a farm field in Iowa, far from any roads. However, the NE quadrant is not the middle of a farm field in Iowa — a street network, sidewalks, bicycle routes, and bus routes already exist. For the Beltline transit component to be competitive for federal funding (and, believe me, the process is extremely competitive), the density and connectivity that you’re fighting must exist.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Joe,
Thanks for your comments.
Here are my observations about your two points.
Student population: Historically, the population returning to the urban core has been single professionals and empty nest couples. However, during the intown resurgence of Midtown, Downtown … the number of families and children moving into the condos has been striking. I will try to look up the APS numbers. Anecdotally, I can tell you that the Midtown Parents group has seen it go from zero to a signficant number (I know of at least 10 and I am on the periphery). I also know that the bus route serving Morningside (when it included Midtown and the condos) saw an increased number of students. So families with students are moving into the Condos. This is one reason why the new elementary school is opening.
Second, look at the development proposed for the City Hall East area and Lindbergh. The types of places being proposed are not just studios/one bedroom unit which are unsuitable for families, they are larger 2 and 3 bedroom units. Somebody figured out that families want to move into the area.
So yes, in the past and present the majority of people moving into these new environments have/will not had/have children, but applying that trend disregards the demographic evidence and ignores that the new developments seem to be making themselves more attractive to families.
Whether or not the new frugality/economic reality encourages families to move into these dwellings remains to be seen but a number of families were moving in prior to the recession.
Transportation vs. Density
First, I am not fighting density. The Peachtree corridor can and should be 20 – 40 story buildings and these areas can access the 10 street/monroe stop. I enjoying walking from my house in Midtown to visit clients on 14 – 17th streets. Howeever, I believe that density should be apportioned every where around the beltline versus solely in sub area 6.
Having visited Denver, Portland and Tacoma, the density of sub area 6 with 5-7 story buildings would be sufficient. I would respectfully submit that density already exists to support the beltline in sub area 6. Actually, the city planners stated this was true during the charettes. The density for sub area 6 is about selling land – not justifying the density for making the transportation numbers to work.
I would also suggest that Atlanta is far more likely to receive transportation funding if ALL 4 quadrants have density vs. overloading 1 sub a area of 1 quadrant.
Midtown has sufficient, decent connectivity. I don’t have an issue with connectivity. I don’t see a connectivity issue w/ the majority of the current streets in Midtown and think the monies being spent on it are waste and poor policy. Yes the 10th/Monroe corner needs a major overhaul and so do several others, but there is no justification to cut thru residential streets as proposed. Congestion slows people down and will encourage the use of the Beltline other transportation. Keep cars on the arteries and make pedestrians corridors.
Becareful of making the argument that the neighborhood does not want density/connectivity and therefore we are NIMBY. If that were true we would be requesting R5 nay R3 designation. We support increased density.
We just don’t support excessive density that will create new problems in a vain attempt to bailout irresponsible financial/planning decisions.
Take the financial component out of sub area 6, and the density /connectivity argument proposed lacks merit. The financial justification is driving the density/connectivity position of the ABI/ADA.
Remember Oak Hill in Piedmont Park? The city planners/conservancy wanted to carve it up into a figure 8 pathways to support “ADA” requirements when in reality it was the million dollars for MCI to place their name on the hill. Us NIMBY neighbors spoke out then that the reason people come to park is greenspace and not asphalt paths. We were labeled as anti-disabled then.
It is the same backwards rationalization. ABI/ADA wants the money and will distort the plan/objectives to obtain it by mis-characterizing and attacking its opponents. Make personal attacks on its opponents and soon everyone forgets the issues.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Ron F.,
One comment on your statement about the increasing number of APS students in Midtown, and how the new elementary school was needed partly as a result of this increase.
During the rezoning process, APS handed out actual numbers of APS students living in the various neighborhoods.
I was stunned, but according to the APS info the *entire midtown district* less than 25 current elementary students in 2008.
That is the area from Ponce to the South, Pershing Point to the North (and along the 85 N corridor), 85/75 to the West, and Monroe to the East.
That is less than 25 APS elementary students out of 700+ that were then all in the Morningside district.
Who knows where things will go in the future, but so far there is little evidence that the ‘carrying weight’ of additional students to APS is material.
I would be interested to see what the numbers are in Atlantic Station. My belief is that the numbers would be marginal as well.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Great to see on all the discussion on this subject; this is what the BeltLine process is supposed to be about. I support the discussion on the opportunity for transit for the BeltLine; it’s a meaningful step to creating a modern urban city. I’ve studied the plans very carefully, the BeltLine doesn’t go anywhere. It connects neighborhoods but it doesn’t connect to MARTA. Maybe a few bus stops that is underserved in very dense areas now. So it appears that the BeltLine is the train that goes nowhere, or perhaps it’s meant to be a nice ride around a scenic route. The “supporters” really think that someone will jump on the Beltline from their new condo on the Park and go up to Ansley Mall to go shopping. Well, waiting for the “train” in both direction, walking over to the Ansley station vs. getting in the car and driving for a <5 mins just isn’t going to happen. The guy in support that lives over Krispy Kreme (Joe Winter) is he really going to walk a minimum of a half mile to get on the train. Given MARTA is at a 30 min schedule in rush hour because of lack of funding, not ridership we need to be careful what we ask for. The State controls how MARTA uses its financing. MARTA has the money to increase service but it must cut back because the State will not allow them to use funds from their own accounts. The idea may be good somehow, but we need to look at 30 year history of MARTA management. I was around when route for MARTA mass transit was planned and built; it pretty much does not go where people want to go. Developers wanted into to curve west just south of downtown, but sure left out the stadium. It could have easily went to the stadium then into the neighborhoods it serves now, but the planners said no. The Beltline really seems to be another Mass Transit that goes nowhere. Yes it circles the core of the city, but does not provide linkage into the business or retail districts.
Oh and the promises of the parks. The city is unable to maintain the parks we have now. All parks in or near the subject neighborhood have been urban campgrounds. Weekly the police remove a minimum of 40 campers from each and every park. The BeltLine seems to fulfilling it’s promise of affordable housing; all of these pocket parks and trails can be become the urban camp grounds of the future because we do have the police to cover what we already have. This argument that TAD dollars cannot go to public safety are true. Incremental tax revenue over the base year must go to the TAD bond fund, not the general fund; therefore the existing neighborhoods must pay the bill for all city services for the increased density. The outcry over the current tax increase is nothing compared to where we will be in the future. Keep in mind, 99% of all costs for police & fire, road repair and all city services in Atlantic Station are paid for by property owners outside TAD areas. 80% of property taxes are paid for by 40% of the property in Atlanta. ADA justifies this by saying that the sales tax will cover the difference. The sales tax revenue has fallen dramatically is 50% less than projected. These proposed developments along the Park cannot support enough retail to generate the needed sales tax to even begin to cover the General Fund costs. So combined with a train that goes nowhere, and increased density that cannot financially support itself in the General Fund; one must that conclude that this yet another giveaway to the developers. This well planned attack on the people that actually live in the area is yet another organized attempt by ADA to put the PR spin on covering up the financial games being planned. This is not about urbanism, and urban planning; this is about lining the pockets of a few who have started to quietly buy up the assemblages on Monroe Drive. You who cry out and use the term NIMBI should take the few hours it takes to go look at recent property records in the area.
It’s very simple, this forum is a directed PR effort lead by ADA and ABI to direct attention to a small issue, make personal attacks to divert attention to what is really going on. It’s easy to take a few minutes to write a comment, but the pro crowd gets an email from the ADA/ABI directing them to this article and suggests supporting a few of Fred’s comments. ABI is in desperate need of public comment in support of the plans. They haven’t been able to get them in 18 months of community meetings, so now they use this forum. Typical of Atlanta, get caught up in the PR machine of the Administration, don’t take the work to learn the real issues but talk; these are the same people who get in their car and drive 5 mins to go down the street but say they’ll use the Beltline 30 years from now while the new development comes in and creates so much congestion, and density that can’t be supported under current funding in the General Fund without significant property tax increases all the while the another option Is to wait 30 mins each way for a MARTA bus that may or may not come. We are all going to pay the price for some pretty pictures. Go back and take a look at Fred’s history in Boston; he has way of fighting neighborhood opposition and he following his pattern that he used in Boston. There’s a reason Fred left Boston and it wasn’t this great BeltLine job. When he comes under attack at neighborhood meetings he gets that same look on his face that he got when the neighborhoods in Boston came with tar and feathers. Fred took the safe route and bailed out bringing his lil bag of tricks to the unintiated in Atlanta. This is the first step in Fred’s pattern. Find one lone individual, Jenifer K, vilify her and let the uninformed public take pot shots. He will now use these comments to justify and try to undue all the documented opposition issues in the structured process because they don’t agree with his plans. Fred has a history and he knows what he is doing. The wizards behind the current know Fred and hired him because of his ability to bully neighborhoods and produce pretty pictures. Fred can’t produce one word of justification for development at 10th and Monroe except that “it looks good.” The opposition have consistently said they support even more height directly across the street where the ugly storage palce is; they are willing to support up to 20 stories!! But Fred is using his PR, not urban planning skills to generate revenue to cover the financial disaster created by overpaying Mason for the land. Take a look of his history of cost overruns and destruction of neighborhoods in previous jobs. Terri Montigue saw what was happening and left town quickly when the truth started to come out.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
The Beltline will succeed only if it has places to start from and places to go to. There must be people and destinations all around the BeltLine. Cramming housing units onto the corner of 10th and Monroe–an area that will see dramatic growth with or without the Beltline–will not make any difference to the likelihood of success. The best way to make a difference is to promote growth and development in other parts of the BeltLine, particularly areas where growth has lagged or has not happened in the past. (Can you say SE, SW, or NW?) The reason the Beltline honchos are pushing to dense-up the corner of Piedmont Park is that it is an easier sell for developers, or perhaps to try to cover up their horrendous error in buying the land from Wayne Mason for a king’s ransom. (Or is it because “friends” of the politicians see the opportunity to make a killing at taxpayer expense?)
August 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Considering the crime and presence of street people in Midtown, not to mention the numerous registered sex offenders at Peachtree Pine, any parent who moves here with small children should be reported for child abuse or contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If your kid was born here, I can cut you a little slack.
Imagine a note from a 10-year old living in Midtown.
“Mommy, my new friend is a tranny hooker with a nasty meth habit. I feel safe because her and/or his pimp walked me to elementary school today. Don’t worry though, it’s the new pimp, not that piece of shit that used to smack her around at the school bus stop every morning because she didn’t earn enough from the construction workers. Good news, I found your stolen GPS and Daddy’s MacBook Pro on Craigs List today. I haven’t found replacements for your car windows yet. Have we changed our alarm code this week? Are you buying pepper spray anytime soon? I had to use mine at the park yesterday. BTW, what’s a “rim job”?
I’m just sayin’….
August 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
hahaha. Nicely played Dale.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I would like to start off by saying that the vitriolic insulting remarks directed at Ms. Kenans are unwarranted and smack of the typical attacks that I am too familiar with. The people spewing out these horrible accusations is a calculated attack by the Atlanta Beltline and they do not have the our best interst at heart. I am all for development but I see no firm plan that makes the developers directly responsible for our infrastructure. I was at the Beltline meeting where Ms. Kenans spoke, and her words were not only chosen well, but her concerns were valid. I say NO to the Beltline and I ask that you stop these attacks on people who have nothing but a clear and concise understanding of the impact this will have on our neighborhoods.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
RR’s point is well taken. The point is to explore and debate the issues. Why do so many feel the need to engage in personal attacks? Ms. Kenan is an articulate, passionate, and sincere advocate.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I would like to add further that it wouldn’t surprise me if Liz Coyle arranged those attacks on Ms. Kenans. I would also suggest to everyone that when voting for District6 Council that you take a good look at how Ms. Coyle has used the Beltline for her own agenda.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Jesus! Atlanta’s worst enemy is its own residents! Sorry to say, when you choose to live in the heart of the city, folks, NIMBY doesn’t stretch very far. If you’re THAT terrified of mass transit and a little bit of change, move out to the exurbs where the roads are all 55mph and seven lanes, and where everyone talks about the good ol’ days. Or..get over yourselves and let SOMETHING happen instead of nothing.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Aaron must work for the beltline.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Or he’s a Republican, your ramblings were very Bushie.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I can’t speak for Aaron, but I can tell you I don’t work for the Beltline or developers. I’m an IT/code geek (and reasonably proud of it) and a fan of Urbanism and Smart Growth.
I basically agree with Aaron, though I would not classify everyone who fights this proposal as a NIMBY. I see here that there are legit concerns about developing residential density before making improvements in the supporting transit infrastructure.
But I hope that most Atlantans come to see that for the big, long-term picture, increasing residential density in the heart of the city near popular public spaces (like Piedmont Park), established amenities and MARTA stations is the right move.
The most successful US cities are all moving in the direction of being more walkable and less dependent on car transit. The most successful cities are also very flexible — expecting to keep established neighborhoods of single-family detached houses as they are over the decades is unrealistic enough in the exurbs, but in the center of a major city that expectation borders on unhealthy. Atlanta has to be flexible and capable of positive growth or else it will fall behind as an attractive base for businesses and talent.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Aaron – preach! you are right on the money.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Thank Darin- Thoughtful well spoken arguments are always welcome and I fully respect your opinion. Development is important for all of us and I welcome projects that works within the confines of the community. Common sense always prevails and I believe that with serious community involvement a solution can be found and I wish that more people had your verbal skills.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Greg also works for the beltline.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
This is the BeltLine transit feasibility study commissioned by the ADA, but which was promptly thrown in the trash when it came out, right before the BeltLine TAD was approved in the Fall of 2005. This was supposed to support the project. Instead, it openly questioned the viability and need.
The Atlanta Beltline: Transit Feasibility
White Paper
Prepared for:
The Atlanta Development Authority
By:
The Beltline Transit Panel
Dr. Catherine L. Ross, Panel Chair, Director of the Center for Quality Growth and
Regional Development and Harry West Professor, Georgia Tech
Dr. Michael D. Meyer, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Tech
Michael Dobbins, Associate Professor in the College of Architecture, Georgia Tech
Tim Jackson, President of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.
William W. Millar, President of the American Public Transportation Association
September 29, 2005
2
BELTLINE TRANSIT PANEL
Panel Membership:
Dr. Catherine L. Ross, Panel Chair, Director of the Center for Quality Growth and
Regional Development and Harry West Professor, Georgia Tech,
Dr. Michael D. Meyer, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Tech,
Michael A. Dobbins, Associate Professor in the College of Architecture, Georgia Tech,
Tim Jackson, President of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.,
William W. Millar, President of the American Public Transportation Association
PURPOSE STATEMENT:
The purpose of the BeltLine Transit Panel is to broaden understanding of the BeltLine
Transit Loop and the function it serves in the Urban Transportation System through
review and assessment of relevant work. The Panel will clarify key transportation
elements focusing on transit integration from a network perspective. It will synthesize
information and identify basic principles on how the BeltLine should develop over time.
Product: Summarize the above in a brief white paper
CONTEXT OR CHARGE:
The BeltLine Transit Panel was assembled by the Atlanta Development Authority (ADA)
to review the studies done to date on the BeltLine project and assess and comment on the
feasibility of the transit component and how it might function in relation to an integrated
transit system for Central Atlanta. The end purpose of this work is to synthesize the
information developed on the BeltLine for its transit potential and provide guidance and
suggest principles on how BeltLine transit might develop over time.
PROCESS:
The charge to the Panel was limited by available information and timeframe
considerations. The Panel was established in mid-June and held three public meetings.
Two of the meetings included presentations of all proposed transit projects relevant to the
Panel’s charge as well as public comment from a variety of concerned citizens. It should
be noted that many of the studies bearing directly on this report are ongoing, with
significant questions and findings of the Panel depending on the outcomes of that work.
Many of the transit initiatives presently aimed at Central Atlanta potentially are important
and could be necessary to support the growing markets for intown living and working – it
is a question of reviewing them in a comprehensive context.
From this input, the Panel identified key issues facing the transit elements of the BeltLine
proposal and developed suggested guidance on how these issues might be resolved. In the
process, the Panel identified key findings that need to be considered by the ADA and
other decision-making bodies in order to move the BeltLine forward.
We believe the Beltline, or more likely, some segments of the Beltline alignment,
represent a potentially viable transit investment, which could improve the mobility
options for Atlanta’s citizens.
3
KEY FINDINGS:
1) The renewed market interest in development of the central city creates a real
opportunity for the city to adopt a very different model of development than
what has happened traditionally. The opportunity represented by the BeltLine
is integrally tied into the issue of the redevelopment and growth of the central
city.
2) Even though the BeltLine represents more than just a transportation
opportunity (e.g., green space and development), in order for the City’s vision
of neighborhood preservation, redevelopment, and growth to occur, a vision
that views transportation as a system, and not a series of disparate projects, is
critical for the future of the City.
3) This vision should build upon the existing system of bus, rail, pedestrian/bike,
and local streets, as well as consider a broad range of other initiatives. The
Panel heard from a number of proponents about a variety of proposals none of
which considered the area-wide system that would be most beneficial to
accomplishing the city-wide vision of neighborhood preservation,
redevelopment, and growth.
4) The paucity of ridership estimates for different transit options in the BeltLine
corridor (especially given how far the BeltLine concept has come in the City’s
policy agenda) is surprising. In some cases, individual projects have had
ridership forecasts prepared, but it does not appear that credible ridership
determinations have been made that consider the network effect of other
transit projects that are being seriously considered. The ARC prioritization of
transit projects, for example, relied on individual sponsors of projects to
submit ridership forecasts subject to consistency guidelines for the modeling.
The ARC itself did not undertake transit network modeling during the recent
update of the regional plan to determine project priorities. MARTA is
currently conducting an Alternatives Analysis of different transit concepts
which should provide better information on expected ridership. The
implication of this to the Panel’s deliberations was that there were no credible
ridership estimates for its consideration.
5) As often portrayed by the press and by many advocates, the BeltLine
opportunity is often described as a continuous loop that follows the rail
corridor around the central city. It seems likely that solely from a transit
ridership perspective, portions of this loop will not generate sufficient transit
ridership to justify investment in high capacity transit infrastructure. Now and
in the future some segments of the BeltLine, or possibly other alignments
serving major trip origins and destinations in the MARTA Alternatives
Analysis would likely be more productive from a transit ridership perspective
based on ridership and technical considerations. This increases the importance
of identifying appropriate technology and ridership potential. We recognize
there are a number of ridership and technical considerations that will
ultimately determine the final configuration. The Beltline alone may not take
4
riders to key employment destinations but must connect to a transportation
system that best meets the needs of residents or visitors to the city. The
circumferential Beltline may not be one project but several more project
segments and potential alignments to meet the criteria for federal funding. In
order to qualify for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) support there is a
very detailed and explicit process that must be followed.
6) When considering possible transportation investments, one should start with
the city-wide vision and determine what types of transportation investments
(technologies, alignments, etc.) best support this vision. In putting together an
area-wide framework, the City should consider what forms of development it
wants and design transit and other local transportation improvements to
support that type of development. The framework should be used to establish
priorities in funding key transportation investments.
7) In particular, where transit investment is included in this transportation
framework, transit needs to be decided up front. It cannot be an afterthought
to the development process.
8) The currently proposed alignment of the BeltLine presents other significant
technical issues associated with potential transit use in the BeltLine corridor
such as: right-of-way width, freight use of rail lines, elevation differences, etc.
9) As was noted to the Panel by several speakers, the amount of revenue
generated from the TAD is expected to cover only about half of what will be
needed (and depending on the design and technology involved, this could be
an underestimate). It is highly likely that additional sources of funding will be
necessary to cover the costs associated with capital investment. Also, very
little information (and in some sense interest) was available on the expected
operating and maintenance costs, although MARTA is beginning the
alternatives analysis and will include this, associated with any proposed
service in the BeltLine corridor. In many transit infrastructure investments,
such costs are often quite large over the life of a project. In order to qualify
for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) support there is a very detailed and
explicit process that must be followed.
THE TRANSIT CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY
The Panel was impressed by the energy and commitment of a large number of citizen
groups and individuals who are truly committed to improving transit in Central Atlanta.
The Panel noted that resurgent growth in Central Atlanta is both supported by and
dependent on enhanced transit access to reach its full potential.
The BeltLine as it has been conceptualized has three constituent parts:
• Private development and redevelopment opportunity
• Greenspace and greenway trail connectivity
• Transit and transportation
5
While the Panel’s focus was on transit, the context, transportation needs, and general
characteristics of the first two parts bear directly on the third. The Panel’s efforts were
focused on what is known and has been shared so far, and given its very tight time
constraints and limited charge, the Panel could not generate new data, but instead relied
on the work of other agencies and groups, both completed and in progress.
The Panel below makes several observations concerning the transit and transportation
component of the proposed BeltLine, and as well identifies a number of issues that the
ADA and the City may want to consider in shaping its strategies for the next phase of the
BeltLine work. These observations are summarized in the following categories:
• Ridership
• Technical considerations
• Cost, financing strategies, and funding sources
• Management structure and process
• Private development patterns and potentials
• Quality of life
The following discussion summarizes what the Panel learned and considered in
developing its understanding of the issues as a basis for identifying or suggesting next
steps in the BeltLine planning and approval process. The findings below, unless stated
otherwise, should be considered more as questions than conclusions, whose answers will
likely become clearer as the ongoing work is completed.
Ultimately the focus is not only about the circumferential transit component, but also
about the City’s vision for redevelopment of the Central Area including the BeltLine and
how any proposed transit works in conjunction with existing communities and the
existing transit network.
Ridership
Estimated ridership for a transit service is one of the most important considerations when
examining new transit investment. Even though the BeltLine initiative encompasses
more than just a transit focus, expected ridership is often a critical factor in justifying
transit investment.
The Panel is surprised at the paucity of credible information relating to expected ridership
of the BeltLine alternative. Of all the information generated in support of the BeltLine
concept, ridership appears to be the least studied or understood. This is perplexing,
because much work less central to transit viability has been done on the concept. Some
of the transit proposals reviewed by the Panel had estimated transit ridership, but many of
these were carried out on a project-by-project basis and did not assume the existence of
all the other transit projects being considered (Note: some included all transit projects
that are in ARC’s Mobility 2030 plan, but did not include those currently under
consideration but not in the plan). As a result, no integrated picture of transit ridership
potential for the Central Atlanta area has been developed.
6
With no ridership numbers, the Panel is left to speculate on what ridership can be
expected given its collective expertise in transportation planning and land use. Some
important considerations in this regard include:
• There are very few locations along the BeltLine where large and dense
concentrations of jobs are expected – these are mostly projected for the
Lindbergh area, already served by MARTA bus and rail service.
• The highest numbers and concentrations of jobs in the city (and the region for
that matter) are in Downtown, Midtown, and Buckhead, none of which would
be directly served by the BeltLine. The transportation system must connect the
study area to these locations.
• Some balance and direct linkage between where people live and work,
especially in dense concentrations, have proven most propitious for viable
transit, yet the projected BeltLine development appears to be mostly
residential with some community supportive commercial, not the
characteristic mix for generating large numbers of trips.
• The BeltLine proposal as a concept envisions a circumferential transit service
around the central city core. Based on development potential and market
feasibility, it seems likely that the eastern and perhaps southeastern portion of
this belt would provide the best potential for transit ridership. The other
segments will not likely generate as significant a level of trips.
• A circumferential BeltLine transit investment would seem to improve the
connectivity to the MARTA network and would thus provide enhanced
mobility for residents and visitors to the corridor. This in itself could generate
new transit trips. However, it will take a long time before enough
development is in place to result in significant internal-to-internal transit trips
in the corridor.
• The circumferential BeltLine project in its entirety will not likely generate
sufficient transit ridership in the corridor to satisfy the criteria for federal New
Start transit investment. However, some project segments and indeed other
potential alignments in the study area may, in fact, satisfy such criteria.
MARTA, currently underway with an Alternatives Analysis for its Inner
Core Connectivity Study, comes closest to offering the opportunity to provide an
integrated transit ridership analysis. MARTA officials stated to the Panel that this study
fully intends to model different service options. Even so, its scope does not appear to
include the Peachtree Streetcar proposal, or the incorporation of commuter rail or
commuter bus ridership impacts.
The Panel notes that the BeltLine as defined by the ADA is one of the alternatives under
study by MARTA. Three of its four study alternatives incorporate all or part of the
Northside Drive multimodal corridor, as well as legs to Emory and back to south DeKalb
County (the C-Loop). With the inclusion of the proposed Peachtree Streetcar along with
the Northside Drive and CDC/Emory links and with consideration of commuter rail and
7
commuter bus interconnectivity options, the Inner Core study could be expected to
provide useful ridership projections and comparisons for the whole of an integrated
Central Atlanta transit picture.
QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS THAT MIGHT GUIDE THAT PICTURE
INCLUDE:
• There are many BeltLine/C-Loop alternatives – what will be the City’s and
ADA’s assessment procedure, transit phasing, and support strategy as data
emerges to describe the lines and segments generating the most ridership,
keeping in mind that ridership is a key indicator of existing and potential
development?
• ARC modeling in which the “BeltLine” scored high considered the entire CLoop
and the northeast part of the BeltLine (the Emory segment is not in the
ADA conceptualization); as MARTA’s and ADA’s work goes forward, how
will the ridership outcomes affect the potential for federal funding and
accordingly local policy choices?
• For the purpose of advancing an integrated transportation plan, MARTA
should add the missing elements to develop and evaluate a truly integrated
picture.
Technical Considerations
A number of issues have been raised by the BeltLine concept that are technically
complicated, some of which are under study, some of which cannot be fully understood
until later steps are taken, but some of which need to be identified and more clearly
understood even at this conceptual level to resolve these technical issues:
• Gaps – there are at least five places where the BeltLine is discontinuous, thus
creating challenges if a circumferential approach is to be adopted.
• Vertical Profile/Elevation Changes – Less developed as far as the Panel was able
to determine were considerations of the vertical discontinuities. Where the
BeltLine passes over or under the surface street and sidewalk system, vertical
connection systems – stairs, ramps, elevators, escalators – will be required and
will need to meet at least two sets of criteria – the Americans with Disabilities Act
and seamless transfer to other transit modes, biking, walking or cars.
• Right-of-Way – the Panel heard and agrees subject to design refinement that the
minimum right-of-way required for two-way transit operation is 45 feet and the
minimum for a greenway trail is 15 feet, meaning that the barest minimum for the
two existing together in the same ROW is 60 feet. This number must be borne in
mind in reviewing any proposed development in the BeltLine if provision of
transit is to be a goal (and it should be). Similarly, any acquisition or easement
should have this minimum in mind in any further negotiation. It must be noted,
too, that wherever the BeltLine is on a bank or in a valley, these distances must be
widened to accommodate the necessary bank widths to accommodate both transit
and trail, and will likely necessitate retaining walls.
8
• Mode Transfer Issues –the BeltLine crosses the MARTA line between stations
typically at least one half mile away. Two ideas have been advanced to address
these discontinuities: build new MARTA stations at the crossing points or bring
the BeltLine off its right-of-way to existing stations. Much work still needs to be
done to determine how either of these strategies might work. Questions raised
include whether overcoming discontinuities is worth it in terms of ridership, cost,
development potential, and time to accomplish. The Panel noted that
discontinuities for the greenway trail can be easily overcome as described by
PATH by simply making strategic on-street or alternate paths to bridge them.
While the concept of the BeltLine incorporates and perhaps depends on its
intersections with MARTA rail, these intersections raise two issues of their own:
common station locations and transfer time and ease. The first poses significant
technical and cost issues, yet achieving seamless transfer is essential if MARTA
rail is to be successfully integrated into the BeltLine transit picture. The second
addresses a further barrier to potential transit use, the wait time and the quality of
the wait environment in transferring from one mode to another can significantly
reduce potential ridership. These factors, also affect bus transfers.
• Transit Technology Options –the Panel believes that there should be a
transparently conducted, open-minded consideration of the technology options,
keeping in mind that the key to a comprehensive and successfully integrated
transit system will depend on consistency in its support infrastructure –
complementary station, platform and stop design, vertical connection treatments,
vehicle design, and the graphic systems – maps, schedules, colors, logos and other
environmental graphic features that support the systems legibility, convenience,
and appeal
• In keeping with the technology options, one must consider not only right-of-way
issues, but also system components such as maintenance and storage facilities,
power stations, control systems, etc. that will need to be incorporated both into
physical design as well as cost estimates.
Costs, Financing Strategies, and Funding Sources
The Panel heard a wide range of capital cost estimates for BeltLine transit (not surprising
given how early in the process we are). However, the Panel did not hear much at all
about operating cost implications and some ideas about possible funding sources. In this
context, the Panel makes these observations and comments:
• Capital costs for developing BeltLine transit have been estimated to be in the one
billion dollar range, based on very preliminary estimates. It is likely that these
capital costs represent a large share of any capital costs associated with a BeltLine
project. However, without knowing the technology involved and thus the
physical right-of-way requirements and station and alignment considerations, it is
impossible at this stage to state that this funding is sufficient to cover the capital
costs, although the Panel’s best estimate is that it is most likely only covering
approximately 50% of the capital costs.
• If the BeltLine is not considered as a circumferential project, then it becomes a
series of projects for which funding can be put together based on a variety of
9
sources appropriate to the nature and timing of such projects. Generating money
through the TAD could help in attracting federal New Start money for perhaps
one of these projects, as well as generating additional private investment; this
could help expedite implementation of possible transit projects.
• Operating costs for BeltLine transit have not been addressed as far as the Panel
has been able to determine. Judgments on cost ranges are not particularly useful
until more is known about ridership, fare structure, operational scenarios, operator
organizational structure, technologies, and phasing options. Yet operating costs
can be a make or break issue for the viability of transit projects, and the more
clearly a credible funding/operating strategy can be developed, the more likely the
project can compete in other governmental arenas. As the Panel understands it,
TAD funds may not be used to support operations. It should be noted too that
operating costs for maintaining the greenway trail and associated parks systems
will be crucial to their success. Again, TAD funds will not be available for this
purpose.
• The most appropriate funding strategy for the entire BeltLine corridor seems to be
one which relies on a variety of funding sources in order to make the BeltLine
viable. As such the sources of funding will have to include other public funds
from the federal (FTA and CMAQ), state, city or county governments as well as
private funds. Some of the pots out of which funding may be gained will be
regionally and nationally competitive, and even though the idea of using a TAD to
fund a local match is logical and positive in the competitive arena, issues of
ridership and operating costs must be effectively addressed to be competitive at
higher decision making levels.
Management Structure and Process
While very early in the process, it is nonetheless important to conceptualize options for
how the transit component of the BeltLine project might be organized, funded, and made
operational, including planning, financing, designing, constructing, and operating the
system. As things stand, MARTA or GRTA are the only organizations that have the
experience and capability of running a system and contracting for these services. It is
important to note that of the three components that make up the BeltLine concept, the
transit component has a number of unique characteristics. It is the most expensive, the
most technically challenging, the longest to get going and build out, and the furthest from
identifying how it might actually get done. The development component is already
beginning as is the greenway trail and park system; both need to be coordinated from the
very beginning with the transit planning process.
Private Development Patterns and Potentials
As understood by the Panel, the ongoing work headed by EDAW for the ADA studying
the development potential surrounding the BeltLine, addresses two aspects of
development, one the full build-out potential and the other the market demand over the
next 25 years. As the Panel understands it, the projection of future development potential
10
has been partly driven and shaped by creating the kinds of density necessary to support
transit, without encroaching upon or unduly impacting existing single family
neighborhoods. Thus, in some segments along the BeltLine, high-density residential
development has been projected, some rising as high as 10 and 12 stories though
averaging 4-6 (see website at atlantada.com). Development response to these projections
is being tested through a separate Partnership Land Use Task force that will be carrying
on its work through August. There are a number of linked questions raised by this
ongoing exploration.
• The Panel believes that the development vision for the BeltLine should be driven
by what is appropriate, supportive, and compatible in the communities through
which it passes and then determine the transit and transportation needs. .
• The gap between the ultimate build-out potential and the realistic market
response over the next 25 years, likely to be quite different in the four quadrants,
may significantly affect ridership projections and thus transit viability. Both sets
of numbers should be considered in determining the timetable for transit
development
• As development occurs, particularly at higher densities, the street network
already in place will have to bear the increased traffic load until transit
connectivity is in place further underscoring the need for placing transit
planning upfront in the development process.
• Development studies should not overlook the future development and
redevelopment potential of places in the City that are already supportive of
higher density development which will not be served by the BeltLine.
• A core criterion for considering the appropriate priority and timing of the
various elements of an integrated transit system is their potential for public
private partnership. Private support is a powerful persuader in leveraging public
funds.
Quality of Life
One of the core goals for the BeltLine project is improving the quality of life for all
Atlantans. Clearly, the greenway trail and associated park system responds directly and
positively to this goal, provided that maintenance and operation are incorporated into this
element from the beginning. The development component also may be a positive
contributor to the quality of life goal, provided that community benefits exceed impacts
and the scale and mix of activities are complementary and supportive of nearby
neighborhoods. Similarly, the transit element, if it meets a considerable portion of the
daily travel needs generated by the new development, will provide an option to the car
that should enhance the quality of life. The key threats to this goal are timing and scale of
development, proper operation of the greenway trail and park system, and the
effectiveness and timing of transit to provide a competitive option to the car for daily
trips.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Dave Walker did a great service by including the BL transit feasibility study! (CL: Make studies like this more readily available to us!) I love the concept of the BL but do not see tangible evidence that transit is truly on the radar screen of the BL leadership. Development, yes. Density, yes. Parks, yes. Trails, yes. Affordable housing, maybe. Public art, maybe. However, the essential promise of the BL is a 22-mile, light-rail transit loop. Not long ago the City decided NOT to include the west side of Atlanta in its request for federal money for the BL. More recently, the City put the Peachtree Streetcar ahead of the BL for federal money. These do not strike me as logical steps of a committed transit-building organization. My biggest concern is that Atlanta is doing its typical bait-and-switch: 1. Promise us one thing. 2. Deliver something entirely different. 3. Apologize and blame it on the predecessor Mayor and City Council, or the economy, or whatever. In other words, our tax money is spent, the transit plan is abandoned, and our infrastructure is unable to cope with the detritus of the forgotten promises.
August 10th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The proposal looks a lot better than the crummy strip mall that’s there now.
Can we please start using the phrase “medium density” when appropriate? The discussion here includes several references to the proposal as “high density”. If words have meaning, that’s just not applicable. The development going on along Peachtree Street in Midtown is largely high density. The developments which have existed for years along the west side of Piedmont Park (along Piedmont Avenue) are medium density, very similar to what is being proposed at 10th & Monroe, and those uses along Piedmont Ave. are quite compatible with the park.
Also, there is a building just across Virginia Ave., not shown in the drawing, which is 7 or 8 stories (condos, I believe).
For the Beltline to work, it needs to be bordered by just this kind of medium density development – not high density 40 story towers, and not low density single family houses on an acre. (Existing single-family residences should remain, of course; I’m talking about what should be built on the large swaths of land which (a) border the beltline and (b) are either derelict & abandoned, or are crummy strip malls designed for an automobile-only transportation approach.)
An excellent example of the kind of development which should border the Beltline is Glenwood Park. Walk around Glenwood Park, and then tell us: is that so scary?
The flaw in the transit study cited above is that it assumed CURRENT development density along the beltline! Of course the current level of development along many parts of the line is inadequate to support transit. That’s part of the point of the whole thing. Atlanta has developed on a very low-density, automobile-dependent pattern, in which the lack of transit encourages low density, and low density encourages lack of transit. 50 years of this stupidity is enough!
The Beltline, when built, will attract sufficient medium-density development to sustain transit; indeed, it is already attracting development (temporarily slowed down by the recession). It’s time to move from a vicious circle of little transit and low density, to a virtuous circle of more transit and medium density.
Some developers will undoubtedly make money from this. I’m OK with that. (I’m not one of them, BTW.) And yes, I do live nearby.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Does BJP stand for “BeltLine Juggernaut Politician?”
August 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
It’s BPJ, not BJP (which is a big political party in India).
August 11th, 2009 at 10:01 am
So this ‘crummy’ strip mall has the best retail, restaurants, movies in the area. Its always crowded because its frequented by the thousands of people in midtown, morningside, and Va Highlands. Many of these residents live 1-5 miles away from this crummy strip mall. How will the Beltline help these people who live in the ‘urban core’ get to this retail center without using their car???
We already have beltlines all over the city that take people where they want to go. They are the streets that cover this town. If only there was some kind of mass transit that could utilize these streets?
Midtown is already the highest density in the city. Why is all the density being proposed for these two blocks rather than the other 99% of the beltline? Its because its the most attractive real estate in the city. Not because it will create a smart growth revolution. The city is filled with empty lots and abandoned buildings even in midtown. Why not increase the density there?
The real issue here is the Beltline is not a transit project. It may have some beneficial goals but right now it is sucking millions of dollars that could be used to give us some immediate mass transit. An extensive localized bus system would make a huge impact on Midtown.
The facts are that this is an attempt to grab prime real estate for more condos (hey there are just a few empty ones in midtown already if you haven’t noticed) under the guise of a transit project (25 years away). Real estate that could never be developed in this way through the normal codes of the city.
Hey lets build a light rail system for the city that desperately needs transit. We’ll start by building some condos…