Do you all think the Beltline light rail line will happen?

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by cranberrysaus

Definitely channeling John Portman's towers in downtown that all have fortresses at street level and pedestrian bridges specifically designed to keep their tenants as insulated from the streets as possible. He is the reason that Downtown Atlanta is so cold and uninviting.

I had the same thoughts about a Peachtree Center redux. Thing is, John Portman was working in the suburbia-centric 60s, when the "downtown experience" was at its nadir. It was actually considered an enhancement to seal the development off from the sidewalks, as you were creating a bulwark against the 'downtown boogeymen'. Selling the urban vision that prevails today would have been like spitting in the wind.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

I had the same thoughts about a Peachtree Center redux. Thing is, John Portman was working in the suburbia-centric 60s, when the "downtown experience" was at its nadir. It was actually considered an enhancement to seal the development off from the sidewalks, as you were creating a bulwark against the 'downtown boogeymen'. Selling the urban vision that prevails today would have been like spitting in the wind.

The conspiracy theory part of my mind says that what happened to US downtowns was intentionally done. In this scenario developers would convince cities to rip up their downtowns just so they could turn right around 50 years later and build it all again when people realize they actually like dense, walkable spaces.

On the less conspiracy minded view, one thing people in urban planning circles often forget is that: A.) Preferences change with the time. The people of the 50s and 60s went whole hog on building out car infrastructure without realizing the detrimental effect it would have on society. B.) We are often waxing nostalgic on buildings that were often substandard at best, dangerous at worst, and not suited to the modern world more typically.

I'm talking about buildings that had no indoor plumping, to zero fire safety, to just way too cramped conditions that would make sense in the 2020s. Let's not forget that a good chunk of urban renewal was removing developing world-esque slums and shantytowns from American cities.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by MattCW

You just put into words something I've been wondering about for a while now. I feel like a lot of the latest developments are more walled off and have less street/sidewalk/trail/public-activation than in previous years. I've also noticed that a lot of the public-facing tenants seem to be "stable" places, like doctor's offices, banks, etc. I don't pick my doctor based on being able to walk up to it. I may reject a doctor if it's impossible to get there, but I don't care where the office is otherwise.

Talked to a well-connected friend of mine this week (his business interests have bumped up against Portman's of late, and not in a good way), and it is his belief that this is EXACTLY what is going on. It's the 'multi-use' concept carried to the extreme.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

Looks like Amsterdam Walk may become a flashpoint for this issue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/real...c2a75d3f&ei=22

One of the problems with zoning as practiced in many American cities.

Really ridiculous reason to oppose redevelopment.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by bu2

One of the problems with zoning as practiced in many American cities.

Really ridiculous reason to oppose redevelopment.

I don't follow. Do you mean pushing back on a developer that is funding the opposition to a Beltline Rail Line is ridiculous?

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by bu2

One of the problems with zoning as practiced in many American cities.

Really ridiculous reason to oppose redevelopment.

How exactly is zoning that allows for higher density development in tandem with accompanying transportation infrastructure to support it problematic? And why is it ridiculous to oppose said development at a density threshold that was envisioned to be accommodated by that infrastructure in the face of emerging opposition to the latter?

[testa50]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

How exactly is zoning that allows for higher density development in tandem with accompanying transportation infrastructure to support it problematic? And why is it ridiculous to oppose said development at a density threshold that was envisioned to be accommodated by that infrastructure in the face of emerging opposition to the latter?

Wait, the existing zoning entitlement for Amsterdam Walk is predicated on Beltline Rail? Citation needed.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by testa50

Wait, the existing zoning entitlement for Amsterdam Walk is predicated on Beltline Rail? Citation needed.

I believe he is talking in theory.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by testa50

Wait, the existing zoning entitlement for Amsterdam Walk is predicated on Beltline Rail? Citation needed.

From the article linked by Iconographer:

"Neighborhoods that border the BeltLine had their zoning changed to accommodate transit oriented density because of the promise of light rail transit on the BeltLine. Most of the right-of-way along the 22-mile Beltline loop around the city’s urban core has been purchased for light rail transit. Voters approved a sales tax in 2016 to fund light rail."

[testa50]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

From the article linked by Iconographer:

"Neighborhoods that border the BeltLine had their zoning changed to accommodate transit oriented density because of the promise of light rail transit on the BeltLine. Most of the right-of-way along the 22-mile Beltline loop around the city’s urban core has been purchased for light rail transit. Voters approved a sales tax in 2016 to fund light rail."

I believe they've been C-1 with the same allowed level of density for a long time.