ad

19 Comments

  1. 1

    Justin Owings

    Hear, hear Karen!

    Sound advice that is also reasonable and based in facts.

    Adding more apartments to the market when we’re seeing a 3X increase in apartment vacancies in Atlanta? Arguably a questionable investment move.

    And what would a five-story building on Dresden do to the village feel and human scale that is already being assaulted by Rosewood and @1337? I think we all know. “Concrete canyon,” anyone?

    Here’s hoping the City, Mayor, and Council think long and hard before canonizing PC2 density on Dresden. Make a decision for the future!

  2. 2

    Cory

    You are all so short sighted. We wont be driving our own cars in 5 years, a large portion of professionals will work from home, they are building a community where people can live without cars. Traffic will not be an issue.

  3. 3

    Phil

    Good article, Karen.. The challenge of redevelopment is balancing out the property rights between those owners of property not being developed and those owners left outside the development. If your property was located where a developer was willing to pay substantially ore than what it is worth as a single family dwelling, it is a very tempting proposition to support the higher density for the developer buying your property who needs that higher density to pay you the much higher valuation.

    In the meantime, what are the rights of those owners surrounding the development as it pertains to possibly making your property less desirable (and less valuable) due to the high density development next door?

    There has to be compromise—and your proposal makes sense. Dresden has become a Mecca for developers BECAUSE of Brookhaven’s willingness to consider very high density apartment complexes in a very concentrated area. That willingness has to be tempered with approvals of much lower density projects.

  4. 4

    Justin Owings

    A core part of the cost of this proposed development is building a parking deck with 420 spaces that would largely become unnecessary in a driver-less car future where on-demand cars replace the need to own cars.

    By extension, developments today that include parking decks are short-sighted.

  5. 5

    Tom Reilly

    Great article, Karen!! Basic supply and demand are the forces at work here. You can successfully charge a higher price here for a better quality development. And better development leads to a better quality of life for all of Brookhaven’s residents.–Tom Reilly

  6. 6

    Polly Tanner-Adams

    Ugh. Another article for the same 20 people that hate everything. I hope this goes in at 80 UPA. I live in VP. Love it and want to see more density. As much as we can get.

  7. 7

    Jim Stern

    Oh Polly Anna, your disparaging remarks ring hollow. Apparently you’ve never been to a city council meeting, Planning Commission meeting or coffee with the countless volunteers that support Karen’s thoughtful appeal.

    We actually LOVE where we live and want to see codified law that resulted from an all inclusive political process enforced.

    Fantastic article, Karen. We love development…within the boundaries of our code. If anything, eliminate the Overlay District everywhere south of Apple Valley. Still waiting on the Character Area Studies, Zoning Code Rewrite and Overlay Reform promised by mayor and council.

  8. 8

    Easy Rider

    Sorry Polly, I don’t understand your acronyms. I’ll assume VP doesn’t mean own a home anywhere close to Dresden because you might feel differently. The area is unique in that there is excessive side street traffic primarily because Dresden and the access points from P’tree can’t handle the current load. I love the idea of more great restaurants in the area, but we have to balance this with reasonable density. Karen and others are very reasonable.

  9. 9

    Eddie E.

    Now there’s an idea!
    Eliminate the parking decks entirely and there is room for the ‘5th story that has to go’.

    How will the developers react to that idea?

  10. 10

    bldvl89

    I don’t know Cory – is it better to be short sighted to big box development within a specially created district (the Overlay), that was dropped in after the fact on existing n’hoods, supported only by a two-lane road, that have been around for 60-70 years, or to be completely effing blind to the volume of traffic that has spiked around those n’hoods since 2013 and overwhelmed said two-lane road, without even considering the extra 7,500 car trips/day contemplated by the addition of 485 parking spaces from this project, 2069 from MARTA, and the 300+ Terwilliger was once looking for?

  11. 11

    Call me Short Sighted

    From a working women’s perspective – So I don’t need a car to get my kids from school when I get the call that they are sick and I am at work or for them to participate in extra curriculum activities, how about getting my 20 bags of groceries home, how about it’s Georgia and the summers are brutal to walk in most of the time , how about time management for those of us that can’t work from home and have families. Life is busy and days seem shorter. I’ll keep my car and drive it everyday. Biking and walking are leisure things to many of us and not a practical mode of transportation in this area.

  12. 12

    bldvl89

    PTA – if you want high density living, you should move down the street to Buckhead – plenty of 30 story, 200+ unit condo towers walkable to Lenox Mall. The density of Village Park Place and Village Park Brookhaven – not sure which of the two places you live – is 8.8 units/acre and 12 units/acre.

    Excepting @1377 and Rosewood (which everyone pans as DeKalb County mistakes), there’s nothing “denser” than 18 units/acre along any part of the Overlay running along Dresden. After all, these are neighborhoods of single family homes – not high-density Buckhead style towers or big box buildings that you apparently crave, and which the current infrastructure – designed for n’hoods of single family homes (imagine that) – cannot support.

  13. 13

    Polly Tanner-Adams

    VP is Village Place. I love it. We displaced people to live here. Most of us. Hypocrites.

  14. 14

    Mike

    Great article! This is an easy decision for the PC and council. The citizens that have worked so hard on this have proven their case. Anything but no to this development is irresponsible.
    I find it laughable that the dialog is now being presented as if great changes have been made. The truth is that it is still comprised of mostly unwanted apartments, and the density has not been reduced. They started with 57 units, where told no more than 45 by the previous city staff director and an old Dekalb ruling, citizens support and have shown justified expectations of 30 yet the new plan shows 48 and adds the 5th story on Dresden. They were denied at 45 what moron is going to approve 48 and an additional story?

  15. 15

    Saul

    All I have to say is that our D1 councilman and our D1 Citizen SS would NEVER let something as divisive as this happen in sacred D1. Dresden Drive thank you for the future revenue. You’ll make up for the revenue losses we experience in CHOA and Woodcliff. The more stories in future Dresden Drive developments the revenue better.

  16. 16

    Thomas Porter

    Brilliant article, thanks Karen et al.

  17. 17

    Mayer

    My dearest Karen remember there were 3 houses on Caldwell and we voted to bring Alden place in our neighborhood what would have happened if we said, no,no,no to everything.
    The Mayer

  18. 18

    DUH

    She would have bought a different home somewhere else in the area.

  19. 19

    Bob Sorrentino

    From what I’m hearing it is not no, no no. It’s just no to more than 30 unit/acre. The homes around Alden Place are around 4 unit/acre. I’m pretty sure the developer would hear yes yes yes to that density. Instead 12x the Alden Place density is being requested. Clearly more density is warrented but lets come back to earth.

Comments are closed.