#transit oriented development

[raggedclawsscuttling]

The future liberals want

[bethelctpride]

Housing is a queer issue

what's the number one reason someone has to stay somewhere unsafe? Can't afford to live somewhere else.

Queer folks are more likely to experience homelessness, trans folks even more so. And that's likely to set off a cascade of consequences with issues getting a job, accessing health care, and so on.

Wherever you live, show up for Planning & Zoning meetings or write a letter when they're considering higher density housing and especially if they're considering zone changes like Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Those aren't just for big cities!

Show up and say "Yes, I want Those People to live HERE".

Yes, In My Back Yard.

Say yes to infill especially where existing in-town lots with access to services are rezoned to higher density units. The new apartments should go where the sewer line already is, not where it requires running a whole new spur and where everyone is isolated and requires a car to get everywhere.

Say yes to that public housing in the downtown core where people can WALK to all the services they need.

Everyone should have access to safe affordable housing. You won't know who exactly you're helping, but you're helping tear down a barrier for everyone.

[atlantathecity]

This sludgy, slippery sidewalk on Grant Street is the only pedestrian route between King Memorial Station & the apartments completed a couple of years ago as a "transit-oriented development."

Ownership is split among MARTA, Atlanta & CSX. We need those parties to cooperate.

My understanding is that the water comes from the portion that CSX owns (the ground behind the wall, which lies under their freight rail line), it seeps through the tunnel wall that MARTA owns, and lands on the sidewalk the City owns. All three entities will need to cooperate to fix it.

I'm not convinced we can truly call this a transit-oriented development until it becomes a great space for pedestrians.

[atlurbanist]

Our urbanism is not controlled entirely by developers & lenders

This eyesore sits across the street from Lenox MARTA Station and PATH 400, wasting space that could hold transit adjacent development.

This was a Houston's restaurant until about five or six years ago when it closed.

Unfortunately the only thing that's been proposed for the property is a luxury apartment tower perched atop a parking deck with 458 spaces. (FYI, zero parking is required for this spot because of its proximity to a MARTA station.)

Am I being too picky in expecting the city to find a way to add affordable homes, with a progressively-low amount of parking, near MARTA stations? Even in Buckhead?

Many will say I'm being too picky, and that my ask is unrealistic given the market forces at play. Yes, it's true that if you let the market do whatever it wants, lenders and developers will primarily create luxury apartments with massive parking decks near transit stations in the hotspot neighborhoods.

That's the conservative choice that they will make, based on assumptions that Atlanta is immovably a car-oriented city.

But our urbanism is not entirely at the mercy of lenders and developers. *Anyone who tells you otherwise likely has selfish motives*. (Seriously, look suspiciously at anyone who says we have to just let developers and lenders do what they want, and that we can't influence what they produce.)

We've bent over backwards for all kinds of corporate relocations and sports events. We've reshaped the city in many ways that were harmful or questionable, using public financing tools to make it work. Let's bend over backwards for better urbanism now.

Instead of just being a city that defines success largely by its ability to attract major sports events and corporate headquarters, we can be a city that triumphantly overcomes the damage of car-centric sprawl and development inequity.

We can do it by rebuilding our urban fabric for pedestrian-oriented, affordable density -- and making excellent use of the land near our precious rail investments.

It's not just a "nice to have" dream. I think it's something we need to have, and that we need to all expect from our growth.

[cnu-newurbanism]

Great Idea 19: Transit-oriented development

Transit-oriented development links transportation and land use—providing people with maximum choice in how to get around by intensifying activities near transit nodes with high quality public space. Read more.

[threadatl]

Atlanta seeks developers to build housing, retail, and more in downtown empty parking lots

City leaders are hoping to help spur economic growth in this area, including downtown. Part of the plan includes turning unused parking lots into usable space.

Invest Atlanta is requesting proposals for turning a 1-acre stretch of parking lots next to MARTA’s Garnett Station into affordable & market-rate housing! The property is at 184 Forsyth Street. There is *way* to much underused space (mostly parking) around this Downtown rail station and it's past time for something to happen with it. Mixed-income housing would be a great outcome. The Request for Proposals (RFP) also asks for the project to have "revenue sources other than rent paid by residents (ground floor retail, rooftop urban farm, etc.)" Responses are due March 31, 2023. You can spot Thread ATL's own Matt Garbett in the article/video linked above, talking about why these parking lots are a bad use of this land.

[brandondonnelly]

Microsoft Canada moving to CIBC Square

Today, Microsoft announced that it will be moving its Canadian headquarters from Mississauga to the new CIBC Square development that is currently under construction in downtown Toronto (and rendered above). 

According to RENX, Microsoft will occupy 132,000 square feet across 4 floors in the first tower. Occupancy is scheduled for September 2020.

I love this project. The design architect is WilkinsonEyre. And there’s going to be an elevated one-acre park spanning the rail corridor between the project’s two towers.

But it’s also noteworthy because it is an example of a major suburban tenant deciding to relocate to a transit-oriented urban environment. (I have a post on this somewhere.) 

Image: WilkinsonEyre

[urbangeographies]

EAST MIDTOWN:  Rezoning proposal moves forward

The New York Times (8 August 2017) reports that the City Council is expected soon to give final approval to new zoning regulations for aging East Midtown Manhattan. This area, which includes Grand Central Station, encompasses 78 blocks stretching north-south from 57th to 39th Streets and east-west from Third to Madison Avenues. East Midtown now generates 10 percent of city real estate taxes and has a weekday work force of 250,000. 

The new plan anticipates that 6.5 million square feet of office space will eventually be added to the existing 60 million in East Midtown. Proposals to upzone this area failed under former Mayor Bloomberg, who pushed for redevelopment and greater densities around the city, mainly due to concerns about the limitations on public transit, particularly the overcrowded Lexington (4, 5, 6) lines. 

The plan currently on the table would require developers near subway lines to pay for station improvements, while a “public realm improvement fund” raised by the sale of air rights over a dozen historic landmark buildings in the area would finance enhancements to streetscapes and public space. This plan accommodates diverse and often conflicting political, real estate, religious and preservationist interests. 

In political terms, the plan seems likely to be approved. It has the de Blasio administration’s blessing, The Times also supports it, “since new office towers will rise in that part of town, improving its chances of competing with other world cities and even with emerging commercial centers at Manhattan’s southern tip and on its Far West Side.” The “growth machine” clearly wants more real-estate development and the associated benefits. In fact, we cannot expect the area to remain frozen in time and this plan seems like a reasonable blueprint for moderate growth in a vitally important part of NYC.

Personally, as a resident of this area, I remain concerned about the implications for public transit, given preexisting problems with the aging and already overcrowded subway system. Much will depend on how effectively the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), controlled by the state rather than the city of New York, can resolve the current, well documented transit crisis. The transit link remains essential for further development of this crowded area.

 Source:  The New York Times (8 August 2017)