Vickers Village Looks Like Good Urbanism to Me
Monday, March 9, 2015 at 10:27PM There's been a lot of buzz about the plans for the old Vickers Automotive building and the surrounding properties at the corner of Woodstock Rd and Canton St. The developer, Miller Lowry, has updated the plans once ahead of the first official neighborhood meeting last week and I would think more updates are coming given some of the neighborhood responses on the NUR facebook page. Most of the objection centers around the scale of the building along Woodstock Rd and it being too tall. There have been several positive comments on the section fronting Canton Street.
Here's my take on key areas of the project:
Walkability (A)- The fact that this is mixed-use with restaurant/retail on the first floor and residential (owner occupied) above is fantastic. It builds on the blossoming walkability of our neighborhood. The General Theory of Walkability states that a walk must be Useful, Safe, Comfortable & Interesting. I think this one hits on all levels. The last thing you want here is somethign single use such as an office park where 100% of morning and afternoon trips will be by car.
Scale (B) - The building setbacks are very appropriate for the area and it definitely does a good job engaging the sidewalks and the streets. I'm not height averse but I do think the Woodstock Rd section should be terraced back a touch. That said, one thing that height does is create enclosure which automatically tells drivers to slow down as they percieve more friction. Slower, more cautios drivers make for safer roads which in turn improve walkability.
Design (B+) - The renderings look to be high quality and would be notably nicer than the current buildings on the properties. I personally love the look and think it would complement the area well. If everything looked the same, we'd live in a pretty boring place. The only reason I'm not giving this an A is the scale of the building along Woodstock. Also, I'm not in the camp to preserve for preservation's sake. If the new is improving significantly on the old, I'm all for it. As Andres Duany is known to say.. "You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette."
Traffic (B) - I think the traffic fears are a little exaggerated. The retail is pretty light and there are 69 condos planned. First, a lot of car trips will be foregone because of the inherent walkability of the neighborhood. It would be great if the Corner Grocery was actually a "grocery" but maybe sometime it will be. I'm not sure if the road on the west side of the development is still in the plans but it would actually be a huge benefit for those who live on Thompson Pl as they could avoid the left turn onto Canton Street that is a bit of a challenge at times.
Parking (A) - I love that a good deal of the parking for the residential will actually be underground. There is still some surface parking but any effort to kill surface parking is highly desirable. I'm making an assumption here but I'm thinking that if you take a story away from the development, it will kill the below ground parking and will give us more surface parking which would be TERRIBLE for our Historic District. The lack of surface parking eliminates the missing tooth syndrome that so many downtowns suffer from. Think of the parking lot at the intersection of Canton St and Magnolia at Pastis. That intersection would be notably improved if we had frontage instead of a parking lot. Once again, the Vickers Village is doing a lot to improve walkability.
Ultimately, this will be a signature project for the north end of the Historic District and it is important that it be done right. Again, I think it get's a solid B in my book and I'd be happy to see this development right up the street for me.
Here are the most recent renderings from Miller Lowry. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Looking north from Canton St
Looking SW from the Woodstock/Canton intersection
Looking east from Woodstock Rd
Reader Comments (21)
If historic district looks like apartment/condo projects in any suburb of America, we all lose. City Walk apartments were restricted to 3 stories. Vickers Village should be too. Where is the green space?
Waiting to see revised plan. Very disappointed in treatment of neighbors and distain for Roswell Unified Development plan.
Agree with previous post - the Woodstock side would tower over Roswell City Hall.
The trees in the last picture are misleading, there are actually existing houses there today and the plan shows a road and the entrance to a parking garage next to the houses - no room for trees.
Goulding Place is a disaster, degrading to he north side of the Historic District. This was ushered in by a City that does not understand design., but that does understand how to make codes. Codes do not make good urbanism or architecture. Good design that is informed does. You cannot judge by qualifications alone, but by the eye ultimately.
Walkability: A+ on Canton Street. F- on Woodstock Road. A 4 story mas will be 3 feet from the side walk with no green space in between on a very busy road: claustrophobic. Not safe to walk with young children or young children on bikes.
Scale: F- Too tall, too massive, too wide for this intersection. There are one and two story home surrounding this mass. Some cottages built in the 30’s. Size does not “tell drivers to slow down”. If people are in a hurry, they are in a hurry regardless of building height and mass. Ever been in the back of a cab in NYC?
Design: F+ Mr. Oliver addresses this perfectly. I will add it looks like a Post Property.
Traffic: F- It’s naive to think that adding over 600 new automobiles belonging to residents and patrons to this site will not interfere with safety and congestion. Additionally adding a new road will only make cut-through of people trying to avoid this now even more congested area more prevalent.
Now here’s my grading on the meetings so far:
Developer/Community Meeting 3/4/15: Began the night with a B+, ended the night at an F- due to threats by developer.
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting 3/11/15: F- HPC did not even come close to doing their job.
Developer Community Meeting 3/12/15: D- The development team was definitely more composed than on 3/4/15 however did not address communities concerns from the 3/4/15 meeting.
Why does anyone think a mill-style building the size of a Hilton Garden Inn is a fitting structure at the entrance to Historic Roswell-- particularly Upper Canton?
Why did the City put so much time into developing the UDC if they are going to COMPLETELY ignore it?
Why do we have the HPC if they are not going to protect and preserve what is there?
Traffic would get much worse, and the idea of linking Thompson to Woodstock less than a block west of the major intersection at Canton and Woodstock seems like a disaster. If you go look the outline of where the road would enter both streets has been painted - it is one lane each way on Woodstock there, so everything would come to a grinding halt as a west bound car turned left. Everything will clog.
Finally, can these guys actually get something like this built? Do some research folks - they have struggled for 3+ years getting a small (6 or 9 unit, can't tell) building built across from the Atlanta Botanical Garden. It still isn't out of the ground, and people I know who live nearby in midtown are really p*ssed at these guys. The City and residents should strenuously investigate their finances, and their ability to develop a project of this size and scope.
All in all something better at that corner would be an improvement for Roswell, but this is not better. This is a truly minor league effort.
Mike, I generally appreciate your site and observations but you have missed it badly on this one. Is there something we should know about your relationship with the developers?
Love the blog, check it frequently. Best dialogue for what's happening in our community.
Keep up the good work.
1. Vickers might make a "prime Gateway" elsewhere, but not on Upper Canton. The UDC guidelines clearly specify why. So does the Historic Preservation Act. The "immediate neighbors" and the neighborhood character are the top considerations.
2. I am assuming Lowry is comparing this development to Providence which is located at the other end of Canton. I believe it's in a different subarea ("business"). It is also OFF of Canton Street. It is behind single residential structures. This is appropriate according to the UDC guidelines. These developments cannot be compared.
Why was the application even approved and passed along to various city officials and committees? It should have been denied from the beginning.
Upholding the UDC setbacks & buffers, especially right by the Historic District seems like a no-brainer to me
The connecting road behind does seem like a major traffic issue as well, but I'm willing to trust that somebody smarter than me has looked at that part.
Doesn't fit at all.
And, you're right, Brian G; you would think that upholding UDC guidelines in the Historic District would be a no-brainer! Sadly, the HPC does not seem to have "an informed eye" or a backbone at times……
Another cause for concern, 1075 Canton: They are attempting to put a block-shaped 3 story building directly behind an old house that will be fixed up. The block structure should have setbacks or an appropriate roofline. The developer is asking for a variance so that he can have more covered space. We'll see….
And, go to the HPC meetings if you can!!!!