Aside from the fact it is worthy of preservation, what would demolishing it accomplish? Perhaps nothing but giving folks an adjacent historical monument to stare at with out seeing the real deal. Pretty stupid, I think.

I would daresay that while there are survivors who would like to see it go, there are probably more who may see it as a “wailing wall” of sorts

Surely the premium for that location could offset the seemingly significant development costs. It is really a great looking building and I think that it adds to the area. But I’m just an ignorant downtown resident and not a RE tycoon so I’m probably missing something.

Now, when my wife and I need to do our big shopping, what do we do? We drive out to the periphery to a Costco, or Kohl’s… (not to Home Depot because that’s on Ponce, albeit in a really bad suburban-jammed-into-urban setting). The trip is usually either to Perimeter Center (15 miles one way) or down to the Mt. Zion area (15 miles the other way) or to Stonecrest (15 miles to the east).

Could we take MARTA out to the periphery? Not realistically. I actually experimented taking MARTA to my job at Delta for a while, and with two buses and two trains to get there, it was over an hour for what is a 10-15 minute car trip. Can’t justify it. (If the Robert Moses-inspired Interstate Highway planners hadn’t rammed expressways through the city center back in the 1960s and 70s there may not have been that much disparity in trip times.)

Now, Sembler is building the Edgewood Retail District on Moreland Ave, less than two miles from us. Although we still will be driving, it will be a 4-mile round trip versus 30. How is this bad on a prima facie basis?

Yes, I can hear the rejoinder– big boxes are ugly; they are architectural blight. To that I say, not necessarily. There is no reason big boxes cannot be built to fit in seamlessly with the urban form — which is what is being attempted both at Edgewood and at the Castlegate site. (And, they tell me, at Lindbergh, although there are “issues” there.) The issue is not size (or else we would be decrying the huge office buildings downtown) — it is urbanism, or the lack thereof.

Let’s look at the most urban example possible. If I move to NYC, do I have to give up my big box discount habit? No I don’t, actually. There’s a Kmart at Astor Place, a Costco in Long Island City (Queens) and all the mall stores I could ask for at Columbus Circle (Time Warner Center). To name just a few.

There’s no reason why large retail spaces have to be a blight on the urban fabric. I find blanket denunciations of them to be a bit simplistic, as well as unrealistic as to the way people — even urban people — actually live.

But I think you completely misunderstood my reference to Post. Yes, earlier Post apartment developments were gated, suburban “garden-style” apartment enclaves. But later in John Williams’ career, he was exposed to the ideas of Andres Duany and other leading “New Urbanists” — as a result, he “got religion” and his later developments were nothing like the old ones. I am speaking of Post Parkside, on 10th Street, and Post Biltmore, on West Peachtree and 8th.

Both of these developments embrace the street and are developed with all of the right urbanistic common elements — street parking, relatively wide sidewalks, street trees, etc. (Additional parking is hidden via interior garages.) I dare you to start at Tech Square (Spring and 5th) and wander through this area to, say The Vortex, and say this isn’t a worthy addition to the city fabric.

What’s more, both of these complexes are mixed use — Biltmore contains a CVG pharmacy on Peachtree (at street level), and Parkside has a popular branch of The Flying Biscuit on the busy Piedmont / 10th corner.

I never was a fan of the RIO mall simply because it shrank back from the street on all sides. That’s an urban no-no in my mind. The nearby mixed-use development between Ponce and North Ave. (can’t remember the name) is a much better fit for the area.

We also apparently disagree on big boxes, but I’ll make that a separate comment.

as to the first comment on this post, there is not a single redeeming cultural quality to post apartment complexes; they are about as valuable as a starbucks or sports utility vehicle. as far as ‘urbanistic’ concerns go, they are a total failure. fencing off parts of the city, ruining pedestrian traffic, and preventing the interaction of citizens of the city are not additions that are appropriate in an urban context. post apartments are turning intown into the suburbs.
an article on rio vs. post:
http://features.sisyphean.com/?word=5