An apartment developer (yep, that's his speciality) who had his bit to convert an office building to apartments is on the rampage. He now contends that unless he is allowed to build apartments in Dunwoody, Dunwoody is doomed. Outside of dubious cancer meds, do terroristic fear tactics really work to sell your product or service? Or is this just a last ditch effort to cash in on Dunwoody?
The argument is odd. Not that long ago an office building was so unused that he wanted to turn it into apartments but now, with all the office space around perimeter he contends there must be massive rental properties built for all the up and coming young professionals. And he is just the man to do it. But this doesn't seem to align with our new, post-pandemic reality. We learned that we can work very effectively when away from the office with some corporations (e.g., a major insurance company) finding that productivity (and hence profits) went up. Mentally ossified Boomers are already out the door and the millennials filling their places are managerial style that is less place-and-face centric. Getting work done away from the office is not going away. And this means two things: no commute; and no need for right-by-the-office living. Of course the latter never made sense for two-income households, something your average developer never addresses and it is why you haven't heard so much about live-work-play lately.
What is also missing from this is a sense of history. Dunwoody (as in the City of) was sold to voters on a platform whose major plank was stopping the rampant development of apartments. Now one might look at High Street and conclude "promise made, made to be broken" but at least one of the current pols holding office was active in the sales pitch. Voters gave the thumbs-up because they had been convinced that as a city there would be significantly greater restriction on the imminent destruction of Dunwoody's character as a suburban edge-city.
Let's see if our pols intend to keep the commitment.
Posts
