To the Editor:

Thanks, Mr. Editor, for the letter The Crier printed about the Dunwoody “(development)” in the Dec. 26 issue. The previous issue (before the writer’s letter) included a front page article that one could describe as a bellwether of the reality for what seems to be the Community Development and Council vision of city government—an article about the significant condo and apartment input into the “Village” and the jettisoning of the “Village” concept itself. 

 The article, as it read, could suffice for an all-agreed-upon denunciation and rejection of the fundamental vision that started incorporation in the first place.  Our mayor and council—each one of them—rapidly steering their municipal legality into becoming a municipality charade for the area to take its place as the future Buckhead and Tight Squeeze—14th Street) of Atlanta.  Even High Street is billed as High Street Atlanta... the “Village” (or Dunwoody ID) apparently doesn’t fit its Logan’s Run presentation. 

 As with the building called “City Hall”—not a hint of Williamsburg—the founding mantra. The design—and by design—continues to fade.

Uniqueness, that “quality” of Dunwoody, is weakened; traffic is the very least of concerns. Oh, the “Village”…when was that? There won’t be another restaurant “fight” at Mount Vernon and Chamblee-Dunwoody.  Has the Council —effectively—voided the “Village” openly and  in front of voters?  Not a voice noted the erasure: just a few amenable objections and suggestions for sake of Christmas Council “show” and story?  

E.R.Marnell

To the Editor:

It seems that every time you turn around the City of Dunwoody is approving another development for our city. I guess Dunwoody traffic is not bad enough as is.

The latest is a proposed grocery store, bank, gas station and convenience store, five retail buildings and possibly a hotel that would be located on the site where the Brio Tuscan Grille, McCormick and Schmick’s were located, and where P.F. Chang’s remains.

Variances are needed for the project and are scheduled to be considered by the city’s zoning board of appeals on Feb. 7.

If you wonder what about the water detention pond between the buildings and Ashford-Dunwoody Road, you get an indication of how the city of Dunwoody is leaning. According to Community Development Director Richard McLeod, the pond is currently unattractive in such a high-profile spot in Perimeter Center. So you ask what is proposed to replace the pond? A parking lot. A parking lot is more attractive than a pond? You can’t make this stuff up.

Jay Pryor

Editor’s note: The parking submitted in the plan is in the interior of the project, not the streetscapes.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.