Beltline: Here’s why pivotal Murphy Crossing project fell apart

Josh Green

Wed, 02/05/2025 – 12:33

Last month, Beltline officials made a bombshell announcement that a deal was being terminated with Culdesac Inc., an Arizona-based firm known for innovative approaches to infill development, that called for finally redeveloping Murphy Crossing, a 20-acre, formerly industrial site along the Westside Trail. The fallout from that decision was the subject of a recent front-page AJC news story, bringing the subject back to the forefront.

Now that contract negotiations with Culdesac and its Atlanta-based partner Urban Oasis Development have been terminated, according to Beltline officials, the agency is at liberty to tell its side of the Murphy Crossing story.

Slashed home counts, unexplained costs, “ballooned” timelines, and other factors played roles in the Beltline ultimately deciding to move on and seek another development team for the site. It remains “one of the largest and most impactful” slates for redevelopment on the 22-mile multi-use trail loop, and a prime location for car-free living, per a Beltline media statement released today.

The Beltline’s negotiations with Culdesac and Urban Oasis began in September 2022, lending hope that a barren expanse of land and unused buildings might be injected with new life, in the form of commercial space and affordable housing. (The Beltline had canceled plans for Murphy Crossing’s remake with another development team in the summer of 2020, following public concern over that team’s qualifications.) In March last year, the Beltline announced the development pair had officially gotten the Murphy Crossing job.

Murphy Crossing site rendering by Culdesac

The arrangement fell short of expectations, and Beltline leaders on Dec. 30 made what they called a difficult decision in terminating negotiations. The agency was legally prohibited from publicly discussing the behind-the-scenes process, including its numerous complications, while negotiations were still active, per the Beltline’s announcement.

Below are key reasons provided by Dennis Richards Jr., the Beltline’s vice president of housing policy and development, for why he says the deal with Culdesac and Urban Oasis fell apart, according to the agency. The following has been lightly edited for clarity and length:

Throughout the negotiation process, the [Murphy Crossing] project ballooned from an initial two phases up to a total of six phases of development;

The developers reduced the proposed first phase of 310 residential units three times down to a proposed 105 residential units, less than a third of the units initially envisioned;

The developers requested excessive and unreasonable public incentives including, for example, an ambiguous request for $38 million across all phases of the project, which would have been in addition to the discounts and favorable terms on the land, and certain real estate tax incentives that the project could have been eligible for;

The developers requested an increase in the inspection period from an initial 120 days per the initial contract terms to over 280 days;

The developers failed to move forward simultaneously on critical, pre-construction items like rezoning, financing, and other planning activities, which significantly delayed development of the site;

The developers’ repeated requests for extensions of the inspection period had a ripple effect throughout the project’s critical path timeline because they would have required ABI to provide additional extensions and renegotiate critical dates;

ABI offered a compelling incentive package to induce the developers to begin construction of the first phase of the project and to assist with needed infrastructure costs. Despite these attractive incentives, the developers continued to request material changes to the project.

For example, ABI offered the developers nearly a $10 million incentive package for phase one of the project, excluding favorable terms on the land. However, after ABI agreed to provide this generous incentive package, the developers proposed to reduce the residential units they were planning to build in phase one even further from 160 units down to 105 units, while continuing to ask ABI for $12 million in public incentives.

These repeated material changes not only would have further delayed the project, but they would have required ABI to continue altering its contractual terms with the developers; and

The developers were unable to secure sufficient capital to finance the project, but ABI did not immediately terminate its negotiations.

Instead, ABI and its agency partners, Invest Atlanta and the Atlanta Urban Development Corporation, offered generous financing options, grants, and other public monies to the developers to help them get the project started.

However, the developers failed to submit an application to either Invest Atlanta or AUDC to secure any of those funds.

We’ve reached out to Culdesac officials for comment and will update this story with any additional information that comes.

In last week’s AJC story, Culdesac officials said they don’t believe the Beltline had the right to terminate the purchase and sale agreement, while an Urban Oasis leader said his company had fulfilled all contractual obligations and was still ready to execute work on Murphy Crossing. Neither company lent an explanation as to why the Beltline deal had soured.

Murphy Crossing site rendering by Culdesac

Despite the setbacks, Beltline officials say they remain determined to see the redevelopment of Murphy Crossing through.

The Beltline plans to host a virtual Murphy Crossing Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 19, along with a larger meeting sometime in March. The public will be invited to tune in to both meetings for updates on Murphy Crossing, but only committee members will be permitted to ask questions or comment, per Beltline officials.

By the fourth quarter of 2025, Beltline officials plan to fully entitle the Murphy Crossing site, a process that would include a Development of Regional Impact review at the state level. Planning efforts will continue between now and then, per officials.

According to today’s announcement, the Beltline’s goal calls for breaking ground on Murphy Crossing’s first phase in 2026.

What that might look like, clearly, remains to be seen.

The 20-acre property’s scope, bordered by a MARTA line in Southwest Atlanta.Photo by The Sintoses, courtesy of Atlanta BeltLine Inc.

…

Follow us on social media:

Twitter / Facebook/and now: Instagram

• Oakland City news, discussion (Urbanize Atlanta)

Subtitle

Slashed home counts, unexplained costs, “ballooned” timelines played role, per Beltline leaders

Neighborhood

Oakland City

Background Image

An overview of a huge development site next to active rail tracks and a long walking path with many buildings and trees.

Before/After Images

Sponsored Post

Off

Beltline: Here’s why pivotal Murphy Crossing project fell apart

Josh Green

Wed, 02/05/2025 – 12:33

Plans that called for protracted construction timelines, far less housing than initially proposed, and unexplained costs in the tens of millions of dollars are responsible for torpedoing the latest mixed-use revival of Murphy Crossing, one of the most consequential redevelopment sites in the city, according to Atlanta Beltline Inc.Last month, Beltline officials made a bombshell announcement that a deal was being terminated with Culdesac Inc., an Arizona-based firm known for innovative approaches to infill development, that called for finally redeveloping Murphy Crossing, a 20-acre, formerly industrial site along the Westside Trail. The fallout from that decision was the subject of a recent front-page AJC news story, bringing the subject back to the forefront. Now that contract negotiations with Culdesac and its Atlanta-based partner Urban Oasis Development have been terminated, according to Beltline officials, the agency is at liberty to tell its side of the Murphy Crossing story. Slashed home counts, unexplained costs, “ballooned” timelines, and other factors played roles in the Beltline ultimately deciding to move on and seek another development team for the site. It remains “one of the largest and most impactful” slates for redevelopment on the 22-mile multi-use trail loop, and a prime location for car-free living, per a Beltline media statement released today. The Beltline’s negotiations with Culdesac and Urban Oasis began in September 2022, lending hope that a barren expanse of land and unused buildings might be injected with new life, in the form of commercial space and affordable housing. (The Beltline had canceled plans for Murphy Crossing’s remake with another development team in the summer of 2020, following public concern over that team’s qualifications.) In March last year, the Beltline announced the development pair had officially gotten the Murphy Crossing job.

Murphy Crossing site rendering by Culdesac

According to the Beltline, Culdesac and Urban Oasis were responsible for developing a Murphy Crossing masterplan, completing all pre-construction work such as securing entitlements and permits, finding the required financing, and finally, managing construction and development “in a timely, cost-effective manner.”The arrangement fell short of expectations, and Beltline leaders on Dec. 30 made what they called a difficult decision in terminating negotiations. The agency was legally prohibited from publicly discussing the behind-the-scenes process, including its numerous complications, while negotiations were still active, per the Beltline’s announcement. Below are key reasons provided by Dennis Richards Jr., the Beltline’s vice president of housing policy and development, for why he says the deal with Culdesac and Urban Oasis fell apart, according to the agency. The following has been lightly edited for clarity and length: Throughout the negotiation process, the [Murphy Crossing] project ballooned from an initial two phases up to a total of six phases of development;The developers reduced the proposed first phase of 310 residential units three times down to a proposed 105 residential units, less than a third of the units initially envisioned;The developers requested excessive and unreasonable public incentives including, for example, an ambiguous request for $38 million across all phases of the project, which would have been in addition to the discounts and favorable terms on the land, and certain real estate tax incentives that the project could have been eligible for;The developers requested an increase in the inspection period from an initial 120 days per the initial contract terms to over 280 days;The developers failed to move forward simultaneously on critical, pre-construction items like rezoning, financing, and other planning activities, which significantly delayed development of the site; The developers’ repeated requests for extensions of the inspection period had a ripple effect throughout the project’s critical path timeline because they would have required ABI to provide additional extensions and renegotiate critical dates; ABI offered a compelling incentive package to induce the developers to begin construction of the first phase of the project and to assist with needed infrastructure costs. Despite these attractive incentives, the developers continued to request material changes to the project. For example, ABI offered the developers nearly a $10 million incentive package for phase one of the project, excluding favorable terms on the land. However, after ABI agreed to provide this generous incentive package, the developers proposed to reduce the residential units they were planning to build in phase one even further from 160 units down to 105 units, while continuing to ask ABI for $12 million in public incentives. These repeated material changes not only would have further delayed the project, but they would have required ABI to continue altering its contractual terms with the developers; andThe developers were unable to secure sufficient capital to finance the project, but ABI did not immediately terminate its negotiations. Instead, ABI and its agency partners, Invest Atlanta and the Atlanta Urban Development Corporation, offered generous financing options, grants, and other public monies to the developers to help them get the project started. However, the developers failed to submit an application to either Invest Atlanta or AUDC to secure any of those funds.We’ve reached out to Culdesac officials for comment and will update this story with any additional information that comes. In last week’s AJC story, Culdesac officials said they don’t believe the Beltline had the right to terminate the purchase and sale agreement, while an Urban Oasis leader said his company had fulfilled all contractual obligations and was still ready to execute work on Murphy Crossing. Neither company lent an explanation as to why the Beltline deal had soured.

Murphy Crossing site rendering by Culdesac

Despite the setbacks, Beltline officials say they remain determined to see the redevelopment of Murphy Crossing through. The Beltline plans to host a virtual Murphy Crossing Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 19, along with a larger meeting sometime in March. The public will be invited to tune in to both meetings for updates on Murphy Crossing, but only committee members will be permitted to ask questions or comment, per Beltline officials. By the fourth quarter of 2025, Beltline officials plan to fully entitle the Murphy Crossing site, a process that would include a Development of Regional Impact review at the state level. Planning efforts will continue between now and then, per officials. According to today’s announcement, the Beltline’s goal calls for breaking ground on Murphy Crossing’s first phase in 2026. What that might look like, clearly, remains to be seen.

The 20-acre property’s scope, bordered by a MARTA line in Southwest Atlanta.Photo by The Sintoses, courtesy of Atlanta BeltLine Inc.

…Follow us on social media: Twitter / Facebook/and now: Instagram • Oakland City news, discussion (Urbanize Atlanta)