Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Urban Land Institute panel urges long-term, community-led plan for 401 Walton Way

2677033 · March 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An Urban Land Institute technical assistance panel presented recommendations to Augusta commissioners on using the city-owned 401 Walton Way site as a catalytic, community-centered development, emphasizing process, partnerships and near-term placemaking while cautioning about market limits.

An Urban Land Institute (ULI) technical assistance panel presented its findings to the Augusta City Commission on March 18, urging a long-term, community-driven approach to redevelop the city-owned parcel at 401 Walton Way.

The panel’s chair, Jonathan Gelber, summarized the study: “How can we best leverage this asset to make some economic impact on that downtown and East Augusta area?” The panel recommended a two-track strategy: intensive community engagement and a durable partnership model to support a long-term, catalytic vision, paired with short-term placemaking to return the site to community use while planning continues.

The nut graf: The site — a former city jail demolished in 2022 — sits at the intersection of multiple neighborhoods and the Riverwalk, giving it strategic value but also exposing it to market constraints. Panelists said the city should not expect immediate, large-scale retail or commercial market responses without public intervention, and should prioritize a process that builds community consensus and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Panelists walked commissioners through the site analysis and stakeholder outreach. Audra Cunningham, who led stakeholder interviews, said participants raised concerns about food access, affordable housing, traffic speeds, perceptions of crime and environmental uncertainty. “We heard about the deep passion for the site, and a lot of concern about what we would do and what would happen next for the site,” Cunningham said.

Market analyst Jonathan Gelber and other panel members emphasized market realities: the study area has low household and job density and limited near-term private development interest, factors that make mainstream retail and large commercial projects difficult without incentives or public partnerships. “If there's not a lot of demand and development activity going on here, you can squeeze all day long and not get anything,” Gelber said, adding that public subsidies, targeted incentives or steps to change market dynamics would be required to attract desired uses.

The panel recommended two principal, parallel efforts: (1) a formal process led by unified city leadership to define goals, remove regulatory friction and identify incentives and partners; and (2) robust, sustained community engagement that reaches residents who are not typical participants in municipal public meetings. Sarah Patnaude (housing and community development specialist) told commissioners the effort must “define your goals along with the community” and then prioritize actions consistent with market realities.

On uses, the panel said the site should be treated as a district rather than as a single parcel. Long-term options include a community-centered hub that mixes workforce, education and business supports; near-term options include temporary, low-cost programming (pop-up markets, outdoor recreation and small-scale community events) to signal activity and change perceptions. The panel noted the parcel’s inclusion in a federal Opportunity Zone, a limited incentive window that currently runs through Dec. 31, 2026.

Commissioners asked for a succinct summary of recommendations and requested that staff circulate the panel’s report to the full governing body. Lance Morsell of ULI said the panel would provide a condensed set of priorities and the full report to the city.

Ending: Commissioners did not take a formal vote on a specific action at the meeting; the presentation concluded with a staff commitment to distribute the TAP deliverable and follow up on next steps.