Atlanta had the largest urban area growth. (Marietta, Alpharetta: sales, employment)

[Newsboy]

More than 1 million people / 683 sq miles = 1,495 density

I know it's apples and oranges and bananas but it could be worse.

And stop with the "80 mile commute" nonsense! Even if you could produce somebody -- ANYBODY! -- who does that, it's 1 in a million ... AND IT IS THEIR CHOICE! The government cannot force people to live where they work and work where they live!

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I have much more faith in the invisible hand than I do Atlanta's legislative leadership.

The hand at work is very much visible, and it's typically more than one. They tend to be slightly wrinkled with emerging liver spots.

The Top Ten Influences on the American Metropolis of the Past 50 Years

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

And stop with the "80 mile commute" nonsense! Even if you could produce somebody -- ANYBODY! -- who does that, it's 1 in a million

I don't think you realize he's talking about an 80-mile ROUND TRIP commute, not one way. Tons of people do that in metro Atlanta.

... AND IT IS THEIR CHOICE! The government cannot force people to live where they work and work where they live!

No, but the government also doesn't have to disproportionately subsidize that way of life either, which it has done for the past 50 years.

So "force"? No. Heavily influence via policy decisions? Absolutely.

[back2dc]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

In-town: Basically anything inside I-285

Suburbs: Suburbs outside Atlanta city limits inside I-285, on out to the exurbs, which in a way are very low density suburbs or closely located satellite cities with enough connection to nearby suburbs.

Exurbs: Very low density suburban areas with just enough development to have slightly more of a suburban flare than a rural flare.

With that said:

Exurbs ( very low density-satellite cities excluded)

Ball Ground, Free Home, Lathemtown, Macedonia, Coal Mountain, Matt, Braselton, Carl, Euharlee, Taylorsville, Cartersville (satellite city), Locust Grove, Hampton, Senoia, Madras, Griffin (satellite city), Villa Rica, Temple, New Georgia, Winston, Fairplay, Emerson, Milton (parts)

Outer Suburbs (mostly low to moderate density)

Canton, Holly Springs, Milton (parts), Cumming, Buford, Sugar Hill, Dacula, Loganville, Grayson, Covington, Oxford, Porterdale, McDonough, Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Newnan, Sharpsburg, Tyrone, Dallas, Hiram,

Middle Suburbs (mostly moderate density)

Woodstock, Acworth, Kennesaw, Alpharetta, Roswell, John's Creek, East Cobb, (parts) Suwanee, Duluth, Lawrenceville, Snellville, Centerville, Conyers, Lithonia, Stockbridge, Morrow, Fairburn, Union City, Powder Springs, Austell

OTP Inner Suburbs (mostly moderate to high density)

Marietta, Mableton, Smyrna, East Cobb (parts), Sandy Springs (part), Dunwoody, Peachtree Corners, Norcross, Lilburn, Stone Mountain, Clarkston, Lake City, Forest Park, Riverdale, College Park (part)

ITP Inner Suburbs (mostly moderate to high density)

Vinings, Chamblee, Doraville, Brookhaven, Decatur, Hapeville, East Point, College Park (part), Sandy Springs (part)

NONE of those suburbs comes close to being HIGH DENSITY. High Density is a term reserved for central cities. Central and Mid-City Los Angeles is high density. Manhattan is high density. San Francisco is high density. Vinings, Marietta, Doraville, East Cobb, Stone Mountain, etc. -- are not high density as you claimed. They are not even moderate density.

Newark (NJ) is moderate density. Georgetown (DC) is moderate density. Long Beach (CA) is moderate density. South Beach (Miami) is moderate density.

Why would you list those suburbs of Atlanta as high density when they aren't even moderate density? And people wonder why no one takes Atlanta seriously.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by back2dc

NONE of those suburbs comes close to being HIGH DENSITY. High Density is a term reserved for central cities. Los Angeles is high density. Manhattan is high density. San Francisco is high density. Vinings, Marietta, Doraville, East Cobb, Stone Mountain, etc. -- are not high density as you claimed. They are not even moderate density.

Newark (NJ) is moderate density. Georgetown (DC) is moderate density. Long Beach (CA) is moderate density. South Beach (Miami) is moderate density.

Why would you list those suburbs of Atlanta as high density when they aren't even moderate density? And people wonder why no one takes Atlanta seriously.

you're working off a totally different scale here, you're listing places that have 10,000+ people per square mile as "moderate density"— that's absurd! there are only a handful of places in the entire united states that have population densities above 10,000 per square mile, and anybody except someone who was used to living in hong kong would call them all "high density".

of course if you're comparing everywhere to manhattan, it's all going to look low density. look at the population density versus downtown, be reasonable:

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

decatur, marietta, norcross, etc. are all relatively high-density in comparison to atlanta. hell, the census bureau calls anywhere with a density more than 1,000 per square mile "urban".

[JPD]

Originally Posted by back2dc

NONE of those suburbs comes close to being HIGH DENSITY. High Density is a term reserved for central cities. Central and Mid-City Los Angeles is high density. Manhattan is high density. San Francisco is high density. Vinings, Marietta, Doraville, East Cobb, Stone Mountain, etc. -- are not high density as you claimed. They are not even moderate density.

Newark (NJ) is moderate density. Georgetown (DC) is moderate density. Long Beach (CA) is moderate density. South Beach (Miami) is moderate density.

Why would you list those suburbs of Atlanta as high density when they aren't even moderate density? And people wonder why no one takes Atlanta seriously.

They obviously meant "high density" relative to metro Atlanta.


Duh.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by back2dc

NONE of those suburbs comes close to being HIGH DENSITY. High Density is a term reserved for central cities. Central and Mid-City Los Angeles is high density. Manhattan is high density. San Francisco is high density. Vinings, Marietta, Doraville, East Cobb, Stone Mountain, etc. -- are not high density as you claimed. They are not even moderate density.

Newark (NJ) is moderate density. Georgetown (DC) is moderate density. Long Beach (CA) is moderate density. South Beach (Miami) is moderate density.

Why would you list those suburbs of Atlanta as high density when they aren't even moderate density? And people wonder why no one takes Atlanta seriously.

That's the funny thing that's begging the question, a loaded statement or assuming the initial point fallacy. 1. It assume people who like Atlanta, care about the opinions of people who don't, it also assumes that people generally dislike Atlanta and agree with you. As well as all criticism is justification with facts. Like you said about the belt line project, "there are a bunch of sycophants on this board who ooh and ahh over the silliest things like a bike trail being built (the Beltline) as major progress." When you don't even know what the Atlanta beltline project is..... You just want to bashed........ funny. Here's a few question.

Who goes out there way to even bash a city? Even if I dislike a place I would never waist my life doing that.

Who believes that everyone has the same view of a city? You don't like Atlanta.. Ok, other will.

Why would some one who likes Atlanta care if someone else dislike the place? Some might like Atlanta for the same subjectively reasons you hate it.

And Also I hate to bust your bubble but, Atlanta is one of the top most populated or dense regions under 2,000 sq mi. Top 12.

ATL 5 core counties (3,365,297) 1,731 sq mi
Seattle MSA (3,439,809) 5,894 sq. mi.
Minneapolis MSA (3,317,308) 6,364 sq mi.
Pittsburgh MSA (2,356,285) 5,706 sq mi

You can added up your self.

Fulton (920,581) 534.61 sq mi
Gwinnett (805,321) 436.72 sq mi
DeKalb (691,893) 270.91 sq mi
Cobb (688,078) 344.51 sq mi
Clayton (259,424) 144.28 sq mi

ATL 5 core counties (3,365,297) 1,731 sq mi

[brownhornet]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

You're not exactly making an apples to apples comparison. My problem with people having 80 mile commutes isn't about where or how they live (it's a free country, do what you want) but rather that 40 mile distance between work and home as well as the related infrastructure we all need to live like grocery stores that has people joined at their automobile.

Why? It's because in the time it takes a person to make that hypothetical commute I can do all of the following on a typical day before they even get to their door step:

-Leave my office
-Pick up dinner
-Eat dinner and spend time chatting with family or friends
-Walk the 1 block to the gym i go

If that sounds like an extremely example, a very large amount of people take that much time out of their day every day just to get to and from where they live. That to me is a serious degradation of quality of life.

Also, be clear I'm talking against the exurban experience and NOT an urban living experience versus a suburban living experience. Traditional suburban living isn't as bad as a lot of urbanphiles make it out to be, and many of the same lifestyle choices you can find in any big city can be duplicated in any close in suburb (unfortunately, a lot of people have their hip firmly attached to their car when they don't need to in those situations). I would never live OTP, but that's based on a personal choice rather than a hate for OTP.

Spare me the "telling people how to live", "trendy city living", and "living in a shoebox" (my condo now is bigger than the house I grew up in) pseudo arguments.

Exurban living is unsustainable over the long run. All the data suggests it and before people realize it, they wont be able to do it any more.

Never made sense to me either. There's no way on earth I'd be working down town but living in Athens or near lake Lanier...it just doesn't make sense. Who actually wants to spend 3 or 4 hours of their day in a car everyday? I don't knock anyone that does it but it would most definitely NEVER be me. I can walk to work, to the grocery store, the gym and about 20 restaurants and I don't even live ITP. Wouldn't have it any other way.

[johnatl]

Originally Posted by back2dc

Why would you list those suburbs of Atlanta as high density when they aren't even moderate density? And people wonder why no one takes Atlanta seriously.

There are census tracts in Roswell that are over 11,000 people per sq mile. That is density, whether you want to belive so or not.

As far as being taken seriously, look in the mirror buddy.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

That's the funny thing that's begging the question, a loaded statement or assuming the initial point fallacy. 1. It assume people who like Atlanta, care about the opinions of people who don't, it also assumes that people generally dislike Atlanta and agree with you. As well as all criticism is justification with facts. Like you said about the belt line project, "there are a bunch of sycophants on this board who ooh and ahh over the silliest things like a bike trail being built (the Beltline) as major progress." When you don't even know what the Atlanta beltline project is..... You just want to bashed........ funny. Here's a few question.

Who goes out there way to even bash a city? Even if I dislike a place I would never waist my life doing that.

Who believes that everyone has the same view of a city? You don't like Atlanta.. Ok, other will.

Why would some one who likes Atlanta care if someone else dislike the place? Some might like Atlanta for the same subjectively reasons you hate it.

And Also I hate to bust your bubble but, Atlanta is one of the top most populated or dense regions under 2,000 sq mi. Top 12.

ATL 5 core counties (3,365,297) 1,731 sq mi
Seattle MSA (3,439,809) 5,894 sq. mi.
Minneapolis MSA (3,317,308) 6,364 sq mi.
Pittsburgh MSA (2,356,285) 5,706 sq mi

You can added up your self.

Fulton (920,581) 534.61 sq mi
Gwinnett (805,321) 436.72 sq mi
DeKalb (691,893) 270.91 sq mi
Cobb (688,078) 344.51 sq mi
Clayton (259,424) 144.28 sq mi

ATL 5 core counties (3,365,297) 1,731 sq mi

Of course, the huge difference is a function of a classic "apples and oranges" comparison. As with all statistics, it all depends on what you are looking at.

For the counties in the Minneapolis/St. Paul MSA, for example, you have a lot of outside counties which are mostly farmland with only some edge communities being part of the metro. That's even true of most of the core except for the two main counties of the Twin Cities:

Hennepin (1,152,425) 606.38 sq mi
Ramsey (508,640) 170.13 sq m

As you can see, the first (Hennepin, where Minneapolis and many suburbs reside) is quite comparable in density to Fulton County, and the second is denser than any of the core 5 in the Atlanta metro.

If I picked a comparable core 5 for the Twin Cities as you have for Atlanta, you would see the following:

Hennepin (1,152,425) 606.38 sq mi
Anoka (330,844) 446.26 sq m
Ramsey (508,640) 170.13 sq m
Dakota (398,552) 586.33 sq mi
Washington (238,136) 423.16 sq m

Twin Cities 5 core counties (2,628,597) 2232.26 sq mi

ATL 5 core counties (3,365,297) 1,731 sq mi

Atlanta is somewhat denser, yes, mostly due to the five close-in counties being largely developed (that isn't true of the Twin Cities as you can ), but it isn't as comparatively dense as you show it to be above.