What's So Great About Density? (Atlanta, Marietta: apartment, to rent, condo)

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by Onthemove2014

You either sound old or you are from the country (you are from Alabama right?). That may be why you don't get it or understand the appeal and that's fine.

Density makes living and getting around to different amenities and entertainment easier and more fun. Being able to rely less on driving to everything and sitting in traffic and being able to walk to places and interact with people and art.

It's what makes NYC/Portland etc so fun. There is life around and accessibility and not boring sprawl and endless driving.

If you don't get it I suggest you take a visit to a dense city like Chicago or DC. If you still don't get it then you never will.

I've been to Chicago, D.C. NYC and LA (which Atlanta resembles a lot and I dislike it more than I dislike Atlanta) and while I like Chicago better than Atlanta mainly because of transportation, its density is a major drawback to me.

[rzzz]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

Okay, so I get the environmental impact, costs etc...but for myself, I HATE. Going to the more dense areas. Charming as Decatur is, I would hate to live there. ... Frankly, I never want to go to Decatur or L5P again. Maybe I'm the exception, but being mushed about by large crowds of people lost its appeal to me in my early twenties.

Ha. Decatur is about as dense as Mayberry. I'm not even sure what to say if that is your example of a dense environment, with large crowds. My home town of 2000 people was basically laid out exactly the same as Decatur. That said, parking is indeed a headache, if you consider driving around the block a headache. If you ever muster up the courage to once again brave the teeming hordes in the great metropolis of Decatur, I recommend the courthouse or county parking decks, they almost always have immediately available spaces.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by rzzz

Portland is actually almost the same density as Atlanta throughout the metro. Atlanta's urban core is more dense than Portland's.

Terrible comparison. Take into account that Portland has half the population of Atlanta and you see how it's much denser and walkable.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

Time and time again on these threads I see posters going on and on about density, and frankly I'm confused. Are we advocating density for density's sake, or is there some inherent value in density onto itself? Posters keep referring to other large cities that are totally unlike Atlanta in that they boomed in a different era or there are geographic boundaries. I mean, y'all know I'm no fan of Atlanta. One of my biggest problems with this city is that are are entirely too many people. The only time I really like it here is during holidays when what seems like half the population evacuates! So, to me the idea of all these people packed in on top of each other all but gives me panic attacks. So again, why density? Why is it so desirable? Make your pitch.

Let me spot out a place that only has moderate density and perhaps to spot out some of the problems that exist.

Gwinnett Place Mall.

It was built as a suburban shopping destination in an unincorporated area. The county spent a ton of money creating large arterial roads going to the area and extra bridges over I-85, as well as a larger water and sewer network...all of which costs money.

When the area was full of choice shoppers, before The forum, Mall of Georgia, and The avenue existed the area generated alot of property value and tax revenue just as a retail destination alone. The problem is that bound to be short-lived as long as new retail centers were made.

My thing is if we make the area denser, but also add different uses to the area... ie. more offices, residential buildings, etc... to replace the aging retail structures the tax digest of the are goes up. This is important, because it pays to upkeep the large infrastructure we have placed there and would make the area a nice place to be.

I also want to note... I'm not against low-density residential areas around dense areas. They often need lower amounts of resources, but what I want to see is more dense regional centers spread out, so more people can reach jobs with shorter drives, have the opportunity to have urban/semi-urban living in a -nice- area if they choose to.

The other side to density... There will always be a cap on how many people can drive to an area by car. If you want an area to have 100,000 jobs you need infrastructure to bring in 100,000 people.

It is much more expensive to bring in 100,000 people from low-density areas farther away, than it is to build infrastructure that brings in 50,000 people from low-density areas far away, 35,000 people from medium-density area in adjacent areas, and 15,000 people in a dense area of mixed uses within the jobs center.


When I see Gwinnett Place Mall... I see a sizable infrastructure that has the ability to do much more than it does now. It isn't cheap. But I also an otherwise very ugly area that we had a history of only zoning mostly retail and a few small office developments. I will say NCR is a very good start for the area.


Other ways to add density in a good way... I know your aware of Chamblee.

That little industrial district next to the MARTA station has good bones... streets, transit, etc.. Many of the older industrial companies have moved further out of town to larger buildings. They can create a residential, medium density that can be attractive to singles that want good access to jobs, the city, and want a lower-cost lifestyle as they start their careers. It has the added benefit of allowing more workers to get intown w/o taking up the local road/freeway capacity. As the area continues to grow (it isn't there yet), it will have more shops and cafes people can walk to from home, meet others at, etc... It adds life. It if also a quality of life issue, especially for singles, it is easier to meet new people walking, dining, and shopping in your neighborhood, than driving away to strip malls 5 miles away.

It can also
-Lower total fuel consumption for a large population; lower pollution
-Increase more space for those who want to live in low-density areas, by increasing land availability and road capacity by allowing other people to live different ways
-Make it easier and affordable to make transit actually work well.
-Makes it easier for us to create job centers where we can tell potential employers that want to move in... This area can be reached by a larger pool of workers with a wider margin of skills. They actually map commute times to employment locations and consider those living within a certain commute distance potential employees. This is why South Downtown is doing so poorly. You look where the congestion spots are and map where educated employees live, which is increasingly on the northside, it is hard to get those workers there. So office rents are higher in Buckhead and Midtown than Downtown, much less south downtown.

-Cumberland also benefits from Vinings. It brings in younger choice employees with lower infrastructure needs. There is a symbiotic relationship between quality jobs and quality employees nearby. Granted, I know people will attack that area as not being a urban -walkable- area and auto-centric, but it is denser and people have to drive shorter distances to get to choice jobs.... so its worth looking at.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

I've been to Chicago, D.C. NYC and LA (which Atlanta resembles a lot and I dislike it more than I dislike Atlanta) and while I like Chicago better than Atlanta mainly because of transportation, its density is a major drawback to me.

That transit would not work so well without that density. Dud you not like DC or NYC?

[rzzz]

Originally Posted by Onthemove2014

Terrible comparison. Take into account that Portland has half the population of Atlanta and you see how it's much denser and walkable.

Well I spent 6 weeks in Portland this summer and am relocating there right after Thanksgiving so I'm well aware of the differences. Portland's city population is actually larger than Atlanta's. Most of Portland is about as dense as Inman Park or Kirkwood or neighborhoods like that. I get what you are saying, but ATL actually does have very dense areas, they just aren't being utilized very well.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by rzzz

Well I spent 6 weeks in Portland this summer and am relocating there right after Thanksgiving so I'm well aware of the differences. Portland's city population is actually larger than Atlanta's. Most of Portland is about as dense as Inman Park or Kirkwood or neighborhoods like that. I get what you are saying, but ATL actually does have very dense areas, they just aren't being utilized very well.

My problem is I'm less concerned with city/county/political boundaries and more concerned with where and how people are living and economically interacting together.

Most neighborhoods in Atlanta proper were built the ways neighborhoods were pre 1950's or much earlier, but once you get outside that time frame (largely outside of Atlanta proper) you get a different picture.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

More importantly, you had the people who grew up in this environment starting to reject it. It seems like this is mostly because they feel like they had no sense of community and they grew up bored most of the time because let's face it, until you get a drivers license, there's really no sense of independence for children in the suburbs. They have to rely on their parents to take them pretty much anywhere. So the safety of a private yard and good schools came with a hidden cost: kids had to arrange playdates or play with kids on their street most of the time while kids in the city could walk or take transit to all kinds of places and find a wide variety of kids to play with in any nearby park.

This is what I was saying.

I want my kids to be safe but I would hate for them to grow up like this as I did.

[cqholt]

Most neighborhoods in Atlanta proper were built the ways neighborhoods were pre 1950's or much earlier, but once you get outside that time frame (largely outside of Atlanta proper) you get a different picture.

Those pre-1950's neighborhoods are still mostly single family, but offer mixed zoning. A lot of intown neighborhoods have commercial districts that are an easy walk to. Most suburban neighborhoods are not blocks, but cul-de-sacs and sweeping streets that do not offer easy quick, walking choices. The commercial districts are found along major roads with 1 access point to neighborhoods. Residential construction shifted from being about walking to driving after WW2 when cars and gas became cheap.
Those cities that a lot of people compare Atlanta to, eg: NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco; matured before the car became affordable. Comparing Atlanta to other Sunbelt cities is a better comparison.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by Onthemove2014

That transit would not work so well without that density. Dud you not like DC or NYC?

I didn't like DC though I didn't spend as much time there as I did NYC and Chicago. One dense city I absolutely adore is Vancouver. Were I a younger woman I would emigrate there in a heartbeat. But i think that leaves two questions, all the dense cities I can think of, aside for Chicago, maybe, have an absolutely insane cost of living. I was in Vancouver for a month and the prices were mind boggling. Why is this the case? And how would you avoid such a thing happening here? Further, I'd be willing to live in a yurt with a tin cup to live in Vancouver. Many feel the same way about NYC. Most of those dense and insanely expensive places have qualities that Atlanta currently doesn't have. Vancouver is so beautiful it gave me heart palpitations and NYC is NYC. What does Atlanta have to offer that would offset the inherent cons of living in such an area?