What's So Great About Density? (Atlanta, Vinings: homes, living in, restaurants)

[rzzz]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

I was in Vancouver for a month and the prices were mind boggling. Why is this the case?

Vancouver real estate is expensive because rich Chinese property speculators have been driving up prices since the early 1990s.

Prices of other stuff like food and clothing are higher because it's Canada, with higher taxes.

[berkeleylake]

In addition to liking having their own cars, more people would prefer a single dwelling over that of living in a condo, apartment or townhome. Many people regardless of age, like their space and quiet.

Since Atlanta has no natural physical barriers, the area will probably still continue to spread out until gas costs get more prohibitive. I am doubtful high density living will continue to catch on in this region.

I have visited and lived in high density urban areas and they were generally quite desirable, but also plenty more expensive than Atlanta. I like it personally either way, but many people here seem to "prefer their own space."

[ATLTJL]

Can't you have it both ways, though?

I mean, NY is kind of a unique animal with suburbs that are even pretty high density, but I've never really thought of Chicago and Washington as being dense throughout.

Chicago has plenty of suburbs that are pretty close to Atlanta's, doesn't it? I know Washington does, lots of people live in suburban Washington in towns throughout Virginia and Maryland. How is that so different from suburbs of Atlanta?

I don't understand why we can't have a dense city core as well as the suburbs that we have. If there's no demand, there's no demand...but if there is, I don't understand why the lack of natural barriers prevents us from achieving density. If people want it, they will build it. We've already achieved a bit of a level of artificial density in places like Perimeter Center and the Cumberland area. There's no reason why the people who live there couldn't have expanded much further out, and they ultimately did, but it didn't stop little pockets of density from forming.

I think the bottom line is the demand for this in Atlanta has not yet exceeded the cost of creating it on a large enough scale. Maybe even though a few vocal posters here seem to advocate for density, they represent a small minority. Or maybe they want it, but won't pay for it.

So to the density advocates, I ask this: I know you want this dense city, and I understand what you're saying. When push comes to shove, though, are you able to and are you willing to spend the amount of money that is required to purchase property in such a dense environment? Or to rent there?

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Can't you have it both ways, though?

I mean, NY is kind of a unique animal with suburbs that are even pretty high density, but I've never really thought of Chicago and Washington as being dense throughout.

Having grown up in NJ, I can tell you that there are plenty of suburbs that are similar to the Atlanta suburbs, and there are plenty of people living in them while enduring even longer commutes than what we have in Atlanta. I know plenty of people who live in Pennsylvania and drive 60-70 miles to work in NYC.

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I don't understand why we can't have a dense city core as well as the suburbs that we have. If there's no demand, there's no demand...but if there is, I don't understand why the lack of natural barriers prevents us from achieving density. If people want it, they will build it. We've already achieved a bit of a level of artificial density in places like Perimeter Center and the Cumberland area. There's no reason why the people who live there couldn't have expanded much further out, and they ultimately did, but it didn't stop little pockets of density from forming.

The bolded statement is the key. If there's enough demand for dense, intown living, it will get built. It's also a "chicken or egg" situation, though, as many people won't move to such an area unless is has adequate transportation options, low crime, and great schools, and some of those things won't happen until there's a critical mass to be able to make them happen.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

...but for myself, I HATE. Going to the more dense areas. Charming as Decatur is, I would hate to live there. Same with Buckhead and Marietta Square are much the same. Why? Because there's nowhere to park! I realize ideally we're all supposed to live in these areas, but given that they're some of the most expensive real estate, that's unlikely to happen.

I don't think there's any "supposed to live" anywhere, Roslyn. That is 100% your own personal choice. If you hate the hustle-bustle of Decatur and Marietta that is entirely your own business, and you shouldn't brook any criticism.

The fact is that access to parking is a pretty basic human need. Without it we're stuck in a never-never land of circling around, hoping someone will pull out in reasonable proximity to our destination. Unfortunately, there's no way to gauge if or when that will happen.

For future reference there are parking lots in both Marietta and Decatur. Most of the larger buildings in Buckhead also have parking. But there's no doubt that finding the right spot can be bewildering.

[ATLTJL]

It's also a "chicken or egg" situation

Indeed, you not only have to have enough people who want this kind of living, you also need a high number of urban pioneers. You need people who are willing to go in when things are still rough and fix crime and create great schools at the benefit of having gotten in at a good price point.

When I bought my house in the suburbs, I considered being such an urban pioneer. What stopped me more than anything else was that at that time, nobody could accurately say where the next gentrification would occur. It seemed like everybody everywhere thought their area was going to be the next big thing. Of course, not every area can improve, and places that had seemed to make good headway had petered out.

Maybe with the Beltline project it will be more obvious which areas stand a good chance of improving and be able to draw in urban pioneers.

I know a lot of people who bought places hoping to double and triple their values when their rough area got gentrified, which never happened and their values plummeted instead. I decided to take a more calculated risk where I knew my value would never double, but it would also be less likely to collapse. I also wasn't willing to put up with the headaches of the entire gentrification process while it happened (seems to usually be a slow process with lots of setbacks along the way). Some people are much less risk averse than I am, and they stand to reap much better rewards than I can....of course, they also stand to lose a lot more.

[ATLHRLGUY]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

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.

Did someone say Vancouver?!?! I love that place. Although I haven't been to Quebec City...yet, and having only seen a smidgen of Mexico, (Puerto Vallarta, for a wedding) I can stay with some degree of confidence that outside Dallas and Atlanta, of course Vancouver is by far my favorite North American city. Some things that stuck out to me is how clean downtown was and that biking seems to be heavily promoted. The people I would say are no more or less friendly than any other city, food options are a plenty and it seems everyone is always outside doing something, EVEN during the work week. I got a chance to explore Granville Island, very cool, I could hang out there all day. I also saw english bay beach, explored stanley park (really nice) walked around gastown area, (complete with their own flatiron building),walked along robson street, with the rest of the tourists , and drove up and down granville st, which at night is very lively.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Nope, still a young guy. I advocate letting the free market work. Comparing Atlanta and the way it has formed to other more established cities is ridiculous. Atlanta has developed the way it has for several reasons that differ than the way older cities developed. It is what it is. It isn't wrong. I don't sit around whining about how backwards the city is. The free market and the decisions of millions of people built the city the way it is. The city is infilling which is great for those that want to live there. Developers are building more medium density infill projects and people are moving back to the city. Why did this happen? The people (the market) wanted it and a profit opportunity existed for developers. Will this continue? Likely. Will we ever be like Chicago or other cities that you get wet dreams over? Probably not. That doesn't mean Atlanta isn't a great city that has a ton to offer. You really put an absurd about of value on the density of the city. The slums of Sao Paolo are pretty dense. Nice place, right? Look at the whole picture and open your mind son.

All I'm saying is Atlanta needs more options as far as transportation and it needs a better urban core. I've said over and over again that density does not need to go out towards the outer suburbs. They are suburbs for a reason.

However, the city of Atlanta ITSELF is not nearly as dense as it should be and that transit needs to extend past the inner suburbs or as we like to call it, 'in the perimeter'.

The fact that you can find strip malls < 1 mile outside of Downtown/Midtown is pathetic to me for a metro of it's size. I think it's even pathetic for LA that just half a mile away from downtown LA, you can find a strip mall.

They should have planned Atlanta better.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The fact that you can find strip malls < 1 mile outside of Downtown/Midtown is pathetic to me for a metro of it's size. I think it's even pathetic for LA that just half a mile away from downtown LA, you can find a strip mall.

They should have planned Atlanta better.

I can show you strip malls only a few blocks outside the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City, so they're about 1/2 a mile outside from Manhattan- what does that have to do with anything?

[DaBurgh]

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.

colleges, festivals, tourist attractions, transit, concerts, sporting events, bookstores, cafes, bars, great restaurants, museums, parks, sidewalks..... all a short walk, cab ride, bus ride, train ride, or street car ride away.

I personally can't wait to ditch my car and associated costs (only use when absolutely needed) and walk.