Atlanta's Size (Dunwoody, Duluth, Newnan: house, neighborhoods, construction)

[bryantm3]

the only reason i think people are discussing annexation is that it's just so damned hard to get anything done around here, you've got a completely balkanized region that leads to nothing but inaction. i'm not just talking about transportation, i'm talking about anything the region tries to do as a whole— housing, solving the homeless problem, taxes, parks, police— anything that impacts our entire region as a whole has every government entity out there throwing their hands up and saying "not my problem!".

when it comes to the city of atlanta annexing any nearby community, that's my main concern, it just makes things easier to get done.

[Galounger]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

the only reason i think people are discussing annexation is that it's just so damned hard to get anything done around here, you've got a completely balkanized region that leads to nothing but inaction. i'm not just talking about transportation, i'm talking about anything the region tries to do as a whole— housing, solving the homeless problem, taxes, parks, police— anything that impacts our entire region as a whole has every government entity out there throwing their hands up and saying "not my problem!".

when it comes to the city of atlanta annexing any nearby community, that's my main concern, it just makes things easier to get done.

True. Cities in Texas for instance have a much easier time passing resolutions and raising revenue because they have larger city limits.

[Galounger]

Originally Posted by DirtySouth

I Think That Atlanta has a Large City vibe to it, but it is really only 131+ square miles. Even When In Atlanta or the interstates it seems like a big city which is great. The Only key factor i believe Atlanta is missing is the Large Size. If Atlanta was Larger it would be a quite Triumphant city! A reasonable way to increase the size and population is Atlanta to consolidate with Fulton County like other Georgia cities including Macon, Augusta, Athens, and Columbus. Or maybe Atlanta can Annex with neighboring cities/suburbs like Sandy Springs , College Park, Roswell, Johns Creek, Alpharetta ,Marietta ,Smyrna or others. What Do You Guys think.

Not gonna happen. Alot of people and leaders in those cities highlighted above for different reasons hate Atlanta and don't want to be part of it. The political leaders of Atlanta would lose a lot of power if they annexed in those areas so they aren't that interested in doing so either.

[Galounger]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

It would feel more like a big city if it had a dense core. Densify the central 10-15 square miles. As someone else said, Manhattan and San Francisco, some of the country's most dense city/areas has a small land size, yet they feel massive when you're actually in them.

It doesn't need to annex more land. What good would that do other then arbitrarily increase the city's population because of more land. Atlanta would just become another Houston or Jacksonville.

Build up it's core first, then let's talk about plans to annex more land around the city.

Far far easier said than done for a city like Atlanta. The city of Atlanta mostly attracts corporate employers who have administrative and service jobs and many of those jobs often can be located in the suburbs instead.

Manhattan and SF have Seaports located right downtown. This in itself is a major employer and attracts many industry, warehousing and distribution jobs. Atlanta does not have a Sea Port.


Manhattan's metro is limited from growth to the East by the Atlantic Ocean, SF,s metro from growth to the West by the Pacific Ocean. Atlanta does not have an Ocean.

San Fransisco once again has the Pacific Coast and the Bay. Manhattan has the NY harbor and two large rivers. This provides miles and miles of attractive waterfront property. Where ever you have urban waterfront property you tend to have people clamoring to squeeze into this property which is extremely popular with many urbanites. Like stated earlier Atlanta has no waterfronts.

So while it's true Atlanta can become denser it can't in the same way these cities did. Both became very dense because in an age of very limited transportation means Employers tried to locate their jobs as close as possible to the Harbor and people tried to locate their homes as close as possible to the jobs. Manhattan was actually even more crowded than it is now once. But when the subway came along and made traveling a lot easier people felt comfortable living further from the Manhattan jobs out in Brooklyn or Queens or up in the Bronx.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Galounger

Far far easier said than done for a city like Atlanta. The city of Atlanta mostly attracts corporate employers who have administrative and service jobs and many of those jobs often can be located in the suburbs instead.

Manhattan and SF have Seaports located right downtown. This in itself is a major employer and attracts many industry, warehousing and distribution jobs. Atlanta does not have a Sea Port.


Manhattan's metro is limited from growth to the East by the Atlantic Ocean, SF,s metro from growth to the West by the Pacific Ocean. Atlanta does not have an Ocean.

San Fransisco once again has the Pacific Coast and the Bay. Manhattan has the NY harbor and two large rivers. This provides miles and miles of attractive waterfront property. Where ever you have urban waterfront property you tend to have people clamoring to squeeze into this property which is extremely popular with many urbanites. Like stated earlier Atlanta has no waterfronts.

So while it's true Atlanta can become denser it can't in the same way these cities did. Both became very dense because in an age of very limited transportation means Employers tried to locate their jobs as close as possible to the Harbor and people tried to locate their homes as close as possible to the jobs. Manhattan was actually even more crowded than it is now once. But when the subway came along and made traveling a lot easier people felt comfortable living further from the Manhattan jobs out in Brooklyn or Queens or up in the Bronx.

Makes sense and I understand where you and others are coming from when people are referring to cities being geographically bounded, but this doesn't mean a dense core isn't possible....look at cities like Mexico City, Beijing, and Paris. Very dense metropolis that are NOT bounded by bodies of water...they aren't even near lakes or rivers.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Makes sense and I understand where you and others are coming from when people are referring to cities being geographically bounded, but this doesn't mean a dense core isn't possible....look at cities like Mexico City, Beijing, and Paris. Very dense metropolis that are NOT bounded by bodies of water...they aren't even near lakes or rivers.

There's a pretty big river running through the cultural heart, and historically the governmental and business heart, of Paris. The Seine. Paris grew up on its banks.

Mexico City, while not being constrained by a body of water, is constrained by a substantial mountain range.

And, Beijing has been around for gillion years, so I'm not sure that is a good comparison.

That having been said, your point that a city should be able to have a dense core even without natural constraints is one well taken. I think were Atlanta to have begun it's growth and development today, it's city leaders would have taken lessons from the other sunbelt cities and would have chosen to encourage urban density to a greater degree. But, alas, the lure of much less expensive real estate and the convenience of the auto would still have encouraged suburban growth. There is only so much a city can do to dictate its growth - particularly true when there is land spreading around in all directions for miles and miles and miles.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Makes sense and I understand where you and others are coming from when people are referring to cities being geographically bounded, but this doesn't mean a dense core isn't possible....look at cities like Mexico City, Beijing, and Paris. Very dense metropolis that are NOT bounded by bodies of water...they aren't even near lakes or rivers.

Paris does have the river Seine running through it. It's a very old city with a tight inner grid. Laid out long before cars and even mass transit.

Beijing is also a very old city. And it does have natural boundaries to its west. And Mexico City is also an old city with natural boundaries too.

And all three are bigger in population than Atlanta. But it's better to look at Atlanta from an American perspective.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

the only reason i think people are discussing annexation is that it's just so damned hard to get anything done around here, you've got a completely balkanized region that leads to nothing but inaction. i'm not just talking about transportation, i'm talking about anything the region tries to do as a whole— housing, solving the homeless problem, taxes, parks, police— anything that impacts our entire region as a whole has every government entity out there throwing their hands up and saying "not my problem!".

when it comes to the city of atlanta annexing any nearby community, that's my main concern, it just makes things easier to get done.

We need more regional cooperation, but I cannot imagine how annexing more territory into the city of Atlanta would address that. The city of Atlanta is hardly known for efficient, transparent or progressive government.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

That having been said, your point that a city should be able to have a dense core even without natural constraints is one well taken. I think were Atlanta to have begun it's growth and development today, it's city leaders would have taken lessons from the other sunbelt cities and would have chosen to encourage urban density to a greater degree. But, alas, the lure of much less expensive real estate and the convenience of the auto would still have encouraged suburban growth. There is only so much a city can do to dictate its growth - particularly true when there is land spreading around in all directions for miles and miles and miles.

I think the pressure of lowering costs would kick it pretty quick. The allure of cheaper land further out would out weigh the benefits of being closer in. Economics dictated early "dense" growth patterns. And if Atlanta was losing business and growth to other regions due to artificial boundaries, I think we'd revert to something similar to what we have now pretty quick.

[Ant131531]

I guess people are fine with paying 100 dollars in gas a week just to get from and to work.