Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2013, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
8,057 posts, read 12,798,537 times
Reputation: 6318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
I generally like Krugman, but I don't think he has spent enough time researching the intricacies of Atlanta before diving into this editorial.

What he failed to mention is as a region we've done alot to zone our suburbs for a diverse strata of socioeconomic classes.

Yet... he is talking about the suburbs as if they only exist for those more well off to move out to. That isn't the case, especially with Atlanta.

In the past 20 years our average commute distance has decreased.

The old model, which is what he assumes in this editorial and the model we use to build out metro by, is that cities have different functions: ie. industry, office, retail, low-income housing, high income housing, etc.. , and we were best off by trying to separate these functions as much as possible.

We saw this and started fixing it a good while back, but the catch is (and my main complaint with the editorial), is it is a two-way street. We aren't just re-integrating multiple uses that moved away back into the city, we are integrating multiple uses into the suburbs themselves. Often placing importance on denser mixed-income options around suburban job centers.

I also believe the study is using to make his point suffers from another problem. There is high amount of uncontrolled coorelation between the high-growth sunbelt cities and the slow growth, denser cities and the types of jobs they have been able to add given the economic conditions in the era the grew in.

In other words, because we grew more in the 90s and 2000s, our jobs are more representative of that type of job/economic environment.

Country-wide in the 90s and 2000s upward mobility started to become a problem and that was the reality that we had to grow around, so I'm not completely sure about the study. Although, I would like to read up on it and see what their methodology was and what all they did control for.

I think our biggest problem, in this respect, is we built half our jobs during an era where upward social mobility we decreasing country-wide.
Watch out Aries, this guy is giving you a run for my favorite poster on the Atlanta thread. Well written, beautifully stated and right on in my book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2013, 08:03 PM
 
421 posts, read 747,080 times
Reputation: 166
What's ironic is that the inner cities/city cores that suppsedly has the most mobility are often too expensive for anyone who isn't wealthy or on government assistance.

Those cities are seeing the great migration to more affordable but often more car dependent cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2013, 08:32 PM
 
16,644 posts, read 29,343,547 times
Reputation: 7572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
Watch out Aries, this guy is giving you a run for my favorite poster on the Atlanta thread. Well written, beautifully stated and right on in my book.

Brother Marks--

cwkimbro is way better than I could ever hope to be...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 12:08 AM
 
3,451 posts, read 3,892,519 times
Reputation: 1675
New York City has the ultimate public transportation system in the nation. Someone in New York City can get anywhere on public transportation. Yet they have so much poverty in New York and apparently so little upward social mobility as Krugman defines it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 03:45 AM
 
Location: East Point
4,790 posts, read 6,832,121 times
Reputation: 4782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeminds View Post
i still don't see how Atlanta is more sprawled than Dallas or Houston. I don't care how the number looks, neither of them actually feel denser and are very spread out and car centric.
well, i've never been to either, but what i've *heard* is that atlanta is both more urban and more suburban than houston or dallas. the urban cores is a lot more like cities in the northeast, but the sprawl that surrounds it is much less dense than houston's or dallas' sprawl. checking out the us census data seems to confirm this theory— many more census tracts exceed 5,000 ppsm in houston and dallas than atlanta— yet at the same time, atlanta has several tracts that exceed 15,000 ppsm in the core, and dallas and houston do not have that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 05:55 AM
 
421 posts, read 747,080 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
well, i've never been to either, but what i've *heard* is that atlanta is both more urban and more suburban than houston or dallas. the urban cores is a lot more like cities in the northeast, but the sprawl that surrounds it is much less dense than houston's or dallas' sprawl. checking out the us census data seems to confirm this theory— many more census tracts exceed 5,000 ppsm in houston and dallas than atlanta— yet at the same time, atlanta has several tracts that exceed 15,000 ppsm in the core, and dallas and houston do not have that.

I've always heard that too. Basically, that Dallas and Houston are more consistent in thier density but not exactly more dense as far actual walkability and sprawl compared to Atlanta and isn't as dense in the core as Atlanta.

Could you link that info please. I'd like to see that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 06:31 AM
 
4,821 posts, read 6,056,341 times
Reputation: 4600


This why I don't take this study series.

1. They keep saying sprawl keeps poverty if that so shouldn't the west be Redder than the south? because it way less dense.

2. Atlanta in just 1,800 sq mi alone has more than Seattle entire metro of 3 million spread across 5,872.35 sq. mi Shouldn't Seattle be redder? Atlanta sprawl more due default of just being bigger.

3. Why does the map strongly match the African American density? That's the clearest pattern not sprawl.

4. They throwing the word segregation... is Greater Minneapolis more integrated or is that Greater Minneapolis is less diverse? If Minneapolis had 1.7 million blacks changes are there will be a lot black dominated areas.

5. Atlanta just came out a beating in a recession does the study even consider this may screw factors?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 06:42 AM
 
4,821 posts, read 6,056,341 times
Reputation: 4600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeminds View Post
I've always heard that too. Basically, that Dallas and Houston are more consistent in thier density but not exactly more dense as far actual walkability and sprawl compared to Atlanta and isn't as dense in the core as Atlanta.

Could you link that info please. I'd like to see that.
Fly around google maps of Atlanta, Houston and DFW.

Atlanta core has smaller home lots and more narrow streets compared to Houston and Dallas.

In contrast Atlanta's suburban home lots are larger with more trees.. Metro Atlanta was built with natural aesthetic in my mind with the forest and hills. When Dallas and Houston have these giant grids that extends into the suburbs. It's not really more urban but it's more organize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,242 posts, read 6,208,578 times
Reputation: 2778
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Fly around google maps of Atlanta, Houston and DFW.

When Dallas and Houston have these giant grids that extends into the suburbs. It's not really more urban but it's more organize.
Some call it organized, others call it mind numbing repetitiveness.

This article seems half-assed btw. Maybe I am thinking of this wrong, but it seems like in Atlanta, the poor are the ones with the best access to transportation. If transit is the key to upward mobility, we should be a hotbed of generational advancement.

Quote:
all such studies find that these days America, which still thinks of itself as the land of opportunity, actually has more of an inherited class system than other advanced nations.
Yeaahhhhh, no. I think in America it is more of an active choice to stay in one's class than they are kept down. There are some (big) issues with our primary education system that can cause what seems to be an inherited class system, yes. But it seems to me that plenty of opportunity and help is available. My experience is that many people in the south actively choose to stay in a class or culture that has no interest in advancement.

Last edited by tikigod311; 07-30-2013 at 07:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Sandy Springs, GA
2,278 posts, read 3,015,834 times
Reputation: 2973
I don't know about "choosing" to stay in a class. It is said that the USA has less economic mobility than most other industrialized nations. Would you not allow for the possibility of the less privileged classes having the ability to recognize that?

Do you 'choose' to stay lower middle class, or do you temper your expectations (and thus your efforts) at trying to land a six-figure sales/CEO job and snag a membership to the Piedmont driving club (et. al.)

I'm not saying that there isn't opportunity.... but when your resources and time are already being mostly spent on simply surviving, sometimes it is more practical to accept that maybe the bird in your hand is worth the three in the bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top