Atlanta is the "Sultan of Sprawl" (Dallas, Clayton: 2013, home)

[Mirabella]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/op..._20130729&_r=0

Interesting editorial about how blacks in Atlanta are at more of a disadvantage obtaining jobs than those in Detroit due to suburban sprawl.

[Freeminds]

I thought the article said poor people?

[cwkimbro]

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.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Freeminds

I thought the article said poor people?

awkward.... lol

To be fair though at the end of the article he brought up Mr. Wilson's argument near the end.

[Mutiny77]

Northern suburbs = jobs rich
Southern suburbs = jobs poor

I'd have to say this constitutes a major reason.

[Freeminds]

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.

[10 feet tall]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Northern suburbs = jobs rich
Southern suburbs = jobs poor

I'd have to say this constitutes a major reason.

Agree. All suburbs are not the same. This wasn't taken into account in all these studies.

Originally Posted by Freeminds

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.

Agree. No significant differences.

[Newsboy]

Dumb article.

POINT: Fayette County, home to the the most "upscale" suburban black neighborhoods, is right next door to Clayton County, home to the poorest. Explain that?

[Iconographer]

So the problem is geography? What is he smoking?

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Dumb article.

POINT: Fayette County, home to the the most "upscale" suburban black neighborhoods, is right next door to Clayton County, home to the poorest. Explain that?

That still doesn't discount the spatial mismatch when it comes to jobs and sprawl. And anomalies don't negate overall trends.