Portland mayor: 'It'll take generations' to fix metro Atlanta's sprawl (Dallas: houses, neighborhoods)

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Hey, Portland mayor: Mind your own business, fugstick.

If you bothered to read the article you'd realize he WAS "minding his own business". He was addressing people in PORTLAND, and one asked him if places like Atlanta and Washington, DC (known for their horrid urban sprawl issues) could replicate Portland. He didn't make it a point to bash Atlanta unprovoked, and if you think Atlanta COULD be overhauled any sooner than "generations", then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[gerrythesnake]

Title should be "it will take generations to fix Portland"

Portland is the armpit of the West Coast

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by gerrythesnake

Title should be "it will take generations to fix Portland"

Portland is the armpit of the West Coast

How so? I've known Portland to be lush, verdant, attractive, clean, transit-friendly, ecologically-conservative, etc. I would think the "Armpit" of the West Coast would be some city in the Inland Empire of California---Bakersfield, perhaps?

[bhammaster]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I've seen this critique before that "rewards" Atlanta's urban sprawl because it has kept housing price in-check and, therefore, has permitted more lower-income minorities and immigrants to thrive. Portland is indeed a rather non-diverse metropolitan area. Guess what? So is my current home of Pittsburgh, and our cost-of-living is on par with Atlanta, if not even a bit less expensive. Pittsburgh has sprawl (even Portland does), but much of our new metropolitan growth in the suburbs is now being built via "Smart Growth" while urban neighborhoods are becoming even denser. Promoting sprawl will not necessarily keep an area "affordable" in the long-term, either. I moved to Pittsburgh from Northern Virginia, which was mile after mile of low-density urban sprawl that was ludicrously-priced.

What do I want to see more of in Atlanta? Atlantic Station-esque developments where people can live, work, shop, play, dine, etc. within walking distance (you know, the way people used to do only a few generations ago before cheap gasoline was all the rage?!) While some on this sub-forum balk at city neighborhoods like Lindbergh I foresee areas like that being "red hot" in about another decade due to their accessibility to transit and proximity to the urban core.

Widening every freeway to 16 lanes isn't going to solve Atlanta's traffic woes if that temporary "easy commute" just encourages another massive wave of further-out urban sprawl to creep up and eventually clog all 16 of those lanes.

I wonder who made this argument in the Atlanta forum? It surely wasn't the guy you quoted, so nice try at taking a shot at Atlanta from another city.

[bhammaster]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

You do realize that residents of MANY other cities admire Portland's commitment to environmental sustainability via its urban growth boundaries, right? You do realize that elected officials in MANY other cities tour Portland to learn more about how to better incorporate cycling infrastructure into their cities, right? You do realize that Portland continues to win many urban planning awards that cities like Atlanta will never win, right?

Who cares? Why not go post on their forum and congratulate them?

[Saintmarks]

The terrain around cities like Pittsburgh and Portland have a HUGE impact on where development can go. Cities like Atlanta and Dallas that are situated on relatively flat (much flatter in Dallas, lol) with no mountain ranges, large bodies of water, major rivers, deserts, swamps, etc, etc, nearby are able to grow in all directions of the compass point. This is one of the reasons these two cities get mentioned in the sprawl debates.

I find it laughable that building freeways in and of itself encourages growth. If that were the case, all a city would have to do to become the next Atlanta is start adding lanes, and VOILA! next major growth city in America! How simple!

There are many factors that cause a region to boom. Booming cities do have headaches that growth in and of itself will bring. I think our fair city has done a rather nice job of managing its growth. The Portland mayor can stay up in his minor league sized city and cast aspersions all day long. For me, I'll stick with Atlanta.

[bhammaster]

Guys, looks like we attracted a troll from another city coming in here to "teach Atlanta a lesson". Like people can't believe anyone could be happy living here that they have to "show us the light" lol.

[Mischief8]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I've seen this critique before that "rewards" Atlanta's urban sprawl because it has kept housing price in-check and, therefore, has permitted more lower-income minorities and immigrants to thrive. Portland is indeed a rather non-diverse metropolitan area. Guess what? So is my current home of Pittsburgh, and our cost-of-living is on par with Atlanta, if not even a bit less expensive. Pittsburgh has sprawl (even Portland does), but much of our new metropolitan growth in the suburbs is now being built via "Smart Growth" while urban neighborhoods are becoming even denser. Promoting sprawl will not necessarily keep an area "affordable" in the long-term, either. I moved to Pittsburgh from Northern Virginia, which was mile after mile of low-density urban sprawl that was ludicrously-priced.

What do I want to see more of in Atlanta? Atlantic Station-esque developments where people can live, work, shop, play, dine, etc. within walking distance (you know, the way people used to do only a few generations ago before cheap gasoline was all the rage?!) While some on this sub-forum balk at city neighborhoods like Lindbergh I foresee areas like that being "red hot" in about another decade due to their accessibility to transit and proximity to the urban core.

Widening every freeway to 16 lanes isn't going to solve Atlanta's traffic woes if that temporary "easy commute" just encourages another massive wave of further-out urban sprawl to creep up and eventually clog all 16 of those lanes.

Not sure on how long it's been since you've visited Atlanta, but there is a great deal of smart growth and urban repopulation going on here. It seems like you're going on hearsay and "telephone game-style word of mouth".

Just because we don't have big splashy headline-grabbing progress doesn't mean we're not making progress. The beautiful thing about cities is that they're living, changing entities.

[gerrythesnake]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

How so? I've known Portland to be lush, verdant, attractive, clean, transit-friendly, ecologically-conservative, etc. I would think the "Armpit" of the West Coast would be some city in the Inland Empire of California---Bakersfield, perhaps?

We do not care about Portland. GO to the Portland forum if you want to talk with them

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by bhammaster

I wonder who made this argument in the Atlanta forum? It surely wasn't the guy you quoted, so nice try at taking a shot at Atlanta from another city.

I didn't single out any individual in particular, by I HAVE heard supporters of urban sprawl cite "keeping housing prices in-check" on numerous occasions to defend themselves. I pointed to Northern Virginia, where the middle-class is by-and-large priced out of buying a home in mile after mile of sprawl, as one fine example as to how urban sprawl doesn't necessarily encourage cheaper housing prices.

Originally Posted by bhammaster

Who cares? Why not go post on their forum and congratulate them?

Maybe I will.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

The terrain around cities like Pittsburgh and Portland have a HUGE impact on where development can go. Cities like Atlanta and Dallas that are situated on relatively flat (much flatter in Dallas, lol) with no mountain ranges, large bodies of water, major rivers, deserts, swamps, etc, etc, nearby are able to grow in all directions of the compass point. This is one of the reasons these two cities get mentioned in the sprawl debates.

I find it laughable that building freeways in and of itself encourages growth. If that were the case, all a city would have to do to become the next Atlanta is start adding lanes, and VOILA! next major growth city in America! How simple!

There are many factors that cause a region to boom. Booming cities do have headaches that growth in and of itself will bring. I think our fair city has done a rather nice job of managing its growth. The Portland mayor can stay up in his minor league sized city and cast aspersions all day long. For me, I'll stick with Atlanta.

The more difficult you make it for exurbanites/suburbanites to commute into town, the more likely they'll be to move closer to work (reducing traffic congestion from further out). Make someone's exurban/suburban commute even smoother, and more will follow to live further out until you once again overwhelm the added capacity of the new lanes on the highway networks.

I've noticed many of you Atlantans (and Texans) have this overwhelming "we're bigger, so we're better" mentality. Bigger doesn't always mean better. I'd take Pittsburgh or Portland anyday over Atlanta.

Originally Posted by bhammaster

Guys, looks like we attracted a troll from another city coming in here to "teach Atlanta a lesson". Like people can't believe anyone could be happy living here that they have to "show us the light" lol.

Why am I troll? One of your own native Atlantans posted this thread, not me. If you only want to bash Portland's sustainability through efficient land use planning while championing Atlanta's unchecked urban sprawl, then be prepared to have someone else play "Devil's Advocate".