Sprawl Is Good for You (Atlanta, Dallas: construction, subdivision, living)

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by bhammaster
So these numbers indicate that Dallas and Houston are better cities overall then Atlanta for urban walkable living?

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

No. Those numbers simply indicate that their sprawl is a bit more compact than Atlanta's.

That's an excellent point that Dallas' and Houston's sprawl is more compact than Atlanta's sprawl.

Dallas' and Houston's sprawl is more compact than Atlanta's sprawl because Dallas' and Houston's relatively much-flatter and not as heavily-wooded terrain enabled those metro areas to have much more comprehensive road networks (on N-S, E-W grids).

Dallas' and Houston's much-flatter and not as heavily-wooded terrain also meant that those two metro areas had far-fewer physical and political obstacles to their development patterns than much-more hilly Atlanta....Making for far-fewer physical interruptions in development outward from the urban cores of Dallas and Houston than Atlanta which has many more creeks, heavily-wooded hills and even heavily-wooded small mountains to stand in the way of any attempts to establish a more-consistent and uninterrupted development pattern.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I know you're not being critical, but I don't think a city that has grown by 5 million people since 1960 needs to make any excuses to anybody.

That's an excellent point, arjay.

Atlanta does not need to make any excuses for growing how it did and when it did. It's not Atlanta's fault that it experienced its biggest boost in growth during the post-World War II era when low-density automobile-oriented suburban development was the predominant development pattern.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

That's an excellent point that Dallas' and Houston's sprawl is more compact than Atlanta's sprawl.

Dallas' and Houston's sprawl is more compact than Atlanta's sprawl because Dallas' and Houston's relatively much-flatter and not as heavily-wooded terrain enabled those metro areas to have much more comprehensive road networks (on N-S, E-W grids).

Dallas' and Houston's much-flatter and not as heavily-wooded terrain also meant that those two metro areas had far-fewer physical and political obstacles to their development patterns than much-more hilly Atlanta....Making for far-fewer physical interruptions in development outward from the urban cores of Dallas and Houston than Atlanta which has many more creeks, heavily-wooded hills and even heavily-wooded small mountains to stand in the way of any attempts to establish a more-consistent and uninterrupted development pattern.

Another topographical part of this equation that hasn't been mentioned in other threads. Do you guys realize that almost NO houses here in Texas have basements? The expansive clay soils here are problems for basements. You would think that out here in tornado country, basements would be common place, but almost every home is built on a slab.

Hang on, going to get how this ties into the thread....

Texans seem to not care as much for large lots even here in suburbia compared to back east. One of the biggest surprises to me when I came out here where everything was supposed to be "bigger." Lot sizes definitely didn't fill that mantra.. along with tree size and river size.... but I digress.

So, these large sprawling subdivision homes take up more of the small lot than the typical Atlanta house... no drive under garages, no large basements. To get an equivalent square footage... even in a 2 story house, the footprint on the actual land takes up more space.

So many homes in Atlanta will have an extra floor that a Texas house won't.... to go along with the smaller lot size, the Atlanta area has more green space.

Again, mentioned this on a similar thread this week, I still don't get the granola crunchers' love for a packed grid and density. I was told in another thread that I could drive to green places. But the new urbanist leftist wants my car... or to tax me to high heaven to build a transit line on every street that I won't be able to afford one any more.

[OuttaTheLouBurbs]

Pardon me if I don't belong in this discussion, but I've been observing and I have to ask-when fossil fuels inevitably run out and traveling by car becomes significantly more expensive, will sprawl continue to be good?

[Newsboy]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

No one claimed that your opinions "lacked merit", it's that you've made it clear by your comments and the tone of your posts that you're not willing to consider any argument or viewpoint, no matter how valid the argument or viewpoint may actually be, that does not fit your narrow preconceived narrative of what you personally think Atlanta is and what you personally think Atlanta represents.

You don't seem to care how or why Atlanta's predominantly low-density development patterns came to be and why they are different from higher-density Northeastern and European cities. You just think that a metro area like Atlanta is somehow evil and/or inferior for not having the same dense development patterns of a Northeastern or European city and no argument or amount of convincing will make you think otherwise.

It's not a convincing argument to you personally because how Atlanta came to be a lower-density large major metro area of international importance is of no importance to you personally.

What is of importance to you personally is attacking the much more conservative and libertine lifestyle and culture that you are diametrically opposed to that you think a lower-density city like Atlanta represents.

...Which illustrates my earlier point of how a city and metro area like Atlanta gets attacked much more for the less-sophisticated lifestyle and culture that critics in a handful of more-established major cities disdain than just for the lower-density style of development.

1 +++

Thanks B2R! I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up: this user is yet another who does not live in Atlanta and has no concern or interest in the real issues that face Metro Atlanta. They are simply here to disagree and be critical. For a place that's supposedly so horrible, Metro Atlanta sure is fascinating to a lot of people.

[rapier7]

Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs

Pardon me if I don't belong in this discussion, but I've been observing and I have to ask-when fossil fuels inevitably run out and traveling by car becomes significantly more expensive, will sprawl continue to be good?

That question remains way out into the future. We're talking a century at least based on projected consumption rates, proven reserves, and improvements in extraction and efficiency technologies. And even then, cheap nuclear electricity powering an electrified grid could render that question moot for millenia.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by demonta4

I just don't see why people wouldn't want to live with both. Like Atlanta'a streetcar suburbs, and railroad suburbs. Subdivisions just anger me so much. Worst planning ever. Though I do like the ones with parks and rec centers. I just wish they would put some retail people could walk to if they want a snack or something.

Its called 7-11 (or QuikTrip).

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

That's an excellent point that Dallas' and Houston's sprawl is more compact than Atlanta's sprawl.

Dallas' and Houston's sprawl is more compact than Atlanta's sprawl because Dallas' and Houston's relatively much-flatter and not as heavily-wooded terrain enabled those metro areas to have much more comprehensive road networks (on N-S, E-W grids).

Dallas' and Houston's much-flatter and not as heavily-wooded terrain also meant that those two metro areas had far-fewer physical and political obstacles to their development patterns than much-more hilly Atlanta....Making for far-fewer physical interruptions in development outward from the urban cores of Dallas and Houston than Atlanta which has many more creeks, heavily-wooded hills and even heavily-wooded small mountains to stand in the way of any attempts to establish a more-consistent and uninterrupted development pattern.

Not really. Dallas and Houston just chose to fix those issues as they grew. In the early 80s, Houston's road network outside Loop 610 (about 5-8 miles from downtown) was as disjointed as Atlanta's. But they came up with a 25 year plan and funded massive improvements. Houston has lots of wetland issues that cause as many problems as Atlanta's ravines. They definitely have fewer political obstacles as Houston really only had one significant incorporated suburb prior to the last 20 years (some have grown up recently). The Dallas suburbs don't work too well together, but they have done a good job of connecting roads, unlike Atlanta where its a chore to get from suburb to suburb.

Atlanta was really in do nothing mode on both roads and transit since the completion of 400. Now the main thing they seem to be doing is road diets to improve things for bikes and make it slower for cars.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Another topographical part of this equation that hasn't been mentioned in other threads. Do you guys realize that almost NO houses here in Texas have basements? The expansive clay soils here are problems for basements. You would think that out here in tornado country, basements would be common place, but almost every home is built on a slab.

Hang on, going to get how this ties into the thread....

Texans seem to not care as much for large lots even here in suburbia compared to back east. One of the biggest surprises to me when I came out here where everything was supposed to be "bigger." Lot sizes definitely didn't fill that mantra.. along with tree size and river size.... but I digress.

So, these large sprawling subdivision homes take up more of the small lot than the typical Atlanta house... no drive under garages, no large basements. To get an equivalent square footage... even in a 2 story house, the footprint on the actual land takes up more space.

So many homes in Atlanta will have an extra floor that a Texas house won't.... to go along with the smaller lot size, the Atlanta area has more green space.

Again, mentioned this on a similar thread this week, I still don't get the granola crunchers' love for a packed grid and density. I was told in another thread that I could drive to green places. But the new urbanist leftist wants my car... or to tax me to high heaven to build a transit line on every street that I won't be able to afford one any more.

True. Atlanta typically has a larger lot size, especially compared to Dallas.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs

Pardon me if I don't belong in this discussion, but I've been observing and I have to ask-when fossil fuels inevitably run out and traveling by car becomes significantly more expensive, will sprawl continue to be good?

Then we'll all drive electric cars.