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 05-19-2014, 10:53 AM
 
145 posts, read 199,666 times
Reputation: 81

Advertisements

If you're wondering what type of suburban set up I find ideal, think of Vinings. Well most of it anyway. All of the trees and hills your heart desires, but there isn't a one mile trek from your front door to the street.

It was just a little off putting to see this type of suburbia so close to downtown. I typically associate this level of sprawl with the exurbs. North Druid Hills

My solution: instead of devoting large swaths of land to private ownership, give the land to the public and create many parks and green spaces. Not that Atlanta exactly lacks these things of course.

Last edited by Cacao; 05-19-2014 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2014, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Savannah GA
13,709 posts, read 21,856,950 times
Reputation: 10185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacao View Post
Right, because trees are never chopped down. Atlanta pretty much just had to build where there was open land (sarcasm). Dallas and Houston are also far from barren. Oak trees may be shorter than pines but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are any easier to build around. I will say that no city in Texas preserves as many trees as it should though. Even with the grid setup they have, both Dallas and Houston should be a lot greener than they currently are. That's saying a lot for Houston in particular, which is still a wonderfully green city.

Atlanta's terrain and forestry is absolutely beautiful. It truly is. But I think most are simply naming these things as a reason for the metro's sprawl without actually knowing whether or not it is the case. Because, as I must repeat, there are hillier cities that don't sprawl nearly as much. Perhaps Atlanta's ridges and waterways are difficult to deal with, but a lot of the sprawl in the area may just be gratuitous, and no one here seems to be willing to admit that.
If we admit that Atlanta's sprawl is "gratuitous" and confess that we and all of our forefathers were evil people for subjecting the world to this horrible way of life, will you go away?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 11:17 AM
 
145 posts, read 199,666 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
If we admit that Atlanta's sprawl is "gratuitous" and confess that we and all of our forefathers were evil people for subjecting the world to this horrible way of life, will you go away?
That is very immature. Does debate bother you that much? Why do you have such a problem with people who think differently than you do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Savannah GA
13,709 posts, read 21,856,950 times
Reputation: 10185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacao View Post
That is very immature. Does debate bother you that much? Why do you have such a problem with people who think differently than you do?
I have no problem with people who think differently than I do. I have a problem with people who insist that I'm wrong and keep perpetuating an argument that serves no purpose and can't be won.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:07 PM
 
925 posts, read 1,330,413 times
Reputation: 616
Its not necessary the suburbs that is the problem, but its how atlanta suburbs are created into disconnected sidewalk-less communities of subdivision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:08 PM
 
145 posts, read 199,666 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
I have no problem with people who think differently than I do. I have a problem with people who insist that I'm wrong and keep perpetuating an argument that serves no purpose and can't be won.
I never said that you or anyone else was wrong. I'm asking for you all to support your claims with a source and to stop attacking me because I'm not quick to agree with your poorly argued points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:23 PM
 
3,451 posts, read 3,899,937 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacao View Post
I never said that you or anyone else was wrong. I'm asking for you all to support your claims with a source and to stop attacking me because I'm not quick to agree with your poorly argued points.
So u looking for a article of some sort that explains the development patterns of Atlanta?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:30 PM
 
32,009 posts, read 36,668,783 times
Reputation: 13274
It's always been my impression that Atlanta's growth has been pretty much independent of geography. If there's a hill in the way we just grade it down, and trees and water haven't been much of a hindrance either.

One critical factor for all Sunbelt cities has been the arrival of air conditioning.

Last edited by arjay57; 05-19-2014 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Georgia
5,845 posts, read 6,140,656 times
Reputation: 3573
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Nice to see someone sticking up for the ATL for a change.
A Politico article? Really? OK then....

First of all, I just love that shot of the Downtown Connector at rush hour. I wonder where all those cars are going. Hint: For most of them, their destination isn't Midtown.
"You would think from the commentary that Atlanta is flat on its back. In fact, of course, Atlanta, over the last half century, has obviously seen its population and its economy grow faster than most of the older, higher-density, more transit-oriented cities of the United States or Europe."
This is akin to saying that since a metro area is not as well off as it could be doing, it's doing horrible. Nowhere was that implied in the first paragraph. And I don't think Politico needs to be making any comments about economic well-being, particularly of a state who has about one in every seven residents in poverty.
"You would assume, from the rhetoric of smart-growth advocates, that traffic congestion increases as urban areas spread out."
Word choice is key here: Traffic density per capita tends to decrease as population density goes up. Consider this: How come rush hour traffic isn't any worse on West Peachtree in Midtown than it is on Pleasanthill Road in Gwinnett or Barrett Parkway in Cobb?
"The first [reason for our traffic congestion] is that because of its irregulartopography and complex historic land-ownership patterns, Atlanta’s road system is choppy and disconnected. This would not be so problematic if the city had an adequate freeway system."
Bullcrap. One only needs to consider LA or Dallas-Ft. Worth as counterexamples. They have a significantly more expansive network of freeways than we do, yet they still struggle with daily traffic jams.
"A major expansion of the transit system wouldn’t even benefit most people who can’t drive because the jobs are already so scattered around the metropolitan area, and the poorest people can’t afford the fares."
This is not the pro-sprawl argument that the author apparently believes it is. I have repeatedly claimed that for MARTA to become more viable in our urban core, higher density needs to come before it, not after it. The "if you build it, they will come" strategy rarely works, as can easily be seen by the low density near much of the east-west line.
"Atlanta has been one of the most successful cities in the country in attracting population and jobs over the past 50 years. One of the main reasons for this growth is precisely because it is such a leafy, low-density place where middle-income home buyers have been able to afford a house with some land and home builders have been able to supply houses fast enough to meet demand so that house prices have remained fairly low."
Please, the only way you could say this with a straight face is if you assumed that sprawl is sustainable in the long run. That's a proposition that the article has yet to defend. Furthermore, we saw the dark side of low property values a few years ago, as the Atlanta housing market suffered one of the biggest hits during the Great Recession.
"The negative press on Atlanta seems to follow an interesting historical trend. Every time a city has shaken the urban order with very fast growth, growth fast enough to allow a large population to move up the American middle-class ladder, there has tended to be a chorus of complaints from an already well-established urban elite about all kinds of alleged urban ills, especially what they perceive as social and physical disorder in the city’s urban development."
Let me guess--right around the time different ethnic groups showed up, right?
"In the meantime strident efforts to reverse the course of urban history and push these places back into the mold of dense 19th-century cities heavily dependent on public transportation risk destroying the very things that have made them such magnets for population and economic growth in the first place."
Yes, and that's exactly why growth exploded on the east side Beltline and why abandoned stores along the Streetcar route have been reopened. This tripe--hell, the whole article--is really just a "things were better back in the good old days" rant disguised as pseudointellectual commentary. The haters need to grow up. We're in the 21st century now. Nobody, and I repeat NOBODY, is advocating for demolishing most of Cobb, North Fulton, and Gwinnett's single-family residences to force them to move to the urban core. Why do they think that the current proposals for MARTA rail expansion are outward toward the suburbs?

Lastly, the article pushes the false, transit-or-cars dichotomy that does not help this discussion. I am in favor of an all-of-the-above approach to transportation: If someone wants to be able to drive from point A to point B, then they should be able to do so. If they want to take mass transit, then they should be able to do so. If they want to walk or take their bicycle, then they should be able to do so. There is a reason for the term multimodal transit, and I would encourage the pseudoskeptics to understand that before they continue to patronize the car-and-suburbs model that started to show flaws almost as soon as it was instituted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 01:19 PM
 
6,610 posts, read 9,004,690 times
Reputation: 4230
Oh my God...someone is very passionate.
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. The time now is 01:25 AM.

© 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