Sprawl Is Good for You (Atlanta, North Druid Hills: home builder, buyer, income)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by rapier7

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.

A century is not that far off.

Remember, infrastructure such as the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam is 80 years old and much of the interstate system is already pushing 60.

If we run out of fossil fuels in a century there's a decent chance that some of the little children running around today may be around to experience it.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by bu2

Then we'll all drive electric cars.

Either that or synthetic fuels.

[Newsboy]

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.

Is this what you're talking about? A friend posted this on FB. The caption reads "Anybody who'd get excited about living within walking distance to Walmart or McDonald's isn't going to be walking to either of these locations." And that's true! You can build all the "walkable" suburbs you want, but that doesn't mean anybody is going to get out of their cars and walk. People are inherently lazy.

[demonta4]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Is this what you're talking about? A friend posted this on FB. The caption reads "Anybody who'd get excited about living within walking distance to Walmart of McDonald's isn't going to be walking to either or these locations." And that's true! You can build all the "walkable" suburbs you want, but that doesn't mean anybody is going to get out of their cars and walk. People are inherently lazy.

Walmart...really?

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Is this what you're talking about? A friend posted this on FB. The caption reads "Anybody who'd get excited about living within walking distance to Walmart of McDonald's isn't going to be walking to either or these locations." And that's true! You can build all the "walkable" suburbs you want, but that doesn't mean anybody is going to get out of their cars and walk. People are inherently lazy.

That's true. I have a friend who will drive her car across the street to shop in the store. Honestly, I always walk.

[erick295]

If you want to know how desirable sprawl is, just follow the cranes. Lots of construction is happening and the market is speaking loud and clear.

[AnsleyPark]

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?

Yes. I have no doubt we will have alternative energy sources by then.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

Otherwise, the intense criticism of Atlanta's sprawling development patterns is not so much about land use and lifestyle as much as it is an attack on an up-and-coming Sunbelt city whose rise to international prominence the existing urban establishment feels very-threatened by.
....
It's like Atlanta is being attacked for being the "nouveau riche" or new money by a bunch of more-established old money snobs in places like New York, Boston, DC, London, etc.

So well said. I have been meaning to say that for years.

SPOT. ON. B2R

[Cacao]

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 essentially write off the criticisms of Atlanta's sprawl as jealousy or just picking on the new guy. That is the same as suggesting that those claims lack merit. You are suggesting that they are being made out of spite. You have not been able to prove this though.

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.

I never said anything of the sort. You chose to assume this.

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.

It's not a convincing argument because you have not been able to support it. The burden of proof is on you.

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.

More assumptions. You have no idea where I'm from or what type of environment I live in, so you have absolutely no basis for claiming that my point of view is diametric in comparison to yours.

[Cacao]

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.

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.