When Atlanta declines what will we do with all these Suburbs? (Savannah: houses, neighborhoods)

[bryantm3]

i don't think atlanta will be like detroit. detroit is really an outlier; most american cities have continued to grow, especially larger cities. however, if the population of atlanta continues to grow, we still have to figure out what to do with these sprawling suburbs, as we will eventually densify to the point that some of these developments will not be able to hold enough people.

the fact of the matter is that many of these neighbourhoods closer in have *already* made this transition.

an older example is virginia-highland. many people do not realize it, but when it was first constructed, virginia-highland was actually a suburban subdivision. since then, the area has densified, and the neighbourhood now has many apartments, duplexes, and retail outlets interspersed among the neighbourhood.

however, virignia-highland was designed quite differently; modern subdivisions have a very hierarchical pattern with one entrance, and zero connection to the surrounding area.

some of these newer neighbourhoods have begun a transition also.

one example i heard just yesterday. i am taking a class where a girl made a presentation on her neighbourhood just south of pine lake, what has occured is actually quite fascinating.

there used to be a country club in the area between allgood road and rowland road just south of rockbridge road, with several cul-de-sacs. now, the country club is gone, and the signs have been removed. the neighbourhood that used to be separated with hundreds of cul-de-sacs and zero sidewalks has now densified and become more diverse, and things are changing.

roads with cul-de-sacs are now being cut through to main roads, new cross streets are going in, bike lanes are being added, and wide sidewalks for parents to walk their kids to school are going in.

you can see an aerial view here on google maps:

http://goo.gl/maps/vd1Ma

i think that eventually what you will see is the "subdivision" disintegrate, signs denoting the different subdivisions will be taken down, roads and pathways will be cut through, and the zoning inside the subdivisions will become more flexible, allowing for more park space, apartment buildings and retail.

of course, if things go the other way and atlanta dramatically lowers in population, what will happen is pretty apparent; the houses will be vacant, become shot up, boarded up fire hazards, and will eventually be bulldozed. while i used to have a pessimistic view of the route these communities would take, i don't think that will happen in atlanta, but elsewhere in the country it is certainly likely to happen.

the fact of the matter is that the united states is densifying in certain narrow corridors, and rapidly reducing in population everywhere else. if communities are inside one of those corridors, they are going to have to figure out how to retrofit communities to fit more people and businesses, and if they are outside of those corridors, such as in detroit, they are going to have to figure out how to downsize their communities.

[bryantm3]

if you're trying to figure out which areas i'm talking about, these are the areas that will drastically reduce in population density:



and here are the areas that will drastically increase in population density, obviously excluding parts of the great lakes region:

[Atlwarrior]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

Atlanta Public schools are far from great. Outside of private and Decatur Public schools, nothing ITP compares to what you can get in the suburbs. Obviously not everywhere OTP. Some burbs are worse off but let's not act like everything within 30 miles of 285 is a warzone. That's no better than people not willing to cross into Atlanta city limits. East Cobb isn't going anywhere. Roswell and Alpharetta are getting denser but Milton and Johns Creek aren't showing the same type of development. They're not going anywhere. A lot of Gwinnett hasn't shown any sign of decline. I wouldn't call Fayetteville or PTC exurbs and they're fine.

Some people or those between the ages of 25-40 are not even having kids, so the public school argument will become more and more irrelevant.

[bu2]

@Bryant
You have to question a map when they label West Texas, hundreds of miles away from the Rio Grande and about 700 miles away from the southernmost tip of Texas (which is what is actually referred to as the Rio Grande Valley) as "The Rio Grande Valley."

The first map is also dated. North Dakota is booming like crazy.

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by Atlwarrior

Some people or those between the ages of 25-40 are not even having kids, so the public school argument will become more and more irrelevant.

Schools will always be relevant. Maybe not as important, but still relevant. As long as there are families, schools will matter. Last census showed 1 in 5 women aged 40-44 had no children compared to 1 in 10 in the 70s. That's still 4 in 5 that do have at least one child. 80% that will care about schools. It'll be a long time, if ever, that we get to 1 in 2 not having any kids.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot

Do you really think Hartsfield will actually leave?

Yes. It will fly away using all the existing runways, leaving nothing but abandoned buildings behind.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by bu2

@Bryant
You have to question a map when they label West Texas, hundreds of miles away from the Rio Grande and about 700 miles away from the southernmost tip of Texas (which is what is actually referred to as the Rio Grande Valley) as "The Rio Grande Valley."

The first map is also dated. North Dakota is booming like crazy.

i agree the name is misleading. the "underperforming regions" is not a current map; it's a projection of economic conditions in 2050.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Yes. It will fly away using all the existing runways, leaving nothing but abandoned buildings behind.

It'll actually move to Houston.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by bu2

@Bryant
You have to question a map when they label West Texas, hundreds of miles away from the Rio Grande and about 700 miles away from the southernmost tip of Texas (which is what is actually referred to as the Rio Grande Valley) as "The Rio Grande Valley."

The first map is also dated. North Dakota is booming like crazy.

I know that the term is used to denote the area from Laredo to Brownsville primarily, but technically the Rio Grande river (and thus the valley it flows thru) is the entire boundary line between Texas and Mexico. Heck, it turns northward and runs up New Mexico. El Paso is in the Rio Grande Valley. Albuquerque is in the Rio Grande Valley. There is nothing wrong with this label.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I know that the term is used to denote the area from Laredo to Brownsville primarily, but technically the Rio Grande river (and thus the valley it flows thru) is the entire boundary line between Texas and Mexico. Heck, it turns northward and runs up New Mexico. El Paso is in the Rio Grande Valley. Albuquerque is in the Rio Grande Valley. There is nothing wrong with this label.

There are two things wrong:
1) Noone uses that terminology for the Big Bend area or El Paso area.
2) They've got counties hundreds of miles from the Rio Grande. Looks like counties in the Texas Hill Country near Fredricksburg and Loving County (the nation's least populous county) on the New Mexico border.