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 12-12-2014, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Georgia
4,941 posts, read 3,989,015 times
Reputation: 2727

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
For those who advocate changing the zoning of thriving single family neighborhoods in order to accommodate a larger population, let me note the following:

-- In 1970 the city of Atlanta easily housed a population of 500,000.

-- We did that with no trains or streetcars whatsoever.

-- Freeways were a small fraction of the size and extent they are today.

-- There were no highrises in either Midtown or Buckhead, and only a few downtown.

-- We had numerous large manufacturing and distribution facilities within the city limits, as well as a large active military base.


Given that we were able to do all this 45 years ago, why should we contemplate dismantling our most successful and desirable single family neighborhoods now? They have been critical to the resurgence of the city and it would be reckless to attack them.

That isn't a fair comparison. The suburbs were much, much smaller back then. Hell, East Cobb was practically a giant farm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2014, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
6,891 posts, read 9,584,447 times
Reputation: 5303
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
That's a good point, Saintmarks. I know many intown families with two kids and several with three, but I can't think of any with more than that.

A similar factor is on the other end of the age spectrum. Many families have children who have grown up and moved on. And in a number of cases there may be just one spouse left.
I eschewed anecdotal evidence and here I am giving one. My dad went back to Georgia Tech in the late 50s just prior to my being born. The family (parents and three older brothers) lived in half of a two story house on 6th Street in Midtown. Another family lived on the second floor, don't know the number, but say that is a minimum of 8 total (my brothers have mentioned playing with the kid upstairs, so 5 and 3 makes 8 the minimum). Have driven by that house, it has been gutted and updated back into a single family home. I do not know who lives there now but I imagine a DINK couple. Maybe they have one or two kids max. So, that one house has half the population (at the most, odds are less) than it did at the 1960 census. I would say that scenario has been repeated time and time again all over the city.

Atlanta has done pretty good to keep close to its zenith of right at 500k (495k at the 1970 census if my memory serves right). Many cities have less than half the population of that time... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, Pittsburgh. Others have lost multiple hundreds of thousands... Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Minneapolis. Is there any city that has a similar footprint to what it had 50 years ago that has grown significantly that hasn't annexed large swaths that would be suburbs in these older cities or hasn't consolidated with its county? Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, Jacksonville, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Virginia Beach, Indianapolis, Louisville, Columbus... All have larger land areas than that era.

Cities with growth without huge annexations.... Denver, Seattle, Portland. Holding their own or reversing losses... San Francisco, Oakland, Boston, DC. So some growth, but there is no account of a major city doubling without some major annexations or consolidation. This idea that Atlanta could double within its current boundaries is possible, but unlikely. There is still too much much cheaper land in the burbs to handle growth before this would become a reality. I do believe the CoA will reverse the losses of the last few decades.... already has begun. But doubling anytime in the foreseeable future? Yes, you can map out how it could possibly happen, I just don't think the market will dictate it without some MAJOR shift in the culture.

Last edited by Saintmarks; 12-12-2014 at 10:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2014, 10:53 PM
 
28,104 posts, read 24,632,008 times
Reputation: 9523
I think it's highly unlikely that the city of Atlanta will double its population in the foreseeable future.

My point is simply that the city can handle tons of growth without disrupting its fine residential neighborhoods. Should we ever get to that point we could revisit the issue but it would be crazy to start contemplating that at this point. We are WAY far away from running out of land!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2014, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
6,891 posts, read 9,584,447 times
Reputation: 5303
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
I think it's highly unlikely that the city of Atlanta will double its population in the foreseeable future.

My point is simply that the city can handle tons of growth without disrupting its fine residential neighborhoods. Should we ever get to that point we could revisit the issue but it would be crazy to start contemplating that at this point. We are WAY far away from running out of land!
Granted. Just don't think you and cwkimbro are at odds in this. You two are describing different sides of the same coin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2014, 10:57 PM
 
28,104 posts, read 24,632,008 times
Reputation: 9523
Quote:
Originally Posted by toll_booth View Post
That isn't a fair comparison. The suburbs were much, much smaller back then. Hell, East Cobb was practically a giant farm.
What's unfair about it? If the city could hold 500,000 people then why couldn't it hold 500,000 people now? As we know, other cities of similar geographical size have easily accommodated several times that many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:00 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,114,436 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
No there isn't that much space even in that very pictures you're showing. Most of the land isn't changed and taken up by long density SFH dwellings that are not changing in zoning or densifying.

The rendering you show... IS EXACTLY what I have said. They are redeveloping the brownfield space on older commercial and industrial properties and not the SFH around it. Most of the land is not open to densifying and there are limits to the zoning on those brownfield sites. This means there is a limit to what growth can and will occur in the future without changes from the zoning and mindset of Atlanta today.

Hince my guess of a 500,000 increase.

There are real limits.

And no I will not let you get away with comparing ATL and Chicago. The dwellings in Chicago, even SFH dwellings are much much more packed together and much more denser residential units dominate the neighborhoods. In Atlanta that is not the case. The difference is significant.
You just contradict the Beltline plans.... The Beltline plans are agreed upon the city and neighborhoods leaders.

This rendering is inside the industrial brownfield are below...

Can you not see how small individual home lots are compared to large brownfield area... Do you realize you fit several Glennwood villages in this?.... Midtown and Downtown have so much parking lots especial South Downtown is also usage your talking about limited area.





Again there simply abundance of brownfield areas around city.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/...ca8b5d51_b.jpg

I find funny how in thread talking about Downtown Atlanta would be bash for parking lots, but suddenly these areas are limiting if there not a significant a lot Atlanta can do with this area.


Not saying a Manhattanization is going to happen like what Miami did. But Downtown, Midtown, is a huge area, Most cities don't have the potential to fill a urbanize area this large with highrises. Also a lot of West Midtown has potential for midrises.



How you Densify single family neighborhoods you infill or restore them back. Not destroy the character and go against zoning that tacky. Your acting like the only progression for density is to destroy these neighborhoods.

Sweet Auburn

English Avenue the density of the current zoning is good, again the problem it's blighted, vacancies, too many missing homes on lots, So by fault it no where near as dense it can be with current zoning.

Oakland

Vine City


It's like you straight up ignore this Vine city to the West, once Most of Vine City was like the pic above...




Outside of the CID and French Quarter New Orleans is dominate by Single family homes, Most American cities density is Single family homes..

New Orleans

New Orleans



Ironically I born in Chicago, my Username Chicago-Atlanta-Dallas

Am I saying overall Atlanta historic built is as dense as Chicago? no, Am I saying Chicago doesn't have multi family units? no, I'm saying Chicago is dominated by single family neighborhoods, And it's density is the continuous of this.


I'm saying looking at this, you tell many single family neighborhoods in Atlanta core are built with small lots zoning for urbanity. The problem is there under utilize............ Chicago

This is the same street as that Sweet Auburn pic.. How bizarre one end is comparable to the Chicago pic above the other end significant amount of homes are missing from lots. You don't have to break the zoning to increase density, the neighborhood zoning is already dense you fill up the lots.


Am I saying can Atlanta fit Philly density? No.... Philly was more than 1.5 million 1950 it was 2 million in 132 sq mi. That's was never my argument. I'm Atlanta has an abundance of infilling it can do without breaking the zoning. And by 2040 there would likely still be significant areas to redevelop and infill. Beyond 2040 getting 2 million I doubt it, but stoping around 700,000 because of limit areas for urban development I doubt it. If Atlanta does stop to that population limited areas for urban development will not be the reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 03:02 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,114,436 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
I think it's highly unlikely that the city of Atlanta will double its population in the foreseeable future.

My point is simply that the city can handle tons of growth without disrupting its fine residential neighborhoods. Should we ever get to that point we could revisit the issue but it would be crazy to start contemplating that at this point. We are WAY far away from running out of land!
At this point, this what I saying also...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
6,891 posts, read 9,584,447 times
Reputation: 5303
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
At this point, this what I saying also...
Here is where your propositions will meet some resistance. Market forces and those opposed to gentrification. The first a constraint of our economic system, the second a political one. There have been many threads on this site about the dangers of gentrification from a policitcal slant. There are forces that do not want these neighborhodods to prosper under the only feasible way they can develop... Gentrification. Without some huge government infusion, the market needs to make this attractive to investors and to newcomers. When that happens, prices escalate and poorer folk are left out. Political problem. The catch 22? Investors shy away from political mess.

Not saying I have the answer, but I am in sales and I am trained to find objections and overcome them. These are the two objections (or dilemmas) ahead of the city to overcome to achieve the kind of infill growth you propose. The market and local political resistance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 09:59 AM
 
455 posts, read 355,479 times
Reputation: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Well, there's no doubt that in general Philadelphia is much denser than Atlanta. But Philadelphia also has plenty of lower density areas as well.

My point is simply that Atlanta is not so short of land that we need to start tearing up thriving mature neighborhoods in order to accommodate additional population. I mentioned Philadelphia as an example of a city that is able to exist with both low and high density and house a population several times as large as Atlanta within the same geographical area. (And to do so very nicely, I might add).
I agree that Atlanta has room to grow. That said, Philadelphia doesn't have plenty of low density areas. The only low density development, much of which is in Chestnut Hill is limited to a narrow strip of land in the northwest part of the city. Philadelphia does have a reasonably large amount of leafy medium density development. The neighborhood my parents live in just to the south of Chestnut Hill is generally fairly leafy and has census tracts that range from 7k - 17k ppsm. Reasonably widespread development at those sorts of density levels should be achievable in Atlanta and it would create a more densely populated city than exists currently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,253,707 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
You just contradict the Beltline plans.... The Beltline plans are agreed upon the city and neighborhoods leaders.




How you Densify single family neighborhoods you infill or restore them back. Not destroy the character and go against zoning that tacky. Your acting like the only progression for density is to destroy these neighborhoods.
Ok, I'm getting a bit tired here.

You're either not listening to all my arguments or taking many things out of context.

I have not contradicted the Beltline planning. I have said all along there are dense plans for brown field developments in industrial and commercial properties. That is EXACTLY what large parts of the Beltline ARE and what your renderings show. None of my arguments contradict this.

Neighborhood leaders, even in the Beltline plans, are watching after their existing single family home lots!! This falls directly into my arguments. The Beltline plans show exactly what I have been saying. Development here.... but not here, here, here, and here.

However, the room is limited for these dense developments, because they are constrained to only certain existing land-use types. This is directly reflected in the cities zoning. The majority of square mileage of this city are tied to single family home zoning that will remain unchanged and there are real pros and cons to this. Many people here seem willing to discuss the pros, but are ignoring the cons.


There are some single family neighborhoods with more free lots than others, but mostly they will not densify much. As I have stated over and over, the zoning of lots is limited to how dense something gets. Take Virginia Highland, some of the smallest lots in the city and there is pre-preservation apartment and condo growth mixed in, has a density of 8000 ppsm. If applied city-wide, which it can't be, only 295k would live in that type of zoning. Much of the city is zoned much less dense than that.

There are real limits to how many people can live in a leafy SFH neighorohood and that can't change unless the zoning and political will changes.

That is why there is a limit to how many people can fit in town with the current zoning and political will.

Remember, the crutch of my original argument is the city will come close to doubling in size. I never said it wouldn't grow and it wouldn't change. I said there are limits to what the city can handle. I'm just trying to make people understand the limits of current zoning and plans, especially when we are talking about a regional context of our city growing by several million people in a few decades.

Instead we have people arguing for extreme preservation and pretending like Atlanta can densify as come Chicago or Philly. It is an attempt to eat cake and have it too.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top