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 12-14-2014, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,273,490 times
Reputation: 4205

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
I just don't see it. I just see land being an issue, There enough brownfield spaces to have dozens of Glenwood Park like developments. There's no shortage of land........ Then there's undeveloped areas that's part of the city....... I seriously doubt Atlanta will have land issues in our life time. I'm not a psychic I don't know where Atlanta population will max may be it will be just doubling but I seriously doubt it would be that because of land. He saying there's limited area for multi family units that's not true.
That is not entirely accurate of everything that I said though.

But... it is true land is a finite resource and that is a part of my argument. There is not an infinite amount of it. You can map the city and actually see where brownfield sites are and are not, even the Beltline did just that. All of the development programs and the city (and ARC) actually know where they are and have them mapped out and rezoned accordingly. The parts of the city that are already developed and not being rezoned is physically there too.

I said there is room for about half a million additional people with the current amount of land for brownfield developments, empty lots, new buildings in the core given the zoning Atlanta is allowing. Those are key differences from what you just wrote alone. Most of the existing developed SFH neighborhoods are being protected from becoming denser areas outside some empty lots in some parts of town.

That has been my argument, very clearly, all along... even though you and Arjay recently made the same argument yourselves on your own and you agreed with him.

As far as this talk of being a psychic... you don't need to be one. You can calculate these things out via mapping. You can look at the the zoning changes the city has proposed for the future. This is the very data the ARC uses to create the map that was in the first post.

These are tangible things. Now I did do some vague estimations to cut down on the analyses work (its just an internet forum afterall), but I really did study demography and cartography and I'm use to looking at these very things.

Dozens of glenwood park developments does not mean the city can increase in size beyond an extra 500,000 people in a long shot. Glenwood Park is a great development, but it only holds a few hundred extra people outside the adjacent apartment building

That is also why I said you're ignoring too many parts of my argument. It is also why I find it hard to reply to your other recent condescending reply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2014, 08:27 PM
 
994 posts, read 1,111,407 times
Reputation: 1225
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Can accomplish all of these without jumping in a car? That is the allure to a lot of us intowners, being able to run errands or visit restaurants without getting in a car. We can walk, ride a bike, or take transit. We like having options.
Given the limitations of your bike, your two feet and Marta, you're signing up for a pretty limited level of experiencing Metro Atlanta.

I would have no desire to walk with a stroller, baby gear and a full load of groceries.

I also couldn't transport plants for my yard or furniture for the house on a bike or train.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,273,490 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Given the limitations of your bike, your two feet and Marta, you're signing up for a pretty limited level of experiencing Metro Atlanta.

I would have no desire to walk with a stroller, baby gear and a full load of groceries.

I also couldn't transport plants for my yard or furniture for the house on a bike or train.
I don't think it is all about being a purist and never using a car. I think it is about having options.

And things like moving furniture are not an everyday occurrence.

The ability to spend more parts of your day-to-day life outdoors with some fresh air.

Also if you have a bar or a restaurant you can walk to from your neighborhood and your other neighbors do as well, then it creates a community where there are more chance interactions with your closer neighbors when you're out and about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 09:51 PM
 
Location: atlanta
3,967 posts, read 4,566,869 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Given the limitations of your bike, your two feet and Marta, you're signing up for a pretty limited level of experiencing Metro Atlanta.

I would have no desire to walk with a stroller, baby gear and a full load of groceries.

I also couldn't transport plants for my yard or furniture for the house on a bike or train.
the point is, you don't have a choice. you have to use a car. a lot of us want to be able to live day-to-day without using a car, and save it for longer trips where transit is not a choice— such as moving furniture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 09:54 PM
 
4,228 posts, read 4,126,090 times
Reputation: 3191
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
Exactly. These comments reflect reality in a dispassionate way, not as folks might prefer it or as discussed in an urban planning class at college.
You got to be joking

There the biggest advocates, where do you think all this info is coming from? the sources are collages professors, urban planners, and business leaders.

Your right normally people don't talk about this.......... but when people talk about urban planning this is exactly what people talk about.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHPcIDd676M

Heck The Atlanta Beltline was a Collage thesis.

Normally people don't talk about climate change either besides environmentalist is still an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap

Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Why is cramming more people into less space such a noble goal? Perhaps I do not understand the apparently strong and negative reaction to most of the growth continuing in the suburbs and counties besides Fulton.

Why are people so excited about more apartments being built?

Apartment-dwellers (save for places like NYC and San Fran, perhaps) are intrinsically more of a transitory population. They are not paying property taxes; they are not "vested" into the community where the apartment building is constructed; and they may generally lack the financial means to really contribute to the economics of the city.

I think all this apartment-building (not only here, but elsewhere -- this is a national trend right now) is going become a regretful thing some years down the line. The reality (or one of them) is that all these apartments are being built in part because it's too hard for many people to qualify for mortgages now.
You most really don't know the negative effects on sprawl do you?

- Environmental degradation
- Gas princes..
- Negative effect traffic
- Car dependency/ un walkable communities
- Water Overconsumption
- Infrastructure cost
- There parallel with health issues.

Another issue with sprawl it's not just the city but older suburbs, new suburbia becomes old suburbia mall, strip mall, neighborhoods become blighted, as people keep pushing out to suburbia. It's a bad cycle.

By the way the apartments owners would pay a larger sum for property taxes, to make up for the residents that don't. Mean while suburbanites actually use city infrastructure and utilities during work hours but don't pay taxes to the city.

That's ironic most parents in urban areas across the world stay apartments. What you thinking is something relatively new and just the US after the 60's. But never the less millions of Americans kids were raised in Apartment and they turn out find.

Also it's not like sprawl can be erased, the option for that lifestyle will remain, It's just expanding more urban options


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZqH...xAL0OS6CwglYEQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDY1kEjQ5Uw



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7sgdI4KDCo

Last edited by chiatldal; 12-14-2014 at 10:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 01:52 AM
 
4,228 posts, read 4,126,090 times
Reputation: 3191
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
That is not entirely accurate of everything that I said though.

But... it is true land is a finite resource and that is a part of my argument. There is not an infinite amount of it. You can map the city and actually see where brownfield sites are and are not, even the Beltline did just that. All of the development programs and the city (and ARC) actually know where they are and have them mapped out and rezoned accordingly. The parts of the city that are already developed and not being rezoned is physically there too.

I said there is room for about half a million additional people with the current amount of land for brownfield developments, empty lots, new buildings in the core given the zoning Atlanta is allowing. Those are key differences from what you just wrote alone. Most of the existing developed SFH neighborhoods are being protected from becoming denser areas outside some empty lots in some parts of town.

That has been my argument, very clearly, all along... even though you and Arjay recently made the same argument yourselves on your own and you agreed with him.

As far as this talk of being a psychic... you don't need to be one. You can calculate these things out via mapping. You can look at the the zoning changes the city has proposed for the future. This is the very data the ARC uses to create the map that was in the first post.

These are tangible things. Now I did do some vague estimations to cut down on the analyses work (its just an internet forum afterall), but I really did study demography and cartography and I'm use to looking at these very things.

Dozens of glenwood park developments does not mean the city can increase in size beyond an extra 500,000 people in a long shot. Glenwood Park is a great development, but it only holds a few hundred extra people outside the adjacent apartment building

That is also why I said you're ignoring too many parts of my argument. It is also why I find it hard to reply to your other recent condescending reply.
I'm not saying land is infinite but Atlanta is not going to become remotely close to running out in our life time. I'm not arguing what Atlanta is going to be but the capability of what it can be even with the zoning. That is were we have disagreement. However if you said 500,000 more I missed it, And would agree that's a good number.. So where at a agreement now.





In 1950 Atlanta had 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi, and even with that portions of the city was undeveloped. I can't stress enough most American cities in there prime were develop with SFH in a similar compactness. It's not a matter was Atlanta core neighborhoods compact with SFH, it's a matter that neighborhoods as such don't expend as far out as New Orleans, and Chicago do, it's SFH neighborhoods far out the beltline with large home lots that will drags Atlanta density down. So the zoning of most core neighborhoods are find. The problem is nearly half the city SFH neighborhoods are 40 - 50% vacant. Including historic denser ones and many of those are missing significant amounts of home on plots.


These neighborhoods are resistant in density that breaks traditionally how they were develops. They are Victorian, American craft and bungalow neighborhoods many are national historic districts. So property owners have to infill them with SFH. Echoing most American cities core are dominating SFH, they have a good stock of MFU, Atlanta has plenty of areas to Develop for more MFU to have a similar ratio as the more urbanize cities have in the midwest. Without challenging the Zoning of SFH neighborhoods.

If I'm not mistaking and I may be,.... in one post you mention developing between Midtown and Buckhead. Why do that when lofts and Midrises can be develop in West Midtown? DT and MT together is already larger then most major cities area zoned for high rises. And there plenty of gaps, parking lots and etc to infill. Adding West Midtown adds another larger area for apartments and etc.





That area is being redevoped

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/...d5f79af2_b.jpg


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/...8cb10d86_b.jpg
Coke headquarters has been there for a minute west of the connector. Other than Atlantic station midrise haven't been built on the westside because there's no reason. But zoning allows it. I don't think tower will dominated the area but down Marietta and the westside will gain lofts and etc.

http://www.brookwoodgroup.com/graphi...ca-cola_01.jpg

Dallas uptown - the smaller building, Downtown Dallas towers are the taller ones.

A lot can be done on Atlanta's westside.




Actual photos.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3780/1...efc437c3_c.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5088/5...a8425fe0_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4074/4...631c9b6f_b.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,193 posts, read 16,201,271 times
Reputation: 4913
Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Given the limitations of your bike, your two feet and Marta, you're signing up for a pretty limited level of experiencing Metro Atlanta.

I would have no desire to walk with a stroller, baby gear and a full load of groceries.

I also couldn't transport plants for my yard or furniture for the house on a bike or train.
ZipVan. Then you don't have monthly car payments and insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
6,915 posts, read 9,607,502 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
ZipVan. Then you don't have monthly car payments and insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
It's worth the cost to some of us. Not having to drive for little errand is worth the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
There are some of us who would rather spend time outside, exploring our city than cleaning a big house.
CQ, we get it. We understand that you are anti car, anti suburb, anti any choice or lifestyle but your own. I am not against your choice. If it works for you, great. It doesn't work for most of us. The car makes our life work. Living in a house big enough to raise four kids and get them to their activities works. Living in a place where the combination of safety, schools and bang for the buck works.

I am not against living in the CoA. I was born in the CoA. When I returned to Atlanta in '89 as a newlywed with one on the way, I pursued living in the CoA. Reality is we couldn't afford it. Well, we could have but the newlywed pregnant wife didn't care for the type of neighborhood and the accompanying crime statistics and ratings for the schools that somehow seemed to follow the budget.

If you are trying to convert us unwashed masses that enjoy having an automobile and don't mind working to pay for it and living a lifestyle that is made easier because of it, please come up with some new arguments. The constant put downs you use on almost every thread here are getting old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 02:19 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,604,483 times
Reputation: 5411
It's funny though because the two densest major cities in this country are also the most wealthiest: SF and NYC so saying apartment dwellers don't have the financial means to contribute is ridiculous. Who is moving into those 2k+ a month units? A bunch of section 8 folks? These are the people making 6 figures a year...in fact, the Atlanta suburbs are becoming MORE poorer, while the city center is becoming wealthier and wealthier. The suburbs are becoming more crowded, more traffic(look at some of those major exits, terrible), and have more crime here in the Atlanta suburbs.

Please, Atlanta is SO BORING outside of the inner 20 square mile. So boring. Literally, nothing to do but basic stuff and the occasional theme park or entertainment center. There's a reason people don't come here for vacation, but go to places like NYC, SF, Chicago, LA, D.C., Miami, NOLA, and Seattle. What do all of these cities have in common? Built up, dense cores with a lot to do. Those are the exciting cities that breeds and attracts young talent. Then you have your up and coming cities like Austin and Denver.

Fact: Cities aren't trying to attract you 40+ year old people...they're trying to attract the 20-35 crowd with a lot of talent and skills. Those are the ones who will be contributing the city in the positive. Those are the people of the future. That's why apartments are being built in city center. Nobody wants to go through the hassle of being stuck in traffic EVERYDAY and being unproductive because you HAVE TO KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE ROAD. At least on the subway, you can be somewhat productive. At least on a Bike, you can bypass the traffic while getting exercise. At least while walking, you can enjoy the sights and city around you.

And I'm tired of this fking elbow room argument. Literally, 99% of the metro is low density sprawl, yet you're complaining about a 20 square mile being built up? Are you joking? Atlanta is the sprawl capital of the WORLD. Atlantans should be the LAST ones complaining about elbow room. In fact, that's the thing Atlanta is so heavily criticized these days.

I PRAY Atlanta does not let NIMBYs ruined what city can accomplished and be. Atlanta has NOT even begun to realize it's potential and we don't need you old hags to ruin it just so you can go back a 1980s Atlanta that had AWFUL crime and MASSIVE white flight, urban decay, and just a depressing city overall.

Ugh...some of the anti-city stuff said in this thread legitimately got on my nerves and some of it was just ridiculous. Yes, even though SF is like 70% renters, it's far more wealthy than anything Atlanta can hope to achieve and that includes your beloved suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 02:58 PM
 
9,921 posts, read 6,919,053 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
CQ, we get it. We understand that you are anti car, anti suburb, anti any choice or lifestyle but your own. I am not against your choice. If it works for you, great. It doesn't work for most of us. The car makes our life work. Living in a house big enough to raise four kids and get them to their activities works. Living in a place where the combination of safety, schools and bang for the buck works.

I am not against living in the CoA. I was born in the CoA. When I returned to Atlanta in '89 as a newlywed with one on the way, I pursued living in the CoA. Reality is we couldn't afford it. Well, we could have but the newlywed pregnant wife didn't care for the type of neighborhood and the accompanying crime statistics and ratings for the schools that somehow seemed to follow the budget.

If you are trying to convert us unwashed masses that enjoy having an automobile and don't mind working to pay for it and living a lifestyle that is made easier because of it, please come up with some new arguments. The constant put downs you use on almost every thread here are getting old.
I think it is great that people have the option to live the suburban lifestyle. I am not trying to force anyone to live an urban lifestyle. However, I do vocally oppose the incentives America has put to force people into any lifestyle. Those incentive force people into a suburban lifestyle to take advantage of subsidizes and keep their costs down. We subsidize parking, roads, gas, large home mortgages, and more. Even if I don't own a car, my taxes are paying for roads. Probably even more than someone in the suburbs due to higher land values, even though that suburbanite is using much more road every day. Not only that, lets say I want to open a business that caters to walkers most zoning laws make it so I still have to pay for land and paving parking to serve those who drive, often taking up 75% of the land of most businesses.

If you agree that we should drop subsidies for both lifestyles and let people make the choice for themselves then we are on the same page. But lets not pretend that suburbanites are the victims here.
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