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)
 
 
Old 12-10-2014, 09:50 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,115,677 times
Reputation: 3185

Advertisements

Atlanta current urban area the top map shows 2010's sprawl from 2000, is reverently the same as the 2040 map "the 2nd map below" While some sprawl is going to happen The ARC is not projecting massive sprawl like pass decades, Most of the red areas from OP's map on the outside like Northern Cherokee County is misleading. The ARC projects those areas to stay rural. It's easy to double and trouble a small rural pop.




I wasn't kiding....... OP's map goes while with this below.....

Some of those purple areas below are red on the OP's map. Most of these purple areas "Regional Centers" have CID's. They are important in terms of employment. Most of Which are Edge Cities or future planned Edge cities by definition. Growth is connected with transportation, employment and population.

Leaders are trying to connect Cobb's town center area, Cumberland area, Gwinnett Place, North Park area, Perimeter center, Gwinnett Village, And hartsfield jackson with Transit. Back to Atlanta's Core Downtown, Midtown and Buckhead they also have there own CID.


The Key....

Both are from ARC 2040 Plan... Welcome to the Atlanta Regional Commission

Example Gwinnett Place

Light rail.......



The 3 Images above are from Plans and Studies for Gwinnett Place

Cumberland was red and just got a boost... from Gulch Thread Development Renderings | braves.com: SunTrust Park


So was Gwinnett Village... Atlanta Media Campus & Studios | Gwinnett VillageGwinnett Village

Gwinnett Village CID - RedevelopmentGwinnett Village It was also red....



Back to Atlanta core, Much like the suburbs Atlanta can't develop everywhere, example again The character of Cascade Heights can't change to be more urban. And some of the neighborhoods on the east are going to urbanize a little to the extent they can. So this place more emphasis back on the core. Downtown, Midtown, And West Midtown. Or Generally along and inside The Beltline. This area is built and will be redevelop to held 100,000's of people.


OP map, The Westside was red. That goes along with current trends and The Beltline plans.

Atlanta BeltLine // Where Atlanta Comes Together.... just rendering of what they're going for.
.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2014, 10:01 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,115,677 times
Reputation: 3185
Basically the smaller red areas in the core counties represent urbanization. Atlanta's core and edge cities,

The large red areas in the outer counties will remain mainly rural. Rural x 300% growth = rural.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 12:25 AM
 
Location: atlanta
3,962 posts, read 4,555,055 times
Reputation: 3211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Bryant, grow some respect and watch your language please.

This article and you for that matter... are leaving tons of things out that are a real reality.

Most of this region and even the city of Atlanta itself is built as a suburb, yet it has thrived and meets a funding equilibrium with the federal and state government (in fact the whole region pays more money than it gets back). There is clearly more going on here than meets the eye.

In a region growing towards 8 million people finding the right balance of having that many people and building places for people to live has MUCH TO DO with zoning and where people live in relation to where they work.

This relationship between living and working also has much to do with that types of infrastructure need to be built and where. Each of these pieces of infrastructure have far different costs both in capital and long-term maintenance. This is why counties like Gwinnett and Cobb thrive without having any subsidies that go beyond what the CoA would also get. They are not traditional commuter suburbs in a 50s-70s sense. That is an important key.
since you are obviously not going to read the article, let me give you an example.

the city of johns creek is now almost entirely built out in suburban development; there is hardly any land area left.

for the sake of argument let's say that johns creek is now completely maxed out with subdivisions. the infrastructure is there, and likely thousands of miles of sewer lines, power lines, and pavement have been laid. 30 years passes, and it is time for much of that infrastructure to be replaced or repaired. per acre, johns creek receives far, far less property tax revenue than the city of atlanta due to the low density of the area— and arguably has nearly as much infrastructure per acre to maintain. can you tell me specifically how johns creek is ever going to be able to maintain that infrastructure, based on its property tax revenues?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 01:43 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,255,582 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
since you are obviously not going to read the article, let me give you an example.

the city of johns creek is now almost entirely built out in suburban development; there is hardly any land area left.

for the sake of argument let's say that johns creek is now completely maxed out with subdivisions. the infrastructure is there, and likely thousands of miles of sewer lines, power lines, and pavement have been laid. 30 years passes, and it is time for much of that infrastructure to be replaced or repaired. per acre, johns creek receives far, far less property tax revenue than the city of atlanta due to the low density of the area— and arguably has nearly as much infrastructure per acre to maintain. can you tell me specifically how johns creek is ever going to be able to maintain that infrastructure, based on its property tax revenues?
Bryant, its cute how you keep repeating things and hoping they are true. I read the article. I've read variations of this over and over through the years that have gone through a variety of different arguments. Some true, some not, some valid.

but to answer your latest point and question....

Johns Creek has a population density of 2,500 people per square mile and infrastructure largely based on that density. Sure they could double the density, but they would have had to build much more infrastructure than they did to handle it. This would mean wider collector roads, more arterial streets (ie. the superblocks would need to be much closer together), the sewer and water mains would need to be fair wider, etc.. That would have been much more expensive to build and maintain.

Simply said... per acre or per square mile Johns Creek has far less infrastructure, than the city of Atlanta.

Take Midtown and Downtown. Clearly the densest parts of our city. However, you have wide arterial closely spaced together, with wide collector streets closely spaced together, and you have far larger sewer mains and fair larger water and power mains. It is the most expensive infrastructure in the city. Additionally once you hit a critical mass mass transit infrastructure becomes extremely important and it is extremely expensive to both build and maintain, but vital for areas with certain density. A city with Johns Creek's density does not a HRT tunnel going underneath it to help keep the area viable, but than again Johns Creek doesn't have near as much going on either.

We have older parts of our city that meet that same density, and the cost of maintenance is not an issue. Atlanta is the entity that has had the most trouble with the cost of maintenance, which I'm giving them a complete pass on. I know that has more to do with how much money left the city in the past during the 70s and 80s and I know it has to do with poor engineering choices from earlier in the century, like running sewer and storm drainage together.

Now lets take your comparison Johns Creek vs the City of Atlanta. The problem is your assumption bolded above. This isn't quite the case by a long shot.

Now I will refer to Gwinnett. It was planned to have infrastructure to fit the zoning. The areas along the I-85 corridor are planned to be denser and have more business uses. The county has larger water mains, power mains, and sewer mains in the area. They have more and wider arterials streets and collector streets that are also spaced closer together.

Now travel south of US 29 and north of US 78 you have a strip of mostly single family home only subdivisions in areas that go between 2500~3500 ppsm. The sewer mains are smaller, the water mains are smaller, the power lines are less copper, almost all of the roads are 2 lanes, the super blocks are smaller and are spaced several more miles apart, etc...

The county has planned meticulously the infrastructure required given the zoning of the various different areas. They have a frequent surface street repaving program. My family has owned residential property in both Gwinnett and the City of Atlanta for over 40 years. I will tell you the streets in Gwinnett get repaved at more than double the frequency of the streets where the property in the CoA.

Some of this can be said for the City of Atlanta too. There is a large difference between the infrastructure present in most of Buckhead, the infrastructure you'd find in Midtown/Downtown, and the infrastructure you would find in the Virginia-Highland. They all have very different street widths, arterial and collector superblock spacing, size of sewer mains, size of water mains, etc...

Now the crutch of some of the arguments these various groups have had is we can't keep building outward with the mentality that existed in the 50s-70s, ie. commuter-only suburbs. The extent we'd have to build freeways to give everybody access to downtown at once would prove to be way too costly, but this is why we have been doing a better job of finding equilibrium of where people live to where they work.... to cut down on the massive amount of freeway and arterial widths merely to carry everyone to a single place over extreme long distances. If we keep the average commute lengths in check, then we don't have to build as many highway and arterial land miles for the same size population. (ie. 3 million workers traveling 60 miles will need far more lane miles than 3 million workers traveling an average of 20 miles)


Now to answer your final question. You can go to Johns Creek website and even for a small city (and a new one at that) you can download their current infrastructure investment plans, which include continual maintenance on water lines and street repaving. This is done at a frequency that they can repave all of their streets within their expected life. So to answer your question.... they are already doing it.

Now Johns Creek might not have this problem as wealthy as it is, but looking back in Gwinnett and Dekalb. What I'm more worried about is property value decreases in certain places. This is what made the City of Atlanta have trouble from the 70s to today. At some point in time every place that has large property value decreases will run into funding problems, but this is true for the central city as it is for the suburbs. Detroit would be a good extreme case. It can pay to keep their infrastructure in place, but if their city is no longer economically viable and their populations halves is size, and property values plummet. Their problem isn't density and design, the problem is they are maintaining a city with half the economic viability than it was designed for.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 02:16 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,255,582 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq View Post
Very nice persistent trolling. Notice what he is doing. He picked a random figure (Why 500,000? How did he calculate that?) and use a hand waving rationale that pertains only to the wealthiest or most historic neighborhoods ITP (the homeowners association in Old 4th Ward has prevented growth... No, I guess not. He must he referring to the protests about the new subdivisions going in on the Westside.. No I guess I have never heard about those either). Downtown Atlanta may be able to take 500,000 by itself (although I agree it won't be there by 2040). But that is just north of I-20. There are huge tracts of land South of I-20 that haven't been touched by redevelopment. And that is just in the city of Atlanta. Apartments and condos are pouring into Brookhaven, Decatur and what will be Lavista Hills. South Dekalb ITP has huge amounts of undeveloped land. New developments are abounding in ITP Cobb. I could go on, but my point is clear.
A real number is 750,000 people.

That is about how many people are ITP right now at this moment with data taken at the census tract level and added up. There were some borders that crossed the magical divide of the perimeter, but that is pretty close to what it is.

Now I have spent a good bit of my time studying geography, cartography, aerial imaging, demography, and urban geography while I was in school. Now I have moved onto many different things, but I have actually taken much of what I have learned specifically on spatial analysis of data with me.

I'm also a big geek that has spent way too much time studying this city, this region, and much time contemplating it.

It isn't hard to note that the sheer majority of land ITP is not open for redevelopment. There are pockets of land of certain types where the political will exist to redevelop them. They will redevelop given the zoning the city is allowing now in a much more dense manner, but they only make up for areas not touched too. They are also units that typically bring smaller family/household sizes. The density allowed in current zoning is a known finite number as well.

So yes, I am coming up with that number, but yes it is coming from an educated position too and has always been a self-admitted rough number.

The ARC's current estimates only have that area growing less than that, but I'm giving it more because I'm ignoring the 2040 date. Instead I'm focusing on what is possible given the political will to redevelop different types of land and what zoning they are allowing.

As for your lack of understanding of Atlanta's longstanding political will not to change most single-family neighborhoods through the city... I'm simply confused. It is deep in Atlanta's history and there are many intowners here I have had the exact opposite debate with where I'm trying to convince them that more neighborhoods needs to change that is being allowed. So no your point is not that clear. Atlanta has quite a bit of historically protected neighborhoods and many frequently request for various types of historical protection. It isn't just a few neighborhoods. In fact the region has neighborhoods with the first ranch houses starting to request historical protection.

If you read through all of the zoning and planning reports from the city you will see great effort to preserve single family neighborhoods, phase the zoning styles/heights of existing development, and prevent further encroachment of taller buildings towards single family houses.

To be honest I actually agree with alot of it. My family is deeply rooted in Atlanta for many generations. I just have differences of opinions on some constraints in some key areas.

Now the region is expected to grow by over 2.5 million people from 2010 to 2040. 90% of it is forecasted to be in the suburbs and that is including the current growth trends of the city itself. That is straight from the ARC. This comes back to the original thing that has triggered all this was those calling suburban growth unsustainable and playing up the city a bit much.

No one said the city wasn't and wouldn't be growing, but no one can realistically claim the city of Atlanta or even ITP will be able to take on a bulk of the growth the region will face by 2040. Rather the city will likely grow by 250,000 as forecasted.

That does directly relate to many of the comments people had on the OP's map from the ARC.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Morningside, Atlanta, GA
280 posts, read 293,163 times
Reputation: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
A real number is 750,000 people.


At what time frame? You were saying in your earlier posts: forever. Even if we blackout huge blocks of untouchable land that is laughable. Now by 2040, I agree that the ceiling is about 750,000 additional people living ITP



As for your lack of understanding of Atlanta's longstanding political will not to change most single-family neighborhoods through the city... I'm simply confused. It is deep in Atlanta's history and there are many intowners here I have had the exact opposite debate with where I'm trying to convince them that more neighborhoods needs to change that is being allowed. So no your point is not that clear. Atlanta has quite a bit of historically protected neighborhoods and many frequently request for various types of historical protection. It isn't just a few neighborhoods. In fact the region has neighborhoods with the first ranch houses starting to request historical protection.

I have lived in ITP for 42 years and in Morningside for 29 and am very active in the neighborhood. I am a part of Atlanta's longstanding political will. I participate in the zoning decisions that you discuss and talk to leaders from other neighborhoods. I am working on investments South of I-20. Not every neighborhood is Morningside. Many want growth and density if they get the increased transit and infrastructure improvements they want. Many want residential density on their major corridors so that they can have the shopping and amenities that go with that development. The city increasingly has the tax base to deliver those improvements. Downtown wants skyscraper residential and has room for enormous amounts of it.

I think one issue is how the traditionally African American areas ITP will grow. There are enormous possibilities in these areas with the airport and with SE and SW Atlanta. Some of these areas will have the same strong single family desire and others will not. I do not know how much growth will occur in the near term in these areas, but to say that there are the same land use constraints in these areas is ridiculous. We hope (and I believe) that in 20-25 years there is less racism then there is today and that these underdeveloped areas will get the infrastructure and development they deserve. Look at what is happening on the Westside: this change can and will happen.



No one said the city wasn't and wouldn't be growing, but no one can realistically claim the city of Atlanta or even ITP will be able to take on a bulk of the growth the region will face by 2040. Rather the city will likely grow by 250,000 as forecasted.
If the city grows by 250,000 by 2040, then it can easily take 750,000 itself by 2100. ITP? it is going to be a much larger number than that. That is my point. The longterm population potential ITP is very large.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 08:17 AM
 
9,907 posts, read 6,894,976 times
Reputation: 3012
chiatldal - Good post.

I think my original interpretation of the ARC projections showing sprawl continuing at the same rate as the past is not correct. Good point with "Rural x 300% growth = rural". I think ARC's projections are reflecting relatively less growth in the suburbs and more urban areas than we have seen the last few decades.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 08:52 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,115,677 times
Reputation: 3185
Atlanta and the region doesn't need density everywhere, it contradict density is a small populated area. Because most of the region is unsuitable for density it will only place greater emphasis on the place that can.

Let say the city of Atlanta does only grow by 250,000 don't know how true those numbers are but it doesn't matter, The only place capable of gaining that is Downtown, Midtown, West Midtown, O4W, Vine city, Along The Beltline.... plus Buckhead


In 1950 Atlanta 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi, Beside Buckhead The area mention above would be smaller like 60% - 70% the size of 1950's Atlanta. But would have a much greater Density... It's adding the current population of those places above plus most of that 250,000. Think about it.



History of Atlanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Site created by Springlake Sports LLC - BeltLine Community Kickoff

As for the suburbs it's the same thing, only certain areas are capable gaining density. Metro Atlanta isn't built in a giant grid like DFW, Houston, and Phoenix in those metos are building more urban areas but there's a lesser demand. Atlanta is built closer to DC, and DC is closer to what the ARC is going for with growth. Silver springs, Tysons Corner, Bethesda, Crystal city are DC edge cities and their all connected with the DC metro rail.

Notice Gwinnett light rail plans are from Gwinnett Place to Gwinnett Village

Notice Cobb light rail plans are from Cobb Town Center to Cumberland.

Notice Marta want to extend up the 400, North Point Area is up there.........

Those area are CID's, The ARC regional centers "edge cities" planed for higher densities. There also Regional town centers and Town Center these are the historic Downtowns of cities like Decatur, Marietta, Cartersville, and etc. Leaders are trying utilize and expend them, so when you think of Suburban growth don't think of just sprawl. There will be mixture of things going on.


I think more exurban counties should do this, create a sprawl barrier.
The 2050 Plan - The Center - The Center

Last edited by chiatldal; 12-11-2014 at 09:00 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,255,582 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq View Post
If the city grows by 250,000 by 2040, then it can easily take 750,000 itself by 2100. ITP? it is going to be a much larger number than that. That is my point. The longterm population potential ITP is very large.
You're ignoring land availability, zoning, and historical preservation.

Land is a finite resource.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2014, 10:16 AM
 
28,113 posts, read 24,639,595 times
Reputation: 9528
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
However, I have said that given the zoning the city is willing to put on the table and lack of political will to touch single family home neighborhoods in the city.... there is only room for another 500,000 ITP and that will take well beyond 2040.
Detroit and Philadelphia, which are about the same geographical size as Atlanta, have both had around 2,000,000 residents within their borders. That includes a number of areas with single family homes on large, leafy lots.

There's tons of space to redevelop within the city of Atlanta proper, if the desire to do so should arise.
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.


 
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