ARC Population Change Forecasts (Atlanta, Forsyth: big home, construction, schools)
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.
It is easy to say one thing when you're talking in general and then it is easy to talk specifics and say the opposite when you're talking about one neighborhood.
The problem I face is there are many other neighborhoods similar to that one. People will talk about change in general, but then when you discuss touching the actual existing single family homes in the core of the neighborhood people respond as you did. That is hardly the only neighborhood in that area or even the city where people would push back.
Part of post was a response to you...
"There seem to be a misconception that Atlanta has a lack of ability to increase urbanity you would have to tear up the leafy neighborhoods, that's untrue."
Atlanta has enough brownfield spaces and undeveloped areas to add 100,000's of people without even touching the leafy single family neighborhoods...
Also I pointed out in 1950 Atlanta had 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi, Now Atlanta did have multi family units back then but most of it was the same Single family neighborhoods your complaining about.
Cleveland
Most American cities, New Orleans, Cleveland, St Louis, Seattle, LA, Miami density is dominated by detach single family homes. After the 60's Atlanta inner city neighborhoods started to decline. Then came an increase of vacancies and homes where razed so if you go into neighborhoods development is leap frogging rather staying constant.
To increase the density in these single family neighborhoods isn't to destroy the character and go against the zoning. But rather to infill vacancies, and infill homes back of the empty lots.
A Big Mistake Atlanta leaders made was razing so much of Atlanta history and density already. I don't understand why you want to make Atlanta plastic. Cities neighborhoods fighting for preservation is nothing unique, Cities have identities and characters
That's just the thing--suburban sprawl is unsustainable in the long run, but it has become so much a part of our collective psyche that most if not all major metro areas have a lot of it. How do you fix a problem that is a way of life for so many people?
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
A Big Mistake Atlanta leaders made was razing so much of Atlanta history and density already. I don't understand why you want to make Atlanta plastic. Cities neighborhoods fighting for preservation is nothing unique, Cities have identities and characters
What do you keep going on about? Other posters have pointed out large neighborhoods that are prime for densification and re-population. Are there certain neighborhoods, comprised of primarily SFH, that won't see high population gains? Sure, but they're in the minority, not the majority.
Keep in mind during this whole thread my premise is two-fold
-The suburbs aren't going to quit growing and be unsustainable as others originally argued. They are actually projected to take over 90% of the region's growth through 2040.
-The city is growing and will densify... but there are limitations for a reason.
The issue about the single family home neighborhoods that no one has addressed is zoning. None of that changed as of yet. The city, as a matter of policy, is not shrinking the lots in most single family neighborhoods throughout town and has policies with growth limitations on the lots near them (ie buildings can't be taller than a 45 degree plane from any existing single family home.). I'm not saying these are bad policies either. I've just said it limits growth and I've already made an argument that the city can practically double in size.
Instead they are mostly in the very core or on adjacent industrial and commercial property, which limits land for redevelopment.
ie. Atlanta will not be Philly without having single family home neighborhoods, like Philly's.
"There seem to be a misconception that Atlanta has a lack of ability to increase urbanity you would have to tear up the leafy neighborhoods, that's untrue."
Atlanta has enough brownfield spaces and undeveloped areas to add 100,000's of people without even touching the leafy single family neighborhoods...
Also I pointed out in 1950 Atlanta had 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi, Now Atlanta did have multi family units back then but most of it was the same Single family neighborhoods your complaining about.
But then you need to look at what my argument is and not what other posters are trying to make it.
My argument is that Atlanta is growing, but it limited in growth potential without changing SFH neighborhoods that make alot of space.
I actually posited the number 500,000 people. So you're argument, at least as it is written here, is an agreement to mine.
I never said otherwise. What I am saying is there are limitations. People argued back against that and the 500,000 number.
But at the end of the day if they want more, something else has to change. The brownfield spaces, with current zoning, are limited to what kind of increase you can expect. Most of the land is captured by existing SFH.
A Big Mistake Atlanta leaders made was razing so much of Atlanta history and density already. I don't understand why you want to make Atlanta plastic. Cities neighborhoods fighting for preservation is nothing unique, Cities have identities and characters
You're taking my arguments out of context if this is directed at me.
I'm not arguing for a plastic city.
I'm trying to make people see the relationship between the ability to keep the number of SFH there are as they are today for preservation (which is what you are on the verge of arguing here) and future overall population numbers and density.
If the zoning of lot sizes of Virginia Highland is locked into 8000 ppsm density... it is locked in. Won't change, whcih is what the premise of this thread is originally about.
Instead the growth will be constrained to adjacted brownfield sites and there are limits.
Keep in mind during this whole thread my premise is two-fold
-The suburbs aren't going to quit growing and be unsustainable as others originally argued. They are actually projected to take over 90% of the region's growth through 2040.
-The city is growing and will densify... but there are limitations for a reason.
The issue about the single family home neighborhoods that no one has addressed is zoning. None of that changed as of yet. The city, as a matter of policy, is not shrinking the lots in most single family neighborhoods throughout town and has policies with growth limitations on the lots near them (ie buildings can't be taller than a 45 degree plane from any existing single family home.). I'm not saying these are bad policies either. I've just said it limits growth and I've already made an argument that the city can practically double in size.
Instead they are mostly in the very core or on adjacent industrial and commercial property, which limits land for redevelopment.
ie. Atlanta will not be Philly without having single family home neighborhoods, like Philly's.
I think you need to differentiate between the suburbs and sprawl. You can have a suburb that is built with sustainability in mind and you can also have suburbs that are unsustainable sprawl. The suburbs aren't a monotonous monolith, but are comprised of a variety of places with a variety of characteristics. If you read the articles others have shared you would understand what they mean by unsustainability. No one is implying that the suburbs will fail to see population gains, but what they're implying is that they need to focus on placemaking and focus on sustainable building practices. Plenty of this is happening in places like Roswell, Woodstock, even Alpharetta to name a few. Those places that fail to adapt will be left behind and will see decline coupled with financial issues as services and budgets are stretch thin.
Aside, I would think it would make sense that the suburbs would see 90% of the population growth, as they account for 98.4% of all land area.
I think you're too focused on the existing single family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods don't need to grow for Atlanta to see massive growth. This growth is occurring in abandoned neighborhoods and other neighborhoods, more open to density, are seeing more dense development. Philly was an example someone used, not a like for like comparison. You're being overly pedantic in a generalized discussion about growth potential decades in the future.
As you said yourself, the City of Atlanta can double its size, which I would say is an admirable goal.
This was a debate I had with Arjay over Peachtree Park in the past. That neighborhood, internally, is not going to change in density outside more kids inside the existing houses. This is even as the northern part of the neighborhood is just a couple blocks wide and is wedged between the urbanizing potential of the village and the buckhead CBD. It is a major discontinuity for urban growth in the area, but no one ever wants to change it.
My recollection is that you were proposing slicing a new arterial street through Peachtree Park so that it would be easier to drive from the Village up to Lenox Square. I thought that was a bad idea then and I still do.
Remember, neighborhoods like Peachtree Park have already made major concessions to urbanization and have adapted to living directly adjacent to high density areas.
One of the most important ways that has been done is to create SPI (Special Public Interest) districts around transit and other major corridors. Peachtree Park has been in the forefront of this and they are immediately adjacent to three of the city's important SPI's. This allows high density to be concentrated where it is appropriate, while still preserving the charm of older single family neighborhoods. For example, SPI-9 is densifying rapidly, with scads of new midrise and highrise multifamily and mixed use developments coming in. It's the same with SPI-12 to their north and east, and SPI-15 to the south.
That's how you densify a city, while protecting high value, very desirable existing areas. We've seen the same process in Midtown, Ansley and Virginia-Highland with SPI-16.
Don't forget that in 1970 the city proper easily accommodated a population of 500,000, with plenty of room to grow.
In short, Atlanta is not constrained by lack of developable land. It's here in abundance.
I think you need to differentiate between the suburbs and sprawl. You can have a suburb that is built with sustainability in mind and you can also have suburbs that are unsustainable sprawl. The suburbs aren't a monotonous monolith, but are comprised of a variety of places with a variety of characteristics. If you read the articles others have shared you would understand what they mean by unsustainability. No one is implying that the suburbs will fail to see population gains, but what they're implying is that they need to focus on placemaking and focus on sustainable building practices. Plenty of this is happening in places like Roswell, Woodstock, even Alpharetta to name a few. Those places that fail to adapt will be left behind and will see decline coupled with financial issues as services and budgets are stretch thin.
Aside, I would think it would make sense that the suburbs would see 90% of the population growth, as they account for 98.4% of all land area.
I think you're too focused on the existing single family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods don't need to grow for Atlanta to see massive growth. This growth is occurring in abandoned neighborhoods and other neighborhoods, more open to density, are seeing more dense development. Philly was an example someone used, not a like for like comparison. You're being overly pedantic in a generalized discussion about growth potential decades in the future.
As you said yourself, the City of Atlanta can double its size, which I would say is an admirable goal.
My main response to this is you need to go back to the original discussion and see the context of the original points I was making and what they were in response to.
There were sweeping points made against the suburbs... in general. That is largely what I have responded to.
I did read the articles as well as many other variations of that type of article. Please see my prior responses which take into account many issues you're bringing up and more.
SFH in Atlanta. I'm focused on them, because it where a majority of the square mileage of the CoA exists. Again... i never said the city would not grow. I merely pointed out this is a growth constraint.
Philly, as already pointed out, is a poor example because msot of it is row houses that the CoA does not allow much for in zoning of exisiting SFH neighborhoods... hince my point over and over and over.
My recollection is that you were proposing slicing a new arterial street through Peachtree Park so that it would be easier to drive from the Village up to Lenox Square. I thought that was a bad idea then and I still do.
Remember, neighborhoods like Peachtree Park have already made major concessions to urbanization and have adapted to living directly adjacent to high density areas.
One of the most important ways that has been done is to create SPI (Special Public Interest) districts around transit and other major corridors. Peachtree Park has been in the forefront of this and they are immediately adjacent to three of the city's important SPI's. This allows high density to be concentrated where it is appropriate, while still preserving the charm of older single family neighborhoods. For example, SPI-9 is densifying rapidly, with scads of new midrise and highrise multifamily and mixed use developments coming in. It's the same with SPI-12 to their north and east, and SPI-15 to the south.
That's how you densify a city, while protecting high value, very desirable existing areas. We've seen the same process in Midtown, Ansley and Virginia-Highland with SPI-16.
Don't forget that in 1970 the city proper easily accommodated a population of 500,000, with plenty of room to grow.
In short, Atlanta is not constrained by lack of developable land. It's here in abundance.
My idea was that and more. My idea was for the northern part of the neighborhood to transition into a urban area and bridge the CBD with the urbanizing buckhead village.
The original point of my post was 3 constrained places in Atlanta's SFH neighborhoods where I saw value to giving up historical preservation. My other argument was to help enforce historical preservation in other neighborhoods as well.
That is why I used it as an example in this argument. I get push back from SFH changing, yet others in this thread tried to argued the exact opposite to me.
The zoning changes you have just mentioned are real, but they are a preservation of SFH neighborhoods and a regrowth of commercial/industrial brownfields... whcih is exactly what I have been arguing all along. That leads to growth, but overall long-term growht is limited to the zoning potential of those sites only. Hince my estimation of a 500,000 person growth.
People seem to have labeled me as pro-suburban/anti-city and are all arguing with me, yet you all as a whole disagree with one another yet you're not arguing with one another.
I'm pointing out these inconsistencies.
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 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.
