ARC Population Change Forecasts (Lilburn, Buford: 2014, apartments, home)

[arjay57]

Interesting.

Do you think this is accurate?




ARC Population Growth Predictions

[waronxmas]

There's a lot going on with that map, but I can tell you that it seems a little off that they have the Buford Highway/I85 corridor losing population.

[cwkimbro]

I see things I agree and disagree with.

Largely though, I think it is more spot on than not.

This metric is change and it must take many variables into account to dictate what is likely to happen

-buildable land left
-zoning (lack of ability to re-zone certain areas)
-population demographics (This is big!)
-buildings likely to be rebuilt (ie aging apartments, industrial areas, strip malls in some cases)

If you look at the Lilburn area you will see a net increase with limited land for infill housing. That area has just gone through a 10-15 year period where the population was decreasing due to an aging populace (more empty nesters, less kids). Many businesses have left the area because of this too (Pre-recession!) and lately businesses have been rebounding.

That area is now in a period of regrowth, not from a huge amount of infill, but actual families re-occupying existing housing stock. My parents noticed a huge uptick in the number of trick-or-treaters in the last 2-3 years alone. We use to only count hand fulls of kids during the whole Halloween evening. Now its closer to 50-60 and increasing.

Now if you look at large parts of North Fulton, particularly the single family housing areas and Johns creek, this same effect makes sense. They are behind lilburn 10-15 years in growth. Much of their housing stock is from the late 80s and 90s and many kids from the first-wave are not adults and the avg family size per household will decrease.

If you look at Southern Peachtree Corners/Norcross vs Northern Peachtree Corners/Norcross you have a good strong indication of older housing areas that won't change zoning (north) and industrial areas that are rapidly changing zoning and allowing for infill housing growth, which is currently taking place (south).

The one major comment I'm noticing is this likely to largely be based off the ARC regional planning maps, which takes into account local zoning (applied) + regional regulations. I don't this map shows key large changes that are not on the regional planning maps quite yet.

The best example I see of this is Doraville where the GM site is. That is likely to be a huge net growth in residents. It is a huge industrial site with no residents being turned into a mixed use project. It will grow residents into the 1000+%.

The key thing is no one knows what it will be yet and the zoning does not official exist with the ARC 2040 regional plan yet. An update going further into the future is in progress. The current plan does not take into account -all- of the LCI initiatives adopted since the 2040 plan came out. This seems to be key areas for differences I see.

[jsvh]

Don't think the continued sprawl they are predicting will be sustainable. Suburbanites don't want to pay for the new and wider highways that would be needed to sustain that population growth.

They are predicting slow / negative growth for my intown neighborhood just south of I-20. And there is enough construction going on that I think we have probably already gone past their 2040 growth prediction.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Don't think the continued sprawl they are predicting will be sustainable. Suburbanites don't want to pay for the new and wider highways that would be needed to sustain that population growth.

They are predicting slow / negative growth for my intown neighborhood just south of I-20. And there is enough construction going on that I think we have probably already gone past their 2040 growth prediction.

Actually it is highly sustainable. You just don't like it. With as many jobs as there are in the suburbs it is easy. Local counties and the GDOT are paying for new roadway development, which is considerably cheaper than retrofits in existing suburban and intown areas.

You also need to remember much of it is greenfield development. It doesn't take much for growth percentages to go through the roof with far lower existing populations and large amounts of land with little existing housing stock. Those counties are currently fast growing counties for these reasons. In this regard, they are spot on.

In town areas are the exact opposite. I know the areas you're referring to. Truth is 95+% of the current land isn't being touched and is highly protected as far as zoning policy goes. Just because you seem key changes in key areas, doesn't mean it will impact the percentages as much across all land, including unchanged single family home neighborhoods. The larger changes to look for are in demographics of who occupies each home.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Actually it is highly sustainable.

Sure there is room to build stuff. But the funding sources that built the interstate system are drying up and drivers don't want to pick up the tab.

Even by ARC's own graphs, the direction things are shifting is clear, growth is shifting to the core:


Source: http://documents.atlantaregional.com...s_main2014.pdf

[arjay57]

It looks to me like they are still predicting strong intown growth in certain areas. While it may not be at the galloping pace of the suburbs it is clearly happening.

Also bear in mind that in 25 years the Millennials will be approaching retirement age. Their kids will have finished high school and will be off to college, so they may be thinking about downsizing. The Beltline will be finishing up by then and a lot of them may feel the pull of nostalgia for intown living again.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

There's a lot going on with that map, but I can tell you that it seems a little off that they have the Buford Highway/I85 corridor losing population.

Notice that the blue areas are not all losing population. The graph shows that areas in blue are anywhere from losing 2.5% to gaining 10.9%. Solid, stable but built out areas like North Fulton and East Cobb are in blue as well. Areas away from the travel corridors are not likely to see single family neighborhoods transition to more dense neighborhoods. As these areas mature, growth of 5-10% can mean stability, not loss.

Odd that they would include moderate, sustained growth with losing population in the same color.

[jsvh]

As I am considering this, one thing to note is these are % growth numbers. Not raw growth numbers. 200% growth in midtown is a big difference from 200% growth in Canton.

[neil0311]

WAIT...weren't we being preached to that the suburbs are not growing as fast as the "urban core" or something like that?

I'm not the smartest guy in town, but that map seems to indicate the exact opposite.