How Big is Atlanta, Actually? (Druid Hills, Dallas: cul-de-sac, homes, self-storage)

[jsvh]

https://www.sparefoot.com/Atlanta-GA...Big-is-Atlanta

Good set of overlays with other city limits.

My conclusion, is that Atlanta is just fine city limit wise. Maybe a few smaller annexations like the rest of Druid Hills make sense as the the surrounding areas incorporate, but don't think we need to go trying to combine in the ten core counties into ATL.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by jsvh

https://www.sparefoot.com/Atlanta-GA...Big-is-Atlanta

Good set of overlays with other city limits.

My conclusion, is that Atlanta is just fine city limit wise. Maybe a few smaller annexations like the rest of Druid Hills make sense as the the surrounding areas incorporate, but don't think we need to go trying to combine in the ten core counties into ATL.

I seriously doubt that could ever happen with all of the independent municipalities in the surrounding counties. Even consolidating with just Fulton would be nightmare. Atlanta is good the size that it is, but we need to add density - which we seem to be doing right now.

[sedimenjerry]

I love MAPfrappe. Done tons of different size comparisons.

Anyway, outside of the the main downtown to Buckhead corridor, Atlanta proper really isn't that dense. Especially along the western and northern edges of city limits. Not too surprising that Atlanta has similar density compared to Dallas and Houston. Both Texas cities are also sunbelt cities and the metros are only relatively a little larger than Atlanta.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

I love MAPfrappe. Done tons of different size comparisons.

Anyway, outside of the the main downtown to Buckhead corridor, Atlanta proper really isn't that dense. Especially along the western and northern edges of city limits. Not too surprising that Atlanta has similar density compared to Dallas and Houston. Both Texas cities are also sunbelt cities and the metros are only relatively a little larger than Atlanta.

But Houston's 600 square miles and Dallas's 340 are about 10% more dense than Atlanta's 133. If you took only the area Atlanta's 133 square miles filled on the map, you would find them significantly more dense, probably about 50% more. Atlanta and cities in the southeast like Charlotte and Birmingham are not dense. Houston's 96 miles inside loop 610 was almost identical in population (443k vs 447k) to Atlanta's 133. And, of course, Houston and Dallas are not dense at all compared to the cities on the coasts. Atlanta's area can handle a lot more people, but its development patterns (large lot sf homes) and streets create limits.

[ericsonga]

Originally Posted by bu2

But Houston's 600 square miles and Dallas's 340 are about 10% more dense than Atlanta's 133. If you took only the area Atlanta's 133 square miles filled on the map, you would find them significantly more dense, probably about 50% more. Atlanta and cities in the southeast like Charlotte and Birmingham are not dense. Houston's 96 miles inside loop 610 was almost identical in population (443k vs 447k) to Atlanta's 133. And, of course, Houston and Dallas are not dense at all compared to the cities on the coasts. Atlanta's area can handle a lot more people, but its development patterns (large lot sf homes) and streets create limits.

Also, worth noting when comparing Atlanta with our sister cities in Texas is the topography of Atlanta. Both Dallas and especially Houston are much flatter than Atlanta. It is much easier to build a dense city on a grid pattern when the topography is essentially flat.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by ericsonga

Also, worth noting when comparing Atlanta with our sister cities in Texas is the topography of Atlanta. Both Dallas and especially Houston are much flatter than Atlanta. It is much easier to build a dense city on a grid pattern when the topography is essentially flat.

Exactly, more rugged cities with planned grids such as Birmingham, San Francisco, Phoenix etc. all have disruptions in their grid patterns when it came to their elevated areas. The grids in these places only exist in flatter areas or in valleys.

[afdinatl]

Originally Posted by ericsonga

Also, worth noting when comparing Atlanta with our sister cities in Texas is the topography of Atlanta. Both Dallas and especially Houston are much flatter than Atlanta. It is much easier to build a dense city on a grid pattern when the topography is essentially flat.

I'd rather keep our curvy roads and rolling hills

[Tryska]

We really need to up the density.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by ericsonga

Also, worth noting when comparing Atlanta with our sister cities in Texas is the topography of Atlanta. Both Dallas and especially Houston are much flatter than Atlanta. It is much easier to build a dense city on a grid pattern when the topography is essentially flat.

Very true. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. have those western grid development patterns in place for that reason. However, even with that in mind, I still believe Atlanta can do a better job with suburban development patterns.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by ericsonga

Also, worth noting when comparing Atlanta with our sister cities in Texas is the topography of Atlanta. Both Dallas and especially Houston are much flatter than Atlanta. It is much easier to build a dense city on a grid pattern when the topography is essentially flat.

Its history, not hills. Cincinnati is as hilly and has a grid pattern. Atlanta just continued to follow the old patterns and then had a bunch of cul-de-sac suburbs built in the 60s and 70s.