While US sprawl generally peaked around 1994, Atlanta kept spreading out (Dacula: transfer, maintenance)

[ATLJR]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

The suburbs are not destroying the environment nor about to cause the collapse of society. If folks who don't live in the suburbs disdain its development, well, they should stay in the environment in which they are comfortable and not criticize places others of us call home.

You need to remove the word suburb and replace it with "bad development practices".

As I said earlier, it's easier for people like yourself to see it as an attack on a "lifestyle". That way you don't have to address legitimate concerns that certain building practices, that you favor, have on our society as a whole.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

The suburbs are not destroying the environment nor about to cause the collapse of society. If folks who don't live in the suburbs disdain its development, well, they should stay in the environment in which they are comfortable and not criticize places others of us call home.

I want people to have choice of the suburbs. But we should not be forcing people to the suburbs to save money due to government programs.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by ATLJR

I know you know the answer, but I'll go ahead and chime in for others.

One of the definitions of the word sprawl is "to spread out over a large area in an untidy or irregular way". As it relates to the built environment, it has come to also mean "the expansion of an urban or industrial area into the adjoining countryside in a way perceived to be disorganized and unattractive". This is often characterized with exurban developments built as insular communities, focused on the car, with far separate land uses, without much thought going into future growth issues (thus, unsustainable).

No one is telling anyone that they can't live where they want or have "elbow room", but we as a society share many things and I'm sure you've heard of the term, "tragedy of the commons". I'll quote Wikipedia, "Where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource." Those resources being things like forests, natural, open space, rivers, air, etc. Unmitigated development, without consideration to various factors, can lead to horrendous results and that's why there is hostility.

There are plenty of low density neighborhoods in the region, and in the City of Atlanta, built in a sustainable, unsprawl like fashion. There is no attack against "low density living" and you know this, so there's no need to be purposely obtuse.

I appreciate what you are saying. However, terms such "untidy and irregular" and "disorganized and unattractive" are sort of in the eye of the beholder.

We should be looking at the best ways to do new development but categorizing the areas where most people live as "hellish" doesn't move that conversation forward.

[mattee01]

Originally Posted by arjay57

This seems written with the preconceived notion that "sprawl" -- i.e., relatively low density residential suburbs -- is "hellish" and "hard to densify."

However, that's where around 90% of Atlantans choose to live. Many of them like it just fine. It's entirely possible (and indeed likely) that they don't want to increase density in their area.

What you have is a difference in philosophies and desires. For some, living in a highrise apartment on a crowded city street is nirvana. For others, that holds little attraction.

Unfortunately "sprawl" has become a negative buzzword that essentially condemns an entire lifestyle. That's polarizing, especially since it's the form that millions prefer. It also makes it harder to find common ground.

Or they chose to live where they can afford?

Would I love to live in Midtown? Buckhead? O4W? Hell yes. Do I have the money to do it? Nope, so I live in Norcross off Jimmy Carter where I could find something under 700$ that isn't hood/run down.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by atler8

Ansley
I wonder if you can at all relate to ATLJR's point about the type of development seen in the 'burbs?
Like you, I've lived in both urban & suburban Atlanta & I'm forever ragging about the dearth of sidewalks in my area & the unnconnected nature of our nearby neaighborhoods. Any agreement on those factors?

Sounds like you are describing the city of Atlanta (except for the eastside).

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

Sounds like you are describing the city of Atlanta (except for the eastside).

Sure the city could have more, but the suburb's sidewalks are't even close to the amount of coverage in the city.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

My lifestyle is quite sustainable, thank you.

We will see what happens when the infrastructure needs upgrading and replacement. It is a lot more expensive to build infrastructure for low density, SFH and when that infrastructure starts to get old, the local governments are faced with replacing and they will have to raise taxes. The suburbs and those commuting by car are more susceptible to fluctuations in gas prices that will have a negative effect on their disposable income. As we have seen GDOT is having a difficult time maintaining the roads to these low density suburbs.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by bu2

Sounds like you are describing the city of Atlanta (except for the eastside).

Uh, what is your deal with the city of Atlanta? Name any central city of a major metro in the South with the exception of New Orleans that has sidewalks in practically every single portion of its city proper. I'll wait...

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by cqholt

We will see what happens when the infrastructure needs upgrading and replacement. It is a lot more expensive to build infrastructure for low density, SFH and when that infrastructure starts to get old, the local governments are faced with replacing and they will have to raise taxes. The suburbs and those commuting by car are more susceptible to fluctuations in gas prices that will have a negative effect on their disposable income. As we have seen GDOT is having a difficult time maintaining the roads to these low density suburbs.

I don't see the roads being an issue at all. Gwinnett does an excellent job with their local roads (save one rough patch on RR Pkwy wb). The freeways are pretty well maintained with periodic repavings. Concrete freeways seem to be the worst. I hate driving 285 on the west side between 75 and 20. I'm always dodging potholes and pathetic attempts to patch it up. I was just on 20 headed to Alabama and it was the same story. Other than that I can't really tell a difference on roadway quality. As for other infrastructure like sewers and the like, yea I can see it becoming an issue, but not a constant one. Of all places, CoA seems to have the most problems (or most publicized) because the pipes were laid in some cases over a century ago.

[Clayton white guy]

Most older, Pre-WWII portions of Atlanta DO have sidewalks. The same can be said about older parts of inner suburbs, too. (College Park, East Point, Hapeville, East Point, City of Decatur, etc; even vast portions of the city limits part of Morrow and Jonesboro.)