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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2015, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,288,419 times
Reputation: 4205

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
No, we can only densify. We cannot keep on building further out, but instead adapt the suburbs and densfiy them were appropriate. Also, encourage more infill along projects like the BeltLine, reduce crime and improve schools in west and SW Atlanta to make those areas desirable.
Well CQ, that is a part of Both.

But the problem is for 2.8 new million people that won't happen. There is a lack of land and too much land is already taken up for other purposes and the infrastructure to even support a density only approach.

For us to even consider that the region would have to be more ok with widespread neighborhood destruction and rebuilding than it is, because existing low-density housing intown takes up too much space. The existing arterial road networks are woefully inadequate and there is public resistance against changing both.

So there is a lack of resources for 2.8m to be density only in just 20 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2015, 04:20 PM
 
9,933 posts, read 6,939,290 times
Reputation: 3026
cwkimbro - There is plenty of land available transportation infrastructure in the existing footprint of the metro, I bet we already dedicate a much higher area of land to transportation than other larger international cities. We just need to change our infrastructure mix. Rail can carry much more capacity on a single rail line than a ten lane freeway can at a fraction of the width. On top of that, with increased density you also shorten trip and thus the length of roadway / transit infrastructure needed per person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 04:51 PM
 
Location: N.C. for now... Atlanta future
1,243 posts, read 988,002 times
Reputation: 1285
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
SW Atlanta
I like this point. When viewing aerials of Atlanta, one is immediately struck by the fact that the city is very thinly developed on the entire western side. A lot of this area was industrial and warehouse but now is seeing more residential. There remain vast vacant stretches of demolished apartments and other burnt out buildings that could be cleared for new residents. There is a lot of empty land available out near the Chattahoochee that would make for great views and attractive new neighborhoods. It's relatively high in a lot of places, reducing the risk of flooding. Some developers have already realized this. Highlands, Dupont Commons, Vinings on the Chattahoochee, Columbia Grove, and some new neighborhoods planned are showing how much new residents the city can hold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 05:01 PM
 
3,327 posts, read 4,812,546 times
Reputation: 1365
Look for a lot more development on the Marta lines which are already built. Changing demographics will also influence politics allowing rail to get built out. I wouldn't be surprised to see rail to Macon daily by then, it would only be an hour and 15 minutes from Macon to the airport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,288,419 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
cwkimbro - There is plenty of land available transportation infrastructure in the existing footprint of the metro, I bet we already dedicate a much higher area of land to transportation than other larger international cities. We just need to change our infrastructure mix. Rail can carry much more capacity on a single rail line than a ten lane freeway can at a fraction of the width. On top of that, with increased density you also shorten trip and thus the length of roadway / transit infrastructure needed per person.
jsvh - no there really isn't, not with costs and political headwinds of all the various types taken into account. Then we have to account for the realities of where jobs and industries for 2.8 people will go

It is wishful thinking at best.

The problem is existing land that is already developed can only be redeveloped in limited amounts with different costs and that is further hindered by public opinion on both infrastructure and changes to existing neighborhoods. That can't support 2.8 million people in less than 20 years. The added costs to development won't work in many cases either.

You can keep having your magical rail transit vs freeway debate all you want, but the infrastructure inadequacies are far more basic than that. It is the local arterial, collectors, water pipes, sewage, etc... Some of which often gets public resistance to any thought of expansion.

The ITP region only has about 750,000 people to get a valid comparisons of what it is we are really talking about here.

As for land towards transportation, we actually don't. There was an interesting article I read that state the otherwise a while back. I will have to see if I can find it or not. The issue is the world's densest cities actually have a very tight and often wider streets to support it. We have very large blocks and narrow streets.

You really need to spend more time in Urban NYC or Chicago at some point to get a realistic view point of what dense urban neighborhoods are actually like and see how we actually differ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 08:40 PM
 
3,327 posts, read 4,812,546 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post

The ITP region only has about 750,000 people to get a valid comparisons of what it is we are really talking about here.

As for land towards transportation, we actually don't. There was an interesting article I read that state the otherwise a while back. I will have to see if I can find it or not. The issue is the world's densest cities actually have a very tight and often wider streets to support it. We have very large blocks and narrow streets.

You really need to spend more time in Urban NYC or Chicago at some point to get a realistic view point of what dense urban neighborhoods are actually like and see how we actually differ.
The city of Chicago has about 2.9 million inside the city limits, if ATL gets to 8 million then Chitown is a good comparison. What Chicago does have is a downtown loop heavy rail system. If Atlanta builds out the suburban rail and then builds a heavy rail system ITP then it has the potential to get there. I think it can as most millennials these days want nothing to do with suburban life until they are 35 and have kids ready to go to school.

The whole millennial craze about living downtown is what is happening in all big cities, Chicago, NY, and Philly. But once the kids come then suburban life is much more appealing, lawns give kids a chance to play outside and give us adults peach and quiet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 08:42 PM
bu2
 
9,003 posts, read 5,714,109 times
Reputation: 3571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Well CQ, that is a part of Both.

But the problem is for 2.8 new million people that won't happen. There is a lack of land and too much land is already taken up for other purposes and the infrastructure to even support a density only approach.

For us to even consider that the region would have to be more ok with widespread neighborhood destruction and rebuilding than it is, because existing low-density housing intown takes up too much space. The existing arterial road networks are woefully inadequate and there is public resistance against changing both.

So there is a lack of resources for 2.8m to be density only in just 20 years.
Yes, in 20 years, that would mean Chattanooga and Auburn would be the exurban areas! Not just Dahlonega. Over 40-50, you might be able to do it with redevelopment, but not in 20.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 08:43 PM
bu2
 
9,003 posts, read 5,714,109 times
Reputation: 3571
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot View Post
I like this point. When viewing aerials of Atlanta, one is immediately struck by the fact that the city is very thinly developed on the entire western side. A lot of this area was industrial and warehouse but now is seeing more residential. There remain vast vacant stretches of demolished apartments and other burnt out buildings that could be cleared for new residents. There is a lot of empty land available out near the Chattahoochee that would make for great views and attractive new neighborhoods. It's relatively high in a lot of places, reducing the risk of flooding. Some developers have already realized this. Highlands, Dupont Commons, Vinings on the Chattahoochee, Columbia Grove, and some new neighborhoods planned are showing how much new residents the city can hold.
Long run a lot could be done on the west side. And Atlanta should work on that. But that won't happen quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Wandering in the Dothraki sea
1,342 posts, read 1,216,001 times
Reputation: 3227
I think this projected growth is spot on--IF we get over ourselves and commit to increasing public transportation significantly. We're already behind on this, it's only going to get worse as the population grows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2015, 11:42 PM
 
Location: N.C. for now... Atlanta future
1,243 posts, read 988,002 times
Reputation: 1285
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Long run a lot could be done on the west side. And Atlanta should work on that. But that won't happen quickly.
That's true of anything. It can happen quicker than we think though. Just look how fast Midtown is changing. Within a space of 5 years, density has increased markedly and many parking lots have vanished. Atlanta hasn't even filled up Midtown and Downtown with their potential residents yet. As these fill up, development will creep westward. The east side is partially blocked by numerous historic districts and Piedmont Park. We're already seeing Westside turn trendy. Even BOLTON is seeing new development. Wasn't Bolton notorious not so long ago? There are fewer historic districts to block new development out there in the far western fringes. Of course, all this assumes that cities remain popular and continue population growth. We cannot know that in advance.

As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day, but Midtown is trying...
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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