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 09-13-2015, 08:35 PM
 
994 posts, read 1,114,021 times
Reputation: 1225

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
In that particular website, they just used the rapid growth for blacks from 2000-2010 and extrapolated. I still think we're going to see a dramatic fall in black growth on the 2020 census. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Raleigh all seen much higher black growth over the last 10 years. Black growth responds very well with economic conditions and Atlanta's economic conditions from 2005-2015 has been average to below average to say the least. Could it speed up? Yes, but I believe Atlanta's huge black growth years are over(90s-early 2000s).
Disagree. Yes, others metros are becoming more palatable to African Americans; however, Atlanta still tops or places well within "top" lists for blacks in the U.S. Black people are still moving here in high numbers, and I think that will continue. Black professionals, who could have gone and lived anywhere, are still getting offers in Atlanta and so choosing to live in the Metro. The difference, I think, may be in the types of people who have the mobility to move here or elsewhere. It's going to be the educated professionals or others with skills to offer and experience already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2015, 11:47 PM
 
27,874 posts, read 24,945,392 times
Reputation: 16569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
In that particular website, they just used the rapid growth for blacks from 2000-2010 and extrapolated. I still think we're going to see a dramatic fall in black growth on the 2020 census. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Raleigh all seen much higher black growth over the last 10 years. Black growth responds very well with economic conditions and Atlanta's economic conditions from 2005-2015 has been average to below average to say the least. Could it speed up? Yes, but I believe Atlanta's huge black growth years are over(90s-early 2000s).
And now that Atlanta is getting back on track economically, you'll see growth numbers increase across the board, including among African Americans. I think Atlanta will still be number one among this demographic in raw numbers, but as the "Reverse Migration" continues, we'll certainly continue to see other Southern metros capture an increasing number of African American migrants as you mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2015, 12:01 AM
 
153 posts, read 103,773 times
Reputation: 166
Boy 2.8 mill??

I think some of this growth will be in the Northern suburbs along the 400 corridor. Alpharetta/Roswell area might grow much larger with their own business districts and economic corridors kindof like Irvine for Los Angeles. During the years I lived and worked in Irvine I barely visited LA.

With the way the Northern suburbs are building and expanding we will be looking at adding the area between Cumming to Dahlonega to the metro area. Hopefully Marta will extend at least Alpharetta/ Cumming by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2015, 01:32 AM
 
4,235 posts, read 4,137,758 times
Reputation: 3213
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.
Sprawling takes more infrastructure and cost then densifying.

Saying not having the infrastructure to support density is a contradiction in itself, The ideal of density is not to make it easy to travel with a car in that area but rather make it easier or possible to live there in a walkable area and make a car a less of a necessity. why do you think NY roads are crowded? but at the same time because of the density you actually don't need a car.


Inside Atlanta 1950 Atlanta was 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi Atlanta hasn't even return to hit that yet, mean while back then the density was single family homes,

So that means the density with multi family units in o4w, along beltline, Downtown, Midtown, and etc, is actually creating a scenario that could make Atlanta significant more denser than it was in 1950. And that's just a the core.

Downtowns of many suburban suburb could densify.

Not just Atlanta core, but Cumberland, Cobb town center, Perimeter Center, Areas along North Fulton CID, Gwinnett village, and Gwinnett place. All have plans for densifying. They all have plans for redevelops of roads, and infilling.

This is all according to CID's and The ARC plans

Atlanta is obviously going to sprawl some..... but there a lot Metro Atlanta can do and actually planning to do to densify. Your idea is that a lot of single family neighborhoods most be touch and redevelop is untrue. There significant amount of Under underutilized commercial areas, brownfield areas, as well forest in some case. That could hold millions of people. Atlanta has a lot of under underutilized areas because of sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2015, 06:20 AM
 
Location: O4W
3,744 posts, read 3,546,939 times
Reputation: 2045
Quote:
Originally Posted by hautemomma View Post
Disagree. Yes, others metros are becoming more palatable to African Americans; however, Atlanta still tops or places well within "top" lists for blacks in the U.S. Black people are still moving here in high numbers, and I think that will continue. Black professionals, who could have gone and lived anywhere, are still getting offers in Atlanta and so choosing to live in the Metro. The difference, I think, may be in the types of people who have the mobility to move here or elsewhere. It's going to be the educated professionals or others with skills to offer and experience already.
Those cities in NC and TX (NC/TX=Charlotte/Raleigh/Dallas/Houston/Austin) don't offer what the average black person is used to in Atlanta and they don't offer much for middle/upper middle class blacks . Ask the average active black person that moved from Atlanta to NC/TX for a job back during the recession if the black experience in those cities compare to Atlanta and they will give you the face. If you are the type of black person that don't really care about nightlife, concerts and always having lots of stuff to do then those cities would be a good compromise but if you like staying in the streets and always getting into stuff like networking events, concerts, mega events, happy hours, etc then are not going to find the abundance in those activities there.

What brought blacks to Atlanta in the 90s is Freaknik and our nightlife. Now that we have been the mecca for blacks since the 90s people still want to move here for those reasons. Outside of DC and NYC there are not that many cities that offer blacks the black experience that isn't mostly ghetto. Try visiting the average city or NC/TX and see how many places the average professional can go to after work and be around other professionals like themselves. Visit those places in NC/TX and see how many upper middle class neighborhoods they have with mostly black professionals. How many big events do those cities have that cater to blacks? Charlotte has the CIAA. Raleigh, Dallas and Houston don't have any big events like that. Not one yet people love calling them the new black mecca . Atlanta has shyt all the time for blacks to include the HONDA Battle of the Bands, Hair Shows, Award Shows, concerts (not national tours but concerts that are only in Atlanta), plenty of options any night of the week (Try finding that in NC/TX), etc. People be saying "NC/TX" are the new black meccas and that is so disrespectful to the real black meccas like Atlanta and DC. Just because blacks are moving to those cities doesn't mean that they are black meccas. That's like calling Atlanta the Hispanic mecca. Sure plenty of them live here and are moving here but we don't have the qualities yet to be called a mecca like San Antonio, LA, etc. BTW im not hating on NC/TX. Charlotte, Raleigh, Dallas, Houston and Austin are cool cities. I'm sure someone that wants a change from Atlanta will have an easier time adjusting to those cities verses moving out of the south but calling those cities black meccas is disrespectful. You gotta have a long resume to be called a black mecca and the only two cities that have that resume is Atlanta and DC. No other cities in the next 30 years will not come close to having that title. Trolls on the internet and people that do not know any better might think otherwise but when visiting Atlanta or DC and then visit NC/TX and you will see that those cities can't come close to what ATL/DC provides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2015, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,214 posts, read 16,255,692 times
Reputation: 4924
Quote:
Inside Atlanta 1950 Atlanta was 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi Atlanta hasn't even return to hit that yet, mean while back then the density was single family homes,
That was before massive freeway construction destroyed many neighborhoods and Buckhead annexation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2015, 09:37 AM
bu2
 
9,010 posts, read 5,720,117 times
Reputation: 3573
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Sprawling takes more infrastructure and cost then densifying.

Saying not having the infrastructure to support density is a contradiction in itself, The ideal of density is not to make it easy to travel with a car in that area but rather make it easier or possible to live there in a walkable area and make a car a less of a necessity. why do you think NY roads are crowded? but at the same time because of the density you actually don't need a car.


Inside Atlanta 1950 Atlanta was 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi Atlanta hasn't even return to hit that yet, mean while back then the density was single family homes,

So that means the density with multi family units in o4w, along beltline, Downtown, Midtown, and etc, is actually creating a scenario that could make Atlanta significant more denser than it was in 1950. And that's just a the core.

Downtowns of many suburban suburb could densify.

Not just Atlanta core, but Cumberland, Cobb town center, Perimeter Center, Areas along North Fulton CID, Gwinnett village, and Gwinnett place. All have plans for densifying. They all have plans for redevelops of roads, and infilling.

This is all according to CID's and The ARC plans

Atlanta is obviously going to sprawl some..... but there a lot Metro Atlanta can do and actually planning to do to densify. Your idea is that a lot of single family neighborhoods most be touch and redevelop is untrue. There significant amount of Under underutilized commercial areas, brownfield areas, as well forest in some case. That could hold millions of people. Atlanta has a lot of under underutilized areas because of sprawl.
In 1950 people had more kids and used a lot less space/person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2015, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,291,730 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Sprawling takes more infrastructure and cost then densifying.

Saying not having the infrastructure to support density is a contradiction in itself, The ideal of density is not to make it easy to travel with a car in that area but rather make it easier or possible to live there in a walkable area and make a car a less of a necessity. why do you think NY roads are crowded? but at the same time because of the density you actually don't need a car.
It isn't a contradiction in the least bit.

As density increases you need to have more parallel routes that act as arterial roads and additional collectors in between. The more density goes up, the more roads need to be same area that Atlanta doesn't have in large parts of what we call 'intown' today. I'm not even getting into things, like power, water, sewer, etc...

The reason for this is most of Atlanta was built as suburbs of a much smaller city and eventually kept growing from there.

It also isn't about long-distance commutes, it is often about providing for the immediate needs of those area. High amount of people drive a high amount of traffic, no matter how much transit you have. Good, supplies, taxis, ubers, and even people in their cars will follow. At the end of the day the streets and arterials are the life blood that make any development happen.

Parts of intown Atlanta are seeing this now. There are streets that are congested largely from more local traffic as areas are redeveloped and that redevelopment is really only happening in key areas along aging industrial and commercial. It's a smaller amount of the city's land that many realize.

I never found that report with a really good infographic I alluded to earlier. It is actually killing me I can't find it, but I did find something else.

There was a report that examined many things, one of which was the density of lane-miles within the region. Out of the top 20 cities by population in the country Atlanta was by far the lowest with a 2.0 per square mile. Most others were in the 3.0 to 4.3 range.

Los Angeles was a standout with a 7.6 at the far end of the spectrum and there were a handful of other 2.x cities, Minneapolis, Boston, Tampa, and St Louis (2.4, 2.9, 2.3, and 2.8 respectively).

Atlanta also still fell in the average range with the number of lane miles per 1000 people.

Our roads spread outwards a good bit, but they are also frequently narrower and much further spread out between different alignments.

So the point I'm getting at is there are a few people here who have taken this roads vs transit debate in a simple-minded aggressive direction and have actually forgotten about what real wide-spread dense urban residential neighborhoods are like on the ground. The Florence example brought up earlier is unrealistic and extreme for historical and economic reasons, but nonetheless Florence actually has a great amount of Lane miles and streets in that city in a given area. The difference is one has tons of alignments spaced very close together and the other has most of the eggs dumped into a few alignments in a given single area, but more that sprawl around.

A slightly more realistic comparison with Chicago will show many more lane miles in its urban residential neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods need them to be what they are.

They need more streets and arterials to handle them. The few really wide mega roads we have in the region, most notably the connector, are really doing more to make up for the lack of infrastructure elsewhere
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2015, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,214 posts, read 16,255,692 times
Reputation: 4924
Quote:
There was a report that examined many things, one of which was the density of lane-miles within the region. Out of the top 20 cities by population in the country Atlanta was by far the lowest with a 2.0 per square mile. Most others were in the 3.0 to 4.3 range.

Los Angeles was a standout with a 7.6 at the far end of the spectrum and there were a handful of other 2.x cities, Minneapolis, Boston, Tampa, and St Louis (2.4, 2.9, 2.3, and 2.8 respectively).

Atlanta also still fell in the average range with the number of lane miles per 1000 people.
In this regard, Atlanta is most like Boston. Narrow intown streets with congestion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2015, 11:35 AM
bu2
 
9,010 posts, read 5,720,117 times
Reputation: 3573
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
In this regard, Atlanta is most like Boston. Narrow intown streets with congestion.
There was a transit expert quoted in the AJC a few years back and said Atlanta was next to last of the top 20 metros in its arterial network. He didn't mention #20, but Boston was the only one I could think of.

It took me 20 minutes to go a block and a half over near the High not too long ago. Those things happen way too often now. Imagine with twice the density.
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