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 02-03-2016, 07:13 PM
 
9,907 posts, read 6,891,298 times
Reputation: 3012

Advertisements

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/atlan...ar-on-density/

Quote:
While Atlanta leaders have sought to reduce density in some areas through public housing projects in the 1930s and through slum clearance campaigns during the 1940s, starting in the 1950s, planning professionals began an active campaign for reducing density throughout the entire city. The start of the war on density in Atlanta becomes evident in the first regional plan for metropolitan Atlanta, the 1952 Up Ahead: A Regional Land Use Plan for Metropolitan Atlanta...
Quote:
The authors of Up Ahead contended that not only were busy roads and old buildings problems, but that specific land use patterns contributed to the problem of undesirable neighborhood design:

"Most blight is caused by defects in the land use pattern itself. In its overall land use plan, the Commission has tried to single out the major difficulties—traffic through residential neighborhoods, uncontrolled commercial development along corridors and within residential districts, incompatible adjacent land uses, lack of expansion land for industry and for the colored population, and others."
Quote:
Up Ahead presented a case for lowering urban density and for eliminating both commercial development within residential areas and “incompatible adjacent land uses,” otherwise known as mixed land uses. The desire to lower densities and to erase past urban design elements from Atlanta quickly became a popular mindset.

An envisioned "fix" to Mechanicsville. Replacing the narrow grid streets and mixed uses with large seperation, cul-de-sacs and segragated uses. (Existing on right, proposed on the left)




Quote:
THE WIDENING OF NORTH AVENUE IN 1965 AND NORTH AVENUE IN 2015. THIS STRETCH OF NORTH AVENUE HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED TO SERVE THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE. PHOTO BY AUTHOR AND “ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, VIEW OF CONSTRUCTION TO WIDEN NORTH AVENUE, JULY 4, 1965” ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE PLANNING ATLANTA COLLECTION, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY.


Quote:
A CHALLENGE TO ATLANTA LEADERS AND DEVELOPERS

The City of Atlanta now has an exceedingly rare opportunity to correct some of its most atrocious attacks on the urban built environment. As the city works with private developers to once again redevelop the areas of Turner Field and the Atlanta Civic Center by pursuing urban residential development designed primarily for pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller commercial activity, these two redevelopment projects can serve as the beginning of Atlanta’s abandonment of anti-urban and suburban influenced development and as a return to the defining features of cities: walkable, mixed-use, people-centered development.

Atlanta may have wiped away most of the small-scale commercial and industrial establishments that once dotted its old residential neighborhoods, but new projects over the past several years indicate that the City of Atlanta and developers have finally embraced at least some concepts of mixed-use land use development. However, all of the recent mixed-use projects in Atlanta still concentrate nearly all commercial activity in one area such as the Edgewood Retail District and Atlantic Station. Opportunities for small-scale commercial activity such as the grocery store that once existed on Hill Street and Georgia Avenue in Grant Park, largely do not exist, denying the possibility for truly walkable neighborhoods.

Additionally, most recent mixed-used developments in Atlanta are overwhelmingly oriented toward accommodating the private automobile and much of the city’s land continues to be reserved for the transportation and storage of vehicles. If the development of Turner Field and the Atlanta Civic Center carry on with the now 60 year-long experiment to accommodate vehicles storage for each resident and each potential visitor, they will, like every post-1950 Atlanta development, continue to rob the city of urban qualities. If these developments merely hide parking facilities by building large underground garages or by wrapping mixed-use buildings around enormous parking decks, if they are built with multi-lane thoroughfares running through or alongside them as with Atlantic Station, then they will reflect the sentiments proclaimed in 1952 that “traffic” is the “life blood of a city.”

Instead, as the City of Atlanta approves more mixed-use development, local officials should look to the many vibrant urban residential neighborhoods across the nation and the world, which have scattered community commercial activity and which have either no parking garages or only very limited underground parking for only a fraction of the residents and on-street parking for all others.

Atlanta lost many of its urban qualities through conscious land use changes. The City of Atlanta has within its governing authority the power to implement wise land use regulations that can promote urban vibrancy and discourage, what Darin Givens of the “ATL Urbanist” has termed “drive-to urbanism.” Atlanta may have finally once again come to value the urban qualities of mixed-use development. However, mixed-use developments that do not maximize land for people, but instead reserve significant space for vehicle throughput capacity and storage, are still symbols of the war on density. If the city continues to allow developers to erect super-parking decks and if the city continues to reserve its public streets almost exclusively for private automobiles, Atlanta will remain an anti-urban city where the demands of the private automobile reign supreme over the actual lifeblood of the city— its residents, also known as pedestrians. The redevelopment of Turner Field and the Atlanta Civic Center will test Atlanta’s willingness to become, once again, an urban center.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2016, 08:01 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,114,436 times
Reputation: 3185
This make a lot of sense do to the fact Atlanta was 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi in 1950.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 08:34 PM
 
9,907 posts, read 6,891,298 times
Reputation: 3012
Yep. In the 1940s Atlanta had the same population density that Amderdam has today.

https://books.google.com/books?id=N3...201940&f=false

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amst...ropolitan_Area
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 08:50 PM
 
27,715 posts, read 24,737,149 times
Reputation: 16445
The density of that era often didn't look very pretty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 08:54 PM
bu2
 
8,968 posts, read 5,658,755 times
Reputation: 3529
Neighborhoods don't want commercial mixed with SFH.

They'll accept mixed use over by the condos down the road, but not too close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,852 posts, read 2,645,698 times
Reputation: 1410
For the people I know who have moved here from Brooklyn, The Bronx, or other dense areas, the first thing day is hit the suburbs.


There's not wrong with density but there's nothing wrong with elbow room either. Atlanta provides an environment for both which is a good thing.


Usually the mixed use places were formerly an apartment complex or a strip mall so I don't really see what the problem is. It's not like someones building it in your basement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,401 posts, read 2,726,205 times
Reputation: 2159
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Neighborhoods don't want commercial mixed with SFH.

They'll accept mixed use over by the condos down the road, but not too close.
Depends on the type of commercial. Single-level stores, like you see in Va-Hi and Emory and Little 5 get along just fine in single family home neighborhoods. I personally believe there should be more of them around, and that, rather than focusing on chique botiques, they shoud be everyday supply and services. Not that I get to choose, mind you, but I see plenty of 'high end' retail cycle in and out while the camping store and hardware store do just fine.

In fact, the problem i've been seeing with a lot of these apartment complexes with 'retail space' is that they treat the retail as an after thought. It's oddly disjointed from the sidewalk in a way that only a building's foundation can be, and not in a position that offers attractive space for people to come up to. It's often small, and very expensive, drawing in the boutique retail that sells high without much foot traffic at an attempt to keep up with lease. The complex hardly cares if its filled space, since most of their money comes from rent, but it is killing the opportunity to have real, walk in, street level stores and services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2016, 06:01 AM
 
28,106 posts, read 24,632,008 times
Reputation: 9523
This fellow refers to the war on density like it's a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2016, 06:11 AM
 
Location: NW Atlanta
4,995 posts, read 3,474,509 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
This fellow refers to the war on density like it's a bad thing.
In the context of the article, it absolutely was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2016, 06:46 AM
 
1,808 posts, read 1,547,624 times
Reputation: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post

In fact, the problem i've been seeing with a lot of these apartment complexes with 'retail space' is that they treat the retail as an after thought. It's oddly disjointed from the sidewalk in a way that only a building's foundation can be, and not in a position that offers attractive space for people to come up to. It's often small, and very expensive, drawing in the boutique retail that sells high without much foot traffic at an attempt to keep up with lease. The complex hardly cares if its filled space, since most of their money comes from rent, but it is killing the opportunity to have real, walk in, street level stores and services.

Greta point. Developers know how to package their projects with the right buzzwords to get them through. We need a planning department that sees through the BS. Sadly, metro ATL has had weak planning for 50+ years.
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