Two new Buckhead Projects Proposed. Including "Disco" Kroger Redevelopment (Atlanta: apartment, wealthy)

[AtlJan]

Originally Posted by rickms

Simply amazing - apparently you are an AM radio listener, because on AM radio, everyone speaks of people having an "agenda."

I simply am describing the area in the context of urban discussion.

I don't always enjoy a pointless political row on city-data, but when I do, I'm sitting in line at the Starbucks drive-thru in my white Land Rover listening to the Maha Rushie.

[demonta4]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

And the right don't want to admit that suburbs were born out of the need to get away from racial minorities, particularly blacks. I mean, look at Inman Park when it was first developed back in the early 1900s and touted as a suburb. The developer said that it was a place where no negroes would live.

And the suburban development of the 60s-80s is wasteful, sprawling, and unnecessary. Why do you want Atlanta to sprawl out 50 miles from the downtown area each way? Do you want the Atlanta suburbs to eventually reach the mountains with non-sensical suburban development? Do you want towns like Dahlonega, Helen, etc to become suburban bedroom communities vs. the charming little mountain towns they are now? I certainly don't.

You're going a little overboard, sprawl in Atlanta isn't really bad now, it's just seems so because every county must have their own financial district which causes people to commute to the suburbs. There is plenty of land around Atlanta, and no need to build that far out, which wouldn't be convenient anyway.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by JoeP

LOL, yeah it was the "liberals" and "hippies" who did this. Everything is left/right to blind partisans.

People need to grow up. All kinds of people moved to the burbs after the war.

Wow, the inability to comprehend someone's post and totally spin it on its head. Amazing.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by arjay57

It seems like upside down world. Nowadays owning your own little patch of paradise is apparently a bad thing. Poor land use, they say, not enough density, you're causing congestion and blocking people from driving fast where you live, and so forth.

its holding back the potential of the area. such low density has no place in the city, that's what the suburbs outside the city limits are for.

[AtlJan]

Originally Posted by cabasse

its holding back the potential of the area. such low density has no place in the city, that's what the suburbs outside the city limits are for.

Well, if the CofA wanted to cut Buckhead loose and let us be a suburb again, I don't think many Buckhead taxpayers would complain, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

So my next question is: do you realize that all cities have areas of relatively lower density? NYC has 5 boroughs, not just Manhattan. Staten Island is within the city limits--should the leafy neighborhoods there be bulldozed for high-rises? And Greenwich Village isn't as dense as midtown, should we demolish the quirky neighborhoods there for high-rises in the name of progress?

Finally, what about Ansley Park, Sherwood Forest, Midwest Cascade--those and many other areas of the ATL are lower density as well. Do you want to scuttle those residents' way of life too, or just ours here in Buckhead?

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

Well, if the CofA wanted to cut Buckhead loose and let us be a suburb again, I don't think many Buckhead taxpayers would complain, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

So my next question is: do you realize that all cities have areas of relatively lower density? NYC has 5 boroughs, not just Manhattan. Staten Island is within the city limits--should the leafy neighborhoods there be bulldozed for high-rises? And Greenwich Village isn't as dense as midtown, should we demolish the quirky neighborhoods there for high-rises in the name of progress?

Finally, what about Ansley Park, Sherwood Forest, Midwest Cascade--those and many other areas of the ATL are lower density as well. Do you want to scuttle those residents' way of life too, or just ours here in Buckhead?

Buckhead is at a crossroads. It had 2 distinct areas; the low density, estate areas and the high density, business districts. I think both can live and thrive together.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Buckhead is at a crossroads. It had 2 distinct areas; the low density, estate areas and the high density, business districts. I think both can live and thrive together.

What about the many comfortable residential neighborhoods that I linked to above? They are not estates and are the same as residential neighborhoods in many other parts of the city.

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

So my next question is: do you realize that all cities have areas of relatively lower density? NYC has 5 boroughs, not just Manhattan. Staten Island is within the city limits--should the leafy neighborhoods there be bulldozed for high-rises? And Greenwich Village isn't as dense as midtown, should we demolish the quirky neighborhoods there for high-rises in the name of progress?

Don't know about Staten Island but for some other areas I can think of, a lot of em are also the wealthier if not the wealthiest areas in the city or metro. Dallas has a lot of houses like Buckhead in and around Highland Park to the northside. Houston has the Memorial Drive corridor. Baltimore has an area like this near John Hopkins. Even Lancaster, PA has a pretty dense downtown area with a wealthier and less dense area adjacent to the western edges of downtown. Philly has a lot of wealthy and less dense suburbs on or near the Main Line like Narbeth, Ardmore, Bryn Mawr, and Villanova. The actual town centers are somewhat dense but you turn off and you see these large estates. Drove through there last week and it felt similar to Buckhead. Some of these areas aren't actually in the city limits but the distance to downtown is about the same.

[JoeP]

So my next question is: do you realize that all cities have areas of relatively lower density? NYC has 5 boroughs, not just Manhattan. Staten Island is within the city limits--should the leafy neighborhoods there be bulldozed for high-rises? And Greenwich Village isn't as dense as midtown, should we demolish the quirky neighborhoods there for high-rises in the name of progress?

Relatively lower density are the key words there. The other words are more straw men.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

Don't know about Staten Island but for some other areas I can think of, a lot of em are also the wealthier if not the wealthiest areas in the city or metro. Dallas has a lot of houses like Buckhead in and around Highland Park to the northside. Houston has the Memorial Drive corridor. Baltimore has an area like this near John Hopkins. Even Lancaster, PA has a pretty dense downtown area with a wealthier and less dense area adjacent to the western edges of downtown. Philly has a lot of wealthy and less dense suburbs on or near the Main Line like Narbeth, Ardmore, Bryn Mawr, and Villanova. The actual town centers are somewhat dense but you turn off and you see these large estates. Drove through there last week and it felt similar to Buckhead. Some of these areas aren't actually in the city limits but the distance to downtown is about the same.

The difference in Dallas' tony district and Atlanta's: You don't have the number of multi-acred estates in Dallas as Atlanta. Some of it is the topography.... flatter means more density.... but Highland Park, Preston Hollow and other wealthy enclaves are denser than Buckhead west of Roswell Road up into Sandy Springs. There are some houses on acreage, not saying that at all, but just not near to the amount that you find in this comparatively similar section of Atlanta.