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 04-25-2018, 12:24 PM
 
9,907 posts, read 6,891,298 times
Reputation: 3012

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
One big difference here: the Grant Park project creates additional green space and has plans to plant dozens, if not more than 100, new trees. The Piedmont Park deck involved cutting down only a handful of trees, but it is now surrounded by them. A typical townhome development is clear cut with no trees planted. Where my home sits now used to be pure forest 15 years ago. It was clear cut, and I think they planted maybe 15 trees in the median. Not technically a double standard when you think about it.
You are still ignoring the double standard. And not considering the "no build" alternatives of both situations. Families don't just disappear because we don't build denser housing in the city. If you force them to the suburbs they take up even more forest land than if they were living in the city.

Either way, it is a double standard to only be concerned about trees getting cut down for projects you are against.

May I recommend the Georgia Conservatory's Good Urbanism sessions on how building better / denser cities is one of the best way to prevent deforestation:

https://www.georgiaconservancy.org/goodurbanism/

Last edited by jsvh; 04-25-2018 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2018, 06:45 PM
 
4,240 posts, read 2,816,756 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
You are still ignoring the double standard. And not considering the "no build" alternatives of both situations. Families don't just disappear because we don't build denser housing in the city. If you force them to the suburbs they take up even more forest land than if they were living in the city.

Either way, it is a double standard to only be concerned about trees getting cut down for projects you are against.
You are not paying attention, and (as usual) your argument is weak. I'm not against this project. In fact, I supported it against the guy who said they were ugly. I'm all for townhome developments in certain areas, and this area seems like a good fit.

But...it WILL almost certainly cut down tons of old trees that will likely not be replaced. This is pretty much fact. On the other hand the parking deck project IS replacing most of the trees AND creating additional green space that currently does not exist. There is no double standard here.

I support both projects.

Quote:
May I recommend the Georgia Conservatory's Good Urbanism sessions on how building better / denser cities is one of the best way to prevent deforestation:

https://www.georgiaconservancy.org/goodurbanism/
Uh, okay. The link says nothing regarding forests or trees, but I guess I'd need to attend the classes to hear what they have to say. But, you get to a point in density where forestation is not an option. How much forest is there in NYC, Chicago, or San Fran? How much tree canopy do you see in the dense parts of Paris or London? Almost none. If your end goal is a lush tree canopy, dense buildings are not conducive to that.

Last edited by samiwas1; 04-25-2018 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2018, 02:18 PM
 
9,907 posts, read 6,891,298 times
Reputation: 3012
If cities like Paris had the same density as Atlanta they would sprawl over a much, much larger area destroying far more trees and rural areas. You don't get to make those people just disappear. If you don't have those people living in a denser area far more trees get destroyed. You can have 400 homes on a half acre high-rise or you can have 400 homes spread out over 16 square miles as single family homes and winding cul-de-scas. The latter is going to destroy far, far more trees.

You really should go to one of those Urbanism 101 sessions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2018, 06:13 PM
 
4,240 posts, read 2,816,756 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
If cities like Paris had the same density as Atlanta they would sprawl over a much, much larger area destroying far more trees and rural areas. You don't get to make those people just disappear. If you don't have those people living in a denser area far more trees get destroyed. You can have 400 homes on a half acre high-rise or you can have 400 homes spread out over 16 square miles as single family homes and winding cul-de-scas. The latter is going to destroy far, far more trees.

You really should go to one of those Urbanism 101 sessions.
Okay. I guess we're just looking at it two different ways. Now, I don't know on what planet 400 homes covers 16 square miles (all 25.5 acre lots), but that's a different discussion. Either way...within the same footprint, dense buildings are going to leave little room for trees while houses on lots would. Now, over the entire area of a given metro, yeah...you probably are going to cut down more trees to achieve the network needed to connect all the areas. But, few people would be going to those areas if they weren't developed, so I guess in that case your choice is either live in an area with many trees spread out (but fewer overall) or live in an area with no trees in your living area. I guess that's a choice.

As far as going to one of those classes...not a chance. Paying to listen to people tell me about "fabric" and "vibrancy" and how I should actually want to live in a 600 square foot condo on the fourth floor of some building in a downtown area where I can take three busses over 1.5 hours to my destination 6 miles away...yeah, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 11:49 AM
 
Location: North Dekalb
13 posts, read 2,755 times
Reputation: 23
The Bramblewood development won't displace any residents that didn't want to move, but $340,000 is far from affordable for those living nearby. It's definitely not affordable to the majority (if not all) of the families with children attending Cross Keys High School.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 11:51 AM
 
Location: North Dekalb
13 posts, read 2,755 times
Reputation: 23
The cutting down of trees will negatively impact Jackson Square Condos which are downhill from this development. They are already prone to flooding as they back up to North Peachtree Creek.
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