Atlanta’s relationship with the automobile is reaching a crossroads. (Druid Hills: eat, suburbs)

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

A couple of points from the Bloomberg article that caught my eye.



In the ATL, the suburban growth boom didn't just mean "white families buying affordable brand-new single-family homes." It also included a huge number of black families settling in the suburbs.

It's surprising that the author isn't aware of that, or chose to ignore it.



And why the assumption that Cobb's "transition over from largely homogenous white Republican-dominated counties to diverse, Democratic-leaning counties" will lead to poverty, declining economic fortunes and undesirability?

I agree with basically all your points Arjay. While race can, unfortunately, often be a proxy for wealth things are not that clear cut. The author focused too much on race and political trends to link the two.

The bigger idea they are getting at is this: "We haven’t yet seen if those communities remain sustainable as those families age and move on, the housing stock and infrastructure ages, and taxes go up as governments need to spend more on maintenance."

That is a valid concern to raise. The suburban style growth seen in places like Cobb is only a generation or two old. There is no where in the world that has been built out in the 90%+ car-dependent sprawl and been stable for generations simply because it is so new. As these areas mature they are going into uncharted waters and will need to prove if they can be sustainable. Even though car-centric sprawl was not invented at the time, fast-growth areas of centuries-past like Chicago could hold some insights as the author rightly highlights.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I agree with basically all your points Arjay. While race can, unfortunately, often be a proxy for wealth things are not that clear cut. The author focused too much on race and political trends to link the two.

The bigger idea they are getting at is this: "We haven’t yet seen if those communities remain sustainable as those families age and move on, the housing stock and infrastructure ages, and taxes go up as governments need to spend more on maintenance."

That is a valid concern to raise. The suburban style growth seen in places like Cobb is only a generation or two old. There is no where in the world that has been built out in the 90%+ car-dependent sprawl and been stable for generations simply because it is so new. As these areas mature they are going into uncharted waters and will need to prove if they can be sustainable. Even though car-centric sprawl was not invented at the time, fast-growth areas of centuries-past like Chicago could hold some insights as the author rightly highlights.

They will age and re-develop eventually, just like areas ITP.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

They will age and re-develop eventually, just like areas ITP.

Will they go through a period similar to the "urban decay" experienced from the 1960s to 2000s? Will it last as long? Longer? As intense? More intense?

What will they redevelop into?

[David1502]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Will they go through a period similar to the "urban decay" experienced from the 1960s to 2000s? Will it last as long? Longer? As intense? More intense?

What will they redevelop into?

Any cursory observation of the close in suburbs of Metro Atlanta will show that these suburbs have already gone through "urban decay" like what has happened in inner cities. Case in Point: Franklin Rd. in Marietta where the City of Marietta purchased several aging apartment complexes and bull dozed them for redevelopment. Marietta also bulldozed the Johnny Walker public housing just S.E. of the Square and that area has been successfully redeveloped with high density housing. The City of Smyrna began doing redevelopment back in the early 1990's when they purchased the Heritage Point Apartments where the Michael's and Pet Smart shopping center is now located on the west side of Cobb Pkwy just north of Sun Trust Park. Belmont Hills on Atlanta Rd. in Smyrna is an excellent example of redevelopment of a shopping center built in the 1950's with adjacent old apartments. Now there are high density single family homes, apartments and restaurants/retail J. Christopher's will open there soon.


There seems to be a lot of thinking the suburbs will face an Armageddon in the future of being "unsustainable" when they have already faced urban decline and bounced back with redevelopment. Sandy Springs is another great example where the area along Roswell Rd. had a lot of 1960's and 70's era apartments that had not been maintained well. SS decided to redevelop the Roswell Rd. corridor and there has been a bonanza of new construction - Just drive on Roswell Rd. north of 285 and you will see numerous new or under construction five story mixed use developments with retail on the first floor and apartments above. There has also been a considerable amount of "street scaping" with new sidewalks and trees planted. It looks a lot different from what it looked five years ago.


Norcross has a thriving downtown area with trendy shops and restaurants and Duluth also has built an attractive town center. Although, Norcross's downtown seems more real as it has all of its original buildings.


There are numerous suburbs which have done a great job at reinvigorating their communities with new development of old places and this trend will continue. No need to worry about their being sustainable.

[ddm2k]

Can anyone provide insight on the residential area in Hiram right above where Jimmy Lee Smith meets Pace Rd / 92?

[architect77]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Will they go through a period similar to the "urban decay" experienced from the 1960s to 2000s? Will it last as long? Longer? As intense? More intense?

What will they redevelop into?

Gwinnett has a lot of suburban decay along Satellite Blvd just South of Gwinnett Place.

Most of that area is only 20-30 years old, and now I see 80's homes with rotting trim, sheets hanging in the windows, some are pretty sad looking.

It's cyclic. intown is now expensive making suburbs less expensive.

What's funny is to realize that NYC and posh intown areas everywhere will almost certainly repeat the cycle and fall on downtrodden times again at some point.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by jsvh

There are plenty of facts. You just choose to avoid focusing on them.

Chicago and Illinois are losing population mostly from fiscal mis-management.

Pensions should be replaced with 401k type accounts, everywhere in my opinion as you cannot predict if the money will be there 50 years down the road to pay for promised benefits now.

If Georgia's town leaders ever start spending more irresponsibly then yes we could end up like Chicago. City of Atlanta has enjoyed the protection of growth from their actions coming home to roost.

Author of story assumes that next generation will flee these suburban counties, but Georgia ranks 3rd behind North Carolina and #1 Texas in natives that stay their entire lives.

The weather might not send people fleeing like snow and gray skies in the North, but it could happen with heat driving people away one day.

The infrastructure supporting suburbs won't need replacing until 50 years of service, and that will soon be a nationwide crisis that no one is addressing.

But the premise of correlating Sunbelt suburbs to corrupt Chicago is kinda stupid.

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by architect77

Pensions should be replaced with 401k type accounts, everywhere in my opinion as you cannot predict if the money will be there 50 years down the road to pay for promised benefits now.

Entire industries have been built on consumers' impulsivity. Would you really trust most Americans to have the discipline to save for their retirement?

If you don't want someone to spend money, a higher authority has to manage it for them. Pensions in lieu of 401k matching has done wonders for household budgeting that would otherwise never happen.

[AnsleyPark]

The burbs are just fine, thank you.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by ddm2k

Entire industries have been built on consumers' impulsivity. Would you really trust most Americans to have the discipline to save for their retirement?

If you don't want someone to spend money, a higher authority has to manage it for them. Pensions in lieu of 401k matching has done wonders for household budgeting that would otherwise never happen.

I am one of those who cannot save for the future.

So is there is a solution to the promised pension payments 50 years from now that aren't being funded properly?

And aren't pension funds in the same boat as 401k funds?

Social security does exactly what you say is necessary too, and I hope that Congress never is able to abolish it.

I've read that distributing minimum monthly amount of money to entire population would sustain things also, because people would spend it on basic living expenses and money would go back into the economy not much different from how the federal money is allocated as a whole now.