50% of the Atlanta metro is unincorporated (Sandy Springs, Roswell: houses, neighborhoods, buy)
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.
I was reading through the Atlanta metropolitan area article on Wikipedia and I came across this stat: "More than one half of metro Atlanta's population is in unincorporated areas or areas considered a census-designated-place (CDP) by the census bureau." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlant...ea#Edge_cities
This is crazy! I haven't seen comprehensive data on incorporation status, but Atlanta has to be most unincorporated of any big metro in the US, and is probably above most any metro above 500K. On the article they have a map of the metro, looking at Gwinnett county this blows my mind, the county is basically 100% urban, there's basically no undeveloped non parkland land left, but the majority of it is not housed in a city governance structure.
I'm curious as to why this is the case. I know there's a bunch of little cities scattered across the metro instead of more consolidated, larger ones, but it's weird that even in those cities so much is unincorporated. Is it because counties in Georgia are so small that counties fill the gap between city and state? I've heard in places with weak city / state ordinances, HOAs are often more beefy to fill in the gaps and make sure things stay aligned. Is that true in Atlanta?
How does this impact the way Atlanta has developed and will continue to develop? On one hand Atlanta prides itself on being a "hub of diversity", but it appears that these diverse peoples don't actually want to live in the same governance structure, it's like the diversity can exist because everyone has their own turf.
One may fantasize that with more centralized governance inefficiencies would go away and things would be done "right". Looking at counter examples, like Colorado Springs where 1 city basically IS the entire metro, there's still issues, but development does play out differently. Colorado Springs is much more similar throughout though, and there's less self segregation where all the families live here, young professionals there, students over that part, and retirees are out on the lake... There's less identification with the 'hood because they are less different, it's just where you happened to get a house and if it's close to work. On the other hand, issues across the city, like potholes or low teacher pay are consistent throughout.
Of course Gwinnett County is awesome at governance, which makes this possible. The size of our counties are also neither too big or too small to be the main governing unit. I believe this to be a key reason. Fulton county was the first to fracture in large ways, but it was so long and narrow it is very easy to see how it had large regional differences within the county.
To go further.... Many of the new cities popping up around town are only "City-lites." In Georgia a city only has to perform 3 services and the definition of what those can be are very broad. In most cases, these cities are letting the counties do most things, but they are conducting just a few local services themselves. So even when an area is unincorporated the county is often left picking up the pieces on whatever the city chooses not to handle.
I was reading through the Atlanta metropolitan area article on Wikipedia and I came across this stat: "More than one half of metro Atlanta's population is in unincorporated areas or areas considered a census-designated-place (CDP) by the census bureau." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlant...ea#Edge_cities
This is crazy! I haven't seen comprehensive data on incorporation status, but Atlanta has to be most unincorporated of any big metro in the US, and is probably above most any metro above 500K. On the article they have a map of the metro, looking at Gwinnett county this blows my mind, the county is basically 100% urban, there's basically no undeveloped non parkland land left, but the majority of it is not housed in a city governance structure.
I'm curious as to why this is the case. I know there's a bunch of little cities scattered across the metro instead of more consolidated, larger ones, but it's weird that even in those cities so much is unincorporated. Is it because counties in Georgia are so small that counties fill the gap between city and state? I've heard in places with weak city / state ordinances, HOAs are often more beefy to fill in the gaps and make sure things stay aligned. Is that true in Atlanta?
How does this impact the way Atlanta has developed and will continue to develop? On one hand Atlanta prides itself on being a "hub of diversity", but it appears that these diverse peoples don't actually want to live in the same governance structure, it's like the diversity can exist because everyone has their own turf.
One may fantasize that with more centralized governance inefficiencies would go away and things would be done "right". Looking at counter examples, like Colorado Springs where 1 city basically IS the entire metro, there's still issues, but development does play out differently. Colorado Springs is much more similar throughout though, and there's less self segregation where all the families live here, young professionals there, students over that part, and retirees are out on the lake... There's less identification with the 'hood because they are less different, it's just where you happened to get a house and if it's close to work. On the other hand, issues across the city, like potholes or low teacher pay are consistent throughout.
Marietta is the first place that comes to mind when reading your informative post. The incorporated parts of Marietta makes the city feel about 300,000 or more live there. However, the actual city limit contains 60,000 people. You can also see where East and West Cobb continues to develop much faster than the city of Marietta for some of the factors highlighted in your post.
I mean, it's because of the history of how all that development occurred, during the late 20th century golden age of the automobile and suburban sprawl. Gwinnett for example, was rural and undeveloped land 50 years ago, minus the small railroad towns along the 2 corridors of tracks, and a few other small areas. The vast majority of the county was not incorporated into any cities. New subdivisions replaced old rural farm houses on dirt roads and such.
Then you started to see tons of subdivisions and school districts in the inner part of the county, outside Norcross/Lilburn/Mountain Park areas in all that unincorporated land, then that development took off like crazy and eventually spread throughout the whole county, but it was not oriented with the existing small towns at all (which basically had small radius circles as their city limits), it was all pretty much in unincorporated areas.
It used to be even more unincorporated, as Peachtree Corners was only recently incorporated, and most of the old cities had even smaller incorporated areas.
North Fulton similarly was mostly unincorporated until recently, with Roswell and Alpharetta being the only historic cities. Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, and then Milton were all created from nothing in the mid-late 2000's.
DeKalb, similarly, Tucker was not a city until recently. Brookhaven was not a city until recently. 15 or so years ago, the figure was probably closed to 75% of the metro lived in unincorporated areas of counties as opposed to in cities.
The size of our counties are also neither too big or too small to be the main governing unit.
This is a great point. Georgia has tiny counties as opposed to most other states, so the counties are almost able to function like a local township like government.
Of course Gwinnett County is awesome at governance, which makes this possible. The size of our counties are also neither too big or too small to be the main governing unit. I believe this to be a key reason. Fulton county was the first to fracture in large ways, but it was so long and narrow it is very easy to see how it had large regional differences within the county.
To go further.... Many of the new cities popping up around town are only "City-lites." In Georgia a city only has to perform 3 services and the definition of what those can be are very broad. In most cases, these cities are letting the counties do most things, but they are conducting just a few local services themselves. So even when an area is unincorporated the county is often left picking up the pieces on whatever the city chooses not to handle.
This makes sense once a place is established, but it could be wonky when a county was on the outskirts and then gets absorbed where part is metro, part is still rural, like Walton County. Speaking of wonky, what the heck is going on there in that county! It's like someone decided to subdivide their 300 acre hunting ground and throw up 40 homes in a little development that is 5 miles from any sort of anything. Is that what the rest of the metro used to be like? It's sliced up enough that you can't have bigger forest tracts for parks but far enough away from everything that people put on 10 rather than 4 miles to go out to eat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
I mean, it's because of the history of how all that development occurred, during the late 20th century golden age of the automobile and suburban sprawl. Gwinnett for example, was rural and undeveloped land 50 years ago, minus the small railroad towns along the 2 corridors of tracks, and a few other small areas. The vast majority of the county was not incorporated into any cities. New subdivisions replaced old rural farm houses on dirt roads and such.
Then you started to see tons of subdivisions and school districts in the inner part of the county, outside Norcross/Lilburn/Mountain Park areas in all that unincorporated land, then that development took off like crazy and eventually spread throughout the whole county, but it was not oriented with the existing small towns at all (which basically had small radius circles as their city limits), it was all pretty much in unincorporated areas.
It used to be even more unincorporated, as Peachtree Corners was only recently incorporated, and most of the old cities had even smaller incorporated areas.
North Fulton similarly was mostly unincorporated until recently, with Roswell and Alpharetta being the only historic cities. Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, and then Milton were all created from nothing in the mid-late 2000's.
DeKalb, similarly, Tucker was not a city until recently. Brookhaven was not a city until recently. 15 or so years ago, the figure was probably closed to 75% of the metro lived in unincorporated areas of counties as opposed to in cities.
In that regard it's different from western metros which seem to annex then throw up development. Who's the ones to say you have to have X amount of roads built per housing development and sidewalks and all of that for these developments, the county again?
This development does bring housing online rapidly and affordably, but I feel like it builds more houses than it can transport people around, where the metro gets to big and gets in its own way. Where you never go to anything outside of your spoke / quadrant cause it's a huge haul through traffic on 2 / 4 lane roads to get there. In that case, that venue / event / service on the other side of the metro might as well not be there. It seems like if Atlanta got to 8 million using this model, it'd just smother itself with congestion. It's probably also part of the reason transit and other things that require coordination never launch, cause there's too many hands in the pot.
This makes sense once a place is established, but it could be wonky when a county was on the outskirts and then gets absorbed where part is metro, part is still rural, like Walton County. Speaking of wonky, what the heck is going on there in that county! It's like someone decided to subdivide their 300 acre hunting ground and throw up 40 homes in a little development that is 5 miles from any sort of anything. Is that what the rest of the metro used to be like? It's sliced up enough that you can't have bigger forest tracts for parks but far enough away from everything that people put on 10 rather than 4 miles to go out to eat.
In that regard it's different from western metros which seem to annex then throw up development. Who's the ones to say you have to have X amount of roads built per housing development and sidewalks and all of that for these developments, the county again?
This development does bring housing online rapidly and affordably, but I feel like it builds more houses than it can transport people around, where the metro gets to big and gets in its own way. Where you never go to anything outside of your spoke / quadrant cause it's a huge haul through traffic on 2 / 4 lane roads to get there. In that case, that venue / event / service on the other side of the metro might as well not be there. It seems like if Atlanta got to 8 million using this model, it'd just smother itself with congestion. It's probably also part of the reason transit and other things that require coordination never launch, cause there's too many hands in the pot.
Some folks just don't care for the extra layer of government that a city brings. As long as the county government ain't broke, why try to "fix" it by incorporating a bunch of cities?
....what the heck is going on there in that county! It's like someone decided to subdivide their 300 acre hunting ground and throw up 40 homes in a little development that is 5 miles from any sort of anything. Is that what the rest of the metro used to be like? It's sliced up enough that you can't have bigger forest tracts for parks but far enough away from everything that people put on 10 rather than 4 miles to go out to eat.
Yes, it is very much like the rest of the metro use to be. Gwinnett, Cobb, even large parts of Dekalb were originally developed the same way.
It has less to do with the county vs. city issue.
Compared to cities further west in our country, we are on the eastern seaboard and an original old colony. What has happened is the original square plots in rural areas have been subdivided sold, traded and passed down generation to generation far more often. This means the owned land plots are typically very small. Even some family farms that stayed within the family got subdivided among different children each generation. What you end up with are these tiny irregular plots of land that are impacted by the shape of streams, hills, or were merely gerrymandered so the family could build their houses next door to each other.
Fast forward to the work a developer has to through....
They have to find a plot of land that they can affordably buy, be large enough to develop profitably, be able to build around 500 year floodplains of even smaller streams, and they go after topography that is cheaper to develop first.
This is why exurban development is originally disconnected. Once the area matures to full fledged suburb, the land values will be a bit more and you will see developers pay more to entice people to sell, be willing to deal with more difficult topography.
I live in an area where a majority of development occurred in the late '60s to late '90s. We still have new infill neighborhoods and there is still an undeveloped 15 acre tract behind my neighborhood that is divided into 2 properties. They just never wanted to sell it and the land has a creek in the middle, which prevents developers from offering top dollar. They know they can't make as many units and there is a cost to building around and bridging over the creek. Not saying it won't one day happen, just saying a developer sees added costs... so they aren't going to offer so much the current owners couldn't refuse if they aren't willing to sell at market value.
Development doesn't happen at the edge of the urban area, it happens wherever the land can be acquired in a profitable manner.
Another further issue is the county has already created infrastructure services for the existing rural population. Our rural population is dense for a rural population. This means there is more likely to be existing gas lines, electrical mains, cable, etc... as developers start to develop an area. Upgrades will be needed, but it doesn't matter if you build at the edge of urban growth or 3 miles down the street where you could buy contiguous 40 acres at market value with few obstructions.
Go to Texas you see these problems much less. Go to Phoenix and this problem doesn't really exist at all.
Up and down the eastern seaboard, you see this in full effect.
The above post was hugely helpful! Looking at all those factors, it does make more sense, especially the part about the floodplains given the stream / hill topography of the area and the historical settlement. Consolidated growth isn't the most viable everywhere.
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.
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.
