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 09-07-2019, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Jonesboro
3,298 posts, read 3,295,206 times
Reputation: 3734

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Also, some quick back-of-the-napkin math assuming CoA growth keeps increasing by 0.1% a year as it has been:

Friend. To put it simply, population growth does not perform in that manner, as put forth in your "back-of-the-napkin" chart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2019, 11:36 AM
 
1,515 posts, read 1,681,265 times
Reputation: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by atler8 View Post
Nevertheless in the Bisnow link "...in the next decade or so", is attributed to Keane as noted by their wording of "...he said."

It is inconsequential where the original material came from. That's not the point. If there is a "he said" attached to the words "in the next decade or so", it's attributable to Keane.

Surveys can be incisive but they can also be misleading &/or never amount to little more than a momentary snap shot of opinions or views.
As we know from the pitfalls of election polling, how people respond to surveys & polling must be held at arms length as being absolute truth upon which our expectations are grounded. Are they useful? Yes. But infallible? No.

As for the City of Atlanta specifically, it's multi-faceted sets of infrastructure are woefully inadequate & often functioning at unsatisfactory levels now so as to support it's resident AND it's daytime population. I see nothing to indicate that an honest appraisal of it's future level of built out infrastructure can meet the pie-in-the-sky population trends found in this thread & apparently derived from a real estate-centric source.
Your post is a great example of why it is important to understand the source information so that we don't obsess over a vague phrase written by the author of an article. Yes, it was attributed to Keane and JSV and I have just explained to you what the phrase specifically means. Tim Keane is planning for Atlanta to be a city that can accommodate a population of 1.2 million over the next 30 years, and that includes infrastructure.

The NAR surveys are done periodically (maybe every other year), so it's not just a snapshot but a tool to measure changes and trends in housing preference. As for the respondents that express a preference for living in the city and in a walkable neighborhood, the numbers for Atlanta are relatively low but still indicate how severely underserved those markets are in this area.

There is absolutely nothing pie-in-the-sky about 13% of the population of a large metro living in its central city. If anything, it is conservative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Georgia native in McKinney, TX
7,789 posts, read 10,210,865 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
Your post is a great example of why it is important to understand the source information so that we don't obsess over a vague phrase written by the author of an article. Yes, it was attributed to Keane and JSV and I have just explained to you what the phrase specifically means. Tim Keane is planning for Atlanta to be a city that can accommodate a population of 1.2 million over the next 30 years, and that includes infrastructure.

The NAR surveys are done periodically (maybe every other year), so it's not just a snapshot but a tool to measure changes and trends in housing preference. As for the respondents that express a preference for living in the city and in a walkable neighborhood, the numbers for Atlanta are relatively low but still indicate how severely underserved those markets are in this area.

There is absolutely nothing pie-in-the-sky about 13% of the population of a large metro living in its central city. If anything, it is conservative.
You don't have to be a slide rule wielding real estate selling politically connected talking head to realize that those kind of numbers simply don't fit in the allotted space. Yes, metro atlanta with around, what, 6,000 square miles can absorb a few more million. What percentage can fit into the core city with its limited percentage of that overall land mass is not a full third of that growth.

What is the square miles? At work so just on here quickly, but is it like 140 something? With the beloved single family neighborhoods, the amount devoted to commercial and industrial, there is only so much room for a density that will more than double the population in 30 years. Yes, the city will get denser. But it can only handle so much unless the SFH neighborhoods are flattened for block upon block of MFH.

Why is that not obvious? What am I missing? The density that has prompted the recent growth has come in areas already zoned for such. There is only so much of that left to develop. I see Atlanta topping out at around 750k without totally losing its character.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 03:35 PM
 
5,323 posts, read 3,416,860 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
,

"In the next decade or so" is not a direct quote. To be clear, the 1.2 million projection is based on the city's share of the region's projected population in 2050 - 9 million. It's derived from the National Association of Realtors community preference survey in which 15% of metro Atlantans say they would choose a home in the city if it were an option. 15% of 9 million is 1.35 million. 15% of the current metro population is 900,000, which demonstrates how much pent up demand there is for intown housing.

Incidentally, at the time 39% of respondents said they would choose to live in a walkable community if it were an option, even in metro Atlanta. That percentage has grown in recent years as walkability has become a thing.
I would love to see the wording of these surveys and how they draw their conclusions. I live in CoA, but not in the core...justa few miles out. If someone surveyed me and said "Do you want to live in a home in the city", I would say yes. If they asked "Would you want to live in a walkable neighborhood", I would say yes. However, that does not mean that I would want to live in a third-floor, 800-square-foot condo with no (or expensive) parking, for $2,000 a month. It means that in a perfect world, I could have an actual house with a yard and a garage in a neighborhood where I could walk to amenities when desired. However, that's not remotely feasible in scale.

However, the survey would likely take my responses and make it sound like I, and more, want that dense urban-living walkable-fabric vibe. So, I tend to wonder how many people actually want the dense urban life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
You don't have to be a slide rule wielding real estate selling politically connected talking head to realize that those kind of numbers simply don't fit in the allotted space. Yes, metro atlanta with around, what, 6,000 square miles can absorb a few more million. What percentage can fit into the core city with its limited percentage of that overall land mass is not a full third of that growth.

What is the square miles? At work so just on here quickly, but is it like 140 something? With the beloved single family neighborhoods, the amount devoted to commercial and industrial, there is only so much room for a density that will more than double the population in 30 years. Yes, the city will get denser. But it can only handle so much unless the SFH neighborhoods are flattened for block upon block of MFH.

Why is that not obvious? What am I missing? The density that has prompted the recent growth has come in areas already zoned for such. There is only so much of that left to develop. I see Atlanta topping out at around 750k without totally losing its character.
We could fit quite a few more in Atlanta with some decent large dense buildings with small condos/apartments. The problem is, most of the urbanist types don't want these built out in areas where the land is cheap enough to do so (like SE atlanta), or where there's space to do so. It's not cool enough. They believe that people should be able to live where they want, in the perfect neighborhoods that others have spent decades building. So, yeah...they really don't care if a bunch of our neighborhoods get razed and end up chock full of high rises. The current character of the city is essentially irrelevant. They want this token "vibrancy".

Anyway, between the vast swaths of disused or almost unused industrial land and some seas of parking lots, we could fit hundreds of thousands more people without disturbing the current character of the city. No, it might not be in the middle of Inman Park or Old Fourth Ward. Sorry, not sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Jonesboro
3,298 posts, read 3,295,206 times
Reputation: 3734
Default City of Atlanta, Cherokee..

Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
Your post is a great example of why it is important to understand the source information so that we don't obsess over a vague phrase written by the author of an article. Yes, it was attributed to Keane and JSV and I have just explained to you what the phrase specifically means. Tim Keane is planning for Atlanta to be a city that can accommodate a population of 1.2 million over the next 30 years, and that includes infrastructure.

The NAR surveys are done periodically (maybe every other year), so it's not just a snapshot but a tool to measure changes and trends in housing preference. As for the respondents that express a preference for living in the city and in a walkable neighborhood, the numbers for Atlanta are relatively low but still indicate how severely underserved those markets are in this area.

There is absolutely nothing pie-in-the-sky about 13% of the population of a large metro living in its central city. If anything, it is conservative.

I'll put it to you in this way. I am 65 years old & have been studying demographic trends since the 1960's. I have a strong background in knowing of how population movements have occurred in urban America (including the City of Atlanta & metro Atlanta) & rural America over that time as well as some measure of far older population trends.
The historical trends of American population movements into & out of it's large cities has long interested me & can be helpful as a comparative tool here. To propel an in-city population boom in Atlanta up by 700,000 in the next 30 years would rely upon expectations of continued strong economic growth & a continuation of the longstanding population boom in metro Atlanta.

I said nothing earlier about whether or not 13% of a metro areas population being contained in the central city is realistic or unrealistic. I certainly understand that 13% is low & have known that Atlanta's percentage was remarkably low during the entirety of my 40 years of living here. As a matter of fact, it's drastically low as compared to the comparative statistics found in the majority of large American metro areas. But on beyond simply knowing the current level (which is currently near 8%), we need to have a strong understanding of the reality of now & how it got there as well as a strong understanding of how it could change & via what methods as well as what a realistic change down the road could entail.

In 1960 the City of Atlanta contained approximately somewhere slightly over half of the metro area population. That percentage has declined precipitously in the interim. Lately it has steadied because of a revival of the inner core. But how far it can revive upward in view of Atlanta's reluctance to embrace large scale annexation and the reluctance of many districts near it to be brought into the city, is questionable.

I mention the annexation factor here because there simply is not a large enough supply of land available to Atlanta in it's present limits so as to grow the city population dramatically up to that 1.2 million population over up to the next 30 years that conference & Mr. Keane spoke to. And given that land limiting factor, it's not practical as an achievable goal or possibility whether we are speaking in terms of a "decade or so" or 30 years. The time frame language is thus a minor quibble.

The real clincher on beyond the lack of enough land in the City of Atlanta is the infrastructure issue. Atlanta's present level of infrastructure is barely adequate to support it's current residential &/or day time populations. I hang my hat on that argument of fact as witnessed by the myriad threads here in the Atlanta forum in which the infrastructure failures are well-documented & discussed.
To think that there is an easily achieved or quickly available or less than prohibitively costly solution that will upgrade the current infrastructure level up to a better level of performance but then also enhance it so as to allow the doubling or more of the city population by 30 years out from now up to 1.2 million is simply pie-in-the-sky thinking on the part of any forecasting group whether it be a business or a governmental unit!
My last 32 years of employment were at one firm & began in 1985 in their office located both then and now in the heart of Midtown Atlanta. Our firm squarely witnessed & had to face the enormous challenges posed by congestion in that area so. I am thus correspondingly a first hand witness of how we saw the infrastructure absolutely fail to be set in place prior to nor keep up with the massive level of new development that makes up present day Midtown.

Another limiting factor is NIMBYism. The word can have both positive & negative connotations but it applies here as goes the level of density Atlantans are willing to accept in their city. As for example, there is largely a wall of development lining Juniper Street that declines in density over on east to Piedmont & then on down markedly again as Penn & then Argonne are reached. Would east Midtowners accept a massive change in the current zoning for their specific streets so as to raise the allowed density of development there? The failed 1990's era example of powerful Gwinnett developer Wayne Mason who wanted to cram 24 story towers into a tiny space adjacent to the Park Atlanta Tavern @ 10th & Monroe comes to mind where Atlantans said "No!" resoundingly to that proposal. Would similar rezoning for drastically higher density be accepted throughout other currently far less dense neighborhoods of single family homes? Generally, an honest & realistic response would be no.

If you had a good contextual memory or understanding of my prior posts over the past several years here at the Atlanta forum, you would know that I have written repeatedly about the low percentage number of metro Atlantans who live in the City of Atlanta. I've ascribed it to a variety of factors but have repeatedly mentioned my own chagrin that Atlanta has had VERY LITTLE growth of land via annexation in the ensuing 60 years that followed the gigantic 1950's era "Buckhead Plan of Improvement" which grew the city area & it's population dramatically during that one decade. As a matter of fact, Atlanta's recent new growth has only approximately brought it back up to the level it reached in 1960 & still contained in the 1970 count.
Zeroing in on reactions to my own past pro-annexation viewpoints expressed here over the years, at least one very regular member here has pushed back against my viewpoint on more than one occasion as he wrote that Atlanta already had enough room & needed to first concentrate on better serving it's current area & residents before considering more large scale annexation.

As an aid to our overall conversation, the first link below will show the population growth of the City of Atlanta and it's suburban population & it's total populations decade by decade forward from 1960 & end with the 2004 estimates. More recent estimates for the city put it near 475,000 & the 2019 metro estimate is at 5,975,000. That would place the current in city percentage at approximately 8%.

I've already discussed the lack of massive amounts of available land within the City of Atlanta and it's already poor & sadly-overstretched infrastructure level. Beyond those factors, it might be helpful to look at population trends over the last several decades for the largest American cities & to look at the decade by decade largest boom periods found among them.
Specifically since 1960, some of the biggest overall boom examples in terms of raw numbers have occurred in Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Dallas & Houston. More recently as it filled in again in the 1980's & the 1990's, New York City partially joined those raw growth rank leaders.
As seen at that link, those booms have not always been steadily continuous but rather have sometimes been interrupted by or tamped down by a bust period.
But, a factor common to all of those biggest gainers was their massive land areas, whether achieved long ago, as in the case of Los Angeles, or achieved via steady annexation in the immediate post World War 2 era or later such as on up through more recent decades.
Find the population data for those growth leaders among the largest cities at the 2nd link.

Compared to all of those biggest gainers, Atlanta has a tiny land area at approximately134 square miles. In an interesting side note for comparison, our neighbor Charlotte just up the road via I-85 has annexed aggressively in the last 50 years & now has a land area twice that of Atlanta & a population in their city limits that is approximately 85% larger than that of Atlanta.
In view of Atlanta's tiny land area, how far in hiking it's density the city residents would be willing to go is debatable. So as to absorb what would be a potentially infrastucture-overwhelming disaster of an additional 700,000 residents on up to that ballyhooed 1.2 million number, significant sacrifices in "elbow room" & in tax assessments would be required of city residents. In terms of the potential for overcrowding on a massive scale into the tiny 134 square miles as well as in terms of the quality of life factor, realistically-speaking, I'd put the prospect of such support as "doubtful" at best.

I know that it's fun & exciting to think big & jump on the growth band wagon & that to seize on assurances or declarations that Atlanta can reach number "x" or number "y" in population by this date or that date is attractive to some. But long term Atlantans can speak to the quality of life measures & how they have changed over our lives spent here.

Having witnessed the metro area growth from almost exactly 2,000,000 when I moved here, on up to the current estimate of 5,950,000, the recognition for me is stark that the old maxim "growth is good" is out of date & needs to be applied SENSIBLY rather that in terms of reaching for the goal of "faster growth" just for the sake of it just because it's exciting to be #1 or #2 or#3 in growth.

I personally don't give a whit as to which city in America is the fastest growing but rather hope that it never again is Atlanta!

Atlanta Metropolitan Growth from 1960

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_by_decade

Last edited by atler8; 09-07-2019 at 03:42 PM.. Reason: punctuation corrected
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 03:49 PM
 
2,500 posts, read 970,555 times
Reputation: 1926
In a nutshell I have always felt the lesser density in the intown areas has much to do with the fact that people moving from much denser metros being attracted to Atlanta due to it offering affordable and fairly good houses for a fraction of the cost of even some apartments in larger more expensive metros. I personally feel this is a big reason it's harder to get people to move into denser developments here (especially for comparable prices in some of those places, you can have acres and a good house if you move further away)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Jonesboro
3,298 posts, read 3,295,206 times
Reputation: 3734
Default City of Atlanta, Cherokee..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
You don't have to be a slide rule wielding real estate selling politically connected talking head to realize that those kind of numbers simply don't fit in the allotted space. Yes, metro atlanta with around, what, 6,000 square miles can absorb a few more million. What percentage can fit into the core city with its limited percentage of that overall land mass is not a full third of that growth.

What is the square miles? At work so just on here quickly, but is it like 140 something? With the beloved single family neighborhoods, the amount devoted to commercial and industrial, there is only so much room for a density that will more than double the population in 30 years. Yes, the city will get denser. But it can only handle so much unless the SFH neighborhoods are flattened for block upon block of MFH.

Why is that not obvious? What am I missing? The density that has prompted the recent growth has come in areas already zoned for such. There is only so much of that left to develop. I see Atlanta topping out at around 750k without totally losing its character.
Beautifully said, i.e. "Amen!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 06:50 PM
 
10,818 posts, read 7,674,795 times
Reputation: 3350
Y'all should have gone to the presentation on this at Georgia Tech a couple years ago. They really covered most of what you are saying.

1.2M in CoA is not that dense compared to other N American cities, and especially other world cities.

The growth rate to achieve that number is not unreasonable and not outside of growth rates we have seen in the city.

Thinking the suburbs will keep up their same disproportionately large share of the growth for the coming decades is much more unreasonable. I mean heck, what is preventing the suburbs from even seeing flat growth like the city did for decades?

NIMBYs are a valid concern. Zoning rules have been a key factor in limiting denser growth along with pro-car policies that pushed people further out. Thankfully those seem to be changing. Even still, Atlanta can reach that projected 1.2M by only growin in the "growth areas" planned below:

And here is the thing, those people are not disappearing because they don't live in the city limits. They still got to live somewhere. Metro Atlanta is much better off with the growth happening in denser urban nodes over sprawling out further. Adding additional infrastructure to support 100 new people on one existing block is far easier and cheaper in the long run than trying to put them in new SFH spread out over 50 acres in the exurbs. Also far better to have the millions of new people in the metro taking the train (and thus supporting increased frequency of transit service) instead of adding millions of cars to rush hour traffic.

Last edited by jsvh; 09-07-2019 at 07:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 10:01 PM
 
1,515 posts, read 1,681,265 times
Reputation: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
You don't have to be a slide rule wielding real estate selling politically connected talking head to realize that those kind of numbers simply don't fit in the allotted space. Yes, metro atlanta with around, what, 6,000 square miles can absorb a few more million. What percentage can fit into the core city with its limited percentage of that overall land mass is not a full third of that growth.

What is the square miles? At work so just on here quickly, but is it like 140 something? With the beloved single family neighborhoods, the amount devoted to commercial and industrial, there is only so much room for a density that will more than double the population in 30 years. Yes, the city will get denser. But it can only handle so much unless the SFH neighborhoods are flattened for block upon block of MFH.

Why is that not obvious? What am I missing? The density that has prompted the recent growth has come in areas already zoned for such. There is only so much of that left to develop. I see Atlanta topping out at around 750k without totally losing its character.
Maybe you do need to be a slide rule wielding real estate selling politically connected talking head to know that the projected population is not only possible but moderate density for a large city.


Montreal 140 sq mi; population 1,704,694; 10,070/sq mi
Munich 119 sq mi; population 1,471,508; 12,000/sq mi
Toronto 243 sq mi; 2,731,571; 11,226/sq mi
Philadelphia 134.28 sq mi; population 1,584,138; 11,797.27/sq mi
Atlanta at 1.2 million, 134 sq mi would be 8,995/sq mi


I get that most of the crowd on this board have had their narrative about this city shaped by the LAST 50 years. But this is a plan for the NEXT 30 years of growth in the city, not the past. That may be what you are missing. This accounts for preserving the SFH neighborhoods and anticipates future growth in its corridors, along the Beltline and in the city's large, underdeveloped, multiple urban cores.


https://www.atlantaga.gov/home/showdocument?id=30594
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 10:03 PM
 
1,515 posts, read 1,681,265 times
Reputation: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Y'all should have gone to the presentation on this at Georgia Tech a couple years ago. They really covered most of what you are saying.

1.2M in CoA is not that dense compared to other N American cities, and especially other world cities.
You posted the map I was looking for.
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

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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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