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, 10:59 PM
 
13,735 posts, read 22,262,574 times
Reputation: 4714

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
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
^^^
This. Well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2019, 08:10 AM
 
5,325 posts, read 3,419,090 times
Reputation: 3553
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
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 think you may have missed the defining part of his statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
I see Atlanta topping out at around 750k without totally losing its character.
So, Atlanta and Philadelphia have the same square mileage. I think we can all agree that Philadelphia is decidedly different character from anything in Atlanta. Especially South Philadelphia. It's mile upon mile of this. Many other areas of the city are similar. Most definitely not enjoyable or attractive in the slightest. If Atlanta wants to fit a similar number of people in the same square mileage without disturbing the existing neighborhoods and character, and confining all this new population and development into just these growth corridors, we're gong to have to go tall...very tall.

We can easily handle several hundred thousand more while keeping our current character. To handle 700,000 more is going to involve a lot more. And at that point, I think you want a new city...nothing remotely relatable to what we have now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Downtown Marietta
1,146 posts, read 797,830 times
Reputation: 1518
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
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
Fair enough. But somewhere between 30 and 40 square miles are effectively off the table for further densification, because that much area is taken up by Buckhead, Paces, the Mount Paran corridor: huge mansions on lots spanning multiple acres, in many cases. Those people and their estates aren't going anywhere. So to reach 1.2 million, you're going to need to cram 700,000 additional people into fewer than 100 square miles - that's density of 7,000 per square mile ON TOP OF the population that's already in those areas. Not impossible, certainly, but it won't be easy, and if it does happen, a very large majority of the growth will have to be in areas where most people don't want to live today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:48 PM
 
10,831 posts, read 7,677,598 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
I think you may have missed the defining part of his statement:



So, Atlanta and Philadelphia have the same square mileage. I think we can all agree that Philadelphia is decidedly different character from anything in Atlanta. Especially South Philadelphia. It's mile upon mile of this. Many other areas of the city are similar. Most definitely not enjoyable or attractive in the slightest. If Atlanta wants to fit a similar number of people in the same square mileage without disturbing the existing neighborhoods and character, and confining all this new population and development into just these growth corridors, we're gong to have to go tall...very tall.

We can easily handle several hundred thousand more while keeping our current character. To handle 700,000 more is going to involve a lot more. And at that point, I think you want a new city...nothing remotely relatable to what we have now.
No city will be Atlanta but Atlanta. Atlanta has already changed many times over the decades. And it will change again in the future. All we can do is make sure that Atlanta is best version of itself. And to do that requires planning for the best way to handle the growth that will continue to happen in the metro.

Remember, Atlanta used to have similar density and number of tram / streetcar routes as Amsterdam.



And if you think we would need to go "very tall" in order to handle more density, you are just straight up wrong. Even at 1.2M we would be less dense than DC which has a height limit. And way less dense than Paris (which also has a height limit). Areas of Atlanta such as Old Forth Ward, Georgia Tech (west of 75/85), and AUC area already surpass the density required and have few if any high-rises.

Could metro Atlanta pass restrictive zoning rules to limit new development and density and try to freeze Atlanta as an idealized 1980s car-first version of itself? Yes, could happen. Would it stop Atlanta from changing? Nope.

Last edited by jsvh; 09-08-2019 at 02:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:58 PM
 
10,831 posts, read 7,677,598 times
Reputation: 3360


Also important to note, that the areas in green will also still change regardless despite not focusing growth on them. But growth there will be limited to mostly ADUs / Duplexes and other missing-middle options. Still, many of those areas could easily see a doubling in population themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 05:20 PM
 
5,325 posts, read 3,419,090 times
Reputation: 3553
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
And if you think we would need to go "very tall" in order to handle more density, you are just straight up wrong. Even at 1.2M we would be less dense than DC which has a height limit. And way less dense than Paris (which also has a height limit). Areas of Atlanta such as Old Forth Ward, Georgia Tech (west of 75/85), and AUC area already surpass the density required and have few if any high-rises.
You're missing a very important part of this. Yes, those cities have some higher densities and more population, but it is spread out over their entire city areas. Paris is almost entirely 4-6 story buildings for the entire span. While we have space to build, it's not wide open. The vast majority of it is already developed. So, say we have 15% of the city available for high-density development without changing existing neighborhoods. That would be 20 square miles. In order to fit 600,000 of the 700,000 new people (with the other 100,000 being spread out amongst the rest of the city, the average density of those areas would have to be 30,000 per square mile. I'm not sure we have the space to go 30,000 per square mile without going tall, while keeping most of the city's character.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 05:46 PM
 
10,831 posts, read 7,677,598 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
You're missing a very important part of this. Yes, those cities have some higher densities and more population, but it is spread out over their entire city areas. Paris is almost entirely 4-6 story buildings for the entire span. While we have space to build, it's not wide open. The vast majority of it is already developed. So, say we have 15% of the city available for high-density development without changing existing neighborhoods. That would be 20 square miles. In order to fit 600,000 of the 700,000 new people (with the other 100,000 being spread out amongst the rest of the city, the average density of those areas would have to be 30,000 per square mile. I'm not sure we have the space to go 30,000 per square mile without going tall, while keeping most of the city's character.
The growth areas are more than 15%.

Also, you ignored this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Also important to note, that the areas in green will also still change regardless despite not focusing growth on them. But growth there will be limited to mostly ADUs / Duplexes and other missing-middle options. Still, many of those areas could easily see a doubling in population themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 06:15 PM
 
1,516 posts, read 1,681,739 times
Reputation: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
I think you may have missed the defining part of his statement:

So, Atlanta and Philadelphia have the same square mileage. I think we can all agree that Philadelphia is decidedly different character from anything in Atlanta. Especially South Philadelphia. It's mile upon mile of this. Many other areas of the city are similar. Most definitely not enjoyable or attractive in the slightest. If Atlanta wants to fit a similar number of people in the same square mileage without disturbing the existing neighborhoods and character, and confining all this new population and development into just these growth corridors, we're going to have to go tall...very tall.

We can easily handle several hundred thousand more while keeping our current character. To handle 700,000 more is going to involve a lot more. And at that point, I think you want a new city...nothing remotely relatable to what we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
I see Atlanta topping out at around 750k without totally losing its character.
If 750k is based on anything other than pure conjecture, please share your findings.

Philadelphia is a city that has declined from a peak population of 2 million in the same area as the city of Atlanta. The built environment there can accommodate a population 40% higher the Atlanta would have at 1.2 million. So no, it is not the case at all that Atlanta would need an identical character as Philadelphia to reach that goal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 06:28 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 974,380 times
Reputation: 1927
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2rescue View Post
If 750k is based on anything other than pure conjecture, please share your findings.

Philadelphia is a city that has declined from a peak population of 2 million in the same area as the city of Atlanta. The built environment there can accommodate a population 40% higher the Atlanta would have at 1.2 million. So no, it is not the case at all that Atlanta would need an identical character as Philadelphia to reach that goal.
I personally think the problem with that is much of in town Atlanta was developed with low density developments before Atlanta proper really started to grow in density. Even at 1.2 Million, we are comparing a city that was from the roots designed around high density versus a city that was designed around sprawl, therefore even though Philadelphia receded, just due to it's very nature and infrastructure it will alot easier to density it than Atlanta of which you will face Nimby's, governmental restrictions, supporting infrastructural restrictions, and so forth. Trying to reverse that will not be as pie in the sky and cake as you seem to imply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 06:29 PM
 
1,332 posts, read 654,039 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
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.



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.
Yea you could create more density but at what cost? I just got back from Vancouver. Only NYC and Toronto have more hi-rises. I saw several new ones going up but at price point of $500 to $900/square foot! How many in Atlanta can come close to qualifying for buying hi rise/density living?
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