City of Atlanta, Cherokee and Henry County Fastest Growing in Metro Atlanta (Decatur: townhome, to live)

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by walker1962

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?

I personally see that as an issue as well but realistically more so, 'how many would want to' if we are comparing prices fairly on scale to denser cities of which people are fleeing higher costs of living for virtually no space and moving to Atlanta for relatively affordable housing with acres and elbow room.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by evannole

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.

This was the point of presenting the NAR survey data during the Atlanta city design project. We don't need for the city to be a place where most people want to live. But there are far more people that would choose to live in the city than have it available to them because how the metro and city have been developed over the last 50 years.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

The growth areas are more than 15%.

27% of the map is labeled as growth area. I said "assume we have 15% of the city available for high density development". Are you assuming that 100% of the growth area is available for high density development? A large portion of that yellow area is downtown and midtown, which is largely developed already. It's not like the entirety of the yellow block is available, and isn't already some of the highest density areas. I think 15% is being generous.

Also, you ignored this:

Uh, I most certainly did not. In fact, I specifically mentioned it. Let me repeat: "with the other 100,000 being spread out amongst the rest of the city". I'm giving you 100,000 people, or 14% of the additional population, to spread out amongst the non-growth areas, aka "the areas in green [that] will also still change regardless despite not focusing growth on them".

Originally Posted by J2rescue

If 750k is based on anything other than pure conjecture, please share your findings

The 750k number was not mine. I quoted the line to highlight the part "without totally losing its character". Unfortunately, I forgot that quotes are italic, so my italic highlighting did not show. I find it hard to believe that we can more than double the density of the growth areas, and add 100,000 people into the other areas without changing the character of town somewhat.

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 didn't say it would, but it would need a lot more than some five-story apartment buildings, duplexes, and ADUs.

Using the 27% number above, that gives us 36 square miles of growth area. Let's put that 600,000 of new residents in that area. That means we need to increase the density of those areas by 16,700 per square mile. Not just get to 16,700, but increase them by that much. So, Midtown would need to top 25,000 and Downtown 20,000 per square mile.

Do you think we can do all that without changing the character of the city?

Originally Posted by walker1962

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?

But, we're being told that all this new development will bring prices down so that even the high school janitor can afford to live in the middle of the most popular neighborhood.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Do you think we can do all that without changing the character of the city?

Probably not, but Atlanta's character is going to change regardless. I'd rather the city (and metro area) at least prepare for it rather than try to half-ass staying in some realm of the current status quo.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Probably not, but Atlanta's character is going to change regardless. I'd rather the city (and metro area) at least prepare for it rather than try to half-ass staying in some realm of the current status quo.

Then I think that is the sticking point for many people. Atlanta is the city we love because of what it is. If it becomes another city filled with concrete and crowds on every street, it's just not Atlanta any more. If living in just another dense concrete sea is fine with you, then cool. But at least admit that the character of the city is not important to you when talking about these things.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by vtecluder617

I can definitely see the uptick in traffic in Southern Cherokee County now compared to when I moved here 3 years ago. I personally have no issue with the growth (one of the reasons we chose this area, considered by our realtor as an up and coming area that would eventually see similar growth and property values as North Fulton), although some in this area that have been here for years are griping about it on social media.

They use coded language and complain about changes in demographics as part of the reason they don't like growth. Other reasons include traffic.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Then I think that is the sticking point for many people. Atlanta is the city we love because of what it is. If it becomes another city filled with concrete and crowds on every street, it's just not Atlanta any more. If living in just another dense concrete sea is fine with you, then cool. But at least admit that the character of the city is not important to you when talking about these things.

And once again, if Atlanta became like that, What would be the incentive to move to it versus staying in New York?

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

And once again, if Atlanta became like that, What would be the incentive to move to it versus staying in New York?

Weather, we get 50 more days a year of better weather than NYC, & it will be a 100 years before Atlanta reaches NYC population levels, 3 million people alone would have to live along the Gold/Red lines from Downtown to Buckhead.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

And once again, if Atlanta became like that, What would be the incentive to move to it versus staying in New York?

I'm not sure. New York is of little appeal. I certainly don't want to see Atlanta become like that.

[Saintmarks]

The above arguments act as if the region were geographically like a New York or Vancouver or San Francisco. With the exception of Dallas, there is no other city our size in the country that is not hemmed in on at least one side by some geographical boundary. No ocean, no bay, no mountain range, no desert, no swamp.... it is free flowing buildable (read cheap) land in all directions from the core.

For better or worse, Atlanta is one of the sunbelt cities that saw its boom because of the automobile. I know many here wish it had developed to its size earlier in its life like some of the northeastern cities. But it didn't. Someone mentioned above the streetcars and the density similar to Amsterdam. That was pre- 1950s Atlanta that went from East Lake to West End and Brookwood to about the Federal Pen. The big 1950s annexation that brought in low density Buckhead and Southwest Atlanta forever changed the density numbers Atlanta will see.

I see the maps posted and high density along corridors. What is the true demand for that? Why are those areas going to develop with expansive tall buildings when there is so much open land left near by? Has anyone seen the amount of space just in South Fulton and Douglas to absorb people at a fraction of the cost? South Fulton and Douglas have not seen the growth of DeKalb, Cobb, North Futon and Gwinnett and are closer to the core than much of those counties. They are ripe to add quite a bit of population just there without going to the exurbs.

Yes, more people are clamoring for a more urban experience and want a dense, walkable life. But this much in 30 years? How is that going to happen? You do need to look at the history of how things are done in this city to get a realistic idea of what the future holds. A doubling of the population in 30 years? Pie in the sky folks.

Not that I don't want it, but lets be real folks. The dang Beltline has been on the books for 30 years and we don't even have the paved trails finished yet. The transit option of the Beltline is what could really make this kind of vision work and support a denser city, yet there isn't a single mile of rail laid yet. If that happens in another 30 years I will be surprised.

This plan also acts as if (as is the title of a thread on our Atlanta page) the suburbs aren't becoming increasingly sophisticated. Atlanta is more than a core city surrounded by suburbs. It is increasingly becoming a region of interconnected urban districts replete with urban nodes of retail and more importantly, job centers. Atlanta still has a place to be the hub of all this, but the expectation that growth will somehow favor the core over the other increasingly dense nodes all around is misguided.

I love a bold plan. I love vision. But reality is something to deal with. History gives us a sharp slap in the face. Just here to point out the pie in the sky could be more a pie in the face.