City of Atlanta, Cherokee and Henry County Fastest Growing in Metro Atlanta (Buckhead: 2014, quality of life)

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by bellhead

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.

I personally doubt the weather alone will be an incentive enough especially if other sunbelt metros offer comparably lower density and larger homes for a fraction of the price as it would cost to live near Downtown Atlanta. It wont really matter if Atlanta is or is not the size of NYC if all the available housing are high density homes on similar scale and priced similarly to high density metros. They would have nothing else to choose from except pretty much what they are moving out of. The real incentive for people leaving rustbelt cities is finding housing, with acres, and where they didnt have to walk into the kitchen to leave their bedroom for affordability much less expensive than it was to live in high density metros.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

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

Ditto. I do think Atlanta does need more density but there is a point where too much is just as bad as not enough. Not everybody wants to live ontop of eachother.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I personally doubt the weather alone will be an incentive enough especially if other sunbelt metros offer comparably lower density and larger homes for a fraction of the price as it would cost to live near Downtown Atlanta. It wont really matter if Atlanta is or is not the size of NYC if all the available housing are high density homes on similar scale and priced similarly to high density metros. They would have nothing else to choose from except pretty much what they are moving out of. The real incentive for people leaving rustbelt cities is finding housing, with acres, and where they didnt have to walk into the kitchen to leave their bedroom for affordability much less expensive than it was to live in high density metros.



Ditto. I do think Atlanta does need more density but there is a point where too much is just as bad as not enough. Not everybody wants to live ontop of eachother.

Well there is room. To get to the density of Santa Monica, the population would have to be almost 1.4 million.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by bu2

Well there is room. To get to the density of Santa Monica, the population would have to be almost 1.4 million.

I never said there wasn't room. What I said is the demand for that just isnt there. If it were people would stay in cities that are already largely dense. There just wouldn't be enough advantages in moving from an expensive condo in say New York to an expensive condo in Atlanta.

[jsvh]

The action at question here is: "Do we legalize more density in Atlanta in the form of high and mid rises in growth areas and up to missing middle housing elsewhere".

Which the people are coming to metro Atlanta. When they move here, do we want to give them relatively option to live in the city, have a smaller "footprint", and take transit. Or do we want to keep limiting density and force almost all those new people to live further out, grid-lock the roads by driving everywhere, and requiring miles and miles of new infrastructure to be built since the relatively few urban options we allow are priced too high?

The answer to the question: "is it physically possible to house 1.2M people in the city with those new density limits" is a clear yes.

Will we get to 1.2M pop in the city limits? Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of macro factors that will drive that. But we should legalize it, so people have the option.

What harm is done if we plan for a big, better city and they don't come? Nothing. We just make a better Atlanta for those of us who are here.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Are you assuming that 100% of the growth area is available for high density development?

Yeah, pretty much it should be. But you realize that "high density" in reality looks more like mid-rises in Paris than Bank of America tower, right?

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

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.

Where are you getting 30 years from? The Beltline was only first proposed in Ryan Gravel's master thesis in 1999. Beltline Inc wasn't formed until 2006. The first section of trail opened in 2012. Now just 7 years later we have the majority of the Beltline opened as trails and large parts of the LRT on the Beltline fully funded.

Do we need to do more for transit on the Beltline? Heck yes. Having a suburban minded mayor doesn't help.

But step one is legalizing the density along the Beltline to support transit. The only section that can really support high-capacity transit at this point is around Old Forth Ward. And construction there is fully funded and due to start in the next few years.

So: density comes before transit.

We should do all we can to press for support of expanded transit in the metro. But that should not hold up legalizing density.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by jsvh

The action at question here is: "Do we legalize more density in Atlanta in the form of high and mid rises in growth areas and up to missing middle housing elsewhere".

Which the people are coming to metro Atlanta. When they move here, do we want to give them relatively option to live in the city, have a smaller "footprint", and take transit. Or do we want to keep limiting density and force almost all those new people to live further out, grid-lock the roads by driving everywhere, and requiring miles and miles of new infrastructure to be built since the relatively few urban options we allow are priced too high?

The answer to the question: "is it physically possible to house 1.2M people in the city with those new density limits" is a clear yes.

Will we get to 1.2M pop in the city limits? Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of macro factors that will drive that. But we should legalize it, so people have the option.

What harm is done if we plan for a big, better city and they don't come? Nothing. We just make a better Atlanta for those of us who are here.



Yeah, pretty much it should be. But you realize that "high density" in reality looks more like mid-rises in Paris than Bank of America tower, right?



Where are you getting 30 years from? The Beltline was only first proposed in Ryan Gravel's master thesis in 1999. Beltline Inc wasn't formed until 2006. The first section of trail opened in 2012. Now just 7 years later we have the majority of the Beltline opened as trails and large parts of the LRT on the Beltline fully funded.

Do we need to do more for transit on the Beltline? Heck yes. Having a suburban minded mayor doesn't help.

But step one is legalizing the density along the Beltline to support transit. The only section that can really support high-capacity transit at this point is around Old Forth Ward. And construction there is fully funded and due to start in the next few years.

So: density comes before transit.

We should do all we can to press for support of expanded transit in the metro. But that should not hold up legalizing density.

OK, 20 years, not 30. Still don't have the pathway complete. And no sign of rail. When?

Build it and they will come is apropos here. Where is the LTR ringing the core of Atlanta? Perhaps that is what this whole discussion is about, but until that is up and running, the density just ain't gonna happen.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I never said there wasn't room. What I said is the demand for that just isnt there. If it were people would stay in cities that are already largely dense. There just wouldn't be enough advantages in moving from an expensive condo in say New York to an expensive condo in Atlanta.

To get to Manhattan's density, Atlanta would have to be about 8.5 million. I was just comparing to Santa Monica which isn't anything like NYC.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by bu2

To get to Manhattan's density, Atlanta would have to be about 8.5 million. I was just comparing to Santa Monica which isn't anything like NYC.

Yes but that isnt the point. The issue is, the prices would be pretty comparable to dense N.E. cities while supplying only half the amenities. Despite not being as dense as NYC. It would still be every bit as expensive as there would still be too many restrictions on development and not enough room to develope enough supply. Modern high density developments have to overcome way more hurdles than lower density developments.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Yes but that isnt the point. The issue is, the prices would be pretty comparable to dense N.E. cities while supplying only half the amenities. Despite not being as dense as NYC. It would still be every bit as expensive as there would still be too many restrictions on development and not enough room to develope enough supply. Modern high density developments have to overcome way more hurdles than lower density developments.

Atlanta is producing enough high rises. Probably doing ok on apartments. What it needs is more things like townhomes and patio homes (I think of the properties on the north side of N. Decatur Road just west of Briarcliff) . Those would fill a niche and increase density. In someplace like Santa Monica or LA, there are smaller lots and less large lot SFH areas. There's a lot of commercial areas in Atlanta, particularly on the west side that are un- or under-utilized.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Yeah, pretty much it should be. But you realize that "high density" in reality looks more like mid-rises in Paris than Bank of America tower, right?

It mostly is. But, you're missing the root of the question. Most of the yellow growth area in Midtown and Downtown is already developed with towers, office buildings, and retail. Most of that area is not available or development, because it is already developed. Throwing a few mid-rise buildings on whatever lots are still around isn't going to more than double the population of the city.

High density equaling large populations requires either large areas, or even higher density (taller buildings or much smaller spaces) in smaller areas.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Yes but that isnt the point. The issue is, the prices would be pretty comparable to dense N.E. cities while supplying only half the amenities. Despite not being as dense as NYC. It would still be every bit as expensive as there would still be too many restrictions on development and not enough room to develope enough supply. Modern high density developments have to overcome way more hurdles than lower density developments.

You are kind of all over the place with this. Density does not cause high prices in and of itself. It is high demand for housing in a particular area that causes higher prices which is in turn an incentive for increasing density. This fact is reflected in urban housing prices both here and in cities around the nation as we have prioritized suburban development in this country for nearly a century.

If there is no demand for dense housing in in the city, as some of you are saying, then there would be no reason that this market to ever approach the housing costs of NE cities.