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.
This is an excerpt from an October 2020 article criticizing the way Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the 1619 Project, characterizes slavery in America entitled "Uniquely Bad—But Not Uniquely American" which appeared in City Journal magazine, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute. I will note that these people are not fans of the 1619 Project and the writer makes it a point to reiterate that a few times in this piece. Nevertheless, in disagreeing with Hannah-Jones, the writer says:
What set America apart from other slaveholding societies, and what continues to curse the country to this day, was not slavery per se but its racialization. Slaves had always been inferior “others” in some way meaningful to each society: Greeks only used foreigners, or “barbarians,” as slaves; Christians justified enslaving pagans; Muslims did the same with infidels, even as they spared fellow Muslims; the Chinese enslaved Koreans, Turks, Persians, and Indonesians—and now the Uyghurs—but not ethnic Chinese. But after a brief, unsuccessful attempt to use smallpox-prone Indians as slave labor, Americans turned to a different “other”: Africans, who, thanks to the growing transatlantic slave trade, would now be available in huge numbers.
The advantage for slaveowners—but the affliction for both blacks and the country as a whole—is that race is a highly visible and tenacious dividing line between peoples. Escaped and freed slaves could not simply blend into the local population as they could in other parts of the world. Only 4 percent of the Africans who suffered through the middle passage across the Atlantic ended up in what would become the United States. The rest were sold in the Caribbean and Latin America, where, with the area’s large indigenous and Mestizo population, race was less binary than in the U.S. and the divisions between groups more flexible. Hereditary slavery was not unique to the U.S.—children were born slaves in the Roman empire and early on in the Caribbean and Latin America—but once color became the defining distinction between bonded and free, hereditary slavery made a certain awful sense.
The way America has made us see race for so long, you really can't unsee it at this point and we should stop pretending that we can. But for all of (metro) Atlanta's faults, it is a place where any random Black person walking along Peachtree could truthfully be just about anything.
This is an excerpt from an October 2020 article criticizing the way Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the 1619 Project, characterizes slavery in America entitled "Uniquely Bad—But Not Uniquely American" which appeared in City Journal magazine, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute. I will note that these people are not fans of the 1619 Project and the writer makes it a point to reiterate that a few times in this piece .
For the record, I never said that I ascribed to the 1619 project. That is an assumption that ronricks made and ran with. In fact, he’s the only one that brought it up. I haven’t studied it closely because I was under the impression that it was a relatively recent endeavor with a mixed bag of results. I was just talking about plain old researchable facts. The discussion had gotten so convoluted, that it was pointless to continue.
Anyway, back to whether or not migration to the Atlanta exurbs is real...
Anyway, back to whether or not migration to the Atlanta exurbs is real...
Thank you.
On a somewhat related topic, even pre-COVID, there was an analysis that showed city growth rates have been collapsing ever since 2012 relative to suburban areas. In fact, they had reached post-recession lows by 2019.
It had a strong correlation with oil prices collapsing, interestingly enough.
I'll make one point I've made before in threads on similar issues.
Intown living in Atlanta (and many other somewhat newly gentrified cities in the US) offers very little aside from commute.
Every new development around Atlanta is basically some iteration of a suburban strip shopping mall (except a little more vertical and with a parking deck instead of a lot) and a good bit of even the smaller retail spots are chains and the like. Basically every suburb around town has a pretty happening downtown area complete with walkability, diverse restaurants, and the ability to take your beer on your walk with you (something that DOESN'T exist in Atlanta).
Add those together, and what's Atlanta offer over (say) Roswell or Duluth other than higher crime, less diversity (yes, less), higher taxes, more crime, and less affordable real estate?
To date it's been commute, but that could stall if employers ramp up work from home, or just decide to stick with the budget option for in person space (plenty of vacancy in suburban office parks compared to having to spend gobs in a shiny midtown high rise).
I was going to make this exact post. I think a lot of ITP'ers overestimate how much their fellow ITP'ers actually want to be there. I live in the east intown neighborhoods and, for me, it is Commute, Commute, Commute. I am a single 20-something guy, the ideal ITP candidate, and I can only just barely justify it via the short commutes.
The people are kind of annoying. Atlanta's core urban area is small, mediocre, and kind of pointless unless you work in an office there. The intown neighborhoods aren't even really that convenient (aside from getting on the interstate quickly) and are kind of random/unremarkable. Really, the intown neighborhoods could be described as The Suburbs, But More Inconvenient And With Junkies. I get that you're supposed to pretend the restaurants are awesome and all that, but it's really not that big of a pull. It's really just like the suburbs, but marginally more condensed and with a lot more problems.
The only clear reason I can think of to be here, aside from commuting concerns, is if you're young and very interested in dating a lot. I kind of got over that whole thing in college so that doesn't do anything for me. Why a like, married couple in their 30's would move intown...I have absolutely no idea.
I was going to make this exact post. I think a lot of ITP'ers overestimate how much their fellow ITP'ers actually want to be there. I live in the east intown neighborhoods and, for me, it is Commute, Commute, Commute. I am a single 20-something guy, the ideal ITP candidate, and I can only just barely justify it via the short commutes.
The people are kind of annoying. Atlanta's core urban area is small, mediocre, and kind of pointless unless you work in an office there. The intown neighborhoods aren't even really that convenient (aside from getting on the interstate quickly) and are kind of random/unremarkable. Really, the intown neighborhoods could be described as The Suburbs, But More Inconvenient And With Junkies. I get that you're supposed to pretend the restaurants are awesome and all that, but it's really not that big of a pull. It's really just like the suburbs, but marginally more condensed and with a lot more problems.
The only clear reason I can think of to be here, aside from commuting concerns, is if you're young and very interested in dating a lot. I kind of got over that whole thing in college so that doesn't do anything for me. Why a like, married couple in their 30's would move intown...I have absolutely no idea.
That is a very good and important point that there are many residents who, before COVID, more than likely were living Intown largely because of strong motivations to limit their commute times to and from jobs in major ITP business and employment hubs (like Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, Emory, Airport, etc.).
But, we all probably should be very careful not to let this thread degenerate into an exercise Intown-bashing, particularly as many unfortunately might be tempted to do in our notably very heavily suburban/exurban-oriented Atlanta metropolitan area/region.
Like I noted before in an earlier post on this thread, (including even during the rise in the popularity of Intown living, which seemed most apparent during the long economic expansion of the decade of the 2010’s) more people move to the suburbs and exurbs of a large major metropolitan area/region like Atlanta just simply because there is so much more development, population and land area of the suburbs and exurbs (outside of the I-285 Perimeter) than there is development, population and land area in the urban core (basically inside of the I-285 Perimeter).
But in addition to being close to good urban restaurants (like you mentioned), cultural amenities, and urban social networking/socializing opportunities, many people (including married couples in their 30’s) move Intown because of a like of seemingly more established and/or historical areas, a preference to live a relatively higher-density lifestyle, and more socially progressive politics.
Many people who are more (and the most) left of center in their social, cultural and political leanings just simply may feel much more comfortable living in an urban core environment in ITP/Intown Atlanta than they might feel trying to live in a suburban environment where their social, cultural and political leanings may not necessarily be the most accepted in an OTP suburban and/or exurban environment that is often known to lean decidedly much more conservative socially/culturally/politically.
There are exceptions to this purported rule, with many conservatives living ITP and many progressives living OTP with many moderates living in both metropolitan environments and many closer-in historically conservative suburbs appearing to align more and more with the more progressive urban core in recent years.
But urban core neighborhoods generally will be major magnets for decidedly socially/culturally/politically progressive/left-of-center residents not unlike how the suburbs and exurbs most often are a magnet for decidedly socially/culturally/politically conservative/right-of-center residents.
Even with the apparent demographically-powered evolution of many closer-in suburbs to Democratic areas, generally, if one wants to live in a decidedly most progressive area, they often will find the city to be the most appealing, while if one wants to live in a decidedly conservative area, they often will find the suburbs and exurbs to be the most appealing destination.
In a large major metropolitan area like Atlanta, more people will continue to move to the suburbs and exurbs in the largest numbers, just simply because there is more suburban and exurban area that exists.
But the city will continue to be a major draw for both individuals and families in an American family that is roughly (but not perfectly) 50-50 progressive-conservative, Democrat-Republican.
In a large major metropolitan area like Atlanta, more people will continue to move to the suburbs and exurbs in the largest numbers, just simply because there is more suburban and exurban area that exists.
There are 3 million more people projected to move to the metro in the next 30 years. Has there been a region-wide study of land use and zoning to figure out how to fit all these people without having to pave everything between Alpharetta and the mountains? I would assume a good number of those people would prefer to be ITP, so what steps are being taken to increase density in the city limits, and are they being done along mass transit corridors?
There are 3 million more people projected to move to the metro in the next 30 years. Has there been a region-wide study of land use and zoning to figure out how to fit all these people without having to pave everything between Alpharetta and the mountains? I would assume a good number of those people would prefer to be ITP, so what steps are being taken to increase density in the city limits, and are they being done along mass transit corridors?
Those are excellent questions.
While I can’t precisely recall the exact studies that have been done, I’m pretty sure that the ARC (Atlanta Regional Commission) very likely has commissioned and conducted numerous studies to that effect because that has been a constant point of discussion in the ARC’s regional planning circles.
The discussion about land use and zoning to attempt to figure out how accommodate the millions more people expected to move to metro Atlanta especially seemed to be active back around about the time of the lead-up to the ill-fated series of largely unsuccessful T-SPLOST referendums in July 2012.
But after the public’s overwhelming rejection of the series of regional T-SPLOST’s as a means of generating additional funding for transportation, that talk of land-use and zoning to attempt to more efficiently accommodate the expected population growth, quickly faded from public discussions in metro Atlanta and Georgia politics.
But if one were to want to look for those types of regional land-use and zoning studies, the ARC website most likely would be the first place to look.
Otherwise, much of the talk of utilizing land-use and zoning to accommodate the expected population growth is pretty much being left to the free market, where (particularly before the pandemic necessitated the need for widespread work-from-home) there has been both increasing demand for and an increasing willingness of local governments to allow higher-density urban living developments.
Before the pandemic, even with suburban and exurban living continuing to be popular, the growing trend in and rising demand for higher-density urban living was undeniable.
Though the pandemic does seem to have noticeably somewhat slowed (but definitely not halted) that growing pre-pandemic trend in and rising demand for urban living with the pandemic’s forced increase in remote work motivating and fueling a sharp rise in demand for more spacious detached single-family homes, seemingly most often found in outlying suburban and exurban areas.
Like I noted in my previous post, urban core areas like ITP/Intown Atlanta continue to be a major draw, particularly for urban/cosmopolitan metropolitan progressives who favor living in a mostly progressive urban area with lots of cosmopolitan urban amenities.
But the outlying suburbs and exurbs are also continuing to be a major (if not massive) draw for real estate buyers, particularly for newcomers being highly motivated to move from more expensive parts of the country like the Northeast and California during the pandemic.
There are 3 million more people projected to move to the metro in the next 30 years. Has there been a region-wide study of land use and zoning to figure out how to fit all these people without having to pave everything between Alpharetta and the mountains? I would assume a good number of those people would prefer to be ITP, so what steps are being taken to increase density in the city limits, and are they being done along mass transit corridors?
For the record, I never said that I ascribed to the 1619 project. That is an assumption that ronricks made and ran with. In fact, he’s the only one that brought it up. I haven’t studied it closely because I was under the impression that it was a relatively recent endeavor with a mixed bag of results. I was just talking about plain old researchable facts. The discussion had gotten so convoluted, that it was pointless to continue.
I know. I was simply pointing out that it is entirely possible to disagree with the major themes of the 1619 Project (which one would actually have to read for themselves to know whether they agree or disagree with them or if the Project itself constitutes historical revisionism) and acknowledge the unique attributes of chattel slavery as practiced in America as well as the ways in which its lingering effects remain with us to this day.
I'm happy to hear about that second one and hope it goes well.
My great uncle built and owned one of those old transfer warehouses a block or two to the north. That little industrial nook never had the advantage Castleberry Hill did.
There are actually the shells of a few abandoned & semi-abandoned buildings that are really interesting.
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.
