Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 02-09-2021, 08:34 PM
 
Location: 30312
2,432 posts, read 3,823,040 times
Reputation: 2004

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
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.
True indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2021, 10:53 PM
 
Location: East Point
4,790 posts, read 6,832,121 times
Reputation: 4782
I think we need to shift the perspective on where we want density in ATL. Meaning, all you have to do is look at a satellite image of Atlanta to see that there are a lot of areas ITP that are essentially wilderness, or heavily forested with very low-density housing. On the same token, you have areas OTP especially on the north side that are becoming very dense.

This doesn't jibe with the hub-and-spoke image many people have of a typical city-- one that apparently the original planners of I-285 had as well. We're really more of a multi-nodal city that has a lot of natural areas in between the nodes that should be protected.

It would be less of an impact aesthetically, environmentally, if new density was directed towards the nodes that already exist (Cumberland, Midtown, Dunwoody, Buford Highway, Cobb Parkway, Alpharetta, etc.) than it would be building out more ITP in areas that aren't well-suited to that kind of density to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2021, 04:50 AM
 
10,347 posts, read 11,357,816 times
Reputation: 7718
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
I think we need to shift the perspective on where we want density in ATL. Meaning, all you have to do is look at a satellite image of Atlanta to see that there are a lot of areas ITP that are essentially wilderness, or heavily forested with very low-density housing. On the same token, you have areas OTP especially on the north side that are becoming very dense.

This doesn't jibe with the hub-and-spoke image many people have of a typical city-- one that apparently the original planners of I-285 had as well. We're really more of a multi-nodal city that has a lot of natural areas in between the nodes that should be protected.

It would be less of an impact aesthetically, environmentally, if new density was directed towards the nodes that already exist (Cumberland, Midtown, Dunwoody, Buford Highway, Cobb Parkway, Alpharetta, etc.) than it would be building out more ITP in areas that aren't well-suited to that kind of density to begin with.
Those are all excellent points.

New density is being directed towards existing nodes in ITP areas like Midtown, Buckhead, Old Fourth Ward, Inman Park, the Beltline, the Memorial Drive corridor, Castleberry Hill, West End, West Midtown, Lindbergh Downtown Decatur, North Decatur, the Clifton Road corridor/Emory University campus, Brookhaven, Chamblee, and Vinings.

That’s while new density is also being directed towards existing nodes in OTP areas like Cumberland, Perimeter Center, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Smyrna, Downtown Marietta, Kennesaw, Acworth, Woodstock, Roswell, Alpharetta, Peachtree Corners, Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee, Sugar Hill, Buford/Mall of Georgia, Lawrenceville and Snellville.

Having so much tree cover (including in areas relatively very close to the urban core) is one of the things that has helped to make the Atlanta city/metro so appealing to many newcomers.

Though the planners of the Interstate system likely were not trying to propagate Atlanta as a hub-and-spoke city when they originally routed the I-285 Perimeter around what is now the urban core of greater metro Atlanta.

The I-285 Perimeter was routed and built where it is now because at the time that the road was planned, pretty much all of Atlanta’s heavily developed metropolitan area existed inside of what is now the I-285 Perimeter.

When I-285 was originally planned back in the 1940’s and 1950’s, Atlanta was a typical hub-and-spoke city because Atlanta was a regional transportation hub with surface roads and long-distance freight and passenger railroad lines radiating out in multiple directions towards other hubs of various sizes throughout the greater Southeastern U.S. region.

But after the construction of the Interstate system, metro Atlanta grew from a hub-and-spoke oriented city/metro of regional importance into the sprawling multi-nodal large major metropolitan region of international importance that we know it to be today... With the lakes (Lanier and Allatoona), the foothills and the mountains appearing to drive much of the heaviest growth to the north of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2021, 02:06 PM
 
Location: 30312
2,432 posts, read 3,823,040 times
Reputation: 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
I think we need to shift the perspective on where we want density in ATL. Meaning, all you have to do is look at a satellite image of Atlanta to see that there are a lot of areas ITP that are essentially wilderness, or heavily forested with very low-density housing. On the same token, you have areas OTP especially on the north side that are becoming very dense.

This doesn't jibe with the hub-and-spoke image many people have of a typical city-- one that apparently the original planners of I-285 had as well. We're really more of a multi-nodal city that has a lot of natural areas in between the nodes that should be protected.

It would be less of an impact aesthetically, environmentally, if new density was directed towards the nodes that already exist (Cumberland, Midtown, Dunwoody, Buford Highway, Cobb Parkway, Alpharetta, etc.) than it would be building out more ITP in areas that aren't well-suited to that kind of density to begin with.
I agree to an extent. I believe the existing residential areas to the south and west ITP out to 285 are fine. It’s just adding density to revitalize the abandoned and blighted areas on that side of town. I think dense development would be welcome along MLK, Hollowell(Bankhead), Boone(Simpson), etc. while still keeping the current residential homes and greenspace in tact.

Fortunately, there are also projects like this: https://urbanize.city/atlanta/post/d...dney-cook-pond

What many people do not realize is that from the 1920’s to the 1960’s, (and even the 1970’s and 80’s on the SW side —ITP outside the Beltline) families were very comfortable with how their communities were set up with small commercial development along the streetcar lines, and connected to the neighborhoods along the major thoroughfares. Some with more affluent enclaves toward the peripheries. I think the intown movement is attempting to recreate this small town in the big city environment—similar to how I described in an earlier post where you knew and saw your neighbors, etc. Like you have mentioned in previous posts, there are parts of the city that can seem downright rural.

Even though the suburbs were a draw to families nationwide, the primary factor that led most Atlantans to leave were fears associated with integration that led to massive white flight, followed by middle-class black flight. But in reality, most people were perfectly fine with ITP living for generations. As another poster mentioned (in a somewhat condescending way) American consumer culture would lead people to believe that bigger, newer, and shinier, is always better. And I get that. But I don’t want to discount the less isolated, less car-centric way our grandparents and great grandparents lived for generations.

I see that any mention of race is so incredibly taboo on here. But the fact is that race and class has played a HUGE roll in how the city was developed. Once we remove that lens (but not ignore it), the city and surrounding suburbs would be that much better for it — and therein promoting more equitable development. So there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, just update and improve the existing wheel that we already have.

I’ll give a minor example, my home was built in 1925. From 1925 to 1965, several generations of a white middle class family lived here. From 1965 to around 2004, several generations of a black middle class family lived here. A gentrifying family was here for about 10 years (before moving to California), then my family moved in.

That type of permanency is almost unheard of today. But it’s not that the community changed necessarily; it is more so that attitudes about the community changed. But at its core, it is still the same community.

One more thing I wanted to point out in this hodgepodge of topics (not necessarily related to the comment above) is that while people are touting the historic downtowns of Roswell, Norcoss, Marietta, Woodstock, etc. what about those who don’t live in/near the downtowns of those cities? Where is walkable, local development for them? In Decatur, there’s Oakhurst Village, the MAK District/College Ave corridor, the shops around Sycamore Ridge, and of course, Decatur Square in downtown Decatur.

Are you all saying that the suburban cities are that walkable (aside from the historic or manufactured downtowns)? I’m not being facetious. I genuinely don’t know.

If not, my point is that there are many areas in various price points throughout Atlanta like this — not just midtown and Virginia Highland. And I would imagine that the downtowns of these walkable suburban hubs can be relatively pricey. So I wouldn’t necessarily say these areas are as exceedingly inclusive as some make it out to be.

Just a few additional random thoughts on the issue...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2021, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Downtown Marietta
1,324 posts, read 1,303,030 times
Reputation: 2157
Quote:
Originally Posted by equinox63 View Post
Are you all saying that the suburban cities are that walkable (aside from the historic or manufactured downtowns)? I’m not being facetious. I genuinely don’t know.

If not, my point is that there are many areas in various price points throughout Atlanta like this — not just midtown and Virginia Highland. And I would imagine that the downtowns of these walkable suburban hubs can be relatively pricey. So I wouldn’t necessarily say these areas are as exceedingly inclusive as some make it out to be.

Just a few additional random thoughts on the issue...
If you don't know, you should come find out. Seriously.

I'll take Marietta as an example, as it's what I know best. Of course it's not all walkable, but neither is probably 90% or more of the land area of the city of Atlanta. The area around the Square is highly walkable, offering more in the way of restaurants, shops and amenities than almost all in-town neighborhoods. And it and the neighborhoods surrounding it have developed organically; it's actually older than Atlanta, believe it or not. No, it's not Midtown, but it is, in fact, pretty similar to Decatur, minus the MARTA line - but, on the flip side, Marietta's town square is actually a town square, as opposed to the layout of Decatur's, which has always struck me as odd.

Come check it out sometime. Absent that, explore it via Google Street View, but a visit would be much more instructive and enjoyable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2021, 08:05 PM
 
Location: 30312
2,432 posts, read 3,823,040 times
Reputation: 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole View Post
If you don't know, you should come find out. Seriously.

I'll take Marietta as an example, as it's what I know best. Of course it's not all walkable, but neither is probably 90% or more of the land area of the city of Atlanta. The area around the Square is highly walkable, offering more in the way of restaurants, shops and amenities than almost all in-town neighborhoods. And it and the neighborhoods surrounding it have developed organically; it's actually older than Atlanta, believe it or not. No, it's not Midtown, but it is, in fact, pretty similar to Decatur, minus the MARTA line - but, on the flip side, Marietta's town square is actually a town square, as opposed to the layout of Decatur's, which has always struck me as odd.

Come check it out sometime. Absent that, explore it via Google Street View, but a visit would be much more instructive and enjoyable.
Thanks. I’m familiar with the Marietta town square, but what areas should I see outside of that?

Last edited by equinox63; 02-10-2021 at 08:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2021, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Downtown Marietta
1,324 posts, read 1,303,030 times
Reputation: 2157
Quote:
Originally Posted by equinox63 View Post
Thanks. I’m familiar with the Marietta town square, but what areas should I see outside of that?
The neighborhoods that feed into it, while mostly residential, are walkable and charming.

-Church and Cherokee Streets, with their stately homes, many from the 19th century, and the side streets off of each of them, with plenty of charming early 20th century bungalows
-Kennesaw Avenue, Maple Avenue and Stuart Avenue, with more of the same
-Forest Hills, just northeast of the Square
-The Renaissance District, just southeast of the Square, which has indeed undergone a renaissance in the past 15 years, hilly and walkable, with new development pretty seamlessly interspersed with old

I'm by no means asserting that Marietta has multiple walkable commercial centers. It doesn't. What it does have is a highly walkable historic downtown with many neighborhoods feeding into it, and it's both larger and more organically developed than most urban nodes within the city of Atlanta itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2021, 08:32 AM
 
180 posts, read 126,468 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronricks View Post
There is no magic wand to fix income inequality. "Equity" is the new term du jour being thrown around but nowhere has equal outcomes in life been guaranteed in America. For example someone with a 10th grade education is not guaranteed the same outcomes as someone with a law degree from Princeton. Equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes because we deal with individuals. Everyone is different. Different skills, different characteristics, different intelligence, different work habits. You will have different outcomes. There are levels to this. Also, minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers they are entry level jobs into the workforce to gain experience. If they were careers they would pay more. You are guaranteed the pursuit of such things but it requires more than just raising your hand.
Princeton’s doesn’t have a law school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2021, 09:17 AM
 
Location: NW Atlanta
6,495 posts, read 6,078,433 times
Reputation: 4453
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoogHawk View Post
Princeton’s doesn’t have a law school.
Semantics (though I wouldn’t have known that either).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2021, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
3,656 posts, read 3,908,932 times
Reputation: 4314
Quote:
Originally Posted by equinox63 View Post
I agree to an extent. I believe the existing residential areas to the south and west ITP out to 285 are fine. It’s just adding density to revitalize the abandoned and blighted areas on that side of town. I think dense development would be welcome along MLK, Hollowell(Bankhead), Boone(Simpson), etc. while still keeping the current residential homes and greenspace in tact.

Fortunately, there are also projects like this: https://urbanize.city/atlanta/post/d...dney-cook-pond

What many people do not realize is that from the 1920’s to the 1960’s, (and even the 1970’s and 80’s on the SW side —ITP outside the Beltline) families were very comfortable with how their communities were set up with small commercial development along the streetcar lines, and connected to the neighborhoods along the major thoroughfares. Some with more affluent enclaves toward the peripheries. I think the intown movement is attempting to recreate this small town in the big city environment—similar to how I described in an earlier post where you knew and saw your neighbors, etc. Like you have mentioned in previous posts, there are parts of the city that can seem downright rural.

Even though the suburbs were a draw to families nationwide, the primary factor that led most Atlantans to leave were fears associated with integration that led to massive white flight, followed by middle-class black flight. But in reality, most people were perfectly fine with ITP living for generations. As another poster mentioned (in a somewhat condescending way) American consumer culture would lead people to believe that bigger, newer, and shinier, is always better. And I get that. But I don’t want to discount the less isolated, less car-centric way our grandparents and great grandparents lived for generations.

I see that any mention of race is so incredibly taboo on here. But the fact is that race and class has played a HUGE roll in how the city was developed. Once we remove that lens (but not ignore it), the city and surrounding suburbs would be that much better for it — and therein promoting more equitable development. So there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, just update and improve the existing wheel that we already have.

I’ll give a minor example, my home was built in 1925. From 1925 to 1965, several generations of a white middle class family lived here. From 1965 to around 2004, several generations of a black middle class family lived here. A gentrifying family was here for about 10 years (before moving to California), then my family moved in.

That type of permanency is almost unheard of today. But it’s not that the community changed necessarily; it is more so that attitudes about the community changed. But at its core, it is still the same community.

One more thing I wanted to point out in this hodgepodge of topics (not necessarily related to the comment above) is that while people are touting the historic downtowns of Roswell, Norcoss, Marietta, Woodstock, etc. what about those who don’t live in/near the downtowns of those cities? Where is walkable, local development for them? In Decatur, there’s Oakhurst Village, the MAK District/College Ave corridor, the shops around Sycamore Ridge, and of course, Decatur Square in downtown Decatur.

Are you all saying that the suburban cities are that walkable (aside from the historic or manufactured downtowns)? I’m not being facetious. I genuinely don’t know.

If not, my point is that there are many areas in various price points throughout Atlanta like this — not just midtown and Virginia Highland. And I would imagine that the downtowns of these walkable suburban hubs can be relatively pricey. So I wouldn’t necessarily say these areas are as exceedingly inclusive as some make it out to be.

Just a few additional random thoughts on the issue...
This is the problem today regarding minority communities....No state spending in Black or Latino areas.

This prevents a unification of our population, and the State is to blame. Trash is not picked up on I-20 West, and no GDOT maintenance occurs along Jimmy Carter of here near Dekalb Peachtree Airport which is Latino-populated.

On Jimmy Carter East of I-85, there is little indication that you're even in the United States much less any Georgia-specific infrastructure that's easily identified.

This practice of spending only in certain areas and neglecting others evident throughout the metro area.

But at the same time, Buckhead's priciest zip codes have horrendous streets too, and no one in either area complains or seems to care.

These guidance signs are so old that the shields are the old-timey design. You can spot signs in Atllanta that are so old that they have button-copy reflectors following the letters to be visible at night.

A lot of sprucing up needs to be done.

chamdun by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top