Why is Atlanta on such a decline? (Columbus, Dallas: transplants, real estate)

[Scarface713]

Originally Posted by radiodude84

Atlanta's "boom time" seems to have ended - for a while people thought it would start rivaling cities like Dallas and Miami or Phoenix. Does anybody know what happened?

It already rivals those cities, easily, and Phoenix is not even on Atlanta's level. But, Atlanta has been one of the harder hit metro areas by the economy (according to that NYC Map posted here not too long ago).

Originally Posted by atlantaATL

atlanta has not stop booming my friend there are alot of things underdevelopment right now 12 and midtown Loews Hotel 1010 condo just annouced 700ft tall Mandarin Hotel,Palamor hotel. Ritz Cartlon residences Streets of Buckhead . New W in Buckhead, St regis, The 2nd Intercontinental hotel thats going in midtown we have been having a hotel and condo Booom mostly

The ones in your list went under construction before the economic crisis of course.

Originally Posted by JMT

According to the US Census (and they're the ones who decide these kinds of things):

2000
Atlanta MSA ... 4,247,981
Los Angeles MSA ... 12,365,627

2007
Atlanta MSA ... 5,278,904
Los Angeles MSA ... 12,875,587

Growth between 2000-2007
Atlanta ... 1,030,923, or 24.3%
Los Angeles ... 509,960, or 4.1%

Atlanta's growth has not slowed down since the 90s, and it's growing considerably faster than Los Angeles which includes the Anaheim - Santa Ana - Irvine MSA in its population figures.

Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine is not a separate MSA. Maybe a metropolitan-division within a MSA. Riverside-San Bernardino is where the growth in the LA CSA is occurring.

[Synopsis]

I wasn't aware that Atlanta was EVER in decline. BTW, I think Atlanta has one of the most stunning skylines in the U.S.

[goozer]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Not sure why you are acting the troll here...Atlanta is actually growing at a rate that exceeds any other American city, so what do you base your premise on?

The most recent census figures DO show pretty strong growth for Atlanta, so I'm not really following the OP's point. Perhaps the city doesn't have the same "buzz" it had leading up to the Olympic Games in 1996, but it is still a booming, "growth" city (if you want to see a non-growth city, go to Youngstown, OH).

That said, Atlanta could benefit from a few years of no growth. It would give the city some time to get its infrastructure in better shape and plan for the inevitable uptick in growth in the future. Unfortunately for Atlanta, I do not see the growth leveling off, which will pose challenges for the city over the coming years.

[atlantaATL]

Originally Posted by Angel713

It already rivals those cities, easily, and Phoenix is not even on Atlanta's level. But, Atlanta has been one of the harder hit metro areas by the economy (according to that NYC Map posted here not too long ago).



The ones in your list went under construction before the economic crisis of course.



Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine is not a separate MSA. Maybe a metropolitan-division within a MSA. Riverside-San Bernardino is where the growth in the LA CSA is occurring.

No the Mandarin was just annouced in November Intercontinetal was just annouced in october oh yeah and phipps tower and two alliance building are all skyscrapers going up in the atlanta city limits but there are still developments that have been approved to be built.

[noid_1985]

Originally Posted by I Am Anonymous

How is this possible when Atlanta is like the 33rd biggest city in america and Los Angeles is like the 2nd biggest?

What does this have to do with the growth or decline of Atlanta?

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by radiodude84

Atlanta's "boom time" seems to have ended - for a while people thought it would start rivaling cities like Dallas and Miami or Phoenix. Does anybody know what happened?

"Start rivaling" cities like Dallas, Miami, and Phoenix?

That's an interesting set of comparisons.

In my view, while we can argue about Miami, which is a city Atlanta just can't compete with in the glamour category, Atlanta has long been and most certainly remains a worthy peer of Dallas and the superior of Phoenix in most major considerations such as size, influence, and importance. And Atlanta is the equal to Miami in those considerations as well, w/the exception of glamour and prestige as a tropical vacation destination.

If you're wondering what cities Atlanta is now in danger of not catching up with (very debatable and even if true it would threaten Dallas and a host of other up-and-coming cities as well), it's not those cities but rather the ones that are in the next tier up from Atlanta, such as Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and arguably Boston. Not other mid-sized cities which Atlanta is already equal or superior to in size and importance.

So let's get our terms straight here if we're gonna have a debate! :-)

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by radiodude84

Atlanta's "boom time" seems to have ended - for a while people thought it would start rivaling cities like Dallas and Miami or Phoenix. Does anybody know what happened?

Sorry to keep harping on, but when I see a question that consists of such shaky premises, I just can't help myself.

Just the assertion that Atlanta's "boom time" has ended along strikes me as ludicrous. What in the world are you basing such an assumption on anyway?

Are you aware of just how long Atlanta has been on its current meteoric rise? (Not saying that as a rah rah Atlanta booster, but just as a point of fact.)

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by censusdata

Do you mean the city or the metro? Last I checked ATL's metro was outgrowing LA's in actual numbers

Nooo nooo nooo, not so fast my friend. Atlanta's still only about a third the size of LA (5.7 mil to 15+ mil.), and LA is still growing almost as fast mostly bec. of immigration from Latin America and Asis.

[Columbusattorney]

Research Design: Mr.Clarence Stone draws on his previous and ongoing research on Atlanta as a case study for understanding how framing and symbolic factors are involved in the decline of urban regimes.




The success of Atlanta's urban regime has declined throughout the 1990s. In analyzing the history of the city through the 1990s, Stone notes several things that have led to a decline in the strength of Atlanta's urban regime.

• Early coalition was somewhat successful in working toward goals: While racial prejudice and segregation has not been completely wiped out, the economic mainstream was opened to the African-American middle class. So, one of the initial conditions for the coalition--the exclusion of African-Americans from economic life
  --is no longer as pressing as it was 50 years ago.
• Business increasingly focused on regional rather than city issues: Stone says that as the area around Atlanta has become increasingly built up, business interests have shifted from a city focus to a more regional focus. So, while business in the past may have had a focused interest in developing inner-city Atlanta, business interests now focus on more than just the city itself.
• City government is fragmented and has not created a coherent, engaging purpose: Probably the most serious problem facing Atlanta is that the city government is fragmented and more concerned with the particular interests of certain groups rather than with the city as a whole. This makes it extremely difficult for the city government to be able to create an engaging, persuasive vision and agenda for the city.
• Business distrusts local government: In part because of the governmental sector's fragmentation and weakness, the business community harbors a deep distrust of local government. Even in the early days of Atlanta's bi-racial coalition business set many of the priorities for the coalition. But, they were willing to work with the city government toward a common purpose. Now, says Stone, since there is no unifying purpose, business distrust of local government stands as a barrier to such important actions as educational reform.

[Columbusattorney]

The Atlanta area’s high-paying jobs are declining and its low-paying jobs are increasing.
That’s one of the trends in Regional Snapshot, an Atlanta Regional Commission report that comes out Thursday.

The report also says the 10-county population increase of 70,200 this year is the lowest since 2003, and is 16 percent lower than the annual average for the decade.
The makeup of the region’s population is changing as well. The percentage of residents 20 to 65 years old is shrinking and the percentage of residents older than 65 or younger than 20 is growing.
That shift means the region has to think harder about providing easy access to health care and mass transit, and building more walkable communities, said Chick Krautler, the ARC director.
The most troubling information contained in the report might be the slip in jobs that pay on average $5,700 a month. More than 40,000 such jobs have been lost since 2001.
“That’s been a significant concern since 2000,” Krautler said. The region hasn’t fully recovered from the dot-com bust early in the decade when 60,000 well-paid jobs were lost, he said.
Since then, a lot of low-paying service sector jobs have been created, Krautler said, and “that’s not a good place for the economy to be.”
The downturn has cost metro Atlanta about 21,000 jobs this year. Still, the region has plenty of high-paying work in information, wholesale trade, and professional and business services, according to the report.
The snapshot also points out just how severe the residential construction collapse has been. Building permits from August 2007 thru this year plunged 55 percent. That’s the steepest drop among 15 big cities.