Why does Atlanta get a bum rap on "sprawl?" (Savannah: college, taxi)

[reet4587]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

News flash: Atlanta is NEVER going to bulldoze neighborhoods like Midtown, Ansley Park, Brookwood Hills, Collier Hills, Peachtree Hills, Peachtree Park, Haynes Manor, Tuxedo Park, North Buckhead and Brookhaven for the sake of 'density' and 'urbanity'.

Right -- and there's absolutely no need to. There is plenty of room in central Midtown along the Peachtree/Spring St corridor and all over central Downtown to continue to develop livable, walkable urban density.

I think it has been a mistake, in fact, to put otherwise an excellent mixed-use, dense development like Glenwood Park in the middle of a mostly single-home area. This kind of trend is a bizarre misrepresentation of smart growth principles. A place like GP would make much more sense near a MARTA station in the established urban core of central Midtown or Downtown instead of hidden far away so that traffic to and from the neighborhood discourages pedestrian/transit movement.

I love seeing the improvements in Midtown between the North AV and Midtown MARTA stations. Its a great place to walk around. But there are still plenty of surface lots, grey fields and abandoned buildings here to be remade. Ignoring the potential of this space and instead redeveloping the single-home neighborhoods that are far away from MARTA stations with mixed-use buildings is a bad idea.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by reet4587

Right -- and there's absolutely no need to. There is plenty of room in central Midtown along the Peachtree/Spring St corridor and all over central Downtown to continue to develop livable, walkable urban density.

I think it has been a mistake, in fact, to put otherwise an excellent mixed-use, dense development like Glenwood Park in the middle of a mostly single-home area. This kind of trend is a bizarre misrepresentation of smart growth principles. A place like GP would make much more sense near a MARTA station in the established urban core of central Midtown or Downtown instead of hidden far away so that traffic to and from the neighborhood discourages pedestrian/transit movement.

I love seeing the improvements in Midtown between the North AV and Midtown MARTA stations. Its a great place to walk around. But there are still plenty of surface lots, grey fields and abandoned buildings here to be remade. Ignoring the potential of this space and instead redeveloping the single-home neighborhoods that are far away from MARTA stations with mixed-use buildings is a bad idea.

You are right (see highlighted above). That has always bugged me about developments like GP..."smart growth" per se...but isolated. Makes no sense.

However, this flaw with Glenwood Park can (and hopefully will) be redeemed when the Beltline is put in place...GP is right along the Beltline...and I'm sure there will be a station right there.

[LovinDecatur]

Originally Posted by aries4118

You are right (see highlighted above). That has always bugged me about developments like GP..."smart growth" per se...but isolated. Makes no sense.

However, this flaw with Glenwood Park can (and hopefully will) be redeemed when the Beltline is put in place...GP is right along the Beltline...and I'm sure there will be a station right there.

Having walked Glenwood Park, I have to come to its' defense. The densest part of the development is at its' core...on the edges, they have placed the SFH development so that it will blend in better with the houses in neighboring Kirkwood to the east. I am assuming that when the development grows westward to Grant Park (at this point, there is still a 'no man's land' between Glenwood and Grant Parks), they will do the same thing.
I'm actually pretty impressed with GP (DH and I have considered buying in there). Another 'new' community that I think has done a pretty good job of blending in with the established neighborhood alongside it is Inman Park Village.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Having walked Glenwood Park, I have to come to its' defense. The densest part of the development is at its' core...on the edges, they have placed the SFH development so that it will blend in better with the houses in neighboring Kirkwood to the east. I am assuming that when the development grows westward to Grant Park (at this point, there is still a 'no man's land' between Glenwood and Grant Parks), they will do the same thing.
I'm actually pretty impressed with GP (DH and I have considered buying in there). Another 'new' community that I think has done a pretty good job of blending in with the established neighborhood alongside it is Inman Park Village.

You're right...it is very well-planned development. I like it a lot and would love to live there, actually. My issue is with the lack of transit connections...one still has to drive there...maybe bus. Really, this is the problem with a lot of the these type of developments in Metro Atlanta (Atlantic Station, etc.)...the transit connection (the missing link) is just inadequate. It's just symptomatic of the larger Metro Atlanta problem...

Bring on comprehensive/extensive metro rail/light rail/commuter rail in the Atlanta area...!

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by reet4587

Right -- and there's absolutely no need to. There is plenty of room in central Midtown along the Peachtree/Spring St corridor and all over central Downtown to continue to develop livable, walkable urban density.

I think it has been a mistake, in fact, to put otherwise an excellent mixed-use, dense development like Glenwood Park in the middle of a mostly single-home area. This kind of trend is a bizarre misrepresentation of smart growth principles. A place like GP would make much more sense near a MARTA station in the established urban core of central Midtown or Downtown instead of hidden far away so that traffic to and from the neighborhood discourages pedestrian/transit movement.

I love seeing the improvements in Midtown between the North AV and Midtown MARTA stations. Its a great place to walk around. But there are still plenty of surface lots, grey fields and abandoned buildings here to be remade. Ignoring the potential of this space and instead redeveloping the single-home neighborhoods that are far away from MARTA stations with mixed-use buildings is a bad idea.

Considering that Glenwood Park replaced a derelict former industrial site that was in the middle of the mostly single family homes, it is a major improvement.

I think its entirely appropriate to have higher densities along the major corridors that can transition to single family homes. It isn't really a major corridor but the fact that it has immediate access to the highway makes it work, in addition to the fact that it is on the Beltline.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Why do you have to "pretend" anything? Why is it important that it be "urban" or confirm to some preconceived definition of what a "real city" should be? I have asked this question repeatedly and no one seems to have a good answer. It always seems to boil down to Atlanta being just like "city X" or conforming to some political or social movement's ideal construction of a city. Atlanta is Atlanta.

I don't know why people here in particular are so hung up on "density" and all these buzzwords that mean little, except to those who fancy themselves as some kind of guardian of urbanism. Maybe it's because I've lived in the most urban setting on earth that I don't see it as such a positive thing. To each his own.

The conversation began as a discussion of why Atlanta "gets a bad rap on sprawl". I suggested that one of the reasons is that in the city itself is less like a city than really any other place of its size. Rather than dealing in perception and "buzzwords", I gave specific examples of how Atlanta is different. There was nothing about superiority or social movements (whatever that means) but I will tell why it is better.

It makes the city more attractive.
It provides a better quality of life.
It is more efficient for the delivery of services.
It is makes transit more feasible.
It is the only way the city can continue to grow.


My comments have ZERO to do with being like "city X" and we can lose this silly notion that whenever anyone says the word urban they're talking about being like Manhattan. Manhattan IS NOT the only place on earth that is urban. In fact there are hundred of example cities of ALL sizes that are very urban.

I simply want my city to reach its full potential, which I think is enormous, and the only way it can do that is to become more urban. The biggest reason for that is that in a truly urban setting, the public spaces - the streets & sidewalks, are designed for humans as opposed to being designed to carry as many cars as possible.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

It makes the city more attractive.
It provides a better quality of life.
It is more efficient for the delivery of services.
It is makes transit more feasible.
It is the only way the city can continue to grow.

Those points are your OPINION but the fact that you have that opinion doesn't make the statements facts.

Better quality of life? Really? Doesn't that depend on specifics and the life being led? Married or single....children or no children...public or private school? Every consider these factors?

More attractive? Really? So the crowded urban block of high rise buildings is more attractive than a well kept block of single family homes? Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so that is an opinion not fact.

The only way a city can continue to grow? Really? So I guess all the cities like Atlanta that grow out from the core are not real? Why are companies moving to and building in Alpharetta, Cobb, Gwinnett, etc. and not downtown?

Makes transit more feasible? Maybe, but in what way? Construction or operation? I'd agree that operating transit in an urban environment will always make more sense, but constructing it is a nightmare.

Originally Posted by J2rescue

My comments have ZERO to do with being like "city X" and we can lose this silly notion that whenever anyone says the word urban they're talking about being like Manhattan. Manhattan IS NOT the only place on earth that is urban. In fact there are hundred of example cities of ALL sizes that are very urban.

I didn't mention Manhattan, but you're correct that people seem to use it as a benchmark because it is out on one end of the spectrum. There are also lots of NY'ers here in Atlanta, so I think it gets used due to familiarity. People on this forum are constantly comparing Atlanta to NY, Boston, Chicago, and other cities settled by immigrants and built up many years ago. In some cases like NY and Chicago, it was natural boundaries like rivers and lakes that forced building up and not out. Atlanta had/has none of those boundaries.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Fine with me, and you correctly phrase it as your "preference" which is what your entitled to make your reality. I salute you for knowing what you prefer and doing what it takes to make that a reality for your family. My annoyance is at people who classify their choice as superior and belittle others who choose differently using political spin and pseudo-intellectual arguments.

Would you care to show me where in this discussion anyone was belittled or the "pseudo-intellectual arguments" you're referring to?

Originally Posted by neil0311

I agree, provided it's a process that comes about via market forces and isn't forced and contrived against the general consensus of the residents. My sense is that a certain segment would happily bulldoze all the single family houses within the city limits (and elsewhere) and put up high rise condos, just so they can say that Atlanta is "more urban."

It really seems that YOU are the one stuck on buzzwords and perception. Urbanism has absolutely NOTHING to do with highrises. A city can have zero highrises and be entirely urban. Paris (minus La Defense), and Savannah are a couple of examples.

I would be delighted for the market forces to dictate future development. The fact of the matter is the with limits on density, mixed-use being prohibited, and a transportation system geared solely toward the automobile, most of the zoning and governmental regulations in place REQUIRES sprawl.

[WDCJoe]

Originally Posted by bizchick86

My thing is those cities where there is sprawl are in other counties and are politically independent with their own planning boards, commissions etc. How is the city of Atlanta supposed to control the planning of Cobb and Gwinnet or the minds of voters in these counties who voted specifically to eliminate signs of urbanity?

To me, that's like Manhattan being blamed for strip malls and traffic in Long Island. The areas are distinct and separate. I could see this argument for neighborhoods in Atlanta in Fulton County, but this isn't adding up when it's other counties with independent plannning boards who've made these decisions. Someone help me out, because you guys are still describing other cities outside of Atlanta's jurisdiction that exhibit most of these features.

Further, most urban centers don't have miles and miles of an urban core. Manhattan is on a tiny island. San Fran is in a small space as well. I can't even imagine high density neighborhoods stretching from Atlanta to Kennessaw, which, really wouldn't even make sense. Every major city has its suburbs. And whether they're in D.C., Frisco or Chicago, they all have the same features. How is Atlanta different?

Atlanta is characterized in this fashion because of the limited nature of density. As you stated earlier every major city exhibits sprawl tendencies however the fact that a majority of Atlanta’s urban foot print exhibits suburban characteristics make this characterization so. I always liken Atlanta to DC without the district. This in no way states that progress towards true density is not occurring. Buckhead, the Five Points, and Midtown are great examples of urban jewels, however the small nature of these areas make comparisons with cities such as DC, SF, and Chicago difficult at best when discussing urbanity.

DC’s dense neighborhoods such as Adams Morgan, Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Columbia Heights, and Logan Circle adjoin one another facilitating urban strolls from one neighborhood to another. The same characterization can be made of Chicago and SF with Chicago’s replicated on an even vaster scale. Atlanta’s urban nodes on the other hand are more spaced facilitating an auto-centric culture. Nothing wrong with that. The fact remains however that such development negates definitions of walk ability and by thus notions of anti-sprawl. I think Atlanta is a great city and demonstrates truly great architecture, however when I think of Atlanta, the first thing that comes to mind is that I need a car!

[WDCJoe]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Excellent post and as a recent refugee from the "Commonwealth" (or "People's Republic" as many call it), I can understand and agree with many of your points.

Many people hold up cities like Boston as the epitome of urban (or any other) existence, and ignore the similarities to the Atlanta area and to most urban/suburban areas in the US. I lived in northern Worcester County, about 40 miles NW of Boston, and worked in Waltham, a few miles outside Boston. Many of the people I worked with lived in SE Massachusetts (Taunton, Milford, Franklin) about as far away from Boston as I lived, and many others lived in SE New Hampshire, also about 40 miles from Boston. I probably lived 50 to 75 miles from each of them.

Of course, the assumption always seems to be that low density development or "sprawl" is inherently bad. I disagree with that assumption as a knee jerk reaction. Sure, there is a political faction who rails against people driving cars and heating/cooling single family houses. They would prefer that everyone lives in an apartment and walks or bikes to work. I did that for many years when I was younger, but that lifestyle may not be practical for more established people with families and children. Suburbs provide lower costs in most cities, combined with what are usually higher quality public schools and larger houses on bigger plots of land (ie...room for a family).

There just seems to be a group who for political or other purposes just decided that the best lifestyle for everyone is an urban lifestyle, and that we should all aspire to live in a high rise, high density, urban environment. Why is it that we have to look at one or the other as "better" or "superior?"

I agree with you in some ways. Yes everyone shouldn’t have to live in a high rise. Single family housing is perfectly acceptable, however the problem begins when older suburban areas begin to be abandoned in favor of newer larger, and supposedly “better” developments. As cities march progressively outward in search of the next “hot community” infrastructure to support these communities must travel with it.

This is all well and good until this infrastructure begins to age and deteriorate. American cities will experience a costly experience with this phenomenon over the next century. In many cases asphalt covers sewer systems, electricity supplies, and water pipes laid down over fifty years ago. Look at the recent spates of water pipe breaks within the drought stricken LA region. That area can hardly afford the loss of any of it’s water supply, however antiquated plumbing laid sixty years previously is now rupturing.

DC, my current home has experienced numerous instances recently of water pipe breaks and diminished pressure in the fighting of fires. A multimillion dollar home (of a DC city council member) in greater NW recently burned due to a lack of water pressure. The thing that people have to realize is that as newer items are built, existing items age, eventually breaking the equilibrium between maintenance and disrepair. Infill and smart growth are an answer to this paradox.