Why does Atlanta get a bum rap on "sprawl?" (Rome: 2009, insurance)

[AcidSnake]

Preach!

Originally Posted by aries4118

I agree with all you say except the highlighted part above. What makes Atlanta's city proper extraordinary is its unique combination of "hyper-urbanity" with bucolic neighborhoods. Atlanta can still make a denser (sp?)urban core while preserving this unique and beautiful characteristic.

This is a jewel that can be preserved while making Atlanta better. And remember, Atlanta's ultimate goal is to be a dense, urban linear city...it will not look like most other U.S. cities...it would be like comparing apples and oranges.

I envision Atlanta (if we can get our act together) establishing a different, original urban landscape here in the U.S...urban brilliance with that bucolic, southern style.


(And I am very familiar with Boston...and what you say is so true...Boston sprawls from the middle of Rhode Island, west to Worcester (Central Mass), north--covering most of Southern New Hampshire, and then southeast through 1/3 of Cape Cod! The housing codes of Weston, Lincoln, Concord, etc, causes Framingham, Natick, etc. to sprawl beyond belief...)

[tijlover]

It's unfortunate that much of the surrounding land in Atlanta wasn't owned by the Federal Government, like it is here in Las Vegas. The Feds own 80-85% of the land here in Nevada, and every year they auction off a small piece here, a small piece there, preventing the type of sprawl they have in Phoenix, Minneapolis-St. Paul or any other number of cities in this country.

Land being so tight here, you'll see houses here so close together, they may as well be townhouses, with postage stamp yards, except in the very rich gated communities here.

I'm just so thankful the Fed's have been so stingy with their land here, and keeping the city more compact for a population of around 2 million.

I never lose sight of that idea that our suburbs are our future slums. Some of those outlying surburban areas are going to look pretty nasty some day.

[bgNCATL]

Can someone explain to me how someone from Houston or Dallas can sit back and say Atlanta is "sprawl city America"? These two cities are just as bad as Atlanta if not worst; But Atlanta always get the label. Most people did a good job of explaining how and why Atlanta sprawls, but no one is talking about why we always get pointed out for it. There are so many other cities that have the exact same problem.

[YBF]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

For the original question posed by this thread. Why does atlanta get a bum rap on sprawl? Because people don't value learning in this country and would rather have thoughts told to them. That and they've heard the term "poster child for urban sprawl" over and over again.

Or theyve heard it was the NY of the south only to find out there isnt any NY in any equation of Atlanta.

[YBF]

Honestly for me the suburbs of Long Island are more urban than Atlanta. There are sidewalks everywhere unless you go far out east. Public transportation is far better I mena its no NYC subway but the LIRR will take you from NYC to Montauk(end to end). I can walk to any store within 20 minutes. But thats just me. Had I known what I know now I would have never moved to Atlanta. Its cool for the most part but its not me.

[newat6]

Atlanta needs to connect its intown neighborhoods, because they're not going away anytime soon. And truthfully why should they? I LOVE hardcore urban buildings that saddle up to the sidewalk and have a mix of uses, but usually the architecture itself sucks in new buildings (AHEM Atlantic Station). And the truth is that for all the good Metropolis, Plaza Midtown, 12th and Midtown have done for Midtown, these aren't buildings that will ever be loved. I wish we had a stock of historic urban buildings, but Atlanta simply did not develop in the way the NYC, Boston, hell even Birmingham AL, did. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against new buildings, but in Atlanta they don't usually translate into quality. The city should fill in where possible, selectively demolish, and connect what we can. We were built on streetcars, bring them back! Highland Ave, Ponce, Piedmont, Moreland, Peachtree would be great connections.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by newat6

I wish we had a stock of historic urban buildings, but Atlanta simply did not develop in the way the NYC, Boston, hell even Birmingham AL, did.

Apparently you have never been Downtown and walked around every street. Those brick buildings and skyscrapers weren't just built in the 1950s...

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by YBF

Or theyve heard it was the NY of the south only to find out there isnt any NY in any equation of Atlanta.

I wonder if there has ever been a Roman, whom upon hearing that New York City was the "New Rome", went to the Bronx and proclaimed "Yankee Stadium is NOTHING like the Colosseum! Who is dumb enough to think New York City is ANYTHING like Rome."

Atlanta's "New York of the South" moniker has nothing to do with the way Atlanta looks. It's based on Atlanta's influence on this region and it's economic power. This is just like how New York is called "the New Rome" because of it's position of power and influence on the world stage. If you came expecting to see a mini version of New York, well, that's something you shouldn't tell a lot of people.

Originally Posted by YBF

Honestly for me the suburbs of Long Island are more urban than Atlanta. There are sidewalks everywhere unless you go far out east. Public transportation is far better I mena its no NYC subway but the LIRR will take you from NYC to Montauk(end to end). I can walk to any store within 20 minutes. But thats just me. Had I known what I know now I would have never moved to Atlanta. Its cool for the most part but its not me.

This is the sort of thing the OP is talking about. First off, with the exception of uninformed people, no one tries to compare Atlanta and New York in terms of living patters and development. Everyone should know that Atlanta and New York are two TOTALLY different cities in that regard.

Secondly, no, Long Island is not more urban than Atlanta. While the LIRR is great, it's not a subway. It's commuter rail and distance based. It's only useful for people who are going one way (into the City) and back home at night. And where does this more sidewalks comment come from? I have never lived or seen anywhere in the City of Atlanta that didn't have sidewalks.

If you are talking about the burbs then that's the problem. This is a discussion about Atlanta the city, not ATLANTA the metropolitan area.

[LovinDecatur]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

I wonder if there has ever been a Roman, whom upon hearing that New York City was the "New Rome", went to the Bronx and proclaimed "Yankee Stadium is NOTHING like the Colosseum! Who is dumb enough to think New York City is ANYTHING like Rome."

Atlanta's "New York of the South" moniker has nothing to do with the way Atlanta looks. It's based on Atlanta's influence on this region and it's economic power. This is just like how New York is called "the New Rome" because of it's position of power and influence on the world stage. If you came expecting to see a mini version of New York, well, that's something you shouldn't tell a lot of people.



This is the sort of thing the OP is talking about. First off, with the exception of uninformed people, no one tries to compare Atlanta and New York in terms of living patters and development. Everyone should know that Atlanta and New York are two TOTALLY different cities in that regard.

Secondly, no, Long Island is not more urban than Atlanta. While the LIRR is great, it's not a subway. It's commuter rail and distance based. It's only useful for people who are going one way (into the City) and back home at night. And where does this more sidewalks comment come from? I have never lived or seen anywhere in the City of Atlanta that didn't have sidewalks.

If you are talking about the burbs then that's the problem. This is a discussion about Atlanta the city, not ATLANTA the metropolitan area.

Many good points here. In the 19th, even the 20th century I'm sure that NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and all the other American Icons of Urban Enlightenment had to endure derisive comments from residents of London, Paris and Rome. It's just our cross to bear.
The one thing my NYC friends never fail to comment on when they visit is the proximity of green, leafy, SFH neighborhoods to the urban core. Despite what Atlanta's detractors would have you believe, these same NYers are also positively impressed by this and even express envy for it at times. Would I give up neighborhoods like Druid Hills, Morningside, Ansley Park and Brookwood Hills in favor of a more 'urban' landscape? Not on your life.

[bizchick86]

This is all great input guys, thanks! I can totally see Atlanta making the most of its unique, historical neighborhoods. They could be a model for other cities that want a mix of lifestyles.

I'm sure a lot of the folks who moved down here did so precisely because it was NOT a New York while offering the culture and nightlife they want.

On another note, who creates these value judgments on living preferences? I can understand urbanity, but when did living like sardines become the go-to model for urbanity? To me that's moreso exploitation and it harkens the image of slum lords--pack the most amount of people on the tiniest amount of space so real esate moguls and landowners can get the most bang for their buck. East Atlanta's multitude of intown neighborhoods are great models for sane urbanity.