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.
The reality is that many people from outside Atlanta give it a worse rap than it deserves. Many people think of Atlanta as one big sprawling suburb. It isn't. There are areas like Marietta Street (East of CNN) that look like the Central Business Districts in any major city (including Boston or New York's Financial District or Downtown San Francisco). The problem is that once you get outside these small, dense, pockets, you're in low-density residential areas and gaps filled with lengthy sprawling parking lots that do resemble suburban areas.
I have family in Atlanta and know full-well how hard the city is working to overcome this stereotype, but there is some reality to the legend. For example, if you're in Midtown on Peachtree, you feel as if you're in the center of a big urban area. Sure, there are some parking lots here and there, but for the most part it's pretty urban just like any major city. However, if you walk three blocks east (you're south of 10th street/ the park) to Myrtle street, you're in a low density residential neighborhood chalk full of single-family detached homes. THIS is what sets Atlanta apart and provides the negative stereotype. If you walk three block (or 15 blocks) off of Union Square in San Francisco, you're going to still be in a dense urban area. If you walk a few blocks out of the Financial District in Boston you're going to be in a dense, residential neighborhood (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, North End, etc).
The "dense" cities have their dense central business districts (as does Atlanta) and then lots of high density residential and mixed-use neighborhoods spiraling outward from that district as the city's density slowly decreases until you transition into suburbs that form a ways outside the core of the city. I won't say Atlanta has NONE of that gradual transition, but it happens much more quickly (i.e. 3 blocks off of Peachtree in Midtown) in Atlanta and stays a consistent low density for a long ways outside the city.
The problem with that low-density sprawl is that it takes up a lot of space to house very few people. This, in turn, leads to MORE low density sprawl (and eats up more land) to house more people. This problem is unfairly designated upon Atlanta. People praise Boston for it's density and walkability (it deserves this praise). However, few know that Boston has one of the worst sprawl problems in the country. Because the Boston area has so many older towns (i.e. Braintree, Lexington, Concord, etc) close to it that have a lot of history and character, sprawl around Boston is highly regulated as low-density. Boston has few high-density suburbs outside of the urban core (i.e. Somerville, Cambridge, Quincy, Chelsea, Everett, etc). It gets very low density quickly because most of the surrounding cities and towns have lot size restrictions (it's not uncommon for a town to require 1/2 acre or more to build a home) and even style restrictions (many places demand colonial homes only). What this means is that Boston's suburbs can't field the demand for people because they are so low density. This causes housing prices to skyrocket and exurban and rural communities to turn into low-density suburbs in order to meet demand. In order to try and "protect" the integrity of their historic towns, people are causing a major sprawl problem around Boston. Just about all of Eastern Massachusetts can be classified as suburban Boston nowadays which is not a good thing.
Just because Atlanta gets the "stigma" doesn't mean it's the only one with the problem.
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?"
A few things to consider are Atlanta's unique history and its particular characteristics compared to other metropolises.
One, Atlanta's intown residential neighborhoods are actually some of the few historical features left of the city. Really, I think this feature (residential communities within the city) is something that makes Atlanta unique and keeps it from being a carbon copy New York or Chicago. If you look into the intown residential neighborhoods that you are describing--Virginia Highlands, Little 5, Grant Park, East Atlanta, Candler Park, Edgewood, Inman Park, and the West End, among many others -- these are in fact the heart and soul of Atlanta's character and rich in history. Why have density if it lacks the city's soul?
Good points. I didn't touch on this in my initial post, but it's worth adding that many of Atlanta's central low-density neighborhoods are, in fact, quite nice and livable. You mentioned that they form neighborhood centers that are historic, vibrant and a huge part of Atlanta's identity. Many people look at Atlanta's lower density and see generic sprawl. What they don't see is that the lower density neighborhoods are not only far from generic... but very vibrant and vital to Atlanta's character.
A continuous low density around a growing city like Atlanta does encourage more sprawl as it takes more land to meet the housing demand. However, the problem doesn't lie in demolishing the neighborhoods that work (the ones you've listed)... it lies in smart growth. Better transit has been mentioned. One thing to do is build high-density suburban neighborhoods along these outlying transit lines (called Transit Oriented Development or TOD). This concept has worked very will in areas like Washington D.C., metro New York and many others. It allows for better transit and higher density growth outside of the established urban core (which in Atlanta needs to be saved) which helps reduce the low density sprawl that plagues Atlanta's suburbs (and suburbs all over America).
Could Atlanta's suburban area use some work? Absolutely. But again, it's not alone in that regard. I don't know a suburban area in the U.S. that doesn't need work. And once again, Atlanta is far from the worst (I've seen it far worse in other cities and much of coastal Florida) in these regards too. The key to smart growth is not regulation by either Atlanta or the suburban towns, but cooperation. Transit Oriented Development and other smart-growth methods require both the hub of the metro area (in this case Atlanta) and the suburban cities to work together in order to create a mutually beneficial solution. Metro D.C. (NoVA and Maryland) is one of the areas that seems to do this very well (my area, Boston is struggling in this regard).
Anyway, Atlanta could benefit by reigning in the sprawl, but it's hardly the only city with that problem. It could be worse too, it could be one of the shrinking cities (i.e. Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, etc) in the so called, "rust belt" where they're dealing with vacant and blighted neighborhoods. Atlanta is growing because it's thriving and desirable. When people make generalizations about Atlanta as being just a giant suburb, you residents can smile and know that they have no idea what they're missing.
If you look into the intown residential neighborhoods that you are describing--Virginia Highlands, Little 5, Grant Park, East Atlanta, Candler Park, Edgewood, Inman Park, and the West End, among many others -- these are in fact the heart and soul of Atlanta's character and rich in history. Why have density if it lacks the city's soul?
I agree with the idea that these intown neighborhoods you've listed, being attractive and walkable, add a great deal of charm to the city. No doubt, and I wouldn't want to see them harmed even though I'm a confessed density nut.
But the mostly-detached-house neighborhoods of Ansley Park, Sherwood Forest, Home Park and Midtown, while being equally attractive and walkable (well, maybe not Sherwood Forest), hinder the densification of the city's urban core and leave Midtown stuck with a density that makes expansion of transit lines unsustainable -- while also making car dependency unreasonably prevalent for an urban area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
When people make generalizations about Atlanta as being just a giant suburb, you residents can smile and know that they have no idea what they're missing.
True. So many amazing improvements have been made in central Midtown. The area near the Midtown MARTA station and the whole Peachtree corridor from 3rd St north to 14th street are unrecognizably attractive and urban compared to what existed here 20 years ago. It's a perfect spot to take anyone who thinks there's only suburban development in Atlanta.
Good points. I didn't touch on this in my initial post, but it's worth adding that many of Atlanta's central low-density neighborhoods are, in fact, quite nice and livable. You mentioned that they form neighborhood centers that are historic, vibrant and a huge part of Atlanta's identity. Many people look at Atlanta's lower density and see generic sprawl. What they don't see is that the lower density neighborhoods are not only far from generic... but very vibrant and vital to Atlanta's character..
Exactly
Quote:
When people make generalizations about Atlanta as being just a giant suburb, you residents can smile and know that they have no idea what they're missing
This. I smile every day...doing it now in fact :-)
Quote:
A continuous low density around a growing city like Atlanta does encourage more sprawl as it takes more land to meet the housing demand. However, the problem doesn't lie in demolishing the neighborhoods that work (the ones you've listed)... it lies in smart growth. Better transit has been mentioned. One thing to do is build high-density suburban neighborhoods along these outlying transit lines (called Transit Oriented Development or TOD). This concept has worked very will in areas like Washington D.C., metro New York and many others. It allows for better transit and higher density growth outside of the established urban core (which in Atlanta needs to be saved) which helps reduce the low density sprawl that plagues Atlanta's suburbs (and suburbs all over America).
Absolutely correct in terms of smart growth. Btw I wasn't saying that low density doesn't encourage urban sprawl, but rather a closer look at Atlanta's racial history shows that, for Atlanta, our sprawl was a direct consequence of integration. Until then, the city center was very vibrant and downtown was unrecognizably busy.
There are definitely less historical spots of the city that should be more smartly developed, and, as noted before, when the current mixed-use developments that already exist become more densely occupied, there will be a natural demand for better transit, better street-level shopping, etc. What I oughta do is start saving up some money to get me one of them thar properties, because I am quite sure prices will look much different in a good 10 years!
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Great post!
Just one, itty bitty problem with it....
Quote:
For example, if you're in Midtown on Peachtree, you feel as if you're in the center of a big urban area. Sure, there are some parking lots here and there, but for the most part it's pretty urban just like any major city. However, if you walk three blocks east (you're south of 10th street/ the park) to Myrtle street, you're in a low density residential neighborhood chalk full of single-family detached homes.
While your point is well taken that Atlanta varies from high density to low density single family neighborhoods in short as a few blocks, this is the absolutely wrong neighborhood to use an example.
This section of Midtown which covers the area south of 10th street down to Ponce and east from Peachtree to Charles Allen Drive, is the entirety of the 30308 zip code. If you look up the 30308 zip code you will find:
Area: 1.6 sq miles
Population: 15,086 (as of 2007, sure to be higher now)
Population density: 9428 people per square mile
Transit:
North Avenue Train station on the south end, Midtown Train station on the north end. The #2, #101, #110 buses service the area.
There are several nice non-chain restaurants, bodegas, bars, clubs, retail shops, salons, and even a publix a block over on North ave and Piedmont. Even if most the people in this area live in SFHs, it's a very dense walkable neighborhood. One of the densest in the city.
A better example you could have used is how Peachtree st in Buckhead near Lenox has densified with high rises and rowhouses, but if you go down 3 blocks west on Paces Ferry you'll find huge mansion estates. w
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
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.
While your point is well taken that Atlanta varies from high density to low density single family neighborhoods in short as a few blocks, this is the absolutely wrong neighborhood to use an example.
Fair enough! The reason I used the example is because it's a location that was familiar to me in the city. I have a family member who has a place just near the intersection of Myrtle and 8th and I was always amazed at how quickly the city changed from CBD type density to quiet tree-lined streets in his immediate neighborhood. I didn't know the whole zip had that type of density.
I would like to point out that although it has many single family homes, it's very much a good, walkable neighborhood... I wasn't trying to point out a fault with it; merely using it as an example of how it quickly changed from dense urban to single family homes (albeit single families that are very close together). The neighborhood as a whole is actually very nice. In fact, if I were to live and work in Atlanta, I couldn't think of a better one. It reminds me a bit of Brookline, MA near the Longwood area... not exactly wall to wall density, but still walkable and vibrant none the less.
I'm sure your example is a better one, I'm just not familiar with it and thus didn't use it. I tried to stay away from areas I wasn't familiar with as one of the undertones of this entire thread is the problem with people making assumptions about things with which they aren't familiar (i.e. Atlanta's alleged sprawl problems). Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, I'm definitely one of those people who thinks that the medium-to-high-density areas intown are too spread out. Glenwood Park, for instance, is a great example of well-built density in itself, but it's not in walkable distance to anything useful like a grocery store or a MARTA station. There are little oasis of density like this all over intown that are too disconnected. I wanna just smoosh 'em all together and create one vibrant, walkable, urban core.
My hope is that central Midtown, around the Peachtree corridor, will continue to fill in with density and provide a good walkable, urban option in Atlanta for people who are looking for that.
RE: suburban sprawl, there's no need for creating non-stop urban density throughout the metro area. If there was smart development of medium density in transit-connected smaller cities in the metro, there would be plenty of room for both a less-expansive sprawl of detached houses and some preserved green space.
Yes! This is what I always envision for Metro Atlanta...and it can be done!
Smart growth and more density does not mean dense urban patterns from downtown to Cherokee County. For Atlanta, it means many more urban density neighborhoods in the city proper, connected with medium/high density suburbs/towns throughout the metro area. In between, one would find less density and more green space. This would in turn lead to less sprawl, more options for living (urban vs. suburban vs. semi-rural) all connected with multiple transit options (metrorail, commuter rail, bus, express bus, tram/trolley, taxi, shuttle, bicycle).
Forgive me for just dropping in. I was scrolling down to Massachusetts when I saw this topic and it piqued my interest. I'm hoping I can lend some outside perspective. For the record, I'm an urban planning post-grad student living in Boston.
I think every post that I've seen so far has good deal of truth to it. Bizchick86, you are right to notice that suburban San Francisco is similar in many ways to suburban Atlanta. In fact, the suburbs of most major American cities have a resemblance to Atlanta's suburbs. In that regard there is very little difference.
However, The issue pertains more to the core of Atlanta's metro rather than the suburbs (sprawling 'burbs are a problem everywhere). When you were in San Francisco, I'm sure you noticed how densely settled the core of the peninsula is there. I'm not just talking about Union Square, Market Street and the central business district, but the peninsula as a whole. The residential neighborhoods near the commercial center of San Francisco are incredibly dense as well. The bulk of the population of San Francisco lives in a high-density urban environment while the bulk of Atlanta's population does not. To put it in better perspective, Atlanta has a population of 540,000 living over 131 square miles of land (pop density of 4,000 per sq. mi); while San Francisco has 300,000 MORE people than Atlanta (800,000) living on 2/3 LESS less land than Atlanta (about 45 square miles) to provide a population density of over 17,000 people per square mile. The suburbs may be similar, but the core of the metro is apples and oranges.
The reality is that many people from outside Atlanta give it a worse rap than it deserves. Many people think of Atlanta as one big sprawling suburb. It isn't. There are areas like Marietta Street (East of CNN) that look like the Central Business Districts in any major city (including Boston or New York's Financial District or Downtown San Francisco). The problem is that once you get outside these small, dense, pockets, you're in low-density residential areas and gaps filled with lengthy sprawling parking lots that do resemble suburban areas.
I have family in Atlanta and know full-well how hard the city is working to overcome this stereotype, but there is some reality to the legend. For example, if you're in Midtown on Peachtree, you feel as if you're in the center of a big urban area. Sure, there are some parking lots here and there, but for the most part it's pretty urban just like any major city. However, if you walk three blocks east (you're south of 10th street/ the park) to Myrtle street, you're in a low density residential neighborhood chalk full of single-family detached homes. THIS is what sets Atlanta apart and provides the negative stereotype. If you walk three block (or 15 blocks) off of Union Square in San Francisco, you're going to still be in a dense urban area. If you walk a few blocks out of the Financial District in Boston you're going to be in a dense, residential neighborhood (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, North End, etc).
The "dense" cities have their dense central business districts (as does Atlanta) and then lots of high density residential and mixed-use neighborhoods spiraling outward from that district as the city's density slowly decreases until you transition into suburbs that form a ways outside the core of the city. I won't say Atlanta has NONE of that gradual transition, but it happens much more quickly (i.e. 3 blocks off of Peachtree in Midtown) in Atlanta and stays a consistent low density for a long ways outside the city.
The problem with that low-density sprawl is that it takes up a lot of space to house very few people. This, in turn, leads to MORE low density sprawl (and eats up more land) to house more people. This problem is unfairly designated upon Atlanta. People praise Boston for it's density and walkability (it deserves this praise). However, few know that Boston has one of the worst sprawl problems in the country. Because the Boston area has so many older towns (i.e. Braintree, Lexington, Concord, etc) close to it that have a lot of history and character, sprawl around Boston is highly regulated as low-density. Boston has few high-density suburbs outside of the urban core (i.e. Somerville, Cambridge, Quincy, Chelsea, Everett, etc). It gets very low density quickly because most of the surrounding cities and towns have lot size restrictions (it's not uncommon for a town to require 1/2 acre or more to build a home) and even style restrictions (many places demand colonial homes only). What this means is that Boston's suburbs can't field the demand for people because they are so low density. This causes housing prices to skyrocket and exurban and rural communities to turn into low-density suburbs in order to meet demand. In order to try and "protect" the integrity of their historic towns, people are causing a major sprawl problem around Boston. Just about all of Eastern Massachusetts can be classified as suburban Boston nowadays which is not a good thing.
Just because Atlanta gets the "stigma" doesn't mean it's the only one with the problem.
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...)
Fair enough! The reason I used the example is because it's a location that was familiar to me in the city. I have a family member who has a place just near the intersection of Myrtle and 8th and I was always amazed at how quickly the city changed from CBD type density to quiet tree-lined streets in his immediate neighborhood. I didn't know the whole zip had that type of density.
I would like to point out that although it has many single family homes, it's very much a good, walkable neighborhood... I wasn't trying to point out a fault with it; merely using it as an example of how it quickly changed from dense urban to single family homes (albeit single families that are very close together). The neighborhood as a whole is actually very nice. In fact, if I were to live and work in Atlanta, I couldn't think of a better one. It reminds me a bit of Brookline, MA near the Longwood area... not exactly wall to wall density, but still walkable and vibrant none the less.
I'm sure your example is a better one, I'm just not familiar with it and thus didn't use it. I tried to stay away from areas I wasn't familiar with as one of the undertones of this entire thread is the problem with people making assumptions about things with which they aren't familiar (i.e. Atlanta's alleged sprawl problems). Thanks for the clarification.
Yes...everytime I'm in Brookline and Jamaica Plain, it reminds me of intown Atlanta neighborhoods...
And Brookline and Jamaica Plain have excellent transit connections (rail/trolley/tram)...so more proof of what Atlanta can do with its neighborhoods!
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.
