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.
lol, he probably did do it. he has been touting those poll results ever since saying it proved a point. Only thing it proves is that DFW folks feel the need to make fake accounts to one up Houston. lmao
Just like you continue to prove many Houston folks are haters.
well the point he is making is that people don't say the city is sprawling more that the metro is sprawling, but at 1800 sq miles ATL, Houston, DFW are at the same density as Boston or Philly
that is a bit unfair. these urban areas include tiny cities of population of 50K or less.
Woodland CA for example was like the 500th biggest urban area in the US with 49K people, but at 3 sq miles it was the 4th most dense (ahead of NY). If you knock off the tiny areas considered urban then ATL does fairly well. FYI Philly comes shows up way down the list too (after Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, LA and a host of other sunbelt areas.
It's actually considerably lower than 46th place. I simply looked at the list of largest Urban Areas and it took 46 spots before there was one less dense than Atlanta. If you only want to look at "larger" urban areas, there are 37 UAs with 1,000,000 people in it. Of that, Atlanta is the least dense. But again, that's not always even the most indicative of urbanity/sprawl/etc...I'm simply saying it's not one of Atlanta's strong suits.
This is probably the most boggling statistic of all! It also shows why Atlanta is considered to be the poster-child of sprawl. The area you're referring to is in the most prime location in the city! It's located directly next to the Georgia Dome, Downtown Atlanta, the Georgia Aquarium and Atlanta's premier park, Centennial Olympic Park.
Plenty of cities have blighted areas in their borders and that's fine! But how in the world did this go undeveloped (or according to you, lost 30% of the population) in the past decade when the metro area added over 1,000,000 people! How can you argue against Atlanta being the capital of sprawl when out of your 1,020,879 new residents, 99.6543% of them moved into the suburbs!
How can you defend this?
Again, I don't dislike Atlanta...but it has this reputation for a reason.
Did you even read my post? I think Atlanta sprawls a hell of a lot. It's one of our main problems. If you want to attach some moniker to it then that's fine--you'll get no argument to me. If you want to point to lack of growth in inner neighborhoods as a symptom of that, that's fine also, and I agree. But the comment you were making implied west Atlanta is part of the sprawl or something.
Quote:
let's be honest: Atlanta sprawls pretty much all over. It's not just outside the 5 core counties. The area West of the Georgia Dome, around Clark Atlanta University looks downright rural.
In reality, it's a declining, blighted area that's still relatively dense despite being in decline. West Atlanta might be a symptom of sprawl, but it is absolutely NOT sprawl.
Did you even read my post? I think Atlanta sprawls a hell of a lot. It's one of our main problems. If you want to attach some moniker to it then that's fine--you'll get no argument to me. If you want to point to lack of growth in inner neighborhoods as a symptom of that, that's fine also, and I agree. But the comment you were making implied west Atlanta is part of the sprawl or something.
In reality, it's a declining, blighted area that's still relatively dense despite being in decline. West Atlanta might be a symptom of sprawl, but it is absolutely NOT sprawl.
Solid point. I guess I got lost on that one.
Why wouldn't anyone want to develop those areas? I mean, it's fantastically located...it's directly next to downtown, right on MARTA, etc. Somehow there is no difference in the office rents between Suburban and Atlanta City, so why wouldn't this be developed by someone? It just boggles the mind. It's a perfect location and no one is touching it!
It's actually considerably lower than 46th place. I simply looked at the list of largest Urban Areas and it took 46 spots before there was one less dense than Atlanta. If you only want to look at "larger" urban areas, there are 37 UAs with 1,000,000 people in it. Of that, Atlanta is the least dense. But again, that's not always even the most indicative of urbanity/sprawl/etc...I'm simply saying it's not one of Atlanta's strong suits.
okay. well if you put it that way...
But what about the other big cities?
PHilly is not even in the top 20 of the big 37.
And Boston is only 3 spots away from ATL
Boston 33
Cincinnati 34
Indianapolis 35
Pittsburgh 36
Atlanta 37
Why wouldn't anyone want to develop those areas? I mean, it's fantastically located...it's directly next to downtown, right on MARTA, etc. Somehow there is no difference in the office rents between Suburban and Atlanta City, so why wouldn't this be developed by someone? It just boggles the mind. It's a perfect location and no one is touching it!
The same reason why they have not been developing the east side of Houston's inner loop. It is just cheaper to start afresh, and people don't give a **** about location right now. They are just starting to, but many of the inner loop blacks have fled all the way to Katy and Pearland, clear out of the city.
Why wouldn't anyone want to develop those areas? I mean, it's fantastically located...it's directly next to downtown, right on MARTA, etc. Somehow there is no difference in the office rents between Suburban and Atlanta City, so why wouldn't this be developed by someone? It just boggles the mind. It's a perfect location and no one is touching it!
It's perfect if you look at a map at 40,000', but look closer and there are big problems:
- The GWCC is pretty much a brick wall between the neighborhood and downtown. You have to walk around the thing through all sorts of desolate places to get anywhere besides the Dome.
- It's actually pretty far from stuff. 3/4 mile from the Park (which is only a so-so park; Piedmont Park is where it's at). 1.25mi+ from the heart of downtown (Peachtree & International), and again, not a pleasant walk.
- There used to be significant housing projects in the area. They were torn down a few years ago, but the reputation lingers.
- It's separated from Downtown by Northside Dr, a major, lifeless corridor that's typically three lanes in either direction as well as a left turn lane, and is connected to the south with one of Atlanta's most notorious roads. Even in nicer areas further north Northside Drive doesn't look great.
- It's also separated from Downtown by a major rail corridor. By major, I mean one of the busiest in the nation.
- Downtown hasn't seen most of Atlanta's business growth. Midtown and parts north have (Midtown is now approaching Downtown in total office space). Certain areas close to downtown have grown rapidly (Old Fourth Ward, Inman Park, Grant Park, etc) because they have attractive historic attributes. Nearby areas will hopefully begin to build on this growth, but it will take time.
It might see an uptick from the AUC and a new shopping center that is being built (or will be soon). There actually have been a few significant developments in the area. MARTA helps (although many people in the Atlanta forum would disagree with me on this point). But there are many, many tenement-style buildings that have fallen into disrepair, and there's still a whole lot of poverty, crime, and drugs.
In general, inner neighborhoods on the east side fare a lot better than ones on the west side.
Basically every city sprawls to some degree at 1,800 sq miles. Atlanta is far from different in this regard. Density isn't everything when talking about sprawl. Much of it has to do with development style, which is usually directly correlated to period of major development (which for Atlanta has occurred mainly during the sprawl era). However, as of 2000 it had one of the least dense urban areas in the United States...in fact it was the 46th densest UA, just ahead of Charlotte.
Besides that's old and Atlanta gain a million people, Atlanta urban area is bigger than 1,800 sq miles. Urban areas keep going as long as there's a 1,000 inhabitants per square mile, I limted all areas to 3 million or 1,800 sq mi. If you want to call Atlanta 5 core county a sprawl you have to call it a dense sprawl, because there's less then 10 other metros in the US that have more people in just 1,800 sq mi. If the whole Metro Atlanta sprawl forever, 1,800 sq mi would still be one of the top 10 populated region in country is what I'm knocking at.
Quote:
This is probably the most boggling statistic of all! It also shows why Atlanta is considered to be the poster-child of sprawl. The area you're referring to is in the most prime location in the city! It's located directly next to the Georgia Dome, Downtown Atlanta, the Georgia Aquarium and Atlanta's premier park, Centennial Olympic Park.
Plenty of cities have blighted areas in their borders and that's fine! But how in the world did this go undeveloped (or according to you, lost 30% of the population) in the past decade when the metro area added over 1,000,000 people! How can you argue against Atlanta being the capital of sprawl when out of your 1,020,879 new residents, 99.6543% of them moved into the suburbs!
How can you defend this?
Again, I don't dislike Atlanta...but it has this reputation for a reason.
Wait a second, next to the Georgia Done is vine city. The area is develop but very badly blighted. Redevelopment is slower on that side. How ever the eastern norighborhoods made for it.
While the outer counties did grow, most of the 1,020,879 new residents moved into that 1,800 sq mi I keep bring up.
Besides that's old and Atlanta gain a million people, Atlanta urban area is bigger than 1,800 sq miles. Urban areas keep going as long as there's a 1,000 inhabitants per square mile, I limted all areas to 3 million or 1,800 sq mi. If you want to call Atlanta 5 core county a sprawl you have to call it a dense sprawl, because there's less then 10 other metros in the US that have more people in just 1,800 sq mi. If the whole Metro Atlanta sprawl forever, 1,800 sq mi would still be one of the top 10 populated region in country is what I'm knocking at.
Wait a second, next to the Georgia Done is vine city. The area is develop but very badly blighted. Redevelopment is slower on that side. How ever the eastern norighborhoods made for it.
While the outer counties did grow, most of the 1,020,879 new residents moved into that 1,800 sq mi I keep bring up.
This is based on the 2008 Estimates; though doesnt give area - in all likelihood all areas will actually become less dense on UA by adding new area
This is the answer to everyone question to sum up this thread look at gis mapping of the united states and clearly Dallas and Houston skunks Atlanta size.
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.
