Gulf oil crisis: Another Atlanta influx? (move to, light rail, wealthiest)

[netdragon]

Originally Posted by Steelers10

And you live in the state of Georgia. Not that anything is the matter with that but over half of the state's population lives in Metropolitan Atlanta which is the poster child for contemporary urban sprawl. The northeastern United States is considered to be the bastion of excess. Yet you can travel from Boston to Washington DC over a distance only 70 miles greater than traveling the entire length of Georgia (roughly Valdosta to Chattanooga, TN). That span has nearly one-fifth on the entire U.S. population living on less than 2% of the land. Each major population cluster in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. (they all overlap) all have access to fixed rail.

Having grown up in the Northeast, I wouldn't hold it up as a poster-child of smart growth. Most of the land between Boston and DC is suburban in character. So even though one-fifth the US population lives there, it's mostly all car-hungry suburbanites. Very little of it is true urban smart-growth development. I'll give you the rail, but most of the people there don't use it. Case-in-point: I grew up in CT. Like New Jersey, pretty much all of the state is suburban except a handful of small cities. Average lot in the CT town of 40,000 I grew up in was about 1.25 acres. Suburban metro Atlanta is doing much better in that regard.

Take out the suburbs in the Northeast, and then that's a different story. And that boils down to what the most efficient development pattern is: It isn't cities connected by endless suburbs. It is dense cities seperated by empty space, connected by rail. Once upon a time, in the early 1900s, the Northeast was like that. It isn't anymore, sadly.

So bigger isn't necessarily better. For instance, let's say the only city in Wyoming were a city of 800,000 people living in 60 square miles, all within a few blocks of the subway. Let's say that city had no suburbs. Even with less than a percentage of the population of the United States, Wyoming would be doing a lot better than the Northeast.

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by Steelers10

For example, in Lowndes County (the largest in South Georgia which is the most rural part of the state) seven of the top ten employers (including the top five employers) are all governmental entities of course funded by taxpayers and not stockholders.

they just happen to be the largest; they do not however provide a majority of the jobs.

the majority of jobs comes from small privately owned businesses.

[Prytania]

No one in south Louisiana is talking about Georgia. Actually I haven't heard anyone talk about moving...
Outside of the fishermen...in coastal areas 99.9999999% of people are doing ok in the New Orleans area. We wouldn't dream of leaving.

PS: There is no oil smell in New Orleans, no spill in New Orleans. The shrimp are still plentiful (Lake Pontchartrain) as are the crawfish. Why would anyone assume that oil is going to drive south Louisiana residents en masse to Georgia is beyond me.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Prytania

No one in south Louisiana is talking about Georgia. Actually I haven't heard anyone talk about moving...
Outside of the fishermen...in coastal areas 99.9999999% of people are doing ok in the New Orleans area. We wouldn't dream of leaving.

PS: There is no oil smell in New Orleans, no spill in New Orleans. The shrimp are still plentiful (Lake Pontchartrain) as are the crawfish. Why would anyone assume that oil is going to drive south Louisiana residents en masse to Georgia is beyond me.

There are many in Atlanta who still have Katrina on their minds. When some people think of the Gulf Coast region, Katrina comes to mind. When Katrina comes to mind, everything associated with that comes to mind.

[TakeAhike]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

There are many in Atlanta who still have Katrina on their minds. When some people think of the Gulf Coast region, Katrina comes to mind. When Katrina comes to mind, everything associated with that comes to mind.

This is different. I don't mind a 'speculative' discussion but as someone pointed out early in the thread it is unlikely that those affected by the oil spill, many of whom are employed in the fishing industry or connected to the oil industry, would move to metro Atlanta.

[Steelers10]

I certainly wouldn't call the northeast "smart growth" because it suburbs certainly were not planned but I don't know if I agree about suburban metro Atlanta doing better. Of the top 10 states in terms of population density, eight (plus the District of Columbia) are within Megalopolis. I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree that suburban Atlanta is managing density better. Honestly, I don't even think it is fair to put you in a position to compare Connecticut to Georgia because Connecticut has direct connections to the MTA Metro-North Railroad. The MTA Metro is the most comprehensive mass transit network in the country. I am certain the reason why Connecticut has towns with an average acreage of 1.25 is because Connecticut was once the wealthiest state (now 3rd) and many of these townships notoriously passed large lot residential zoning laws to keep out multi-family units.

I didn't quite follow your analogy with Wyoming. I do know in my city in Maryland of nearly 40,000 there is mass transit that a lot of people don't necessarily use. But with a population density nearly twice what is necessary for the effective mass transportation threshold of 2000 people per square mile, everything is within very short driving, walking, transit distance and is a much better example of suburbanization without sprawl. I don't think Atlanta is the worst example of sprawl. I think this list of the deadliest stretches of road in America are more of an indicator of sprawl. In these metro areas the populations are so reliant on highways (without other options) the roads are dangerous. Also click on the link in the article for fatality rates by state. Georgia's are actually increasing whereas most states are decreasing.

Originally Posted by netdragon

Having grown up in the Northeast, I wouldn't hold it up as a poster-child of smart growth. Most of the land between Boston and DC is suburban in character. So even though one-fifth the US population lives there, it's mostly all car-hungry suburbanites. Very little of it is true urban smart-growth development. I'll give you the rail, but most of the people there don't use it. Case-in-point: I grew up in CT. Like New Jersey, pretty much all of the state is suburban except a handful of small cities. Average lot in the CT town of 40,000 I grew up in was about 1.25 acres. Suburban metro Atlanta is doing much better in that regard.

Take out the suburbs in the Northeast, and then that's a different story. And that boils down to what the most efficient development pattern is: It isn't cities connected by endless suburbs. It is dense cities seperated by empty space, connected by rail. Once upon a time, in the early 1900s, the Northeast was like that. It isn't anymore, sadly.

So bigger isn't necessarily better. For instance, let's say the only city in Wyoming were a city of 800,000 people living in 60 square miles, all within a few blocks of the subway. Let's say that city had no suburbs. Even with less than a percentage of the population of the United States, Wyoming would be doing a lot better than the Northeast.

[Steelers10]

Originally Posted by southgeorgia

they just happen to be the largest; they do not however provide a majority of the jobs.

the majority of jobs comes from small privately owned businesses.

Looking at the list that seems implausible but I will not ask you to actually provide evidence that all of those small businesses actually employ more people than eight of the ten largest employers which employ a few thousand a piece. I will just take your word for it.

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by Steelers10

Looking at the list that seems implausible but I will not ask you to actually provide evidence that all of those small businesses actually employ more people than eight of the ten largest employers which employ a few thousand a piece. I will just take your word for it.

moody is the largest w/ 5k employees. . .

the next 4 largest employee less than 6500 combined.

once you reach #6 and below the employee counts dwindle into the hundreds.

so i'm unsure where you came up with "a few thousand a piece".

[FlyiMetro]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I would say all are welcome, provided they can support themselves and don't become a burden to taxpayers. We don't need more unemployed people on public assistance, and certainly not the criminal element.

Very interesting! Its funny how a hurricane can hurt 3 cities while only touching ONE. Im sure Atlanta & Houston wishes Katrina never happened.

[FlyiMetro]

Originally Posted by KevK

I hope not. I don't want anymore New Orleans people coming here. Too many of them have no class and are criminals.

I think that may be their culture there. One thing for sure is hurricane routes..They move east to west and always turn north in the gulf.....When those hurricanes mixed with Salt Water & oil hit land....Im curious to see what that area becomes.