Does anyone else think the Atlanta urban core isn't that bad at all? (Savannah: condos, hotels)

[arjay57]

The vast majority of the city of Atlanta is single family residential. That's how the A-Town rolls.

Doesn't seem so bad to me.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Last time I walked through Sherwood/Ansley park, it felt like I was back in the suburbs lol. I was amazed how I was a quarter mile away from Midtown, yet felt like I was 20 miles away from the city core. It was very quiet...no one walking around or anything. That's not urban...trust me lol.

When I think of urban residential, I think of apartments lined up near each other.

Also, I agree with a previous poster. The midtown area is a very small urban slice. It is too squishied between the Downtown connector and residential areas to the east. Hopefully, this allows this area to become very dense though, but it really does make it all look really linear. At least downtown has a decent size area...Midtown is extremely linear.

Linear Hyper-Urbanity is another emerging feature of Atlanta. I think it is awesome and unique--something we should cherish, maintain, and promote.

The juxtaposition of bucolic urban neighborhoods, with a linear hyper-urban corridor (Downtown-Midtown-Buckhead) is so Atlanta--and will set it apart on the world stage.

[StAubin]

This is what the Atlanta Beltline is all about. Allowing the city to grow in an urban/sustainable way with high density residential while perserving the single family residential neighboorhoods that give the city so much of its character.

Check out some of the masterplans that ABI has put forword.
Photos // Atlanta BeltLine
If future development in the city follows this model, we can grow in a sustainable manner and boast what could be a truly World Class urban core.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by back2dc

Fair enough, so the next time when someone on this forum asks whether Atlanta offers the dense, big city feel of cities such as Boston, DC and SF, you'll be the first to say no.

I don't really care about that, Most Atlantans don't want there city looking like them anyways, that isn't the goal of leaders, and it's not a bad or positive thing that Atlanta doesn't. The goal is be urban and walkable not the dang most urban city on the planet. The Problem is when folks start saying Atlanta isn't urban then base everything on Boston. I'm baffled how some one can say Kansas City, Denver even Minneapolis are urban then rag on Atlanta, when they all in the same range. But this is generally what happens at least on this site anyways.

Originally Posted by arjay57

The vast majority of the city of Atlanta is single family residential. That's how the A-Town rolls.

Doesn't seem so bad to me.

But that what I'm getting at, generally most American cities range from Cleveland to LA are tight singles family homes, Not row houses like Philly. Most cities urbanity are tight single homes, Chicago and Detroit are dominate by single homes and they are among the most urban cities in the country period. Truth be told Atlanta is like in the top 20 most urban cities in the country. Sure Atlanta needs work on some areas but the premise Atlanta core isn't urban is nuts, and to say intown Atlanta isn't walkable is silly.

[DTL3000]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Linear Hyper-Urbanity is another emerging feature of Atlanta. I think it is awesome and unique--something we should cherish, maintain, and promote.

The juxtaposition of bucolic urban neighborhoods, with a linear hyper-urban corridor (Downtown-Midtown-Buckhead) is so Atlanta--and will set it apart on the world stage.

Do you just sit around making up silly descriptors and slogans for the city of Atlanta? I wouldn't call anything in Atlanta "hyper-urban." I'll leave that odd phrase to the Hong Kongs, Tokyos, and New Yorks of the world. Atlanta's "linear" skyline is the result of developers' egos. Bucolic and urban are as polar opposite as two words can get. Atlanta just has a tall building fetish and doesn't care how much sense they make. Lay off the Kool Ade.

Tear down that stupid Americas Mart and redo that entire area.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by DTL3000

Do you just sit around making up silly descriptors and slogans for the city of Atlanta?

...

Your jealousy/envy knows no bounds...

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

...Most Atlantans don't want there city looking like them anyways, that isn't the goal of leaders, and it's not a bad or positive thing that Atlanta doesn't. The goal is be urban and walkable not the dang most urban city on the planet. The Problem is when folks start saying Atlanta isn't urban then base everything on Boston.
...

But that what I'm getting at, generally most American cities...are tight singles family homes, Not row houses like Philly. Most cities urbanity are tight single homes, Chicago and Detroit are dominate by single homes and they are among the most urban cities in the country period. Truth be told Atlanta is like in the top 20 most urban cities in the country. Sure Atlanta needs work on some areas but the premise Atlanta core isn't urban is nuts, and to say intown Atlanta isn't walkable is silly.

This.

[cityfilms]

I think Atlanta definitely has an urban core, but the only thing separating it from the other cities in the southeast is the tall buildings. Without those buildings, Atlanta just looks like a giant parking lot compared to Chattanooga, Birmingham, Savannah, etc. etc.

[DTL3000]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Your jealousy/envy knows no bounds...

Jealousy and envy of what, sweetheart?

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by cityfilms

I think Atlanta definitely has an urban core, but the only thing separating it from the other cities in the southeast is the tall buildings. Without those buildings, Atlanta just looks like a giant parking lot compared to Chattanooga, Birmingham, Savannah, etc. etc.

um No. This why I posted the link earlier.

In 1950

Atlanta the city was 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi with 8,979/sq mi.
Birmingham was 326,037 in 65.3 sq mi with 4,993/sq mi.
Chattanooga was 131,041 in 28.0 sq mi with 4,680/sq mi.

The only thing close was Savannah, it has 1800 century core
Savannah city, was 119,638 with 14.6 sq mi with 8,194/sq mi.

But this my point a giant parking lot really? Are these cities giant parking lots too or it's cute to say that about Atlanta?
Kansas City was 129,553 in 18.7 sq mi with 6,928/sq mi.
Denver city, was 415,786 in 66.8 sq mi with 6,224/sq mi.


I keep posting the 50s because it's before many cities started to Decline and suburbs really boomed. So this is more of the actual develop layout out from these cities, the way they are built. For instance Chicago was hella denser in the 50s. This has Nothing to do with skyscrapers but rather by how cities are develop in and around there CBDs.
http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab18.txt