Atlanta's suburbs continue to become increasingly sophisticated (Dallas, Clayton: appointed, find a job)

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I don't understand why you care. If a population over a wide swath is sustainable, the city will keep on going. If it isn't, the suburbs will fail and people will move into the closer in transit oriented areas.

Either way, the problem solves itslef, so why does it concern you so much that others are living in a way that doesn't make sense to you personally?

There are many negative things associated with massive sprawl going from environmental issues to potential natural disaster issues to traffic issues.

IMO, this constant sprawl is going to kick Atlanta in the ass in the future...I don't know how long, but it will. There are already massive traffic issues going on and it's not like counties are voting for more transit. A city should look to densify it's core, not expand it's limits UNLESS the core and surrounding areas are already densified(See LA metro area).

[10 feet tall]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

I've been to a good amount of suburbs and a lot of them are generally the same. The most dense suburbs are that of Gwinnett and North Fulton and those are hardly walkable for the average resident.

You can't tell me someone can go pick up some groceries within a quarter mile of where they live. 90% of the residents cannot, therefore it isn't walkable.

Unless you're smack dab living in the middle of a commercial strip(highly unlikely based on how the suburbs were created and they are generally near interstates), it is very hard to walk it unless you're prepared to walk at least a mile, if not miles to get there.

Again, when most urbanist think of walkability, they think the average resident walks less then a quarter mile, but being conservative, half of a mile to reach an vital amenity along with being pedestrian friendly.

Some people (most people?) just don't really care about walkability as you describe it. At least not to the point that it overcomes other advantages. For example, I have never once wanted to walk to a grocery store to buy groceries and carry a bunch of bags a quarter/half mile back to my house. Why would I? I do all my shopping in one trip per week, much more convenient and efficient. What else is it that would be so advantageous to walk to? I just don't really get why people place such a premium on this.

If I want to walk just to be outside/exercise, my neighborhood is great for running, walking and biking on the streets and sidewalks, and there are always people out doing these things. Plenty of parks, pool access, and tennis courts too if you so desire. But walk to a professional office, restaurant, or work and be all hot and sticky when I get there? No thanks. I'll leave that to the "urbanists".

[ATLTJL]

A city should look to densify it's core, not expand it's limits UNLESS the core and surrounding areas are already densified

Atlanta is doing both.

The core is densifying while the limits spread. Actually, I don't have numbers, but it looks like the housing bust really put the brakes on how far the city expands. Whether it picks back up again remains to be seen.

This mentality of telling other people how to live, I just don't get. Most suburbanites I know prefer not to live in dense environments, but they don't tell people who are living that way that they are somehow wrong. I just don't see why you would care so much about the suburbs. I mean, if you live intown, the traffic won't affect you, it's really their problem.

And let's just suppose that the suburbs disappeared and Atlanta became ultra dense. Don't you think intown would have one hell of a traffic problem? You can say mass transit all you want, but all those businesses would still need truck deliveries, emergency vehicles, and some people would still drive. Manhattan has a bit of a traffic problem, in case you never noticed, and it doesn't get much denser or urban than that.

So why don't you try thinking for yourself about the situation instead of drinking the hipster kool-aid that sprawl is inherently bad. Dense living isn't a utopia either and comes with its own set of unique issues and problems that need to be addressed.

You don't have to accept suburban living for yourself, but you should probably stop blaming it for all of society's ills.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by 10 feet tall

Some people (most people?) just don't really care about walkability as you describe it. At least not to the point that it overcomes other advantages. For example, I have never once wanted to walk to a grocery store to buy groceries and carry a bunch of bags a quarter/half mile back to my house. Why would I? I do all my shopping in one trip per week, much more convenient and efficient. What else is it that would be so advantageous to walk to? I just don't really get why people place such a premium on this.

If I want to walk just to be outside/exercise, my neighborhood is great for running, walking and biking on the streets and sidewalks, and there are always people out doing these things. Plenty of parks, pool access, and tennis courts too if you so desire. But walk to a professional office, restaurant, or work and be all hot and sticky when I get there? No thanks. I'll leave that to the "urbanists".

It truly sucks walking to the grocery store...I did it while I lived in London and it was one of the things that I truly hated about living there. I was a beautiful thing to come back to Atlanta and use my car for grocery shopping.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

There are many negative things associated with massive sprawl going from environmental issues to potential natural disaster issues to traffic issues.

IMO, this constant sprawl is going to kick Atlanta in the ass in the future...I don't know how long, but it will. There are already massive traffic issues going on and it's not like counties are voting for more transit. A city should look to densify it's core, not expand it's limits UNLESS the core and surrounding areas are already densified(See LA metro area).

If it ends up hurting Atlanta in the future then it will also hurt every other American city. This is not an Atlanta thing, but is very common among U.S. cities.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Atlanta is doing both.

The core is densifying while the limits spread. Actually, I don't have numbers, but it looks like the housing bust really put the brakes on how far the city expands. Whether it picks back up again remains to be seen.

This mentality of telling other people how to live, I just don't get. Most suburbanites I know prefer not to live in dense environments, but they don't tell people who are living that way that they are somehow wrong. I just don't see why you would care so much about the suburbs. I mean, if you live intown, the traffic won't affect you, it's really their problem.

And let's just suppose that the suburbs disappeared and Atlanta became ultra dense. Don't you think intown would have one hell of a traffic problem? You can say mass transit all you want, but all those businesses would still need truck deliveries, emergency vehicles, and some people would still drive. Manhattan has a bit of a traffic problem, in case you never noticed, and it doesn't get much denser or urban than that.

So why don't you try thinking for yourself about the situation instead of drinking the hipster kool-aid that sprawl is inherently bad. Dense living isn't a utopia either and comes with its own set of unique issues and problems that need to be addressed.

You don't have to accept suburban living for yourself, but you should probably stop blaming it for all of society's ills.

Again, it's much more then just me not liking the suburbs. The problem exists far beyond that. As I said, one significant issue with mass sprawl is environmental issues. Building and building across wide spread lands hurts the wildlife that inhabit the area and begins to affect them in a negative way.

By densifying inside of the core and stopping sprawl, you can keep preserve the wild life habitat that exists outside of a city instead of destroying them aslong as keeping the pollution within a specific area as oppose to across a wide spread area.

Yes, more transit would HELP Atlanta because it gets more cars off the road thus less pollution and smog. Atlanta is becoming more and more smoggy...nothing like LA now or the 80s, but just today driving towards Atlanta, you can see the haze above the skyline. That can lessen if we had more extensive transit options as less people would be opted to use a car. Cars today still produce polution.

If you're not going to densify the core, AT LEAST provide public transportation beyond the core and surrounding areas so that less people would be opted to use their car.

I bet the hundreds of thousands of people are sick of being stuck in traffic like I am when I'm on those interstates. If we had more transit and people used it, we would have less people on the roads and less headaches along with less traffic accidents.

New York city might have traffic issues, but more then half of the city uses public transportation as opposed to driving. Here in Atlanta, over 80% drive, maybe even 90% meaning they basically have to face the traffic issues that ensue.

I can think for myself. Don't tell me I'm some "hipster". I know the affects of both urban and suburban living.

I mean damn, if it were more walkable and people walked more, we would have less fat and unhealthy people and be a more fit city, something we SHOULD AIM FOR.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

If it ends up hurting Atlanta in the future then it will also hurt every other American city. This is not an Atlanta thing, but is very common among U.S. cities.

Except that we all know that the sunbelt cities are quite different then the Northeastern cities. While they may have suburbs also, they also have dense, walkable, urban cores.

The main difference is that Atlanta's sprawl exists for 40 miles each way as oppose to 20 miles each way and it's not like the city of Atanta itself has a large population.

LA may be the same way, but that's because it barely has room to do anything in the city already so it had to keep urbanizing 30-40 miles outside of it's core, but the difference is even it's suburbs are dense.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Except that we all know that the sunbelt cities are quite different then the Northeastern cities. While they may have suburbs also, they also have dense, walkable, urban cores.

The main difference is that Atlanta's sprawl exists for 40 miles each way as oppose to 20 miles each way and it's not like the city of Atanta itself has a large population.

LA may be the same way, but that's because it barely has room to do anything in the city already so it had to keep urbanizing 30-40 miles outside of it's core, but the difference is even it's suburbs are dense.

Cities like Boston, NYC, etc. sprawl as badly as or worse than Atlanta...and it's not true that the suburbs in Atlanta don't have small urban cores - most of them do. Sprawl is not a sunbelt problem nor is it an Atlanta problem, but many people try to pin it on us as if other cities aren't guilty of it too.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

Cities like Boston, NYC, etc. sprawl as badly as or worse than Atlanta...and it's not true that the suburbs in Atlanta don't have small urban cores - most of them do. Sprawl is not a sunbelt problem nor is it an Atlanta problem, but many people try to pin it on us as if other cities aren't guilty of it too.

They are also part of one gigantic metropolitan area.

And again, they have densified their cores so they have to build out. If Atlanta already had an extremely dense core and had no room to build anything, then I can understand the need for more and more sprawl.

Last I checked, Manhattan didn't have anymore room to densifiy meanwhile downtown Atlanta has numerous parking lots and uninhabited structures that ca be torn down for more projects.

[Ant131531]

I can understand those that dislike urban living because my mom doesn't like it either...she's like most suburbanites; love their own yard and space, but Atlanta's problem is it continues to grow OUTWARD faster then it is densifying it's core. That's a problem.

There has to be a point where Atlanta says...stop...we can't keep doing this.