Atlanta is No New York: Getting Behind the Obvious (Dallas: neighborhoods, income)

[aries4118]

Great article! It is important for Atlanta to become a better Atlanta--not another New York or [insert whatever city here].

Atlanta is No New York: Getting Behind the Obvious - Deep Thoughts - Curbed Atlanta


Enjoy!

[FlyiMetro]

LOL.....we already know this right?

[Lady's Man]

I can't ever really see Atlanta becoming a dense, walkable, transit-friendly city. The people and politics wont let that happen. Atlanta offers a certain type of lifestyle. Those seeking something different will probably move somewhere else like they do now.

[tonygeorgia]

And this is suppose to be news??

[MathmanMathman]

Well, New York is an old city that grew very large when people were mostly walking and using horse drawn carriages. Its framework was set by that. Atlanta didn't take off until the car driven development took hold and air conditioning was widely available. Atlanta sprawled with lots of space between buildings. For instance, you're not likely to find a building like the Bank of America building in NYC surrounded by a large lawn. Atlanta's destiny is more closely linked to that of Houston's and Dallas' whatever that may be. There is no precursor to look to.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by tonygeorgia

And this is suppose to be news??

Well, for posters on here that always try to compare Atlanta to New York--it most certainly is news!

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by FlyiMetro

LOL.....we already know this right?

You would think. But, with some of the commentary on city-data (comparing Atlanta to New York, etc.), I am not so sure.



The article does a good job of breaking down the uniqueness of New York--and hints that it is problematic that America always compares "walkability and density" to a New York model.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Well, New York is an old city that grew very large when people were mostly walking and using horse drawn carriages. Its framework was set by that. Atlanta didn't take off until the car driven development took hold and air conditioning was widely available. Atlanta sprawled with lots of space between buildings. For instance, you're not likely to find a building like the Bank of America building in NYC surrounded by a large lawn. Atlanta's destiny is more closely linked to that of Houston's and Dallas' whatever that may be. There is no precursor to look to.

I bring this up a lot in the 1950s Atlanta had 331,314 in 36.9 sq mi. This is a map of the 1952 annexation, the dark shade was Atlanta in 1950. Think about today's city limit 132 sq mi is basically what's below. If in 2010 Atlanta was 420,003 and we know over 100,000 live in Buckhead, then alot people stay in other parts of the city. Atlanta current core population density don't represent the density it's develop in, and definitely it doesn't represent what can be. But of course Atlanta's core population dramatically decline, in 1950 the city had over 3/4 of today population in about 1/3 of today city area.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ation_1952.jpg

Of course Atlanta is no NY "don't want it to be" but Atlanta core historically is built in a equal frame work as cities like Seattle. The difference is Seattle maintain and I believe become denser. While Atlanta's core decline. With saying that I believe Seattle core is more of a realistic goal in filling considering they were once equals.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Of course Atlanta is no NY "don't want it to be" but Atlanta core historically is built in a equal frame work as cities like Seattle. The difference is Seattle maintain and I believe become denser. While Atlanta's core decline. With saying that I believe Seattle core is more of a realistic goal in filling considering they were once equals.

Places like Seattle and Portland have growth boundaries plus their geography limits their sprawl. Atlanta has issues like Dallas'. Infill won't be easy as cost makes moving OTP more appealing.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Places like Seattle and Portland have growth boundaries plus their geography limits their sprawl. Atlanta has issues like Dallas'. Infill won't be easy as cost makes moving OTP more appealing.

That's a half the story Seattle and portland leaders have been better with planning growth period. Atlanta leaders are pro new urbanism and walkablity now that step alone goes a long way. Technically Atlanta core is infilling, what happen was bad areas decline more some neighborhoods decline more than 30% since 2000 I believe. Atlanta's belt line project, Atlanta mixed-income communities, Natural infilling in and around core neighborhoods Atlanta actually has great plan for growth.

That's kind of a straw man to what I was saying because of History Atlanta core layout is built denser. Atlanta will have a easier chance of infilling the core, Dallas and Houston outer areas and suburbs are built denser than Atlanta, they have a better change of infilling them. Dallas and Houston are trying to infill a much, much, much broader area Atlanta is more specific to the core areas and less dense on the outside. So not only do they have different issues there different goals anyways.

I look at Dallas and Houston, as trying to infill the sand box they have large grids they can do that, areas outside Atlanta core are going to a have harder time trying to infill, it's way easier for the Texas cities. On the other hand Atlanta as trying to raise up specific sand pales. With DT and MT and areas like West Midtown Atlanta has easier potential of density at the core. Dallas has Oak Lawn but it's not like Midtown ATL. And as I pointed out the belt line project, Atlanta's mixed-income communities plan Houston and Dallas don't have plans like those area around their core.