The City of Atlanta growing faster than suburbs (moving, estimates)

[Tarzanman]

I used to live in Roswell abutting Johns Creek (before and after they became a city in their own right), and I used to have a job interacting with many kids (and families) who live in that area.

It is a very middle-to-upper middle class area. It is a suburb through and through.... from the SUVs to the high school students driving $15,000 cars.

As for flash and no cash, I would disagree. Every area has people trying to keep up with the Jones', but there is no shortage of very financially stable, 1.5 kid households in that area. It makes Alpharetta seem a tad quaint in comparison, if that tells you anything.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

No home is immune to age- do you think all of the homes in Inman Park, Va-Hi, Decatur, etc., are all standing exactly as they were originally constructed? Those homes have all been either fully renovated (at least once, if not twice in their lifetimes), or have had extensive maintenance over the years to keep them together.

BTW- most people don't buy or not buy homes based on when they were built- they buy based on the area- so your comment about the houses from the 60's/70's "getting ratty" makes no sense. If the area is desirable, people will buy homes there and renovate them- if it's not, the houses will sit and will not be renovated. There are plenty of houses from the 70's in East Cobb, and people buy and renovate them regularly.

okay, let's make a truce for now as it's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other, and i'd hate for this argument to make us angry at each other.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

okay, let's make a truce for now as it's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other, and i'd hate for this argument to make us angry at each other.

Works for me

[bryantm3]

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

According to the Wall Street Journal, Atlanta and many other cities are seeing the core of the metro grow faster than the suburbs--at least comparing 2011 to 2010. This is unusual, as for most of the last century, suburban population growth has been brisker than the pace of urban growth. Here's the chart that shows the numbers:

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0627183903.jpg

But the accompanying article wonders whether or not this is the start of a new trend:

Cities Outpace Suburbs in Growth - WSJ.com

Is our culture starting to shift here? Are people starting to prefer urban living over suburban living in higher numbers? Or is this just fallout from the recent recession? More and more renters are "staying put" in cities, either because they're skittish about buying a suburban house, or because they're not as financially able to qualify as buyers as they would have been 10 years ago.

I tend to think there has to be somewhat of a change in cultural tastes, as people could certainly choose to rent in the suburbs rather than rent in the city.

What do y'all think?

A possible dose of reality:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...ted-population


Enjoy!

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Back to the OP.

These numbers are based off the Census Bureau's recent 2011 city population estimates. Sounds like a reasonable source to base these numbers.

Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places - U.S Census Bureau

But can we go back and remember what the Bureau said all throughout the 2000s on how the central city was growing... from 416k in 2000 to upwards of 540k in 2009? Have we forgotten the disappointment we all felt when the 2010 census showed the city with a population of 420k? A gain of only 4k in the decade when we were thinking well over 100k?

So this same bureau says that in the first year of this decade the city is now up 12k. 2011 estimate is 432k and no suburb gained more than 4k in the same time frame. Up to my point....

Are we really going to except it with blind faith that the city gained 12k in one year in a bad economy when it only gained 4k in an overall healthy decade? Really?

Sorry, but the estimates the bureau put up in the '00 decade have me taking any future numbers with more than a grain of salt. At least a little paper packet if not a whole shaker.

Yes, Brother Marks--

Take a look at this:

Misreferencing Misoverestimated Population | Newgeography.com

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Yes, Brother Marks--

Take a look at this:

Misreferencing Misoverestimated Population | Newgeography.com

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Everyone else glossed over my post and continued an off the topic debate about the viability of Johns Creek in the years ahead. Not a bad debate, but off topic. But I can always count on the Aries to come through. Thanks brother.

[Saintmarks]

Re-read my post above and it is good stuff...

EXCEPT

I said except when I meant accept in the next to last paragraph. I hate seeing grammar mistakes in my own writing...

And Aries, appreciate the link. Have a customer here that took early retirement from the Census Bureau after a 30 plus year career. Found out they are closing the Dallas office this year, so went ahead and retired. That little anecdotal evidence to wonder if the Census Bureau is going on the cheap. By this lazy way of accounting reported in your link, makes me think so.

[aries4118]

No problem, Brother Marks...

[tonygeorgia]

Thank the aquarium for this