Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, we could say we want more transit-oriented smart development and yes we could say that we want a more dense and safer urban core and yes we could say we want more parks and trees and street-level shops. The reality is, unless developers want it too, we won't get it.
The problem is that even urban Atlantans are opposed to more "smart growth" as per another thread I read recently on here in which people in North Buckhead (in the city) were opposing plans for denser apartment buildings in their neighborhood for fear of "more traffic." At some point you DO hit a tipping point where enough density equates to a DECREASE in traffic, believe it or not, as I pointed out with Arlington, where more people eschew their vehicles and begin walking, biking, or taking transit to things. Surface street congestion in places like Court House and Clarendon is rare, even though the population there is much denser and much larger than ever before.
"Manifest destiny" and "Levittown" were great in 1950 when our nation's population wasn't well over 300,000,000 and growing rapidly. Do you really want 300,000,000 people living in a place designed like Acworth or Kennesaw? Logisitcally that's impossible, which is why we need to start weaning people off of desiging places like those and instead turn people on to the idea of places like North Buckhead or Downtown Decatur---suburban-like yet with easier transportation logistics.
Your ideal Atlanta scenario has been noted. Thanks for your input.
I really have to question city data's ranking system if you are considered a top helpful poster. Your comments, even though there are some good points, are very trollish. There is something very aggravating about a poster from another forum telling us how terrible or wrong our city is. If you want to join the conversation, that's one thing. Don't come here and just make point after point of how we are doing things wrong.
Many of the points you bring up are thoroughly discussed on this forum. Many of which have made the same points you are making, but with a much better understanding of the city.
Last edited by tikigod311; 09-27-2013 at 10:46 AM..
The problem is that even urban Atlantans are opposed to more "smart growth" as per another thread I read recently on here in which people in North Buckhead (in the city) were opposing plans for denser apartment buildings in their neighborhood for fear of "more traffic." At some point you DO hit a tipping point where enough density equates to a DECREASE in traffic, believe it or not, as I pointed out with Arlington, where more people eschew their vehicles and begin walking, biking, or taking transit to things. Surface street congestion in places like Court House and Clarendon is rare, even though the population there is much denser and much larger than ever before.
"Manifest destiny" and "Levittown" were great in 1950 when our nation's population wasn't well over 300,000,000 and growing rapidly. Do you really want 300,000,000 people living in a place designed like Acworth or Kennesaw? Logisitcally that's impossible, which is why we need to start weaning people off of desiging places like those and instead turn people on to the idea of places like North Buckhead or Downtown Decatur---suburban-like yet with easier transportation logistics.
I think you've misread the attitude of most residents based on a post in a forum.
I live in the City of Atlanta (proper) and I understand the criticisms. It does appear that our elected officials have their heads in the wrong places when it comes to growth at times. It also does appear that our business leaders have less interest in the community and more interest in, well, collecting interest.
We can blue-sky plan until we're blue in the face and neighborhoods can protest and complain in efforts to grow their neighborhoods intelligently. However, there is no one person or entity with a huge piece of paper, an architects model of the city, and a compass with the power to dictate how private projects are executed. Sure, there are zoning laws, but folks with enough money to build big have enough money to end-around them. This isn't helped with the growing attitude of everyday folks who don't want government interfering in business growth.
Yes, we could say we want more transit-oriented smart development and yes we could say that we want a more dense and safer urban core and yes we could say we want more parks and trees and street-level shops. The reality is, unless developers want it too, we won't get it.
ITA with this, especially the bolded area.
I also live in the city and wish it was easier to connect to other areas within the city.
I also feel that many posters are defensive based on living in suburbs and like many in metro-Atlanta, thinking "intown" actually doesn't make their suburb a suburb.
I like a lot of the suburbs in Atlanta but I do feel developing more parks, and trails and incorporating density and transit will boost Atlanta's appeal and also increase the QOL for Atlantans.
I actually do love living in the city. I can get around much easier than I could when I lived in the Smyrna/Vinings area as I am more centrally located. I am hoping, since I am on the Westside and there is so much development going on in West Midtown and the Marietta Corridor, that this will aid in more transit. I am hoping we can get a connection to the new street car over here to alleviate some traffic.
I agree with Portland's mayor that it will take decades, but that doesn't mean that that is a criticism of Atlanta, it is a realistic perspective. The Beltline, I fell will greatly help to develop the city of Atlanta. Even though I am not a huge proponent of the new stadium, I am hopeful (cautiously so) that the money that the Falcons are throwing at NW Atlanta residents to buy our complacency with their new stadium, that we will get some interest in developing areas to the west of Downtown. We have good bones over here but do need a lot of development for it to take place and since I have been attending community meetings regarding how we should use the funds, it is making me a little bit cautiously hopeful that we can get at least one project funded within my neighborhood with the next 5 years.
The problem is that even urban Atlantans are opposed to more "smart growth" as per another thread I read recently on here in which people in North Buckhead (in the city) were opposing plans for denser apartment buildings in their neighborhood for fear of "more traffic." At some point you DO hit a tipping point where enough density equates to a DECREASE in traffic, believe it or not, as I pointed out with Arlington, where more people eschew their vehicles and begin walking, biking, or taking transit to things. Surface street congestion in places like Court House and Clarendon is rare, even though the population there is much denser and much larger than ever before.
"Manifest destiny" and "Levittown" were great in 1950 when our nation's population wasn't well over 300,000,000 and growing rapidly. Do you really want 300,000,000 people living in a place designed like Acworth or Kennesaw? Logisitcally that's impossible, which is why we need to start weaning people off of desiging places like those and instead turn people on to the idea of places like North Buckhead or Downtown Decatur---suburban-like yet with easier transportation logistics.
You know that The Atlanta Beltline is widely considered among the best smart-growth projects in the country, right? And I'm sure Pittsburgh is immune to the effects of 40-50 years of white flight, industrial relocation, and urban decay. That's why the population only decreased by 8.6% from 2000-2010. Congratulations on your $500.
True. Stats have been posted before but its also true for just about every american city, more residents live in the suburbs than in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
The 2012 estimated population of Metro Atlanta is 5,457,831. The 2012 estimated population of the CITY of Atlanta is 443,775. What does this mean? Just 8% of the people in Metro Atlanta actually LIVE in Atlanta, while the other 92% live in the suburbs/exurbs. I'm not seeing how this can be viewed as anything other than irresponsible and unsustainable from an urban planning standpoint.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
The problem is that even urban Atlantans are opposed to more "smart growth" as per another thread I read recently on here in which people in North Buckhead (in the city) were opposing plans for denser apartment buildings in their neighborhood for fear of "more traffic." At some point you DO hit a tipping point where enough density equates to a DECREASE in traffic, believe it or not, as I pointed out with Arlington, where more people eschew their vehicles and begin walking, biking, or taking transit to things. Surface street congestion in places like Court House and Clarendon is rare, even though the population there is much denser and much larger than ever before.
Keep in mind that it is a minority of the residents of that neighborhood that are opposed to the proposals. That's not just a hunch either, I actually live in that neighborhood in a midrise and support the increase in density. The same is true of a lot of my neighbors too.
It's interesting that you bring up and interesting point (that I don't disagree with) about congestion and density, but what you must understand is that in suburban Atlanta congestion doesn't manifest itself in the way that people outside of Atlanta thinks it does. Aside from the highways and major arteries, there is no congestion in suburban Atlanta residential areas. A lot of OTPers don't see the need for higher density or expaned transit because it literally isn't a problem for them 90% of the time.
Of course, it will increasingly become one, but there's not much Atlanta the city can do about it. Due to our wacky political setup, Atlanta has about as about much sway on suburban Atlanta that DC has on Northern Virginia. For those not aware, that's about 0.0%. And that's ok with me.
The city of Atlanta proper is doing big things now with transit and density. That's all that matters to me. The mayor of Portland can go take his opinion elsewhere. It's easy for him to be all boastful as the leader of a third tier city in a State with almost half the population of Metro Atlanta alone. Our situation is way more complex than he can wrap his pithy little sound bite around.
Last edited by waronxmas; 09-27-2013 at 11:00 AM..
The 2012 estimated population of Metro Atlanta is 5,457,831. The 2012 estimated population of the CITY of Atlanta is 443,775. What does this mean? Just 8% of the people in Metro Atlanta actually LIVE in Atlanta, while the other 92% live in the suburbs/exurbs. I'm not seeing how this can be viewed as anything other than irresponsible and unsustainable from an urban planning standpoint.
Another stat that is often quoted by those who don't live here, and don't understand Atlanta's built environment. I live NINE miles from downtown Atlanta, but I don't technically live IN Atlanta, so I'm not counted in the 443k. This is true for thousands of Atlantans, as you can go just a few miles in most directions away from the city's core and be in another municipality, sometimes a completely different county. I used to think of 'Atlanta' as just the business district, as that's about what it boils down to.
You're correct, most metro Atlantans do NOT live in the city proper, but to suggest 92% are in suburbs/exurbs as if they are far-reaching places not tied to the city is to not understand the physical makeup of the area. Many people live much farther than 9 miles from their city's center but are still IN the city limits. Do I not live closer to my neighbors 9 miles away because we are in two different municipalities than two neighbors in another city who live 25 miles apart but share inclusion in their city's limits?
Takes me 25 minutes, driving, to get to the office in the center of downtown ATL on a BAD day. People have choices. Some poster in an anti-Atlanta rant once wrote, "I'd rather not have a two-hour trip to the grocery store." Really?
Atlanta has work to do (I'm trying to think of the city that doesn't), but it's hardly the vast unnavigable expanse people make it out to be. People like it here, and choose to make it home, for many reasons.
He has a point when he says it would take generations to turn Atlanta into a larger Portland but the question is, why should Atlanta have to? ...
Different strokes for different folks.
Very important point to remember; what works in Portland might not work so well in and around Atlanta.
Whether you think sprawl is a good thing or not, Atlanta is very much characterized by it. Lets not pretend that its only outsiders commenting on it, either. There was an active thread last week in this very sub-forum de-crying the encroachment of high-density development because the infrastructure [roads, schools, and sports facilities were cited] wouldn't be able to keep up. The original poster, themselves, had moved from out of town in to a new development probably built where someone perhaps a year before had voiced the same lamentation. Either we're okay with it, or we're not.
I'm not sure how "Atlanta's Urban Core" is being defined or classified, but I'd love to see a source for the 2012 population figure of 5 million for the 'urban core'.
Going back and reading some of SteelCity's posts, Im really scratching my head.
Quote:
Pittsburgh has sprawl (even Portland does), but much of our new metropolitan growth in the suburbs is now being built via "Smart Growth" while urban neighborhoods are becoming even denser.
Yes, that is a red hot trend in Atlanta right now too.
Quote:
What do I want to see more of in Atlanta? Atlantic Station-esque developments where people can live, work, shop, play, dine, etc. within walking distance (you know, the way people used to do only a few generations ago before cheap gasoline was all the rage?!) While some on this sub-forum balk at city neighborhoods like Lindbergh I foresee areas like that being "red hot" in about another decade due to their accessibility to transit and proximity to the urban core.
How many of these developments do we have around Atlanta now? It seems like any decent sized development ITP is exactly in this format. It is almost getting old. And Lindbergh, really? There was recently a huge fight to protect the Lindgergh district and make sure a developer couldn't build a suburban style Walmart. Lindbergh is fairly popular now. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "Atlanta" doesn't understand the value of Lindbergh and developments like it.
Quote:
Widening every freeway to 16 lanes isn't going to solve Atlanta's traffic woes if that temporary "easy commute" just encourages another massive wave of further-out urban sprawl to creep up and eventually clog all 16 of those lanes.
You are absolutely preaching to the choir here man.
This post alone shows a wholesale lack of understanding / familiarity with Atlanta and especially this forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
