Why is Atlanta so small? (Buckhead: property taxes, living, costs)
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.
There is no one single reason or answer to this question. Part of the reason was the demand wasn't there up until recently (last 20 years or so). Another is that despite it's perception, Atlanta was a very industrial city. Huge swaths of the city were/are dedicated solely to factories, warehouses, and rail depots. At the same time, the city has lost a lot of it's industrial business in a similar situation that the Rust Belt found itself. Several areas of the city were emptied out of residents because the jobs went away (also, contrary to popular belief, industrial jobs aren't coming to the city even though we're in the Sunbelt). On top of all that, there was a huge exodus of white residents between the 1970s and early 2000s. Nearly 150,000 left the city forever. It wasn't until recent years when that segment of the population began to grow again.
Not true. If the city hypothetically annexed the rest of westernn Dekalb along with north Dekalb, we would add another 250000 residents to the city while only marginally growing our city limit size. That's not going to happen though. Ever.
Hallelujah, we agree on something. I personally do not believe that Atlanta needs to annex more land. We have plenty of that. However, you are short changing Atlanta greatly on it's ability to do exactly what you are saying. This city has added a TON of new housing in the last 20 years. Places like Midtown or the eastside were rotting near ghost towns in large portions on those districts just a couple of decades ago. The amount of new construction there, all of which is high density, is unbelievable. As the Beltline project moves along, there was be the same affect on the south and west sides of the city too.
So don't worry about us, we're on the right path.
Excellent post war.
Atlanta needs to be compared to other post-war growth sunbelt cities. It is sort of an anomaly in that it has a small city footprint like older northern cities but has had the post-war growth of other sunbelt cities. Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, San Diego, Los Angeles... these are the cities most like Atlanta in growth patterns and all of these have MUCH larger city areas.
Another factor: Atlanta (along with Dallas) is one of the few cities in the country that is not built on a major body of water (major river, ocean, lake, etc) or hemmed in by mountains or desert or swamp. That is why Miami is not a good comparison. It has had to grow in a more dense fashion.... ocean to the east, swamp to the west, just a narrow strip of land running north/south to develop. There is nothing like this hemming in Atlanta in any direction.
With land this available and relatively inexpensive, it is a no brainer that Atlanta has grown outward much faster than it has grown upward.
Here is why the arguments about density are a rub to me: There is a mindset among certain "progressives" that want a city a certain way. They want to force it where the market and the democratic process have not brought it forth. When there is cheap land available, the market hasn't created the demand to live so densely. When the democratic process turns down proposals to aid this outlook (TSPLOST), the democratic process is in operation and, well, the people have spoken.
Hey, I am not against smarter growth. In many ways the citizens of Atlanta have changed the sprawl mindset. New Urbanism is catching on in many areas, ITP and OTP. Those that want a denser core and less sprawl can certainly plead their case. But until it makes economic sense for the private sector and the onus to fund it is NOT placed solely on the public sector, it is a no go.
The American way may not be perfect, but I still prefer it to any of the alternatives.
There is no one single reason or answer to this question. Part of the reason was the demand wasn't there up until recently (last 20 years or so). Another is that despite it's perception, Atlanta was a very industrial city. Huge swaths of the city were/are dedicated solely to factories, warehouses, and rail depots. At the same time, the city has lost a lot of it's industrial business in a similar situation that the Rust Belt found itself. Several areas of the city were emptied out of residents because the jobs went away (also, contrary to popular belief, industrial jobs aren't coming to the city even though we're in the Sunbelt). On top of all that, there was a huge exodus of white residents between the 1970s and early 2000s. Nearly 150,000 left the city forever. It wasn't until recent years when that segment of the population began to grow again.
Not true. If the city hypothetically annexed the rest of westernn Dekalb along with north Dekalb, we would add another 250000 residents to the city while only marginally growing our city limit size. That's not going to happen though. Ever.
Hallelujah, we agree on something. I personally do not believe that Atlanta needs to annex more land. We have plenty of that. However, you are short changing Atlanta greatly on it's ability to do exactly what you are saying. This city has added a TON of new housing in the last 20 years. Places like Midtown or the eastside were rotting near ghost towns in large portions on those districts just a couple of decades ago. The amount of new construction there, all of which is high density, is unbelievable. As the Beltline project moves along, there was be the same affect on the south and west sides of the city too.
So don't worry about us, we're on the right path.
Adding 250,000 people would not make a dent in the population percentage. Atlanta would need to add 872,000 people without annexing one more acre of land to reach a density of 10,000 people per square mile. That would put the population of the city of Atlanta at 1,315,000 people.
Atlanta is building housing in the city limits, the city just needs to build more. Saying there is a ton of housing being built is relative because that depends on the amount of housing being built in the metro region. Of the 24,297 building permits in the Atlanta metro area, how many would you say were in the city of Atlanta? More importantly, out of the 9,281 multi-family units which received building permits, how many were in the city of Atlanta? As long as Atlanta city proper begins to absorb a major chunk of the growth in the region, the scale will tip. The question is, can the city of Atlanta build enough housing to keep up with the suburbs?
I think Atlanta should really, really incentivize living in the city through more affordable housing. People can move to the suburbs all they want, but there needs to be a push to encourage at least a slightly denser city via increasing the population size. A lot of people don't move to the suburbs just because they have more "elbow room;" many do so because it's cheaper.
The tax dollars from a higher population can do so much to strengthen the city's public schools, infrastructure, and transit. I know this isn't the topic exactly, but the original topic has already been discussed ad nauseam.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,488 posts, read 15,021,926 times
Reputation: 7349
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Adding 250,000 people would not make a dent in the population percentage. Atlanta would need to add 872,000 people without annexing one more acre of land to reach a density of 10,000 people per square mile. That would put the population of the city of Atlanta at 1,315,000 people.
You are saying two different things here. You said previously just raise the density and did not set some mythical high water mark for what density it should be raised to. I really don't get the obsession on this board with the 10,000 ppsm density level. It's not magic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Atlanta is building housing in the city limits, the city just needs to build more. Saying there is a ton of housing being built is relative because that depends on the amount of housing being built in the metro region. Of the 24,297 building permits in the Atlanta metro area, how many would you say were in the city of Atlanta? More importantly, out of the 9,281 multi-family units which received building permits, how many were in the city of Atlanta? As long as Atlanta city proper begins to absorb a major chunk of the growth in the region, the scale will tip. The question is, can the city of Atlanta build enough housing to keep up with the suburbs?
I don't have the stats handy, but it's A LOT if not most. Since the recession, the City of Atlanta has led the way in new construction and it's almost completely multi-family. There was a lot pre-Recession too. At some point I'll look it up, but Google is your friend.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,488 posts, read 15,021,926 times
Reputation: 7349
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizchick86
I think Atlanta should really, really incentivize living in the city through more affordable housing. People can move to the suburbs all they want, but there needs to be a push to encourage at least a slightly denser city via increasing the population size. A lot of people don't move to the suburbs just because they have more "elbow room;" many do so because it's cheaper.
The tax dollars from a higher population can do so much to strengthen the city's public schools, infrastructure, and transit. I know this isn't the topic exactly, but the original topic has already been discussed ad nauseam.
Agreed. The one area this city needs to improve on is housing for more working and middle class folks. We do very well with creating new housing for upper income and the lowest of the low income, but not the middle. In this though, we are not alone. Most cities are experiencing this problem right now.
You are saying two different things here. You said previously just raise the density and did not set some mythical high water mark for what density it should be raised to. I really don't get the obsession on this board with the 10,000 ppsm density level. It's not magic.
I don't have the stats handy, but it's A LOT if not most. Since the recession, the City of Atlanta has led the way in new construction and it's almost completely multi-family. There was a lot pre-Recession too. At some point I'll look it up, but Google is your friend.
The density figure is not a high water mark, it's just a reference point that is used to predict the coming build out of land before growth actually has to be shared with the suburbs because of a lack of land in the city center. Right now, Atlanta city proper is practically rural in comparison to cities that are out of land. Atlanta has TONS of potential for infill.
That's good, a huge chunk of the growth should be in the city then instead of the suburbs going forward since that is where new housing is being built.
Atlanta needs density. The main thing that is hurting that is that we penalize city living (cities pay a higher share of property taxes because they have higher land values) that we then use to give discounts to suburban living (free highways and flat-fare transit). Most people don't recognize any real cost to living 5 miles further away, but they usually save on rent so it makes people that would otherwise prefer the city live in the suburbs and endure traffic to save on rent.
Saying there is a ton of housing being built is relative because that depends on the amount of housing being built in the metro region. Of the 24,297 building permits in the Atlanta metro area, how many would you say were in the city of Atlanta? More importantly, out of the 9,281 multi-family units which received building permits, how many were in the city of Atlanta? As long as Atlanta city proper begins to absorb a major chunk of the growth in the region, the scale will tip. The question is, can the city of Atlanta build enough housing to keep up with the suburbs?[/font][/color]
Here are the recent stats up to to 2008, when the market tanked.
In the past several years building has picked up in a big way. There are something like 6,000 apartments being added in Buckhead and there are probably similar or possibly even higher numbers for Midtown. Downtown is seeing a boom as well.
220,000 units over 18 years is not bad. It's probably closer to 250,000 now.
I just don't get the infatuation with people wanting Everyone to live on top of each other crammed like a bunch of sardines. Not everyone wants to live in dense places. Some people actually want houses with big yards for their kids to play in. Do I think there could be smarter urban planning and development in Atlanta?? Yes but it doesn't have to be dense like Chicago or New York either.
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.
