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.
You think D.C. has more sprawl than Atlanta?? Not hardly... Atlanta's developed land area covered close to 2,000 sq. miles in 2000. D.C. at 2000 was about 1,157 sq. miles. Both have undoubtedly increased since then. Before you resort to chest-thumping and bragging (if one CAN brag about something like that), try to get correct info first. Childish, juvenile "mine's bigger than yours" has no place in adult debate/conversation.
I don't thing anyone thought the DC MSA was larger than Atlanta's in area, but the CSA is. It's actually difficult to compare MSAs/CSAs with each other for many reasons, but people always seem to want to do it.
Yes I have...many times, and I know that the massive tree cover hides a lot of the development around Atlanta. Saying that Atlanta development is more spotty than other metros is an opinion, so there is no source for the statement.
It's hilarious that you give Dallas and Houston as examples of more dense development. My opinion is that it is exactly the opposite, but that's the thing about opinions. We all have them.
Well I've lived in all 3 cities, so mine is based on familiarity. My opinion is that your opinion is totally uniformed. But then you could just be wrong.
You can also look at metro area densities from any number of definitions and Atlanta is one of the lowest in the country among major cities.. Here's one list of "urban areas" that shows Atlanta at 1,706/sq mile, lower than any of the top 50 except #38 Charlotte and just ahead of #50 Raleigh (since you are a Tar Heel that may be why you overestimate Atlanta's density). Dallas is 2,878 and Houston 2,978. List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well I've lived in all 3 cities, so mine is based on familiarity. My opinion is that your opinion is totally uniformed. But then you could just be wrong.
You can also look at metro area densities from any number of definitions and Atlanta is one of the lowest in the country among major cities.. Here's one list of "urban areas" that shows Atlanta at 1,706/sq mile, lower than any of the top 50 except #38 Charlotte and just ahead of #50 Raleigh (since you are a Tar Heel that may be why you overestimate Atlanta's density). Dallas is 2,878 and Houston 2,978. List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its really not even close.
You can have your opinion, but it doesn't make mine wrong. Need a lesson on fact vs. opinion? I have much experience with all 3 cities, have traveled extensively and lived in several cities, so don't think my opinion is due to a limited viewpoint. I disagree with you...so you could be wrong as well.
Population density has little to do with built environment - which is what we were discussing. That you equated the two makes me question your credibility. I don't really think that the point of the thread was to compare Atlanta's building density to other cities, but some people seem addicted to those comparisons and constantly bring them up. The thread topic is sprawl, and it isn't related to density.
I don't thing anyone thought the DC MSA was larger than Atlanta's in area, but the CSA is. It's actually difficult to compare MSAs/CSAs with each other for many reasons, but people always seem to want to do it.
DC seem crowded to me. My sister lived with her old man in Deanwood up there before moving down here. She says Atlanta is less stressful and more spread out which takes a long time to visit her friends. What is a MSA and CSA?
You can have your opinion, but it doesn't make mine wrong. Need a lesson on fact vs. opinion? I have much experience with all 3 cities, have traveled extensively and lived in several cities, so don't think my opinion is due to a limited viewpoint. I disagree with you...so you could be wrong as well.
Population density has little to do with built environment - which is what we were discussing. That you equated the two makes me question your credibility. I don't really think that the point of the thread was to compare Atlanta's building density to other cities, but some people seem addicted to those comparisons and constantly bring them up. The thread topic is sprawl, and it isn't related to density.
Atlanta's development is very spotty. There is a lot of vacant land. Density is a very strong indicator of that.
Cobb, North Fulton and Gwinnet all have lots of space between developments. Even the city of Atlanta does in places. In contrast, its pretty hard to find any significant vacant land from I-30 in Dallas to the North almost to McKinney (both cities sprawl the most to the north). Development is much more continuous. Lot sizes are also typically much smaller, which contributes to Atlanta spreading out more. Houston has gaps in Aldine and North Forest due to schools, but is pretty continuous once you get to Spring, Kingwood and the Woodlands. And its pretty continuous to the west where the school districts aren't as big a problem.
Some seems related to government here. Rather than cities like Dallas or developers of master planned communities like Houston, the county generally controls development. There are lots of small cities and development is spread around those formerly rural counties. Counties are also smaller, leading to less coordination. Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnet and Clayton would all fit in Harris County (Houston).
Atlanta's development is very spotty. There is a lot of vacant land. Density is a very strong indicator of that.
Cobb, North Fulton and Gwinnet all have lots of space between developments. Even the city of Atlanta does in places. In contrast, its pretty hard to find any significant vacant land from I-30 in Dallas to the North almost to McKinney (both cities sprawl the most to the north). Development is much more continuous. Lot sizes are also typically much smaller, which contributes to Atlanta spreading out more. Houston has gaps in Aldine and North Forest due to schools, but is pretty continuous once you get to Spring, Kingwood and the Woodlands. And its pretty continuous to the west where the school districts aren't as big a problem.
Some seems related to government here. Rather than cities like Dallas or developers of master planned communities like Houston, the county generally controls development. There are lots of small cities and development is spread around those formerly rural counties. Counties are also smaller, leading to less coordination. Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnet and Clayton would all fit in Harris County (Houston).
I disagree with you on the development patterns. Atlanta's topography and denser tree canopy gives the feeling that there is a good bit of vacant land, but show me any large undeveloped plot of land in the V formed by 75 and 85 from Brookwood outward in Cobb, North Fulton, DeKalb and Gwinnett.
The biggest difference in this northern stretch of Atlanta is the greenbelt formed by the Chattahoochee as it slices across. Going north out of Dallas, you don't have this. The Trinity forms a large chunk of undeveloped land but it flows more to the W and NW from Dallas.
Sorry, but trying to say Dallas is vastly different from Atlanta in its developmental patterns is just not so. There are differences, yes, but not that great.
I disagree with you on the development patterns. Atlanta's topography and denser tree canopy gives the feeling that there is a good bit of vacant land, but show me any large undeveloped plot of land in the V formed by 75 and 85 from Brookwood outward in Cobb, North Fulton, DeKalb and Gwinnett.
The biggest difference in this northern stretch of Atlanta is the greenbelt formed by the Chattahoochee as it slices across. Going north out of Dallas, you don't have this. The Trinity forms a large chunk of undeveloped land but it flows more to the W and NW from Dallas.
Sorry, but trying to say Dallas is vastly different from Atlanta in its developmental patterns is just not so. There are differences, yes, but not that great.
True. I noticed that the flat much more treeless topography in Western Cities like Denver allow you to see uninterrupted for much further giving the impression that there's a lot more development but in Denver atleast that's not really the case.
Everyone knows driving through many parts of Atlanta you feel like you are in the middle of the woods when if your from here you know just on the other side of those trees is an awful lot of stuff.
Two replies on the whole re occurring sprawl issue.
1. Anybody ever stop to think about the fact that North Georgia (all of Georgia for that fact) is just destined to see a lot of growth and not all of it's going to be in Atlanta. This is through no fault of city planners it's just that developers are looking for all types of development sites some urban and some green field. Some in small towns etc. Many North Eastern States experienced this type of wide spread growth 100 years ago or more but now that it's taking place here City Data type people are screaming "Sprawl!"
One of the problems is that when a plant or something opens in some rural town 50 miles away from Atlanta that never even considered it's self part of the Atlanta area before and they hire people and the towns population swells by a few hundred statistically that's chalked up as Atlanta sprawl because counties way out in timbuktu are tied in statistically with the city of Atlanta.
2. Because of the geography of Atlanta when people move into the city and live close together its because they really, really want to. In many other metros of the country that higher density it's because mother nature made the geography of the land such that they have to live closer together.
People in Seattle don't have the option of living in suburbs stretching off to the West because the Pacific Ocean won't allow that. Like wise the Rocky Mountains are not going to allow people in Denver to build sub divisions up the faces of it's cliffs. People on the West Coast don't even have the option of building too far East away from the Ocean because out there the government has established humongous Federal Parks, Military Reserves and Reservations that can't be built on not to mention deserts with not enough water to develop and once again mountains.
All of these things make people in many cities choose high density development out of necessity but in Atlanta where there is nearly endless development land on all sides you have to make a person really really want that type of development to get it. Atlanta has to sell it's self a lot harder than other cities because here the options for development and residential living are much less a matter of topography making you live some where and more a matter of choice.
Two replies on the whole re occurring sprawl issue.
1. Anybody ever stop to think about the fact that North Georgia (all of Georgia for that fact) is just destined to see a lot of growth and not all of it's going to be in Atlanta. This is through no fault of city planners it's just that developers are looking for all types of development sites some urban and some green field. Some in small towns etc. Many North Eastern States experienced this type of wide spread growth 100 years ago or more but now that it's taking place here City Data type people are screaming "Sprawl!"
One of the problems is that when a plant or something opens in some rural town 50 miles away from Atlanta that never even considered it's self part of the Atlanta area before and they hire people and the towns population swells by a few hundred statistically that's chalked up as Atlanta sprawl because counties way out in timbuktu are tied in statistically with the city of Atlanta.
2. Because of the geography of Atlanta when people move into the city and live close together its because they really, really want to. In many other metros of the country that higher density it's because mother nature made the geography of the land such that they have to live closer together.
People in Seattle don't have the option of living in suburbs stretching off to the West because the Pacific Ocean won't allow that. Like wise the Rocky Mountains are not going to allow people in Denver to build sub divisions up the faces of it's cliffs. People on the West Coast don't even have the option of building too far East away from the Ocean because out there the government has established humongous Federal Parks, Military Reserves and Reservations that can't be built on not to mention deserts with not enough water to develop and once again mountains.
All of these things make people in many cities choose high density development out of necessity but in Atlanta where there is nearly endless development land on all sides you have to make a person really really want that type of development to get it. Atlanta has to sell it's self a lot harder than other cities because here the options for development and residential living are much less a matter of topography making you live some where and more a matter of choice.
It is so nice to come on CD and read a post full of common sense. Excellent. Spot on. Wanted to bold some stand out points, but would have to bold the whole thing.
Atlanta's development is very spotty. There is a lot of vacant land. Density is a very strong indicator of that.
Cobb, North Fulton and Gwinnet all have lots of space between developments. Even the city of Atlanta does in places. In contrast, its pretty hard to find any significant vacant land from I-30 in Dallas to the North almost to McKinney (both cities sprawl the most to the north). Development is much more continuous. Lot sizes are also typically much smaller, which contributes to Atlanta spreading out more. Houston has gaps in Aldine and North Forest due to schools, but is pretty continuous once you get to Spring, Kingwood and the Woodlands. And its pretty continuous to the west where the school districts aren't as big a problem.
Some seems related to government here. Rather than cities like Dallas or developers of master planned communities like Houston, the county generally controls development. There are lots of small cities and development is spread around those formerly rural counties. Counties are also smaller, leading to less coordination. Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnet and Clayton would all fit in Harris County (Houston).
I think there have already been excellent responses to this by Saintmarks and Galounger. It seems that you may not be familiar enough with Atlanta to be posting such commentary.
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.
