Sprawled Out in Atlanta (Kennesaw, Dallas: neighborhood, live in, cost)

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by Cacao

But pointing out the fact that San Francisco had to develop with a grid still doesn't explain why Atlanta couldn't. I'm not here to say what's right or wrong. I'm simply confused by the argument.

Atlanta did not develop on a grid because the city was not necessarily settled and laid-out with the intent that it would one-day become a major city or a city of great importance like many other major U.S. cities.

Atlanta was basically established as the endpoint of a railroad line and just sort of grew from there without any real direction moving forward.

Atlanta also did not develop outwards on a strict grid because with the heavy use of ancient Native American trails along land ridges through the heavily-wooded rolling/hilly terrain by European settlers, no one likely ever thought that there was much of a need for a grid until very-late in the 20th Century when Atlanta's development patterns sprawled far outside of the I-285 Perimeter on an inadequate surface road network.

Atlanta has also been politically-restricted from attempting to establish a grid network of roads after the need for a grid became apparent very-late in the 20th Century because no one in Atlanta's heavily-wooded suburban neighborhoods wanted the area's very highly-valued and highly-treasured tree canopy to be destroyed for the establishment of a grid network.

[Cacao]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

Atlanta did not develop on a grid because the city was not necessarily settled and laid-out with the intent that it would one-day become a major city or a city of great importance like many other major U.S. cities.

Atlanta was basically established as the endpoint of a railroad line and just sort of grew from there without any real direction moving forward.

Atlanta also did not develop outwards on a strict grid because with the heavy use of ancient Native American trails along land ridges through the heavily-wooded rolling/hilly terrain by European settlers, no one likely ever thought that there was much of a need for a grid until very-late in the 20th Century when Atlanta's development patterns sprawled far outside of the I-285 Perimeter on an inadequate surface road network.

Atlanta has also been politically-restricted from attempting to establish a grid network of roads after the need for a grid became apparent very-late in the 20th Century because no one in Atlanta's heavily-wooded suburban neighborhoods wanted the area's very highly-valued and highly-treasured tree canopy to be destroyed for the establishment of a grid network.

This makes a bit more sense than that 'it's too hilly for a grid' excuse.

[Cacao]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

Amen, Brother Marks.

Dallas is a great (if not legendary) city and Texas is obviously a great (if not legendary) state. But with you being raised and growing up in the densely-wooded rolling-to-hilly-to-mountainous Eastern woodlands of North Georgia, it's certainly very-understandable that you cannot wait for the day when you are headed back to Georgia and her overwhelmingly green visual exploits.

They can just drive to East Texas and Arkansas for their green fix!

[demonta4]

Some people just don't realise that about 70 years ago, Atlanta was only a few square miles. The original city limits are in a grid. And outlying city centers are in grids (some better than others). In the 80/90s when Atlanta boomed cities started competing for development which created a lot of bad developments ( see mall of georgia ). Lots of subdivisions sprouted without any thought of actually planning, rather than the cash.

[Newsboy]

Originally Posted by Cacao

How do you explain San Francisco?

Sometimes I feel as if I'm the only person in the world who feels that Atlanta's hilliness is a bit overrated. It's certainly an overused excuse for sprawl.

You're comparing apples and oranges -- two completely different geographies and climates.

Atlanta (and North Georgia) doesn't just have hills, it has pronounced ridges often defined by granite outcroppings, and valleys carved by thousands of creeks and streams. Georgia gets a remarkable amount of rainfall year-round, much of it via heavy downpours that can dump several inches at a time. All that water has to go somewhere, and it flows downhill through naturally carved watersheds to eventually reach either the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean -- 300 miles away.

This delicate landscape and the important natural watershed of North Georgia is the main driver of all development decisions in Metro Atlanta. You can't simply plow down hills and flatten ridges to build streets on a grid. You can't divert creeks and streams into concrete culverts and force water into places it wouldn't normally go. There are very strict laws in place here that define how stormwater runoff is to be collected and where it needs to go, as well as regulations on returning water back to its natural watershed.

Again, all of this is because of the high volume of rainfall that the region gets, and the lush landscape that's a result of that rainfall. Places out west simply do not have this to deal with. It's much easier to pave over and build a concrete grid city on land that has very little water resources or vegetation to begin with.

[Cacao]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

You're comparing apples and oranges -- two completely different geographies and climates.

Atlanta (and North Georgia) doesn't just have hills, it has pronounced ridges often defined by granite outcroppings, and valleys carved by thousands of creeks and streams. Georgia gets a remarkable amount of rainfall year-round, much of it via heavy downpours that can dump several inches at a time. All that water has to go somewhere, and it flows downhill through naturally carved watersheds to eventually reach either the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean -- 300 miles away.

This delicate landscape and the important natural watershed of North Georgia is the main driver of all development decisions in Metro Atlanta. You can't simply plow down hills and flatten ridges to build streets on a grid. You can't divert creeks and streams into concrete culverts and force water into places it wouldn't normally go. There are very strict laws in place here that define how stormwater runoff is to be collected and where it needs to go, as well as regulations on returning water back to its natural watershed.

I'm still skeptical about all of this so I'll do my own research on it but I appreciate the response. All I can think about is places like Queen Anne in Seattle, which is incredibly hilly but still gridded. Surely they had their own set of obstacles to deal with.

Could Atlanta have had a grid as solid as Dallas'. Probably not but I think it could've had a grid much more extensive than the one it does.

Again, all of this is because of the high volume of rainfall that the region gets, and the lush landscape that's a result of that rainfall. Places out west simply do not have this to deal with. It's much easier to pave over and build a concrete grid city on land that has very little water resources or vegetation to begin with.

I assume you mean San Francisco.

[Newsboy]

Originally Posted by Cacao

I'm still skeptical about all of this so I'll do my own research on it but I appreciate the response. All I can think about is places like Queen Anne in Seattle, which is incredibly hilly but still gridded. Surely they had their own set of obstacles to deal with.

Could Atlanta have had a grid as solid as Dallas'. Probably not but I think it could've had a grid much more extensive than the one it does.



I assume you mean San Francisco.

I'm talking about the entire western half of the country, including the PNW. Even as green as Seattle is, it still does not have nearly the amount of rainfall or abundance of vegetation as Atlanta. Have you ever been to Georgia? The forest coverage is simply massive -- huge trees that grow in a very dense canopy.

I'm very grateful that Atlanta's early planners did not sacrifice our amazing tree cover just to build a city on a straight concrete grid.

[Cacao]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

I'm talking about the entire western half of the country, including the PNW. Even as green as Seattle is, it still does not have nearly the amount of rainfall or abundance of vegetation as Atlanta. Have you ever been to Georgia? The forest coverage is simply massive -- huge trees that grow in a very dense canopy.

I'm very grateful that Atlanta's early planners did not sacrifice our amazing tree cover just to build a city on a straight concrete grid.

I suppose that amount of greenery is impressive if you happen to prefer it. I don't need all of the trees that Atlanta has and would easily opt for a more urban fabric, while of course preserving as many trees as possible. I don't need to live in a forest when I can just as easily drive to one. The southern forest extends all the way from Virginia to Texas.

Seattle is a prime example of a city with balance. No offense but I doubt that the average person goes there thinking it should be more like Atlanta. The Pacific Northwest has world famous scenery.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by Cacao

They can just drive to East Texas and Arkansas for their green fix!

...It's still just not the same as living in an overwhelmingly heavily-wooded and hilly-to-mountainous area, especially if you've spent all of your life in it then had to (not-so-willingly) move away to a flatter and less-wooded area like Saintmarks had to do.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Cacao

I suppose that amount of greenery is impressive if you happen to prefer it. I don't need all of the trees that Atlanta has and would easily opt for a more urban fabric, while of course preserving as many trees as possible. I don't need to live in a forest when I can just as easily drive to one. The southern forest extends all the way from Virginia to Texas.

Seattle is a prime example of a city with balance. No offense but I doubt that the average person goes there thinking it should be more like Atlanta. The Pacific Northwest has world famous scenery.

Cacao, I certainly respect your preference, but for many folks we find that Atlanta's tree canopy is a beautiful defining feature of the city.