Top 10 walkable, or #1 sprawl? (Atlanta, Dallas: apartment, condo, how much)

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The problem though is the single family homes that separates these urban corridors and Atlanta has no plans to tear them down for apartment so until then, Atlanta as a whole will never be urban and won't be in the top 10. It's certainly not more urban then any of those cities I mentioned above, even Baltimore and Seattle.

Thank God! These areas are what make Atlanta special and more popular than most of the cities you listed as "more walkable".

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The problem though is the single family homes that separates these urban corridors and Atlanta has no plans to tear them down for apartment so until then, Atlanta as a whole will never be urban and won't be in the top 10. It's certainly not more urban then any of those cities I mentioned above, even Baltimore and Seattle.

The historic, streetcar suburb neighborhoods are something that make Atlanta unique. I never want to see them torn down for brownstones or apartments. There is plenty of underused land close to the core that can be redeveloped into dense, multifamily developments.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by cqholt

The historic, streetcar suburb neighborhoods are something that make Atlanta unique. I never want to see them torn down for brownstones or apartments. There is plenty of underused land close to the core that can be redeveloped into dense, multifamily developments.

It wouldn't be Atlanta without those historic neighborhoods...and many of them are quite walkable themselves. Single-family areas are not automatically unwallkable.

[steveklein]

Honestly, I would say neither. It definitely isn't #1 sprawl. Houston, Dallas, and my god, Los Angeles are worse. I'd even say Phoenix is worse. Maybe Birmingham too (though it is way, way, way smaller, it is super spread out and the population density is super low).

And though parts of Atlanta are very walkable, the vast majority of the metro area's residents have terrible walkability scores. There is no comparison when you look at Atlanta vs. New York. Now that I think about it, it might be in the top 10 in walkability, but towards the bottom.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

Thank God! These areas are what make Atlanta special and more popular than most of the cities you listed as "more walkable".

Agreed. Now I think some of the single-family homes in the commercial core of Midtown can be replaced with higher density residential development, but I'd never want to see that happen in Va-Hi, Old Fourth Ward, Grant Park, Inman Park, etc.

Originally Posted by steveklein

Honestly, I would say neither. It definitely isn't #1 sprawl. Houston, Dallas, and my god, Los Angeles are worse. I'd even say Phoenix is worse. Maybe Birmingham too (though it is way, way, way smaller, it is super spread out and the population density is super low).

Actually I think Atlanta's sprawl is worse than all of those cities minus Birmingham because it's lower density and more irregular. Geography makes for denser sprawl in Houston, LA, and Phoenix in particular.

[Psykomonkee]

Didn't vote. I think Atlanta is neither

[bu2]

Originally Posted by netdragon

I think people are confused. Metro Atlanta is in the top-10 most walkable, and it's also #1 for sprawl. I guess it depends on who does the study and what their agenda is.

Time for you to weigh in.

I don't know the agenda of the author of that opinion piece. But Atlanta is nothing like Portland or Minneapolis who were, like Atlanta, in the bottom part of the top 10. Haven't been to Cleveland or Pittsburg so can't comment on them.

The only thing I can figure is that he is counting various little pockets like Downtown Decatur, Oakhurst and parts of Midtown.
Or, that he has an agenda and is trying to promote walkable development in certain places by commenting on the things they have done.

IMO, Atlanta is one of the least walkable major cities. There are spotty sidewalks, sidewalks that are inches from the traffic lanes, few pedestsrian trails (until you get to the Chattahoochee), very busy streets with long lights that are hard to cross, a limited grid that limits your routes, long blocks, and development patterns that create vast stretches between retail destinations.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by bu2

I don't know the agenda of the author of that opinion piece. But Atlanta is nothing like Portland or Minneapolis who were, like Atlanta, in the bottom part of the top 10. Haven't been to Cleveland or Pittsburg so can't comment on them.

The only thing I can figure is that he is counting various little pockets like Downtown Decatur, Oakhurst and parts of Midtown.
Or, that he has an agenda and is trying to promote walkable development in certain places by commenting on the things they have done.

IMO, Atlanta is one of the least walkable major cities. There are spotty sidewalks, sidewalks that are inches from the traffic lanes, few pedestsrian trails (until you get to the Chattahoochee), very busy streets with long lights that are hard to cross, a limited grid that limits your routes, long blocks, and development patterns that create vast stretches between retail destinations.

Shocking.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Agreed. Now I think some of the single-family homes in the commercial core of Midtown can be replaced with higher density residential development, but I'd never want to see that happen in Va-Hi, Old Fourth Ward, Grant Park, Inman Park, etc.



Actually I think Atlanta's sprawl is worse than all of those cities minus Birmingham because it's lower density and more irregular. Geography makes for denser sprawl in Houston, LA, and Phoenix in particular.

Replace Ansley Park and Historic Midtown? Absolutely not. There is plenty of room for high-density development without taking away from the historic character of the area. Why in the world would you want to see these 19th and early 20th century homes destroyed but not similar ones in the other areas? That doesn't make any sense. They are an important part of the fabric of Atlanta and there is ample room for both.

I highly doubt you will find much support for such a thing.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

could it be both? atlanta has a really strong urban core, in fact, multiple strong urban cores, but also arguably has the worst sprawl in the country.

this is what makes atlanta so unique is that there isn't a whole lot of in-between. you go straight from high and mid rises to spread out suburban development, nearly everywhere in the metro. you don't have the consistency of other cities like los angeles, dallas, or houston, that have miles and miles of tightly packed houses and small apartment complexes.

part of that, of course, is bad, but i think having that dichotomy in development keeps atlanta's tree canopy intact, when if we had miles and miles of 'dense sprawl' (which is not really all that walkable anyway), atlanta wouldn't have nearly the amount of forested areas it does. it keeps the urban areas close to nature.

i think the ideal would be to build up our primary urban core and buckhead, establish other walkable urban cores (perimeter, cumberland, alpharetta, marietta, etc.), connect them all by transit, and all the areas in between concentrate on keeping the tree canopy intact.

that way you can choose to live in the city or the suburbs, and either way, you're not far from the other.

^^^^
This.

Overall excellent post (the bolded parts).