Are areas in Atlanta "Filling in" and becoming more dense?

[magnetar]

Yep, dense development adds car traffic.

So does sprawling development.

That's kind of the point. If you add 10,000 people to an area a few blocks wide or an area a few miles wide, you're still adding traffic somewhere. The sprawling development will still put just as many -- if not more -- cars onto the roads. And speaking broadly, those roads aren't built to handle the extra traffic. The expectation is that as neighborhoods served by transit grow, a larger percentage of the population will rely on transit to get around. But in the vast majority of the suburbs that's simply not an option.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by ElleKaye

The bold is exactly what I'm saying.** I was not saying that density in itself is a problem, but it's not a solution either.* Density did not magically make other viable options appear, and that's what should have been and still needs to be addressed.

I meant real density, not forests turning into sprawl. Even if there's no transit, putting the things people need close to where they live makes walking and biking possible. You can't walk to a grocery store if it's five miles away. Five blocks, on the other hand...

[ElleKaye]

Originally Posted by erick295

I meant real density, not forests turning into sprawl. Even if there's no transit, putting the things people need close to where they live makes walking and biking possible. You can't walk to a grocery store if it's five miles away. Five blocks, on the other hand...

OK, I agree with you about distance to creature comforts.

Maybe I have missed the point with discussions about density because it seemed to me the whole focus was on high rises and packing a lot of people into one place regardless of the creature comforts.

I have nothing against high rises (actually like them) or what I call density as such exists in Cobb Co, but putting thins people need close where they live in a manner that makes walking, biking, or not getting hit by a car while you risk it are options that are few and far between.

[netdragon]

To summarize: As I've said before, density doesn't relieve congestion. It adds congestion. What density tends to do is give people alternate modes as an option. So long as it isn't density of the type urban planners were envisioning in the 50s with residential highrise surrounded by parkways with big spaces in-between, requiring cars to go everywhere.

They were so clueless back then and we've been spending the last decades undoing all the damage they've caused with that brand of futurism.












I'm adding in this one because it's kinda funny, but it doesn't exactly match tall buildings with big spaces with parkways in between, but it does have the big buildings and it was someone's vision of NYC in 1999 :-)

[erick295]

Smug alert.

In terms of environmental damage, cars are the worst thing we ever invented outside of farming. I wish I could believe people would wake up someday and see what their desperate me-me-me desire to separate themselves from their neighbors and have 1000 sq ft for every family member is doing to the home we all share whether we like it or not, but I'm not that optimistic.

At least the novelty has worn off for many so it won't continue to spread like it has, and electric cars will minimize the pollution even if they don't fix the catastrophic land use. It's hard to believe how shortsighted and selfish people are sometimes, though. You can have a modest house with a modest yard in a small village and still be able to walk around if it's planned right, but nooo... as soon as people found a way to separate themselves from each other, they couldn't do it fast enough, and started taking as much land for themselves as they could.

End smug.