While US sprawl generally peaked around 1994, Atlanta kept spreading out (Decatur: cul-de-sac, 2013)

[jsvh]

While US sprawl generally peaked around 1994,...

“A century of sprawl in the United States” is the title of a new study on urban sprawl from a professor at McGill University in Montreal.

It measures the sprawling urban developments of 20th-century America, noting the way that this sprawl “exacerbates climate change, energy and material consumption, and public health challenges.”

The measurement was done by way of analyzing the growth of street networks. “The urban street network is one of the most permanent features of cities. Once laid down, the pattern of streets determines urban form and the level of sprawl for decades to come.”

Measuring street network growth from 1920 to 2012, the researchers found that when sprawl is defined strictly by street connectivity (regardless of density, architecture and other features of urban environment), it turns out that this growth pattern actually started before the ubiquity of car ownership. It then continued steadily until the mid-1990s, when it peaked nationally around 1994.

Where Atlanta fits in to the story: a sprawling over-achiever

But when it comes to the Atlanta region, that mid-1990s peak doesn’t apply. A reporter with Atlanta’s WSB got a fascinating quote from from Christopher Barrington-Leigh, co-author of the study. He says: “According to our data, Atlanta not only has a lot of catching up to do but has been slow to turn that corner.”

Take a look at this image from the report, below. It shows Atlanta’s street connectivity pattern as compared to that of Austin, TX.



Those blue areas have streets with better connections, while the red areas are sprawl hell. The Atlanta region, in this regard, is fairly hellish, with it’s outer areas marred by a lack of street connections (think cul-de-sacs, subdivisions, and long stretches of arterial roads with no intersections). This is a “hard to densify” area because, with low connectivity for streets, how can you build places that accommodate pedestrian-focused compact development? This is a pattern made for cars.

The study documents include a ranking of the 50 largest US metropolitan areas that grew in the most sprawling manner from 1991-2013. Here are the top three sprawlers from that list:

1.) Greenville, SC

2.) Greensboro, NC

3.) Atlanta, GA

These are the regions that expanded with the lowest amount of road connectivity. Transportation within that growth style is tailor made for long, winding car trips, while leaving safe and convenient pedestrian connections out of the picture.

Where did we go wrong while others did right?

So what did Atlanta (and these other sunbelt metros) do wrong during this period that many US cities did right when it comes to curbing sprawl? Why did most US metros start to grow in a more connected way during the 1990s (give or take) while Atlanta continued to boom in the car-centric pattern? It’s all about leadership.

As the report says: “Local government policies impact sprawl, as the largest increases in connectivity [meaning the opposite of sprawl] have occurred in places with policies to promote gridded streets and similar New Urbanist design principles.”

That’s what we need. Let’s get some of that.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by jsvh

While US sprawl generally peaked around 1994,...

Well, well, well...

I bet the "elbow room", i.e. "urban space waste" crew would still refute this...

Thank you for this article, jsvh.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jero23

Well, well, well...

I bet the "elbow room", i.e. "urban space waste" crew would still refute this...

Thank you for this article, jsvh.

Elbow room has nothing to do with the mess that is the street grid in places like DeKalb County.

[bu2]

And frankly, Atlanta's grid is pretty poor for the car as well. At least for a metro of our size. Might work well for a metro of a million or so.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by bu2

Elbow room has nothing to do with the mess that is the street grid in places like DeKalb County.

Actually, it is. The development patterns could have been amended nearly 2 decades ago in Dekalb County, but the leadership continued to favor suburban-type of developments over urban infill. Decatur is the only area inside of I-285 where connectivity is there, but it is only a small part of Dekalb County in general.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jero23

Well, well, well...

I bet the "elbow room", i.e. "urban space waste" crew would still refute this...

Thank you for this article, jsvh.

Wouldn't refute it at all. But, I'm not sure what the "so what" is here. Yes, there's lots of sprawl.

I like it. Traffic is no worse out here in hell than it is in the city.

[jero23]

There are some people whom will cheer on more sprawl here (and they know who they are), but will diverge the topic and openly criticize any effort to do any redevelopment or urban infill development inside of I-285.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by jero23

There are some people whom will cheer on more sprawl here (and they know who they are), but will diverge the topic and openly criticize any effort to do any redevelopment or urban infill development inside of I-285.

And you know this how? I don't recall anyone here being anti-infill ITP.

Seems as if you are spoiling for a fight with a non-existent straw man.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by JMatl

And you know this how? I don't recall anyone here being anti-infill ITP.

Seems as if you are spoiling for a fight with a non-existent straw man.

[arjay57]

Those blue areas have streets with better connections, while the red areas are sprawl hell. The Atlanta region, in this regard, is fairly hellish, with it’s outer areas marred by a lack of street connections (think cul-de-sacs, subdivisions, and long stretches of arterial roads with no intersections). This is a “hard to densify” area because, with low connectivity for streets, how can you build places that accommodate pedestrian-focused compact development? This is a pattern made for cars.

This seems written with the preconceived notion that "sprawl" -- i.e., relatively low density residential suburbs -- is "hellish" and "hard to densify."

However, that's where around 90% of Atlantans choose to live. Many of them like it just fine. It's entirely possible (and indeed likely) that they don't want to increase density in their area.

What you have is a difference in philosophies and desires. For some, living in a highrise apartment on a crowded city street is nirvana. For others, that holds little attraction.

Unfortunately "sprawl" has become a negative buzzword that essentially condemns an entire lifestyle. That's polarizing, especially since it's the form that millions prefer. It also makes it harder to find common ground.