Atlanta to be 6th largest metro by 2042 (Columbus, LaGrange: taxes, to live in)

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I remember a plan proposed by Cherokee County back in the 90s to give the county a master plan to keep large tracts rural. Several major crossroads and some of the existing towns were slated for dense development. Taxes would go to help farmers keep their land in agriculture. It was patterned after some areas in New England to keep the place from becoming wall to wall sprawl.

It didn't pass.

I wish this type of development would pan out. I would rather see exurban cities like LaGrange, Carrollton, Griffin, Cartersville, Cedartown, Covington, Gainesville etc, etc, really fill out and boom with much denser growth and leave areas in between more rural. Each of those cities being 50k to 100k and then actually having some undeveloped space between them would be so much more pleasing.

I lived in greater London for two years. This is more the mindset for developmental patterns in the southeast of England. Wish we had more of that mindset.

i totally agree, but try telling rural georgians that they don't have the "freedom" to develop a strip mall on their land— not that they ever would, of course. people sometimes can't see the forest for all the trees in the way.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by aries4118

http://documents.atlantaregional.com...opted11x17.pdf

that doesn't actually have any legal teeth to it, though. i don't think that plan actually stops anyone from developing in the rural areas on the map, does it?

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

that doesn't actually have any legal teeth to it, though. i don't think that plan actually stops anyone from developing in the rural areas on the map, does it?

The link was not for showing some kind of legal "plan."


The purpose is to show the various states/stages of development in the metro.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by aries4118

The link was not for showing some kind of legal "plan."


The purpose is to show the various states/stages of development in the metro.

do you know if the ARC has proposed any sort of green boundary around existing developed areas?

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

do you know if the ARC has proposed any sort of green boundary around existing developed areas?

I'm not sure. cwkimbro would be able to offer some information about this. I hope he chimes in.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

keep in mind that this projection was done in 2012, when texas was thriving and atlanta was still in recession. i don't think dallas and houston will be that much larger than atlanta in 2042. hell, they might be smaller, considering both cities get a big boost from oil, which definitely won't be such a big industry in 2042.

Houston maybe Dallas NO. Dallas economy is not as oil based as Houston. Dallas actually is like Atlanta here in that they have a very diverse economy. Big on Telecommunications, IT, manufacturing, medical, etc. Houston though is not as Oil based as it once was. The Energy industry is diverse itself. Even if oil is not as used in 2042, if it's something to do with energy, Houston will be involved. Houston and DFW could slow down but Oil I don't think will be the main reason especially for DFW. What could hurt these two that Atlanta has a huge lead on them is retaining talent by being a great education center. Having GA Tech and Emory alone is a boost for Atlanta that Houston and especially DFW do not have an answer for. Though Rice is up there with GA Tech and Emory.

[Clayton white guy]

Fayette County has large minimum lot size in their unincorporated areas. The City of Chattahoochee Hills in South Fulton does, too.

[netdragon]

I don't think you can pass a law that says "No development". Connecticut did a greenbelt between Hartford's 2nd ring and 4th ring suburbs by mainly buying up land in the 3rd ring suburbs in patterns that prevent large subdivisions. However, that costly was the only way they could stop development. Much like is probably the case in metro Atlanta, you can't just say "No development"

It DID work to prevent sprawl in Hartford, which was almost as bad as Atlanta's. It also resulted in the near doubling of home values inside the greenbelt, and urban renewal.

However, it was very expensive and resulted in one governor getting voted out largely due to the spending involved.

Also, since Hartford runs into metro NYC (CMSA), the greenbelt had to only go about half the way around the Hartford metro, not the full way, and it was closer in to begin with since metro Hartford is denser. The greenbelt for Hartford was approx on the edge of Roswell in length out. That obviously would barely scratch the surface for the North metro.

The greenbelt around Atlanta would be ridiculously long and ridiculously expensive.

They could start in a few areas but it'd be a game of whack-a-mole as developers just find a new way to slip through, or they'd just jump the greenbelt and build mega golf communities on the other side.

[AnsleyPark]

Andrew Zimmern on a Travel Channel episode last night about Soul Food in Atlanta (it was a fun show!), said that Metro Atlanta had a population of 9 million... Where do you guys think that the Travel Channel came up with that number???

[afdinatl]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Andrew Zimmern on a Travel Channel episode last night about Soul Food in Atlanta (it was a fun show!), said that Metro Atlanta had a population of 9 million... Where do you guys think that the Travel Channel came up with that number???

All the overweight people count as 2 people