Urban Institute predicts MASSIVE growth for Atlanta through 2030 (Dallas, Buckhead: homes, neighborhoods)

[cwkimbro]

I'm not sure what city you guys grew up in, but many of these characterizations people are trying to give are wrong regarding employment.

Jobs never fled the city for the suburbs and there was never any type of reversal back to the other way. The suburbs grew many jobs as did intown Atlanta as our region doubled in size. So we can drop these city vs the suburbs characterizations.

Originally Posted by cqholt

..... but majority of the job growth is not outside the core anymore.

That is a rather strong assertion. Intown's job growth hasn't been enough that it sustains the whole region's growth by leaps and bounds. If that was true, we're all in trouble. I wouldn't mistake a few high profile projects as being a majority of job growth.

The data shows most employment growth to still be in suburban areas, of course that is also across a much, much larger area. I suspect all areas are growing again and that is a good thing.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by cqholt

No, we can only densify. We cannot keep on building further out, but instead adapt the suburbs and densfiy them were appropriate. Also, encourage more infill along projects like the BeltLine, reduce crime and improve schools in west and SW Atlanta to make those areas desirable.

I hear you. But it will continue to be both. The core will get more popular but the lore of the suburbs will never go away.

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by travbo

I think the new normal or reality for Metro Atlanta is that the city "core" is no longer just Atlanta. I'd argue that the Perimeter area and Alpharetta are themselves city "cores".

I think PC is. Only reason I wouldn't say Alpharetta is just because I don't think there's a definitive area you could point to on a map and say that's where the jobs are. They appear to be much more spread out and less concentrated. For PC, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of activity is in that corner east of 400 and north of 285.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

I think PC is. Only reason I wouldn't say Alpharetta is just because I don't think there's a definitive area you could point to on a map and say that's where the jobs are. They appear to be much more spread out and less concentrated. For PC, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of activity is in that corner east of 400 and north of 285.

Cumberland, Perimeter Center and even Lenox/Buckhead are really "edge cities."

I would consider the "core" to be roughly inside the Beltline.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by workaholics

Mapping America?s Futures

The Urban Institute has released population growth projections for states and metro areas in the US through the year 2030. I frequently comb through pop. projections and high population growth for Atlanta and Georgia is always expected, but these figures are mind boggling. The Urban Institute projects the region to grow by nearly 2.8 million in the next 15 years, beating out every other metro area. Take a look at the link. They also offer demographic projections, and Atlanta is expected to rapidly diversify as well.

Does anybody think these predictions are accurate? They seem incredibly optimistic. And can our region even handle that kind of insane growth?

Seems legit. The majority of the growth in Metro Atlanta's population in the last 30 years has been fueled by groups that have birth rates and low death rates: Asian, Latinos, and African Americans. Assuming no drastic change in our demographic profile, there should be a corresponding baby boom within the next two decades.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by bu2

Cumberland, Perimeter Center and even Lenox/Buckhead are really "edge cities."

I would consider the "core" to be roughly inside the Beltline.

I consider Buckhead a quasi-edge city; it's built as such in some respects but is within the city. PC and Cumberland definitely fit the definition though.

[bhammaster]

We are going to choke because no one wants to invest in mass transit improvements here. The comments on this forum show that.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Seems legit. The majority of the growth in Metro Atlanta's population in the last 30 years has been fueled by groups that have birth rates and low death rates: Asian, Latinos, and African Americans. Assuming no drastic change in our demographic profile, there should be a corresponding baby boom within the next two decades.

I think you're right. We are attracting heavy growth from a young population that have higher birth rates and lower death rates. I noticed how that website showed a dramatic increase in blacks between 2020 and 2030. My assumption is they are anticipating the black migration to Atlanta will continue and the population will maintain higher birthrates. I am a little curious how long that trend will sustain itself as economic conditions and job opportunities for blacks in other regions of the U.S. improve. I don't think all areas of the U.S. are the same in this regard currently, but I suspect there will be a positive trajectory for most over time.

I'm not sure how accurate this site will be or won't be in the long-run.

My first assumption is it is over estimating things a small bit. It is is a bit higher than ARC estimates, but almost after seeing this the ARC announced they are anticipating an upward shift in how much growth they were anticipating, so maybe it really is possible.

One thing I will note is this site is not going by MSA boundaries, which makes it hard to compare.

They aren't saying it will grow by nearly 2.8 million in 15 years, but 20... just 5 of those years already happened

In 2014 census estimates the MSA was at 5.6 million and grew averaging about 82,000/year increase, since 2010.

These were slow growth years, being closer to the aftermath of the recession. At that average rate we can expect 1.6m more over the 20 years period, so the assumption is the growth rate will pick up for an added 1.1m more seems possible.... even if it is a bit over-estimated.

This means we'd need to average 154k in annual growth for the remaining 16 years.

It is possible, but seems a touch overly ambitious. I can see 154k in annual growth here, but not over every year for the next 16.

Of course this is all confusing from the fact that the ARC 10 county area, the MSA, and the boundaries from this website are all different...

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

jsvh - no there really isn't, not with costs and political headwinds of all the various types taken into account. Then we have to account for the realities of where jobs and industries for 2.8 people will go

It is wishful thinking at best.

The problem is existing land that is already developed can only be redeveloped in limited amounts with different costs and that is further hindered by public opinion on both infrastructure and changes to existing neighborhoods. That can't support 2.8 million people in less than 20 years. The added costs to development won't work in many cases either.

Just now reading this and not buying it. Whine all you want, but when times come to figure out how to effectively move people around a densifying metro Atlanta, highways will not be scared cows that will be saved when better transportation options are needed.

A small example of how much land we are already dedicating to transportation in metro Atlanta, one of our freeway interchanges takes up as much space as a city of 360k: Florence Italy vs. Atlanta

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Just now reading this and not buying it. Whine all you want, but when times come to figure out how to effectively move people around a densifying metro Atlanta, highways will not be scared cows that will be saved when better transportation options are needed.

A small example of how much land we are already dedicating to transportation in metro Atlanta, one of our freeway interchanges takes up as much space as a city of 360k: Florence Italy vs. Atlanta

First, spare me the story about whining. If you can't handle a disagreement or a debate, that is on you. No reason to act like a kid in grade school pretending like one of us is simply whining, because you disagree.

You can not buy it all you want, but that is what is already happening, whether you like it or not. We are already 5 years into that 20 and you'd have to be blind to not see how much the urban area is still growing.

Now if you want to talk about widespread neighborhood destruction, building a real urban arterial and collector street network and get off your high horse about being anti-road as you are, then yes we could probably move in the direction of Atlanta being a far denser place in a more North American style given the cost realities of modern building contruction.

At the moment, with your collective concepts of urban planning on this forum and the intown political headwinds... you're adding a few hundred thousand on infill properties, while pushing out industrial activities outside the core (which still leads to outward expansion of the urban area, btw!)

Even with changes in modern urban design it is a pipe dream to believe we'd build anything like an extremely old European city that literally had many hundreds of years to build itself in a different economic and social reality. It was built an older era with a different economic reality and that goes completely against the political headwinds I have discussed as we don't have that road network and we would literally have to clearcut existing neighborhoods to make that happen and you'd be fighting a big battle to find an affordable way to build something like that and convince enough people to buy-in.

Even then, it is completely missing how many streets ARE in Florence in the small area and are not present in the Cumberland area or even many parts of our intown areas. You can complain about how wide the freeways or the arterial roads get here, but only a tiny fraction of the amount of roads (and by extension lane miles) actually exist compared to these denser cities.


So while we will find ways to add density.... If you think we are growing by 2.8 million people in just 20 years only using a more expensive density-only strategy ... you're dreaming. Not to mention the outright hypocrisy from in-towners sitting on large lots fighting for neighborhood preservation over large swaths of land, while disillusionally believing 2.8m fill in the cracks in developments that often come with higher costs..

It ain't going to happen... not by that amount. There are too many NIMBYs throughout our whole region and it isn't just an ITP, OTP, Core, urban, or suburban philosophy in this region.