City Annexations 2016 version (Atlanta, Tucker, Evans: neighborhood, schools, university)

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by arjay57

However, isn't that percentage due to the city's low density, rather than the lack of area?

Many major cities have about the same (or far less) area but significantly higher populations. Look at little old Seattle -- they've got over 600,000 in only 84 square miles of land. Minneapolis has 400,000 in 59 square miles. Sacramento's got the same population we do in only 100 square miles.

I'd personally like to see Atlanta bulk up what it's got and make itself shine in all respects before spreading itself even thinner.

But Atlanta annexations could actually increase Atlanta's density, if the areas annexed are greater than the current average density of the city. Which I'm sure would be the case at least with the Emory area. Tons of apartments around there.

[arjay57]

That could be, primaltech. I just hope the city proceeds cautiously and doesn't get caught up in annexing for the sake of annexing. We've got lots of land area as it is.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I just did a quick google search on Lithonia. I remember a very sizeable annexation was being proposed that would overlap much of the proposed city of Stonehaven... or Stonebriar... or whatever the name of that mall is lol. If passed, would take Lithonia from a tiny burg less than 2k to a sizeable city over 30k.

I went to the Lithonia website just now, found a drop down specifically labelled ANNEXATION but when you click on it, get a notification that the file no longer exists or has been moved.

So I take it that this one is now dead, correct? You have any local word on that? What about other sizeable annexations by other cities, notably Stone Mountain and Clarkston? I remember another proposal someone posted here for a sizeable Stone Mountain annexation, but a good chunk or that is now in the new Tucker boundaries.

My guess is if Greenhaven gets any steam, the state would allow a time for the existing cities to explore annexation opportunities before they are forever landlocked. Similar thing happened with South Fulton and Union City, Fairburn, East Point, et al went on an annexation spree... specifically Union City.

I think someone on here explained it. The mayor of Lithonia liked the idea, but nobody else did. So it is no longer a consideration.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

But Atlanta annexations could actually increase Atlanta's density, if the areas annexed are greater than the current average density of the city. Which I'm sure would be the case at least with the Emory area. Tons of apartments around there.

I agree with arajay, the needs does not increase it's population thru annexing large areas of SFH and low density; Emory and a few other areas make sense. Instead it should focus on developing the areas it has and increasing the amount of residents inside it's existing limits.

[Saintmarks]

Atlanta is in the cross between an older established eastern city and a sprawling sunbelt city. It does not have the geographical restraints of San Francisco (water on three sides) or mountain ranges or swamps or lakes or ocean front on any side. For better or worse, land is cheap and Atlanta as a region has sprawled. Too much cheap land in all directions, no constraints, majority of development in the post war automobile driven style.


So, maintaining a small footprint like an established dense east coast city while it is really a newer sunbelt style of city has resulted in this low percentage of overall metro population. Its low density can in part be contributed to much of the city being Buckhead, arguably one of the least dense areas in the whole area. And I for one don't want its estate homes leveled for density's sake.

One must consider that vast swaths of NW and SE Atlanta are large industrial tracks/train yards that are developed and urban but are not residential. So density numbers can get skewed there as well. I realize revitalization of some of these areas will help the density and overall population figures, but such a transformation is a long term thing if it does gain some traction.


Our unique position with our tiny counties has hemmed in what naturally should be part of the CoA. As another poster mentioned, some very dense areas are what are on the table. The odd narrow shape of Fulton that was sliced of DeKalb has hemmed Atlanta's borders. In any other major city, the county is more than, what 8 miles across? Meaning in just about any other state, if Atlanta were lifted up as is and plopped down in a normally shaped county, most of all of the ITP area would most likely be in the city limits.


San Francisco and Minneapolis are outliers for the most part, and also two of the other metro areas where the core city is a low percentage of the overall metro area. Atlanta needs a bigger footprint AND a denser core. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[primaltech]

The metro has 5+ million residents vs. the actual city's less than .5, but the city has probably half of the metro's office space or more. So, in a sense, Atlanta is like a commuter town. Meaning the population stat a bit misleading, because it probably almost doubles during the week.

Obviously we know that most of the immediate residential suburbs around Atlanta are probably never going to be annexed into the city, for county or political reasons (like the Cobb areas of unincorporated Atlanta address) or because they would rather form their own local municipalities. But there are some key available unincorporated opportunities that I don't think they should pass up if they can possibly annex, like the Druid Hills/ Emory area. As well as border neighborhoods where the residents want to be in the city, like the rest of East Lake.

After that though, I agree with Arjay, the city is certainly geographically large enough. Just needs to continue to build up.

SFH quiet neighborhoods can be spared (unless they're run-down and terrible), but the rest of the city's land should be up for grabs, to develop and re-develop. Atlanta's density will get there. Build dense buildings on all the surface parking lots and various unused plots and undeveloped city land.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by primaltech

The metro has 5+ million residents vs. the actual city's less than .5, but the city has probably half of the metro's office space or more. So, in a sense, Atlanta is like a commuter town. Meaning the population stat a bit misleading, because it probably almost doubles during the week.

Obviously we know that most of the immediate residential suburbs around Atlanta are probably never going to be annexed into the city, for county or political reasons (like the Cobb areas of unincorporated Atlanta address) or because they would rather form their own local municipalities. But there are some key available unincorporated opportunities that I don't think they should pass up if they can possibly annex, like the Druid Hills/ Emory area. As well as border neighborhoods where the residents want to be in the city, like the rest of East Lake.

After that though, I agree with Arjay, the city is certainly geographically large enough. Just needs to continue to build up.

SFH quiet neighborhoods can be spared (unless they're run-down and terrible), but the rest of the city's land should be up for grabs, to develop and re-develop. Atlanta's density will get there. Build dense buildings on all the surface parking lots and various unused plots and undeveloped city land.

We could easily spend another 50-100 years building and adding large numbers of new residents within our existing city limits. Remember, we are still far below our population in 1970.

As to where the density is (and is not), I agree that some of the "estate" sections of northwest Buckhead are very low density. However, so are the estately sections in the southwest, such as the areas around Cascade.

On the other hand, the more urbanized areas of central Buckhead are as dense (or more so) than most of the neighborhoods on the east side. In addition, there are large swaths on the south and west sides of town that are very low density.

[skbl17]

Originally Posted by bu2

Pro city parts of La Vista Hills to Chamblee?
LaVista Hills supporters seek annexation into Chamblee - Decaturish

The map has been released. It's basically all of what would have been Lavista Hills minus the areas south of Lavista and Briarlake Roads.

- skbl17

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by skbl17

The map has been released. It's basically all of what would have been Lavista Hills minus the areas south of Lavista and Briarlake Roads.

- skbl17

I'm fine with the Shallowford Rd, and the Mercer U areas going to Chamblee, but the outside of 285 areas should go to either Doraville or Tucker.

Also, the Northlake area should go to Tucker.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I'm fine with the Shallowford Rd, and the Mercer U areas going to Chamblee, but the outside of 285 areas should go to either Doraville or Tucker.

Also, the Northlake area should go to Tucker.

Exactly this.