Urban Sprawls Poster Childs Grows Up (Atlanta, Roswell: neighborhood, quality of life, live)

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Ya know, arjay, it is because lots of people would rather complain and ridicule than be positive and complimentary. Somehow, pointing out faults makes some folks feel better about themselves... Go figure.

Except the article IS positive and complimentary.

Atlanta's primary growth mode used to be sprawl and now it's urbanizing and experiencing infill in an impressive way. I don't see how pointing out Atlanta's sprawl and then contrasting that with what's currently happening is an attempt to "make folks feel better about themselves."

I'm really perplexed by the hypersensitivity on this thread.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

The point of the article is to be complimentary of Atlanta which is somehow lost in the rush to deny reality.

If they wanted to be complimentary of Atlanta, why did they title the article "Urban Sprawls' Poster Child Grows Up?"

Why not simply title it something like "Atlanta Continues to Improve"?

[atler8]

Originally Posted by arjay57

If they wanted to be complimentary of Atlanta, why did they title the article "Urban Sprawls' Poster Child Grows Up?"

Why not simply title it something like "Atlanta Continues to Improve"?

The answer is because it is an incendiary type of headline that attracts looks at the rest of the content.
"Atlanta continues to improve" is not sexy enough.
It's similar to how our local & national news media operate in offering their news broadcasts & how many segments of the print media catch our eye.
Unfortunately, the resulting products are often insipid.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by arjay57

If they wanted to be complimentary of Atlanta, why did they title the article "Urban Sprawls' Poster Child Grows Up?"

Why not simply title it something like "Atlanta Continues to Improve"?

Again, read the article; there's a big contrast being made between past attitudes regarding growth and development--on both local and state levels--which is why it's titled the way it is.

You're up in arms about the whole "poster child" thing but I've not seen as many other articles about other Sunbelt sprawlers (save Los Angeles) that have highlighted the significant strides they are making in urban infill and development.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Except the article IS positive and complimentary.

Atlanta's primary growth mode used to be sprawl and now it's urbanizing and experiencing infill in an impressive way. I don't see how pointing out Atlanta's sprawl and then contrasting that with what's currently happening is an attempt to "make folks feel better about themselves."

I'm really perplexed by the hypersensitivity on this thread.

My post was in response to arjay, not the article.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

My post was in response to arjay, not the article.

Ok, it was a little hard for me to tell.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

You're up in arms about the whole "poster child" thing but I've not seen as many other articles about other Sunbelt sprawlers (save Los Angeles) that have highlighted the significant strides they are making in urban infill and development.

Google the terms "atlanta poster child sprawl" and you'll get tens of thousands of hits.

If this guy did not want to perpetuate that, then why did he choose the same old hackneyed title? Would it be that hard to come up with something more accurate and descriptive?

It's a bad rap that our town doesn't deserve any more than any other city.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

How? Both cities have better road networks than Atlanta and arguably, better transit systems overall. Also both are expanding their rail networks while Atlanta hasn't done so in a decade and a half. And it's worth noting that both LA and Houston are in states that aren't nearly as hostile to urban interests as Atlanta.

I think Atlanta being at the forefront of the consequences of sprawl is about right, but as the article notes, it's also at the forefront of infill and urban development among Sunbelt cities.

That's almost completely wrong, honestly.

Houston's transit is not great. It's a fairly simple streetcar system, that while expanding, isn't that useful to get across the city by any means. MARTA covers a much greater part of the city. Houston traffic is also a bigger part of life, soooo many bottlenecks. A Beltway that is 83 miles long with an OUTER beltway being built that 170 miles long. 285 - 64 miles. 170 mile loop highway sounds very poster childish to me.

LA has been expanding transit, but talk about a city that has spread out from it's urban center (that's sprawl!). The road network, highways everywhere, a major consequence of sprawl. If LA had the same population, but wasn't sprawled out so much, those highways would not be necessary. And the commute times...

LA ranks as having worst congestion (per 2015 GPS telemetry data via TomToms), while the "poster child" sits at number 15.

It is completely lazy and inaccurate to label Atlanta as the poster child of sprawl. Time to correct this misconception.


TomTom Traffic Index

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by arjay57

If they wanted to be complimentary of Atlanta, why did they title the article "Urban Sprawls' Poster Child Grows Up?"

Why not simply title it something like "Atlanta Continues to Improve"?

Exactly. This is what gets on my nerves, always a dig.

Per the facts, the constant digs are inaccurate as well. People don't seem to understand that density is not the same as sprawl. Pointing to density numbers is not a complete measure of what sprawl is and we, by far, do not have the worst consequences from it.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

...

I'm honestly surprised you're upset about this when you're always taking pride in Atlanta's "elbow room."

I'm honestly surprised that you fell for arjay's contrarian/willful ignorance/derailing tactics.