Residential growth in city rivals suburbs

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by BR Valentine

I think you're smarter than this. Are building permits the only or most important component of population change?

They are not the only, but they are a key indicator of population growth.

For example, CoA has still had some amount of building permits over the past decades (but was still being crushed by suburbs) however CoA was still flat or losing population. But I would say the South and West sides of CoA are about bottomed out. There are a lot of vacant structures so I am not sure they can lose much more and they are starting to see new people move back in. Also APS is starting to turn the corner and many families are now staying in CoA to have children which will inflate that household number.

Now in the suburbs a lot of the mc mansions built in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s are getting pretty old in the next couple decades and will need some significant reinvestment to keep the areas desirable otherwise they will face decline and vacancy.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

And traffic signals, and bike lanes, and lane markings, and more street-level retail, and loosening parking requirements, and on and on and on.

Point is, there's a lot we can do to squeeze more density into our core and city at large without suffocating much more than we are now. Listening to Tim Keane, though, makes me think we're headed in the right direction to do just a bit of it all.

100% of new residents are not going to use mass transit. The existing road structure barely supports the current population of residents and workers to the north and east. The connector south is pretty awful as well.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

100% of new residents are not going to use mass transit. The existing road structure barely supports the current population of residents and workers to the north and east. The connector south is pretty awful as well.

And yet we can increase the percentage of those who can and will by improving their connectivity options.

If a person no longer has to drive to an area of the city poorly served by transit, but can instead walk a block down the street to a grocer, then there's one trip saved.

If a person can get to a friend's house via streetcar or frequent bus, well then there's another trip saved.

If a people can get to their work on a train that undercuts traffic, well then there're a few more.


I don't understand this mentality of not wanting to increase density in the core of the city for the sake of traffic. Maybe, just maybe, if traffic is so bad, then people will find ways or fund ways around it. Maybe they will decide to live closer to their work, or at least closer to a transit line that can take them there.

I am offering ways to mitigate the impact such growth will have, and see such growth here in the urban core, where we might just be able to design most efficiently for it, far better than trying to spread the growth so far around that there's no cost effective way to manage it.

We have tried the decentralized thing for a while, and traffic is already bad. Why don't we try density, and take a page out of every other major city's handbook in how to manage it. Repair the grid, encourage live/work/play all in walking/transit distance, encourage street-level retail, remove or limit free and subsidized parking, improve regional transit, et. al.

"Traffic will get worse" is not an excuse to not grow when we've barely touched on what can be done to make it better.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

And yet we can increase the percentage of those who can and will by improving their connectivity options.

If a person no longer has to drive to an area of the city poorly served by transit, but can instead walk a block down the street to a grocer, then there's one trip saved.

If a person can get to a friend's house via streetcar or frequent bus, well then there's another trip saved.

If a people can get to their work on a train that undercuts traffic, well then there're a few more.


I don't understand this mentality of not wanting to increase density in the core of the city for the sake of traffic. Maybe, just maybe, if traffic is so bad, then people will find ways or fund ways around it. Maybe they will decide to live closer to their work, or at least closer to a transit line that can take them there.

I am offering ways to mitigate the impact such growth will have, and see such growth here in the urban core, where we might just be able to design most efficiently for it, far better than trying to spread the growth so far around that there's no cost effective way to manage it.

We have tried the decentralized thing for a while, and traffic is already bad. Why don't we try density, and take a page out of every other major city's handbook in how to manage it. Repair the grid, encourage live/work/play all in walking/transit distance, encourage street-level retail, remove or limit free and subsidized parking, improve regional transit, et. al.

"Traffic will get worse" is not an excuse to not grow when we've barely touched on what can be done to make it better.

There isn't much of a grid. That's the problem. And there are a lot of steps to take lanes out of a limited grid, even for the 700 bike commuters in the area.

Atlanta seems to be planning stupid growth, not smart growth. There are places that can support more density like downtown. There could be improved infrastructure on the west side that would allow for a lot of growth out there. But you can't just keep pouring people into the eastside without strangling it. There is nothing short of leveling a bunch of SFH neighborhoods that can turn much of the eastside and Buckhead into a transit dependent city like New York. Parts of the city of Atlanta and most of the area ITP will remain dependent on cars. Lot size, block size and street grid just don't support it.

[BR Valentine]

Originally Posted by jsvh

They are not the only, but they are a key indicator of population growth.

For example, CoA has still had some amount of building permits over the past decades (but was still being crushed by suburbs) however CoA was still flat or losing population. But I would say the South and West sides of CoA are about bottomed out. There are a lot of vacant structures so I am not sure they can lose much more and they are starting to see new people move back in. Also APS is starting to turn the corner and many families are now staying in CoA to have children which will inflate that household number.

Now in the suburbs a lot of the mc mansions built in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s are getting pretty old in the next couple decades and will need some significant reinvestment to keep the areas desirable otherwise they will face decline and vacancy.

Over the past decade APS enrollment has increased by about 1,500 students while public school enrollment has increased by about 115,000 students OTP. Gwinnett's enrollment grew by 32k students during that period. White enrollment in APS is growing, but the number of families with school age children in CoA is little changed overall. There's a national niche trend of city living among white families which CoA is experiencing too, but families are still overwhelmingly choosing the suburbs.

I'd gladly redirect a good portion of Forsyth's growth to the city if I could. Having enrollment grow by 2k/year means constantly having overcrowded schools.

[jsvh]

BR - Glad we agree that growth will be better suited for the city.

bu2 - Most major international cities are not on a grid. Getting CoA to 1m population is still pretty low density compared to many other cities. Supporting that level of density is not at all hard as long as you accept that not everyone will be able to easily get around by car (and we are already to that point).

[whodean]

The edge cities are were the real growth will be. Perimeter, Cumberland, somewhere in Gwinnett. Enormous investments are being made into infrastructure to handle it.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by whodean

The edge cities are were the real growth will be. Perimeter, Cumberland, somewhere in Gwinnett. Enormous investments are being made into infrastructure to handle it.

The investment in those areas are mostly in car infrastructure which is not able to handle the growth even with hundred billion more dollars worth of investment.

We are already seeing that many businesses and developers are relizing that and are locating back into the city or next to major transit lines.