Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that's not accurate at all. The problem is not ipso facto that Atlanta is Atlanta, or that US municipalities are US municipalities, and so can't measure up.
The actual problem, which I mentioned in my original article, is that without integrated regional planning, most such ventures are doomed to failure, forever lampooned and derided as "the train to nowhere", "the streetcar to nowhere". And the critics--who are legion--have a point; all of Atlanta is not tripping over itself to ride MARTA rail. Why? Because it doesn't go anywhere useful, as far as most of Atlanta is concerned. And lots of MARTA critics point to empty buses: "look, nobody rides them! Why should we have to pay for them?" And it's true; as long as they run once or twice an hour, and take long, circuitous routes, and are in other respects inconvenient, they're not going to represent a practical transportation alternative for people running errands or going to/from work. The only people riding them will be those too poor, old, infirm or otherwise unfortunate enough to be relegated to the slums of public transit.
So yes, the system is half-assed; without serious investment and ambitious long-term thinking at the regional level, it's going to stay that way. That's why it doesn't "measure up" in my eyes. The NYC subway measures up. Chicago's 'L' system is pretty good, though, as in most US cities that have a system, its utility falls off logarithmically as one gets outside the core 'Loop', where not a whole lot of people live per se.
On this I fully agree with you. Atlanta has improved a lot in this regard, but it still has a long way to go. This is one of the main reasons I chose to live in downtown Marietta... I basically can get many of the benefits that the best intown areas offer, but also can actually afford a place where I truly want to live. So, as far as US cities go, for me at least, I have the best of both worlds. If intown Atlanta were more compelling to me, by all means I would give it a whirl, but quite frankly it's not there yet, at least not for me.
No, that's not accurate at all. The problem is not ipso facto that Atlanta is Atlanta, or that US municipalities are US municipalities, and so can't measure up.
The actual problem, which I mentioned in my original article, is that without integrated regional planning, most such ventures are doomed to failure, forever lampooned and derided as "the train to nowhere", "the streetcar to nowhere". And the critics--who are legion--have a point; all of Atlanta is not tripping over itself to ride MARTA rail. Why? Because it doesn't go anywhere useful, as far as most of Atlanta is concerned. And lots of MARTA critics point to empty buses: "look, nobody rides them! Why should we have to pay for them?" And it's true; as long as they run once or twice an hour, and take long, circuitous routes, and are in other respects inconvenient, they're not going to represent a practical transportation alternative for people running errands or going to/from work. The only people riding them will be those too poor, old, infirm or otherwise unfortunate enough to be relegated to the slums of public transit.
So yes, the system is half-assed; without serious investment and ambitious long-term thinking at the regional level, it's going to stay that way. That's why it doesn't "measure up" in my eyes. The NYC subway measures up. Chicago's 'L' system is pretty good, though, as in most US cities that have a system, its utility falls off logarithmically as one gets outside the core 'Loop', where not a whole lot of people live per se.
The same applies to shopping islands of "mixed-use" development. While, I suppose, they are in some way laudable, they do not represent viable exemplars of increased walkability or urbanisation because they don't address the systemic issues at a macroscopic level. Inevitably, they get laughed off by many locals as a kitschy experiment, a square peg in a round hole. There are certain types of progressions that work incrementally, and others that require large, discontinuous leaps or paradigm shifts.
But yes, how dare I suggest that bad implementations or ineffectual, ritualistic band-aids are bad, or even merely that they're worse than something else! You're basically asking for the urban planning equivalent of social promotion; give the kid a gold star and tell him he's special no matter what he does.
How else would you consider using the land that was an abandoned industrial property?
I don't know that I alone am in a position to answer that question without access to a larger planning context, the financial constraints, or detailed knowledge of the history. :-)
Its biggest deficiency is that it's not effectively connected to the transit network, undermining its claims to promotion of integrated urban living. I suppose my efforts would be concentrated on fixing that, first and foremost, which would of course spiral into a lot of other dependencies re: MARTA.
On this I fully agree with you. Atlanta has improved a lot in this regard, but it still has a long way to go. This is one of the main reasons I chose to live in downtown Marietta... I basically can get many of the benefits that the best intown areas offer, but also can actually afford a place where I truly want to live. So, as far as US cities go, for me at least, I have the best of both worlds. If intown Atlanta were more compelling to me, by all means I would give it a whirl, but quite frankly it's not there yet, at least not for me.
That I can deeply appreciate. As I think I said in an earlier post, intown Atlanta isn't really that great. It'd be hard to make a persuasive case for someone to move here except on principle, though it is getting better.
That I can deeply appreciate. As I think I said in an earlier post, intown Atlanta isn't really that great. It'd be hard to make a persuasive case for someone to move here except on principle, though it is getting better.
It's funny, though - I know that you haven't been here that long, but I can assure you that intown Atlanta is miles better than it was 20 years ago. When I moved here, it really wasn't even what most people would deem a viable option. Buckhead was nice, of course, but not at all ubanized and had been largely unaffordable for many years. Midtown had just (largely) turned the corner but after I spent one summer living there, I felt no desire to stick around any longer.
Also funny: until quite recently, there was a French crêperie on the Square in Marietta, run by a French couple. (They retired on Valentine's Day.) The food was good, authentic and affordable, and we'd go there fairly often and chat in French with the wife, who ran the front of the house while the husband was in the kitchen. We once asked her, "How on Earth did you end up in Downtown Marietta?" She said that they were just passing through once and saw the Square and immediately fell in love with it because it reminded them of smaller cities in Europe. I think they ran their restaurant there for about 30 years - and the Square is much better (and closer to the feel of a smaller European city) now than it was even five years ago.
It's funny, though - I know that you haven't been here that long, but I can assure you that intown Atlanta is miles better than it was 20 years ago.
I've been in Atlanta since late 2006, though casual acquaintance with it dates back to 1999, when we moved to Georgia. I suppose in the time frame of the evolution of say, Midtown, it's not that much, but it's long enough that a change is perceptible.
I lived in Alpharetta (off N Point Pkwy) for about six months, then on North Avenue 2007-2012, then spent a few years abroad, came back in 2014, spent a year in Dunwoody, where my wife said, "hell no, how much driving can people possibly do?" and moved back to Midtown. The Piedmont Park area is definitely very different from N Ave / Peachtree, where things did, and still do, start to get shady, no small thanks to the homeless shelter on Pine, but also proximity to Downtown in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
When I moved here, it really wasn't even what most people would deem a viable option.
Hilariously enough, most suburbanites I interact with, including my own parents, still don't think Midtown is a viable option, whether married and with kids, or single and childless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
Buckhead was nice, of course, but not at all ubanized and had been largely unaffordable for many years.
Yeah, the appeal is lost upon me entirely. I've met my share of wealthy businesspeople who either do, or aspire to live there, and I don't get it. For what it costs, where's the value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
Midtown had just (largely) turned the corner but after I spent one summer living there, I felt no desire to stick around any longer.
When was that? And, if you don't mind my asking, where in Midtown did you live?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
Also funny: until quite recently, there was a French crêperie on the Square in Marietta, run by a French couple. (They retired on Valentine's Day.) The food was good, authentic and affordable, and we'd go there fairly often and chat in French with the wife, who ran the front of the house while the husband was in the kitchen. We once asked her, "How on Earth did you end up in Downtown Marietta?" She said that they were just passing through once and saw the Square and immediately fell in love with it because it reminded them of smaller cities in Europe. I think they ran their restaurant there for about 30 years - and the Square is much better (and closer to the feel of a smaller European city) now than it was even five years ago.
I did some Google StreetViewing of the square; it does look nice. It's just that as soon as you get 1/4 mile away from it, it's the same old, so it's hard to view it as some great triumph of urbanism. :-) Moreover, while it probably has a number of charming cafes, restaurants, boutiques and retail outlets, it doesn't look like there's a grocery store, a drugstore, or any other places where most basic everyday needs can be met. Am I mistaken?
1890 called; it wants its conception of urban reality back.
Sadly, the conception stuck in the US, and nobody bothered to update the folklore as we moved beyond the horsecar, dingy tenement housing, typhoid fever, and sewage in the streets.
1904 called and it wants its brainless maligning of suburbs back. From the Times 116 years ago, "London will be surrounded by a district of appalling monotony, ugliness and dullness". Funny that the Times was referring to garden suburbs that poseurs get stiff over these days.
I've been in Atlanta since late 2006, though casual acquaintance with it dates back to 1999, when we moved to Georgia. I suppose in the time frame of the evolution of say, Midtown, it's not that much, but it's long enough that a change is perceptible.
I lived in Alpharetta (off N Point Pkwy) for about six months, then on North Avenue 2007-2012, then spent a few years abroad, came back in 2014, spent a year in Dunwoody, where my wife said, "hell no, how much driving can people possibly do?" and moved back to Midtown. The Piedmont Park area is definitely very different from N Ave / Peachtree, where things did, and still do, start to get shady, no small thanks to the homeless shelter on Pine, but also proximity to Downtown in general.
Hilariously enough, most suburbanites I interact with, including my own parents, still don't think Midtown is a viable option, whether married and with kids, or single and childless.
Yeah, the appeal is lost upon me entirely. I've met my share of wealthy businesspeople who either do, or aspire to live there, and I don't get it. For what it costs, where's the value?
When was that? And, if you don't mind my asking, where in Midtown did you live?
I did some Google StreetViewing of the square; it does look nice. It's just that as soon as you get 1/4 mile away from it, it's the same old, so it's hard to view it as some great triumph of urbanism. :-) Moreover, while it probably has a number of charming cafes, restaurants, boutiques and retail outlets, it doesn't look like there's a grocery store, a drugstore, or any other places where most basic everyday needs can be met. Am I mistaken?
I lived in Midtown in 1997, while interning there. I was right near Piedmont Park, basically at 10th and Juniper. I liked it well enough, but it had a lot less to offer at the time than it does now. I did enjoy Piedmont Park and there were a few good restaurants around, but it's more vibrant today, for sure. I guess I liked it well enough that when I was hired on full time at a different company a year or so later, I asked my new boss where I could live that would enable me to take MARTA to work. He just laughed... He had taken the T for years while living in Boston and was a big public transit advocate, but it just wasn't at all a viable option for our offices back then.
As for the Marietta Square... Yes, there is a Walgreen's one block off the Square, at Whitlock and South Marietta Parkway, and a CVS a block south of that, so we do have that covered. Full on grocery stores are a bit more complicated, admittedly. There's a Kroger about a mile and a half west of the Square, and a Food Depot about a mile east of the Square, but we are Publix and Costco loyalists, so yes, that usually involves a drive, though we have learned to just hit one or the other on the way home from work, which really isn't terrible. Rumor is that we are going to see a new grocery option soon, and one would certainly think that Publix would be interested in opening one of their smaller stores here, considering the huge influx of people with expendable income that the area has seen in the past 3 years or so. So, we are hopeful on that front, but otherwise we pretty much have all of our needs right here. The variety of restaurants, shops and whatnot is excellent, we have the main library right here, our vet practically across the street, an excellent hospital with every kind of doctor you could possibly need just a few blocks north of the Square... Parks and tennis courts within walking distance... Another park coming to our immediate neighborhood by the end of the year, as we found out yesterday... Most nights and weekends, we have little need to go anywhere else.
..., spent a year in Dunwoody, where my wife said, "hell no, how much driving can people possibly do?" and moved back to Midtown.
I'm not knocking anybody but I don't understand the aversion to driving. It's a really fantastic way to get around. Fast, luxurious, convenient, and often downright fun.
China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, you name it. People all over the world flat love to drive.
Have you checked Germany for sprawling suburbs? They are there...there are plenty of other examples too...Nordic cities have American-style sprawly suburbs as do several other areas. You're talking about a wide range of cities and countries.
Funny you should mention Germany and sprawl given all the sturm und drang over the Braves move to Cobb from a few ITP nimrods. The Bundesliga teams in major cities play in the suburbs generally speaking. In Bayern's case they play waaaaay out in the suburbs. I'm guessing they need to be renamed Bayern Frötmanning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
You know what's a "vulgar travesty?" Your continued pompous attempts to tell everyone else that their lifestyles and the places in which they've decided to live are bad, vulgar, insipid, or whatever other adjective you choose to throw at them. Yes, you keep saying that you're not telling anyone how they should live, but just stating that does not make it so.
For what it's worth, I work with a lot of Europeans and am in Paris, Amsterdam, Rome or London every few months for work. The bulk of my colleagues choose to live in the suburbs and most of them have longer drives (yes, most of them drive, even those who live in the city center) to work than I do. As for me, even though my wife and I are both bilingual (French/English) and have dreamed of living in Paris (again) for several years, I just passed on an opportunity to work in Paris for a few years, and one of the reasons is the commute I would have had to endure. We definitely would have chosen to live in the city center, but my work location would have been well outside the city, and the thought of a 45 minute ride, each way, in a suit in the summer on extremely crowded, non-air conditioned RER-B trains gave me very serious pause, and I have no particular desire to own or drive a car in Paris. So, that opportunity will wait for another day. But yes, the same patterns you decry here exist in spades across Europe, even in the city with arguably the best transit network on the planet, which also happens to be pretty much my favorite place in all the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
