City of Atlanta's population hits 472,522 (Jackson: apartment, homes, to buy)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

We're losing elbow room, y'all.

(sorry, arjay, I had to. )

It's a major concern, Pemgin. Once ER is gone it's almost impossible to get it back.

[Pemgin]

Yeah, but that's what the suburbs are for.

[primaltech]

I wonder if Atlanta will ever catch up with/surpass Seattle in city population, someday. They currently have ~700,000 population to Atlanta's ~475,000, but only 83 square miles of land, as opposed to Atlanta's 133.

The larger question, I wonder to what kind of degree Atlanta will become more dense over the decades. I wonder if 50+ years from now, the majority of its land area will still be largely made up of low-density single-family homes with large backyards.

I don't think density is necessarily bad or good, but Atlanta's very low density is certainly different than most cities.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

It's a major concern, Pemgin. Once ER is gone it's almost impossible to get it back.

No it's not, look at the Westside and SWAT. Once bustling with families and people, now hollowed out.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I wonder if Atlanta will ever catch up with/surpass Seattle in city population, someday. They currently have ~700,000 population to Atlanta's ~475,000, but only 83 square miles of land, as opposed to Atlanta's 133.

The larger question, I wonder to what kind of degree Atlanta will become more dense over the decades. I wonder if 50+ years from now, the majority of its land area will still be largely made up of low-density single-family homes with large backyards.

I don't think density is necessarily bad or good, but Atlanta's very low density is certainly different than most cities.

Nope. Doubt it. Seattle is firing on all cylinders and unlike Atlanta, it doesn't have a huge crime problem which means less people are afraid of living in the city. Seattle's tech oriented economy also means the types people who like urban living only enhance the growth rates of Seattle. When people move to Seattle, nearly a third of them are actually move to the city, vs only little over a tenth of people for Atlanta.

If Atlanta wants to actually start growing at a very rapid clip, you need about 20% of people moving to the metro to actually choose the city. It sounds easier than it actually is.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

No it's not, look at the Westside and SWAT. Once bustling with families and people, now hollowed out.

Well, that's true. You may get it back, but it typically takes two or three generations, and maybe longer.

[bigup]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Nope. Doubt it. Seattle is firing on all cylinders and unlike Atlanta, it doesn't have a huge crime problem which means less people are afraid of living in the city. Seattle's tech oriented economy also means the types people who like urban living only enhance the growth rates of Seattle. When people move to Seattle, nearly a third of them are actually move to the city, vs only little over a tenth of people for Atlanta.

If Atlanta wants to actually start growing at a very rapid clip, you need about 20% of people moving to the metro to actually choose the city. It sounds easier than it actually is.

Maybe I'm underestimating the number of highly-paid tech workers out there, but one thing that will limit Seattle's growth is the price of housing--it's just grown too unaffordable for massive numbers of people to buy in the city.

[Pemgin]

City of Atlanta is holding its own with suburban counties. Gwinnett is the only county that outpaced it in growth this year (in absolute numbers), and it's over three times the land area.

Speaking of Gwinnett, why are people so sure it's going to eventually overtake Fulton? Fulton keeps growing at the same or slightly higher pace than Gwinnett. They're virtually the same distance apart now as they were in 2010 (around 115,000). That's a pretty big deficit to make up with both counties essentially gaining the same amount year over year.

[AtlantaIsHot]

It's a good gain, but I'm not going to get wildly exciting just yet. I still remember the lesson of the 2000's projections. Of course, the error in the Census estimates then was they still were projecting the high growth rate demonstrated by residential construction and home sales onto the recession period. At the same time, they failed to take note of the massive losses of housing such as the demolition of the public housing and the recession home foreclosures which pushed lots of people out of the city into the cheaper suburbs. Most of the people left without public housing could not afford to live elsewhere and could not get any kind of loan to buy a house. It was a unique set of circumstances that left the numbers way off. Most of that is now over and we have rejuvenation jumping into new areas. There has been a massive number of residential construction so there should be a significant jump come 2020.

However, it may not be as big as some hope. Data shows that high-rise buildings often contain only 1 person per unit and have a high number of people who leave the units after a year or two. Contrary to what many think, SFH areas have higher numbers due to the presence of multiple people per house. One block may contain as many as 50 houses depending on size, and may have anywhere from 1-2 people to 3-6 people per house and you may have 500 people total compared to a 300 unit tower with 1-2 per unit typically. Given one subdivision or neighborhood may have 500+ homes, you get more population.

I'm sticking with the wait-and-see approach.

[J2rescue]

Someone a lot more knowledgeable about this stuff told me that Fulton County was the reason for the cities over-inflated estimates. He explained that during the last decade Fulton County petitioned the OMB for a correction in the county population estimate and after the OMB adjusted the County estimates higher, they had to find somewhere to put all those people resulting in the city's erroneous estimates. Fulton County's 2009 estimate was 1.034 million but only 926,149 after the 2010 census. And this was BEFORE the 2010 census when he was explaining why he thought the estimates were inaccurate. I was hoping he was wrong but....