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.
To me, Philadelphia looks run down in general, the streets are very narrow downtown precluding it from accommodating the masses, and the population is far less attractive than NYC or D.C.
You're right, our roads are not big enough to fit the vast number of cars needed to transport all of our fat residents. I believe that was #1 on Amazon's wish list for HQ2.
As I mention the CoA is only 134 sq mi, if you include the inner suburb in a area of 300 to 600 sq mi like other sunbelt cities, the city would be over a million. One of the most common errors I see is when people include Atlanta inner that wouldn't be "suburbs" in other sun belts qthen add that with outer suburbs. To distort how the region is growing. Yes the region is obviously sprawling but region core is actually growing denser than rate the region is sprawling. Forsyth has grown less than Gwinnett maybe less than Cobb in raw numbers this decade. The CoA and inner suburbs in general are growing more in raw numbers then the outer suburbs.
My reply was to the person that debunked Cherokee and Forsyth growth because it was percentage based and not raw numbers and thus insinuated that the city of Atlanta was outpacing them in raw number growth. I showed that the two of them combined outpaced Atlanta in raw numbers. Forsyth was close to equaling Atlanta by itself. And you mention Gwinnett which has outpaced everyone for sometime.
Population increase is a totally different statistical animal than density. One of the reasons a region slows a rapid growth seen in previous decades is because it becomes denser. There is less available empty land to divide into housing developments. Cobb and DeKalb have certainly slowed because of this. Except on their peripheries, they are both pretty much built out. The CoA gain is all beacuse of an increase in density as there are no vast rural tracts in the CoA to develop into housing as you will find in a Cherokee or Forsyth. No one expects a Forsyth or Cherokee to ever be as dense as the city of Atlanta.
Gwinnett is a very large county for the region in square miles. It does sit further from the core, does not abut the C0A as Cobb, DeKalb and Clayton do. Areas in east Gwinnett like Dacula are as far from Atlanta as Cherokee and Forsyth. I would say the majority of its growth is in the outer reaches where there is still open land for development and in this way mirrors those two aforementioned counties.
I only jumped in to point out that suburban growth has been what has taken Atlanta from a provinicial southeastern city to a city on the world stage. In the time this has happened the CoA has made recent gains but still has not reached its peak population of 495k in 1970. The metro area that just cracked the 1million mark around 1960 is about to hit 6 million. Until the core city surpasses the high water mark of the 60s and 70s, all of that growth in raw population numbers is in the suburbs. All of it.
It changed immensely, mostly for the better but, I realized years ago that, for me anyhow, a population sweet spot is 1 to 2 million metro-wide. That provides the amenities I want but without as much urban intensity, crime, crowds and nasty traffic. Atlanta surpassed that size a long time ago.
A city is pretty much diminishing returns after about 2 million people. Don't mean to be a buzz kill but, ATL's better days are behind it in terms of quality of life. Best tennis town in the USA!
Metro Atlanta's sprawled nature and low density and cars-orientation is perhaps its secret ingredient for growth. If you want to put a new tall tower in the Loop in Chicago, you have to figure out where the heck to put it, and what to replace. Whereas Atlanta's got tons of prime real estate with a 1 or 2 or a few story old building on it, or a parking lot or parking deck, or even nothing (example, Dewberry's prime land holdings).
In fact, Chicago, the nation's 3rd largest metro, is only ~9.6 million to Atlanta's ~6 million. To be Chicago-sized, Metro Atlanta wouldn't even need to double its density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
Don't mean to be a buzz kill but, ATL's better days are behind it in terms of quality of life.
Maybe for boring old people who want to spend all their time on a golf course. Not for the rest of us, who happen to enjoy bustling cities. (Even if we live in the 'burbs.)
Maybe for boring old people who want to spend all their time on a golf course. Not for the rest of us, who happen to enjoy bustling cities. (Even if we live in the 'burbs.)
Yeah, I agree. I've lived here a long time, and this boom is like nothing I've ever seen. This far eclipses the run-up to the Olympics.
I'm convinced Atlanta's best days are in the very near future.
My reply was to the person that debunked Cherokee and Forsyth growth because it was percentage based and not raw numbers and thus insinuated that the city of Atlanta was outpacing them in raw number growth. I showed that the two of them combined outpaced Atlanta in raw numbers. Forsyth was close to equaling Atlanta by itself. And you mention Gwinnett which has outpaced everyone for sometime.
Population increase is a totally different statistical animal than density. One of the reasons a region slows a rapid growth seen in previous decades is because it becomes denser. There is less available empty land to divide into housing developments. Cobb and DeKalb have certainly slowed because of this. Except on their peripheries, they are both pretty much built out. The CoA gain is all beacuse of an increase in density as there are no vast rural tracts in the CoA to develop into housing as you will find in a Cherokee or Forsyth. No one expects a Forsyth or Cherokee to ever be as dense as the city of Atlanta.
Gwinnett is a very large county for the region in square miles. It does sit further from the core, does not abut the C0A as Cobb, DeKalb and Clayton do. Areas in east Gwinnett like Dacula are as far from Atlanta as Cherokee and Forsyth. I would say the majority of its growth is in the outer reaches where there is still open land for development and in this way mirrors those two aforementioned counties.
I only jumped in to point out that suburban growth has been what has taken Atlanta from a provinicial southeastern city to a city on the world stage. In the time this has happened the CoA has made recent gains but still has not reached its peak population of 495k in 1970. The metro area that just cracked the 1million mark around 1960 is about to hit 6 million. Until the core city surpasses the high water mark of the 60s and 70s, all of that growth in raw population numbers is in the suburbs. All of it.
Dallas is 340.5 sq mi, Houston is 599.59 sq mi of placed them over metro Atlanta, Atlanta would extand to Marietta, Alpharetta, and almost to Lawrenceville.
Harris County is nearly the size of Atlanta core county combine, while Dallas and Tarrant are nearly the size of Atlanta core counties combine also.
Yes most the growth of metro Atlanta the last 60 years have been in suburbs, this the same with every US metro area. My point was CoA being 400k and less than 1/0 the metro is misleadering. because if Atlanta was the size of it's Sunbelt peers it would be over a million and some where between 1/6 to 1/5 the metro population. People often try to use Atlanta 400k to make Atlanta seem more woop sided then normal. When really it's just a distortion of city size of Atlanta not annexing like it's Sunbelt peers.
------------------
Which brings me to my next point when you here the phrase people are moving back to the city, city are different area sizes. city limits is not the important factor. What they mean are people to going areas to increase density than the metro actually sprawling out now.
The trend at start of 60's sprawl was people moving away from develop areas to least develop areas. In fact Fulton lost population in the 80's. But In 1970 Fulton County was 607,592, which make today Dekalb, Gwinnett, Cobb more populated and develop than Fulton was then. by fact they have grown to be Fulton like them self. Base on 60's to 90's growth since these counties became Fulton like they should be loosing population or growing the slowest in region. But yet today they largest gainers. This means more people now are choosing to add to density of already develop areas then sprawl out in exurbs.
Fulton County 1960's pop 607,592
Cobb County 2017's pop 755,754
From 2010 to 2017 the largest gainers in raw numbers
Fulton County 120,842 Gwinnett County 114,939 Cobb County 67,676 DeKalb County 61,360
Forsyth County 52,456
pre 2000's once exurban counties in the 70's Gwinnett County, Cobb County decrease the gap between them and Fulton.
So in theory now Forsyth County county should be decrease the gap between it and Fulton or the more develop counties little at a time.
but... no 2018 Forsyth County is the fastest growing exurban county but yet the gap between Forsyth County and the more develop like Fulton, Cobb etc is increasing. So if you look at CoA alone you would miss the larger trend,
Atlanta is ceaselessly cited as being a posterchild for suburban sprawl, with single-family homes extending miles and miles in every direction from the heart of the city.
And with no natural boundaries, Atlanta continues to spread as metro residents seek affordability and space. In places like Grayson and Woodstock, the “drive until you qualify” mantra is still alive and well.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that people seek the suburban lifestyle for the “American dream” of a white-picket fence and homeownership, but a new study by Rent Cafe found that suburban rentals are actually increasing at a staggering pace.
High-rise apartment towers in Atlanta proper are increasing density within the urban core, providing a 10-percent bump in residences, but the study found a staggering 26 percent jump in suburban apartment development.
The number is enough to outpace every other city in the United States.
Development of suburban apartments in Atlanta is likely driven by the creation of walkable districts within formerly car-dominated contexts. As far out as Snellville and Fayetteville, mixed-use developments are de rigueur.
With a strong suburban office and retail base, there would appear to be no end in sight for the monumental gains.
One of the reason Atlanta suburbs have such a high rate now, is because CoA isn't 300 to 600 sq mi. but the area is infilling as if Atlanta was.
Dallas is 340.5 sq mi, Houston is 599.59 sq mi of placed them over metro Atlanta, Atlanta would extand to Marietta, Alpharetta, and almost to Lawrenceville.
Harris County is nearly the size of Atlanta core county combine, while Dallas and Tarrant are nearly the size of Atlanta core counties combine also.
Yes most the growth of metro Atlanta the last 60 years have been in suburbs, this the same with every US metro area. My point was CoA being 400k and less than 1/0 the metro is misleadering. because if Atlanta was the size of it's Sunbelt peers it would be over a million and some where between 1/6 to 1/5 the metro population. People often try to use Atlanta 400k to make Atlanta seem more woop sided then normal. When really it's just a distortion of city size of Atlanta not annexing like it's Sunbelt peers.
------------------
Which brings me to my next point when you here the phrase people are moving back to the city, city are different area sizes. city limits is not the important factor. What they mean are people to going areas to increase density than the metro actually sprawling out now.
The trend at start of 60's sprawl was people moving away from develop areas to least develop areas. In fact Fulton lost population in the 80's. But In 1970 Fulton County was 607,592, which make today Dekalb, Gwinnett, Cobb more populated and develop than Fulton was then. by fact they have grown to be Fulton like them self. Base on 60's to 90's growth since these counties became Fulton like they should be loosing population or growing the slowest in region. But yet today they largest gainers. This means more people now are choosing to add to density of already develop areas then sprawl out in exurbs.
Fulton County 1960's pop 607,592
Cobb County 2017's pop 755,754
From 2010 to 2017 the largest gainers in raw numbers
Fulton County 120,842 Gwinnett County 114,939 Cobb County 67,676 DeKalb County 61,360
Forsyth County 52,456
pre 2000's once exurban counties in the 70's Gwinnett County, Cobb County decrease the gap between them and Fulton.
So in theory now Forsyth County county should be decrease the gap between it and Fulton or the more develop counties little at a time.
but... no 2018 Forsyth County is the fastest growing exurban county but yet the gap between Forsyth County and the more develop like Fulton, Cobb etc is increasing. So if you look at CoA alone you would miss the larger trend,
One of the reason Atlanta suburbs have such a high rate now, is because CoA isn't 300 to 600 sq mi. but the area is infilling as if Atlanta was.
Atlanta's growth is much the same as a Dallas or Houston. the difference as you mention is the larger county size and the large city limit size. It's the reason Atlanta has yet to hit 500k city wise and those other two passed the million mark some time ago even tho Atlanta metro is not that far behind them. If the Atlanta city limits covered all the ITP.... maybe even extended a mile or two beyond it... then you would have a center city similar to Dallas.
Dallas is gaining in the same why Atlanta is. People are wanting to live in town again. Apartments and condos are going in all over in downtown, uptown and other desireable and gentrifying neighborhoods in close proximity to downtown. Even tho Dallas has a much large footprint than Dallas, it is still built out for the most part, so most of the growth is increased density. The difference in the total city populations as you mention is the area.
But even here, the biggest growth is in the burbs. Collin County is booming. Frisco and McKinney have been making the fastest growing cities list for years now.
Point is... the trend in America... city living is becoming popular again and people are clamoring for a more urban experience. Most cities with a growing metro are seeing revivals in their cores. But the raw numbers for growth are in the burbs.
Look at the county gains your post. Add them up. Fulton includes Atlanta but you have to realize that Alpharetta and Palmetto are both in Fulton and those would be far flung burbs in other areas so Fulton growth is split between Atlanta and further out suburban reaches. Geographical lines are arbitrary all over and none of this comparison is ever apples to apples. BUT.... the metro growth the past five decades and more all over America..... the suburbs are where the lion's share of population growth is happening.
Atlanta's growth is much the same as a Dallas or Houston. the difference as you mention is the larger county size and the large city limit size. It's the reason Atlanta has yet to hit 500k city wise and those other two passed the million mark some time ago even tho Atlanta metro is not that far behind them. If the Atlanta city limits covered all the ITP.... maybe even extended a mile or two beyond it... then you would have a center city similar to Dallas.
Dallas is gaining in the same why Atlanta is. People are wanting to live in town again. Apartments and condos are going in all over in downtown, uptown and other desireable and gentrifying neighborhoods in close proximity to downtown. Even tho Dallas has a much large footprint than Dallas, it is still built out for the most part, so most of the growth is increased density. The difference in the total city populations as you mention is the area.
But even here, the biggest growth is in the burbs. Collin County is booming. Frisco and McKinney have been making the fastest growing cities list for years now.
Point is... the trend in America... city living is becoming popular again and people are clamoring for a more urban experience. Most cities with a growing metro are seeing revivals in their cores. But the raw numbers for growth are in the burbs.
Look at the county gains your post. Add them up. Fulton includes Atlanta but you have to realize that Alpharetta and Palmetto are both in Fulton and those would be far flung burbs in other areas so Fulton growth is split between Atlanta and further out suburban reaches. Geographical lines are arbitrary all over and none of this comparison is ever apples to apples. BUT.... the metro growth the past five decades and more all over America..... the suburbs are where the lion's share of population growth is happening.
Dallas is bugger than the ITP area, even if you double Atlanta land area would give 266 Sq mi, still shorter than Dallas 340.5 sq mi. And Houston area is over 4x larger than Atlanta city limits. in Dallas area Atlanta would be expanding up to Marietta, alpharetta and into nearly Duluth. And Houston area Atlanta would be expanding past that.
the only thing DFW and Atlanta have in common are they are both growing more to the north. But DFW is very different than Metro Atlanta because DFW is multi polar Atlanta isn't. DFW have huge job centers outside it's full 380 sq mi. If placed that over metro Atlanta it would swallow up most of large employment area.
Alpharetta and Sandy Springs are like North Dallas, Not like Plano, Frisco and McKinney and etc. There is no equivalent in metro Atlanta as those suburbs because DFW is multi polar.
The Trend across America are cities and there inner suburbs are now gaining the most growth in raw numbers, as I just showed in my last post. Yes suburbs are still sprawling but its no longer the largest regional gainers. DFW is one of few exception because the area is so multi polar. That some it's suburb like Plano and etc attract people sort of urbanizing on there own accord. They sort behaving like a San Jose. Originally The bay area is SF and Oakland but suburbs like San Jose turn into a major city. Atlanta is the opposite of this because most of large employment area are in the 5 core counties. If Atlanta had a larger city limited it would centralize the majority of these areas.
Maybe for boring old people who want to spend all their time on a golf course. Not for the rest of us, who happen to enjoy bustling cities. (Even if we live in the 'burbs.)
Not boring, not old and I don't play golf. I live in a bustling city too, 2 million metro population. We have everything plus more walkability, more interesting architecture and a better-funded, more-evolved arts scene. People are nicer, more sincere, helpful and reliable.
The weather is not as good here, however. One of the best things ATL offers, in my view, is a long Spring and Autumn and very manageable Winter. Top marks for weather and it had a lot to do with what kept me there as long as I was even though I disliked the indigenous culture. With the continued significant migration into that city, that aspect will certainly improve.
Dallas is bugger than the ITP area, even if you double Atlanta land area would give 266 Sq mi, still shorter than Dallas 340.5 sq mi. And Houston area is over 4x larger than Atlanta city limits. in Dallas area Atlanta would be expanding up to Marietta, alpharetta and into nearly Duluth. And Houston area Atlanta would be expanding past that.
the only thing DFW and Atlanta have in common are they are both growing more to the north. But DFW is very different than Metro Atlanta because DFW is multi polar Atlanta isn't. DFW have huge job centers outside it's full 380 sq mi. If placed that over metro Atlanta it would swallow up most of large employment area.
Alpharetta and Sandy Springs are like North Dallas, Not like Plano, Frisco and McKinney and etc. There is no equivalent in metro Atlanta as those suburbs because DFW is multi polar.
The Trend across America are cities and there inner suburbs are now gaining the most growth in raw numbers, as I just showed in my last post. Yes suburbs are still sprawling but its no longer the largest regional gainers. DFW is one of few exception because the area is so multi polar. That some it's suburb like Plano and etc attract people sort of urbanizing on there own accord. They sort behaving like a San Jose. Originally The bay area is SF and Oakland but suburbs like San Jose turn into a major city. Atlanta is the opposite of this because most of large employment area are in the 5 core counties. If Atlanta had a larger city limited it would centralize the majority of these areas.
The biggest difference in Dallas and Atlanta is the county system in Georgia that keeps the cities small and gives more local control to the county. Thus larger cities and suburbs in Texas vs. more people in unincorporated counties in GA. But if you don't know where a county line is in Georgia and a city limit is in Texas, is it really that much different? Downtowns similar, intown trendy areas similar, old money parts of town similar, newer suburban development similar, demographics similar. The biggest difference is topography and more freeways tollways. Otherwise I say they are twins.
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.
