Elbow room makes Atlanta less dense (Kennesaw, Clayton: apartments, neighborhood, subdivisions)

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

They don't have anywhere near as many as leaving the forest alone would have had. So again; how does clearing a area that was woods and putting a cul de sac there fix anything that was mentioned?

Ahm, there are more trees in my neighborhood than in Midtown. I fail to understand why we should look at one area differently than the other in this regard.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

I’ll take Atlanta’s winding tree-shaded streets and large lots over the west’s monotonous concrete jungle grids any day.

You think the West has monotonous "concrete jungle" grids?

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Ahm, there are more trees in my neighborhood than in Midtown. I fail to understand why we should look at one area differently than the other in this regard.

The issue is development practices/patterns. What exist is what it is.

[toll_booth]

A lot of yards out in the 'burbs are mostly manicured greens, not trees.

[DJDeadParrot]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

A lot of yards out in the 'burbs are mostly manicured greens, not trees.

Partially true.

Yes, there are a lot of subdivisions, especially ones built in the last 10-20 years, that completely cleared the land, loaded with 3BR/2BA homes on postage stamp lots with not a tree in sight, except maybe at the edge of the development. Not all subdivision developments are built the same, however. Some are half-million dollar homes on half-acre lots where efforts were made to leave some of the tall oaks standing.

Put it this way; go up to the top of Kennesaw Mtn or Stone Mtn or whatever high point of solid ground, and look out across the land. Except in areas of heavy commercial or industrial development, you'll mostly see a canopy of trees. I know, from the ground, it sure seems like an awful lot of land is cleared in the name of elbow room.

Remember, also, that you're more apt to see that which you are looking for, i.e., people see what they want to see.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

A lot of yards out in the 'burbs are mostly manicured greens, not trees.

True. But, the apartment and condo towers in town don't have trees either.

[sedimenjerry]

Ironically it's some of the older, less dense subdivisions in the burbs (at least where I grew up) that did a better job at preserving what was already there than newer, denser subdivisions. Obviously, planted trees in the older subdivisions will be taller than in newer ones due to age, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about literal forests in the backyards or other places they couldn't build a house. They cleared enough for a road and for the house/front yard and that was it. It's different from a lot of the newer ones I've seen where they clear everything out and just start from scratch. Typically denser, but with practically just planted trees.

And depending on where, I'd even dare to say most are of the "older" type. Gwinnett boomed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s when a lot of the development was like my parents current house and grandparents house. The forest was left alone in the backyard. My grandparents have a typical manicured front lawn but the back yard is about 20-25 feet of grass from the house, and then over 100 feet of largely untouched forest. It's really quite beautiful. And that's from a house built in the late 80s. You can look as historical aerial images and see they left the forest largely alone.

[Clayton white guy]

Forest Park's, Lake City's, and Morrow's Mid-century neighborhoods from the 1950's and 1960's in Northeast Clayton County seem to have been built with the forest still in tack, LOL!

[DJDeadParrot]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

Forest Park's, Lake City's, and Morrow's Mid-century neighborhoods from the 1950's and 1960's in Northeast Clayton County seem to have been built with the forest still in tack, LOL!

Those were trees that grew with the neighborhood. When those were built 60 and more years ago, a lot more of the land had been cleared than the trees you see today would indicate. Imagery available on Historic Aerials bears this out.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Gulch

It doesn't. That rationale is simply a cop out for people trying to defend the status quo of rampant sprawl as "good for nature."

Who said "good for nature"? Let's face it: the suburbs have far more greenery than the core city. All you have to do it open a satellite map of any city, and you will see a lot of grey at the core, and a lot of green in the suburbs.



It's not about what's "better for nature", it's about what is more appealing. Most core city areas are clear cut, build right to the edge of the road, leaving little, if any, room for trees. If they do have trees, they are generally kept small. Atlanta does a better job than most, but it's still pretty thin in the core areas, especially downtown. I don't like new suburban developments that clear cut, but at least there is usually room to plant new trees to grow into bigger ones.

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

They don't have anywhere near as many as leaving the forest alone would have had. So again; how does clearing a area that was woods and putting a cul de sac there fix anything that was mentioned?

Well, we could also just live in small huts and never cut a tree down, like forest people. Then nothing would be disturbed. But seriously, no one anywhere is claiming that trees are not being cut down for development. But the argument still cannot be made that the dense city core is greener and more tree-filled than suburban developments. That is just plain false.

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

You think the West has monotonous "concrete jungle" grids?

Well, San Francisco isn't exactly forest land. Nor is San Diego. Nor is Los Angeles. Denver's core is tree-barren, while its suburbs fare a little better. Seattle is much like Atlanta: denser interior with a few trees poking out, surrounded by greener suburb areas.

But, yes...I find much of the west very monotonous. This is monotonous. A closer view...still monotonous (and holy crap wires!).