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.
Population of the City of Atlanta as of July 1, 2008: 537,958
Previous population: 519,150
Net difference of: 18,808
Current population density: 4081 ppsm
Also notable aside from the fact that the current population is the highest it has ever been, the population density is now the highest it has been since the annexation of Buckhead. Sadly that record probably won't be broken in our lifetimes.
Population of the City of Atlanta as of July 1, 2008: 537,958
Previous population: 519,150
Net difference of: 18,808
Current population density: 4081 ppsm
Also notable aside from the fact that the current population is the highest it has ever been, the population density is now the highest it has been since the annexation of Buckhead. Sadly that record probably won't be broken in our lifetimes.
I agree, an odd statement. I guess the OP means that Atlanta will never have the density it did before it annexed Buckhead. So, what would be the solution, pave over one of the most beautiful urban forests in the nation (Buckhead) and put up high density condos?
Buckhead proper (meaning the intersection of Paces Ferry and Peachtree and environs as opposed to anything north of Brookwood station) is definitely more dense than it was in the 50s. You can say that about anything along the Peachtree Road corridor. But to complain that Atlanta's density is down because Buckhead got annexed in the fifties, well I just don't get that whine.
In 1952 when Cascade Heights, Buckhead, Adamsville, and Lakewood heights were annexed, The City grew to 130 square miles (today's size) and 430,000 in population overnight. This also changed the population density to 3307 people per square mile.
Thus, since The City is still roughly 130 sq. miles, the current population density as it has been since 1950. Unfortunately to get back to the 1950 population density of 8487 with the current borders the population of the City of Atlanta would need to be 1,103,310. The chances of any of us seeing that in our lifetimes is pretty slim.
Then again, in the time that I have been alive Metro Atlanta has gone from a third tier Southern city of less than 2 million to a city of nearly 6 million people and arguably the 4th or 5th most important city in the United States and in the top ten of the Americas.
As side note when talking about population density and the City of Atlanta, it is important to note that every section of The City, except for Downtown, was designed before it was annexed. It is also important to remember that development patterns have not strayed significantly from the original core areas before they were added.
This cause two distinct and very Atlanta type phenomena.
The first is that unlike most other major cities that were created around the same time as Atlanta (Chicago, Pittsburgh, and even Houston) there is a distinct lack of a unified grid system for the city layout. In fact, if you look at the city of Atlanta on a map it looks quite disjointed with grids starting up at random. This is a by product of each neighborhood in The City being annexed one by one. If you take a second look at the same map, you will see this pop up in the West End, Midtown, the Eastside neighborhoods and even Historic East Point and College Park. They all follow grid systems.
The second is that each neighborhood in The City is far more dense than the actual city itself. For example, Midtown east of the highway and south of Piedmont Park by itself has a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile. The West End and areas like Vine City and Ashby Heights have population densities each of close to 20,000 people per square mile. So in effect, in a city that has a population density of 4000 in reality has quite dense (on par with pre-car era major cities) areas of habitation.
It's not a complaint or a whine, just a statement of fact.
Your follow up is a good explanation, just curious of the word sad. The annexed areas were areas that had not grown up on a grid pattern, the most expansive area with the lowest density would be Buckhead. For it to become dense and be built on a grid pattern would destroy what makes it wonderful.
Atlanta's topography has a lot to do with it not being on a grid pattern. Being at the base of the Blue Ridge, it is very hilly terrain that does not always make good sense for a grid pattern.
The density argument seems to come from those who hate sprawl and, correct me if I assume to much, these types also seem to be the ones with the ecological arguments in tow against sprawl.... the use of the automobile, too much growth spread over too wide an area, too much housing on too large lots, too many shopping centers with vast amounts of parking lots, all built around the American love affair with the automobile which is the root cause of all our environmental ills.
My ecological concern is for the way the land is raped to make more dense developments. The beauty of Buckhead is the lay of the land determines where streets were placed and where houses were designed to sit. Creeks, hills, valleys, etc are left in much their natural state. To build a grid pattern, much of this natural lay of the land would have to be levelled.
Suburban sprawl is ugliest to me when land is scarred, treets rooted up, creeks stuck in culverts and man made ditches so as to cram more commercial, industrial and residential into less land. This is "density" but not necessarily ecologically superior in my book.
Most cities on a strict grid plan lie in much flatter environs than Atlanta, either on flat midwestern plains or flatter coastal plains. I am trying to think of a city Atlanta's size that is as hilly overall. Some are near mountains but are themselves on plains or valleys near mountains (Denver and Los Angeles come to mind). Perhaps San Francisco is the only tier one city on such topography. Birmingham is hilly, but it hasn't grown at the pace of Atlanta, neither has Pittsburgh. The one time I was in Pittsburgh, it struck me how much the hills seemed to have been levelled all around so as to have some horizontal ground to build on.
Atlanta is one of the most beautiful cities it's size anywhere. Much of that beauty is because of the low density area of much of north Atlanta, from Buckhead northward. I don't care about statistics as much as I would rather have these lovely neighborhoods be a part of the city.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks
Your follow up is a good explanation, just curious of the word sad. The annexed areas were areas that had not grown up on a grid pattern, the most expansive area with the lowest density would be Buckhead. For it to become dense and be built on a grid pattern would destroy what makes it wonderful.
Atlanta's topography has a lot to do with it not being on a grid pattern. Being at the base of the Blue Ridge, it is very hilly terrain that does not always make good sense for a grid pattern.
The density argument seems to come from those who hate sprawl and, correct me if I assume to much, these types also seem to be the ones with the ecological arguments in tow against sprawl.... the use of the automobile, too much growth spread over too wide an area, too much housing on too large lots, too many shopping centers with vast amounts of parking lots, all built around the American love affair with the automobile which is the root cause of all our environmental ills.
My ecological concern is for the way the land is raped to make more dense developments. The beauty of Buckhead is the lay of the land determines where streets were placed and where houses were designed to sit. Creeks, hills, valleys, etc are left in much their natural state. To build a grid pattern, much of this natural lay of the land would have to be levelled.
Suburban sprawl is ugliest to me when land is scarred, treets rooted up, creeks stuck in culverts and man made ditches so as to cram more commercial, industrial and residential into less land. This is "density" but not necessarily ecologically superior in my book.
Most cities on a strict grid plan lie in much flatter environs than Atlanta, either on flat midwestern plains or flatter coastal plains. I am trying to think of a city Atlanta's size that is as hilly overall. Some are near mountains but are themselves on plains or valleys near mountains (Denver and Los Angeles come to mind). Perhaps San Francisco is the only tier one city on such topography. Birmingham is hilly, but it hasn't grown at the pace of Atlanta, neither has Pittsburgh. The one time I was in Pittsburgh, it struck me how much the hills seemed to have been levelled all around so as to have some horizontal ground to build on.
Atlanta is one of the most beautiful cities it's size anywhere. Much of that beauty is because of the low density area of much of north Atlanta, from Buckhead northward. I don't care about statistics as much as I would rather have these lovely neighborhoods be a part of the city.
I get your point and agree that the natural beauty of Atlanta is unrivaled any where in the world as far as big cities go except for maybe Portland or Seattle.
However, I am one who does see the sprawl as a problem exactly because of it's ecological impact. We seem to be doing a good job with infill now, but redesigning a city isn't out of the question.
For instance, if you look at New York City before the Commissioners Plan was implemented it was every bit a disjointed mess that Atlanta is today. People like to think that New York City has always been this model of urban organization, but for it's first 200 years of existence that was not the case.
I doubt something similar will be able to happen in the 21st century, but it isn't out of the question.
To counter your point about grid plans, Chicago is the only city I can think of that is almost completely flat. I grew up visiting family in New York City and have visited Boston and Philadelphia several times. Those cities are anything but flat.
Also, Atlanta has a quite extensive grid plan. It's just that every neighborhood in the City proper was designed as a suburb or small town BEFORE being annexed by the city so there is no real order to it.
I've said this before and will say it again....I don't understand this love affair that some people have with "density" as the be all, end all of urban or suburban existence. As one who grew up in a high rise apartment in one of the most "dense" zip codes in America....unless you're a single adult with no children and no pets, it sucks.
In my humble opinion, children are much better off with a yard to play in and trees to provide shade, and having more space to live in provides a much better quality of life. The reason places like Manhattan grew up is because there was no room to build out due to the natural boundaries. In Boston, there are some areas like Back Bay with brownstones and a few high rise apartments or condos, but most of the neighborhoods around Boston are made up of single or multi family houses.
Building up can be a positive for people who want to live closer to the core of the city where there is no more land, because building up is the only way to add housing. That does not make it better and just because a city is crowded with more people per square mile doesn't make it inherently better. What some call "sprawl" I call a better quality of life.
I've said this before and will say it again....I don't understand this love affair that some people have with "density" as the be all, end all of urban or suburban existence. As one who grew up in a high rise apartment in one of the most "dense" zip codes in America....unless you're a single adult with no children and no pets, it sucks.
In my humble opinion, children are much better off with a yard to play in and trees to provide shade, and having more space to live in provides a much better quality of life. The reason places like Manhattan grew up is because there was no room to build out due to the natural boundaries. In Boston, there are some areas like Back Bay with brownstones and a few high rise apartments or condos, but most of the neighborhoods around Boston are made up of single or multi family houses.
Building up can be a positive for people who want to live closer to the core of the city where there is no more land, because building up is the only way to add housing. That does not make it better and just because a city is crowded with more people per square mile doesn't make it inherently better. What some call "sprawl" I call a better quality of life.
Thanks Neil, this time you said it much better than I.
My beef with suburban sprawl is the unsightliness of Suburban shopping centers and the acres of paved parking. A denser, more downtown feel is more desirable for commercial centers. The tide has turned toward this I do believe, but there is still a lot of expansive commercial space in decline in suburban areas all over the country that lacked in design and function.
Here's how much of the thinking has gone on in suburban areas, especially for commercial real estate. As long as land is cheap, just abandon your big box after 8 years and build a newer shinier one down the four-lane for another 8 years, then hop skip down the road to the latest and newest big box when that one shows a little sign of age.
There are plenty of areas in the country where I can see the remains of two and three WalMarts near a current super store. And I'm not a WalMart hater, but they seem to do this worse than anyone. And none of the stores stood for more than ten years.
I like the new work/live/play centers that are cropping up. And would rather see redevelopment of older aging complexes than the need to plow down more trees and plop down more big boxes just down the road.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
I've said this before and will say it again....I don't understand this love affair that some people have with "density" as the be all, end all of urban or suburban existence. As one who grew up in a high rise apartment in one of the most "dense" zip codes in America....unless you're a single adult with no children and no pets, it sucks.
In my humble opinion, children are much better off with a yard to play in and trees to provide shade, and having more space to live in provides a much better quality of life. The reason places like Manhattan grew up is because there was no room to build out due to the natural boundaries. In Boston, there are some areas like Back Bay with brownstones and a few high rise apartments or condos, but most of the neighborhoods around Boston are made up of single or multi family houses.
Building up can be a positive for people who want to live closer to the core of the city where there is no more land, because building up is the only way to add housing. That does not make it better and just because a city is crowded with more people per square mile doesn't make it inherently better. What some call "sprawl" I call a better quality of life.
Personally I prefer the type of density you would see in London where there are row houses lining the edge of the block with a common "backyard" in the middle designed more like a park. I grew up in downtown East Point and most of the blocks in that district are similar that to that. We could spend the whole day playing out back between the house and our parents wouldn't have to worry about us being snatched up.
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.
