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.
I hate the suburbs and dont know how anyone could live so far out. If I had to live far out it would be Dunwoody other than that you guys can have the commutes
The point is that Atlanta had that stigma,so did ALL major cities around the same time.Do you people not remember NYC was near bankrupt in the early 1990's?New York was a horrible place.
The article is called :The Decline of New York The Decline Of New York - TIME
That's an excellent, excellent point, and one I hadn't really been considering. I guess in part that might be because I don't get the vibe there's the same kind of push of people getting back in to Atlanta like there has been in the other cities because Atlanta's suburbs are so cheap and, compared to other places, it's not that difficult to get around.
I will freely admit, though, that part of this may be wishful thinking on my part. I saw the place I grew up turn in to something I hated as it got denser and more urbanized. Loved it growing up, but I'd hate to live there now, even if I could afford to. There's a part of me that's scared that Atlanta's going to have the same thing happen - go from a nice mix of urban living and neighborhoods, get more and more dense, get more and more jerks, and get more and more expensive. I love the place so much, I hate to imagine that.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepepper
Sure, but in that time the city's population went up 30%, but the metro area's went up 39%. The suburbs have been growing faster than the city itself.
That's not really saying much though. The City of Atlanta is physically minute compared to the greater metro area. Of course the suburbs will have a higher population gain.
But compare the city of Atlanta to other central cities of similar size. None of them have come even close to matching the numerical increase in the last 10 years that Atlanta has. That's rather remarkable.
That's not really saying much though. The City of Atlanta is physically minute compared to the greater metro area. Of course the suburbs will have a higher population gain.
It's not just that the suburbs had the higher population gain, they also grew more as a percent, in turn decreasing the percentage of the Atlanta area's population that live in the city from about 10.1% to about 9.4%.
Not only the issue of people not liking living in Atl city, very few can justify living in an old, small home and sending their kids off to school in the city. The people I know feel very 'screwed' for lack of a better word as their kids brome school age and the value of tHier hip house has fallen. That's when te move to Suwanee becomes mission number 1, not the new club on 14th. Some of these posts here show just how out of touch some Atlantans are, they can't see the improvements that need to be made.
But nevermind all of that, Atlanta has had a remarkable run. But this isn't the first time. Atlanta did Infact breakdown after it's first run, well all see what happens this time.
Dude Atlanta city limits is small (city 132.4 sq mi, metro 8,376 sq mi) if Atlanta was the size of Dallas Suwanee would be inside Atlanta itself are you trying not understand? Atlanta is a (sunbelt city). Atlanta is not like DC, Philly, Boston and etc it's like Dallas, Houston and etc Atlanta didn't annex! unlike other sunbelt cities because of political reasons like taxing. You and the other poster most think jacksonville is highly desirable because most it's metro stay in the city LAMO. For Atlanta to have the population of Dallas it most have land area Dallas not the land area Philly it's a sunbelt city.
Atlanta break down? do you relize Atlanta was the 6th largest gainer last year? and everything affecting Atlanta is affecting the hold southeast and most sunbelt cities. "Some of these posts here show just how out of touch some Atlantans are, they can't see the improvements that need to be made." I posted this earlier, do you know Atlanta is going threw the largest redevoplment project in this county the Atlanta beltline?
Dude Atlanta city limits is small (city 132.4 sq mi, metro 8,376 sq mi) if Atlanta was the size of Dallas Suwanee would be inside Atlanta itself are you trying not understand? Atlanta is a (sunbelt city). Atlanta is not like DC, Philly, Boston and etc it's like Dallas, Houston and etc Atlanta didn't annex! unlike other sunbelt cities because of political reasons like taxing. You and the other poster most think jacksonville is highly desirable because most it's metro stay in the city LAMO. For Atlanta to have the population of Dallas it most have land area Dallas not the land area Philly it's a sunbelt city.
I'm not trying to say that a city's desirability, either total or in relation to its surrounding area, can be solely measured by the ratio of people who live a city as compared to the total metro area or that such a ratio is the best way to measure it. I'm saying that based on my experiences, which are obviously anecdotal and not hard data, people in the Atlanta area are less likely to want to live in the city itself because of a combination of (1) outdated attitudes about what it's like in the city (2) the fact that the layout of the metro area makes it easier to get around than in other cities and (3) that the cultural capital of the Atlanta mailing address is less than it is with some other major cities. The first point would mean a higher aversion among people who aren't interested in the city; the second and third would mean that people who are interested in the city are less likely to be drawn than in other areas.
I'm not trying to make a statement about the quality of Atlanta, the quality of its suburbs, the relative quality of each, the city's development (either planned or completed), how nice the city's center is, how nice its attractions are, how much people value their city center's attractions, or anything else about the city itself. I'm noting my impression, solely based on personal experiences, about the demand for an in-city mailing address, for the sake of an in-city mailing address and nothing else, in Atlanta as compared to other major cities; nothing more.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepepper
It's not just that the suburbs had the higher population gain, they also grew more as a percent, in turn decreasing the percentage of the Atlanta area's population that live in the city from about 10.1% to about 9.4%.
Again, it is an apples and oranges comparison. There is the obvious size difference between the two. The burbs cover over 5000 square miles to Atlanta's 132. Additionally, the two areas also attract different types of people.
As much as living in the suburbs is unpopular in urbanist circles (including myself), such is not true for the public at large. In every city, in every region of this country, suburban living is the preferred method of housing for most people even in places like New York City or San Francisco. People moving back into the central city is a new phenomenon and it'll take at least a generation or two to see where it will lead. So far for Atlanta, it has been literally a smashing success.
For instance, if you compare the City of Atlanta with other central cities of similar physical size, a rather interesting thing occurs:
Seattle - 86 square miles land area
2000 Population - 516,259
2009 Population - 563,374
Numerical gain: 47,115
Percentage gain: 6.9%
Denver - 154 square miles land area
2000 Population - 554,636
2009 Population - 598,707
Numerical gain: 44,071
Percentage gain: 7.9%
Philadelphia - 127 square miles land area
2000 Population - 1,517,550
2009 Population - 1,547,901
Numerical gain: 30,449
Percentage gain: 2.0%
Portland - 134 square miles land area
2000 Population - 529,121
2009 Population - 557,706
Numerical gain: 28,585
Percentage gain: 5.0%
Atlanta - 132 square miles land area
2000 Population - 416,474
2009 Population - 537,958 Numerical gain: 121,484
Percentage gain: 29.1% increase
Now, all of these metropolitan areas have grown since 2000 (with the exception of Philly, which has pretty much broken even) but just look at the significant difference in population change without annexation. A large gain in population just by people moving to an existing city that Atlanta had this past decade hasn't happened in several generations in just about anywhere else in this country.
If you were to listen to the general rule of thumb, there is nothing remarkable about urban Atlanta, and it very few people want to move to the city proper. However, for the cities above and smaller areas such as Washington DC, Miami, Boston, or San Fran, none them can match the explosion in urban growth that Atlanta has had.
Granted, some of those cities have a much larger old urban backbone than Atlanta does, but none of them have put as much focus on redeveloping and new urbanism as Atlanta has. The fact that it only gets a casual mention by many is rather frustrating, but oh well. This city has a history of doing things no one ever thought it could. That's kind of our thing.
I'm not trying to make a statement about the quality of Atlanta, the quality of its suburbs, the relative quality of each, the city's development (either planned or completed), how nice the city's center is, how nice its attractions are, how much people value their city center's attractions, or anything else about the city itself. I'm noting my impression, solely based on personal experiences, about the demand for an in-city mailing address, for the sake of an in-city mailing address and nothing else, in Atlanta as compared to other major cities; nothing more.
I would have to agree that there are plenty of people in the suburbs who see absolutely nothing attractive about intown living. My own family is a living breathing example. I face a kind hearted critique every time I visit them in Cherokee County that I am crazy for living in Midtown. How do I stand the taxes? The crime? The small living space? You ride MARTA - . They just don't get it, and I don't think they ever will, but I am the next generation and I know plenty of people that feel the same way I do. Like I always say: to each his own.
Not only the issue of people not liking living in Atl city, very few can justify living in an old, small home and sending their kids off to school in the city. The people I know feel very 'screwed' for lack of a better word as their kids brome school age and the value of tHier hip house has fallen. That's when te move to Suwanee becomes mission number 1, not the new club on 14th. Some of these posts here show just how out of touch some Atlantans are, they can't see the improvements that need to be made.
But nevermind all of that, Atlanta has had a remarkable run. But this isn't the first time. Atlanta did Infact breakdown after it's first run, well all see what happens this time.
Look you obviously live outside the perimeter.We ITP people can always tell.(Unless you are a student living in the dorm).The reason I said this is because people who live inside the city very much value each neighbourhood they live in.Ask some that lives in VA-HI,Grant Park,Buckhead,Cascade, Collier Heights,Peachtree Battle/Hills or Brookhaven where they live.
What real city in America do people really think its better to raise kids in than in that cities suburbs?Maybe Charlotte, OKC,Raleigh-Durham,Tampa but not cities like NYC,Chicago,D.C.,Philly,or even Atlanta.Not for the most part.
What do you mean "But this isn't the first time. Atlanta did Infact breakdown after it's first run"
For the record how many empty new subdivisions,with 2 or 3 houses or newly entrances to these subdivisions do you see in Atlanta vs suburb x?The housing prises are actually doing better in the city than the suburbs.
I'm not trying to say that a city's desirability, either total or in relation to its surrounding area, can be solely measured by the ratio of people who live a city as compared to the total metro area or that such a ratio is the best way to measure it. I'm saying that based on my experiences, which are obviously anecdotal and not hard data, people in the Atlanta area are less likely to want to live in the city itself because of a combination of (1) outdated attitudes about what it's like in the city (2) the fact that the layout of the metro area makes it easier to get around than in other cities and (3) that the cultural capital of the Atlanta mailing address is less than it is with some other major cities. The first point would mean a higher aversion among people who aren't interested in the city; the second and third would mean that people who are interested in the city are less likely to be drawn than in other areas.
I'm not trying to make a statement about the quality of Atlanta, the quality of its suburbs, the relative quality of each, the city's development (either planned or completed), how nice the city's center is, how nice its attractions are, how much people value their city center's attractions, or anything else about the city itself. I'm noting my impression, solely based on personal experiences, about the demand for an in-city mailing address, for the sake of an in-city mailing address and nothing else, in Atlanta as compared to other major cities; nothing more.
Atlanta FAIL TO ANNEX THAT WHY ATL RATIO IS 1/10 if Dallas Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, Austin, Columbus, Charlotte, Fort Worth, had the city limit area of Atlanta they would be about the same size as Atlanta or significantly smaller. If you notice the difference between those cities and northern cities the sunbelt cities have a large city limit size than northern cities, Atlanta is unusual because the city limit is too small for the type of city is Atlanta traditionally a city built out. The political laws in Georgia as well as the political Atmosphere here made it difficult to annex. Your judging ATL as if it’s a northeastern or Midwestern city, how the heck do more than 1/10 of a sun belt metropolitan 8,376 sq mi just suppose be in a sun belt city of 132.4 sq mi? that doesn’t even makes sense. Your just focusing on more people should be in Atlanta failing to understand Atlanta itself should bigger and annex it's inner suburbs a long time ago, for the type of city Atlanta is.
Dallas another sunbelt city is 1,279,910 in 385.0 sq mi. Atlanta, College park, East point, Decatur, Doraville and etc would be over million people, and you can fit all of that in 385.0 sq mi the size of Dallas. You really don’t get it. ATLANTA is small because the city limit size not cause people don’t want live here.
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.
. They just don't get it, and I don't think they ever will, but I am the next generation and I know plenty of people that feel the same way I do. Like I always say: to each his own.
