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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallaz
Doesn't Atlanta's tree coverage contribute to that? The first time I've ever went to Atlanta, I was blown away by the height and amount of trees. Since Dallas is on a prairie and Houston is on a gulf costal plain, I think that may contribute as to why the sprawl is denser overall.
Yes, you have a winner. One of the reasons why Houston, Dallas, or Miami have these never ending grids and Atlanta does not has mainly to due with geography and the unique way Georgia cities used to be governed.
First, it's not only the trees that shaped Atlanta (in fact, for a long period of time after the civil war there weren't many trees in the old city) but also the valleys. Atlanta sits right in the middle of the Piedmont and the region is characterized by rolling hills and valleys cut by the regions streams and rivers.
There are literally hundreds of valleys that twist through the city, with random dead ends caused by the natural curve of the topography. They are so numerous many of them are unnamed...and many of them are out of sight from day to life.
To add to all of this, the area sits atop large veins of granite and quartz monzonite, so grading the land is overly expensive to near impossible. This was especially true in the early days of the Atlanta when the technology to move earth like that just didn't exist yet. As the early city grew, neighborhoods were built that worked around the natural barriers. Run into a valley with a large rocky hill? Just build houses around it and act like it doesn't exist. This accounts for some of the spotty look of intown neighborhoods that totally switch up layout with seemingly no rhyme or reason.
The other reason is that when the concept of Atlanta came to be the original founders had no intention of founding a city. What we have basically just "kinda happened". Eventually it was obvious Atlanta was going to be more than just a rail depot, and the core city (Downtown) was built in a large circle. The idea was to ever expand the circle (or so the myth goes) but due to the slow moving process of annexing land at the time in Georgia, speculators began buying up land and building towns of their own. Neighborhoods such as Edgewood or the West End actually began life as suburbs of the old city. Eventually they were annexed, but since they weren't centrally planned by the city one did not like the other.
Anywhoo, I don't state all of this to say that this alone makes Atlanta more or less "urban" than the other two. If grid is all you needed to be urban, than OKC is New York City. Also, a grid isn't necessary to having a dense city. Just look at London or Boston. they basically followed the exact same development pattern (on different scales and different eras) that Atlanta did.
This is the only pic that I have that shows the entire “high-rise/skyscraper core” of Dallas. It really shows how close together all these areas are. This is what you see when crossing the Slyvan Ave Bridge, Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge or coming anywhere from the west. Coming from the south on I-35E, you cannot see everything since the skyscrapers in downtown basically creates a wall and blocks the view. This is what I try to describe in my posts. I like to think of them as 3 clusters. Red circle on pic is North Uptown (West village) / Cityplace - with the Texas' only subway and streetcar station, Blue Circle - Turtle Creek/Oak Lawn, and the Green Circle - southern part of Uptown, Victory Park, and the Harwood District. This is where the vast majority of the high-rise development is taking place within Dallas. The picture quality isn’t the greatest (and it’s thousands of feet in the air), but it does show the high-rise infill and density that’s being built.
I've been to Houston several times, so I think we might have a different term regarding "development" because I personally thought it was the least developed out of the cities mentioned here. Maybe it's because Houston (city) is the least urban out of the three. Urban Sprawl seems to make Houston and Dallas more dense than Atlanta as they build out past the city limit. However, I still think Atlanta feels larger in its core, regardless of the population figures that you show. It could have something to do with midtown, but Houston didn't feel larger in it's core. I also think that the urban projects in Atlanta will definitely make it feels larger as we move towards 2030 because of the smaller city limits. On a city level, Atlanta has a nice gap (in terms of urbanity) when compared with Houston and Dallas. However, Dallas and Houston does better with Urban Sprawl and Atlanta (currently) has the better suburban urban setting, IMO. I think Dallas could close the gap, but not before 2030.
Am I tripping or was this thread missing and just popped back up?
Anyway, when you say Houston is the least developed what exactly is your definition of developed? Houston has the leas walkable neighborhoods in it's core but it is pretty developed throughout the city and metro. I would say it's the most developed as in it's mostly neighborhoods miles and miles away from the city center in every direction of the core.
Now if you're looking at Atlanta from it's urban core to it's Northern burbs then I get what you're saying from that perspective. With MARTA reaching all the way to the Perimeter area (Sandy Springs, Dunwoody) and with suburbs in Northeast Atlanta( Smyrna, Vinings, Cumberland) and in the Northwest ( Peachtree Corners, Norcross, Duluth) the metro feels about the same as Houston and DFW or is urbanizing those suburbs more than what you'll find in Houston and Dallas. It's when you go east, west and south of Atlanta's core where it starts getting rural-ish outside of I-285. So Atlanta is the most urban in it's core and least developed throughout it's metropolitan area.
But I agree, by 2030 Atlanta will be even more ahead of Houston and Dallas. Since the last time I posted Atlanta's mayor announced 4 new MARTA stations. Sweet Auburn Revitalization and South Atlanta revitalization. Atlanta just seems more committed to building a future for pedestrians first in mind compared to Houston. I can't speak in detail on Dallas because I don't know what their game plan is for the next 10 years.
Houston's mayor recently did announce that they plan on investing 3 billion dollars into downtown in the next 30 years. Now I don't know what the hell that looks like in the next 30 years but 30 years sounds like a very very long time and not worth the wait.
So Atlanta is the most urban in its core and least developed throughout its metropolitan area.
I think Atlanta will grow more like Boston and Houston will grow more like Los Angeles. Obviously Atlanta is nowhere near as urban as Boston and Houston is nowhere near as dense as Los Angeles but Atlanta will probably have a more urban and pedestrian friendly core (like Boston) but Houston will be denser and feel significantly larger due to shear level of development (like Los Angeles).
I think Atlanta will grow more like Boston and Houston will grow more like Los Angeles. Obviously Atlanta is nowhere near as urban as Boston and Houston is nowhere near as dense as Los Angeles but Atlanta will probably have a more urban and pedestrian friendly core (like Boston) but Houston will be denser and feel significantly larger due to shear level of development (like Los Angeles).
I think you’re trippin. Atlanta will continue to be the most urban southern city not named Miami. But I don’t see it developing like Boston by any means. Atlanta is too car centric for that. Sure the overwhelming majority of Greater Boston residents use the car as well but the city was developed before that. Atlanta is way beyond that
I think you’re trippin. Atlanta will continue to be the most urban southern city not named Miami. But I don’t see it developing like Boston by any means. Atlanta is too car centric for that. Sure the overwhelming majority of Greater Boston residents use the car as well but the city was developed before that. Atlanta is way beyond that
I meant in relation to the 3 cities here. Obviously Atlanta is way more car centric and nowhere near as urban but it probably is going to grow the most like Boston out of the three. Atlanta will have the most pedestrian friendly core but will hit winding roads and suburban/almost rural looking areas way sooner than the other two (similar to Boston on a smaller scale). Houston is getting more pedestrian friendly as well but not as quickly as Atlanta is. On the flip side due to its gird and lot size requirements, it is adding density over a larger area very quickly and will have a denser, larger city feel over a much bigger area (like LA but not on the same scale). Atlanta’s UA will still not be very dense going into the future (like Boston) whereas Houston’s UA will probably get even denser as time goes on. The only exception to this is North Atlanta, which will probably look much more like NOVA (minus Alexandria and Arlington).
Houston will probably feel even more built up over a larger area than Atlanta as time goes on but Atlanta will probably feel even more pedestrian friendly and traditionally urban in a more compact core. That was kinda the aim of my post. Didn’t mean to say Atlanta will directly look like Boston or Houston will directly look like LA but rather that they will follow similar patterns to those cities on a much smaller scale.
Last edited by DaBears02; 04-16-2024 at 07:48 AM..
Given that the end of the decade isn't that many years away, I'd be curious about what if any major capital / infrastructure projects have at least approval at this point and have a chance of finishing by 2030.
Dallas has the Silver Line under construction and projected to open in 2025, so even if it gets delayed, it's incredibly unlikely that it'd be so far out in time that it won't have gotten usage by 2030. TEXRail could get an extension in by then if construction does kick off this year and that'll be at the Fort Worth side of the metropolitan area.
However, I don't think there's much else in major transit projects for the Dallas area and these lines aren't directly serving the most urban, densely built up parts of the metropolitan area and these are unlikely to be particularly high frequency by 2030.
Dallas does have new deck parks coming though which I think is great. One of these is an extension of the already popular Klyde Warren Park that connects downtown with Uptown which are already the most urban parts of the area. I think having these parks along with the average vehicle passing through having much lower emissions six years from now would make all of that a lot more attractive.
Are there other major projects (like, BIG and infrastructure-y especially) that Dallas has on hand that have a solid chance of being completed by 2030 and hopefully beforehand so it settles in a bit before then? What about for Atlanta and Houston?
I think Atlanta will grow more like Boston and Houston will grow more like Los Angeles. Obviously Atlanta is nowhere near as urban as Boston and Houston is nowhere near as dense as Los Angeles but Atlanta will probably have a more urban and pedestrian friendly core (like Boston) but Houston will be denser and feel significantly larger due to shear level of development (like Los Angeles).
Most definitely.
Good comparison and forecasting here.
I meant in relation to the 3 cities here. Obviously Atlanta is way more car centric and nowhere near as urban but it probably is going to grow the most like Boston out of the three. Atlanta will have the most pedestrian friendly core but will hit winding roads and suburban/almost rural looking areas way sooner than the other two (similar to Boston on a smaller scale). Houston is getting more pedestrian friendly as well but not as quickly as Atlanta is. On the flip side due to its gird and lot size requirements, it is adding density over a larger area very quickly and will have a denser, larger city feel over a much bigger area (like LA but not on the same scale). Atlanta’s UA will still not be very dense going into the future (like Boston) whereas Houston’s UA will probably get even denser as time goes on. The only exception to this is North Atlanta, which will probably look much more like NOVA (minus Alexandria and Arlington).
Houston will probably feel even more built up over a larger area than Atlanta as time goes on but Atlanta will probably feel even more pedestrian friendly and traditionally urban in a more compact core. That was kinda the aim of my post. Didn’t mean to say Atlanta will directly look like Boston or Houston will directly look like LA but rather that they will follow similar patterns to those cities on a much smaller scale.
Given that the end of the decade isn't that many years away, I'd be curious about what if any major capital / infrastructure projects have at least approval at this point and have a chance of finishing by 2030.
Dallas has the Silver Line under construction and projected to open in 2025, so even if it gets delayed, it's incredibly unlikely that it'd be so far out in time that it won't have gotten usage by 2030. TEXRail could get an extension in by then if construction does kick off this year and that'll be at the Fort Worth side of the metropolitan area.
However, I don't think there's much else in major transit projects for the Dallas area and these lines aren't directly serving the most urban, densely built up parts of the metropolitan area and these are unlikely to be particularly high frequency by 2030.
Dallas does have new deck parks coming though which I think is great. One of these is an extension of the already popular Klyde Warren Park that connects downtown with Uptown which are already the most urban parts of the area. I think having these parks along with the average vehicle passing through having much lower emissions six years from now would make all of that a lot more attractive.
Are there other major projects (like, BIG and infrastructure-y especially) that Dallas has on hand that have a solid chance of being completed by 2030 and hopefully beforehand so it settles in a bit before then? What about for Atlanta and Houston?
Atlanta has a similar project with the “ STITCH”. It will connect Downtown to Midtown. That project will be huge for the city especially considering how dense and walkable Midtown is already. It’s expected to be finished by 2029 or 2032 somewhere in that time frame.
The closest Houston has to this is the Pierce Elevated which is basically tearing down an elevated part of the highway and connecting Downtown to Midtown. Construction on that won’t start till after 2030 though and it’s not on the same scale or level of impact as the projects in Atlanta and Dallas.
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.
