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 think for urban cities like Boston, NYC and Seattle growth was driven by immigration. That immigration dried up significantly.
In less urban cities like there is no point in living in the City of Dallas vs Irvine or Arlington. Same built environment outside a few neighborhoods.
Like Atlanta has more urban amenities than Nashville, Dallas or Houston and is growing more strongly than those center cities because there is more neighborhoods that you can live car-lite take MARTA and such.
Does Atlanta have more urban amenities than Dallas? Dallas proper has a higher density than Atlanta proper despite almost 3x the land area. While MARTA is better, DART is a pretty good transit system itself.
Does Atlanta have more urban amenities than Dallas? Dallas proper has a higher density than Atlanta proper despite almost 3x the land area. While MARTA is better, DART is a pretty good transit system itself.
MARTA has actually a much higher transit shared than DART.
Like MARTA has twice the overall ridership DART has and it shows.
This provides Atlanta with a bit more ability to sell a different lifestyle than its suburbs. (Excluding like Decatar)
People keep seeming to forget that Buckhead takes up about a quarter of the smallish City Limits, and much if it is made up of multi-acre estates. It's a unique dynamic that most cities don't have, and it drives down the density numbers. Just like the former industrial & distribution areas that still exist. Atlanta is plenty dense where it needs to be, and the boom on the formerly industrial Westside will make it even more so.
I think for urban cities like Boston, NYC and Seattle growth was driven by immigration. That immigration dried up significantly.
In less urban cities like there is no point in living in the City of Dallas vs Irvine or Arlington. Same built environment outside a few neighborhoods.
Like Atlanta has more urban amenities than Nashville, Dallas or Houston and is growing more strongly than those center cities because there is more neighborhoods that you can live car-lite take MARTA and such.
Then do not compare the city of Dallas in its entirety. Compare all of Dallas inside loop 12. If you do that, you would see that Arlington and Irving cannot match this section of Dallas. Still not urban but a different environment especially closer to the city center than Irving and Arlington.
Also, not to turn this into another sunbelt war, and while Atlanta does indeed have Marta, I don’t think the other major sunbelt cities are missing what Atlanta provides in urban amenities.
Also, not to turn this into another sunbelt war, and while Atlanta does indeed have Marta, I don’t think the other major sunbelt cities are missing what Atlanta provides in urban amenities.
Very true. Although I'd say Atlanta would be better for car-free/car-lite living than the vast majority of Sunbelt cities, Dallas doesn't do too shabby either with DART which does have more extensive regional coverage.
For Sunbelt cities in the next tier, Charlotte is the one with the most momentum and potential to offer a less car-dependent lifestyle IMO.
I always said the biggest thing to shock me was how low Dallas' city proper growth was and is. A metro growth of 125k people, but only growing 1-2k in the city proper? That would mean the city proper is not even catching 1% of the metro growth despite Dallas city being 1/6th of the metro population. And Dallas is not a built out city. There is plenty of opportunity for upzoning and redevelopment even if actual greenfields are not numerous.
One thing that could be driving the dynamics of Atlanta's city proper growth vs. Dallas is the fact that Atlanta just has a lot more traffic. This means it might force more people to decide to live in or near the core. Dallas on the other hand has much better traffic flow because of more highways, better road network, and the access roads. More people are fine living in the suburbs because they don't have to deal with that headache nearly everyday.
Also, not to turn this into another sunbelt war, and while Atlanta does indeed have Marta, I don’t think the other major sunbelt cities are missing what Atlanta provides in urban amenities.
One thing I find interesting however is that as much as some people have this perception of Dallas being this pretentious, business-oriented city with a ton of money, it is the only top 10 metro in the country that has neither a Saks Fifth Avenue (the one location they had at the Galleria closed in 2013) nor a Bloomingdales.
You would think a metro of 7.5 million people and a CSA of 8 million people would be able to support one or both, so it's interesting that both stores have passed it over.
Even Atlanta has both a Bloomingdales and a Saks Fifth Avenue (despite 1.5 million fewer people).
One thing that could be driving the dynamics of Atlanta's city proper growth vs. Dallas is the fact that Atlanta just has a lot more traffic. This means it might force more people to decide to live in or near the core. Dallas on the other hand has much better traffic flow because of more highways, better road network, and the access roads. More people are fine living in the suburbs because they don't have to deal with that headache nearly everyday.
I agree with this. DFW is really decentralized in a lot of ways. Jobs are spread out all over throughout the metro, and to some extent the amenities are as well. Living in the burbs in DFW does not imply a nasty commute. (Not to say that plenty of people don't have nasty commutes anyway, but it's not as simple as a bunch of suburban residents driving downtown and back every day.)
One thing I find interesting however is that as much as some people have this perception of Dallas being this pretentious, business-oriented city with a ton of money, it is the only top 10 metro in the country that has neither a Saks Fifth Avenue (the one location they had at the Galleria closed in 2013) nor a Bloomingdales.
You would think a metro of 7.5 million people and a CSA of 8 million people would be able to support one or both, so it's interesting that both stores have passed it over.
Even Atlanta has both a Bloomingdales and a Saks Fifth Avenue (despite 1.5 million fewer people).
Seems like the most likely reason is that they were casualties of a more competitive high-end retail market.
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.
