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 don't think it really makes sense to have the city protect the huge lots like you have in Buckhead. More density makes sense.
What exactly do you want the city to do? Run a road through the middle of someone's house? Atlanta's moniker as a city within a forest comes from not having housing density that chokes out what is really an old-growth forest that happens to be in our backyards. Paces Ferry Road should not look like the heart of Midtown. I think we can achieve better density on the Westside areas that are transitioning from light industrial to residential and also focus on the southeast side of the city.
What exactly do you want the city to do? Run a road through the middle of someone's house? Atlanta's moniker as a city within a forest comes from not having housing density that chokes out what is really an old-growth forest that happens to be in our backyards. Paces Ferry Road should not look like the heart of Midtown. I think we can achieve better density on the Westside areas that are transitioning from light industrial to residential and also focus on the southeast side of the city.
Dallas and Houston mostly have medium lots not small lots. And there core aren't bigger than Atlanta's in fact Atlanta is bigger. Don't confuse medium suburban home lot sizes as urban that's not there core. Which is partly what I was addressing. Density ≠Urban.
This is why I brought out LA it doesn't matter how dense LA is on paper is not built more structurally dense than Boston or DC.
For example Hype park this the infill and density yall are taking about. Houston core was originally medium lots. So it's infilling what was a very suburban area. I'm not going to say it's not urban at all, but it's sort of still Suburban compared to traditionally urban you can literally tell.
These are what I mean by "small lots", East coast cities have rowhouse, but most American cities are tight SFH neighborhoods with Multi units. The above pics is putting multi units is more spaceout car centric environment.
below in reading order are Cleveland, Chicago, New Orleans and Atlanta. Atlanta is no where as urban as those cities but because Atlanta had a few more decades in the Victorian era than Dallas and Houston, the city has more area reflecting that the time here and there.
So Atlanta doesn't have tear down blocks but rather just in fill between and around to what already exist. Which bring me to other point.
Honestly Atlanta focusing on a smaller area may work in ATL favor. If you look at of older cities, St Louis, Cleveland, Boston, SF, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis etc there core and often there cities themselves are under like 80 sq mi. And while cities like Houston and Dallas both gain 200k Houston is 640.47 sq mi, Dallas is 339.58 sq mi. There spreading growth more then Atlanta. Atlanta gain 80k but in 136.31 sq mi most of which is probably with in 50 sq mi. While Dallas and Houston are both infilling Atlanta is infilling more in core neighborhoods. You have think about Not only does Atlanta has midtown growing but areas like west midtown, O4W, a long the Beltline, etc. Summer hill redevelop. etc.
Atlanta is going to have the more urban core, Dallas and Houston are going to have denser suburban area.
Also I said "variety of lots size". Metro Atlanta in general is a mix bag of lot sizes. And it's not just Atlanta most metros East of the Mississippi have yard variance similar to Metro Atlanta it's western metro that set yard thing. This is why pointed out the east and West thing. Metro Atlanta is built similar to DC etc.
On another note metro Atlanta would still be over 5 million in if it had half the land in just 4,000 sq mi and still be the 9th largest metro in country. Regardless that DFW and Houston have a denser metros than Atlanta would be among the top dense metros in the country in that area.
Atlanta's core might be bigger than Dallas' since the latter shares urban amenities with another sizeable city in Fort Worth, plus some large suburbs. I would not say Atlanta's core is larger than Houston's though. Houston's core supports a metro area thats over 1M people larger than Atlanta's and visibly feels larger
The smaller and medium lots arent all of Houston's core though. You still have areas like Midtown and the East End which is made up of traditional downtown blocks.
Yes the lot size difference west versus east is well known but Atlanta is at the furthest end of the spectrum on one end. You say it leads to higher density nodes and in a way it does, but the Texas two has more density spread out while still having areas in their cores which reach density levels similar to Atlanta. The pedestrian activity is not as much and here is where I agree that less density outside the ATL spine leads to more activity in the dense areas vs spread out over a larger area. But this is just temporary because all three are growing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
Spread population contracts the idea of density,
Why worry about potential density a Buckhead home take up, when the core still has significant room to infill.
I do not care how much acreage a Buckhead home takes. Just pointing out it takes away from having more wide scale density in the area. The spine will get denser and the drop off away from it more significant over time. Again many love this and a lot of the eastern US is built similar to this. And also I think it's why the Texas two will eventually surpass Atlanta here because they have the ability to do both (have very high dense and urban areas with less of a drop off over time in the secondary neighborhoods).
You bring up LA over Boston and DC. Those cities for sure have more walkable cores but LA is no slouch and has more walkable parts over a much wider area. You can literally walk 30+ mile stretches on single LA roads without ever leaving a sidewalk or crosswalk. There's more pedestrian activity overall in LA because of this which is where the Texas two are going (especially Houston).
Atlanta's core might be bigger than Dallas' since the latter shares urban amenities with another sizeable city in Fort Worth, plus some large suburbs. I would not say Atlanta's core is larger than Houston's though. Houston's core supports a metro area thats over 1M people larger than Atlanta's and visibly feels larger
The smaller and medium lots arent all of Houston's core though. You still have areas like Midtown and the East End which is made up of traditional downtown blocks.
Most growth difference between these metro sizes happen the last few decades. Furthermore there core have nothing to do with there metropolitan size. It has do with the formation of there city early on. Unless there was extreme urban renewal to increase there core. And before you say it no that did not happen in Houston.
Midtown Houston is not like Midtown Atlanta in term of urbanity, DT and Midtown Atlanta is far more urban. In fact Midtown Houston is like a further along West Midtown Atlanta.
But what I'm getting at is Hype Park, Montose, The wards etc The immediate neighborhoods around DT Houston are not Like Sweet Aurburn, Cabbage town, Grant Park, reynoldstown and etc Around DT Atlanta. You can tell the neighborhoods around Houston was built a decade or two later than Atlanta. At the turn of century, near early start of mass production of cars. Because the streets are wider, large home lots and the homes and even multi units are more set back from the streets around core neighborhoods then Atlanta.
Houston metro feels bigger but Houston core do not.
Quote:
Yes the lot size difference west versus east is well known but Atlanta is at the furthest end of the spectrum on one end. You say it leads to higher density nodes and in a way it does, but the Texas two has more density spread out while still having areas in their cores which reach density levels similar to Atlanta. The pedestrian activity is not as much and here is where I agree that less density outside the ATL spine leads to more activity in the dense areas vs spread out over a larger area. But this is just temporary because all three are growing.
I'm not just talking about density nodes, I talking a city scape and the environment as whole. A gated suburban apartment complex can create high density that doesn't make it urban.
In picture above it's not just Urban preservation it again Hyde Park was never as urban as Cabbage town in the first place it was once more like Atlanta's Morningside. They took a neighborhood like razed half the homes and built multi units.
It's cause
in 1910 Atlanta was 154,839 / Houston was 78,800
1920 Atlanta was 200,616 / Houston was 138,276
Ford's assembly line starts in 1913. This is turn point on how cities were built. Atlanta develop more neighborhoods before the mass production of cars which changed how cities were built.
That's why picture above looks the way it do because it's infilling from what was always largely a centric environment.
Again I'm not saying Houston and Dallas are not urbanizing I think all 3 cities are being underestimated , I'm just stating Atlanta will always have advantage over them in terms of urbanity in their core. Atlanta has better foundation to build upon. That with Atlanta does have way more bolder urbanizing projects.
Quote:
I do not care how much acreage a Buckhead home takes. Just pointing out it takes away from having more wide scale density in the area. The spine will get denser and the drop off away from it more significant over time. Again many love this and a lot of the eastern US is built similar to this. And also I think it's why the Texas two will eventually surpass Atlanta here because they have the ability to do both (have very high dense and urban areas with less of a drop off over time in the secondary neighborhoods).
You bring up LA over Boston and DC. Those cities for sure have more walkable cores but LA is no slouch and has more walkable parts over a much wider area. You can literally walk 30+ mile stretches on single LA roads without ever leaving a sidewalk or crosswalk. There's more pedestrian activity overall in LA because of this which is where the Texas two are going (especially Houston).
It doesn't matter because it's not Atlanta core, and that far out wouldn't be Houston or Dallas core either. No city core is that far out unless it's NY, London, Tokyo or something.
Pittsburgh 58.34 sq mi
SF 46.9 sq mi
Boston 48.34 sq mi
Cleveland 77.73 sq mi
St Louis 65.99 sq mi
Minneapolis 57.51 sq mi
Around 30 to 50 sq mi is roughly the size of most cities core. Some cities like listed right above city limits are so small they are nearly just there core.
Anyways these are LA street view links they makes my point, a lot of multi units but if you look at how wide the street is etc. It's not Human scale at all. So you have density for urbanity but not the environment. This is why LA regardless of density it not used as a good example for urbanity.
This is why I stressed historical developed cityscapes etc. Because when redeveloping areas if the area is more human scale it will feel more urban, Below is developing west midtown area which was/is a warhouse area. Because of the narrow streets it makes it easier to urbanize. So Atlanta core has an advantage to becoming more urban.
But back too Houston your confusing denser suburban neighborhoods as more urban. Most of Houston is like this. While this is denser than Atlanta outer neighborhoods there absolutely no benefit from it being more denser than Atlanta outer neighborhoods. because it's not urban environment either or.
So if a neighborhood is looking like this outside of Houston's core it's not Houston's core, Houston's core is not bigger than Atlanta's core, Houston as larger ring of medium home lots in suburban neighborhoods. Otherwise it just denser suburban development outside of Houston's core then what Atlanta has. https://images.fineartamerica.com/im...s-northcut.jpg
Which also back to my other point, The large yards you think unique to Metro Atlanta are not, As I said East of Mississippi especially east of the Appalachian have yard variances. Big, Small, medium etc.
Western metros are largely medium lots in a grid because of that they take account of nature much less. While in the east there a variety of sizes because some neighborhoods take advantage of the scenic environment. There suppose to be a charm a piece feel to them, they are meant to be urban that not the point. And think Atlanta is more inwards on piedmont rolling hills sprawling closer to mountains.
Before the 1950's most Atlanta beyond 40 sq mi was some Atlanta early suburbs, you can say this at large at lot of ITP. So some neighborhoods have larger plots you could imagine they thought they was near edge of Metro Atlanta they possibility imagine how bigger metro Atlanta would become.
The irony as said metro Atlanta has variety of yard sizes. Metro Atlanta has more traditionally downtowns in suburbs from Decatur to Marietta, usually surrounding these city core they have smaller to medium home plots. And addition to many track sub subdivision have medium size home lots. It's really certain areas with in unincorporated area that have larger plots.
So for example two of cities I grow up in Smyrna and Arlington I didn't notice a dramatic difference in home lots size. Smyrna has more variety but on average Smyrna home lots are only slightly bigger then Arlington, Which Arlington is actually one the most dense suburbs in DFW. But the biggest difference is environment. Arlington is flat in a grid, While Smyrna is hilly and forested.
What exactly do you want the city to do? Run a road through the middle of someone's house? Atlanta's moniker as a city within a forest comes from not having housing density that chokes out what is really an old-growth forest that happens to be in our backyards. Paces Ferry Road should not look like the heart of Midtown. I think we can achieve better density on the Westside areas that are transitioning from light industrial to residential and also focus on the southeast side of the city.
Those people are wealthy enough to take care of themselves. It shouldn't be the city doing the zoning. And maybe a lot of those lots do get subdivided.
Inner city just isn't really the place for 4 acre lots.
But I will agree with you on the Westside. There is a lot of seriously underutilized land.
Those people are wealthy enough to take care of themselves. It shouldn't be the city doing the zoning. And maybe a lot of those lots do get subdivided.
Inner city just isn't really the place for 4 acre lots.
But I will agree with you on the Westside. There is a lot of seriously underutilized land.
Every city has a garden district. It just so happens ours takes up 20 percent of the population and land area. I don't consider the 4-acre lots off Mount Paran Road, Northside Drive, to be inner city. The land is already platted, and the mansions are already there. There's not going to be much opportunity to subdivide the land unless the original owner tears down their house and breaks up the property on their own. All the teardowns I see now are done in order to build even bigger houses, so that's just not happening nor should it. I like having the housing diversity we have because the last thing I want to see more of is the cheap, unimaginative housing they're building down Memorial Drive and along the Beltline and the student housing high rises in Midtown.
Anyways these are LA street view links they makes my point, a lot of multi units but if you look at how wide the street is etc. It's not Human scale at all. So you have density for urbanity but not the environment. This is why LA regardless of density it not used as a good example for urbanity.
This is why I stressed historical developed cityscapes etc. Because when redeveloping areas if the area is more human scale it will feel more urban, Below is developing west midtown area which was/is a warhouse area. Because of the narrow streets it makes it easier to urbanize. So Atlanta core has an advantage to becoming more urban.
But being from LA, I want to nitpick this bit. The Atlanta street that you call human scale is 36 feet wide which is the exact same width as your middle two LA links, wider than your last LA link, and narrower than your first LA link. The setbacks in LA make the streets look wider than 36 feet, but they're not.
My question for Atlanta growth is there any chance that Atlanta could be split into two separate MSAs? It's already one of, if not the largest in area and other cities that used to be one MSA (Raleigh-Durham, SF-SJ, LA-Riverside were split.
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.
