[alleystreetindustry]

everytime the future of atlanta and the city's development comes up, i seem to get very frustrated as to how it seems to have grown up very well, but not develop density the way it has developed a skyline. the architecture is beautiful, the urban forestry is phenomenal (sp), the people are great. i just wish atlanta would grow up into something more mature.

if i were at the age and career level i plan to be at, i would be the developer to build manhattan style birck walk-ups. large factory oriented buildings for office and residential space. modern and well scuplted mid/high-rise projects. none of that fake stuff you see being built now that claims to be lofts but is nothing but a suburban piece of shit. i would create buildings of 150ft.-300ft. height with the look and feel of new york. sure skyscrapers are nice, but wouldn't it be better to walk down a dense street in atlanta vs. a highrise surrounded by low rise structures and plaza like attitudes (such as bank of america plaza)?

bottom line..how do you feel about atlanta's current density? what is your best idea to solve this problem in a possible and efficient way? what method of development in atlanta would you prefer most? feel free to add any pictures you find suitable to the topic. visual representation is the best representation (in my eyes).

[netdragon]

I dunno. I'm originally from CT and have looked at apartments in Manhatten plenty of times, and the apartment/condo situation in Manhatten is really bad. Part of the reason the situation is so bad in Manhatten is because there is a shortage of available apartments and condos but only in some areas (such as Harlem) are highrises being put up. Highrise condos would solve the shortage issue, but the 150-130ft buildings in most of Manhtten keep things bad. Now, with all the historical buildings in Manhatten, it makes more sense to just leave Manhatten alone and rebuild in other parts of the city, which is what's happening. However, in empty lots in Atlanta, it makes no sense to build condo buildings under 20 floors. That doesn't mean there still can't be shops in the bottom, and can't be built densely, and the first four floors have a historical looking facade surrounding what from floor 5-30 is a glass and steel condo building, which would even give the appearance of what you see in some older cities (like you see sometimes in NYC, Hartford and Boston) where skyscrapers were built up through the center of historic buildings.

One time I spent a few weeks commuting into Manhatten on a near-daily basis to helpg a friend look for a flat, and I can say that except for the very expensive brownstones converted into studio apartments, they absolutely suck, especially walkups. People in Manhatten prefer elevator buildings to walkups except when trying to save money.

Also, another issue with the buildings in Manhatten is they block out the light. There are rules now in NYC that parts of buildings over a certain height have to be built a certain distance from the street. Atlanta would do good to learn from NYC's mistakes, and only emulate things that are good about it. I wouldn't consider NYC apartments as a model -- but there are some things that are nice, of course, that can be.

[Toxostoma Rufum]

Yeah, I also hate how London and Paris aren't like New York too. ;) But seriously...

I want thriving density, but it has to come naturally. There are so many factors in play which have kept and still keep Atlanta low-density. Density happens because it is needed and desired. Atlanta is on a tipping point towards that: but if the express desire of this density is to recreate New York for transplants, you can count me out (and I'm a Boston transplant who loves New York). On the other hand, if Atlanta insists on making half-measure suburban junk for suburban transplants (from all states), you can count me out on that too.

[netdragon]

Density requires a form of mass transit too. That's part of why we see Peachtree, the North Springs area, and Buckhead exploding. What do they all have in common? They are on the N-S Marta line in an already high land value area.

[dante2308]

I wouldn't like to feel as closed in as Manhattan makes me feel. It is no less than scary to walk through the downtown portion New York City at night. I don't care how nice the ground level is if you have to walk a few miles to see more than a road-sized slice of the sky. I'm not sure why people are so keen on rows of 50-floor condos blocking each other's view. I would be much happier with 10-floor apartments with an emphasis on greenery than the Viewpoints of the skyline.

Besides, if you want to compare New York City to Atlanta, wait until we have a few million people inside the perimeter before we talk about density. The skyline kind of ends a few blocks from Peachtree Street anyway so it isn't as if there isn't a whole city to infill the way you are saying. "Atlanta" isn't just comprised of the buildings on Peachtree.

[netdragon]

Manhatten doesn't really have many tall condos. It's the 10-15 story brick buildings that block out the sun. If you build a couple floors up close to a street, then set the rest back far enough, you get plenty of sunlight. If you build 10 stories right up to the street with square brick buildings like in NYC, you get gloom and no sunlight. I think they are doing a pretty good job in midtown Atlanta. I consider the area in downtown between Peachtree Center and the underground, which is Manhattenish, a lot more gloomy. I hope midtown never looks like that.

[dante2308]

Density requires a form of mass transit too. That's part of why we see Peachtree, the North Springs area, and Buckhead exploding. What do they all have in common? They are on the N-S Marta line in an already high land value area.

Th North Springs area isn't exploding due to Marta. There isn't even a reasonable way to get off the train and walk around that station. The rest of the places you mentioned are on the main corridor and so comprise of the only places really open to that kind of development. They boom because Atlanta is booming and regardless, currently Buckhead and "Peachtree" are predominately auto centric. If Marta create density all by itself, the East and West rail would be hoping by now. Density happens as a result of urban planning made by developers in coordination with the government. Atlantic Station happened because someone found an opportunity, not because of Marta. Lindberg is happening because it was a long term goal to develop that area around a station and when AS caught on, developers saw a bunch of money signs.

The current ATL model is to build cute "dense" "urban" pockets and provide tons of parking so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs. The Midtown Mile might be the only large scale pedestrian/transit-oriented development to date and really only has a prayer because of the quantity of upper class residences looming over it. Even Buckhead wouldn't be able to manage a true dense urban mega-plan until it stops acting like a vertical suburb complete with mega-malls and mega-shopping strips.

All the transit really does in regards to density is that it gives more pedestrians a way to access an area.

[MarketsWork]

Density happens as a result of urban planning made by developers in coordination with the government... The current ATL model is to build cute "dense" "urban" pockets and provide tons of parking so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs.

The New York model of density which uber-urbanists among us seem to covet does not exist because of urban planning or government action. Planners and bureaucrats certainly helped to shape New York's density, but they did not cause it in the first place. The force of demand necessitated density.

Older cities like New York and Boston, which matured before the advent of the automobile, were densely developed to accomodate pedestrians and horses. Their subways were merely a natural improvement upon feet and buggies, and made it easier for those cities to densify even further as more and more people chased less and less land. Newer cities like Atlanta grew up with cars, which provided far greater range than horses, and were not limited to compact development. Easy access to abundant (and thus cheap) land was almost universally considered a blessing -- and probably will continue to be viewed favorably by a majority of Atlantans for as long as such space and freedom is attainable.

Density in the modern era is caused by scarcity of land. Where land is in greatest demand -- and thus most valuable -- the market dictates the densest development. Atlanta still has plenty of room for expansion and infill, and still enjoys the luxury of lower land prices and breathing room. What you deride as "'cute' dense 'urban' pockets... so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs" actually underscores the luxury that we Atlantans still have something New Yorkers havent enjoyed for many decades -- plenty of land. Atlanta is not New York, and will not be for a very long time. I say "Vive Le Difference!"

[dante2308]

The New York model of density which uber-urbanists among us seem to covet does not exist because of urban planning or government action. Planners and bureaucrats certainly helped to shape New York's density, but they did not cause it in the first place. The force of demand necessitated density.

Older cities like New York and Boston, which matured before the advent of the automobile, were densely developed to accomodate pedestrians and horses. Their subways were merely a natural improvement upon feet and buggies, and made it easier for those cities to densify even further as more and more people chased less and less land. Newer cities like Atlanta grew up with cars, which provided far greater range than horses, and were not limited to compact development. Easy access to abundant (and thus cheap) land was almost universally considered a blessing -- and probably will continue to be viewed favorably by a majority of Atlantans for as long as such space and freedom is attainable.

Density in the modern era is caused by scarcity of land. Where land is in greatest demand -- and thus most valuable -- the market dictates the densest development. Atlanta still has plenty of room for expansion and infill, and still enjoys the luxury of lower land prices and breathing room. What you deride as "'cute' dense 'urban' pockets... so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs" actually underscores the luxury that we Atlantans still have something New Yorkers havent enjoyed for many decades -- plenty of land. Atlanta is not New York, and will not be for a very long time. I say "Vive Le Difference!"

Um, well its not like I said that Atlanta should have density. I was just saying Marta isn't causing any density like the poster before was suggesting. Because Atlanta doesn't have land restrictions, I was referring to how we create density here.

That said, I personally would appreciate transit and density because I refuse to buy a car and become a slave to oil prices. It isn't like I want to jam it down anyone's throat though. I know that my lifestyle isn't even possible for most of us. Besides, I'm just about fine where I am near Midtown.

[Fiorenza]

I know that my lifestyle isn't even possible for most of us. Besides, I'm just about fine where I am near Midtown.

Yeah but when you graduate you gotta move! :)

[alleystreetindustry]

i understand all of you have alot to say. alot of the problems of the sun being blocked out by the simple apartment blocks makes sense. its easy to solve the issue by making a thin grid that is mostly east-west oriented. that way the sun is always on the street for those that are parrallel with it, only short blocks going north south would be a/effected. i meant brick walkups in the fact that is what they are called here, of course all of the new ones will have elevators.

if i were to develop such projects, they would all start in between peachtree and the connector and 17th street to north avenue (i find this very good real estate for such buildings). atlanta is already dense if you compare the pictures from 2000 midtown/downtown to present day. downtown seems to be very dense in all of the photos you view from a distance.

anyways, i understand it is fanatical for me to one day compare atlanta to nyc, because there really isn't any comparison. i just hope one day we can 'resemble' new york for its density, something the environment needs. density adds walking and riding bicycles, it adds more people on less space, it also adds community in my eyes.

if these buildings were to be built, i gurantee you every loft/condo would be sold out within 2 weeks. alot of the creative freaks (such as me) here in east atlanta have the desires to 'living like a new yorker' in atlanta, and if we were to give them the actual 'new york of the south', i feel we would be successful. that is all atlanta needs in my eyes. everybody from my godmother to my friends to teachers in my school would love to live in a brick walk up. new york is a fancy and charming place, why not bring it to our backyard?

[sprtsluvr8]

Atlanta is currently becoming more of the city that you desire...there are dozens of residential projects under construction that fit your model of density. I believe there is even a thread for them either in this forum or another...I'll see if I can find it. Like someone else replied, there are areas of density mixed in with the open spaces, especially downtown/Peachtree St/Five Points area. It has building density, and the residential density is on its way with several buildings under construction. Midtown is also working towards the density you're after. It doesn't happen overnight though...just realize and be happy that the mindset of Atlanta's leaders and developers has adjusted toward high density development with transit options in mind. Twenty years ago the outlook was much different.

[dante2308]

i understand all of you have alot to say. alot of the problems of the sun being blocked out by the simple apartment blocks makes sense. its easy to solve the issue by making a thin grid that is mostly east-west oriented. that way the sun is always on the street for those that are parrallel with it, only short blocks going north south would be a/effected. i meant brick walkups in the fact that is what they are called here, of course all of the new ones will have elevators.

if i were to develop such projects, they would all start in between peachtree and the connector and 17th street to north avenue (i find this very good real estate for such buildings). atlanta is already dense if you compare the pictures from 2000 midtown/downtown to present day. downtown seems to be very dense in all of the photos you view from a distance.

anyways, i understand it is fanatical for me to one day compare atlanta to nyc, because there really isn't any comparison. i just hope one day we can 'resemble' new york for its density, something the environment needs. density adds walking and riding bicycles, it adds more people on less space, it also adds community in my eyes.

if these buildings were to be built, i gurantee you every loft/condo would be sold out within 2 weeks. alot of the creative freaks (such as me) here in east atlanta have the desires to 'living like a new yorker' in atlanta, and if we were to give them the actual 'new york of the south', i feel we would be successful. that is all atlanta needs in my eyes. everybody from my godmother to my friends to teachers in my school would love to live in a brick walk up. new york is a fancy and charming place, why not bring it to our backyard?

There are few to no inland cities on the planet that have New York style mega-density. It would take a force of will to create something like that without some kind of physical purpose and I'm sure Miami is far ahead of us in becoming the 'New York of the South'. If what you are asking for is street front elegance, thats really up to the developers. Glass and steel rule the day and Novare is building a lot of the new condos to that style. Its more or less the era we are in. Nowadays, function beats out form and post modern beats out classical. What we get is an Asian style city core instead of a European style.

[MarketsWork]

There are few to no inland cities on the planet that have New York style mega-density.

You just hit the nail on the head. New York-style density is a function of necessity, and runs counter to man's natural desire to carve out his own space. It happens when the trade-offs favor sacrificing greater space for less space. You alluded to the fact that water -- oceans, rivers and large lakes -- has been the single-biggest factor in limited the supply of buildable land, and thus driving up prices which favor dense development. Cities without water barriers can sprawl in all directions until economics require greater density. It just takes longer to reach that point than it does where land supply is limited by water.

[Curious Atlantan]

You just hit the nail on the head. New York-style density is a function of necessity, and runs counter to man's natural desire to carve out his own space. It happens when the trade-offs favor sacrificing greater space for less space. You alluded to the fact that water -- oceans, rivers and large lakes -- has been the single-biggest factor in limited the supply of buildable land, and thus driving up prices which favor dense development. Cities without water barriers can sprawl in all directions until economics require greater density. It just takes longer to reach that point than it does where land supply is limited by water.

I agree that the free market should determine the outcome of development, and any regulation is detrimental to healthy economic development. The only thing is that, as I understand (and I am not an economist but it sounds right) so far the damage to the natural environment has not been a variable in any economic equation. We just need to change the rules of the free market to account for this and we should be fine. Otherwise at the rate the current global economy is polluting and eating resources soon enough we may regret not doing anything about it. There are businesses who recognized this and they are ahead of the curve, so much better for them. Look at how the Japanese car manufacturers are leaving the GM, Ford and Chrysler in the dust. I guess they deserve it, you thought they would have learned by now.

[Stratosphere 2020]

The New York model of density which uber-urbanists among us seem to covet does not exist because of urban planning or government action. Planners and bureaucrats certainly helped to shape New York's density, but they did not cause it in the first place. The force of demand necessitated density.

Older cities like New York and Boston, which matured before the advent of the automobile, were densely developed to accomodate pedestrians and horses. Their subways were merely a natural improvement upon feet and buggies, and made it easier for those cities to densify even further as more and more people chased less and less land. Newer cities like Atlanta grew up with cars, which provided far greater range than horses, and were not limited to compact development. Easy access to abundant (and thus cheap) land was almost universally considered a blessing -- and probably will continue to be viewed favorably by a majority of Atlantans for as long as such space and freedom is attainable.

Density in the modern era is caused by scarcity of land. Where land is in greatest demand -- and thus most valuable -- the market dictates the densest development. Atlanta still has plenty of room for expansion and infill, and still enjoys the luxury of lower land prices and breathing room. What you deride as "'cute' dense 'urban' pockets... so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs" actually underscores the luxury that we Atlantans still have something New Yorkers havent enjoyed for many decades -- plenty of land. Atlanta is not New York, and will not be for a very long time. I say "Vive Le Difference!"

You word it out so nicely, I agree.

[CityFan]

The New York model of density which uber-urbanists among us seem to covet does not exist because of urban planning or government action. Planners and bureaucrats certainly helped to shape New York's density, but they did not cause it in the first place. The force of demand necessitated density.

Older cities like New York and Boston, which matured before the advent of the automobile, were densely developed to accomodate pedestrians and horses. Their subways were merely a natural improvement upon feet and buggies, and made it easier for those cities to densify even further as more and more people chased less and less land. Newer cities like Atlanta grew up with cars, which provided far greater range than horses, and were not limited to compact development. Easy access to abundant (and thus cheap) land was almost universally considered a blessing -- and probably will continue to be viewed favorably by a majority of Atlantans for as long as such space and freedom is attainable.

Density in the modern era is caused by scarcity of land. Where land is in greatest demand -- and thus most valuable -- the market dictates the densest development. Atlanta still has plenty of room for expansion and infill, and still enjoys the luxury of lower land prices and breathing room. What you deride as "'cute' dense 'urban' pockets... so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs" actually underscores the luxury that we Atlantans still have something New Yorkers havent enjoyed for many decades -- plenty of land. Atlanta is not New York, and will not be for a very long time. I say "Vive Le Difference!"
Excellent reasoning and analysis. You always post quality comments which enlighten readers on this discussion board.

[alleystreetindustry]

each city carries its own charm. i would enjoy it if atlanta would grow in a healthy manner instead of tearing out all the trees on a half acre lot just to build an identical, very upsetting architectural monstrosity piece of shit. owning land (and alot of it) is nice, and for some they just do so because it is cheap. my mom loves owning land, so she has a suburban home in east atlanta covered with trees. one of her best friends lives near, but only does so because it is cheap.

the growth of atlanta right now is generous, but still spread out in a certain way. if all of the development that has/is taking place in buckhead was centered between midtown and downtown, and around that general locality, we would be on a roll. im just upset to see that although buckhead is growing dense, it is in a manner that requires much more walking than usual. you have lots of space in between each individual building opposed to that in midtown and downtown.

i also understand that it sucks for atlanta to boom in the year it has. it seems the automobile may have benefited life for the human being, but has destroyed the environment to a greater ratio than travel. pollution is useless, as is the development to flatten land, take out all of the trees, and plant grass weak to erosion and next to it construct wide lanes for roads in which strip malls will thrive on.

smart growth is the best for the human race. more walking benefits health, less vehicle traffic benefits the environment, and density in atlanta benefits both the environment and southern hospitality. running into the same person on the street is a nice event. living in midtown atlanta, i walk everywhere. even when i have my car, i decide to take marta and walk to benefit both my self and my world. density encourages walking, walking encourages social behavior. new yorkers may not have the hospitality southern folks have, but atlanta sure as hell does. you may run into the occasional person that does respond to "hey!", but what the hell. thats just one pleasant experience theyll have to miss.

i'm also pretty sure that 99 out of 100 of my friends/family prefer the classic look opposed to the "artsy" glass sticks that are going up. but as long as those "artsy" glass sticks stay as pretty as the ones being built now, im happy. what ever happened to the marble, granite, and stone buildings that were once common? why not bring those back?

[Andrea]

Density in the modern era is caused by scarcity of land. Where land is in greatest demand -- and thus most valuable -- the market dictates the densest development. Atlanta still has plenty of room for expansion and infill, and still enjoys the luxury of lower land prices and breathing room. What you deride as "'cute' dense 'urban' pockets... so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs" actually underscores the luxury that we Atlantans still have something New Yorkers havent enjoyed for many decades -- plenty of land. Atlanta is not New York, and will not be for a very long time.

I agree. We have to remember that 90% of Atlanta's growth has taken place in the suburbs. The city proper measures its growth in tens of thousands, the suburbs measure their growth in millions. The vast majority of people come here because they do NOT want density. If you want urban density there are plenty of places you can get it, but that's not what Atlanta is about.

[john3eblover]

let Atlanta be Atlanta, and New York City be New York City. Why must every city be turned into another NYC??

[john3eblover]

The New York model of density which uber-urbanists among us seem to covet does not exist because of urban planning or government action. Planners and bureaucrats certainly helped to shape New York's density, but they did not cause it in the first place. The force of demand necessitated density.

Older cities like New York and Boston, which matured before the advent of the automobile, were densely developed to accomodate pedestrians and horses. Their subways were merely a natural improvement upon feet and buggies, and made it easier for those cities to densify even further as more and more people chased less and less land. Newer cities like Atlanta grew up with cars, which provided far greater range than horses, and were not limited to compact development. Easy access to abundant (and thus cheap) land was almost universally considered a blessing -- and probably will continue to be viewed favorably by a majority of Atlantans for as long as such space and freedom is attainable.

Density in the modern era is caused by scarcity of land. Where land is in greatest demand -- and thus most valuable -- the market dictates the densest development. Atlanta still has plenty of room for expansion and infill, and still enjoys the luxury of lower land prices and breathing room. What you deride as "'cute' dense 'urban' pockets... so that suburbanites can pretend they aren't in the suburbs" actually underscores the luxury that we Atlantans still have something New Yorkers havent enjoyed for many decades -- plenty of land. Atlanta is not New York, and will not be for a very long time. I say "Vive Le Difference!"


It was just a beautiful post to read. Well said man.

[ATLksuGUY]

:previous: Totally agree. However, dont you think cities like Atlanta are in for a big change in the next 20- 30 years due to rising gas prices, traffic, pollution with the green movement, coupled with the rising trend of higher percentage of urban population vs. rural.

[Andrea]

:previous: Totally agree. However, dont you think cities like Atlanta are in for a big change in the next 20- 30 years due to rising gas prices, traffic, pollution with the green movement, coupled with the rising trend of higher percentage of urban population vs. rural.

I don't think Atlanta is going to change fundamentally. There will likely be continued infill inside I-285 and increasing urbanization along the Peachtree spine. Many of the suburban centers will become increasingly urban, too.

But we are a quintessentially suburban and automobile based city, and that's what drives growth here (and in many other cities). Folks have been saying since the 1970s that fuel prices would force people back to the city yet the exact opposite has occurred. We've already massively subsidized suburban infrastructure and directed transportation, education and land use plans to foster suburban growth in the future.

In my personal opinion the sprawl based lifestyle is not sustainable in the long run. Nonetheless, many people are invested in keeping things going the way they are and I don't believe there's much likelihood of change until we hit the wall.

[ATLksuGUY]

:previous: Andrea what you said makes perfect sense. However I just feel that the proportion of tall/midrise office and condo buildings compared to the actual density of the city, is not the average proportion that the rest of the country/world fits into.

Its like Atlanta just sprouted and the actuall meat of the city, midrise/smallrise apartments and condos with shops never quite came, and everybody like'd their white pickett fence with 3 bedrooms and decided, "well I'll just drive instead of moving".

[alleystreetindustry]

why can't people understand i don't want atlanta to be nyc, i am stating in the better interest for the city's future, we need urban growth, esp. in the city around peachtree. and that during the construction of this 'boom', i would prefer the buildings to be based off of classic architecture, something similar to new yorks. i simply want whats best for her citizens and her environment, because atlanta sure as hell deserves the best.

[Toxostoma Rufum]

why can't people understand i don't want atlanta to be nyc, i am stating in the better interest for the city's future, we need urban growth, esp. in the city around peachtree. and that during the construction of this 'boom', i would prefer the buildings to be based off of classic architecture, something similar to new yorks. i simply want whats best for her citizens and her environment, because atlanta sure as hell deserves the best.

You also wrote:
i would create buildings of 150ft.-300ft. height with the look and feel of new york.

Sounds like you just want it to look like NYC, but I understand that what you really mean is that you want quality first and foremost. I don't want us to go retro/classic I've no interest in Gotham on the Chattahoochee...ideally i'd like to see us building things you don't necessarily see in other cities: or at least things that have an Atlanta flavor to them.

[alleystreetindustry]

You also wrote:
i would create buildings of 150ft.-300ft. height with the look and feel of new york.

Sounds like you just want it to look like NYC, but I understand that what you really mean is that you want quality first and foremost. I don't want us to go retro/classic I've no interest in Gotham on the Chattahoochee...ideally i'd like to see us building things you don't necessarily see in other cities: or at least things that have an Atlanta flavor to them.

true. i do want the quality that new york has. what i meant was that i want dense growth in atlanta similar to new york's, chicago's, san francisco's, etc. i truly don't want atlanta to be a new york, i just want the architecture of a new york. but in getting the architecture of new york, you also lose the unique qualities you find in that city. i guess you could say i just want atlanta to grow up, but in a way healthy and unique to only her.

[MarketsWork]

i truly don't want atlanta to be a new york, i just want the architecture of a new york.

I also prefer the classic architecture that defined New York's growth in the first half of the 20th Century. But that is a reflection of when New York was built, and that time has largely past. Today's predominant building styles and methods reflect different tastes and -- not unimportantly -- necessary accomodation of today's out-of-sight construction costs. But take heart in the slow but sure rhythms of change... Ties and lapels narrow and widen, and skirts lengths rise and fall. In a few short decades, Atlanta will have the look of an established metropolis, boasting the finest architecture of several differnt periods. It just takes time...