How far will the Atlanta suburban sprawl spread?

[mhays]

I hope those aren't the same scale! That's the whole WaBal area!

[MolsonExport]

It should not spread more than Santorum.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by mhays

I hope those aren't the same scale! That's the whole WaBal area!

I think those are pretty much the same scale. You have to keep in mind the disparities in density between the two regions.

[Tuckerman]

The lights from space are very interesting and illustrative of sprawl across the country.


Atlanta’s sprawl pattern is somewhat different from many cities in the US. In the middle of the 20th century it was an important, but not very large Southern city; its rapid growth as a metro area has occurred mainly in the past 20-30 years. There are many demographic explanations for this, but the sprawling nature was mostly tied to the development of several interstates running through the city. Single house were relatively inexpensive compared to many of the areas that those who moved to the area came from. This encouraged the development of single houses on relatively large plots of land.

Unlike many cities, there are few natural barriers to development. Atlanta was, and remains, a significant railroad hub and many roads and highways from Atlanta city ran parallel to rail lines connecting the center with earlier established smaller towns, e.g. Decatur, Marietta, Tucker, Aipharetta, Norcross Lawrenceville, Macon, Athens, etc., leading to sprawl linking the center and these established centers.

Coterminous with these factors, socioeconomic factors brought development of so-called “edge cities” to those nodal areas that collected on the Perimeter interstate (the so-called Atlanta bypass!) highway and junctions with N-S and E-W interstates intersecting with the Perimeter rather than directly into the historic city of Atlanta. The result is a large metro area with a very small central city called Atlanta that comprises only about 8% of the metro population.

Every metro area in the US has a unique sprawl scenario. Comparisons with areas that have very different histories are tedious at best and one gets into such meaningless arguments about whether the Buckhead section of Atlanta is urban or not. We should try and detail the common characteristics of sprawl in the US and distinguish those that are unique to a particular region or city and how that relates to urban development in the US now and in the future.

[Atlriser]

Sorry but what you just described sounds like every city that has had significant growth since 1950 from Tampa, Orlando, Gainesville, Greenville, Charlotte, Savannah, Macon, Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson, Baton Rogue, Dallas, Houston, Austin, all the way to Phoenix and so forth.....all the growth has followed the highways and the cities that have bypass interstates have become edge cities wherever the interstates cross coming out of the main central city. Wow, how NOT UNIQUE IS THE SPRAWL OF ATLANTA if you really look at the growth of all metros in the US since the beginning of the interstate highway system.

[Tuckerman]

Well, you make the point NOT UNIQUE IS THE SPRAWL OF ATLANTA if you really look at the growth of all metros in the US since the beginning of the interstate highway system. Of course there are similar sprawl scenarios in other fast growing Southern cities, but there are still notable differences and Atlanta gained the national reputation as the number one model for car-centered sprawl and is commonly cited as such - that is why it is discussed here. Of course developed cities in the North sprawled as well, but the sociodemographic factors made it rather different and so explanations for sprawl in those arts have to be different. When you examine the nitty-gritty details during the time of sprawl clearly different factors are found in different cities. For example, a lot of sprawl is attributed to so-called white flight, but many cities without large non-white populations sprawled as well for other contending reasons. Atlanta, in contrast, had multiple sprawl related variables that lumped together to give it the high sprawl ranking. These multiple factors continue to influence the Atlanta situation and the sprawl continues. The question is not just how sprawl takes place, but how fast growth is handled in contemporary society.

[Atlriser]

http://www.usa.com/rank/us--populati...-area-rank.htm

Atlanta density is 24 in the country out of 942 metros so for a city with no natural barriers to growth its holding fairly high on the list honestly compared to the rest of the country. Not saying Atlanta couldnt improve but density wise its far ahead of most metros that many think are more dense such as Portland and Seatle. In addition, the growth since 2007/Recession is almost all in the core counties and predominantly in the 4 main central counties of Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb and Gwinnett. Atlanta is mainly in Fulton with a sliver of the city in Dekalb. Fulton has had the greatest increase in population the past year and most of that was in Atlanta which occupies less than 1/3 of the county. Since 2007, Fulton has boomed with Atlanta at the core challenginng Gwinnett for the most growth since the 1970s. What many people dont realize is Georgia is the largest state east of the Mississippi and in addition has 176 counties. Each county must have one city where all government functions must be centered for judicial and governmental functions of the citizens of that county; therefore, every one of the 32 metro counties that make up Atlanta metro has a central city that is the seat of all local government and juducial processes which is another reason you have many of the edge cities that have grown into urban areas just like Cumberland (285/75), Perimeter Center (285/400), Spaghetti Junction/Northlake (285/85), Airport (75/85/285S) and so forth. Each county has a core city that has developed into an urban centr surrounding the central city of Atlanta and the edge cities that developed at the junctions of main highways.

[Tuckerman]

Incidentally, much has been written about sprawl in the US and it was a particularly hot subject area in urban studies in the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of this century. I believe it has cooled a bit since then. Nonetheless, Atlanta has been the focus of numerous books and publications with regard to sprawl. For a comprehensive view from the "hot' period, the book "Sprawl City: Race, Politics, and Planning in Atlanta" (2000) edited by Robert Bullard, Glenn Johnson and Angel Torres, is particularly enlightening. My own interest, as a former CDC scientist, was on sprawl and public health for which there is an excellent publication by Frumkin, Frank and Jackson on Urban Sprawl and Public Health. There is a strong focus on Atlanta in this and other publications on smart growth and pubic health.

[mhays]

Metro density isn't relevant. My metro has a major national park with a volcano because the other end of its county is populated. UA is a better measure.

Some posts explain why Atlanta is sprawly, and others seem to debate that's it's more sprawly than other cities. The former is more on-target from my perspective. And glad it's starting to densify in the middle.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Metro density isn't relevant. My metro has a major national park with a volcano because the other end of its county is populated. UA is a better measure.

Yes, MSA/CSA raw density stats are pretty useless because of the wild inconsistencies in county sizes, particularly out west where some counties can be the size of entire states back east.

Urban Area density is a much more informative metric for comparative purposes, because the geography being included is much more apples-to-apples from city to city.

Out of America's 50 largest Urban Areas, Atlanta is 2nd from the bottom in terms of density. Only the Charlotte Urban Area is less dense.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas

[brickell]

There's also weighted densities. Atlanta is a pretty big outlier
https://plot.ly/~caluchko/128/larger...ted-densities/

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Out of America's 50 largest Urban Areas, Atlanta is 2nd from the bottom in terms of density. Only the Charlotte Urban Area is less dense.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas

From the link, 2010 Census data of Urban Areas over 1 million Top 10:

1) Los Angeles - 6,999.3 pop/sq. mile
2) San Francisco - 6,266.4
3) San Jose - 5,820.3
4) New York - 5,318.9
5) Las Vegas - 4,524.5
6) Miami - 4,442.4
7) San Diego - 4,037.0
8) Salt Lake City - 3,675.1
9) Sacramento - 3,659.7
10) Denver - 3,554.4

Other notables:
Phoenix - 3,165.2
Seattle - 3,028.2
Dallas FW - 2,878.9
Detroit - 2,792.5
Philadelphia - 2,746.4
Boston - 2,231.7
Atlanta - 1,706.9

[mhays]

San Diego is pretty remarkable in that it has a lot of steep unbuildable hillsides and ravines amidst the developed area but still manages to be fairly high on the list.

I was going to use that excuse for Seattle. But really we also still have a lot of non-dense sprawl from before growth management. Including -- most influential -- a lot of outer sprawl that's sort of housing-horsefarm-housing-woods-housing on the edges that's just dense enough to meet the UA criteria.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No you're outright lying. There is absolutely nothing factual that supports your ridiculous claims, so you respond absurd personal attacks.

Bullshit. It's the same thing with you every time there's a thread about Atlanta, and it always has been. Your posting history is proof.

You're lying (again). I never made such a claim, ever.

Not only did you dismiss Buckhead with this beyond insane claim, you were so intransigent you almost caused the thread to be locked. Again, your posting history remains.

Yes, we believe you, really. There is definitely no other place in America with mansions and estates in a favored quarter, with shopping malls, luxury hotels and highrise office buildings in proximity. That typology is completely unique to Buckhead and not present in every major metro in North America...

Thankfully you don't speak for the rest of the forum, so you can dismiss with the snotty 'we.' And do you have reading comprehension issues? What part of "within the core city of the Metro" do you not understand?

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by mhays

San Diego is pretty remarkable in that it has a lot of steep unbuildable hillsides and ravines amidst the developed area but still manages to be fairly high on the list.

I failed to find the census site that breaks it down to the tract level I remember from an a thread a few years ago, but SD has really high tracts that abut to areas that have zero population, all within the city limits.

I live in a tract that is probably 10,000 - 15,000 ppsm, yet I could walk 5 minutes away and it would drop to 0 ppsm due to the canyon. I could go from all things urban to nature (coyotes and rattlesnakes) in under 5 minutes walk time.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I failed to find the census site that breaks it down to the tract level I remember from an a thread a few years ago, but SD has really high tracts that abut to areas that have zero population, all within the city limits.

I live in a tract that is probably 10,000 - 15,000 ppsm, yet I could walk 5 minutes away and it would drop to 0 ppsm due to the canyon. I could go from all things urban to nature (coyotes and rattlesnakes) in under 5 minutes walk time.

Yep! I work remotely from Sorrento Mesa, and I saw a rattlesnake on the trail right behind our office building on my last trip out there.

I've always been fascinated by San Diego's geography, it's amazing & beautiful to me.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by brickell

There's also weighted densities. Atlanta is a pretty big outlier
https://plot.ly/~caluchko/128/larger...ted-densities/

If the question is "how do people actually live" then weighted densities is the most accurate comparison.

Yeah, Atlanta is an outlier, along with other Southeast cities, but all metros have the same sprawl patterns. Things don't need to be exactly the same to be comparable.

No one thinks downtown Little Rock and Manhattan are the same, but they're both city centers, with the same typology. No one thinks Orange County, CA and exurban Atlanta are the same but they're both sprawl.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Bullshit. It's the same thing with you every time there's a thread about Atlanta, and it always has been. Your posting history is proof.

No, you're making up stuff. I never wrote the stuff you claimed, ever.

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Not only did you dismiss Buckhead with this beyond insane claim, you were so intransigent you almost caused the thread to be locked. Again, your posting history remains.

You are probably the only person on the face of the planet who thinks that calling Buckhead a suburban edge city is a "beyond insane" claim.

The only reason you're fighting this is, absent any facts, is because you're a homer and don't like sprawl, and so have to fabricate fantasy scenarios, trying to be the local urbanist chamber of commerce, as if educated people are going to be fooled in thinking Atlanta is built like Balitmore because you say so.

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Thankfully you don't speak for the rest of the forum, so you can dismiss with the snotty 'we.'

If there's someone who agrees with your characterization, and provides actual reasoning, I like to hear from them. Until then, it's "we."

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

And do you have reading comprehension issues? What part of "within the core city of the Metro" do you not understand?

I understand 100%, and it's completely irrelevant.

Makes absolutely no difference whether or not Buckhead is within city limits or geographically near the regional core. It's still classic postwar suburban sprawl and typical wealthy favored quarter development typology.

Heck, Midtown Atlanta is walking distance to Downtown Atlanta, and even Midtown is more of an urban-suburban hybrid. Midtown is many times denser/more urban than somewhere like Buckhead, yet no one would seriously call it a traditional urban neighborhood.

Whether someplace is one block or 50 miles from a traditional downtown has zero to do with the built form.

[cabasse]

buckhead is kind of more than just your typical edge city though. the main skyscraper cluster around lenox is very edge city-ish, but but buckhead village (around where roswell and peachtree split off from eachother) is kind of a hybrid of the downtown of a small city and a neighborhood retail village.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8394...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8392...7i13312!8i6656

buckhead encompasses a pretty large area and is not really just one thing - it has it's own neighborhoods like garden hills, peachtree park.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by cabasse

buckhead is kind of more than just your typical edge city though. the main skyscraper cluster around lenox is very edge city-ish, but but buckhead village (around where roswell and peachtree split off from eachother) is kind of a hybrid of the downtown of a small city and a neighborhood retail village.

Edge cities frequently encompass traditional town centers too. I don't think the presence of a traditional town center somehow invalidates a general development typology.

And obviously every neighborhood has its quirks. No neighborhood is exactly alike. But there are common typologies.