Why is the Atlanta Metro Area so amazingly spread out?

briantech · #1 Posted **Feb 20, 2008, 4:16 PM**

This isn't about the factors that made atlanta sprawl out, I'm simply wondering why the "Atlanta Metro Area" has been defined to include such a vast, vast area of land?

According to wikipedia, the "Metro Area" includes 28 counties and 8,300 square miles of land. Why? Who defines what is and is not part of the atlanta metro area?

Just contrast this with something like san francisco. You can throw a rock to oakland practically. Fremont is super close, as is sunnyvale, mountainview, san jose.

No one lumps all those places together and just calls them all "San Francisco" though.

I don't know if I am making any sense, but I'm just curious as to what parameters people have used to say "ok, THIS county that is 50 miles from downtown is part of the atlanta metro area, but this one isn't". Is it just because atlanta is the only real city basically in georgia, so anything even remotely close to it just gets lumped in with it?

Andrea · #2 Posted **Feb 20, 2008, 5:18 PM**

I don't think that's unusual for Sunbelt cities. Dallas and Houston are about the same size, and the D.C area is something like 6,000 sq. mi. Phoenix is probably twice as big.

smArTaLlone · #3 Posted **Feb 20, 2008, 5:38 PM**

Its a government (Office of Management and Budget) definition of region with strong economic ties. Its basically an urban core and surrounding communities (counties) that are linked to the core through commuting. The minimum standard, I believe, is 25% of the working population in a county must commute to the MSA for work to be included in that MSA.

Also as Andrea mentioned, Dallas and Houston are larger than Atlanta in land area with just 10-12 metro counties because of Georgia's small counties.

About MSA's

Rail Claimore · #4 Posted **Feb 20, 2008, 6:22 PM**

I'm not sure Dallas and Houston are larger than Atlanta in land area. Maybe in terms of total area covered by their respective MSAs. But Atlanta is larger than both in terms of physically developed area. In fact, by that measure, it's the third largest metro area in the country behind Chicago and New York, and might be larger than Chicago by now.

Largest urban areas in the world ranked by land area

Atlanta sprawls over 5000 sq km. Dallas and Houston don't even reach 4000.

ThrashATL · #5 Posted **Feb 20, 2008, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I'm not sure Dallas and Houston are larger than Atlanta in land area. Maybe in terms of total area covered by their respective MSAs. But Atlanta is larger than both in terms of physically developed area. In fact, by that measure, it's the third largest metro area in the country behind Chicago and New York, and might be larger than Chicago by now.

Largest urban areas in the world ranked by land area

Atlanta sprawls over 5000 sq km. Dallas and Houston don't even reach 4000.

Check out the predicted 2020 list. Atlanta is 51st largest city in the world but 5th in the US behind NY, LA, Chicago, MIAMI(?) and ahead of Dallas, Houston, Toronto

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_2020_1.html

Rail Claimore · #6 Posted **Feb 20, 2008, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThrashATL

Check out the predicted 2020 list. Atlanta is 51st largest city in the world but 5th in the US behind NY, LA, Chicago, MIAMI(?) and ahead of Dallas, Houston, Toronto

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_2020_1.html

I just noticed that. There's no way Miami will be able to grow that fast. There's not enough room, and building upward takes longer than building out.

SteveD · #7 Posted **Feb 21, 2008, 1:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I'm not sure Dallas and Houston are larger than Atlanta in land area. Maybe in terms of total area covered by their respective MSAs. But Atlanta is larger than both in terms of physically developed area. In fact, by that measure, it's the third largest metro area in the country behind Chicago and New York, and might be larger than Chicago by now.

Largest urban areas in the world ranked by land area

Atlanta sprawls over 5000 sq km. Dallas and Houston don't even reach 4000.

The original poster is talking about MSA land area. Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston MSA land areas are larger than Atlanta MSA land area.

littlepnut · #8 Posted **Feb 21, 2008, 2:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by briantech

This isn't about the factors that made atlanta sprawl out, I'm simply wondering why the "Atlanta Metro Area" has been defined to include such a vast, vast area of land?

According to wikipedia, the "Metro Area" includes 28 counties and 8,300 square miles of land. Why? Who defines what is and is not part of the atlanta metro area?

Just contrast this with something like san francisco. You can throw a rock to oakland practically. Fremont is super close, as is sunnyvale, mountainview, san jose.

No one lumps all those places together and just calls them all "San Francisco" though.

I don't know if I am making any sense, but I'm just curious as to what parameters people have used to say "ok, THIS county that is 50 miles from downtown is part of the atlanta metro area, but this one isn't". Is it just because atlanta is the only real city basically in georgia, so anything even remotely close to it just gets lumped in with it?

That is a good question I have been wondering the same thing

smArTaLlone · #9 Posted **Feb 21, 2008, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I'm not sure Dallas and Houston are larger than Atlanta in land area. Maybe in terms of total area covered by their respective MSAs. But Atlanta is larger than both in terms of physically developed area. In fact, by that measure, it's the third largest metro area in the country behind Chicago and New York, and might be larger than Chicago by now.

Largest urban areas in the world ranked by land area

Atlanta sprawls over 5000 sq km. Dallas and Houston don't even reach 4000.

I'm refering to the census defined MSA which includes the 28 counties briantech was asking about. By the census definition Atlanta "metro" is 8,376 sq. mi. , Houston 10,062 sq. mi., Dallas 9,289 sq. mi.

That ranking uses "urbanized area" which is rather bogus IMO. Its defined by a minimum population density and includes a lot of area that is anything but urban.

Teshadoh · #10 Posted **Feb 22, 2008, 3:59 PM**

Because of commuting patterns - many of the rural counties surrounding the Atlanta metro are ecomonically depressed. Therefore many of those residents drive in to the suburban edge of Atlanta metro to work.

djkix · #11 Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 5:02 AM**

Atlanta does not have physical constraints to limit the sprawl. There's no big lake, river, ocean, mountain, or state border to contain it and encourage a more dense metropolis layout. And majority of the ppl that live in the metro area probably don't want a dense layout anyway - they all want a big house and big cars. And then there's the uninspired city designers. It's a guaranteed formula for sprawl.

I've been to houston and the sprawl is worse. Just drive around and you will see. You will feel it. It feels like the city designers didn't know what to do with all that land so they just decided to make everything spread out as much as possible. You will feel it as soon as you step foot on bush int'l. And you'd never know that it's right at the sea if someone didn't tell you. The city feels so landlocked and trapped. That's one city to which i'll never return.