ATLANTA | Development Thread VI

[scania]

Originally Posted by arjay57

This was a very nice show with great footage of the stadium construction.

The other projects featured were a supertall in Los Angeles and the revamping of the Bayonne Bridge.


http://www.history.com/shows/project...on-1/episode-1

Nice feature on the stadium. I have more of an appreciation for the stadium.

[Vaden]

[QUOTE=jwbab;7814812]Workers appeared to be taking down one of the large billboards at the 775 Juniper site this morning.

Southeast Capital Companies website still says this one will get started in 2nd Quarter of 2017.


I had been looking forward to that but after seeing that render, doubts are creeping in. I hope it looks better in person than Skyhill did. Skyhill looked good in renders but el-cheapo in person. I still like the stepped side of this, but the facade looks worse than I had hoped...

Come on Emerson! Let's go!

[ATL CTO]

Originally Posted by MdtwnATL

Lots of exciting things happening at 14th and Spring.

Tell me about it, even tens of floors up at Atlantic House, I get a nice wakeup call around 7am most days.

[Atlanta3000]

[arctk2014]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

It's unfortunate they VE'd the "fold" of the Phase II facade.

[West Peachtree]

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...923&j=78194181

Can it be the best is yet to come?

[Street Advocate]

Originally Posted by West Peachtree

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...923&j=78194181

Can it be the best is yet to come?

In general, this is pretty old news despite the recent publication. What will be interesting to see is how the city of Atlanta's population climbs the list for total population and population density the next few decades. Metro area and population isn't impressive, IMO. Nor are cities that keep expanding their population through annexation, although I do support a more holistic vision provided for urban areas.

As for skyscrapers, I hope this means we see a resurgence of Atlanta's downtown, including new prominent developments in what really should be Atlanta's most recognizable and charming neighborhood.

[jayden]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

This development cycle has been probably the best in Atlanta's history, but conspicuously missing has been a major new piece on the skyline. Thankfully, this building will put that to rest.

I prefer the infill the city has experienced to "a major new piece on the skyline." There is still lots of time for that.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by Street Advocate

In general, this is pretty old news despite the recent publication. What will be interesting to see is how the city of Atlanta's population climbs the list for total population and population density the next few decades. Metro area and population isn't impressive, IMO. Nor are cities that keep expanding their population through annexation, although I do support a more holistic vision provided for urban areas.

As for skyscrapers, I hope this means we see a resurgence of Atlanta's downtown, including new prominent developments in what really should be Atlanta's most recognizable and charming neighborhood.

I respectfully disagree-- while city populations are arbitrary-- Charlotte and Houston include a good part of what would be the suburbs in Atlanta, in Jacksonville almost the entire metro is officially the city. Metro populations are the only scientifically determined measure of size.

Defined by the census as regions that are fundamentally connected and dependent on proximity-- Metro areas indicate relative size and economic muscle when taken as a whole--

[Vaden]

Originally Posted by Verge

I respectfully disagree-- while city populations are arbitrary-- Charlotte and Houston include a good part of what would be the suburbs in Atlanta, in Jacksonville almost the entire metro is officially the city. Metro populations are the only scientifically determined measure of size.

Defined by the census as regions that are fundamentally connected and dependent on proximity-- Metro areas indicate relative size and economic muscle when taken as a whole--

EXACTLY! How silly for anyone to focus on city proper as the sole measure. No city on earth today stops at it's "official" city limit. In Atlanta's case, the city proper is pretty small. Without it's conurbation, it wouldn't have anything even close to what it has. At 400,000 some odd people it wouldn't have a skyline to speak of. It would't have Gucci, Tom Ford, or Hermes shops. It wouldn't have national sports teams. It wouldn't have massive stadia. It wouldn't have over a dozen Fortune 500 corporations. It wouldn't be a center for business. It wouldn't have millions of square footage of office space. It wouldn't have monstrous highways with monstrous traffic jams. It certainly wouldn't have Hartsfield. And almost certainly it wouldn't have the MARTA system.

As an example, the "official" city of London is 1 square mile and has about 8,000 people. Everyone knows it's bigger than that.

In short, the world agrees that metro areas are important. Anyone suggesting that city proper alone signals city size/importance is seriously deranged.

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by Verge

Defined by the census as regions that are fundamentally connected and dependent on proximity-- Metro areas indicate relative size and economic muscle when taken as a whole--

It appears on Wikipedia alone, there are many different ways to calculate a population of a metropolitan area. If you are looking at city limits alone, Atlanta city proper has fewer residents than Virginia Beach and Mesa, AZ, ranked at #40 in the US. That is eye opening for me- perhaps Atlanta has a lot of pent up demand for city living considering all the business located here- so that is probably good for Midtown/Downtown/Buckhead.

Wikipedia has a few ways to calculate population on surrounding areas, and the link below has Atlanta ranked at #11 as of 2016. If you look at the growth, though, we have twice the rate of growth than boston (who has 1.75 million more residents), and we have 4 times the rate of Philidelphia. We seem to be running neck and neck with Miami, but with global warming and potentially higher taxes to pay for all the flood control for flooding they are having now, that may change. It does not appear we will eclipse anything in Texas.

I put together a small spreadsheet based on these numbers, and assuming the rate of growth between 2010 and 2016 would remain the same for all cities, Atlanta would overtake Phili in 2028 and Boston in 2058, but even at 2100, Miami would have a few hundred more residents than Atlanta. Perhaps land prices would get much more expensive in Miami, changing the current growth rate.

The unexpected big surprise was (I added Chicago later to the spreadsheet), that Atlanta in on track to overtake Chicago by 2058.

Based on this, in 2058, I had the ranking at NYC, LA, WAS, DAL, HOU, SF, MIA, ATL, CHI, BOS, PHI with ATL at #8. I'm sure either the entity that published the study was a lot smarter than I am, or they cherry picked some statistics to make ATL look a lot better than other competing cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...tistical_areas

[Atlriser]

There is something way off on that list of CSAs. It doesn't list Phoenix and several other large metros. The Census lists Atlanta metro as the 8th or 9th largest in the country currently. I'd trust the census over Wikipedia everyday. In addition growth projections are not just based on the past 5 years. They are based on many many factors from national economic factors all the way down to local tax policies and even just population and opinion polls on future outlooks and attitudes of citizens in areas. Also, they are just 'projections'. With that said, metro Atlanta has consistently outperformed all projections of growth since the 1950's. While that is good; it doesn't guarantee anything. However, I'd place my bet on Atlanta continuing to shine and outperform. It will be 6th largest by 2050 without a doubt and challenging for 5th as climate change challenges Houston and south Texas.

[themaguffin]

What gets lost in all of this (other than unexpected changes to the economy over times) is quality of life. I know many people here extremely frustrated at where Atlanta is now in terms of traffic and the challenges of getting around, the time lost (for those of us with kids) etc etc.

Growth to areas that were not and are not meant to be large employment centers (Buckhead, Perimeter). Miles and miles of Buckhead from Paces Ferry to 285 and beyond that has little transit, very few road options that are not 2 land roads... filled with massive lots and no affordable housing (not even remotely).


Some of this is normal for the size, but a fair amount could have been avoided. It's unfortunate and it unsustainable.

[scania]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

What gets lost in all of this (other than unexpected changes to the economy over times) is quality of life. I know many people here extremely frustrated at where Atlanta is now in terms of traffic and the challenges of getting around, the time lost (for those of us with kids) etc etc.

Growth to areas that were not and are not meant to be large employment centers (Buckhead, Perimeter). Miles and miles of Buckhead from Paces Ferry to 285 and beyond that has little transit, very few road options that are not 2 land roads... filled with massive lots and no affordable housing (not even remotely).


Some of this is normal for the size, but a fair amount could have been avoided. It's unfortunate and it unsustainable.

We all know that Perimeter used to be farms. Buckhead nor Midtown were initially meant to be large employment centers. One could technically say that about Downtown. All that matters is that when you decide to build for a growing city...you do it to meet the current and future demands.

[themaguffin]

We all know that Perimeter used to be farms. Buckhead nor Midtown were initially meant to be large employment centers. One could technically say that about Downtown. All that matters is that when you decide to build for a growing city...you do it to meet the current and future demands.

Yes one could say that, but one would have to omit the fact that downtown was the business center and has the road infrastructure/layout appropriate for being a center. Buckhead does not and will not. Same with Perimeter. Midtown, however, does make sense.

[Atlriser]

What you describe is every city in America.

[themaguffin]

I'm referring to specific issues in Atlanta. Yes, there are universal issues across the country, but I'm not referring to abstract problems, but Atlanta specific ones. We can't be blind to this. This is significant.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by montydawg

It appears on Wikipedia alone, there are many different ways to calculate a population of a metropolitan area. If you are looking at city limits alone, Atlanta city proper has fewer residents than Virginia Beach and Mesa, AZ, ranked at #40 in the US. That is eye opening for me- perhaps Atlanta has a lot of pent up demand for city living considering all the business located here- so that is probably good for Midtown/Downtown/Buckhead.

Wikipedia has a few ways to calculate population on surrounding areas, and the link below has Atlanta ranked at #11 as of 2016. If you look at the growth, though, we have twice the rate of growth than boston (who has 1.75 million more residents), and we have 4 times the rate of Philidelphia. We seem to be running neck and neck with Miami, but with global warming and potentially higher taxes to pay for all the flood control for flooding they are having now, that may change. It does not appear we will eclipse anything in Texas.

I put together a small spreadsheet based on these numbers, and assuming the rate of growth between 2010 and 2016 would remain the same for all cities, Atlanta would overtake Phili in 2028 and Boston in 2058, but even at 2100, Miami would have a few hundred more residents than Atlanta. Perhaps land prices would get much more expensive in Miami, changing the current growth rate.

The unexpected big surprise was (I added Chicago later to the spreadsheet), that Atlanta in on track to overtake Chicago by 2058.

Based on this, in 2058, I had the ranking at NYC, LA, WAS, DAL, HOU, SF, MIA, ATL, CHI, BOS, PHI with ATL at #8. I'm sure either the entity that published the study was a lot smarter than I am, or they cherry picked some statistics to make ATL look a lot better than other competing cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...tistical_areas

Metro Atlanta is actually the 9th largest in the United States, and Boston is 10. The information you are providing is CSA, which is essentially combining Metro areas together as one, not Metro populations, they are two different things. Metro population is usually what is counted in how large a city is, not CSA. In that case Atlanta already overtook Boston several years ago. When it comes to Metro population which is a more accurate measure of how big a city really is, Atlanta is actually projected to be the 6th largest in America by 2046

[Libertarian]

Right now it took me 47 minutes to get to the airport. According to Google Maps, if I had taken mass transit (MARTA), the time required would have required exactly one hour more. This means that, for me, personal vehicle transport in Atlanta with all the headaches is far more efficient than the alternative. The cost to equalize the playing field for mass transit is prohibitive. You say we in Atlanta should live more densely? Maybe so, but it's not reality now or in the foreseeable future. For the purists maybe the alternative is in NYC because that's the only place in America where I see an efficiency advantage for mass transit.

[Neighbor]

Anyone have news on the GA Power Eastside Trail site? Bidding was supposed to end on May 24th.