Do you prefer the slower rate of growth, or the high rate of growth prior to 2007? (Atlanta: construction, pros and cons)

[Stars&StripesForever]

What do you prefer?

The slower rate of growth that the Atlanta area is currently within.

OR

The high rate of growth that was typical of Atlanta up till 2007.

Pros and Cons. What do you prefer?

[cqholt]

I prefer sustainable growth that is managed along transit corridors. We don not need the rapid growth that has lead to the suburban sprawl and traffic gridlock. Instead we need to adopt a policy like Portland, OR where growth is concentrated along transit corridors that could handle future transit lines.

[BobKovacs]

Well, the "I work in the commercial construction industry" side of me should be favoring the pace we had prior to 2007, as it was great for business. It was also what brought me here from NJ, so I'm thankful that it occured.

The current pace is good in a way, because it's weeding out some of the "competition" that doesn't have the resources to weather the downturn, but it's a bit too slow for me.

I think I'd like to see things pick up somewhat, but not get to the out of control pace that was prevalent prior to 2007.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by cqholt

I prefer sustainable growth that is managed along transit corridors. We don not need the rapid growth that has lead to the suburban sprawl and traffic gridlock. Instead we need to adopt a policy like Portland, OR where growth is concentrated along transit corridors that could handle future transit lines.

Yes...and I'd love everyone to save, invest, and take responsibility for their own actions, but alas.....reality gets in the way.

What you prefer isn't realistic in Atlanta for a number of reasons. The development has already occurred. This isn't 1911 in Brooklyn where the development grew up along the trolley or rail lines. The cost to build rail lines is huge and takes years. In Atlanta, the other major difference from some other cities is that 90% of people not only live out in the suburbs, but they also work out in the suburbs as well. The transit would have to provide intra and inter-suburban lines, as opposed to the radial type of system that many cities (and Atlanta) now have to their downtown core. That gets much more expensive and time consuming.

So the question is whether or not the growth that existed over the last 15 years is good or something less is better, I guess it depends. Something more manageable than the breakneck pace of growth in the 1990s and early 2000s is probably better overall, but fast growth with accompanying economic development is better than no growth and the attendant no economic impact.

[ericsonga]

I agree with most everyone else. I don't think that Atlanta should ever have the out of control growth we saw a few years ago. Planned and smart growth definitely needs to happen for a region to maintain sustainability. I wish I could say we learned a lesson from what happened, however I highly doubt it.

[cqholt]

What you prefer isn't realistic in Atlanta for a number of reasons

Portland is implementing such a plan and most of the development occurred before the extension of light-rail lines.

[AcidSnake]

You sure seem pretty obsessed with growth that happened pre-2007.

And hey, what do we have here? A thread that you created earlier this year talking about missing the way growth in Atlanta was pre-2007.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/atlan...th-return.html

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

What do you prefer?

The slower rate of growth that the Atlanta area is currently within.

OR

The high rate of growth that was typical of Atlanta up till 2007.

Pros and Cons. What do you prefer?

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Yes...and I'd love everyone to save, invest, and take responsibility for their own actions, but alas.....reality gets in the way.

What you prefer isn't realistic in Atlanta for a number of reasons. The development has already occurred. This isn't 1911 in Brooklyn where the development grew up along the trolley or rail lines. The cost to build rail lines is huge and takes years. In Atlanta, the other major difference from some other cities is that 90% of people not only live out in the suburbs, but they also work out in the suburbs as well. The transit would have to provide intra and inter-suburban lines, as opposed to the radial type of system that many cities (and Atlanta) now have to their downtown core. That gets much more expensive and time consuming.

So the question is whether or not the growth that existed over the last 15 years is good or something less is better, I guess it depends. Something more manageable than the breakneck pace of growth in the 1990s and early 2000s is probably better overall, but fast growth with accompanying economic development is better than no growth and the attendant no economic impact.

While I agree with you completely that it is kind of a forgone conclusion to expect New York City type growth around transit lines in Atlanta or anywhere else for that matter in this country in 2011 (we'd be better off building a suburban transit infrastructure like Metra in Chicago), it is not true that having such a large portion of the population living in suburban locations is unique to Atlanta. Here are the totals for the 11 largest Metro Areas and where people live:

New York City - 57% in the suburbs, 43% in the city
Los Angeles - 71% in the suburbs, 29% in the city
Chicago - 72% in the suburbs, 28% in the city
Dallas* - 82% in the suburbs, 18 % in the city (figures just for Dallas proper)
Philadelphia - 75% in the suburbs, 25% in the city
Houston - 67% in the suburbs, 33% in the city
Washington, DC - 89% in the suburbs, 11% in the city
Miami - 92% in the suburbs, 8% in the city
Atlanta - 90% in the suburbs, 10% in the city
Boston - 87% in the suburbs, 13% in the city
San Francisco - 82% in the suburbs, 18% in the city

So as you can see, that suburbs make up a significantly higher portion of the population than the central city in each of the largest metros except in Houston and New York City (which couldn't be more different in terms of sprawl and public transit). Atlanta's population distribution is similar to that of DC, Miami, Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. In reality, the reason why transit is better in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, or Chicago (San Francisco and DC have better transit than us for another reason) is that those cities became big when passenger rail service was still big. Those passenger rail services either are still operating or were eaten up by the regional transit authority and that meant they have the vastly larger networks than we do. It's kind of sad to think that Atlanta and Georgia once had a passenger rail network as big as any of those cities (except for Chicago and New York) and we tore most of it up after the second world war. But i digress.

The real unique situation that has hindered Atlanta building a good suburban infrastructure isn't sprawl, rather it is the fact that the various surrounding counties and municipalities (as well as the State) all hated each other and refused to even work on a plan to address mass transit in the suburbs up until a few years ago. DC is a great example in what could have been in Atlanta since both cities are positioned about the same way with a small central city surrounded a layer of multiple municipalities and in a huge suburban area. Both cities began building their mass transit systems at the same time, but DC did not encounter the same resistance to building the Metro in the suburbs as Atlanta did with MARTA. The result? The metro has 100 miles of track while MARTA has 48 even though the original plan for MARTA was pretty similar to that of the Metro and even included more lines than Metro currently has.

Now obviously DC also benefited from being the seat of the Federal government and being able to use that sweet Federal tax money to build their transit system, but they had far less trouble in convincing their Metro residents to build than we did. Now, 30 years we're paying for it but we are at least on the right path now with the transit initiative...and not as bad off as Houston, Dallas, Miami or Los Angeles when it comes to our mass transit needs.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

You sure seem pretty obsessed with growth that happened pre-2007.

And hey, what do we have here? A thread that you created earlier this year talking about missing the way growth in Atlanta was pre-2007.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/atlan...th-return.html

Yes, what do you know, I'm not perfect. I suppose I thought that I posted that in another online forum.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Portland is implementing such a plan and most of the development occurred before the extension of light-rail lines.

The Portland-Vancouver MSA is 2.2 million people (and that includes people who live in a neighboring state...), whereas Atlanta's MSA is over 5.5 million. You're comparing apples and mangos.