The battle for urban development (Atlanta, Jackson: fit in, high school, live)

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by JPD

I live in a 900 sq ft home. I used to live in a 2500 sq ft home. My household's buying habits are the same as before. When I said "bulk" I was mostly referring to things that are bulky. Like dog food, paper products, cat litter, etc. Most people aren't going to walk to the store for those things.

Yes they will walk to the store for those things if they live within walking distance to a store in a densely built environment. How do you think people in the city get their big items like pet food to the house? The difference is vision. You can't see how this could work because you don't see it before your eyes. You have to look at this project as a change in the built environment. You have to imagine the finished product. If you create an urban development, people will be able to practise urban behavior. Look at these Walmarts under construction in DC. Stores will adapt to the environment the community desires if they have to.

Walmart with apartments above:
http://dc.urbanturf.com/images/blog/..._rendering.JPG

Apartments Website:
www.liveat77h.com

Second Walmart in DC with apartments above:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6107/...17e6fdffbb.jpg

[JPD]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Yes they will walk to the store for those things if they live within walking distance to a store in a densely built environment. How do you think people in the city get their big items like pet food to the house? The difference is vision. You can't see how this could work because you don't see it before your eyes. You have to look at this project as a change in the built environment. You have to imagine the finished product. If you create an urban development, people will be able to practise urban behavior. Look at these Walmarts under construction in DC. Stores will adapt to the environment the community desires if they have to.

Walmart with apartments above:
http://dc.urbanturf.com/images/blog/..._rendering.JPG

Apartments Website:
www.liveat77h.com

Second Walmart in DC with apartments above:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6107/...17e6fdffbb.jpg

You don't seem to be familiar with the area in question.

Of course people who share a wall with Wal Mart will walk there.

That is NOT the type of area we are talking about. This area is mostly single family detached homes, and that isn't going to change: Ormewood Park, Grant Park, Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown. EAV. Glenwood Park being the only exception, as it is townhomes, condos, attached homes. All of these are the areas that will be served by whatever gets developed there.

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by JPD

You don't seem to be familiar with the area in question.

Of course people who share a wall with Wal Mart will walk there.

That is NOT the type of area we are talking about. This area is mostly single family detached homes, and that isn't going to change: Ormewood Park, Grant Park, Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown. EAV. Glenwood Park being the only exception, as it is townhomes, condos, attached homes. All of these are the areas that will be served by whatever gets developed there.

My point was not about current development. It was about the urbanization of areas. Many people try to fight urbanization of suburban style low density areas. The point I was making is many area's are changing and areas that are full of single family homes now will develop and become more urban with infill. Places along the beltline especially will change and infill. That is what these mixed use developments like the Walmart etc. are demonstrating.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by JPD

You don't seem to be familiar with the area in question.

Of course people who share a wall with Wal Mart will walk there.

That is NOT the type of area we are talking about. This area is mostly single family detached homes, and that isn't going to change: Ormewood Park, Grant Park, Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown. EAV. Glenwood Park being the only exception, as it is townhomes, condos, attached homes. All of these are the areas that will be served by whatever gets developed there.

And that's why they will have parking at these developments...

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

You have to park the stroller between the cars, the way most parking decks are so tightly packed this cannot be done, especially if you need to use the infant seat.

That may be the case in old decks, but if I'm not mistaken they are now required to have the same size parking spaces as surface lots.

When I'm doing a stroller, car seat or wheelchair, I try to find a spot that's not too crowded, regardless of whether I'm in a deck or surface lot.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by JPD

You missed the point, too.

You guys are off your game today.

A lot of people buy in bulk, or buy several large and/or heavy items that they cannot carry while walking home. Laundry detergent, cat litter, dog food, toilet paper, etc. Even if you just buy two of those things, it could be a challenge to walk to Grant Park or EAV with them.

Okay, sorry I misunderstood.

I'm certainly not advocating lugging heavy items around for long distances -- that would be ridiculous. As I said earlier, cars are part of life in most American cities and I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever.

We may be in agreement -- my point is simply that parking doesn't have to be provided in large surface lots. There are many problems with that, and many better ways to provide parking.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by JPD

That is NOT the type of area we are talking about. This area is mostly single family detached homes, and that isn't going to change: Ormewood Park, Grant Park, Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown. EAV. Glenwood Park being the only exception, as it is townhomes, condos, attached homes. All of these are the areas that will be served by whatever gets developed there.

Again, we may be in agreement, JPD, and I don't mean this as a criticism of your comments.

However, it's important to note that single family neighborhoods are not at all incompatible with urban development. And they certainly don't require large surface parking lots.


By the way, and not really important, but I thought there was a good bit of multifamily housing around that area.

[Ant131531]

I agree with everything MDAllStar has said in here. If anyone knows urban development benefits very well, it's him.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

My point was not about current development. It was about the urbanization of areas. Many people try to fight urbanization of suburban style low density areas. The point I was making is many area's are changing and areas that are full of single family homes now will develop and become more urban with infill. Places along the beltline especially will change and infill. That is what these mixed use developments like the Walmart etc. are demonstrating.

Atlanta is not a rowhouse city, so advocating, directly or indirectly, that single-family neighborhoods be abandoned in favor of brownstones is a complete non-starter; furthermore, such neighborhoods can be and often are quite urban. Now new development will probably be denser with condos and townhomes and such, as is already occurring in the city, but they can co-exist very well with historic single-family homes.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by JPD

You don't seem to be familiar with the area in question.

Of course people who share a wall with Wal Mart will walk there.

That is NOT the type of area we are talking about. This area is mostly single family detached homes, and that isn't going to change: Ormewood Park, Grant Park, Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown. EAV. Glenwood Park being the only exception, as it is townhomes, condos, attached homes. All of these are the areas that will be served by whatever gets developed there.

The problem isn't so much single family homes most of urban American cities are dominated by single family detached homes. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and etc. The density of those neighborhoods aren't bad they aren't like Candler McAfee, the problem is the lack of integrated retail which can be infill. Because commercial developments are separated from residential, Because things are too far apart it increase the needs of a car more. You wouldn't need a car as much for getting milk if the distance from your house to the store is less than the distance of your parking space from the diary section of the big box store, now would you?

When we say walkable we mean walkable if something is out of your distance range, it means it's not walkable. The point is to mix commercial areas back with residential areas. This development is not made for walkabity, it continues the bad pattern of making these large isolated commercial areas from residential areas which cause traffic. The fact this is along the belt line makes it counter productive to the point it's ironic. All the places to build a big box store they choose to try, to build it in a neighborhood that wants the opposite. And really doesn't have the road infrastructure for the traffic. The area was intend for people who wanted to live a more urban life style.

nobody wants to walk home carrying the six foot ladder, 24 pack of bottled water, two gallons of paint, and 12 roll pack of paper towels they just bought.

One of the biggest reasons people rack up at big box stores is because it's unnecessary to keep driving back and forth. So it's more likely that some one would wait and plan to get all of that at the same time. On the other hand if the store is in walking distance you could easily go back to the store when your short on something then and there. Other wise if you felt like painting the house on Friday, and your bottle waters and paper towels were low back on Monday don't wait to get everything on Thursday. You don't even have to let it build up like that.