126 replies to this topic

[teshadoh]

Andrea, on Jun 21 2006, 10:20 AM, said:

Brad, you're saying the 470,688 estimate (which would indicate growth of about 54,000 between 2000-2005) is probably too high or too low?  Or that we simply can't tell?  Sorry to be so dense.

Too high.  When you consider all the neighborhoods since 2000 that are experiencing great amounts of gentrification - Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown, Edgewood, East Atlanta, Ormewood Park, Boulevard Heights, Pittsburgh, West End & a few other south side neighborhoods - then imagine the houses there being home to a childless couple rather than a low income family of 5 to 10.  The average household size is shrinking in the city - therefore gentrification causes a population loss.

On the other hand of course - the developments causing population gains, we know of several 1000 units having been built in Midtown, Downtown & scattered throughout the city (Glenwood Park, Inman Park Village, etc.) & also a number of single family homes being sandwiched in the few remaining lots in the city as well as a few new housing developments.  There obviously will be a population gain - no one is contesting that.  But 470k is just too high - yet.  I have no doubt the city will hit that mark by 2010.  But 450k is probalby a safer number - which still indicates a huge increase.

[alexr15]

teshadoh, on Jun 21 2006, 07:13 AM, said:

Too high.  When you consider all the neighborhoods since 2000 that are experiencing great amounts of gentrification - Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown, Edgewood, East Atlanta, Ormewood Park, Boulevard Heights, Pittsburgh, West End & a few other south side neighborhoods - then imagine the houses there being home to a childless couple rather than a low income family of 5 to 10.  The average household size is shrinking in the city - therefore gentrification causes a population loss.

On the other hand of course - the developments causing population gains, we know of several 1000 units having been built in Midtown, Downtown & scattered throughout the city (Glenwood Park, Inman Park Village, etc.) & also a number of single family homes being sandwiched in the few remaining lots in the city as well as a few new housing developments.  There obviously will be a population gain - no one is contesting that.  But 470k is just too high - yet.  I have no doubt the city will hit that mark by 2010.  But 450k is probalby a safer number - which still indicates a huge increase.

But you also have to take into the account the explosion of growth in South Fulton. A lot of those homes along Camp Creek, Cascade and South Fulton are within the city limits of Atlanta. I would imagine that those areas are booming with families.

[teshadoh]

alexr15, on Jun 21 2006, 09:17 PM, said:

But you also have to take into the account the explosion of growth in South Fulton. A lot of those homes along Camp Creek, Cascade and South Fulton are within the city limits of Atlanta. I would imagine that those areas are booming with families.

There is a small area in Ben Hill @ Cascade west of 285 that covers the area you are talking about.  But this is a small area that is largely built out already, I don't think Camp Creek is in the city anyways.

[alexr15]

teshadoh, on Jun 21 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

There is a small area in Ben Hill @ Cascade west of 285 that covers the area you are talking about.  But this is a small area that is largely built out already, I don't think Camp Creek is in the city anyways.

Does an Atlanta address not necessarily mean resident? I ask because I know a few people that live in Walden Park which is not in that area (Ben Hill) but they have an Atlanta address and pay prop taxes to Atlanta. The same thing with a few other large neighboords that have sprouted in S. Fulton.

[Newnan]

Dunwoody has an Atlanta address too. I doubt people there are considered citizens of Atlanta

[teshadoh]

^  Bingo - that is a big problem in our metro area, due to the crooked annexation laws it is very typical for people to have a city address despite being in unincorporated county.  Marietta is a good example - all of northeast Cobb has a Marietta address.  Atlanta city addresses range from the Cumberland Mall area in Cobb County through much of north Dekalb County.  Sandy Springs had a city address, I would only assume they now have a Sandy Springs address.

Regarding Walden Park, I hope your friends there aren't paying city taxes - because they are far out of the city limits.  Maybe they are paying water / sewer bills to the city?

[alexr15]

teshadoh, on Jun 21 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

^  Bingo - that is a big problem in our metro area, due to the crooked annexation laws it is very typical for people to have a city address despite being in unincorporated county.  Marietta is a good example - all of northeast Cobb has a Marietta address.  Atlanta city addresses range from the Cumberland Mall area in Cobb County through much of north Dekalb County.  Sandy Springs had a city address, I would only assume they now have a Sandy Springs address.

Regarding Walden Park, I hope your friends there aren't paying city taxes - because they are far out of the city limits.  Maybe they are paying water / sewer bills to the city?

Well, that is dumb. Seems as though that would take away some precision when actually figuring out populations by making it easier to miscount people. And about Walden Park, I'll have to ask them again but you're probably right. If anything, it seems like they would be a part of East Point (CC Marketplace is in EP).

[teshadoh]

Census Bureau primarily uses zip codes for geocoding, not city - regarding estimates.

[Martinman]

The address thing is common in GA where people in unincorporated areas will often have a county seat address.  I don't think you can address mail to ______ county, GA.

Edited by Martinman, 22 June 2006 - 08:08 AM.

[teshadoh]

^  What would be interesting is a evaluation of unincorporated place names & promote some type of identity.  As example - for the zip codes in northeast Cobb, "Johnsons Ferry" could be a viable name.  Otherwise, Dunwoody, Redan, Mableton should all be used as post office names.  But the problem is - & I don't understand this, the Census Bureau doesn't accept a large number of suburban areas as Census Designated Places - especially northeastern Cobb.  Of course the problem is lack of identity, but any 'developed' area should not be uniformally ignored as if it is rural or doesn't exist.

Edited by teshadoh, 22 June 2006 - 08:10 AM.

[verge]

teshadoh, on Jun 21 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

Too high.  When you consider all the neighborhoods since 2000 that are experiencing great amounts of gentrification - Cabbagetown, Reynoldstown, Edgewood, East Atlanta, Ormewood Park, Boulevard Heights, Pittsburgh, West End & a few other south side neighborhoods - then imagine the houses there being home to a childless couple rather than a low income family of 5 to 10.  The average household size is shrinking in the city - therefore gentrification causes a population loss.

On the other hand of course - the developments causing population gains, we know of several 1000 units having been built in Midtown, Downtown & scattered throughout the city (Glenwood Park, Inman Park Village, etc.) & also a number of single family homes being sandwiched in the few remaining lots in the city as well as a few new housing developments.  There obviously will be a population gain - no one is contesting that.  But 470k is just too high - yet.  I have no doubt the city will hit that mark by 2010.  But 450k is probalby a safer number - which still indicates a huge increase.

and very possibly too low... the city's growth is not in gentrifying neighborhoods per se, but in places like Midtown and Buckhead were thousands of new condominiums are being built with thousands more in the pipeline... In an exmaple (actually one from an intown neighborhood) the Mead development in Inman Park has DOUBLED the population of the neighborhood and its the first of several planned or under construction...

[teshadoh]

^  And you may very well be right.  But my understanding is that many of these condo projects, in particular condo towers are not fully leased.  Also - in nearly all of the condo units under construction - the maximum household size is no more than 2, in many cases it is only 1.  

So even the largest towers under construction will ultimately only house around 500 people.  That would probably be the case of Inman Park Village (as you mentioned as the Mead development & it's one of my favorite infill projects in the city).  

But this is one case I will gladly admit I'm wrong, because I would like nothing else for the city's population to hit 500k by 2010.  Atlanta's urban core by that time would finally be comparable to similar sized cities & would more than dominate any other central city in the southeast, except for Miami.  A population that high - as the vast majority of Atlanta' population growth will be confined to Downtown, Midtown & Buckhead as well as properties along the Beltline will be something everyone should be proud of.  Hopefully it will be another reason to regularly visit Atlanta after I leave.

[Unifour]

I just mentioned this new estimate in the Atlanta off topic section when I didn't know it was being discussed here. I was floored by the 470,000 number, but I don't see it is impossible. I have followed the census bureau's numbers for a long time, and generally speaking, the "estimates" are usually too low. They have almost always proved too low for the national figures and city figures I most follow. Back in the 90's, I watched the census estimate plot slow growth for the city of Atlanta. They showed barely 500-1,000 people a year moving into the city. In 1990, they reported 394,000 for the city. By 1998, the census estimate was 403,000. Yet by the time the 2000 count was finished, it was reported to be 416,000. The estimates were way off on Fulton county too. The estimate in 1998 was 730,000 or so. In 2000 it was 816,000. Seems they are usually off significantly. It's not unusual for a city to grow by 50,000 in 6 years, and I hope that turns out to be the case.

Edited by Unifour, 28 June 2006 - 01:40 PM.

[AubieTurtle]

teshadoh, on Jun 22 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

^  And you may very well be right.  But my understanding is that many of these condo projects, in particular condo towers are not fully leased.  Also - in nearly all of the condo units under construction - the maximum household size is no more than 2, in many cases it is only 1.

I use to think that too but there are lots of children in my building.  There are at least a dozen families with children out of 101 condo units.  Some of them have more than one child.  Friends who live in Museum Tower report the same thing, including one family with five kids that apparently are always getting into minor trouble.  I'm really surprised by how this portion of the population is growing.  Some of the parents work downtown and walk their children to daycare on their way to work.  Given that Centennial Place is an excellent elementary school, there shouldn't be an issue about schools until the children get old enough for middle school.  Convential wisdom has been that once the child gets old enough to walk, these parents would move to the suburbs but that doesn't appear to be the case.  Of course, you can't judge a whole city by what's going on in two buildings but I doubt we're that much different from the other condos and lofts around town.

There are also a surprising number of one bedroom and effiency units with couples living in them.  Singles don't appear to be in the majority... even amongst the gay crowd, many have partners or roommates living with them (though roommates seem to be only an option in two bedroom units).

While I do believe that gentrification of existing neighborhoods is resulting in decreased population density in those existing housing units, we might all be surprised by the density being achived both through infill in the existing neighborhoods and new or expansion of neighborhoods through the construction of totally new housing options in areas that did not have housing before.

[Brian]

Did anyone read yesterday's AJC paper where residents of the Sandtown community (pop. 17,000+) wanting to be annexed into Atlanta?  If the community is annexed into the city before November, Atlanta could reach more than 490,000 or a little over 500,000 by next year!

EDITED: Here is the article.

Edited by Brian, 17 July 2006 - 05:36 AM.

[verge]

AubieTurtle, on Jun 28 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

I use to think that too but there are lots of children in my building.  There are at least a dozen families with children out of 101 condo units.  Some of them have more than one child.  Friends who live in Museum Tower report the same thing, including one family with five kids that apparently are always getting into minor trouble.  I'm really surprised by how this portion of the population is growing.  Some of the parents work downtown and walk their children to daycare on their way to work.  Given that Centennial Place is an excellent elementary school, there shouldn't be an issue about schools until the children get old enough for middle school.  Convential wisdom has been that once the child gets old enough to walk, these parents would move to the suburbs but that doesn't appear to be the case.  Of course, you can't judge a whole city by what's going on in two buildings but I doubt we're that much different from the other condos and lofts around town.

There are also a surprising number of one bedroom and effiency units with couples living in them.  Singles don't appear to be in the majority... even amongst the gay crowd, many have partners or roommates living with them (though roommates seem to be only an option in two bedroom units).

While I do believe that gentrification of existing neighborhoods is resulting in decreased population density in those existing housing units, we might all be surprised by the density being achived both through infill in the existing neighborhoods and new or expansion of neighborhoods through the construction of totally new housing options in areas that did not have housing before.

Yeah... since I haven't run a personal census, the evidence is only anecdotal... but the number of kids in-town seems to have increased exponentially-- In restaurants... on the street... when I first lived in my neighborhood 20+ years ago-- a child of any age was a very rare sight... now there are dozens on my street alone...

[ironchapman]

Brian, on Jul 17 2006, 07:32 AM, said:

Did anyone read yesterday's AJC paper where residents of the Sandtown community (pop. 17,000+) wanting to be annexed into Atlanta?  If the community is annexed into the city before November, Atlanta could reach more than 490,000 or a little over 500,000 by next year!

EDITED: Here is the article.

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of that. It will be the first annexation Atlanta would make in a long time. I saw the article yesterday and wanted to post it myself, but I didn't have time

[macdaddy]

The Princeton Lakes residences, which are adjacent to Camp Creek Market Place, are inside Atlanta's city limits. When completed, there will be around 1,000 households. Also in full swing is Cascade Parc, at the old King's Ridge location, which will have about 330 households. When you look at the city as a whole, what I'm seeing looks like a net gain in population. I've always felt that the census bureau has undercounted Atlanta's population.

[Pillsbury]

Not sure how accurate, but the AJC reports that Atlanta has hit 450,000 people this year:   AJC Article

[shanthemanatl]

Pillsbury, on Aug 10 2006, 02:12 PM, said:

Not sure how accurate, but the AJC reports that Atlanta has hit 450,000 people this year:   AJC Article

The US Census Bureau estimates around 470,000.