Major project gets nod

[Andrea]

I don't think you give Atlanta enough credit for what kind of city it would be today if the development had been kept in better control and was concentrated at its core.

Now I have to ask what you mean by that. I don't put all the blame for sprawl on the government of the city of Atlanta, although it has certainly done its share to contribute to those problems.

[teshadoh]

The typical misconception about sunbelt sprawl is that it is somehow related to a single municipality's inability to 'curb sprawl'. It's the other way around - it is county government's rubber stamping any & all proposals outside a city jurisdiction. Atlanta hasn't incorporated since 1957, so we can't blame the past half century's suburban sprawl on the city.

On the other hand - another question would be has suburban sprawl been inevitable? What could the city have done to promote more people living in the city rather than sprawl? Very little - all the growth from the 1950's through the 1970's was related to 'white flight', the city shrank & the city became a Black operated city with Maynard Jackson's election in the early 1970's. In the 1990's, the city was one of the very few in the nation that actually experienced population growth in the inner core of the city - but that is minimal compared to suburban sprawl taking place. Not only didn't the city have any control, but with limited regional cooperation - even now - suburban sprawl will occur if a city likes it or not.

[Topped Out]

Since most of the recent dicussion in this forum has turned to suburban sprawl, I will make a comment about it.

I think in the case of the city of Atlanta, sprawl could have been controlled better had there been a more well-established mode of transportation 30 years ago. There would be more residents living inside the perimeter or even midtown/downtown if we had set up easier public transportation. We all know Marta doesn't service the entire city in a means that doesn't require the use of a bus and train (and most Atlantans, not all, have a problem with using both to get to their destination)

That being said, some sprawl is basically inevitable to any major city not limited by geographic boundaries. (i.e. Manhattan being on an island).

[teshadoh]

^ 30 years ago, when MARTA was under design / construction - the original plan served the majority of then metro residents. With only the exception of parts of Gwinnett, Cobb & Clayton - Fulton & Dekalb counties was it.

But I truly don't think any public transportation system would have altered what happened. Besides that it still wouldn't be used - transit usage doesn't occur unless there are severe demands, especially back in the race phobic 1970's. Additionally - transit can also cause sprawl, which essentially is population dispersal. Inman Parkwas late 1800's sprawl - low dense housing based on street car rail systems.

The biggest problem has & is county governments whose land use is not in the best interest of the metro but the individual county.

[Andrea]

^ Well said, Brad. The city contributed to the problem by pursuing policies which furthered white flight and sprawl. However, the suburban counties welcomed the exodus with open arms and followed many similar policies, too. It's a broad systemic problem, and I agree that it's impossible to put the blame on any single municipality.

[Andrea]

More suburban development:

Levitt plans third metro Atlanta development

Well, it's hard to say Atlanta isn't still growing like crazy. These subdivisons may not be as glamorous but another 1250 homes is equal to at least two or three good sized condo towers.

[teshadoh]

I didn't realize it - but that company is the same that built all the Levittowns in the Northeast.

[Unifour]

I was replying to posts that said (sarcastically, I assume) "more sprawl for Gwinnett" and "just dandy."

In my opinion it's a mistake to ignore or discount the importance of suburbs in Sunbelt cities like Atlanta. That's where the vast majority of residents live, work, play, and go to school. In the absence of its suburbs, it's hard for me to see how Atlanta would be much different from many other mid-size towns around the South and the rest of the country.

Ah, that's what I figured you meant. I agree that without thier suburbs, most cities wouldn't amount to much, but don't get too hung up on rank. Atlanta ranks 40th or so in national population. If that means it isn't a major city, you must be really disappointed with it's international ranking. I read somewhere that it's total metro area only ranked 105th worldwide. I wonder how it's growth compares with rapidly growing third world cities?

[Unifour]

You've touched on something that is very important.

Of course cities, counties, states, and entire countries need *people* to sustain them into the future. But what they really need is babies.

If you look at countries in Europe (esp. Italy, Spain, and Germany) they aren't producing enough babies (natural birth rate) to even maintain their populations. These countries are literally dying away because people have stopped having babies. The birth rate of Italy, at a rate of 1.23 children per woman is the second lowest in the Western world. It takes a birth rate of around 2.2 children per woman to reach sustainability. 30 years from now Italy won't even have a home-grown work force to keep it running because there aren't enough babies now. So it will rely on immigrants to run businesses and factories, which will ultimately change the whole cultural fabric. Its happening in France as well. Muslims are increasingly making up a larger percentage of the population, and yet France's population has nearly leveled off because French women aren't having enough kids.

America is simply mirroring this European trend, only we're about 10-15 years behind them. But its happening here too. Its a sad consequence of our modern way of life. 100 years ago it was considered a blessing to have children. Now it seems people see it as a curse. What a pity.

I agree for the most part. However, the data I've read say that the USA has the highest fertility rate in the industrialized world, and it is rising according to the statistics. The US total fertility rate is at 2.1, and has been rising since 1985. The US population is growing faster than all the other industrialized nations combined. The census projects possibly 550 million people by 2050, and 1.2 billion by 2100. You might wanna read the story that appeard in The Economist (British business magazine) called "Demography and the West - Half A Billion Americans? You can Google and find it easily. It is a real eye opener.

[bfermanich]

I know for a fact, two of those scores you listed aren't correct.

Got the scores right off the annual AJC high school SAT report, August 31, 2005 I believe.

So I guess they got it wrong, right? Well then again the AJC gets alot of stuff wrong and few things "right", but just my opinion.

(woohooo!!! my 30th post!)