Uptown Charlotte vs. Downtown Atlanta

[Lady Celeste]

I agree with A2.

Also Unifour, Atlanta may have more buildings overall but one must consider also that many of those buildings are not leasable because they are federal, state, county and city offices. Georgia State University is also downtown and their buildings are not leasable as well.

[teshadoh]

There are a number of office towers that have been transfered to residential or hotel use since the 80's. I can at least think of 4 10+ story office buildings that are now condos in downtown.

Also - much of downtown is covered, besides government space but with convention space.

So - downtown Atlanta is not what people would really expect to be the office center for Atlanta. That hasn't been the case since at least '90 when I moved here - already there were well more than twice the office space outside of the CBD than there was in it.

[A2]

There are a number of office towers that have been transfered to residential or hotel use since the 80's. I can at least think of 4 10+ story office buildings that are now condos in downtown.

Also - much of downtown is covered, besides government space but with convention space.

So - downtown Atlanta is not what people would really expect to be the office center for Atlanta. That hasn't been the case since at least '90 when I moved here - already there were well more than twice the office space outside of the CBD than there was in it.

^True. That was more or less the way it was when I lived in ATL. It became increasingly clear that ATL was going to spring new Office outside of the CBD once Perimeter and The Galeria area started their boom.

Atlanta has not looked back since.

A2

[Martinman]

I was a bit confused by this, and still am. If we are comparing the relative size of Charlotte's CBD with Atlanta's, how so? By looking at the two of them, and the number of buildings in them, Atlanta is clearly larger. It has a larger cluster of buildings. Not to disrespect Charlotte, but it is the smaller of the two. I don't see how Charlotte could come close to Atlanta when Atlanta clearly looks like it has quite a few more buildings in it. Does the lease statistics include ALL buildings? Or is that just the amount that is not already occupied and is available to lease?

Or is Atlanta bigger because it has more of the other types of buildings, such as hotels, apartment towers, etc?? How does one deal with the size difference?

This is a good point when comparing the amount of office space. It may be close to Charlotte in terms of LEASABLE space but there is a large amount of state (obviously being the capital) as well as federal offices in Downtown.

Ooops I just saw that Lady Celeste already made this point.

Also Colliers has Atlanta numbers as well HERE which shows a total metro office market of 168 milllion sf

[HolidayInnExpress]

Does size matter? What is the essential quality of life benefit, to the average joe, of these tall buildings? Lets be real, the quality of life of 99.99 percent of the people in a metro area is not physically benefited from the height and number of buildings. These buildings simply represent bragging rights for corporations who want their name on tall buildings and by these buildings being used as status symbols. In the low density south, there is really no reason to build tall buildings, as opposed to a place like NYC or San Francisco were the lack of land forced building upward. It seems to be the case that some believe that having a lot of skyscrapers or the tallest building somehow enhances the everyday reality of an area when it does not. They make nice post cards...but that

[krazeeboi]

In the low density south, there is really no reason to build tall buildings, as opposed to a place like NYC or San Francisco were the lack of land forced building upward.

I've never really understood this point; it seems to be confusing cause and effect, and it also doesn't seem to take into account the different factors which went into the growth and development of Southern cities versus Northern cities. Although Charleston, for example, generally lacks highrises, the downtown portion of the city sits on a peninsula and is quite dense--primarily because it was developed before the arrival of the automobile. It was the center of Southern trade and commerce back in the day, and counted NYC and Philadelphia as its peer cities. Now I know that Charleston is more of an anomaly here, but I think the point still stands (New Orleans is also a great example here). Also, low density is the result of not building upward, not the cause. Just because our cities don't have a greater demand for space than many Northern cities (which is primarily due to geography) doesn't give us a license to sprawl ourselves to hell (which is essentially what low density, combined with a significant need for space, results in). We need to focus on density and "compactness" just as much as Northern cities, not because we are geographically constrained to do so, but because we need to preserve the open spaces that lie just outside our cities.

[HolidayInnExpress]

I've never really understood this point; it seems to be confusing cause and effect, and it also doesn't seem to take into account the different factors which went into the growth and development of Southern cities versus Northern cities. Although Charleston, for example, generally lacks highrises, the downtown portion of the city sits on a peninsula and is quite dense--primarily because it was developed before the arrival of the automobile. It was the center of Southern trade and commerce back in the day, and counted NYC and Philadelphia as its peer cities. Now I know that Charleston is more of an anomaly here, but I think the point still stands (New Orleans is also a great example here). Also, low density is the result of not building upward, not the cause. Just because our cities don't have a greater demand for space than many Northern cities (which is primarily due to geography) doesn't give us a license to sprawl ourselves to hell (which is essentially what low density, combined with a significant need for space, results in). We need to focus on density and "compactness" just as much as Northern cities, not because we are geographically constrained to do so, but because we need to preserve the open spaces that lie just outside our cities.

But Density will defeat the attraction of growth in the South. Density produces higher land values and one of the attractions of the South is the lower cost of land. I can guarantee you that

[krazeeboi]

Actually, from what I've read, this hasn't always been the case. Take Portland for example, which established an urban growth boundary in 1979. It is a misconception that housing prices have skyrocketed there because of this; studies have demonstrated that they didn't rise any more dramatically in Portland than in other cities that took less decisive actions to curtail sprawl and which also grew rapidly around the same time (e.g., Denver, Salt Lake City). More information about that can be found here. It is also important to note that unlimited land supply does not assure affordable housing. The poster child for sprawl in the U.S. is Los Angeles, and the cost of living out in the suburbs is astronomical, relatively speaking--not only compared with Southern metros, but also Western metros.

At any rate, I believe that this is besides the original point made. Geography isn't, nor should it be, the only limiting factor in building upwards instead of outwards; it simply makes sense.

[teshadoh]

Actually, from what I've read, this hasn't always been the case. Take Portland for example, which established an urban growth boundary in 1979. It is a misconception that housing prices have skyrocketed there because of this; studies have demonstrated that they didn't rise any more dramatically in Portland than in other cities that took less decisive actions to curtail sprawl and which also grew rapidly around the same time (e.g., Denver, Salt Lake City). More information about that can be found here. It is also important to note that unlimited land supply does not assure affordable housing. The poster child for sprawl in the U.S. is Los Angeles, and the cost of living out in the suburbs is astronomical, relatively speaking--not only compared with Southern metros, but also Western metros.

At any rate, I believe that this is besides the original point made. Geography isn't, nor should it be, the only limiting factor in building upwards instead of outwards; it simply makes sense.

Following your arguement with HolidayInnExpress (OFFTOPIC: why would anyone name themselves that?), you advanced the discussion from skyscrapers to density. In Portland's case - that is an example of a city that has densified without the usage of skyscrapers. Additionally regarding your arguement that LA is the poster child of sprawl & the cost of living is astronomical - it is also one of the densest cities in the US.

I agree with your main point - increasing densities in the south is important. But I disagree that skyscrapers are a neccessary component. I do also disagree that increased densities will not effect cost of living. Actually, in many eyes, increasing density has the favorable outcome of increasing land value - which results in an economic need to live in smaller quarters. Though obviously unfavorable to lower incomes - increasing land value results in the economic case for increasing densities. As it is largely in the south - there is no economic case to increase densities.

[City-man]

I voted Atlanta, because i just feel that actual urban feeling while down there.

[Southernyank]

I voted Atlanta, because i just feel that actual urban feeling while down there.

just curious, city man, are you that 14 year old tim kid on ssc? no offense if your not but i was just wondering from some similar posts i've read.