Is the STL bigger and faster than the ATL?

[krazeeboi]

^Don't look at history through such narrow lenses.

And it's funny how you like to throw around the term "social engineering" when the modern low-density growth that you so champion was the result of one of the greatest social engineering eras in American history. Furthermore, there has always been low-density development, even around the time of the advent of the modern city. But the unsustainable (call it a SE term if you wish) way in which it has happened for the past few decades is unlike anything we've ever seen. The facts speak for themselves, despite the loose label-throwing that would attempt to discredit what we can see with our own eyes.

[dixiecupdrinking]

It's easy to see which lifestyle trumps the other and it's easy to tell which way people wish to live no matter the efforts of the Socialist Engineers of America.

And I suppose that is why Atlanta is seeing such a resurgence of intown living after a decade and a half of unmitigated sprawl? Because sprawl "trumps" density?

It's really a case of hidden costs in the sprawling lifestyle slowing being uncovered. Sure, you can go up to Forsyth County and buy a 4 bedroom house for half of what it costs in the city and have a half acre backyard. But what about having to drive 10-15 minutes to get groceries or any other amenities? What about having to deal with crawling traffic for an hourlong commute every day? What about getting fat because you can't even walk to your neighbor's house who lives in another subdivision half a mile up the road? What about the lack of any stimulating cultural activities?

These factors are all worth quite a bit to many people, even in monetary terms. And they're not factors that people usually consider in the initial decision to buy a house in the exurbs. My parents, for one, made that mistake and were miserable in the furthest reaches of Alpharetta for the better part of a decade.

Moreover, "growth" as a metric of quality is pretty problematic. Despite the general attitude, especially in Atlanta, that its growth is a measure of success, it's created as many if not more problems than it's fixed. A truly successful place wouldn't need to grow by 50k people every year.

I feel sorry for you if you're really as paranoid and full of hate toward people with differing perspectives as your signature seems to imply.

[sleepy]

That's true for just about any sizable city in 1950: New Orleans, Memphis, Washington, Detriot, Baltimore, Cincinatti, Boston, Milwaukee, etc. Truth is, most of our cities are only just beginning to see signs of a turning tide.

That's not true for Memphis. It's population was 396,000 in 1950 and was 670,000 in 2000.

[krazeeboi]

That's not true for Memphis. It's population was 396,000 in 1950 and was 670,000 in 2000.

I stand corrected about Memphis. I wonder if annexation played a large role in helping the city to capture a large portion of the county's population?

[verge]

And I suppose that is why Atlanta is seeing such a resurgence of intown living after a decade and a half of unmitigated sprawl? Because sprawl "trumps" density?

It's really a case of hidden costs in the sprawling lifestyle slowing being uncovered. Sure, you can go up to Forsyth County and buy a 4 bedroom house for half of what it costs in the city and have a half acre backyard. But what about having to drive 10-15 minutes to get groceries or any other amenities? What about having to deal with crawling traffic for an hourlong commute every day? What about getting fat because you can't even walk to your neighbor's house who lives in another subdivision half a mile up the road? What about the lack of any stimulating cultural activities?

These factors are all worth quite a bit to many people, even in monetary terms. And they're not factors that people usually consider in the initial decision to buy a house in the exurbs. My parents, for one, made that mistake and were miserable in the furthest reaches of Alpharetta for the better part of a decade.

Moreover, "growth" as a metric of quality is pretty problematic. Despite the general attitude, especially in Atlanta, that its growth is a measure of success, it's created as many if not more problems than it's fixed. A truly successful place wouldn't need to grow by 50k people every year.

I feel sorry for you if you're really as paranoid and full of hate toward people with differing perspectives as your signature seems to imply.

Well in this country growth probably is the main indicator of city/ metro success... As a comitted urbanite, Atlantan and liberal I think that Atlanta's growth is indeeed a double edged sword-- It does however indicate that Atlanta has something that people of many stripes seem to want... whether it be a job, fair weather, good restaurantats, a large black or gay population, or a 'cozy' republican suburb... and yes lately, a decent urban environment as tesified to by the fact that the most urban part of the place is one of the fastest growing again... it is also by far the most tolerant and politically liberal part of town as well... 'success' has its price but all in all I'd rather be here than most other places... my commute is 15min. and some of the best restaurants in the city are within easy walking distance... as far as 'social engineering' goes... its more like social choice... some folks just actually prefer an urban environment and one that actually has some degree of planning behind it... instead of some blind, un-planned, un-considered, 'market-driven' strip-mall 'heaven'-- to each his own...

[Pillsbury]

^ well said

[dixiecupdrinking]

Well in this country growth probably is the main indicator of city/ metro success...

I just think it's a little strange the way people brag about growth in Sun Belt cities and act like it's the apocalypse every time a more mature city like San Francisco, NYC, or Boston loses a few hundred people. Those cities aren't growing because they're already built out and have *successful* urban environments in a sense that has been almost completely ignored by the type of growth in Atlanta-type regions. Not to say there isn't room for improvement in those older cities... but the fact that they aren't building a new trophy skyscraper every three years and new condo developments aren't popping up all over town doesn't mean they're dying. On the contrary, they don't have to be so self-conscious of their image because they are established. I think the obsession with skylines and population figures in rapidly-growing towns belies an understanding that they still lack the city experience of the older cities in the U.S. It's overcompensation.

It is a very American mindset, though. We're all quick to get restless if we can't point to something as an example of "progress." I just wish that as a society, we could relax for a minute and figure out where it is we're trying to go, rather than blindly "progressing" in any direction there's room to grow. Just because the numbers are going up doesn't mean things are getting better, and that applies to everything from population figures to economic output.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to argue with you, verge, and I don't mean to imply that you're one of the people who think this way. Just explaining my frustration with this issue.

And yeah, well said, to the rest of your post. The growth that Atlanta is seeing has the potential to transform the city into something much more desirable. For every desolate skyscraper canyon of a street in Atlanta, there's a neighborhood I'm absolutely in love with. Hopefully those bright spots will spread to the point that Atlanta will have a larger, cohesive urban core that it can truly be proud of in a decade or two.

[teshadoh]

^ Excellent point, the typical sunbelt attitude about a healthy city is one whose municipality is able to annex on a regular basis & attracts several 1000 in a year. I think that is arguable if fast growth is healthy for an urban area in the long run. Most of these cities are not home to a major population drain, they are simply at a stable point in growth. A few hundred is nothing, but the population drain that is occuring in some of the larger midwest & northeast cities is troubling - or even San Francisco.

[krazeeboi]

I think we have to look at the source of the population drain. Is it because people (families) are being priced out, or because of a sluggish economy?

[verge]

I just think it's a little strange the way people brag about growth in Sun Belt cities and act like it's the apocalypse every time a more mature city like San Francisco, NYC, or Boston loses a few hundred people. Those cities aren't growing because they're already built out and have *successful* urban environments in a sense that has been almost completely ignored by the type of growth in Atlanta-type regions. Not to say there isn't room for improvement in those older cities... but the fact that they aren't building a new trophy skyscraper every three years and new condo developments aren't popping up all over town doesn't mean they're dying. On the contrary, they don't have to be so self-conscious of their image because they are established. I think the obsession with skylines and population figures in rapidly-growing towns belies an understanding that they still lack the city experience of the older cities in the U.S. It's overcompensation.

It is a very American mindset, though. We're all quick to get restless if we can't point to something as an example of "progress." I just wish that as a society, we could relax for a minute and figure out where it is we're trying to go, rather than blindly "progressing" in any direction there's room to grow. Just because the numbers are going up doesn't mean things are getting better, and that applies to everything from population figures to economic output.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to argue with you, verge, and I don't mean to imply that you're one of the people who think this way. Just explaining my frustration with this issue.

And yeah, well said, to the rest of your post. The growth that Atlanta is seeing has the potential to transform the city into something much more desirable. For every desolate skyscraper canyon of a street in Atlanta, there's a neighborhood I'm absolutely in love with. Hopefully those bright spots will spread to the point that Atlanta will have a larger, cohesive urban core that it can truly be proud of in a decade or two.

yes... I agree 100%... though I do like the energy of living in a (often rough edged) boom town...

for an architect, a place like Atlanta offers a chance to create something not possible in older more established places-- Its lack of 'rules' or aesthetic concern can also be quite frustrating as well, however...

[sanka]

yes... I agree 100%... though I do like the energy of living in a (often rough edged) boom town...

for an architect, a place like Atlanta offers a chance to create something not possible in older more established places-- Its lack of 'rules' or aesthetic concern can also be quite frustrating as well, however...

well put...

I do like this line from dixiecupdrinking though...

"It is a very American mindset, though. We're all quick to get restless if we can't point to something as an example of "progress." I just wish that as a society, we could relax for a minute and figure out where it is we're trying to go, rather than blindly "progressing" in any direction there's room to grow. Just because the numbers are going up doesn't mean things are getting better, and that applies to everything from population figures to economic output."