Jump to content

Metro Atlanta Statistics


Martinman

Recommended Posts


Not me, the central city population is irrelevant in today's metropolitan world. I only hope Atlanta doesn't fall for the watermelon environmentalist policies regarding density, transit oriented development, communter rail and so forth. Atlanta's high quality of life is due to it offering what most people desire-a good sized yard and nice homes and ever increasing consumer choices combined with successful pro-business policies which brings the jobs needed to raise the standard of living. Around the world, density is falling as people grow wealthier and move to bigger homes and bigger yards and drive thier own cars. Most people dislike cramped living and riding a hot smelly train crammed like sardines. Atlanta will probably fall for the environmentalist policies, but if they want to kill the capitalist goose that lays the golden eggs, they really will stop growing.

Wow, spoken like a ignorant commoner. Bigger homes, bigger yards, and more cars on the road are what's killing Atlanta quality of life. Numerous people throughout the region all complaining about the same things, but still manage to play hypocrite and fall in line with a Governor who simply suggests building more roads to solve our ongoing and tiring problem here in Atlanta.

Atlanta fell for the auto-oriented model years ago and people are getting fed up. I pray every day for happiness, but I also pray for Atlanta to make a move forward towards a better infrastructure. Shirley Franklin has said it herself that Atlanta is falling apart. Let me suggest that you leave your little town in NC and check out other cities such as Chicago, New York, or even Boston in some cases (God forgive me). These cities, along with others managed to build their infrastructure and THEN let the people in. Even when our fair city was burnt down, we STILL didn't "drink the koolaid."

Please think before you speak next time darlin', and make sure you stay in NC as well.

And in true Southern style, let me apologize for "reading you the riot act."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stay in North Carolina

+2

Here you go. 2br's in VaHi for $600/month

http://atlanta.craigslist.org/apa/281790970.html

or for a list of others between $500-700/month

http://atlanta.craigslist.org/search/apa?q...0&bedrooms=

That's awesome! I really like Highland Club Seems nice (from the internet pics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not me, the central city population is irrelevant in today's metropolitan world. I only hope Atlanta doesn't fall for the watermelon environmentalist policies regarding density, transit oriented development, communter rail and so forth. Atlanta's high quality of life is due to it offering what most people desire-a good sized yard and nice homes and ever increasing consumer choices combined with successful pro-business policies which brings the jobs needed to raise the standard of living. Around the world, density is falling as people grow wealthier and move to bigger homes and bigger yards and drive thier own cars. Most people dislike cramped living and riding a hot smelly train crammed like sardines. Atlanta will probably fall for the environmentalist policies, but if they want to kill the capitalist goose that lays the golden eggs, they really will stop growing.

You're on the wrong website. Go preach your overindulgence to a suburban planet website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlanta's high quality of life is due to it offering what most people desire-a good sized yard and nice homes and ever increasing consumer choices combined with successful pro-business policies which brings the jobs needed to raise the standard of living. Around the world, density is falling as people grow wealthier and move to bigger homes and bigger yards and drive thier own cars.

Well, I hate to admit it but that is what the overwhelming majority of Atlantans prefer. Of the three million or so people who've moved here in the last 30 years, 90+% have elected to settle in the suburbs and pursue the automobile lifestyle. That's staggering.

For better or for worse, the suburbs have been the mighty economic engine that moved this region forward. They're where nearly all the people live, where most of the jobs are, and where most of the shopping, schools and churches are located. The suburbs are also the center of political power in this region and, increasingly, a focus of national political power. There are more people in the Atlanta suburbs than there are in Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Rhode Island, North Dakota and South Dakota put together. That's over a million square miles -- nearly 1/3 of the entire country!

That lifestyle is not my cup of tea but I recognize that everyone has the right to live the way they want so long as they're not unfairly infringing the rights of others. That's my main concern about suburbia -- I don't think it's sustainable over the long haul, and I believe it is eventually going to bring down the whole shooting match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Atlanta could solve part of the problem if it's leaders aimed for housing ITP that is more affordable. I'm sure there are plenty of young college grads as well as other working to middle class individuals that would love in town living. However, it's very easy to give up the 1500 sq. ft. one bedroom condo in Atlantic Station for a 3000 sq. ft. three bedroom home in the burbs for the same price.

Providing less expensive housing options in the city would help ease a lot of Atlanta's gridlock. Affordable housing may also be a way to save the city (or metro area) some money as it COULD eliminate the need for the expansion of the rail system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd ilke to thank those who came up with an intelligent response to Unifour's statement. We may disagree with it, but thats no reason not to respect his opinion.

I think that the market does what people want. And they want urban living more and more. Otherwise, you wouldn't see eight 40 storey proposed towers in ONE project. More and more people want to live in an environment that doesn't require driving to do everything, including crossing a street. Calling transit names speaks more of ignorance than of anything else. A packed train is much more desirable than a packed interstate, because with a pakced train you are still moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd ilke to thank those who came up with an intelligent response to Unifour's statement. We may disagree with it, but thats no reason not to respect his opinion.

I think that the market does what people want. And they want urban living more and more. Otherwise, you wouldn't see eight 40 storey proposed towers in ONE project. More and more people want to live in an environment that doesn't require driving to do everything, including crossing a street. Calling transit names speaks more of ignorance than of anything else. A packed train is much more desirable than a packed interstate, because with a pakced train you are still moving.

Honestly Sparten, it was all I could do to leave my post as short and to the point as it was. What i really wanted to say, has been said a million times before and I have a feeling I would be preaching to the choir.

It is staggering to me that some people still advocate that the careless and excessive use of natural resources should be allowed, if not downright ecouraged, simply beacuse it is what the market wants, regardless of what the implications may be. Last time I checked we have to share this world with all the other countries on the planet...well, actually, I guess we don't, but if we choose not to, we will come to look at current global situations as the good ole days. War will become a permament part of life, the draft wil be reinstated, defecits will eventually cripple the economy as military spending doubles or even triples. See, the market has a hard time factoring in externalities like the one I just gave. If we could find a way to include those expenses into the supply/demand charts, I wonder if the market might start to change.

Oh, yeah...I think I heard somewhere that it was bad for the environment too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Honestly Sparten, it was all I could do to leave my post as short and to the point as it was. What i really wanted to say, has been said a million times before and I have a feeling I would be preaching to the choir.

It is staggering to me that some people still advocate that the careless and excessive use of natural resources should be allowed, if not downright ecouraged, simply beacuse it is what the market wants, regardless of what the implications may be. Last time I checked we have to share this world with all the other countries on the planet...well, actually, I guess we don't, but if we choose not to, we will come to look at current global situations as the good ole days. War will become a permament part of life, the draft wil be reinstated, defecits will eventually cripple the economy as military spending doubles or even triples. See, the market has a hard time factoring in externalities like the one I just gave. If we could find a way to include those expenses into the supply/demand charts, I wonder if the market might start to change.

Oh, yeah...I think I heard somewhere that it was bad for the environment too.

One of the best posts I've read in a while........... It really sums things up. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any new numbers regarding the 2005-06 growth? The paper said 166,000 in one year, but I see no change to the 2005 figure of 4,917,717. The 2006 number is 5,138,000. Subtract the former from the latter and you get about 220,000. Has the 2005 figure been increased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Sparten, it was all I could do to leave my post as short and to the point as it was. What i really wanted to say, has been said a million times before and I have a feeling I would be preaching to the choir.

It is staggering to me that some people still advocate that the careless and excessive use of natural resources should be allowed, if not downright ecouraged, simply beacuse it is what the market wants, regardless of what the implications may be. Last time I checked we have to share this world with all the other countries on the planet...well, actually, I guess we don't, but if we choose not to, we will come to look at current global situations as the good ole days. War will become a permament part of life, the draft wil be reinstated, defecits will eventually cripple the economy as military spending doubles or even triples. See, the market has a hard time factoring in externalities like the one I just gave. If we could find a way to include those expenses into the supply/demand charts, I wonder if the market might start to change.

Oh, yeah...I think I heard somewhere that it was bad for the environment too.

I don't think you're preaching to the chior. I personally don't share your pessimistic view on the future. I agree that we should protect the environment, but I think that will come with making changes elsewhere. I see transit ridership up across America, I see urban living ever increaseing, and even in the suburbs you are seeing new urbanist projects, and traditional neighborhoods becoming more popular all the time. You're stil going to get that kind of statement from time to time. I am interested in this opinion because it is so very different from my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you're preaching to the chior. I personally don't share your pessimistic view on the future. I agree that we should protect the environment, but I think that will come with making changes elsewhere. I see transit ridership up across America, I see urban living ever increaseing, and even in the suburbs you are seeing new urbanist projects, and traditional neighborhoods becoming more popular all the time. You're stil going to get that kind of statement from time to time. I am interested in this opinion because it is so very different from my own.

With all due respect Sparten, my view is not pessimistic, but realistic. If you doubt that the industrialized world will go to war to secure ever shrinking amounts of energy, all you need to do is turn on the nightly news. Do you honestly think that we would give a rats ass what was going on in the Middle East if there was no oil underneath all that sand??? Without that "black gold" they are sitting on, there would be no multi billionaire Saudis, Dubai would be just another desert backwater, and we would care as much about the Middle East as we do Africa now. One only need to look at the supply demand projections of oil consumption to realize that sooner or later (and I fear sooner) something MUST give. Given that reality, do we go on advocating the status quo simply because that is what the "market" wants? Or do we start to come to the realization that our "American way of life" is ultimately unsustainable, and start to make the choices to place ourselves on a stronger footing? The longer we wait to make those choices, the more draconian they will be.

Edited by ryanmckibben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or do we start to come to the realization that our "American way of life" is ultimately unsustainable, and start to make the choices to place ourselves on a stronger footing? The longer we wait to make those choices, the more draconian they will be.

Ryan, I agree with everything you've said in this thread. But I am not optimistic that large numbers of people will begin to make the necessary choices until disaster literally hits us in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hmm.. Where's the oil in Afghanistan ? Serbia ?

I for one think the news/media is sensationalist and things aren't as bad as they like to make them out to be. In the 70's we were going to run out of oil before the year 2000 and we were on the verge of an ice age... Whatever sells!

Back onto the topic of this board, I prefer living in the city because of the vibrant nature of city life. I love the idea of being able to walk to no fewer the 50 quality restaurants within 15 minutes of my home and hopefully, if the midtown-mile continues to build-out, I'll soon be able to walk to all my shopping destinations as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ You know perfectly well why we are in Afghanistan, and there is likely self interest there as well. Serbia was also due to self interest if you see our involvement there as strategic, which it almost had to have been since there were at the time other much worse humanitarian crises (not even including China or Africa). Ironically the media sensationalism you refer to is what made Serbia a "humanitarian" focused disaster when it is pretty obvious that is not why the US was there. And regardless, oil was not the real point made earlier, but the lifestyle it encourages, which is rampant in most parts of this country, particularly the southern half.

Finally, whether or not the media is sensationalist is not relevant to or a good excuse to substitute your own judgment over that of the scientific community which is overwhelmingly in consensus over oil, pollution (namely CO2) and global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's my point. People who defend this way of life in spite of the overwhemling evidence that it will lead to a crisis are just plain irresponsible.

Ryan, yeah, but you've gotta remember we live in the reddest of red states. The suburbs, where 90% of our population lives, typically votes 70% or more Republican, which I assume roughly translates to a staunchly pro-suburban, pro-commuting point of view which pooh-poohs the idea of global climate change and dwindling resources. If people were genuinely worried about the effects of sprawl, they wouldn't keep moving to the suburbs in record numbers and electing governments which facilitate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Finally, whether or not the media is sensationalist is not relevant to or a good excuse to substitute your own judgment over that of the scientific community which is overwhelmingly in consensus over oil, pollution (namely CO2) and global warming.

I know this is off-topic but.... that same scientific community was calling for a pending Ice Age as recently as the mid-70's, which included articles in Time and Newsweek, so please excuse me if I choose to have an open mind about the subject. Contrary to what Al Gore chooses to tell us, the debate is far from over.

I still don't drive an SUV and choose to walk or take MARTA whenever possible, and can't wait until the streetcar is running in Midtown. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Open minded? The two events are not comparable at all, that argument itself mainly being a marketing ploy by those who wish to politicize and reject what is now widely known as simple liberalism.

To elaborate, back in the 70's it was a few popular articles and a book backed by a small % of the community. Along the lines of "Mars Attacks!"

Now it is overwhelmingly agreed on by the major research institutions and universities, the G8, UN and 1000's of scientific articles, pretty much the entire world. Don't just let Gore persuade you, I'll be the first to admit he isn't the best spokesperson, but he has filled a vacuum, a very unfortunate vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people were genuinely worried about the effects of sprawl, they wouldn't keep moving to the suburbs in record numbers and electing governments which facilitate it.

I'd say some are genuinely worried about sprawl and the negative consequences thereof, but a perceived safer environment and good schools for their children are a higher priority. And in some cases, the commute is shorter since for many metros, the bulk of the job growth is located in edge cities and other suburban locales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. Where's the oil in Afghanistan ? Serbia ?

I for one think the news/media is sensationalist and things aren't as bad as they like to make them out to be. In the 70's we were going to run out of oil before the year 2000 and we were on the verge of an ice age... Whatever sells!

Back onto the topic of this board, I prefer living in the city because of the vibrant nature of city life. I love the idea of being able to walk to no fewer the 50 quality restaurants within 15 minutes of my home and hopefully, if the midtown-mile continues to build-out, I'll soon be able to walk to all my shopping destinations as well.

Serbia was not about oil. I never stated that all wars ever fought have been about oil.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, you should be able to make the connection fairly easily. If not, please read the history of American/Saudi relations.

With regards to the news media, I would say they have not paid as much attention to the energy situation as they should. If one wants info on the subject he/she must dig for it. I could recomend a few books if you would like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to the news media, I would say they have not paid as much attention to the energy situation as they should. If one wants info on the subject he/she must dig for it. I could recomend a few books if you would like...

I've been reading up on the subject for a few years now and try to read all I can on both side of the discussion so any books you can recommend would be appreciated.

My biggest issue with all the doomsday scenarios is they are based on computer models which are repeatedly either proven or just flat out determined to be wrong. When one of these models can accurately predict something even 5 years in the future I might believe them. Another issue I have is that whenever any government has tried to "manage" anything in the environment, they usually end up screwing it up. Read up on the history of the "management" of Yellowstone national park for an example.

Now let's get that Streetcar running! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading up on the subject for a few years now and try to read all I can on both side of the discussion so any books you can recommend would be appreciated.

My biggest issue with all the doomsday scenarios is they are based on computer models which are repeatedly either proven or just flat out determined to be wrong. When one of these models can accurately predict something even 5 years in the future I might believe them.

No matter what scenario you use, however, it seems obvious that we'll run out of gas someday. Maybe it'll be 50 or 100 years, but that's not so long. In the meantime, it's obviously going to become increasingly scarce and the subject of great international unrest.

That being the case, how can it be wise to base our lifestyles on daily commutes that often take an hour or more EACH WAY, typically in single passenger automobiles?

And what about the human cost involved? If you spend 2 hours a day sitting in your car, that's 500 hours a year. That's 62.5 working days -- over 3 months a year -- just sitting in traffic!

Can this possibly be a sustainable way of living??

Nobody has to listen to Al Gore to make those basic calculations. It doesn't worry me too much for myself because I am old, but what sort of world am I leaving for my children and grandchildren, and for the generations who come after them?

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.