Report: Atlanta, Nashville Areas Rated among Worst for Sprawl

[Leo the Dog]

Steely Dan, that's a dangerous list to post on SSP.

Funny how the stereotypical sprawlers have the highest density (Miami, Vegas, San Jose, San Diego). Maybe one day Seattle metro could achieve Phoenix metro level density.

[Steely Dan]

^ average density is only one way to calculate things. an urban area weighted-density list would look significantly different and would be more useful in my opinion.

that said, water-starved western cities tend to do better on the average density lists because they don't have the 18 billion square miles of sparsely populated quasi-rural ex-exurban hinterlands surrounding them. in the west, when water rights stop, development stops. it's very black and white, and very weird to to see from an eastern-US perspective. in the east where there's water everywhere, development peters out at a MUCH more gradual pace. that's why an UA weighted density would really be the most useful because it calculates the density of where most of the people actually live, not the relatively small number of people who inhabit those 18 billion square miles of quasi-rural suburbia on the exurban fringes of eastern metro areas.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by shivtim

Then of course there are areas within Atlanta - parts of Midtown, West End, Sweet Auburn and the Ponce corridor - that are well over 15,000 p/sqmi and growing (the most dense tract has just over 40,000 p/sqmi).

Where in Atlanta is there a census tract with a density of 40,000 ppsm? The NY Times 2010 Census widget has Atlanta's tracts maxing out at 21,289 (in Midtown), and only two other tracts have densities over 15,000 ppsm (also Midtown).

[BnaBreaker]

What that list really displays is that although sprawl can be relatively dense, it's still sprawl. I don't think there are many people here who would say that Riverside and Phoenix are more urban cities than Boston and Pittsburgh.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by fflint

Where in Atlanta is there a census tract with a density of 40,000 ppsm? The NY Times 2010 Census widget has Atlanta's tracts maxing out at 21,289 (in Midtown), and only two other tracts have densities over 15,000 ppsm (also Midtown).

A small block group (not a whole census tract) on the west side near the Atlanta University Center. But that was 2000 census data.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by shivtim

A small block group (not a whole census tract) on the west side near the Atlanta University Center. But that was 2000 census data.

If we looked at 'small block groups' not just for Atlanta but for every big city and metro, I suspect we'd see the same result as we do for census tracts, city averages and urbanized area averages: Atlanta's a notably low-density city and region.

[mhays]

I think the Census Dept. counted things differently in 2010 vs. 2000.

Seattle had two tracts lose heavily in that period. One included greek row outside the UW, which (looking at block level) was shown as massively dense in 2000. The other included the King County Jail. Neither shrank in any way I noticed on the ground. I'd guess it was the same in Atlanta.

[LMich]

You know, I saw something similar happen in a downtown Detroit Census tract and called shenanigans. Then, my memory was jogged a bit and I did a little bit of research which reminded me that, yeah, prisoners in the downtown jail had been slowly moved to other jails in the city and fewer people were being arrested and/or they were held for much shorter period than they were decades ago. I'm not sure if it accounted for the full 50% decline in that tract over the decade, but this can definitely be a factor.

I'm not sure about tracts with frat houses, but tracts which house jails and prisons can be very volatile since their populations can change every quickly in any given week. But, you're also right in that it can also really depend on how careful the regional and local census offices were in counting prisoners, too.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by fflint

If we looked at 'small block groups' not just for Atlanta but for every big city and metro, I suspect we'd see the same result as we do for census tracts, city averages and urbanized area averages: Atlanta's a notably low-density city and region.

Yep. Atlanta is definitely a low density city and region, and nobody on here claimed otherwise. What I was pointing out is that the actual city of Atlanta is much more dense than its suburbs. A fairly intuitive conclusion that is backed up by data, but for some reason simms3 claimed the city of Atlanta had the same density as the surrounding suburbs.

[Tuckerman]

All this density strangeness discussion reveals the problem of looking at aggregate statistics to describe a variable (density) that is highly dependent on other variables (e.g. political boundaries, racism, geography, water, age of and time of settlement, population dynamics, census peculiarities, zoning laws, housing inequality, rental vs ownership, etc). Anyone with eyesight and half imagination knows that the Boston area is more dense and less sprawled than Atlanta, and these types of comparisons could make its own list. But like any other single variables regarding density it depends on how and where you look. Midtown Atlanta is probably more dense than South Boston; but so what? They are both very urban places and the "sprawl" of the exurbs is kind of irrelevant to these locations. The point is, that if you live in Midtown Atlanta the sprawl of the urban area is largely irrelevant. In fact, many in the Atlanta area easily refer to people who live ITP (inside the perimeter the circumferential interstate around Atlanta) and those who are OTP. Those ITP are considered the "urban folk" and OTP are the suburban, exurban people. My prejudice is that those who live ITP are those who like density, read skyscraper page and have the prejudices of the new urbanism people; those OTP simply lead their regarded-to-be miserable life in the endless mysteries of car-oriented, late 20th century American urban development.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

What that list really displays is that althougho sprawl can be relatively dense, it's still sprawl. I don't think there are many people here who would say that Riverside and Phoenix are more urban cities than Boston and Pittsburgh.

Of course not, but once you leave the cores of Boston and Pittsburgh, their sprawl is more spread out. the farther west you go, the denser the sprawl. Sprawl is sprawl, but there are different kinds.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Midtown Atlanta is probably more dense than South Boston; but so what?

I would be very surprised if this were true. Southie is one of the denser non-downtown Boston neighorhoods and is quite dense and urban relative to Atlanta Midtown.

[simms3_redux]

Chicago has a Census tract of 508,000 ppsm. It's two buildings. So extremely high densities for Atlanta are possible in this regard. I can promise from living there that there is nowhere that has close to 40,000 ppsm, really not even half. Midtown Census tracts are shaped well to include a concentration of resi high rises, but despite having tracts with 12-20,000 ppsm, the general Midtown area isn't quite as vibrant as similarly dense areas in the standard dense cities. It's the nature of older cities where people live without cars in pretty "crowded" situations (i.e. my 2 BR in SF is 800 SF tops and is considered "luxury" because it has wood floors, lol, whereas a 2 BR in Midtown Atlanta is usually 1,000-1,200 SF and comes with a large garage and amenity deck).

For the SE, Midtown Atlanta is about as dense as it gets, and will only get denser. I see it functioning like a 20,000 ppsm Census tract as experienced in typically dense cities by 2020, which is especially great for Atlanta, but also great because it's very unique in the south (and really the whole Sunbelt stretching to LA). North Ave to 14th will be relatively vibrant and thriving with living options and entertainment options. I lived there as recently as 2012 when Skyhouse (the 1st one Lol) was just finishing up, and I occasionally visit. Right now Atlanta's densest area still has a quiet sparsity to it, and I wouldn't call it "vibrant" despite the density (an equivalent 20,000 ppsm Census tract in SF, Boston, or Philly would be far more bustling). However, I think that's all changing. I see Atlanta's Midtown becoming a little bit like River North in Chicago (over many more decades of course). But Atlanta density DROPS OFF. Even surrounding Midtown there are mansions with yards (Ansley Park, which is one of my all time favorite neighborhoods I should add). Buckhead is literally a vertical suburb surrounded by mansions with the largest yards in the country (outside of CT and western Boston homes).

It's definitely a unique setup. But let's not kid ourselves, despite having Midtown, the city limits density of Atlanta is just over 3,000 ppsm. There's no visible difference between the feel and look of 3,000 ppsm, 3500 ppsm, 2000 ppsm, etc etc. The Atlanta metro is very uniformly "undense" outside of a small core that may have tracts that are "15,000 ppsm +" (but to anyone from SF, Chi, Boston, DC, NYC, LA, Seattle, Philly etc doesn't feel like 15,000 ppsm).

I'll measure Atlanta Midtown density when the skyline when viewed from East-West is "filled in". The day that comes is the day that Atlanta's skyline is *huge* and there are tons of people walking the streets and shopping in stores, etc etc.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by shivtim

Yep. Atlanta is definitely a low density city and region, and nobody on here claimed otherwise. What I was pointing out is that the actual city of Atlanta is much more dense than its suburbs. A fairly intuitive conclusion that is backed up by data, but for some reason simms3 claimed the city of Atlanta had the same density as the surrounding suburbs.

Another important point in reference to the original post is that Atlanta and Nashville certainly don't belong on a level with Hickory NC, Kingsport TN, and Clarksville TN. That ridiculous notion invalidates the entire premise. As Steely Dan pointed out, Atlanta may very well rank near the bottom in density of the 41 largest metros. But there is no way it belongs in a conversation with Hickory NC.

One further point...many newcomers have been attracted to Atlanta's lack of density and it is probably one reason for the metro area's explosive growth. I know that most members of a skyscraper site don't appreciate low density, but that option does make Atlanta fairly unique among the largest American cities.

[Tuckerman]

Again the density issue is tricky. While Midtown Atlanta may have fairly high density and many people living in mid and high rise buildings, the street traffic is not what one might expect because there are not a lot of street front shops. The same is very true of Downtown ATL where the shops are all inside the buildings and hence there is very little foot traffic on the sidewalks. Chances are that if you live in midtown you may still get in your car to drive to a supermarket, movie, or whatever. It is unlikely you would walk. Surprisingly many of these facilities are actually not so far away physically and could be walked, but do date Atlantans don't seem to take that alternative. There is something about the street scape and the mentality of people that alters how distances are perceived. in a grid layout like Manhattan, one does not think it much to walk 5 or 6 blocks north and then 3-4 blocks east or west to a shop restaurant etc. The actual distance walked might be close to a mile; a distance that would seem too far to walk in Atlanta. Some might argue that safety is an issue and that could be, but I also think it is the presence of a lot of people on the sidewalks that gives a signal of walkability.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Midtown Atlanta is probably more dense than South Boston; but so what?

No need to guess about such things when we can learn the truth.

Midtown Atlanta:
Census Tract 1001-----6,291 ppsm
Census Tract 11-------19,971 ppsm
Census Tract 1201----15,880 ppsm
Census Tract 1202----21,189 ppsm

South Boston:
Census Tract 61------46,370 ppsm
Census Tract 602-----29,124 ppsm
Census Tract 604-----31,810 ppsm
Census Tract 606------4,841 ppsm
Census Tract 607-----38,235 ppsm
Census Tract 608-----30,087 ppsm
Census Tract 60101--28,175 ppsm
Census Tract 60301--29,234 ppsm
Census Tract 60501--22,462 ppsm

[PremierAtlanta]

*sighs* With access to the computer, why do people make blanket statements that can be easily disproved.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

The unfortunate thing about Atlanta is while its core is developing (the same can still be said about already dense, built out cores such as in NYC, Chicago, and SF), many people moving to Atlanta are actually attracted to the "ultra exurban lifestyle". Having a house with a large yard on a cul de sac 3 counties out and commuting in is seen as desirable. I feel like it's a snowball that has gained so much momentum it will be difficult to stop, but as evidenced by the past 5-7 years of growth in the metro, it is slowing.

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

One further point...many newcomers have been attracted to Atlanta's lack of density and it is probably one reason for the metro area's explosive growth. I know that most members of a skyscraper site don't appreciate low density, but that option does make Atlanta fairly unique among the largest American cities.

As a person who has facilitated the buying and selling of real estate in the metro Atlanta area, I wholeheartedly agree with both quotes above.

Most people do not move to metro Atlanta to live in dense environments. I know it pains many on forums such as this one but I must speak as I find. In the US, a vast majority of buyers, if given the opportunity, will choose a less dense environment.

Perhaps it's the market in which I concentrated. I must admit that I do not do first time buyers so many of my clients may be older than 30. A vast majority of my clients have been from places that are more dense or far less "sprawly" than metro Atlanta. Regardless of how I may have introduced them to intown and close-in suburbs, a vast majority of my northern and western clients chose 8,000-20,000 square foot homes on acre plus lots in gated subdivisions from Lake Windward in Alpharetta to as far north as Pilgrim Mill Rd north of Cumming in Forsyth County.

As much as some of you all may fantasize about density on message boards as such, people are not moving to your Atlantas, Charlottes and Nashvilles to live like they had to live in more dense locales. I have sold more homes to people from metro NYC in places like St Marlo Country Club than I did in close-in suburbs like Sandy Springs or ITP.

Simms3 said it in another one of his post above that you can find homes in Buckhead (a district within the city limits of Atlanta) on considerable acreage. In fact, I know of one home on West Conway Rd that is on 18 acres and has two lakes and a horse stable. This...less than four miles from the Buckhead Business District. Ansley Park is even more of a stark contrast. It's two blocks off of Peachtree Street in Midtown. Unfortunately or fortunately, I don't see anyone buying up $5 - $40 million mansions in Buckhead (some which date back to the turn of the 20th century) just to knock them down to increase density. There are just no geographical limitations to warrant such an action.

In fact, I think this dichotomy of "my own homestead 'in' the city" is part of the appeal of an Atlanta or a Nashville. I can go on and on but I will end by saying this...until people stop voting with their dollars or their feet (both metros have grown considerably since the 2010 census), these metro areas are not going to become a dense haven overnight. 100 years ago both these metros were of no major consequence. It's difficult comparing them to older metros or metros with geographical limitations.

[chris08876]

Interesting read on some of the factors that they based this score on. Food for thought...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Ranked One of the Least Sprawled Metros in America

While you wouldn't know it from rush hour traffic on the Palmetto and Dolphin Expressways, Miami is apparently one of the least sprawled out metro areas in America. According to a new study by Smart Growth America and the Metropolitan Research Center, Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall is the eighth most compact metro in the country. It's also the third most compact major metro area, behind only New York City and the San Francisco Bay area.
The study looked at four major factors, and areas were ranked on a scale on which a score of 100 represents the average. So areas that score more than 100 are more compact than those below 100.

Here's how Miami did:

Development Density: That includes six factors: "1) total density of the urban and suburban census tracts; 2) percent of the population living in low-density suburban areas; 3) percent of the population living in medium- to high-density areas; 4) urban density within total built-upon land; 5) the relative concentration of density around the center of the MSA; and 6) employment density."

Miami scored 160.18.

Land Use Mix: "The balance of jobs to total population and mix of job types within one mile of census block groups, plus the WalkScore of the center of each census tract."

Miami scored 136.41.

Activity centering:"The proportion of people and businesses located near each other is also a key variable to define an area."

Miami scored 117.91.

Street Accessibility: "Measured by combining a number of factors regarding the MSA's street network. The factors are average length of street block; average block size; percent of blocks that are urban in size; density of street intersections; and percent of four-way or more intersections, which serves as a measure of street connectivity."

Miami scored 166.90.

Averaging those scores together, Miami got a final score of 144.12.

That was best for eight overall behind Trenton, New Jersey; Santa Cruz, California; Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; Santa Barbra, California; Atlantic City, New Jersey; San Francisco; and New York.

In case you're wondering, other Florida metros didn't do as well. Ft. Lauderdale came in 38th with a score of 121.41. Gainesville was 76th with a score of 111.36. Tampa was 124th with a score of 98.49. West Palm Beach was 125th with a score of 98.81. Orlando was 156th with a score of 83.97. Jacksonville was 165th with a score of 80.85.

So Florida's reputation for unchecked suburban sprawl is well deserved overall, it's just that Miami isn't contributing to the problem.

=========================================
By Kyle Munzenrieder
April 11 2014
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/ripti..._the_least.php

[Tuckerman]

Here are a couple of quotes from the net:

Between 2000 and 2010, South Boston grew by 3,686 residents to 35,200 residents, according to figures the Boston Redevelopment Authority compiled from U.S Census Bureau data. (from Boston.com)
Midtown is the second largest business district in the city of Atlanta, situated between the commercial and financial districts of Downtown to the south and Buckhead to the north. Midtown has a resident population of 30,000, a workplace population of 68,000, a student population of 20,000. (from ARC).

My point where I said that Midtown Atl was probably more dense than South Boston, but so what?. Was not to be taken as a pissing context of what the exact density is per square inch in one versus the other. It was a rhetorical point, with the emphasis on the "so what." I could have reversed the order of density and asked the same question, "so what." We continue to struggle with different demographic data over a rather strange single variable we call "density," which in my view is a very limited urban concept unless seen in the context of many other urban related variables.

On a related topic, I had the unfortunate chance early on to actually work for the US Census Bureau, training enumerators and being charged with census follow up and quality control. It was most interesting because in my earlier naivete I actually believed that the census figures were real and totally accurate. The reality is that there are many errors and many ill defined aspects, including how a census tract is defined. (Some of the best work on this is by R. Groves who was head of the Census bureau and published extensively on the total error concept.