By 2060, the American South Could Be Three Times as Urbanized

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

We [North Americans] perfected this 100 years ago with the streetcar suburb. There's some of it in the older urban centers of the South like Richmond, New Orleans, Memphis, Charleston, and some in what is considered the more urban parts of Atlanta, but it was a form that was largely out of fashion when the "Charlanta" area begin to really grow. Plus, there was no functional transit to support it, but having a yard being close driving distance to the mall was a bigger concern in the 1960 forward.

I completely agree, and I see trends heading more into the streetcar suburb direction. Still a suburb, still a nice and pleasant place for families, etc., but just different and a bit denser.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

I'm not a Southerner, but I partly grew up in one of sprawliest regions in the country, the DC area...

From here:

Atlanta and surrounding:



DC / Baltimore (and Hagerstown):



Just wanted to respond to that anecdote...

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

It's really hilarious to me hearing from people from sprawly areas bash the South as if things are so much better.

False equivalence.

NYC, DC, SF and LA are spending billions of dollars on heavy rail transit and other transit under construction right now. Which Southern metro is doing the same? None. Which absolutely shapes the sprawl and makes it more sustainable etc.

It kills me when people say all areas are the same blah blah. No they are not. Many areas choose to spend their money on transit, others choose to spend it on roads. That's generally what the South does.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Eightball

False equivalence.

NYC, DC, SF and LA are spending billions of dollars on heavy rail transit and other transit under construction right now. Which Southern metro is doing the same? None. Which absolutely shapes the sprawl and makes it more sustainable etc.

It kills me when people say all areas are the same blah blah. No they are not. Many areas choose to spend their money on transit, others choose to spend it on roads. That's generally what the South does.

I never said all areas are the same. I said things are changing. Why is it correct to think that the South is going to develop the same way in the next few generations as they did in the past, but it's incorrect to think that the South is going to grow at the same pace in the next few generations as it has in the past few? I really can't believe how much people are arguing about this. This is not a controversial topic. The entire country's tastes are generally moving towards densifying over unsustainable exurban sprawl.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by RCDC

From here:

Atlanta and surrounding:



DC / Baltimore (and Hagerstown):



Just wanted to respond to that anecdote...

And these two areas developed when?

Just saying.....

Anyone that thinks the Atlanta area has not embraced everything that is being discussed here hasn't been here in a while. The large majority of the growth is occurring in the core of the Metro, and has been for several years now.

The BeltLine is causing an intown boom the likes of which we have never seen before. And a lot of it involves converting brownfields to residential and mixed use. It doesn't get much better than that as far as land use goes...

[memph]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

And these two areas developed when?

Just saying.....

I think DC metro area is a bit newer than LA, while Atlanta is more like South Florida.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by memph

I think DC metro area is a bit newer than LA, while Atlanta is more like South Florida.

Atlanta is nothing like South Florida development wise.

As for the rest of this thread.
A ridiculous study to get everyone riled up.

[llamaorama]

Maybe there are other things too.

In the south but also in the northeast and midatlantic, the geography is hilly and roadways follow meandering paths. Parcels of land are smaller and come in random shapes. There is already a relatively large rural/exurban population with homes on a couple acres around every bend in the road that are less likely to sell out and prone to create gaps in growing areas.. A developer buys a small wedge of land, crams a few houses on it and designs the streets as a pod because there's no indication they'd ever connect with those on the adjacent property. What you get is a very piecemeal landscape. If there is smart growth density nodes within this, they will be isolated islands.

This is much different from the circumstances on the plains of north Texas or the Colorado Front Range, where there is a mile grid of major roads on land that is flat as a pancake and divided into huge empty chunks that can be purchased en mass by developers for a mega master planned community, and also in those areas there is more likely to be a municipal government mandating that you follow their master plan for thoroughfares, parks, schools, fire stations, etc. In these conditions, new dense infill can help create a quasi-urban landscape if done right because it can connect to and spill over into outside areas.

Dallas and Atlanta are both sprawly but Dallas suburbia is coherent and logical and solid, Atlanta is a bunch of traffic-congested spaghetti dumped on the hills of north georgia.

Now of course, some people like the idea of a large lot that has woods on it instead of a backyard like what might be typical outside Charlotte. On the other hand, nothing is stopping this from being the case in a more planned development either. And if you lived in a conventional affordable subdivision what you get is probably the same small fenced in yard but now your neighborhood is isolated.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by brickell

Atlanta is nothing like South Florida development wise.

As for the rest of this thread.
A ridiculous study to get everyone riled up.

The Florida Coast has more developments going on than any other region besides the NYC region. Not just on the coast, but inland as well. It is common to see developments with 400-500 units and several 1000+ unit complex's going up along SE Florida and around Orlando. Although Atlanta is experiencing an nice construction boom ,especially in the residential sector. Texas as well is seeing dozens of highrises. I only hope it accelerates .

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by memph

I think DC metro area is a bit newer than LA, while Atlanta is more like South Florida.

He was comparing the D.C./Baltimore area to Atlanta, under the guise that they don't sprawl as much as we do.

And as others have said, Atlanta in no way resembles South Florida. The two places could not be more different, in almost every possible way.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Maybe there are other things too.

In the south but also in the northeast and midatlantic, the geography is hilly and roadways follow meandering paths. Parcels of land are smaller and come in random shapes. There is already a relatively large rural/exurban population with homes on a couple acres around every bend in the road that are less likely to sell out and prone to create gaps in growing areas.. A developer buys a small wedge of land, crams a few houses on it and designs the streets as a pod because there's no indication they'd ever connect with those on the adjacent property. What you get is a very piecemeal landscape. If there is smart growth density nodes within this, they will be isolated islands.

This is much different from the circumstances on the plains of north Texas or the Colorado Front Range, where there is a mile grid of major roads on land that is flat as a pancake and divided into huge empty chunks that can be purchased en mass by developers for a mega master planned community, and also in those areas there is more likely to be a municipal government mandating that you follow their master plan for thoroughfares, parks, schools, fire stations, etc. In these conditions, new dense infill can help create a quasi-urban landscape if done right because it can connect to and spill over into outside areas.

Dallas and Atlanta are both sprawly but Dallas suburbia is coherent and logical and solid, Atlanta is a bunch of traffic-congested spaghetti dumped on the hills of north georgia.

Now of course, some people like the idea of a large lot that has woods on it instead of a backyard like what might be typical outside Charlotte. On the other hand, nothing is stopping this from being the case in a more planned development either. And if you lived in a conventional affordable subdivision what you get is probably the same small fenced in yard but now your neighborhood is isolated.

Dallas & Denver style suburbia will never happen here on a large scale because of the very things you mention. Geography, the road network and peoples love of the beauty of the area. Many of our roads are old Cherokee trading paths and farm to market roads. There is zero appetite to widen many of them due to tree loss. It would be politically impossible here to even attempt to impose a grid on top of the area.

Sure, we have several large master planned communities here but they are not on grids due to topography.

[nonjokegetter]

Some of the posts in this thread read like one of the more deluded rantings from something like democraticunderground or something.

A+, would read again

[unusualfire]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

SW Florida will probably get gobbled up when the areas around it get saturated.

It will be interesting to see what the sea levels are by 2060. Florida may just have to be returned to nature.

[Nomad9]

My current home, Pensacola, is starting to slowly urbanize. The downtown area is finally embracing some solid urban planning ideals, and a few old rich people are investing heavily in the core.

So millennials may continue the urbanization (as opposed to suburbanization) of southern cities, but at least around here, it's the old yuppies who want to have a cute, artsy, attractive downtown that are setting the stage.

And judging by the new condo, townhome, and apartment construction in some cities like Atlanta and Charlotte, I don't think it's safe to assume that most of this new growth will take the same form that it has been.

The South does just about everything at a slower pace, so give it time. Racism and bigotry are not unique to the South, as we've seen in this thread.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Second home/summer home sprawl, and some extreme exurban Atlanta sprawl, in the farthest western reaches of North Carolina and farthest northern reaches of Georgia. That area is growing fast as wealthy people from Atlanta, Chattanooga, and Knoxville buy up property out that way. You'll see it explode if they ever get around to building an Interstate link between Asheville and Chattanooga.

That's upsetting. The first time I was in the Asheville area I loved it, as well the the unique cultural/physical geography and the interesting sort of microclimate. I'm actually leaving Wednesday morning for the Asheville area for a mini-vacay. I'd like to see the greater region crack down on development pressure Pacific Northwest style, perhaps more harshly than that even, due to it's proximity to the booming areas of the south. Being from a metro area that's on the more sprawly end for a midwestern region never really even prepares me for the scale of what exists in the southeast.

[memph]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

He was comparing the D.C./Baltimore area to Atlanta, under the guise that they don't sprawl as much as we do.

And as others have said, Atlanta in no way resembles South Florida. The two places could not be more different, in almost every possible way.

Of course Atlanta doesn't resemble South Florida, that's my point, age doesn't explain everything because Atlanta and South Florida developed at a similar time. DC and LA also developed mostly around the same time in that they're both about 25% pre-WWII. It's not like New York's metro which probably had 60% of its current population in 1945.

The effect of D.C.'s slightly larger historic core is pretty minimal on the size of its current urban area. The difference mostly has to do with post-WWII development patterns.

D.C. is probably most similar to Toronto in terms of development patterns. It's not as old as Chicago, Pittsburgh or the other NE cities and it's actually expanded its population more than many midwestern cities including non-traditionally rust belt cities like K.C., Indy and Winnipeg.

Atlanta's level of infill seems quite significant currently*, but for most of the post-WWII era it has been losing population (at a greater rate than many cities) and even as recently as 2000 to 2010, growth in Midtown and the like has been negated by inner city neighbourhoods south, west and SE of downtown losing population.

[Double L]

Originally Posted by Eightball

False equivalence.

NYC, DC, SF and LA are spending billions of dollars on heavy rail transit and other transit under construction right now. Which Southern metro is doing the same? None. Which absolutely shapes the sprawl and makes it more sustainable etc.

It kills me when people say all areas are the same blah blah. No they are not. Many areas choose to spend their money on transit, others choose to spend it on roads. That's generally what the South does.

Dallas & Houston. Dallas has nearly completed it's metro-wide rail system. Houston voters have approved a metro-wide light rail line and a significant portion of it is under currently construction. Plus, they are working on high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas and say it is very feasible.

My current home, Pensacola, is starting to slowly urbanize. The downtown area is finally embracing some solid urban planning ideals, and a few old rich people are investing heavily in the core.

So millennials may continue the urbanization (as opposed to suburbanization) of southern cities, but at least around here, it's the old yuppies who want to have a cute, artsy, attractive downtown that are setting the stage.

And judging by the new condo, townhome, and apartment construction in some cities like Atlanta and Charlotte, I don't think it's safe to assume that most of this new growth will take the same form that it has been.

The South does just about everything at a slower pace, so give it time. Racism and bigotry are not unique to the South, as we've seen in this thread.

Same thing happening in Houston and as I thought...many other southern cities.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by Double L

Dallas & Houston. Dallas has nearly completed it's metro-wide rail system. Houston voters have approved a metro-wide light rail line and a significant portion of it is under currently construction. Plus, they are working on high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas and say it is very feasible.

Nope. Not on the same level. Both are light rail systems (much lower capacity). DART has a moderately impressive system in terms of size, but ridership is quite low (barely over 100k). I can post the ridership numbers of others systems but I am sure you know they are many factors higher than that. I am struggling to find the cost so far of building the DART system, but I imagine it's been 3 or 4 billion? For comparison, the first phase of the new heavy rail line from DC to Tysons opened this week and cost 2.9 billion. Houston has an impressive per mile ridership on its initial line, but we will see what happens with the new extensions. I wish them well, but the scale of investment (or ridership) is just not the same.

I agree that the cities are ideally located for the proposed HSR line, but I will believe it when they start construction. It's been discussed for what, 20 years at this point? No movement. And TX is not funding it, furthering my point. CA is funding it's high speed rail project. Houston and Dallas are large, relatively wealthy areas but have not chosen to invest in transit in a manner at all comparable to the areas I listed. I do agree that the South has some decent transit investments (especially compared to the past) but I think it's pretty clear they are continuing to fall further behind in transit as other regions make much larger transit investments.

[memph]

% of Metro's 2000-2010 growth within 10 miles of city hall

Boston: 33.50%
New York: 31.14%
Seattle: 18.59%
San Francisco: 17.84%
Washington: 12.14%
Phoenix: 6.41%*
Philadelphia: 3.68%
Los Angeles: 2.36%
Houston: 1.99%
Atlanta: 0.12%
Minneapolis: -0.11%
Dallas: -0.70%
Chicago: -44.64%
Detroit: -143.99%/NA**

*Mostly greenfield development S&SW of Downtown, the first 4 miles lost population.
**The metro lost population... so technically it should be +143.99%, basically Detroit's inner 10 miles lost 44% more population than the metro as a whole.

[memph]

Originally Posted by memph

% of Metro's 2000-2010 growth within 10 miles of city hall

Boston: 33.50%
New York: 31.14%
Seattle: 18.59%
San Francisco: 17.84%
Washington: 12.14%
Phoenix: 6.41%*
Philadelphia: 3.68%
Los Angeles: 2.36%
Houston: 1.99%
Atlanta: 0.12%
Minneapolis: -0.11%
Dallas: -0.70%
Chicago: -44.64%
Detroit: -143.99%/NA**

*Mostly greenfield development S&SW of Downtown, the first 4 miles lost population.
**The metro lost population... so technically it should be +143.99%, basically Detroit's inner 10 miles lost 44% more population than the metro as a whole.

Obviously some of these cities are faster growing

Total Growth within 10 miles of city hall

New York: +178,337
Washington: +95,408
Seattle: +73,441
Phoenix: +59,817
Boston: +52,236
San Francisco: +37,764
Houston: +24,491
Los Angeles: +10,927
Philadelphia: +10,265
Atlanta: +1,296
Minneapolis: -356
Dallas: -8,491
Chicago: -161,654
Detroit: -225,379