What keeps Atlanta from reaching LA, Chicago, or NYC levels?

[mhays]

He has a point. Atlanta is building a lot of "sort of" urban stuff...towers with parking podiums, Dallas doughnuts, etc. Huge amounts of parking seems like the local standard. It does resemble some of the better highrise suburban nodes. It's urbanish suburban or suburbanish urban.

On today's topic, this will do a lot of good things for getting people close together, building pedestrian volumes, etc., which will help add the liveliness many tourists like. But not as much as buildings of the same mass in a more urban format. Some of that is mode splits because more people have cars and it's easier to use them. Some is that parking podiums are pedestrian-unfriendly regardless of what they look like.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

The image perspective you raise is common among upper-middle class 25-40 ish white folks in the "it" cities.

Atlanta certainly doesn't have an image issue in the black community. The reality of atlanta is as far from all popular imagery of atlanta as any city in the country at this point imo. Honestly I think atlanta is largely like a new-built form version of Chicago - an ambitious regional hub with an Americana blend.

Pretty much the bolded.

Atlanta will never be good enough for the crowd that only like cities in the mold of Nashville or Austin, nor should it try to be. Different strokes for different folks.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

He has a point. Atlanta is building a lot of "sort of" urban stuff...towers with parking podiums, Dallas doughnuts, etc. Huge amounts of parking seems like the local standard. It does resemble some of the better highrise suburban nodes. It's urbanish suburban or suburbanish urban.

On today's topic, this will do a lot of good things for getting people close together, building pedestrian volumes, etc., which will help add the liveliness many tourists like. But not as much as buildings of the same mass in a more urban format. Some of that is mode splits because more people have cars and it's easier to use them. Some is that parking podiums are pedestrian-unfriendly regardless of what they look like.

Atlanta is one of those cities that I think does it right when it comes to its urban infill in spite of its car-centric culture, as far as how all of the developments manage to integrate a ton of parking into the design of the buildings and still make them look somewhat attractive (same thing's happening in Nashville as of late).

BTW, what are "Dallas doughnuts?"

[mhays]

That's where we'll differ. Some of us prefer urbanity that isn't so car-centered, like what happens in the obvious old-guard cities and a few others like mine. I mean building that go up with much less parking and sometimes no parking, and where the parking is underground.

A Dallas doughnut is typically a lowrise building wrapped around an above-grade garage. These might average 1/3 fewer units than they appear to have because there's only one layer of units around the doughnut vs. a second layer on the inside. Also the residents don't get a courtyard. This is typically a solution when land is cheap, rents low, and parking counts high.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's where we'll differ. Some of us prefer urbanity that isn't so car-centered, like what happens in the obvious old-guard cities and a few others like mine. I mean building that go up with much less parking and sometimes no parking, and where the parking is underground.

A Dallas doughnut is typically a lowrise building wrapped around an above-grade garage. These might average 1/3 fewer units than they appear to have because there's only one layer of units around the doughnut vs. a second layer on the inside. Also the residents don't get a courtyard. This is typically a solution when land is cheap, rents low, and parking counts high.

The bolded would be ideal, but I think what's happening in cities like Dallas, Atlanta and Nashville is a good compromise. I understand the importance of urbanity, but maximizing the scale of a project when there's prime real estate is equally as important IMO.

Let's compare that with what's happening in my home town of Detroit.

1. It's very common to have a relatively low rise building on one parcel of land and then have an adjacent several story parking garage to supplement the low rise building, with said parking garage taking away otherwise prime real estate that could serve a useful purpose in the future. See the former Compuware HQ as an example.

2. There's a project ongoing where the developer has decided to build several stories of underground parking for a building that's only 8 stories high. The catch is this new building is replacing an 18-story, 232ft building and will be surrounded by other 20-30 story buildings (and thus sticks out like a sore thumb).

IMO, the aforementioned examples I've given are far worse than what the developers are doing in the sunbelt cities.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

Fair enough, I would disagree with the notion that it is purely commercialized though. Atlanta did invent "Trap music" And that has evolved to arguably being the most popular sub-Genre of Hip Hop today. So one can strongly argue that is a cultural contribution in the music/Hip Hop world.

Fair enough but i guess that is the point of this article. who gives two shits that trap music came from atlanta? anybody raising their hands?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Atlanta is one of those cities that I think does it right when it comes to its urban infill in spite of its car-centric culture, as far as how all of the developments manage to integrate a ton of parking into the design of the buildings and still make them look somewhat attractive (same thing's happening in Nashville as of late).

BTW, what are "Dallas doughnuts?"

Texas donuts.

I don't mind these at all and not every city will be dense walkable areas so we might as well incorporate cars and parking into more dense/ urban settings as much as we can

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by JManc

Texas donuts.

I don't mind these at all and not every city will be dense walkable areas so we might as well incorporate cars and parking into more dense/ urban settings as much as we can

Agreed.

I have no problems with buildings that have a ton of parking if done as tastefully as Nashville's Bridgestone HQ (these are not my pictures).

[lrt's friend]

How in the world can you create an urban environment with 'tons of parking' ? If there is 'tons of parking', you need a road network to support all those cars. And if everybody is arriving by car, there is not going to be the level of pedestrian traffic on the streets and street level businesses that make an attractive city. An attractive dense city needs to move a good portion of people into the city centre by other means than by private automobiles.

Sorry but world class cities move a lot of people by transit and that in itself is an attraction to visitors. It is not desirable to come to a city and have no choice but to rent a car and have to deal with horrific traffic congestion to see anything.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How in the world can you create an urban environment with 'tons of parking' ? If there is 'tons of parking', you need a road network to support all those cars. And if everybody is arriving by car, there is not going to be the level of pedestrian traffic on the streets and street level businesses that make an attractive city. An attractive dense city needs to move a good portion of people into the city centre by other means than by private automobiles.

Sorry but world class cities move a lot of people by transit and that in itself is an attraction to visitors. It is not desirable to come to a city and have no choice but to rent a car and have to deal with horrific traffic congestion to see anything.

All cities accommodate tons and tons of car traffic with a massive freeway networks to support them. Even though a lot of people in Chicago, New York or London take the subway/ tube, a lot still drive in and streets are clogged with parked cars as well as any space for indoor/ off-street parking.

Land in cities like Houston or Atlanta is cheap enough to justify building large parking structures.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

All cities accommodate tons and tons of car traffic with a massive freeway networks to support them. Even though a lot of people in Chicago, New York or London take the subway/ tube, a lot still drive in and streets are clogged with parked cars as well as any space for indoor/ off-street parking.

Land in cities like Houston or Atlanta is cheap enough to justify building large parking structures.

Not so much anymore...Plus, as more land is devoted to parking near the core, land prices further out will climb upward. Affordability is on the decline in these once affordable metros. It'll be interesting to see how they adjust, as a low COL is largely responsible for fueling the growth these places experienced in the last several decades.

I agree with Irt. Transit is far more efficient in moving the masses than private cars will ever be. It's probably too late for Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta to change course. We'll see what the consequences of building around the car brings long term. Might not change much. Or maybe they'll stall out as people chose to move to smaller/denser metros where suburban sprawl hasn't pushed residents 60+ miles from the core.

[cabasse]

i'm not a fan of excessive urban parking, but even chicago seems to have quite a lot of parking pedestals in their newer towers. maybe i'm speaking out of ignorance, but browsing downtown/river north on google earth reveals such.

some blocks of midtown are quite urban, and some aren't, but the trajectory of the district as a whole is becoming more urban.

Originally Posted by austin242

Atlanta Has nothing but an Airport. That's all y'all are really known for.

most of this post makes little sense, but i had to reply to this... honestly i think atlanta has a more defined culture and image globally than some of its peers, outside of miami perhaps. the two biggest cities in texas are mostly known as big business centers, but their culture is more homogeneously 'texas' than anything else - in my opinion it's more tied to the state than atlanta is to georgia. (there's more of an anti-georgia sentiment in the city and conversely anti-atlanta outside the metro here than anything in tx. austin might be a bit like this, as the liberal bastion in that state, but i can't say with certainty. i lived in dfw for about 18mo, and those were my experiences)

[maru2501]

I know no forumer would have voted for it, but the movement of the Braves ballpark that far out was seen by some as further evidence ATL as a whole still does not value urbanism

[JManc]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I know no forumer would have voted for it, but the movement of the Braves ballpark that far out was seen by some as further evidence ATL as a whole still does not value urbanism

It's not like the people or the city of ATL (or Fulton Co., in this case) really had much of a say in the matter.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by tdawg

Atlanta is exploding onto the world stage the likes not seen since the Olympics. Atlanta/Georgia are now #1 for film production (https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/05/24/georgia-no-1-in-feature-film-productions.html). It's not just Real Housewives. You have an actual hit show named "Atlanta;" Dynasty is now set in Atlanta; there's the Walking Dead, Baby Driver, etc. Given that Atlanta's nascent soccer team is setting attendance records, I think it's a safe bet that the city will host some World Cup games.

Yes, but very rarely does the film scene there really showcase the city. It's often any city USA, pretending to be another city, and sometimes it plays itself , which for most people outside of Atlanta, doesn't mean much. I've seen more films take place in Detroit , when it had good tax credits, and even those films gave greater mention to that city, and its character - good, and bad.

As we've seen with Louisiana, the tax credits can leave as quickly as they came. State politics, especially in states with strong conservative politics (Michigan, Missouri, Louisiana, for example) can quickly remove a film industry.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I know no forumer would have voted for it, but the movement of the Braves ballpark that far out was seen by some as further evidence ATL as a whole still does not value urbanism

No voter in Atlanta had a say in the situation concerning the Braves ballpark. A deal was worked out in secret amongst a handful of leaders in Cobb County.

And I can't blame Reed for not getting into a bidding war, as the city had already doled out a ton of cash for the Mercedes-Benz stadium.

I'm quite sure the taxpayers in Cobb County wouldn't have agreed to the shellacking they got if given the choice. I'm also certain myself and many other Southsiders (who were season ticket holders) would have been vehemently against the move.

[maru2501]

Right, but it's in the mix and emblematic in some ways, at least, and demonstrates a value set or at least a pandering to metro residents with $$ and where they spend time


It demonstrates there is still some level of "outward" development pressure as opposed to all "inward" urban infill etc

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I know no forumer would have voted for it, but the movement of the Braves ballpark that far out was seen by some as further evidence ATL as a whole still does not value urbanism

actually, on the contrary... the presence of the stadium is turning the surrounding area, which is another typical edge city into a more walkable district than it ever was previously, and might help the push to get some form of rail transit into the area. besides all of that, a huge number of atlantans and cobb county residents were very against the move. see fuck cobb county

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/03/29/in-a-first-cobb-county-shifts-on-commuter-rail/

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2017/10/16/16...tanooga-high-speed-rail-line-development

the main issue is that the braves wanted to develop the blocks surrounding turner field, but were unable to work out a deal with the city. this is actually happening now, after the purchase of the stadium by georgia state u and its conversion into a football field

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by maru2501

Right, but it's in the mix and emblematic in some ways, at least, and demonstrates a value set or at least a pandering to metro residents with $$ and where they spend time


It demonstrates there is still some level of "outward" development pressure as opposed to all "inward" urban infill etc

I think you're oversimplyfying the complicated situation with the Braves.

It had nothing to do with "outward development pressure" or "inward urban infill." It all boiled down to the owners of the Braves looking for whoever would sign them the biggest check. Had the city of Atlanta played ball and done so, they would have stayed at Turner Field (or at least in the city proper).

Overall however, a lot of the growth and development in Atlanta since the Great Recession has primarily been in areas such as Midtown, in line with the trend nationwide of migration towards urban areas.

[lrt's friend]

And this points to issues in many southern cities where only a minority of the population live in the city proper. There are too many pressures and too much competition from outlying municipalities to create a cohesive city. Again, this in the long run affects the attractiveness of these cities internationally as there is no real central planning to locate attractions to the benefit of the whole metro area. From afar, I have read that this competition has resulted in the lack of rapid transit in certain surrounding counties. All these kingdoms and their small minded politicians don't build great cities.