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

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I don't think you could even get financing without 1:1 parking provisions. Could you identify these parking-free condos?

Who would buy a home in Midtown Atlanta without at least one parking space per unit?

seventh midtown and the currently u/c lilli

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I don't think you could even get financing without 1:1 parking provisions. Could you identify these parking-free condos?

Who would buy a home in Midtown Atlanta without at least one parking space per unit?

Then you would be wrong, as you have always been when it comes to anything related to Atlanta.

Two developments immediately come to mind, but cabasse beat me to it.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by cabasse

seventh midtown and the currently u/c lilli

Nice infill! I like the design of the second one.

[mhays]

Great, do a lot more like that.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

mhays, i assume based on things you've written in the past that you're somehow involved in the development/planning world in Seattle. As am I, as a planning consultant. So I know you understand things are more complicated.

For one, Atlanta doesn't actually have parking requirements in areas such as midtown where the parking podiums get built, but developers often can't get financing from lenders without including it.

A couple very prominent high-rise condos in midtown are being built with zero parking, and the largest new research center is being built with only underground parking despite the costs of digging deep in granite bedrock. They've accomplished this through creative financing and sharing of surrounding parking decks/city decks, but it isn't a matter of there not being demand for parking-free high-rise living in Atlanta. There is, and I've seen just as many Atlanta residents clamoring for urban living as I've been seeing in Seattle or the other large metros on the west coast.

Few places have the city government resources of a Seattle or Portland. I know you'd like to think Seattle is fundamentally more progressive or pro-urban than Atlanta, but I don't think that's true. Places like Seattle, SF, Boston etc have the wealth in the city and the tax base to support huge municipal urban design and planning departments, that have the time and the staff to enact the codes and the policies to make developers build to a better standard. Atlanta is certainly moving in that direction though, and is in the process of re-writing all the zoning and enacting tighter design guidelines.

But taking out the major, wealthier, older urban metros, I don't see much difference in what's being built quality-wise across cities or regions.

Parking goes below-grade here because the economics work (land prices, suitable soils), and because when the economics don't work it's still typically required, including some tighter rules that reduced some loopholes a few years ago. The economics are related to the much smaller volume of parking the market typically wants.

Why would development standards involve a lot of planning cost once they're implemented? A plan reviewer at the land use permit stage or building permit stage does the same things they always would.

I suspect that the the buildings without* parking will do fine, and encourage financiers on future jobs. Maybe you'll have dozens more buildings without parking in a few years, and maybe the typical building will have more units than spaces by then.

*PS, Seventh Midtown and Lilli seem to share parking with existing buildings. That's progress if it's not net additions, but not quite buildings without parking.

PS2, I'm not a planner...I work for a contractor that gets hired to build all sorts of projects.

[jayden]

Amazon choosing Atlanta would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by jayden

Amazon choosing Atlanta would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

Could be wrong, but I really don't think Bezos will move to a red state.

And I think that's what will ultimately hold Atlanta back from reaching its full potential (same as Philly in the Philly thread): Georgia outside of Atlanta doesn't seem to like Atlanta much. A major city at odds with its state government can't get as much done as a major city with outsized influence in the State House can do.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by SteveD

As an Atlantan, this thread is interesting/amusing to me.

Atlanta most certainly isn't "flat". It's situated in the Piedmont region. It's fabled for it's forested rolling hills. Also, being situated in the Piedmont, it's rarely as hot as locales to the east, west and south. In fact as far as big metros go, it's second highest in elevation to only Denver.

I've always thought Atlanta "punched above it's weight" as far as recognition, influence, regional/national/international influence. I think it's much more "known" than several other larger top ten US metros. But, what do I know, that's just the way it feels to me.

I agree with much what you stated. And also an Atlantan, I also like reading others perceptions.

Atlanta is not "flat". It is in the Piedmont and has rolling hills which is partly why it's not so much of a street grid. Streets and roads are winding because of topography. Even the higher design roadways (ie freeways) have more curves (horizontal and vertical) than places that are actually flat like South Georgia or Florida.

Also, Atlanta is more temperate than a lot of people perceive. You can feel the season changes. Yeah it can be hot in the summer months but by September the temperature starts to fall. While temperatures in the 80s are not consistent generally until late May or June.

Atlanta is great. It should not necessarily aspire to be like any place as the original post may suggest. Atlanta fascinates me still. It's ever changing. After all the decades that I lived here, I still find surprises. It is unique, cool, happening, progressive, cultural, green, pretty, etc. It is not ultra touristy (which I'm glad about) but it is a very popular with visitors. I have visited may places in US (many mentioned in this thread) and while I appreciate all of those places Atlanta has enough of (or more than) what I like most about those cities.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Could be wrong, but I really don't think Bezos will move to a red state.

And I think that's what will ultimately hold Atlanta back from reaching its full potential (same as Philly in the Philly thread): Georgia outside of Atlanta doesn't seem to like Atlanta much. A major city at odds with its state government can't get as much done as a major city with outsized influence in the State House can do.

I don't know exactly about Amazon, but that doesn't seem to have held other major companies from relocating to Atlanta.. Georgia in general is a very business friendly state, and will welcome any business relocation with open arms, and very supportive of Atlanta's efforts when it comes to business, Atlanta after all has the 3rd highest concentration of fortune 500 companies in the country, and don't forget GA vetoed the Religious Freedom Bill, when other states in the south did not.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Could be wrong, but I really don't think Bezos will move to a red state.

And I think that's what will ultimately hold Atlanta back from reaching its full potential (same as Philly in the Philly thread): Georgia outside of Atlanta doesn't seem to like Atlanta much. A major city at odds with its state government can't get as much done as a major city with outsized influence in the State House can do.

I think his comment was tongue in check, in reference to a recently locked thread.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Could be wrong, but I really don't think Bezos will move to a red state.

And I think that's what will ultimately hold Atlanta back from reaching its full potential (same as Philly in the Philly thread): Georgia outside of Atlanta doesn't seem to like Atlanta much. A major city at odds with its state government can't get as much done as a major city with outsized influence in the State House can do.

Is this true in Illinois? I don't think they like Chicago much.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Is this true in Illinois? I don't think they like Chicago much.

Who is they?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Who is they?

The State of Illinois.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

The State of Illinois.

Vlajos basically makes the point: Chicago has outsized representation in Springfield because Chicagoland makes up (I'm guessing here) about 5/6th the state's population. That's enough blue voters to shift the whole state and to ensure there's pro-transit, pro-urban state reps to keep the wheels greased. It's the same with Boston (also a blue state, I know): 5 out 6 Massholes live in metro Boston.

My understanding of metro Atlanta is that while the city and few inner burbs like Decatur are blue, the rest of the metro counties are pretty red and in no mood to support transit expansion, for example. Chicago and Boston have some red suburbs too, but generally their suburbanites are somewhere between ambivalent-to-supportive of urban issues. I get the sense that most Atlanta suburbanites are antagonistic-to-ambivalent towards supporting the center city. Is that wrong?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Vlajos basically makes the point: Chicago has outsized representation in Springfield because Chicagoland makes up (I'm guessing here) about 5/6th the state's population. That's enough blue voters to shift the whole state and to ensure there's pro-transit, pro-urban state reps to keep the wheels greased. It's the same with Boston (also a blue state, I know): 5 out 6 Massholes live in metro Boston.

My understanding of metro Atlanta is that while the city and few inner burbs like Decatur are blue, the rest of the metro counties are pretty red and in no mood to support transit expansion, for example. Chicago and Boston have some red suburbs too, but generally their suburbanites are somewhere between ambivalent-to-supportive of urban issues. I get the sense that most Atlanta suburbanites are antagonistic-to-ambivalent towards supporting the center city. Is that wrong?

What you say has been the case traditionally, but that is changing as we speak. After gradually trending blue for the past several election cycles, Gwinnett, Rockdale, Douglas, Henry and Cobb County all flipped to blue in the recent election, thanks to all of the transplants from Chicago / Detroit / NYC migrating to the sunbelt region, African American migration from other parts of the south to the Atlanta area and black flight from Atlanta proper.

There hasn't been a referendum held on transit regionally since 2012 (remind you, when the economy was still in the crapper), but a lot has changed since then and I'm willing to bet more people would give transit expansion another look.

Atlanta's SW suburbs (Fayette, Carroll, Meriwether, Spalding and Coweta County) and far northern suburbs (Forsyth, Cherokee, Hall, Paulding and Bartow) are still solidly red, but that's only because they been growing at a much slower rate and haven't had a huge influx of transplants like the rest of the region. However, they make up such a relatively small portion of the Metro Atlanta's population that their votes would probably be overshadowed by the rest of the region.

With no end in sight of the ongoing net migration to the sunbelt region from the legacy cities in the Midwest / NE and the younger generation being far more progressive overall than their parents/grandparents, states such as Georgia are gong to have an increasingly liberal future. They will also become formidable swing states within the next few election cycles.

[Shawn]

^--- That all makes me really happy to hear. If any state in the Southeast can create a new sociopolitical model which works for cities, Georgia seems like the best candidate from a demographics and economy perspective - exactly because Atlanta dominates Georgia's economy to an extent that other cities in other SE states can never do. Atlanta can do for Georgia what Chicago does for Illinois.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Shawn

^--- That all makes me really happy to hear. If any state in the Southeast can create a new sociopolitical model which works for cities, Georgia seems like the best candidate from a demographics and economy perspective - exactly because Atlanta dominates Georgia's economy to an extent that other cities in other SE states can never do. Atlanta can do for Georgia what Chicago does for Illinois.

It's not just Georgia either, but also Arizona (Phoenix), North Carolina (Charlotte / Raleigh) and even Texas (San Antonio, Dallas and Houston).

That said, I would be more concerned about the Rust Belt states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio). I can see them trending solidly red going forward, between their big cities continuing to shrink (thus losing political clout) and the ongoing drain of younger / progressive natives.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Bay Area has almost no auto supply chain or engineering presence. It's basically irrelevant. Are you mentioning the Bay Area because of Tesla or something? Tesla is basically a tech firm. It's valued as a tech company and has no local supply chain, really.

uh...

Tesla's main manufacturing facility is in the Bay Area. Engineering is also done in the Bay Area.

There's also, you know, the second largest bus manufacturer on the continent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillig_Corporation

Gillig Corporation (formerly Gillig Brothers) is an American designer and manufacturer of buses. The company headquarters, along its manufacturing operations, is located in Livermore, California (in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area). By volume, Gillig is the second-largest transit bus manufacturer in North America (behind New Flyer). As of 2013, Gillig had an approximate 31% market share of the combined US and Canadian heavy-duty transit bus manufacturing industry, based on the number of equivalent unit deliveries.

Obviously it's no Detroit, but to say there's no auto supply or engineering presence is kinda dumb.

[tdawg]

Interesting point above about traditionally blue states turning red as manufacturing declined and hopelessness rose, and red states turning purple or blue do to an influx of immigrants and more progressive Millennials. The times they are a changin'.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Chicago and Boston have some red suburbs too, but generally their suburbanites are somewhere between ambivalent-to-supportive of urban issues.

in chicago's case, you absolutely have the stereotypical city-hating, blood-red suburban conservative types, but specifically on the transit issue, chicagoland is so vast, and its traffic so cluster-fucky, that even many suburban conservatives who would normally be knee-jerk anti-transit in a smaller city like milwaukee can often be brought around to see the "greater good" benefit of public transit if its explained as a program to "remove cars from our overcrowded expressways and streets so that you can drive your lexus to work faster".


conservatives can and do compromise on their anti-urban principles from time to time, you just have to appeal to their inherent selfishness.