Bulding Heights Recently

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by jpk1292000

Yeah it's frustrating watching Austin run circles around Atlanta in terms of its ascension to a higher level of "city importance". This isn't to say Austin is a more important city than Atlanta. It's not for dozens of reasons, but seems to be ascending faster than any city in the US. The fact that Austin has a river adjacent to its downtown probably helps with the height of their buildings in a way that it creates a barrier or focal point. To a lesser degree, the same can be said for Nashville. This barrier or focal point isn't present in Atlanta. There is also the fact that Atlanta development is spread over many more subdistricts than Austin's, which probably dilutes the height here as well.

There is probably also more Silicon Valley money rushing out of California to Austin than Atlanta (though it's coming here too), so that money probably helps to support those building heights. And even as an Atlanta homer I have to admit, Austin has more/better entertainment/shopping focused downtown where in Atlanta it's more spread out over numerous districts. This focus of everything in one place probably motivates more people want to live in a smaller part of the city (downtown) vs Atlanta where the development is happening spread out over many neighborhoods all at once.

Yeah and I wouldn't even be mad if the current infill we were getting was quality. But it's not. Same generic 5 over 1 apartments with a texas donut parking garage. same generic high rises where 8 stories is dedicated to a street facing parking garage, just meh. And somewhat unrelated, Atlanta is WAY behind when it comes to TOD development. How does Seattle, which has a single light rail line, building TOD developments all over the city with reduced parking, meanwhile Atlanta has a whole subway system and we're building high rise apartments that have 300 units but 600 parking spots right in MIDTOWN? which has like 3-4 marta stations.

I just want people to expect more for Atlanta, cause I do. No reason this city should be getting outdone by cities like Seattle, Austin, Portland, etc.

[Atlriser]

I get so frustrated when I read this crap about height. I just visited São Paulo (22M metro population) for a week. I don’t believe I saw a single building over 25 stories; but OMG, the high rises literally went on for 30 miles or more nonstop continuously 25 stories. It was literally a sea of concrete as far as you could look even from the plane. You never saw anything for miles and miles in any direction but 15-20 story buildings. The streets were so active and full of life. It was an amazing experience and at street level you didn’t give a damn if the buildings were 20 stories or 100 stories. Actually it was amazing seeing just the buildings that tall because in order to be noticed in a sea of literally 100’s of buildings; there was so much unique architecture, landscaping and night lighting that made all the buildings recognizable and interesting around the city.

It was a true urban city! I love love love highrises, but that’s not what makes a city a city! Atlanta has a beautiful skyline that far out punches it’s size but those tall buildings don’t make the city a city. It’s the density that matters! After visiting Dubai for 2 weeks just to see the high rises, it’s been my experience the cities in Europe, Latin America and South America with only 5- 20 story buildings that are truly cities and are amazing to walk and experience. It’s not the cities with a few supertalls that are fun to get out and actually live in.

No one is out doing Atlanta as long as we continue to densify like we are currently. Sure give us a 40 or 100 story tower occasionally but that’s not what Atlanta needs to be world class!

[ThrashATL]

São Paulo is a high frequency earthquake zone could be one reason.

[newuserbuckhead]

Originally Posted by ThrashATL

São Paulo is a high frequency earthquake zone could be one reason.

No it's not. What are you smoking? It's on the Atlantic coast, far from the Pacific side where earthquakes occur.

[Atlriser]

No São Paulo is in a very stable region and does not have earthquakes. Regardless that has nothing to do with my point about height and what makes a city urban, livable and amazing.

Also, Atlanta does not have a subway system as mentioned above. It has the backbone to have an amazing system but what we have is crap. A general characteristic of amazing livable cities I’ve been to had an impressive public transportation system as a key component. That includes buses honestly that the citizens bragged about unlike what we have here.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by Atlriser

No São Paulo is in a very stable region and does not have earthquakes. Regardless that has nothing to do with my point about height and what makes a city urban, livable and amazing.

Also, Atlanta does not have a subway system as mentioned above. It has the backbone to have an amazing system but what we have is crap. A general characteristic of amazing livable cities I’ve been to had an impressive public transportation system as a key component. That includes buses honestly that the citizens bragged about unlike what we have here.

I agree, but Seattle has a single light rail line yet is leaving us in the dust when it comes to transit construction, TOD development, and increasing walkability. Why is that?

[alco89]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

I agree, but Seattle has a single light rail line yet is leaving us in the dust when it comes to transit construction, TOD development, and increasing walkability. Why is that?

Because they are hemmed in by water and mountains and had already been forced to develop a more dense, walkable city (by comparison).

[Terminus]

I do think the polycentric nature of Atlanta - which is fundamentally based on racism - is the big reason.

That said, because of the polycentric form, there's very little economic reason to build very tall buildings here. All those tall buildings of the 1980s and 1990s were mostly driven by ego, not economics. The increased cost of construction simply doesn't generate a proportion increase in rent to justify the risk.

[Atlriser]

And Seattle doesn’t have just 1 light rail line. In 2016, they passed a $24B that’s with a B transit expansion called sound3. The 3 is because it’s the third major plan since 1996 with 1 & 2 already completed. It’s adding rail and stations every 2 years until complete. When complete by 2040, it will be larger than Chicago’s system for a metro 1/2 Chicagos size. That’s the forward thinking and realization that transit is key to growth, income equality and prosperity in todays world.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by Atlriser

And Seattle doesn’t have just 1 light rail line. In 2016, they passed a $24B that’s with a B transit expansion called sound3. The 3 is because it’s the third major plan since 1996 with 1 & 2 already completed. It’s adding rail and stations every 2 years until complete. When complete by 2040, it will be larger than Chicago’s system for a metro 1/2 Chicagos size. That’s the forward thinking and realization that transit is key to growth, income equality and prosperity in todays world.

Meanwhile MARTA has been left to collect dust for the past 2 decades...pathetic. No one has an upward vision in this town.

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

Meanwhile MARTA has been left to collect dust for the past 2 decades...pathetic. No one has an upward vision in this town.

I get your frustration, and someone who rides regularly and has at times lived “car light,” but this is way off in general.

Marta is testament to the city having vision—its problem is arguably that it’s too grand of a metro system for a city like Atlanta in the first place. It’s tough to think of a logical expansion because it already goes almost everywhere it might make sense for it to go.

Ditto the airport midfield terminals, freeing the freeways, 96 Olympics, the Beltline, etc. Atlanta has always found audacious ways to punch way above its weight class.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

I get your frustration, and someone who rides regularly and has at times lived “car light,” but this is way off in general.

Marta is testament to the city having vision—its problem is arguably that it’s too grand of a metro system for a city like Atlanta in the first place. It’s tough to think of a logical expansion because it already goes almost everywhere it might make sense for it to go.

Ditto the airport midfield terminals, freeing the freeways, 96 Olympics, the Beltline, etc. Atlanta has always found audacious ways to punch way above its weight class.

This is actually true. Atlanta was never suppose to have MARTA. the only reason it got heavy rail was that Seattle rejected transit dollars when the feds were handing them out like candy and instead Atlanta got the project. Outside of the main red N-S spine, to the airport/stadiums, and the beltline area, Atlanta simply doesnt have the density to support heavy rail. it should have light rail like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and Charlotte

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

This is actually true. Atlanta was never suppose to have MARTA. the only reason it got heavy rail was that Seattle rejected transit dollars when the feds were handing them out like candy and instead Atlanta got the project. Outside of the main red N-S spine, to the airport/stadiums, and the beltline area, Atlanta simply doesnt have the density to support heavy rail. it should have light rail like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and Charlotte

No. Atlanta started planning rapid transit in the late 50's and early 60's. It didn't just drop in our lap one day, the Federal funding Seattle turned down sped up the process. Prior to Covid, MARTA's ridership was higher than Dallas & Houston's LRT numbers combined.

[Rchitectburd23]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

No. Atlanta started planning rapid transit in the late 50's and early 60's. It didn't just drop in our lap one day, the Federal funding Seattle turned down sped up the process. Prior to Covid, MARTA's ridership was higher than Dallas & Houston's LRT numbers combined.

True. Marta has been around for a long time. Prior to that Atlanta had a streetcar system in the city that appeared to have alot of lines. If take a look at older photos of downtown you'll see. I also believe there are maps.

[Rchitectburd23]

Streetcars in Atlanta

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Streetcars_in_Atlanta

https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/com...m_source=share

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

This is actually true. Atlanta was never suppose to have MARTA. the only reason it got heavy rail was that Seattle rejected transit dollars when the feds were handing them out like candy and instead Atlanta got the project. Outside of the main red N-S spine, to the airport/stadiums, and the beltline area, Atlanta simply doesnt have the density to support heavy rail. it should have light rail like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and Charlotte

Although I say MARTA is too grand for a city like Atlanta, it's still an advantage for us, overall. A big one.

High-speed, express connection directly from the World's Busiest Airport to all of our main business and hotel districts, convention center, etc, and integrated into high density residential areas like Midtown is a massive advantage, compared with the LRT systems in CLT/HOU/DFW/PHX.

But expanding the thing is neigh impossible, which probably has as much to do with red state dynamics as it does with the fact that heavy rail is really expansive to expand. It would be really nice if we had a political consensus among state and regional leaders that MARTA is our primary transit system, and we need to expand it by growing it to outer counties as a series of long term initiatives, and fund and manage the operations properly.

Instead, it's a political football. But I can't see that as Atlanta's fault, of all the different actors involved.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by jpk1292000

Yeah it's frustrating watching Austin run circles around Atlanta in terms of its ascension to a higher level of "city importance". This isn't to say Austin is a more important city than Atlanta. It's not for dozens of reasons, but seems to be ascending faster than any city in the US. The fact that Austin has a river adjacent to its downtown probably helps with the height of their buildings in a way that it creates a barrier or focal point. To a lesser degree, the same can be said for Nashville. This barrier or focal point isn't present in Atlanta. There is also the fact that Atlanta development is spread over many more subdistricts than Austin's, which probably dilutes the height here as well.

There is probably also more Silicon Valley money rushing out of California to Austin than Atlanta (though it's coming here too), so that money probably helps to support those building heights. And even as an Atlanta homer I have to admit, Austin has more/better entertainment/shopping focused downtown where in Atlanta it's more spread out over numerous districts. This focus of everything in one place probably motivates more people want to live in a smaller part of the city (downtown) vs Atlanta where the development is happening spread out over many neighborhoods all at once.

Unfortunately, Nashville has an FAA set height limit of 750 feet due to the angle of one of BNA's runways, so I doubt we'll ever see a supertall here. Gotta focus on density instead I suppose.

[Labtec]

I'm rooting for some taller buildings.

Hopefully this

https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/p...oposal-planned

And this


https://whatnowatlanta.com/fifty-50-...rapac-capital/

Get built.

1180 Peachtree was the last time I was truly excited.

[Olorin]

Originally Posted by Labtec

I'm rooting for some taller buildings.

Hopefully this

https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/p...oposal-planned

And this


https://whatnowatlanta.com/fifty-50-...rapac-capital/

Get built.

1180 Peachtree was the last time I was truly excited.

I believe you're setting yourself up for disappointment with the second "project" on your post, I don't think that's legitimately moving forward, the other has a shot I think.

Atlanta is honestly fortunate to have the trophy towers it does, I don't see anything getting built that's going to satisfy a lot of the height hookers here. City is booming and has come so far, if we get tall ones it will be a while I believe (like until we need them that tall - this isn't Chicago or NY).

[ThrashATL]

Be a miracle if both of these get done. Money situation for construction is crazy bad and expensive. They probably will be out on extended timelines if they get done.