Above Atlanta...

[NEWNANGuy]

someone should make a 'treelovers.com' site and create a forum for such discussions lmao

[cabasse]

1) i feel bad for my contributions towards turning this into an argument. when it comes to atlanta, i fall for bait much too easily. re: my signature.

2) now living in detroit, which once used to be one of the most tree-covered cities anywhere, (unfortunately due to dutch elm disease) i see it is quite possible to have (or at one time have) a canopy of trees and still be dense. two million people in 140 square miles. same as atlanta.

3) what neighborhood did you grow up in jax that had said density 12 miles out? pardon my ignorance but i never would've thought of jacksonville as having such high density; i took a quick look with google earth around some hoods adjacent to the core and have... nothing to say. maybe i was just looking in all the wrong places?

[mhays]

Two million in 140 square miles? My outdated 1998 World Almanac says:

City of Atlanta: 396,052 in 131.8 square miles. Density of 3,005.

City of Detroit: 992,038 in 138.7 square miles. Density of 7,152.

(PS, while I'm looking, at some point more recently, Seattle apparently passed Detroit in density, at probably a little under 7,000 currently.)

[cabasse]

^ at it's peak. not now!

(atlanta at it's peak was probably a little over 500k in the late '60s early '70s)

[Topher1]

Sorry to be off-tangent too, but it really is difficult to have a discussion about Atlanta without discussing its beautiful tree canopy.

As an aside, on a DC trip a few weeks ago, I was really impressed at the way that city's residential areas perfectly mix density and greenery. Specifically, walking around hoods in the Adams-Morgan/Dupont/Rock Creek Park area; The hoods were a dense mix of midrise buildings and attached homes, but the amount of trees and greenery felt as immersive as an Atlanta hood. There were of course fewer total trees, but the greenery that existed was near the sidewalks and in public parks, rather than publicly-inaccessible trees in someones back yard. Semi-intense density and great tree coverage (at the pedestrian level) are definately not mutually exclusive (as is evidenced in some Atlanta hoods too)...

[village person]

Originally Posted by cactuspunk

So what density would you call this photograph of Virginia Highlands neighborhood in Atlanta that was posted above?

Look, I know what it's like to live in a city where "streetcar suburbs" is what best describes the inner neighborhoods. And when that's near the top of what the city has to offer, I understand why it would be considered high-density. But I call that medium at best.

Also, note that I'm talking about the type of development, not population figures.

----------------------------------------------------------------

cabasse, the point is that single-family detached houses on 1/4-acre, or even .15 acre is NOT high density development. Old streetcar suburbs usually have a better mix of uses, usually have higher population densities due to subdividing of housing units (into apartments), but they don't always have smaller lots than what came after WWII. That was what I was trying to point out. My neighborhood was built in the 1960s on the outskirts of town. Jacksonville is extremely, painfully low-density! But there are even new subdivisions all over Jacksonville with smaller lots than my old neighborhood. They're still cookie-cutter, cul-de-sac subdivisions, but lots as small as 0.15 acres or less are not uncommon. Personally, I don't see the point of living in the suburbs with barely a yard big enough for lawn furniture, but this is a completely different state, and it's how things are built here lately.

[Agent Orange]

Bruin, you do have a point that intown Atlanta has a relatively low density, especially when compared to other cities with around five million metros (Philly, SF, Boston, Detroit). But Atlanta is a product of the age in which it grew up. Given its geography and American land development patterns in the twentieth century, we couldn't expect Atlanta to be much more dense. So regardless of whether we're talking about Atlanta, Dallas, Denver or Phoenix, sunbelt late bloomers are going to be mostly low density and very auto centric.

What we should celebrate, however, is the fact that despite this unfortunate reality, Atlanta is a very pleasant city because of its tree cover. This can most be appreciated in the spring and summer months. First the dogwoods start to bloom, then the trees come alive and the whole city is verdant. Once the summer heat gets going, the shade these trees provide in many parts of the city is a Godsend. Every city is unique, and although Atlanta is not as urban as older cities in the north, the city has its own vibe and characteristics. The trees are a big part of that, even if they are like caged animals.

[village person]

Agent Orange, I'm on the exact same page. I hold that people should appreciate the trees for what they are, without trying to hype them as something they aren't. I also feel the same way about its neighborhoods. I like streetcar suburbs, but they are what they are.

I undersand Atlanta's growth patterns and history. Maybe throwing in my thoughts on what an ideal Atlanta would be like was inappropriate, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the city for what it is. For any city, there's reality, and there's "what ifs."

[SteveD]

...and, just to get back on topic, let's all go back to Page 1 and have another look at those astounding photos provided by KC!

[scguy]

Originally Posted by Bruin Brain

YES!! I'm glad someone finally said this. Trees on developed land (such as in subdivisions) are like caged animals: removed from the ecosystem. I mean, yeah, you can save entire species from extinction if you put them in cages, but that's not conservation. Trees among houses, fences, and a whole lot of concrete and asphalt is not conservation.

Atlanta's tree cover shows just how low the density is. As deceivingly aesthetic as the tree canopy is, I'd rather see denser development (with less room for trees) in the core of the metropolitan area and more trees on undeveloped public land on the outskirts, or also in large urban parks.

That said, I realize a lot of Atlanta's sprawl simply replaces farmland (which is no better for the environment than subdivisions), and in some cases it's likely that the sprawl brings more trees to a given piece of land. But it's still not much to write home about. "Skyscrapers in a forest" is a misnomer, because there's no forest there.

I also realize the difficult position a rapid-growing, post-WWII boomtown is put in when older, core neighborhoods have such low densities that it's like having suburbs within a stone's throw of downtown. Wholescale redevelopment of such neighborhoods is out of the question, so I commend Atlanta for building vertically where it can for now.

Seems to me the areas you are seeing in those pics, (mostly established, inner suburbs) have more canopy coverage because the trees here are older. In some southern cities (not sure about Atlanta but places like Savannah and Augusta) large evergreen oaks were planted in the early days and driving down avenues is almost surreal because of their giant canopies. Very unlike the crappy trees they plant for newer areas.
In further out suburbs, where it is less dense, there are less trees because they tend to clear cut for subdivisions and developements, planting only scraggly Bradford pears and the like. Tall pines along freeways are usually left alone.

[Teshadoh]

Originally Posted by cactuspunk

So what density would you call this photograph of Virginia Highlands neighborhood in Atlanta that was posted above?

I do know that the census block groups north of Ponce & west of Highland (this picture) are in excess of 10k per square mile. Oddly enough this is an island within a larger area of 7.5k+ sq mile town. As you know this is due to this area not being strictly single family but a mix. Other than that, the only other predominately single family neighborhoods intown with a similar density is Cabbagetown & adjacent neighborhoods as well as Vine City.

[Canasian]

KCGridlock- the BEST Atlanta thread i've seen, hands down!
^^^ and I see my old apartment -999 Greenwood ave in this pic!!!
I barely recognize Atlanta anymore!!!WOW,
Thanks for the pics!!!!!!!

[Teshadoh]

^ I lived down the street on Greenwood, a block away from Ponce Place in a 1920's era apartment building. As small & cramped that place was, it's still one of my favorite places I've ever lived.

[dc_denizen]

Regardless of how densely built it is, intown Atlanta is beautiful, one of the largest, prettiest streetcar-suburban area in America.

It's the abomination north and east of the perimeter that I can't understand. Visiting Stone Mountain, it's incredible to see the sprawl continue in all directions.

[tergeste]

Originally Posted by cactuspunk

So what density would you call this photograph of Virginia Highlands neighborhood in Atlanta that was posted above?

Moderate density (higher than low density, lower than medium density).

[cactuspunk]

Originally Posted by tergeste

Moderate density (higher than low density, lower than medium density).

But in Los Angeles, areas like this are considered dense? Is it the trees that make it look moderately dense? This is a real question and not sarcasm. I don't understand because I see areas like this in Los Angeles and think wow that is some density. I look at this picture and say wow that is some density.

[zigzag]

Great pictures!

[village person]

Originally Posted by cactuspunk

But in Los Angeles, areas like this are considered dense? Is it the trees that make it look moderately dense? This is a real question and not sarcasm. I don't understand because I see areas like this in Los Angeles and think wow that is some density. I look at this picture and say wow that is some density.

I don't think it's the trees. I think it's everyone's personal idea of what is high density and what is low density (and whatever other terms they fit in between). If a typical LA neighborhood is high density to you, that's fine. Be comfortable with that. What I mean is, I don't think too many people will have a leg to stand on to say that a typical LA neighborhood can't be considered dense, only that, if anything, that they don't personally consider it such. It's all relative. B is denser than A, C denser than B, D denser than C, etc. What is high, what is low, there are no rules. I would expect many people from the suburbs of a Southeastern city to have a wide range of what they consider dense. And of course people from the country might think suburbs are crowded. All I can do is show my own point of view. However, it's safe to say that many or most of the city enthusiasts on this and similar forums will have "higher" standards, so to speak, of what is high density.

[SteveD]

I keep returning to these photos over and over again. I find myself lingering on this one...I love the way this one looks, even if it is filled with hazy skies.

[smArTaLlone]

STUNNING pics KC!

And we're all sorry that Atlanta doesn't reach the density standards of Jacksonville or what every forumer thinks it should be. Atlanta is what it is and somehow many of us still like it here.