As far as the new development on Ponce, the neighbors have every right to be concerned that their neighborhoods will be overwraught with autos. Welcome to a democracy. Without those concerns crony politicians would just do whatever they wanted. I’m not saying the development won’t be good for the city, but it should be questioned from every angle. Also, I go back to an original rant…there is alot of emphasis on density and commercializing the environment (stores, restaurants) but there is a lack of greenspace… open space in the center of town for people to relax and congregate. The majority of the Square is concrete and parking lot. To add density without taking into consideration greenspace for people to access is another example of backwards thinking and political cronyism. Do you honestly think the majority of people are going to go hang out at the “Cemetery”? Please.

Compliments on the blog by the way. I can tell the people that really care about this town are on here and are involved in some way. The other local blogs are not attracting very much traffic at all. This seems to be the place to be to have dialog if you care about Decatur and surround region.

There is no question in my mind that vibrate, pedestrian-friendly areas are a critical asset to a city of any size and add to the quality of life. I think, though, that viewing the long-term city planning in a bi-polar way around the automobile vs. pedestrian is not helpful.

The truth is that regardless of the price of a barrel of oil, or even the availability of alternative fuel sources, the majority of Decatur residents (and Americans) love the independence and utility of automobiles and view the associated mobility nearly as valuable as their right to free speech (some, perhaps more).

Could we/should we drive more efficient vehicles and drive less often? Yes; probably good for many, many reasons – economic, social, and health. But a free city of any size must remain friendly to BOTH public and private transportation. In the end, I think a viable alternative to automobiles is a good thing for Decatur and Atlanta but it won’t be a replacement for but rather an alternative to automobile traffic.

Does Chicago have great rail? Yes. But it is still a minority of commuters that use it daily. Even if Atlanta becomes “Manhattan-like” within the city limits, it will be surrounding by automobile-driving suburbs.

So, let’s maximize the “human” environment of Decatur with walkable neighborhoods and local businesses but let’s not pretend that we don’t need to accommodate the car-commuting public, too.

Someone above mentioned the Sembler developments as bad examples of sustainable mix-used – I couldn’t agree more. The Town Brookhaven project was _supposed to_ consist of many locally operated businesses and restaurants to add to the live/walk atmosphere. With many business tenants _rumored_ to be bailing out, It seems less and less like a nice place to live and more like a re-configured strip mall.

I’m curious to know your argument regarding why public transit wouldn’t work in a sprawled out city. Transit-friendly cities and more modern interstate cities alike have a great deal of sprawl around them (NYC, Chicago, San Fran…)…so its hard to see how the sprawl itself would deter transit. And isn’t it a pretty reasonable assumption that Atlanta-proper can get progressively more dense? Hasn’t that been happening up and down Peachtree for the past 5-10 years?

Now I recognize that the layout of the city is quite different from the grids in NYC (the 16 or so blocks downtown are all that remain of that idea)…so transit has to adapt differently. But still it seems that a large majority of the skyscrapers are still all clumped along one long line. It looks like a city center to me.

I understand we are the home of sprawl. I just don’t think that is an excuse to neglect making immediate, drastic plans to change that. In fact, it makes it all the more imperative that we change that.

I also don’t quite understand the “invention of the car” timeline. Denver – which was, when I lived there, an incredible ode to sprawl, entirely built around the car – has, in the past decade or so, realized that it needed to change. So it quickly built light rail into the suburbs and on-street trolley systems in the downtown area, fostered a walking culture by making a huge pedestrian-only area downtown, built so many bike trails all around the metro area that it now has the most miles of trail in the States. In that same span of time, Atlanta hasn’t done anything similar. And, when I visited Denver a few weeks ago, the difference was clear. They still have suburbs and traffic, but I spent a few days downtown and was very impressed with what they have done. Denver was, like Atlanta, synonymous with sprawl; but they decided that was motivation enough to change.

It’s possible, here and now. At first, all it takes citizen action and governmental responsibility. If we let folks know that we want density, more public transit money (and options), and trails for walkers and bikers, it’s there for the taking.

And it’s not just that biking is a source of “pride.” For all the external reasons I listed, I made it a goal. Then I did what I could to achieve that goal: namely, I moved here because I could bike to work. You could do the same, and it’s not crazy for families to do this (my neighbor has three children and no car in Decatur, and somehow it works). It sounds like most people around here are intrigued by the notion of a walkable, public-transit-negotiable city, but aren’t willing to even consider making any of the commitments that it would take to get there. For example: why doesn’t the state DOT build a transportation network that would get you from Oakhurst (or wherever) to downtown in a reasonable amount of time? You could make it happen!