I think it makes no sense to talk about the extremes. Atlanta will never be as dense as New York so there’s no sense in using that as a bogeyman. The two cities’ have radically different DNA. So much of the residential core of Manhattan that provides its density was built while Atlanta was still recovering from the Civil War. The cities developed at different times, and Atlanta has no geographical boundaries.

That said, Atlanta is like a half-baked cake. We need to finish cooking it. We’ve already decided we’re a city; we can’t undo it. And that means where we can, we should increase density.

Oddly enough we’re always putting the cart before the horse. So now we have New Urbanism sprouting in the unlikeliest suburbs but a neighborhood that’s five blocks from Midtown — i.e. the CORE of the city — wants to keep out most development that’s not single-family homes.

Of course, I think all of the concern about increasing density SLIGHTLY (because a three or four-story building ain’t The World Trade Center, folks) is predicated on two things: a preference by most people to continue to drive everywhere and/or a fear that more transit is never going to arrive in Atlanta.

Thanks again for such a thoughtful discussion.

Harvey Newman, a native Atlantan, professor of public policy at GSU and a regular planning consultant to the city, has warned ARC for years that unless the city addresses water, sewer and transportation issues BEFORE continuing to cram in more people, the city is headed for disaster. None of those issues have ever been reasonably addressed. (and Newman recommended against Atlanta’s current sewer plans because the plans merely constituted an expensive band aid and not a solution).

What do you suggest, David, we continue to sprawl outwards so that any greenspace or farmland is wiped out completely? What an environmental disaster that would be.

Atlanta’s environmental problems, David, is that instead of developing responsibly, we sprawled.