New Report Ranks Atlanta 8th in Walkability and 5th in “Future Walkability”
Decatur Metro | June 17, 2014 | 11:32 am
We report on an Atlanta Magazine report on a new report released by Smart Growth America …
It often seems that every week brings a new report underscoring metro Atlanta’s woeful sprawl and its host of associated ills. Well, here’s a bit of better news. A report to be released today ranks the growth of walkable areas in the country’s 30 largest areas, and here’s the stunner: Atlanta comes in eighth place. And that’s not all. Our region is ranked No. 5 for future walkability, indicating a demand for denser development and redevelopment both intown and in the suburbs.
…In Atlanta, for example, 50 percent of the hotel, retail, office, and apartment space developed between 2009 and 2013 was in walkable areas, whether intown redevelopment or infill construction adjacent to the Atlanta BeltLine or newer developments such as Atlantic Station. “Despite its sprawling history, the strength of Atlanta’s walkable urban places, relative to its peers, appears to be real,” write the researchers. “This real estate cycle, starting in 2009, represents a major shift for Atlanta.” Mushrooming apartments along the BeltLine and suburban projects like Avalon, the wired and walkable development coming to Alpharetta, contribute to our projected surge in walkability.
Atlanta ranks behind Portland and ahead of Pittsburgh in the current large cities walkability list. What’s really sorta shocking is the future Top 10 list…
Projected Future Rankings for Walkable Urbanism
1. Boston
2. Washington D.C.
3. New York
4. Miami
5. Atlanta
6. Seattle
7. San Francisco
8. Detroit
9. Denver
10. Tampa
Token pic of the Beltline courtesy of FunkBrothers via Flickr
Related Posts:
-
April 23, 2015 First Look at 2015 Decatur Real Estate Trends (6)
-
April 28, 2015 DeKalb, PATH and CSX Negotiating to Close Stone Mountain Trail Gap Over I-285 (3)
-
April 21, 2015 UPDATED: Tree Falls on City Garbage Truck; No One Hurt (12)
This report has about zero credibility.
Care to share why you hold this opinion?
Inclusion of Avalon as walkable.
By forcing development in Decatur to be less dense through the tree ordinance, Decatur will become less walkable.
Has anyone seen a commercial area with 45% tree canopy? I have, it’s Alpharetta.
We need to encourage maximum density to encourage walkability and reduce our carbon footprint.
Agreed on all the points re: walkability but I thought it was determined in earlier threads that downtown developments will have no problem meeting the ordinance through a combination of their street trees, what they can plant in their required courtyard(s)/green space, and contributions to the tree bank, without compromising their already allowable footprint. Is that not the case?
It is complicated. The ordinance is anti-density, and should be repealed for commercial property (maybe give incentives rather than penalties). The ordinance will have long range negative implications on city development.
Commercial property: If a tree is removed, you need to come up to 45% and MAY NOT use the tree bank. Tree Disturbance (very broad see definition) OR increase of 15% impervious surface without tree impact, you need to come up to 45% with a maximum 75% bankable IF trees cannot be accommodated on site.
So, there are commercial minimums and limits on tree bank availability. Tell me that in practice doesn’t that resemble an Alpharetta office park rather than an urban walkable community?
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Not defending the tree ordinance, but I think it’s more than a bit of a stretch to claim it’s going to negatively impact walkability in downtown Decatur. Downtown is already quite walkable, and that’s BEFORE the increase in density that is coming as a result of the developments under construction now.
It will negatively impact future walkability. There is plenty of land downtown that is in disuse or not in its highest and best use. Reduced future density will take away from what could have been.
Point me to land downtown that is ripe for redevelopment and has trees on it that would have to be removed.
If you increase impervious surface by more than 15% you need to comply as well. Go look at basically most of the real estate south of trinity or off of east Howard or Sycamore. Additionally between Clairmont and Church and along Church, or just redeveloping anything because the structure is no longer the highest and best use of a property.
Atlanta a walkable city? What a joke. Just last week I saw a car barely miss hitting a man with a cane crossing Peachtree on a green walk light – the car turned left and did not stop at the crosswalk, Because there is no traffic enforcement in this city, cars rule.
Thankfully Decatur is one place where you have half a chance as a pedestrian.
From the article:
“A report to be released today ranks the growth of walkable areas in the country’s 30 largest areas, and here’s the stunner: Atlanta comes in eighth place.”
It’s the “growth” in walkability that they are talking about, which is not surprising considering the low point that Atlanta would be starting from in terms of walkability.
One beltline does not a walkable city make.
The report on the report actually misstates it — ATL Ranks 8th in current walkability, not growth. This is based on the % of office and retail space located in “urban walkable areas” as defined by the authors. There’s a separate ranking to project future walkability based on development trends, and ATL does even better in that one.
Let’s have a look at some places that the authors define as walkable urban:
http://www.atlantaregional.com/land-use/walkups
Perimeter Center (?!?!)
“Sandy Springs”
Cumberland South (where you have to drive in order to cross the street)
South Buckhead, Buckhead, Buckhead Village and Buckhead Triangle (so pedestrian nightmare Buckhead counts as four walkable places).
The emerging walkable areas are even more of a joke (e.g. perimeter summit – because I guess they’ve built a hotel?). I appreciate what Leinberger is trying to accomplish from a policy standpoint, but he’s consistently wrong about Atlanta and yet continues to take money from the ARC and others to produce research that would never stand up to peer review.