September 2006

As I had written in a previous article, I made a trip to Atlanta a few months ago. In that article, I wrote about many of the good things I observed during my visit. I also stated that the “bad” of Atlanta outweighed the good and that I would write about it in a future article. Finally, after months of mulling over my observations (or just being incredibly busy), I bring you the rest of my thoughts on the Atlanta area.

Sprawl.

If I could sum up the Atlanta area, this is what it would be. Thick and beautiful forests wiped clear for McMansions, mega highways, and big boxes. The most astounding thing was how spread out it was. Even though the densities are the same in particular neighborhoods when comparing to California regions, the developments are more compact in California. In the Atlanta region, most developments are so spread out it’s impossible to walk to any of them not only because of distance, but you will also inevitably have to cross or walk along a six-lane (or more) highway. There are so many of these highways (most of them state highways) running through cities and towns that you feel like everyone must live in their cars.

I saw massive interchanges on regular state highways (not just freeways, mind you), right in the middle of several towns. At some of these interchanges, a simple but effective roundabout or traffic signal would have been much less costly and less damaging on the livability of the communities. These interchanges effectively render multi-modal transportation a pipe dream. The width and design of streets, roads, and highways made for some of the most uncomfortable walking environments I had ever experienced – even in the most walkable areas of Atlanta such as Midtown, Downtown, and Buckhead (granted I did not get to see everything, but I have the feeling I didn’t need to).

The environment was very sterile and everything looked like gray concrete. Many of the architecturally beautiful office towers were dead zones at the pedestrian level. Little thought seemed to be placed into how the buildings would integrate into the surrounding environment for pedestrians, while automobiles were thoroughly accommodated. Many of the supposed transit-oriented developments were really transit-adjacent developments, since many of them were very inaccessible by pedestrians when walking from transit stops. At times while traveling from stations to TADs, I had to pull my luggage behind me walking down the middle of the street and up hills because there were no sidewalks. Desire lines just don’t cut it for hauling luggage. >>Continue Reading This Article>>