Why I Hate Free Parking

From Atlanta Magazine, a poignant graphic showing free parking taking over the built environment

I know what you're thinking, "How could you hate free parking, how could you hate free anything, even?" But, when it comes to city living, I struggle to appreciate free parking. Not that I don't mind the saved dollars, but when looking at the collective health of the city- what is best for everyone- free parking may not be the answer. In this blog, I will look into the impact of parking, and how much of an impact it really has on our built environment.

The city of Atlanta has parking requirements that each new development must meet. For instance, a new apartment complex has to meet a required minimum of spaces for its residences. And the grocery store built next to it has to meet a required minimum for its customers. And next to the grocery store, the office center has a required minimum of parking for its workers. And then next to the office, a chic restaurant complex has a parking deck for its customers, too.

From the ATL Urbanists- amount of space dedicated to parking in Downtown Atlanta

To our ear, where parking is plentiful in suburban America, nothing is wrong with this picture. Each development in our mind should be required to provide parking for its users. But set in an urban landscape, this parking is a big waste of space. Because the apartment complex's parking deck is only full from 9pm-8am, the grocery store parking lot only full from 5pm-7pm, the office parking deck is full from 9am-5pm, and the restaurants from 6pm-9pm. All of these separate places with different uses could share one parking structure because their uses keep them full at separate times. With less space devoted to parking, the built environment can be rebuilt to be more dense and walkable which results in better public health for the city. And with less parking provided and more options of getting around, less people will drive in the first place which alternatively eliminates the need for so much parking.

And now let's focus in on the money because honestly, you don't deserve free parking at the grocery store. Why? Because one typical surface parking lot spot costs $2,000-$4,000 to make. $2,000 is a lot of money to spend on a piece of land that may only be occupied 25% of the time (25% being very generous occupation rate for a surface lot). And a parking deck? One spot in a parking deck costs the developer at least $20,000. Most parking decks are typically around $30,000-$40,000 to build per spot while if it is an underground parking deck, the cost skyrockets to $70,000 (or more) per spot. Can you imagine spending $20,000 on one spot that is maybe occupied by an un-moving car for 15% of the time? That is literally crazy but is basically mandatory if you want to built a large development in any urban location now-a-days.

Another photo from ATL Urbanist- shows distinctly the waste of parking in an urban neighborhood

Why is it a requirement? Because in order to compete with suburban counterparts, central cities began changing zoning policy to have parking requirements for all new developments in the 1960's. Of course, we know that now our downtowns' can often be parking wastelands that are unfriendly to the pedestrian's eye while the effort to maintain development downtown still lost to the suburban exodus (think Edge City!).

So, I hate free parking because one) parking is never free. The actual parking spot has a cost to make while there are other costs too like costs on our physical health, on our built environment, and on our downtown's viability to retract and retain new development. The second reason I hate parking is because so often it is unnecessary. Combining different developments need for parking into one central, local place would reduce so much of our waste on building superfluous parking. Also, this central place would require a fee to enter, and when we create a "stick" such as a parking fee, people often consider other ways of getting around such as walking, biking, or taking transit.

Create spaces like this y'all! Not parking!

The argument I created here is certainly controversial because most Americans wouldn't want to give up a free service. Americans would never purposely want to tax their personal freedoms and create limits to parking while also inconveniencing their own lives. It almost unthinkable to us. But the reality is that parking is not a free service, in fact driving is a privilege that we take granted for everyday. If we really want to become more green and change the way we live our lives, then it is necessary to tax parking (like it is to tax driving). To achieve our goals in creating a more livable, environmentally conscious city, it is necessary that we constrain some our freedoms in pursuit of a stronger collective body.

A Realistic View of Live, Work, Play

Suwanee, Georgia- poster child of a live, work, play community

Many major cities and large suburban cities are beginning to promote a mixed use lifestyle of live, work, play. The idea being that you can live your entire life within one town. One can supposedly live within this town, go to work at the office park in this town, and then go to its town center for lunch or dinner completing the triad with "play." And its not a bad lifestyle to try to emulate. Before the highway era, most American towns were live, work, play environments because the lack of the automobile restricted growth and provided dense, mixed-use towns to live in. Towns like Suwanee, Georgia whose slogan is in fact "Live, Work, Play" are moving in the right direction by focusing on new job growth, an expanded town center and historic district, new urbanists' walkable developments, and bike and walking trails to promote multi-modal life.

These efforts should and must be applauded because the alternative (sprawl) is no productive way to live. Of course, there are faults with this plan, and Suwanee is still almost entirely a car-only town with their new approach, but it is a movement in the right direction to correcting our original mistakes of suburban sprawl.

Yet having grown up just outside Suwanee and knowing people who live within, I only know of one family who really could fulfill the live, work, play scenario after ten years of this approach. Suwanee is still a commuter town with I-85 filling up to the brim everyday right through Suwanee. Most people's lives do not levitate around one place, its encompasses the entire region now. People live in a place like Suwanee, commute an hour down the road to work at the Perimeter Center (Sandy Springs/Dunwoody), and take their family or spouse out for a special night in Midtown or Buckhead. We are no longer people of one community, but people of one region. 

Yet, we are only able to vote for representatives in one community. A resident of Suwanee can only have a say in the city of Suwanee government and Gwinnett County government even if they spend more than eight hours a day outside of the county. This doesn't really make sense. If the majority of your day is spent in another place, you should have a say in what goes on there.

Atlanta's Metropolitan Statistical Area- encompasses almost all of North Georgia now

Is there a possible solution to this region-wide issue? (Of course there is!) It is to create more government! Libertarians don't fret though. I am not proposing bigger government, just one coordinated regional government. A similar system already is in place for Atlanta's MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) called the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). The ARC is technically not elected by the people; they are chosen representatives by their fellow politicians. For instance, all of the mayors of Gwinnett select one mayor to represent them at the commission. In addition, the ARC has little real power in creating change throughout the region. As of right now, they are more of a tool that municipalities and counties rely on for planning research, additional funding, or other various needs.

So what if instead of the ARC being a commission it became an ARG. An Atlanta Regional Government would be elected by the people of the region and would have more leniency to create change in the region. The region would be set up into sub-sects, and each sub-sect could vote on a representative to represent them at the regional level. This government would then have the power to take all of the transportation agencies under its wing and create one coordinated system, have the power to accept or deny large developments, coordinate zoning between municipalities and counties, create smart corridors of equitable growth, organize an urban growth boundary, control regional land use decisions, and even have the ability to tax.

While I certainly see an argument against this regional government being an abuse of power by the government over the people, the irony in that argument is that most people have no choice, no voice even, as to what happens around the majority of their lives right now. If you disagree with Dunwoody building massive office towers right along the interstate due to traffic concerns but live in Cobb County then you have no ability to stop these developments. If Atlanta had a regional government, suddenly you would have a way to make sure your concerns are voiced.

Portland, Oregon's Regional Government: Metro

Only one American region has successfully implemented a regionally elected government. Portland, Oregon has the Metro government. Metro government includes all the towns and communities surrounding the city of Portland, and its main responsibilities are running the region's transportation agency Tri-Met, controlling land-use decisions, and solving disputes over its urban growth boundary. People elect representatives to this collective body, and from there, the regional government makes decisions affecting the entire region. Metro has had significant success with Portland, Oregon being one of the most livable and walkable regions in the country. The region of Portland works, and the reason it "works" is because it has a regional government that makes collective decisions that benefit all.

It is my opinion that all American regions should have a democratically elected government that makes decisions for the collective whole because our lives do not live, work, and play in just one place anymore. Instead, our lives span across multiple cities and counties on a day-to-day basis. So if our lives span across over multiple places, why don't we have a government that represents us across these places? The sooner we recognize that transportation, land use, and growth are collective issues, the sooner our region will become a better place to live for the collective self. 

A New Start

I know it has been a while since I have last posted on my planning blog (over a year in fact), but lately, I have been feeling an urge to rekindle my love for policy, innovation, and writing on this public platform. I've have made a few changes of course: this blog will cover a broader range of subjects in the field of planning (beyond just Atlanta developments), so the name has changed and you may find a different direction in my approach to the new posts. Looking back over my old posts, I find it interesting what posts have become true and what posts have been left for the shelves. I encourage you to look over them too, for the change Atlanta has seen in just this small amount of time is remarkable.

Boulder, Colorado and its distinct growth boundary seen along its periphery

In regards to this blog post, I will be focusing on a piece of policy that I find particularly interesting: urban growth boundaries. Urban growth boundaries (referred to as UGBs) are instituted by usually city (but sometimes state) government where the city draws a line around how far they're willing to develop the land. These boundaries usually stem from an environmentalist movement to protect the surrounding environment outside the city. What these boundaries do is much more than protect the environment, though. Urban growth boundaries sets a defined piece of land where the government will provide services such as electricity, plumbing, and safety. Beyond that line, the boundary signifies that the city will no longer provide for development. It is a wonderful resource to curb sprawl and help protect the environment. In addition, it forces development in on top of itself. Instead of creating more sprawling housing estates, the government has indicated they want more orderly, defined, and organized housing estates that reduce sprawl and increase walkability. It takes focus off the road and toward alternative ways of getting around such as walking, biking, or taking mass transit. It reutilizes spaces previously thought useless inside the boundary because people are forced to make the most (and the best) use of their land. Cities such as Boulder, Colorado have successfully instilled urban growth boundaries, and the improved quality of life certainly sings praise to this policy's effectiveness.

Portland, Oregon- and its regional growth

One state that requires all of its municipalities to have an urban growth boundary is Oregon. Back in the 1970's, the state acted upon its maverick culture and produced a law that would require every municipality to make a precise boundary, and viewing the state today, it is clear that gamble has paid off. Where in most of rural America, small towns are dying out, farming communities failing due to a lack of investment, main street being moved to the Wal-Mart that opened up on the highway, in Oregon, its small towns still seem to have remained vibrant centers of commerce. The same has occurred to its larger cities. Instead of sprawling over the valley it is based off of, Portland and its suburbs are instead a dense, connected, organized region of growth. The urban growth boundary has really impacted all parts of life in Oregon. The rural parts remain agriculturally-bounded due to strict zoning, and the general authentic nature of the state is preserved. In its suburbs, while the car does dominate mobility, but they are still what their name indicates: extension of the urban ring. Portland suburbs are connected to downtown by different forms of mass transit, and when people need to go shopping, instead of driving to the local mall, they take the local train to the downtown's shopping district. The old urban neighborhoods are thriving in Oregon, too. Instead of being forgotten by newer and newer neighborhoods on the fringes of the region, these neighborhoods have been redeveloped and new infill has made them vibrant, exciting neighborhoods to live in. And maybe the best centerpiece to the urban growth boundary are that Oregon's cities have thriving downtowns. Downtown Portland is 150 blocks of life. Its walkable streets exude life on every corner because the urban growth boundary has preserved just that: life in downtown.

So, if urban growth boundaries had such a profound effect on Oregon and its major city, I wondered what it could do for Georgia and its major city. Ryan Gravel, who originally thought of the Atlanta Beltline and author of Where We Want to Live, argues that Atlanta needs an urban growth boundary immediately, if any essence of order is to be preserved in Atlanta. Yet, I wonder if the state of Georgia government put forth a UGB would it even make a difference for the sprawling behemoth or is it too late for Atlanta? (Comment below what you think! I'd love to hear your thoughts.)  

Savannah, GA- perfect place to implement UGB

Personally, I find there is need for UGB law in Georgia, but its necessity isn't for Atlanta, yet its second-tier cities such as  Augusta, Savannah, Macon, and Columbus. These cities and their regions could really benefit from a UGB. They're still small enough in size that restricting and channeling growth to certain areas could really benefit and dramatically improve the quality of life for these small cities. One reason I believe UGB was so successful in Portland's region is because the size of the region was around 1 million people, a still very manageable number. All of Georgia's second-tier cities are less than 1 million people, so I find this good news. In addition, they all have either strong rural industries or natural beauty that desire protection from regional encroachment. Putting forth boundaries could really alter and rehabilitate some of Georgia's smaller cities.

Atlanta's current MPO includes 18 counties

I also think Atlanta (or its region I should say) needs an urban growth boundary. Specifically, one line that encircles the entire region and is an end to all new sprawling development. Within this line, I propose the sprawl and sporadic development that has accompanied Atlanta's growth can still happen, but outside of it, there needs to be an immediate stop. If we don't draw a boundary, if we don't say enough is enough, then what we recognize as "Atlanta" will literally become one long suburb from Alabama to South Carolina and from Macon to Tennessee. I do think its too late in that urban growth boundaries won't produce the same effects as it had for Portland, but it will curtail and change the way we grow and live very gradually.  

One argument against UGB is that it prevents businesses and developers from expanding and developing. But this is not true. In Portland, even after 30+ years with UGB, there are still lots of developable land within the region. So UGB isn't anti-business, but it is anti- letting businesses do whatever they wish anymore. Allowing corporations like Pulte to buy massive tracts of land and convert them into gigantic housing estates needs to be stopped because it hurts our region. But, it nevertheless won't be stopped because doing that makes the biggest bang for your buck with these corporations, and their main focus isn't design and livability but money. We shouldn't prevent a better Georgia because business says otherwise, we should make a better Georgia and show the businesses who really owns this land.    

I am a proponent of urban growth boundaries. They're an excellent way to reshape, redefine, and recreate a city and its region. I believe putting them into law in Georgia could provide the state with what this post is: a new start.

True to ATL? Refocusing On Our Neighbors

Old Forth Ward Park apart of the Beltline brings both good and bad to East Atlanta: redevelopment but also affluence

When it comes to inclusionary zoning, Atlanta is behind in the game. It's not that Atlantans do not care about ensuring affordability toward every Atlantan, it is just an issue we haven't really had to deal with before. But with the rapid redevelopment of East Atlanta, there are some problems that have accompanied its gentrification. While it should be commended that new luxury apartments are bringing in thousands of new residents increasing the city's density and property owners are reaping the rewards of increasing rents, the rapid increase of property values have negatively impacted owners who bring in a low income as well as forced many renters to leave the area because they can no longer afford the rent.

Once the catalysts of white flight, older Atlanta suburbs are facing "slumburbification" 

Where do they go? One option is to move to other areas of Atlanta where crime and poverty is rampant, and the public education is no match to the Grady High School district schools (which isn't perfect either). Another option is to move to the suburbs, but this presents several problems. Firstly, Atlanta suburbs lack reliable public transit service therefore hindering these displaced low income residents' ability to get well-paying jobs because they are forced to rely of CCT or GCT buses, walk far distances, or purchase a car and handle the expenses that accompany a car (which is costly for families on tight budgets). Secondly, their displacement is contributing to a relatively new suburban phenomenon called "slumburbification" because suburban governments choose to divert funds to higher class areas. This leads to the decay and deterioration of older, low-density neighborhoods that already have a long list of needed repairs. Thirdly, it continues to exemplify Atlanta's age old problem of income inequity. This removal of low income residents from the city core to other areas does not fix the rampant income inequality present throughout the region but only furthers our inability to overcome race stereotypes that hinders the upward mobility of hundreds of thousands of Atlantans.

But luckily with strong leadership from the Atlanta city council and the city's new planner, inclusionary zoning has been placed in the spotlight for the first time in the city's history. Mayor Kasim Reed has recently said that Atlanta is now the beacon for affordability in American cities. He has identified creating greater housing diversity as one of his final goals to his mayoral term. He said that while cities like New York and San Francisco are no longer affordable to even middle class families, Atlanta has a chance in becoming a city of income diversity where no matter what your income, you can find a safe and reliable home. But what cities like New York and San Francisco have that Atlanta lacks is inclusionary zoning laws. But with the planning department now under the new direction of planning director Tim Keane who was the director of Charleston, he has already outlined his plan to add inclusionary zoning laws into Atlanta's zoning code. Inclusionary zoning would help create greater housing diversity across the city because it would put into law that new residential developments would be required to have a certain number of units be considered affordable.

The Westside Beltline could uplift the Westside or could gentify

Finally, I feel it is also up to the citizens of Atlanta to reach out and stand up for their neighbors. While we can stand by and watch private interests redevelop Atlanta into a affluent center for only the rich to live, work, and play in, I know the citizens of Atlanta do not want this. The conflagration of diverse people that walk the Beltline everyday makes Atlanta special, not the Beltline itself. By taking ownership of our spaces such as the neighborhoods around the new Atlanta stadium and the developing Westside Beltline, the public can force their input on the developers rebuilding different parts of Atlanta. So far, residents have done this and stood up and made demands for the historic neighborhoods that they live in in the Westside, but soooo much more is to come in the rapid redevelopment of the Westside. It could easily become Atlanta's new center of inaffordable gentrification where low income residents are passed over for new residents that can pay more for these homes. Redeveloping Atlanta shouldn't be about making Atlanta a new, shiny place where longtime residents are forced to leave their homes because they can no longer afford it, but about raising these residents up along with the streets they call home. I agree with Kasim Reed, Atlanta can and will be a beacon for affordable housing, but I also believe that in order for this to happen the residents of the city have to stay true to Atlanta and stand up for their neighbors first, rather than be blown away by the spectacular new developments that accompany the city's redevelopment.

Making Way For More Parks

When people think of parks in Atlanta, they generally think of Piedmont Park. Its the cities largest park and nestled into the side of Midtown where major concerts or festivals convene throughout the whole year. They also think of Centennial Olympic Park situated next to Downtown. Central to the Aquarium, CNN, the World of Coke, the Center for Civil and Human Rights, and the Ferris wheel, its the tourists' epicenter of Atlanta. If you live ITP, you will definitely consider the Atlanta Beltline a major city park. Bikers and runners will also think of the PATH Freedom and PATH 400 trails which connect the Eastside and Buckhead respectively. Some people may mention Grant Park, home to the zoo, but its not in as desirable location as say Piedmont Park is. But of the major parks prevalent across the city of Atlanta, the list is relatively limited compared to other cities such as Chicago, Boston, or New York City.

Old Fourth Ward Park- once an industrial yard

In fact, Atlanta has only 4,418 acres of parkland compared to its total 85,217 acres. Nearby Charlotte, on the other hand, has about 25,000 acres of parkland. For a supposed world-class city, Atlanta does not have a world-class park system. City leaders and community activists are trying to change that by petitioning and raising funds for new parks such as the Bellwood quarry (aka Westside Reservoir Park) which would be four times larger than Piedmont Park and is already famous for its Walking Dead and Hunger Games scenes or the Atlanta Water Works which was a park until the city put up a fence around the valuable water supply in preparation for the 1996 Olympics. Also, the Atlanta Beltline has put Atlanta on the map for its incredible urban renewal projects which will add 1,200 new acres of parks to Atlanta and 33 miles of multi-use trails. Their Old Forth Ward park was once an old industrial field that flooded local streets and buildings and is now a beautiful park and wetland that prevents flooding and has stimulated millions of dollars in reinvestment to the adjacent lots. So, yes, we are working on our lack-of-parkland problem, but the Beltline isn't expected to be completed until 2030, and there is currently no timeline for the opening of the Bellwood quarry and Atlanta Water Works.

In the meantime, what can we do to make Atlanta more park friendly? I support two ways to further increase park acreage and park access: 1) reinvest in the current parks and 2) create new parks along major road corridors.

D.H. Stanton Park- renovated by the Atlanta Beltline

Firstly, reinvesting in the current parks could work magic to many of Atlanta's more disadvantaged neighborhoods. While this isn't necessarily going to increase park acreage, it will make the quality of the Atlanta Parks and Rec system rise. Re-doing old sidewalks, replacing old playgrounds, adding new splashpads and water features, adding new landscaping, and renovating community centers will give some of Atlanta's oldest parks a breath of fresh air. Local residents will enjoy an improved quality of life. Investors and redevelopers will be more interested in developing and converting empty lots and old parking lots into more dense and walker-friendly homes and shops. People from outside the city limits may even begin to see themselves moving away from their suburbs to more walkable, livable, user-friendly neighborhoods. And on the political side, everyone would support this reinvestment because it positively impacts a wide range of people's concerns.

Secondly, making mini-parks and greenways along the city's old and decrepit roadways would create more parks and green space without forcing the city to buy new land while also renovating old roads into complete streets that are accessible and safe for transit, bikers, walkers, shoppers, workers, and residents. Georgia Tech's College of City and Regional Planning created a master plan for converting one Atlanta roadway into a complete street with small parks, a wide walkway, and a newly paved road where the car isn't king. Currently, Memorial Drive is an old 4-lane highway where the sidewalks are not always complete and the road clogs up during rush hour due to bad planning. The school imagines Memorial Drive and its surrounding area to become a shared space complete with bike lanes, multi-use trails, pedestrian bridges, improved crosswalks and sidewalks, bulb outs, and even pedestrian barriers. Along improved sidewalks and near bus stops the school also envisions small parks with seating, landscaping, and shade. This mini-park would create more park space for nearby businesses and residents without taking up an entire new lot and costing the city a fortune to plan and build.

Before and After of a Complete Street Renovation in NYC

Creating more complete streets with small parks, trails, and bike lanes along other major roadways such as MLK Jr. Drive, North Avenue, Cascade Avenue, and Metropolitan Parkway would dramatically alter the city's environment without the huge costs of building new parks in dispersed areas on smaller-sized lots. Making more complete streets in Atlanta is a smart investment because it allows more residents to have more access to park space, it reduces traffic with better transit, bike lanes, traffic light signals, and round-about intersections, and it makes the overall area a greener and more friendly area to live with improvements in infrastructure creating more investments in the community. Creating complete streets is a smart alternative to building new parks such as the Bellwood Quarry, and currently, Georgia Tech's School of City and Regional Planning estimates all of the Memorial Drive construction to be complete by 2026 while the other parks in the works have no estimate to their completion time.

Memorial Drive in Atlanta

Renovating old parks and renovating old streets is the best way to make more parks in a city with a tight budget and pricey real estate. While this plan doesn't create acres of new parkland and green space, what is does instead is create green communities where residents are living and working in places that look and feel like a park but in reality is just a renovated street. Also, renovating old parks will light a spark in communities that have already been designed around these older parks creating a chain reaction in smart and new development in those park's surrounding areas. We don't need to build new parks to make way for more parks in Atlanta.          

What Seattle and Gwinnett Have In Common? Voting No, Apparently

Seattle Traffic

Today, I read an article in the Seattle Times about a decision their citizens made in the 1970's. The journalists wrote about how a referendum that would subsidize heavy rail by the federal government failed due to lack of support by the people of Seattle. He then compared Seattle's decision to Atlanta's decision in which we DID support the same referendum. The result was Atlanta was given millions of federal dollars to design, implement, and run MARTA. About 50 miles of heavy rail line was laid out throughout the city, connecting major business hubs with the CBD and the airport. Seattle on the other hand was forced to let sprawl become king in King County because its citizen choose to not invest in long term mass transportation options. In 2015, both Seattle and Atlanta have suffered from the effects of urban sprawl with long commute times, smog, and few alternatives to using a car. The difference, according to the journalist, is that in Atlanta we have the option to use an efficient and well laid out subway/heavy rail system when in Seattle, they are confined to their less efficient, slower light rail and commuter rail system (this of course is very debatable but he's not from Atlanta, so we can't blame him).

Looking across Metro Atlanta today, you can see a changing opinion of what the region needs in terms of transportation needs. Within the Atlanta city limits, the people are all gung-ho for more transit where there is strong support the expansion of the Atlanta Streetcar and the Atlanta Beltline. In DeKalb County, residents support a light rail line through the Clifton Corridor connecting Lenox with Avondale MARTA stations. In North Fulton and Alpharetta, residents are starting to come around to the idea of using MARTA to enhance the Connect 400 Initiative. In Clayton County, residents saw MARTA bus service begin limited service to parts of the county, after they voted yes on a referendum asking whether the county wanted to join the system. Even in Cobb County, county commissioners will vote on a budget tonight that earmarks money for a referendum on a bus rapid transit line. (YES, you heard me right, Cobb County!) And in Gwinnett, their Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey on whether residents would support expanding MARTA to the county, and 63% said they would support an expansion. But when the Gwinnett County Commission was asked about an expansion, she says the county needs to have a "comprehensive discussion about transportation in the county" before making any rash decisions (No offense Mrs. Nash, but WTF have you seen our commute times?)

Gwinnett County Municipalities and Main Thoroughfares

As a resident of Gwinnett County, its pretty obvious to me that not only do we need to have a discussion about transportation, but we also need to act on it because rush hour is actually "let's sit on 85 and do nothing" hour in Gwinnett. As a transit enthusiast, I do not understand why the pro-business commissioner is hesitating on supporting transit: expanding mass transit create jobs in several industries, stimulates economic growth, stimulates real estate around transit-oriented developments, provides more access to our businesses, allows for greater tourism with more access to Gwinnett amenities, and is a great investment in the future success of the area. Yes, we would be taking on a large and costly investment, but the benefits are too good to pass on and the alternative would mean stunted economic growth for the county.

And when you look at the county as a whole, there is also greater reason to question the commissioner's hesitancy. Gwinnett is the second largest county in the state with over a half-a-million people living there. It is diversifying faster than any other county in that state and will soon be a majority-minority county. It is a middle class heaven where homes are affordable, the schools are incredible, but the cars and transportation costs are expensive (even with the low price of gas currently). While the Great Recession really hurt the local economy, strong leadership by our commissioners and county government prevented our budget from going awry and unlike other counties, Gwinnett fared better with less layoffs and budget cuts during the recession. To me, Gwinnett's current demographics and stable budget are all the more reason, we should be like Atlanta and be gung-ho for making a major investment in mass transportation.

What Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail Transit could look like on Satellite Boulevard

But one difference between Chairman Nash and me is where we live. She lives in the less populated eastern side of the county where its more rural than urban. I live in the middle of the I-85 corridor where the demographic shifts, worse traffic, and increased densification is more obvious and has had a greater impact on the quality of life. This means that throughout the county different areas have very different wants and needs. My neighbors and I need access to a BRT or LRT line that can ease the flow of traffic on I-85 and provide more commute option between our neighborhoods and the major business hubs. But residents of Dacula and Grayson have no interest in using or more importantly paying for a transit line along the I-85 corridor when they live and work elsewhere. So when this comprehensive conversation about transportation begins in Gwinnett, I hope this demographic difference is noted.

One way to bridge the gap between the disconnect between the different areas of Gwinnett is to create more Community Improvement Districts along the I-85 Corridor and elsewhere. CID's would allow citizens in Unincorporated Gwinnett to have more of a voice of what goes on in their communities. It would also allow citizens to address their most immediate needs in their respective regions. Around the Gwinnett Arena, a CID would focus on smart growth, transportation needs, and traffic easement while other CID might focus more on safety or environmental needs.

Jimmy Carter Boulevard Diverging Diamond Bridge Rendering

Already in Gwinnett, the Gwinnett Village and Gwinnett Place Community Improvement Districts have  already made huge impacts on their respective communities and have partnered together to outline the need for a light rail line on Satellite Boulevard. Their work has created diverging diamonds on the Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road bridges and has beautified and cleaned up the public spaces and sidewalks. Without their CID titles none of this work would've been done, and they do not create the expensive bureaucracies that municipalities such as Norcross or Lawrenceville need.

In addition to using the CID's for more localized issues, in about two-three years time when the county government will be ready to present and allow residents to vote on a transportation referendum, allowing CID's to vote on the referendum as units would better help the county. For instance, CID's along I-85 could vote "Yes" and receive the much needed public transportation investments they desire, while other parts of the county could choose to vote "No" and spend their taxpayer money elsewhere without impacting the needs of another part of the county.

My idea may be a little too extravagant and complicated, but the point is that in Gwinnett, one size does not fit all. So when the Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce and the county leaders take the initiative to make transportation a priority, I hope we can make a real impact on focusing on localized areas rather than the diverse county as a whole.                    

Densification Vs Reurbanization (aka OTP vs ITP)

Silicon Valley's Suburban Growth and Densification due to Large Technology Companies

Recently, I read an article about how Silicon Valley in California was losing its suburban identity to a pseudo-urban environment. Located outside San Francisco, Silicon Valley is an edge city that is home to technology companies such as Apple, Google, Oracle, HP, and many others. With the technology boom of this century, these companies are expanding and causing the economy in Silicon Valley to boom. As a result, the low-rise, one-story office complexes that characterized American suburbs are being replaced with medium-rise office buildings that house hundreds of more employees. These buildings add density and more people to Silicon Valley helping greatly boost its economy, but the edge city now lacks the amenities that make it either a comfortable suburb or a vibrant city.

In Atlanta, a similar situation is playing out. Unlike the economy dependent of the technology companies in Silicon Valley, the Atlanta economy is a diverse mixture of large Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, and start-ups. But Atlanta has developed similar to Silicon Valley in that its edge cities are growing and intensifying in density making them less of a suburb and more of a large city. So in this post, I am going to look at some the merits and faults of companies that choose to locate inside-the-perimeter versus companies that choose to locate outside-the-perimeter.

NCR's Current Suburban HQs in Duluth

Recently, NCR announced that it would move its corporate headquarters from suburban Gwinnett to urban Midtown Atlanta. Before NCR was located in Gwinnett, the company was headquartered in Dayton, Ohio. During the early 2000's, Gwinnett government offered NCR enticing tax incentives to move its headquarters to Duluth, Georgia. NCR took up Gwinnett's offer and moved their HQ's to several newly built medium-rise office buildings on Satellite Boulevard in addition to some older one-story office buildings there as well. This move brought over 3,000 jobs to the area helping fuel the housing market boom and the expanding service economy. The low costs plus the benefits of Gwinnett's excellent schools and suburban climate made the move an overall smart move.

But when the tax incentives began to dry up after the recession, the technology company began to consider moving its headquarters away from its suburban home to a more dense and central location. Reportedly, NCR executives looked at several locations across metro Atlanta including Alpharetta, Dunwoody, and Sandy Springs but ultimately decided to move to Midtown at Tech Square (with a large cash incentive awaiting them there). NCR plans to develop a high-rise for its headquarters and hopes to benefit from the start-up community and Georgia Tech students located around Tech Square. So comparing this move to their Gwinnett move: NCR will be paying for land at a premium, they will have to pay the city of Atlanta's higher taxes, the cost of living is more expensive, and workers will have to consider either commuting in from the suburbs where they currently live or moving intown where the climate is not always best suited for family living. On the other hand, the company will receive a handsome cash incentive from the city of Atlanta to help with the transition (upwards of several millions), they will be located near top-tier talent around Georgia Tech, they will located within a city with a vibrant culture and have access to public transportation (instead of being stuck in suburban traffic), they will own a piece of Atlanta's notable skyline and their signage will be seen by every driver on the connector, and they can provide a better work climate for their employees in the city.  

NCR's plan to move to an urban location or its "reurbanization" signifies a shift in companies and businesses who are now focused on creating an excellent work environment with access to the most qualified workers instead of attaining the lowest costs. And as a result, edge cities are changing their growth patterns to adjust themselves to this corporate shift. For instance, Alpharetta is no longer focused on building the most homes or the best malls. Instead, Alpharetta is investing into drive-to urban destinations such as newly developed Avalon or its developing new town center. These mixed-use developments are home to luxury condos and apartments, street level shopping, small parks, and office-space in the buildings upper levels. Around these mixed-use developments, the new commercial and residential developments are focused on walkability and access to these new "urban" amenities instead of the strip malls or cul-de-sac neighborhoods that typify suburbs. Also, Alpharetta is expanding in the education sector with the building of a Gwinnett Tech satellite campus. In addition, Alpharetta focuses all new development towards completing its city master plan that guides the planning department towards the best land development of the city. All of this means that instead of being the home to Fortune 500 office parks, malls, strip malls, and gated neighborhoods, Alpharetta wants to be the home to a more dense and less suburban edge city.  

Avalon in Alpharetta

Alpharetta's "densification" is a shift from its suburban origins and as a result, Mercedes Benz is relocating its North American headquarters there from its current suburban location in New Jersey. Mercedes Benz cites cash incentives, a need for new talent, and the economic climate in Atlanta and Alpharetta as reasons for its move. So now, Mercedes Benz has bought land in Alpharetta for a premium (due to Alpharetta's location and densification), plans on building an urban-like, mixed-use campus to foster a better workplace community, have a high-rise building that provides signage to GA-400, and have access to Atlanta's finest workers. Sound similar to NCR's move to Midtown? It should because both companies are moving to their new locations for the same reasons. The only difference is the location: downtown vs edge city.

Future Plans for Alpharetta's Avalon Development

So is the current suburban densification any different from the urban revival taking hold of Atlanta. In many ways no: mixed-use developments, high prices, good locations, and the appeal of its workers or residents characterizes both the metro Atlanta's densification and the reurbanization in the perimeter. But there are differences in that the edge cities still lack the culture, public transportation access, or density that the city of Atlanta has while the city lacks the good schools, the safety, and affordable amenities that edge cities are home too.