ATL Urbanist

Yes, cities are hot as heck this year. No, low-density sprawl isn't the answer (in fact it's a major culprit).

by Darin Givens | August 10, 2026

2026 has been a grueling year for heat in many cities, with urban heat islands getting a lot of focus, and rightly so. According to this Reuters report, “while some permeable and moist surfaces, like grass or soil, absorb less heat, other construction materials like asphalt or concrete are capable of absorbing as much as 95% of the sun’s energy, which is then radiated back into the surrounding atmosphere.”

The effect has been deadly this year, particularly with the heat dome in Europe.

And while mitigation of urban heat islands with known solutions is crucially important, so is addressing the climate crisis that worsens their effect. And that's a level of complexity that needs to be addressed. Any argument that lays blame on cities for their own extreme heat this year is getting the larger climate equation wrong.

It’s irrefutably true that car-dependent, low-density sprawl amplifies our emissions in multiple ways: through increased vehicle miles traveled, destruction of natural carbon sinks such as forests and wetlands, wasted energy from low-density infrastructure, and more.

The carbon footprint of sprawl is has a huge effect on climate change; and as our climate warms, heat domes will become more likely, and they'll make urban heat islands even hotter.

Without following the thread closely, it may be tempting to view denser urban fabric as a scourge because of its heat islands, while viewing sprawl as a balm for the climate by way of the greenery around detached homes.

I understand that it might be confusing. Suburbs can have cooler microclimates (as long as you’re away from the wide roads and parking lots) and urban heat islands exist to some degree even without this year’s temperatures. But the situation is more complex than it may seem at first glance.

We have to look at the higher per-capita carbon footprint caused by sprawl: as the UN panel on climate change has reported, households in low-density, sprawling places emit significantly more greenhouse gas per capita than urban homes due to higher energy use and destruction of natural ecosystems.

Those higher levels of emissions elevate global baseline temperatures. Due to the overall hotter temperatures, urban heat islands in cities are becoming worse. It’s a dangerous environmental relationship that’s causing tragic health issues globally, and that’s hurting the walkable cities we desperately need.

And make no mistake: pedestrian-oriented, denser urbanism is the solution for a more sustainable future for our built environments, not the enemy.

When daily necessities are located within a walkable or bikeable distance – or within an easy bus ride – the use of personal cars ceases to be a requirement for all trips. And higher population density can provide the ridership that’s necessary to make mass transit more viable and more efficient: the FTA explicitly states that dense, walkable, mixed-use development increases ridership for transit.

Additionally, multi-family buildings with shared walls minimize thermal leaks, dramatically reducing a home’s exposed surface area. A household in a multi-unit building consumes much less energy for heating and cooling than a standalone, detached suburban home.

There are many details that have to be tended to in these urban environments to achieve the best results, no doubt. Cities need trees and parks and great pedestrian/bike infrastructure and more – density needs to be done well. So let’s do it well, while employing targeted strategies for cooling heat islands.

This data about the sustainability benefits of pedestrian-scaled urbanism has literally been available to us for decades through qualified sources like the EPA, but I fear the information is slipping away from us amid the noise of daily news intake and the various crucial issues that are understandably occupying our attention.

People are riding motorized devices on sidewalks at the same speed cars are moving. I got buzzed by several of them last night and it stinks. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know what the goal should be: sidewalks need to be more welcoming for pedestrians with disabilities.

There's an impulse to dismiss this concern by arguing that, since cars are the deadlier vehicles, any complaint about e-devices is misplaced (ex.: "This loser thinks scooters speeding on sidewalks are a problem -- wait till he finds out how many people are killed by cars!!").

But folks, if your argument rests on demeaning or dismissing the concerns of disabled sidewalk users, you need to rethink it. The fact that cars are deadlier doesn't give everyone else a pass on thoughtless behavior.

And to be clear, I'm not a scooter hater. Longtime followers may recall that, before my neurological condition set in, I was a daily scooter rider myself (albeit a GoPed kick scooter, which was fun as hell).

Someone at Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) made a nice map of all the bus routes for MARTA, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Douglas combined -- I don't think I've ever seen something like this before.

Perhaps unintentionally, the map also shows how very limited the bus routes are, with many areas not being served.

Kudos to ARC for the map of what exists, but as a transit dependent person, I can't help but also view this as a map of the gaps. The lack of a direct route from Marietta to Roswell, for instance, is ridiculous. I'm grateful for what we have, but we need better investment in regional transit, clearly.

Car dependency is a choice.

The map is here:

https://garc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4c05b66521f44bfcaa17d90dc828253e#overview

ARC posts much of its data here:

The Atlanta Business Chronicle reports that the Rufus M. Rose House (completed in 1901) is on the market for $2.58 million, with an additional $2 million needed for renovations. A group called UC Asset LP purchased it five years ago and floated ideas for turning it into a short term rental, but obviously that didn't happen.

The house has been vacant for 25 years now, having last been used in 2001 as headquarters for the Atlanta Preservation Center. A quarter of a century of deadness.

I walked past it tonight and felt a bit sad, just as I've done for many years, though I did enjoy seeing a vape shop open next door. Why? Because it was one of only a couple of open businesses I passed -- for several blocks, at 9pm on a Thursday night on Peachtree Street -- and I appreciated seeing a bit of life.

Two photos representing massive investments in transportation in Atlanta during the 1970s and 1980s.

It feels like we've reverted a bit to the culture of the 1980s, when conservatives labelled transit investments as "big-government waste" while massive, city-destroying freeways were "necessary infrastructure."

I'm sensing that same vibe today. Except it's even worse because we're not expanding rail anymore like we were back then, though we're still spending billions of dollars on freeways.

MARTA received $11 million in federal grants for World Cup safety and operations, which helped the agency offer those impressively high frequencies for train arrivals. But that joyous month is over -- now we're back to the usual frequencies.

If we want to see MARTA offer that World Cup level of service all the time, we absolutely have to get transit-loving progressives into office at the state level so that Georgia can actually fund MARTA operations, which it currently does not do.

I know it might sound glib and simplistic but it really is that straightforward.

MARTA is the largest transit agency in the U.S. to receive no operations funding from its state. Yes, there are tweaks that can be made within the agency to improve service in some ways, but there will be no sustainable, significant expansion in service without those state funds. Period.

That partnership between a city transit agency and the state is essential -- you see in NY and elsewhere. It's high time we see it here too.

by Darin Givens | July 22, 2026

I see a headline like this and I immediately think: how much transit could we fund with this $1billion, instead of just spending it on car lanes?

The Atlanta Business Chronicle reports that "Georgia's Department of Transportation is converting state Route 316's signalized intersections into interchanges. The dozens of projects planned along the highway will essentially turn the freeway into a full-fledged expressway."

I understand that traffic delays are a burden, and the desire to ease the burden isn't pure evil.

Here's the thing that triggers me...this project is meant to "improve traffic flow and accommodate growth."

Growth. Think about that. This is not the way we should be growing. Car dependency and sprawl are the growth model we need to move away from, quickly.

The region's sprawling, low-density layout -- built very intentionally around freeways -- makes implementing fast, efficient mass transit nearly mathematically impossible in many areas. This cuts off residents who do not own cars from accessing many necessities.

While Atlanta's outer-ring suburbs do often provide lower housing costs, the exorbitant cost of owning, insuring, and maintaining multiple vehicles per household often makes these areas some of the least affordable in the U.S. for moderate-income families.

Also, we have extreme heat that's killing thousands of people this year, with temperatures that are connected to human-caused climate change. According to National Weather Service statistics, extreme heat remains the leading weather-related cause of death in the U.S., historically claiming more lives annually than hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning combined.

A more pedestrian-oriented urbanism is the way. Why is that so difficult for many people to see?

It feels like a Twilight Zone episode: the hottest and most sprawling areas in the U.S. (such as Atlanta) require more energy use for air conditioning and more energy for driving. Both things contribute to climate change. And yet these sunbelt metros are the places where the population has boomed dramatically.

Finding ways to get sunbelt cities to shift to denser, more walkable urbanism was already a need for the sake of personal health and local economies. But it's increasingly an urgent need for the climate.

The shared walls of multi-family buildings (plus smaller home sizes often found in that format) can reduce energy use. And compact, mixed-use urbanism can reduce car trips while better supporting pedestrian & transit trips.

There are many devils in the details above, involving affordability as well as other urban design details. But I'm dying on this hill (hopefully not literally): retrofitting pedestrian-focused, compact urbanism into sunbelt cities is a crucial need, as is greater investment in transit.

Marietta Street, Atlanta, before cars took over.

Here's a note of warning from an article titled "The Automobile Ordinance," from the Atlanta Constitution, June 23, 1904.

*******

The general council of Atlanta is to be congratulated on adopting an ordinance regulating the operation of automobiles on the streets of the city. The rapidly increasing local use of these machines, the number of more or less serious accidents of the last few months, and the fact that no municipal laws existed governing their operation, combine to make the passage of the ordinance very timely and advisable.

That portion of the ordinance which restricts speed of the "devil wagons" in and outside the fire limits is so framed as to be just, both to the automobilists and the public, generally. The speed of 8 miles an hour inside of the fire limits and 15 outside ought to satisfy the owners and chauffeurs, inasmuch as it should meet all of their demands, both of a business and pleasurable nature. It also places the maximum of speed at such a limit as will enable a swift stopping of the machine in the presence of danger or of an unforeseen emergency. The ordinance committee likewise displayed wisdom in decreeing that all operators of self-propelled machines shall be licensed. An automobile, however simple its construction, is very similar to a locomotive, and it is very certain that no railway would trust a novice with the operation of one of these complicated pieces of mechanism.

Similarly, the idea that an inexperienced person should be allowed to send one of these powerful machines flying through the streets, imperiling the lives of pedestrians and hampering other modes of traffic, is not to be entertained for a moment. The provisions of the ordinance in this respect are so lenient and sensible as to appeal to the most fanatical automobilist. They are easily complied with and they give the footgoing public a satisfactory guarantee of safety.

****

The messaging can be complex, but that's OK... Blaming drivers for the faults of the city is wrong; we're all stuck in the car-dependent results of bad planning. But blaming drivers *who oppose the urbanism that will reduce car dependency because they fear any inconvenience* is not wrong. We have to change, and accept imperfect transitions.

Darin Givens | June 30, 2026

I'd like to address the criticisms many in Atlanta are making about the name South Downtown as the district gains media attention following extensive renovations. I don't want to dismiss the concerns -- I felt weird about "West Midtown" when it appeared -- but I do want to put the name in perspective.

[Note: many of today's neighborhood names were established in the 1970s as part of the development of Atlanta's NPU system; very few of them date to the earliest years of the city.]

The term South Downtown slowly emerged about 20 years ago to describe an area south of Five Points MARTA Station, north of Garnett Station, and east of Castleberry Hill, which was largely filled with empty buildings and parking lots. Some properties were being eyed for potential renovation and the place needed a descriptor.

What was here before the parking lots?

Above: a 1919 map showing the part of South Downtown near what is today's Garnett MARTA Station. This was a bustling commercial district for decades. During the White Flight and urban disinvestment of the 1950s-60s, along with booming suburban sprawl, many businesses moved out.

If you zoom in with Zillow, you'll see the original property lines around Garnett MARTA Station in Atlanta, before the properties were destroyed to make way for parking lots:

In 1984, there was a plan to brand this area as Government Walk because most of the occupied space was government buildings. The idea was to spend nearly $100 million on renovations, on both streets and buildings.

It didn't happen, though some smaller scale investments took place in preparation for the 1996 Olympics, and a couple of commercial buildings were converted to residential.

Yes, 'South Downtown' is jarring to many who are hearing it for the first time. And concerns about cultural erasure are always valid. But the area that the city officially defines as Downtown is enormous and has clearly distinct subdistricts in it. Naming them is good for wayfinding and for our sense of attachment to places.

On a personal note, I first encountered the area in the late 80s and early 90s as a musician/artist performing in rugged art spaces. It was shocking to see the disinvestment. Later, I was on the board of Eyedrum when it was in South Downtown in a spot that struggled to draw people in.

Bottom line: today's investments & renovations are a joy for me to see, especially given my experience with this place over the decades, and I hope the name South Downtown becomes a beacon for renewal.