#urban density

like I'm acutely sensitive to this personally, but otoh it affects everyone even if they might not realise it, and it's just straight-up unpleasant and not necessarily easy or cheap to deal with! (and its certainly the kind of thing where dealing with it is cheaper and more effective if it's built-in rather than trying to add it later)

you might say okay but the ideal super-dense city has reduced noise from car traffic, and that's true - that's why central London is paradoxically survivable relative to how much larger it is than the other large cities - but the other reason for that is that the Tube is underground, and that's really quite an expensive undertaking, and not one that I hear people talking about much. (since the focus ofc esp. in countries that have less of it is that public transport should be cheap and available)

Besides, it's obviously not just transport that makes noise; the closer recreation is to residential the better sound insulation you need, and ofc in a big city something always needs to be being built, fixed or maintained, not to mention that a big part of the reason some folks are wary of living in big blocks of flats is that (unless your soundproofing is really, really good, and if the housing is built cheap and furnished in a modern way, it probably isn't) it gives you up to 3 sets of neighbours who all have to not be massively inconsiderate or nobody is getting any sleep.

Density also becomes a problem within those recreational spaces: land being so expensive and people so plentiful means everywhere has to pack in as many customers as they can to stay afloat with the result that there's almost nowhere I can go out where I can actually hear what the people I'm with are saying. (Going somewhere with a little more room to breathe (Portland OR) was incredible - I really miss it. I could sometimes have conversations in restaurants and bars, actually inside the building!)

its just not something i see anyone talking about. in fact, stuff is going in the other direction: most offices, pubs, restaurants etc today have worse soundproofing than in the past due to trends in their setup (open-plan; open-kitchen; putting the bit where servers sort the cutlery out in the dining room for some reason; the thing where you put multiple restaurants/bars/cafes inside a single large building without anything to enclose them from the rest of it) and interior design.

Atlanta in the 1940s and in 2026, with the same view in both aerial photos.

This is the center of the city before and after the interstate highways were built (and the highway ramps, and car-sewer roads leading to and from the ramps, and the construction of dozens of giant parking decks).

For years I've struggled to articulate something I feel as I enter Downtown from surrounding neighborhoods... it seems like I'm entering an island that's disconnected from the rest of Atlanta by a chasm of interstates on the northeast, east and south, plus a chasm of freight rail on the west.

Downtown has some *great* destinations and I hope everyone will visit Hotel Row on Mitchell Street in particular; it's very encouraging.

But I fear that because of Downtown's chasms, the vibrancy of it will always be compromised in some way -- until it achieves the kind of self-sufficient, 24/7 vibrancy that can only be gained through the construction of thousands of new housing units.

And when you look at the street grids in Downtown, heavy density makes sense.

Studies show that a high frequency of street intersections is associated with higher pedestrian activity. Meaning: this is an awesome place for walking. And when you consider the rich transit access here, it's clear that this is a perfect spot for living without a car (or car-light).

by Darin Givens, 9/20/2023

There's an excellent op-ed in the AJC today arguing that Atlanta's need for greater density of people can co-exist with a tree canopy; even if we initially lose some trees for housing development, there's a great opportunity to expand the canopy in targeted ways.

Here's a quote from it:

"Higher density development makes further room for new street trees and stormwater infrastructure. Parking lots could become dense, energy efficient housing. Road lanes for cars could be transformed into tree-lined cycleways. If we’re willing to replace a fraction of Atlanta’s road space with trees we could have cool, shaded streets even in our city’s densest neighborhoods without sacrificing limited developable land."

Replacing some of our asphalt with trees is a great idea. In the Vine City neighborhood alone, the amount of land that's surrounded by heat-trapping parking lots is substantial, and likely contributes to heat island effects (see below).

One problem is that the conversation about tree canopy in Atlanta can often be used to block the exact type of infill development that's needed for addressing climate change by creating a more walkable, more transit-supportive city.

The op-ed addresses this:

"As our city looks to update its zoning and tree ordinances, we must recognize that a “save every existing tree” approach ignores the realities of our environment, development finance and housing affordability. We need to plant more trees, but mandating green infrastructure without providing adequate flexibility or incentives can hinder the dense development that we desperately need to lower carbon emissions and house our growing population."

Well said!