Detailed Metro Atlanta growth forecasts to 2050

[GeorgiaModerate]

This is a very interesting report from the Atlanta Regional Commission forecasting growth in the 21-county metro region to 2050.  Population and job forecasts go down to the census tract level, while race and age data are provided at the county level.

ARC report summary (includes links to full report in PDF, forecast page with maps/charts and downloadable data, and interactive dashboard): https://33n.atlantaregional.com/regional-snapshot/gazing-the-crystal-ball-new-arc-forecasts-to-2050

AJC (newspaper) article about the report: https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/metro-atlanta-expected-to-grow-to-nearly-8-million-residents-by-2050/FSFHIDKMMRB4NBLHZVSGXVG4QA/

Some interesting data points:

• The metro population is forecast to grow to 7.9 million and and add 856K jobs.
• Hispanic and Latino residents are forecast to be 21% of the region’s population in 2050, vs. 12% today.
• The outer counties will grow the fastest, topped by Forsyth with 79%.
• But the core counties (Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, DeKalb, and Clayton) won't do badly either, adding 812K people (nearly half the total metro growth).

[GAinDC]

I saw this last night and was going to share it. You beat me to it!

I grew up on the southside of ATL. This report was featured in my local paper, and of course all the comments were "we're full!"

I don't think we can make strong correlations between the growth of the region and its political trajectory, because voter preferences are always changing.

If you had told the GA GOP 20 or 30 years ago that Gwinnett would be almost 1 million people by now, they might assume the state had gotten even more Republican, since back in those days the county was a big GOP vote sink. I doubt they would foresee the political and demographic shifts there.

Still, it's clear that if Republicans want to regain footing in GA, it has to be through Metro Atlanta.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Interesting that there's expecting the Asian share of Forsyth's population to decrease.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I saw this last night and was going to share it. You beat me to it!

I grew up on the southside of ATL. This report was featured in my local paper, and of course all the comments were "we're full!"

I don't think we can make strong correlations between the growth of the region and its political trajectory, because voter preferences are always changing.

If you had told the GA GOP 20 or 30 years ago that Gwinnett would be almost 1 million people by now, they might assume the state had gotten even more Republican, since back in those days the county was a big GOP vote sink. I doubt they would foresee the political and demographic shifts there.

Still, it's clear that if Republicans want to regain footing in GA, it has to be through Metro Atlanta.

The GOP has to find a way to gain ground in metro areas nationally to stay viable. In nearly every remotely competitive state, the main blue metro(s) are growing faster than the state at large while many of the rural areas the GOP depends on are stagnant or shrinking.

We have seen the GOP find ways to make gains in places like metro Miami and Vegas, however both of those metros have pretty unique dynamics that have allowed them to shift right.

[Del Tachi]

Quite a stretch to classify Cobb, Gwinnett or Clayton as "core" metro counties.  Their feel is overwhelmingly exurban.

This report also forecasts slower growth than ARC estimated in 2020, owing to lower fertility and a drop in domestic in-migration.  Atlanta's trajectory is to become an overcrowded, overpriced city.

[pikachu]

I semi-seriously wonder if as Georgia blues, you see the same the anti-growth politics that characterize other liberal metro areas. Particularly as you have a high % of the population which was born/raised in ATL and the more irritating effects of growth (traffic) go unmanaged.

[Oryxslayer]

I semi-seriously wonder if as Georgia blues, you see the same the anti-growth politics that characterize other liberal metro areas. Particularly as you have a high % of the population which was born/raised in ATL and the more irritating effects of growth (traffic) go unmanaged.

That's the big X factor in this report and Atlanta as a whole. I know of a few failed public transit projects and referendums supported by Dems but opposed by the GOP when the region was much redder. As the Democrats solidify control locally in the wider metro counties, and eventually take on some yet unknown quantity of power at the state level, will there be attempts to resurrect mass transit? One might say no cause suburbanites are still suburbanites, but one might also say yes can the Dem coalition and their politicians are on average in the region both poorer and more environmentally focused than the GOP.

If a serious attempt a cross-county mass transit happens during the next decade (who knows that far in the future) then there absolutely will be more possibility for growth then before, and further out then present.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Quite a stretch to classify Cobb, Gwinnett or Clayton as "core" metro counties.  Their feel is overwhelmingly exurban.

This report also forecasts slower growth than ARC estimated in 2020, owing to lower fertility and a drop in domestic in-migration.  Atlanta's trajectory is to become an overcrowded, overpriced city.

Atlanta is a bit unique because even compared to other sunbelt metros, it's population is quite sprawling, and there's a lack of the denser development you see in places like Collin County TX.

Cobb and Gwinnett are a bit weird - I agree they aren't really core counties - they don't contain any of Atlanta proper however both counties contain their own secondary core business districts and such.

I'm possibly a bit biased though - as a native Manhattanite I'm always shocked at how generous the definition of urban and suburban can be in the US - for many years I considered Brooklyn and Queens suburban lol.

[ProgressiveModerate]

One thing I find interesting is how the wealthier suburbs of Northern Fulton County aren't expected to see much growth - I guess it kind of makes sense because they're the types that'd be NIMBYs and the current development pattern of planned single family home suburban communities makes it harder to add density in the future. By contrast, you can see they project quite a bit of growth near downtown Atlanta where you can actually build density.

Downtown Atlanta is actually pretty dense but downtown Atlanta also isn't very big.

[pikachu]

I semi-seriously wonder if as Georgia blues, you see the same the anti-growth politics that characterize other liberal metro areas. Particularly as you have a high % of the population which was born/raised in ATL and the more irritating effects of growth (traffic) go unmanaged.

That's the big X factor in this report and Atlanta as a whole. I know of a few failed public transit projects and referendums supported by Dems but opposed by the GOP when the region was much redder. As the Democrats solidify control locally in the wider metro counties, and eventually take on some yet unknown quantity of power at the state level, will there be attempts to resurrect mass transit? One might say no cause suburbanites are still suburbanites, but one might also say yes can the Dem coalition and their politicians are on average in the region both poorer and more environmentally focused than the GOP.

If a serious attempt a cross-county mass transit happens during the next decade (who knows that far in the future) then there absolutely will be more possibility for growth then before, and further out then present.

Someone local can correct me, but it’ll be an uphill battle imo. Even by American transit agency standards, MARTA is messy. And considering the timespan on these things (need a county tax to pass, get state funding, planning/scoping projects, etc etc), it’ll be a few decades for something to built even in the best-case scenario unless there’s a paradigm shift in American transit funding.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I semi-seriously wonder if as Georgia blues, you see the same the anti-growth politics that characterize other liberal metro areas. Particularly as you have a high % of the population which was born/raised in ATL and the more irritating effects of growth (traffic) go unmanaged.

That's the big X factor in this report and Atlanta as a whole. I know of a few failed public transit projects and referendums supported by Dems but opposed by the GOP when the region was much redder. As the Democrats solidify control locally in the wider metro counties, and eventually take on some yet unknown quantity of power at the state level, will there be attempts to resurrect mass transit? One might say no cause suburbanites are still suburbanites, but one might also say yes can the Dem coalition and their politicians are on average in the region both poorer and more environmentally focused than the GOP.

If a serious attempt a cross-county mass transit happens during the next decade (who knows that far in the future) then there absolutely will be more possibility for growth then before, and further out then present.

Someone local can correct me, but it’ll be an uphill battle imo. Even by American transit agency standards, MARTA is messy. And considering the timespan on these things (need a county tax to pass, get state funding, planning/scoping projects, etc etc), it’ll be a few decades for something to built even in the best-case scenario unless there’s a paradigm shift in American transit funding.

Another problem is because metro Atlanta is so sprawling actually getting MARTA to a point where it has good coverage will be very tricky.

Washington DC metro might be a good comparison of what Marta could look like in 30 years with proper investment, but even the DC metro barely sees any ridership outside DC proper, and I'd argue Atlanta is far more sprawling than metro DC.

Any other US city ever achieving NYC levels of transit, both in terms of infrastructure and dependency would be very very hard.

[patzer]

I feel like Georgia growth patterns might change substantially once the governorship and legislature flips D. At that point, Georgia would be a blue-leaning state in the middle of the Deep South, so I imagine it would become an attractive destination for abortion tourism, Republicans might be less likely to move to Georgia whilst Democrats might be more likely to, so the trends could end up self reinforcing.

With the growth in Hispanic voters, I expect we'll see a new Hispanic plurality congressional district in northern Gwinnett/southern Hall county crop up in the next redistricting cycle or if not then certainly the one after.

[Sol]

Quite a stretch to classify Cobb, Gwinnett or Clayton as "core" metro counties.  Their feel is overwhelmingly exurban.

This report also forecasts slower growth than ARC estimated in 2020, owing to lower fertility and a drop in domestic in-migration.  Atlanta's trajectory is to become an overcrowded, overpriced city.

The terminology for these things is sort of frustrating, because terms like urban, suburban, and exurban imply both a spatial position in the greater metro area and a kind of land use.

In much of the South, most of the housing stock is single-family homes, and it's typical for neighborhoods right by downtown to look like streetcar suburbs in the northeast, while areas that would be typical suburbs in the northeast spatially look like exurbs in terms of age of construction, housing stock, etc. Gwinnett and Clayton are in that latter camp; they have an extremely postwar residential form but in the broader spatial layout of Atlanta a good chunk of them are "inner suburbs."

[Del Tachi]

I semi-seriously wonder if as Georgia blues, you see the same the anti-growth politics that characterize other liberal metro areas. Particularly as you have a high % of the population which was born/raised in ATL and the more irritating effects of growth (traffic) go unmanaged.

This has already been the case in Atlanta for decades, and I wouldn't characterize it as a strictly "liberal metro" thing either.  Desirable areas like Buckhead and Druid Hills have been rejecting efforts to densify for years.

[Del Tachi]

I semi-seriously wonder if as Georgia blues, you see the same the anti-growth politics that characterize other liberal metro areas. Particularly as you have a high % of the population which was born/raised in ATL and the more irritating effects of growth (traffic) go unmanaged.

This has already been the case in Atlanta for decades, and I wouldn't characterize it as a strictly "liberal metro" thing either.  Desirable areas like Buckhead and Druid Hills have been rejecting efforts to densify for years.

Quite a stretch to classify Cobb, Gwinnett or Clayton as "core" metro counties.  Their feel is overwhelmingly exurban.

This report also forecasts slower growth than ARC estimated in 2020, owing to lower fertility and a drop in domestic in-migration.  Atlanta's trajectory is to become an overcrowded, overpriced city.

The terminology for these things is sort of frustrating, because terms like urban, suburban, and exurban imply both a spatial position in the greater metro area and a kind of land use.

In much of the South, most of the housing stock is single-family homes, and it's typical for neighborhoods right by downtown to look like streetcar suburbs in the northeast, while areas that would be typical suburbs in the northeast spatially look like exurbs in terms of age of construction, housing stock, etc. Gwinnett and Clayton are in that latter camp; they have an extremely postwar residential form but in the broader spatial layout of Atlanta a good chunk of them are "inner suburbs."

Agree, and I mostly use "exurban" to mean the land use patterns that define low-density, post-war development.  Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton (as well as most of Fulton and DeKalb!) are exurban in this way.

Describing the spatial position of communities as urban/suburban/exurban is important in describing how culturally proximate they are to the high-value amenities and institutions found in the CBD.  That's why Tysons and Silver Spring are suburban even if they are maybe just as dense as Downtown DC, for example.