Looking for Driveway Paving in Douglasville, Georgia

Schedule Your FREE Consultation

About Driveway Paving

The driveway paving job can be a daunting task to undertake. The options available for you are limited, and often what you do decide to use will depend upon the existing surrounding area. For those who live in a rural setting, such as those who live on the countryside, there is little options to get the driveway ready for the caravans coming through. In this case, it will be necessary to use natural stones or cement in the driveway.

Pavers are not always the best choice of material for a driveway paving project. While they may look like natural stone and act as a wonderful contrast to the darker, earthy tones of the soil, they cannot be properly maintained without the right sealer. Sealer comes in different types, and can be tailored to perfectly match the look and feel of your driveway paving project. If you do not want to invest in driveway pavers, then there are other options you can take into consideration.

One of which is interlocking paving, which allows you to have beautifully crafted interlocking pavers installed for your driveway paving projects. This is ideal for driveways, which are in need of repairs. The pavers lock together with the help of interlocking joints, and thus you need not exert any effort in driving the pavers apart. The advantage of this system is that you will save a lot of money that you would have otherwise had to spend on hiring workers to do the job for you.

Another option you have when it comes to driveway paving is asphalt driveway paving. There are many advantages when it comes to using asphalt versus concrete for your driveway paving project. First, asphalt is an excellent material for use on the outside of homes. It is extremely durable and will outlast concrete, even when it is left outdoors for quite some time.

In addition to this, there are also several concrete driveway paving pros that you should know about. For one thing, concrete does cost a little bit more than the other alternative materials like asphalt and brick driveway paving stones. However, you can always count on its longevity and resistance towards all types of weather. Moreover, you will not be required to spend a lot of time in treating the concrete once it gets cracked. Concrete cracks usually get repaired by applying a special cement mixture to fix the damage. You can also choose from a variety of designs for the pavers of your driveway.

On the other hand, brick driveway paving pros include the fact that you will no longer have to worry about finding the right pattern for the exterior of your home. Bricks come in a wide array of colors, shapes and sizes, so you will always be able to find the right design to complement the architecture of your house. Pavers that are made out of natural stone come at a much higher price, but they are also far more durable compared to the composite materials such as asphalt. Finally, you will not have to spend a lot of time and effort in order to keep the driveway clean and free from damage, as concrete usually requires very little maintenance.

Driveway paving is a very important process if you want to improve the appearance and value of your home. It is a very practical choice, because it allows you to create a more attractive space that can make your home look more appealing. Of course, it is essential to keep in mind that not all of your driveways need to be paved. In fact, there are many instances where the only purpose of having a paved driveway is for the sake of improving the curb appeal of the property.

Asphalt and concrete driveways are two of the most common types of driveway paving materials, although there are some homeowners who prefer the use of rubber for driveways. Regardless of what you decide on, you should always remember that you should always choose the material wisely. Concrete and asphalt are both excellent choices, but the effectiveness of each material can vary greatly. Paved driveways can be used on nearly any surface, although they are typically best used on asphalt or concrete surfaces. Ultimately, it all comes down to your personal preference and budget.

parkinglot1

About Douglasville, Georgia

Located along a natural rise in the topography, Douglasville was originally known as "Skint Chestnut." The name was derived from a large tree used by Native Americans as a landmark; it was stripped of its bark so as to be more conspicuous.

Douglasville was founded in 1874 as the railroad was constructed in the area. That same year, Douglasville was designated as the county seat of the recently formed Douglas County. The community was named for Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois.

Georgia General Assembly first incorporated Douglasville in 1875.

On September 21, 2009, Douglas County was devastated by the worst flood in Georgia history. Over 18 inches (457 mm) of rain fell in one night, destroying many roads and homes. The county was later declared a disaster area, and the governor of Georgia declared a state of emergency. The flooding most affected the areas of Douglasville, Villa Rica, Austell, Lithia Springs, and Chapel Hill. The disaster killed more than eight people in the county, most of them in the Douglasville area.

Douglasville is located in north-central Douglas County at 33°44′59″N 84°43′23″W / 33.74972°N 84.72306°W / 33.74972; -84.72306Coordinates: 33°44′59″N 84°43′23″W / 33.74972°N 84.72306°W / 33.74972; -84.72306 (33.749824, −84.723190). Lithia Springs is 6 miles (10 km) to the northeast along U.S. Route 78, and Villa Rica is 10 miles (16 km) to the west. Hiram is 9 miles (14 km) to the north via SR 92. Interstate 20 passes south of downtown, leading east 22 miles (35 km) to downtown Atlanta and west 125 miles (201 km) to Birmingham, Alabama. I-20 provides access to the city from exits 34, 36, and 37.

According to the United States Census Bureau, Douglasville has a total area of 22.6 square miles (58.5 km), of which 22.5 square miles (58.2 km2) is land and 0.1 square miles (0.3 km), or 0.58%, is water.

Douglasville has an elevation of 1,209 ft (369 m) above sea level.

As of the 2020 United States Census, there were 34,650 people, 12,675 households, and 7,833 families residing in the city.

As of the census of 2010, there were 30,961 people, 11,627 households, and 7,692 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,376 inhabitants per square mile (531/km). There were 13,163 housing units at an average density of 585.0 per square mile (225.9/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 55.9% African American, 36.0% White (33.4% Non-Hispanic White), 0.2% Native American, 1.8% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 3.3% from other races, and 2.8% from two or more races. 7.2% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There were 11,627 households, out of which 36.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 39.3% were married couples living together, 21.7% had a female householder with no husband present, and 33.8% were non-families. 28.3% of all households were made up of individuals, and 5.4% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.58 and the average family size was 3.18.

In the city, the population was spread out, with 28.3% under the age of 18, 9.5% from 18 to 24, 33.2% from 25 to 44, 22.2% from 45 to 64, and 6.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 32.7 years. For every 100 females, there were 87.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 83.3 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $47,596, and the median income for a family was $54,375. Males had a median income of $45,933 versus $39,675 for females. The per capita income for the city was $26,002. 15.9% of the population and 14.1% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 22.2% of those under the age of 18 and 15.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

As of the census of 2000, there were 20,065 people, 7,286 households, and 5,078 families residing in the city. The population density was 938.5 inhabitants per square mile (362.4/km). There were 7,903 housing units at an average density of 369.6 per square mile (142.7/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 63.84% White, 30.29% African American, 0.31% Native American, 1.73% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 1.69% from other races, and 2.13% from two or more races. 3.99% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There were 7,286 households, out of which 38.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 48.2% were married couples living together, 16.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.3% were non-families. 22.8% of all households were made up of individuals, and 5.6% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.68 and the average family size was 3.16.

In the city, the population was spread out, with 28.3% under the age of 18, 11.1% from 18 to 24, 34.4% from 25 to 44, 19.6% from 45 to 64, and 6.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 31 years. For every 100 females, there were 94.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 91.0 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $45,289, and the median income for a family was $52,340. Males had a median income of $37,464 versus $27,038 for females. The per capita income for the city was $22,283. 12.2% of the population and 10.1% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 17.3% of those under the age of 18 and 8.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.