Kinda wish Savannah was GA's capital (Atlanta, Marietta: crime, hotel, neighborhoods)

[TakeAhike]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Agreed. Having a capital means nothing as far as population goes. The factors that led to Atlanta becoming Georgia's largest city probably would have occurred even if this was not the capital

According to my Dad, who grew up in Savannah between WW1 and WW2 many felt that there were more opportunities for the future in Atlanta. Railroads were built across the state to transport goods shipped into the port/Savannah and geographically I suppose TPTB decided the Atlanta area was 'central' ??

At any rate a more progressive attitude seemed to prevail.

[koko339]

Originally Posted by arjay57

By the way -- and I know I sound like a broken record on this topic -- Savannah's superb walkability and lovely urban feel is the result of its concentrated blocks of lowrise buildings, many of them one and two stories. Tall buildings have nothing to do with it, since there are none.

So I will say it once again: the thing that would do most to urbanize Atlanta in the coming decades is lowrise and midrise development. We have enough skyscrapers to last us a long, long time. Let's hope planners and developers keep this in mind. Look to Savannah!

So so SO true! The best cities (imho) are ones with dense packs of low-medium height buildings. Manhattan's great, but my favorite parts of it are tellingly Greenwich Village, SoHo, and other relatively low rise districts. Unfortunately, this couldn't be mandated in Atlanta. The developers are too in bed with government officials.

[atlantagreg30127]

It's already been said in previous posts, but Savannah was not only "planned" but was also supposedly planned heavily to be Georgia's "big city" by the early leaders of the City. One to rival and and all other port cities (or even NYC). Atlanta was just a bunch of new rail lines (later) that got slapped in the middle of nowhere (at the time) for distribution, but of course rail overtook shipping and poof - history. Supposedly that's why the street layout in Atlanta is like a handful fo spaghetti that was just thrown on a plate - even while the City grew, they never expected it to keep growing, and growing, and growing.. and by the time they realized "oops, it's gonna be BIG", it was of course too late to do much about the street layout, etc.

I do like Savannah overall. I have to admit I'm more partial to Charleston (larger, cleaner in the historic district, etc), but the two of them together make for a really good short vacation.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Quickly now...

I love Savannah, too. One of my all time favorite cities--in the world (and I'm a world traveler).


After the Revolutionary Era...the state's centers of population kept moving further inland. There is actually much better farmland inland. The Piedmont region of Georgia and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Southwest Georgia) has the best (or at least better) farmland of Georgia.

Georgia's capital was moved east to Louisville. Then further north and east to Milledgeville. And then finally to Atlanta in 1868. This followed the the population movement of Georgia.

Georgia's coast and Savannah are beautiful, but Georgia's "Heartland" (farming, industry, textiles, etc.) has historically centered on the Piedmont Plateau and the Fall Line--and to an extent towards southwest Georgia.

Others will chime in--I gave you some of it in a nutshell.

Should be west.

[RandyWatson13]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

As a native Georgian, the question I've always had is: WHY WAS THE CAPITAL MOVED FROM MILLEDGEVILLE? Much like Savannah, Milledgeville was a planned city, carved from Indian territory with the distinct purpose of serving as the capital. Planners created wide streets and public squares radiating from a gothic capitol building sitting high on a hill (all of which remains today, BTW ... Milledgeville is LOVELY). In fact, Milledgeville was considered a model city -- educated, cultural, modern for the day. So why, after 60 years, did state leaders up and relocate the seat of state government to Atlanta -- a provincial backwater more akin to a wild west frontier town, especially during the era of Reconstruction? That I've never understood. And wouldn't it have made more sense for Georgia government to have remained dead center in the middle of the state, rather than being concentrated in the northern third? No doubt, this would have contributed to our state's population being more evenly distributed as well methinks.

Milledgeville is horrid. I've been there a few times and it had no charm to me, just a small city in the middle of nowhere. Amazing that the MLK blvd there looks as bad as the MLK blvd in Atlanta. Glad the city isn't there.

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

I do like Savannah overall. I have to admit I'm more partial to Charleston (larger, cleaner in the historic district, etc), but the two of them together make for a really good short vacation.

Charleston is fantastic. Rather elderly but a great city.

[bizchick86]

Originally Posted by koko339

So so SO true! The best cities (imho) are ones with dense packs of low-medium height buildings. Manhattan's great, but my favorite parts of it are tellingly Greenwich Village, SoHo, and other relatively low rise districts. Unfortunately, this couldn't be mandated in Atlanta. The developers are too in bed with government officials.

Co-sign with both of you guys. I don't love Frisco, NYC, or DC for the tall buildings, or Savannah for that matter. It's the convenience of having amenities in walking distance and an urbanity that lends to more people being active and outside and not constantly in the isolated world of their automobile.

I get that feeling of liveliness from hood to hood in Atlanta (as I noted earlier, the little pockets of urbanity in Va-Hi, Inman Park, parts of midtown, etc), but the concentration of it in Savannah made me feel like I was in an actual city. Tall buildings do not make a city. It involves that feeling of community and the visibility and sociability of its residents.

It'd be hard to take me away from Atlanta, but on an aesthetic level and with its vibrancy I definitely like Savannah more.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bizchick86

I get that feeling of liveliness from hood to hood in Atlanta (as I noted earlier, the little pockets of urbanity in Va-Hi, Inman Park, parts of midtown, etc), but the concentration of it in Savannah made me feel like I was in an actual city. Tall buildings do not make a city. It involves that feeling of community and the visibility and sociability of its residents.

Yep. Unfortunately, even in our little pockets of neighborhood retail such as Virginia-Highland and Inman Park, the development is sporadic and only a few blocks long, and rarely even one full block in depth. We are definitely starved for more neighborhood commercial zoning.

It's going to be a tough slog, however. The Atlanta area -- even most areas within the city limits -- were laid out with the automobile as the dominant means of transportation. There are spots where you can walk to bars and restaurants, but it's still difficult to find many places where you can carry out a full range of activities sans car. Downtown, Midtown, Decatur and even parts of Buckhead are getting there, and there are bright spots at Perimeter, Smyrna, Mayretta and several other locations. Too bad the country got hammered by the recession just as momentum was building.

[TakeAhike]

Originally Posted by bizchick86

Co-sign with both of you guys. I don't love Frisco, NYC, or DC for the tall buildings, or Savannah for that matter. It's the convenience of having amenities in walking distance and an urbanity that lends to more people being active and outside and not constantly in the isolated world of their automobile.

I get that feeling of liveliness from hood to hood in Atlanta (as I noted earlier, the little pockets of urbanity in Va-Hi, Inman Park, parts of midtown, etc), but the concentration of it in Savannah made me feel like I was in an actual city. Tall buildings do not make a city. It involves that feeling of community and the visibility and sociability of its residents.

It'd be hard to take me away from Atlanta, but on an aesthetic level and with its vibrancy I definitely like Savannah more.

It occurs to me that many of my favorite cities are located near water. I enjoyed living on Whitemarsh/Wilmington islands--not particularly walkable but the proximity to the water seemed to lessen the daily stress considerably.

Economic growth was a major concern in Savannah in the early 90's and when I visited a few years ago I noticed more development---for better or worse.

[Newsboy]

Curiosity got the best of me and I did a little reading / research on why the capital was moved from Milledgeville: Turns out, the city fathers of Atlanta RECRUITED IT to boost the fledgling city's status / influence and even offered to pay to build a new state capitol and other government buildings if the legislature agreed. And voila -- the rest is history!

How incredibly typical of "can-do" Atlanta, and what better example of the self-promotion and sense of importance that have propelled Atlanta from the very beginning?

georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/capital.htm

[Newsboy]

Curiosity got the best of me and I did a little reading / research on why the capital was moved from Milledgeville: Turns out, the city fathers of Atlanta RECRUITED IT to boost the fledgling city's status / influence and even offered to pay to build a new state capitol and other government buildings if the legislature agreed. And voila -- the rest is history!

How incredibly typical of "can-do" Atlanta, and what better example of the self-promotion and sense of importance that have propelled Atlanta from the very beginning?

www.georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/capital.htm (broken link)