Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to down anyone's choice of cities...but I have been to both Dallas and Houston, and despite all the issues here, I still feel that Atlanta is a better city...
You serious? Our topography is better, our airport has more direct flights,our nightlife is better, our last call is later, we are closer to real beaches, we have trees and a real park downtown, we are near the mountains, we have more entertainment, our rail system is better, we have more foot traffic downtown, our skyline is better, more things to do for professionals,etc
Atlanta certainly is not a flat but the topography isn't that great. Stone Mountain is the best feature and its 15 miles away from downtown. And how is Atlanta's nightlife better than Dallas' or Houston's? Quality beaches are debatable but I wouldn't describe Atlanta as has having proximity to beaches. Houston more or less is a Gulf city. All three have parks in the city and even Texas has trees albeit they are smaller and less dense. The more mountainous areas near Atlanta are in North Carolina and Tennessee. But even from Dallas you can get to Oklahoma and Arkansas for some mountains. Atlanta has more entertainment than Dallas and Houston...how? What can you (or professionals) do in Atlanta that you can't in Dallas or Houston? Dallas' and Houston's skylines can compare to Atlanta's. Dallas' DART is comparable to MARTA's.
One thing I like about Dallas is that they have a lot of lakes, large and small, in the city's vicinity.
Atlanta certainly is not a flat but the topography isn't that great. Stone Mountain is the best feature and its 15 miles away from downtown. And how is Atlanta's nightlife better than Dallas' or Houston's? Quality beaches are debatable but I wouldn't describe Atlanta as has having proximity to beaches. Houston more or less is a Gulf city. All three have parks in the city and even Texas has trees albeit they are smaller and less dense. The more mountainous areas near Atlanta are in North Carolina and Tennessee. But even from Dallas you can get to Oklahoma and Arkansas for some mountains. Atlanta has more entertainment than Dallas and Houston...how? What can you (or professionals) do in Atlanta that you can't in Dallas or Houston? Dallas' and Houston's skylines can compare to Atlanta's. Dallas' DART is comparable to MARTA's.
One thing I like about Dallas is that they have a lot of lakes, large and small, in the city's vicinity.
A lot of stuff Tony said is opinion so I'm not going to speak on it.
Dallas DART is light rail, MARTA is heavy rail I just had to get that out the way,
But in regards to topography Atlanta is not Seattle but Atlanta is one the hilliest major metros in country. There are a number of low mountains in metro Atlanta alone, Bear Mountain, 2,297 feet, Pine Log Mountain 2,260 feet, Sawnee Mountain 1,946 ft, Kennesaw Mountain 1,808 ft, Hog Mountain 1,670 feet, Stone Mountain 1,686 ft, Sweat Mountain 1,640 ft, Little Kennesaw Mountain at 1,600 ft, Hickory Log Mountain 1,545 feet, Lost Mountain 1,512 feet, Polecat Mountain 1,503 feet, Blackjack Mountain 1,378 ft, Bufford Mountain 1,325 feet, Pine Mountain 1292 ft, Snellville Mountain 1,158 feet, Cassville Mountain 1,106 feet, Collins Mountain 1,099 feet, Walker Mountain 1,089 ft and etc.
North Georgia there are 30 mountain peaks above 4,000 ft here's top 5
Rabun Bald 4,695 feet, Dicks Knob 4,623 feet, Brasstown Bald 4,534 feet, Blood Mountain 4,446 feet, Tray Mountain 4,419 feet,
Oklahoma there are 6 mountain peaks above 4,000 ft here's top 5
Robbers Roost Peak 4,469 feet, Castle Rock Pillar 4,288 feet, Winchester Mesa 4,144 feet, Sugarloaf Mountain 4,124 feet,
Arkansas there are no peaks above 4,000 ft here's top 5
Magazine Mountain, 2,749, Signal Hill 2,749 feet, Black Fork 2,661 feet, Blue Mountain 2,612 feet, Cameron Bluff 2,543 feet.
Yeah the Mountains in North Carolina are bigger than the ones in Georgia. But the Appalachian end in Georgia and Alabama, the mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma aren't even as tall or numerous as the ones in Georgia itself. In fact the 3 highest peaks in metro Atlanta are not that far off from being comparable to top 5 highest peaks in Arkansas actually. Living metro Atlanta topography in the Piedmont is not that far off like living in the Ozark itself for a comparison.
Powell Mountain 3,816 feet is the 50th highest peak in Georgia but it's a 1,000 ft highier than anything in Arkansas. Again Atlanta is no Seattle but You can't compare Dallas access to mountains with Atlanta at all, and you can't ignore Georgia's mountains if your going bring up Arkansas and Oklahoma.
And I like that DFW has a lot large lakes too, a lot of people don't know that.
Atlanta certainly is not a flat but the topography isn't that great. Stone Mountain is the best feature and its 15 miles away from downtown. And how is Atlanta's nightlife better than Dallas' or Houston's? Quality beaches are debatable but I wouldn't describe Atlanta as has having proximity to beaches. Houston more or less is a Gulf city. All three have parks in the city and even Texas has trees albeit they are smaller and less dense. The more mountainous areas near Atlanta are in North Carolina and Tennessee. But even from Dallas you can get to Oklahoma and Arkansas for some mountains. Atlanta has more entertainment than Dallas and Houston...how? What can you (or professionals) do in Atlanta that you can't in Dallas or Houston? Dallas' and Houston's skylines can compare to Atlanta's. Dallas' DART is comparable to MARTA's.
One thing I like about Dallas is that they have a lot of lakes, large and small, in the city's vicinity.
Yes, Stone Mountain is something to envy.
As far as beaches go, there's nothing glamorous along the Texas coast, but Houston simply being a coastal city is good enough for me. Local seafood and water recreation are things that neither Atlanta or Dallas can claim.
With trees, yes, they are shorter in Dallas, but Houston is very lush with plenty of tall trees, heavily concentrated in the northern half the area, which can easily compete with Atlanta.
As far as beaches go, there's nothing glamorous along the Texas coast, but Houston simply being a coastal city is good enough for me. Local seafood and water recreation are things that neither Atlanta or Dallas can claim.
With trees, yes, they are shorter in Dallas, but Houston is very lush with plenty of tall trees, heavily concentrated in the northern half the area, which can easily compete with Atlanta.
Some areas like the woodlands some what, most of Houston no, most trees around Houston are like DFW but maybe a little denser. And Houston topography is Also much like DFW. And while Dallas is not a coastal city, DFW as the other poster pointed out DFW does have a lot of large lakes. DFW has like 10 more Lake Laniers.
Atlanta never has and never will peak for the simple reason that the poverty level here is astronomical. Older folks seem to take up all the jobs that teenagers work in other cities in the midwest and west that I've travelled to. A lot of people in Atlanta were struggling even during the 90's and during the 2006 boom.
Similarly, New Orleans never did and never will return to it's peak 100 years ago until that entitlement population disapears.
Hopefully, through more natural disasters, and a massive economic disaster will things correct and people finally figure out (the hard way hopefully) not to have babies. There will be no welfare by the end of the decade. There's going to be a major correction going on the next 20 years in american society.
Some areas like the woodlands some what, most of Houston no, most trees around Houston are like DFW but maybe a little denser. And Houston topography is Also much like DFW. And while Dallas is not a coastal city, DFW as the other poster pointed out DFW does have a lot of large lakes. DFW has like 10 more Lake Laniers.
Sorry, chi, but that isn't true. The most populous trees in much of Houston are pines and Chinese tallows, and not just in the northern burbs but well into the east and west sides. Dallas is mostly short oaks. The trees start getting consistently short on the south side of the city, which is dominated by coastal plain. Even still, the green backdrop of Houston is very lush, with, quite possibly, the most diverse assortment of flora of any major city in the south; everything from pines to oaks, maples, palms, and even banana trees.
And the topography of both cities actually aren't all that similar. Dallas is on upland prairie, and the terrain is actually quite rolling. Houston, like Chicago and New Orleans, is pretty much dead flat.
Dallas DART is light rail, MARTA is heavy rail I just had to get that out the way,
But in regards to topography Atlanta is not Seattle but Atlanta is one the hilliest major metros in country. There are a number of low mountains in metro Atlanta alone, Bear Mountain, 2,297 feet, Pine Log Mountain 2,260 feet, Sawnee Mountain 1,946 ft, Kennesaw Mountain 1,808 ft, Hog Mountain 1,670 feet, Stone Mountain 1,686 ft, Sweat Mountain 1,640 ft, Little Kennesaw Mountain at 1,600 ft, Hickory Log Mountain 1,545 feet, Lost Mountain 1,512 feet, Polecat Mountain 1,503 feet, Blackjack Mountain 1,378 ft, Bufford Mountain 1,325 feet, Pine Mountain 1292 ft, Snellville Mountain 1,158 feet, Cassville Mountain 1,106 feet, Collins Mountain 1,099 feet, Walker Mountain 1,089 ft and etc.
North Georgia there are 30 mountain peaks above 4,000 ft here's top 5
Rabun Bald 4,695 feet, Dicks Knob 4,623 feet, Brasstown Bald 4,534 feet, Blood Mountain 4,446 feet, Tray Mountain 4,419 feet,
Oklahoma there are 6 mountain peaks above 4,000 ft here's top 5
Robbers Roost Peak 4,469 feet, Castle Rock Pillar 4,288 feet, Winchester Mesa 4,144 feet, Sugarloaf Mountain 4,124 feet,
Arkansas there are no peaks above 4,000 ft here's top 5
Magazine Mountain, 2,749, Signal Hill 2,749 feet, Black Fork 2,661 feet, Blue Mountain 2,612 feet, Cameron Bluff 2,543 feet.
Yeah the Mountains in North Carolina are bigger than the ones in Georgia. But the Appalachian end in Georgia and Alabama, the mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma aren't even as tall or numerous as the ones in Georgia itself. In fact the 3 highest peaks in metro Atlanta are not that far off from being comparable to top 5 highest peaks in Arkansas actually. Living metro Atlanta topography in the Piedmont is not that far off like living in the Ozark itself for a comparison.
Powell Mountain 3,816 feet is the 50th highest peak in Georgia but it's a 1,000 ft highier than anything in Arkansas. Again Atlanta is no Seattle but You can't compare Dallas access to mountains with Atlanta at all, and you can't ignore Georgia's mountains if your going bring up Arkansas and Oklahoma.
And I like that DFW has a lot large lakes too, a lot of people don't know that.
But altitude is not what is important. The mountain's or hill's rise from base to peak is what matters unless of course people crave the thinner air. But regardless, if you want hills and you live in Dallas, head for the Ozarks. And if you want serious mountains, even Georgia and the entire Appalachians won't do. I've also lived in the Alpine region of Europe.
Yeah, it is a feature most places should envy. Unfortunately Atlanta's center is so far away from it.
Quote:
As far as beaches go, there's nothing glamorous along the Texas coast, but Houston simply being a coastal city is good enough for me. Local seafood and water recreation are things that neither Atlanta or Dallas can claim.
Atlanta does have water recreation at Lake Lanier but it is a bit of a drive and lately we've had lake level problems. Suddenly we can see tree stumps and even formerly underwater towns I'd like to know the story of Lake Lanier and the process of swallowing entire towns to make it. I think Dallas has even larger lakes and much closer.
Quote:
With trees, yes, they are shorter in Dallas, but Houston is very lush with plenty of tall trees, heavily concentrated in the northern half the area, which can easily compete with Atlanta.
I recall visiting Pittsburgh in the summer years ago and was astonished by how lush and green its foliage was. Atlanta couldn't compare to that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to know the story of Lake Lanier and the process of swallowing entire towns to make it. I think Dallas has even larger lakes and much closer.
