Atlanta's national status (Bartow: real estate, construction, living)

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Maybe these are minor qualifications but a couple of points:

(1) In Atlanta, the suburbs were not created by the central city growing outward. The central city (downtown to Buckhead) has for the most part stayed put and become far more dense.

(2) The vast majority of the growth in the suburbs is new development that simply didn't exist before. Relatively little of it was transplanted from the central city.

(3) Most people who live in the suburbs work in the suburbs, not the city. Most people who live in the city also work in the suburbs.

MSA are 25% base As long as 25% of a county commute to a core of the city it's one MSA. Every single one of the 28 counties have a 25% commuter rate with Fulton.

When People move to Atlanta subanban counties they move there because it's Atlanta brand. Atlanta would be by far far far more dense if people didn't do this. Instead of moving to Atlanta they moving around the city. That the city outward growth. My family is originally from Chicago when I was young we move to Dekalb and Gwinnett Counties. That why it's the city growing out ward. that centrally what a metropolitan is the cities greater foot print.

[Indentured Servant]

Let me put it this way. If Russia only had 10 nuclear missles to fire at US population centers.....which cities or areas would they aim them at? Atlanta would likely be spared. Detroit would definately get taken out because of not only a larger population, but its industrial infrastructure also.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

MSA are 25% base As long as 25% of a county commute to a core of the city it's one MSA. Every single one of the 28 counties have a 25% commuter rate with Fulton.

When People move to Atlanta subanban counties they move there because it's Atlanta brand. Atlanta would be by far far far more dense if people didn't do this. Instead of moving to Atlanta they moving around the city. That the city outward growth. My family is originally from Chicago when I was young we move to Dekalb and Gwinnett Counties. That why it's the city growing out ward. that centrally what a metropolitan is the cities greater foot print.

I have to disagree with that. People move to Atlanta because of the area and not the Atlanta brand. People like the weather, the rolling hills, the big lots and yards, the job base or the demographic (many blacks like Atlanta because there are a lot of blacks in the area). Its not the city of Atlanta, proper, that is attracting people. Its the whole area. If it was the city that was so attractive, like SF, then people would be moving there and the density would be over 10,000 people per sqare mile by now.

[robertpolyglot]

There is, and will always continue to be, infill in Atlanta's core. Some people insist on living ITP. There are threads on Smyrna's growth, which touches the Perimeter but was previously refuted.

I think that outward growth is normal in cities that are inland and not adjacent to a body of water. There is no "huddling" near the water. Speaking of Chicago, the infill projects occur in or near the Loop, or along the lake, or close to it. When this is not the case, the city sprawls toward "nicer areas." In Atlanta's case, it's north -- toward the Piedmont and higher elevations. In Houston's case, it's north, toward the pinelands. In Denver, it's toward the Rockies, because those suburbs (Ken Caryl, etc.) are more scenic and look less like Kansas, to the east of the city.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

Let me put it this way. If Russia only had 10 nuclear missles to fire at US population centers.....which cities or areas would they aim them at? Atlanta would likely be spared. Detroit would definately get taken out because of not only a larger population, but its industrial infrastructure also.

It's been quite a while since I've seen it, but I remember a list that ranked those US cities that are most susceptible to terrorist attacks. I'll try to find it.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

...and that's what it is to the south, but it can't use that role to just shove other cities out of the way to say we're #5 in the nation.. Other cities have arguments and performances that are just as good as Atlanta's.

I'll admit that it gets close but Atlanta is sort of the focal point of the southeast. Atlanta is a popular choice for regional offices be they government or business. The other contenders get marginalized by places like NYC, LA, and DC. Atlanta is top dog of its region and that makes Atlanta appear that much more important.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Atlanta will eventually rise to the other cities' stature.

NYC, LA, and Chicago being seaside (and lakeside) cities gives them that something that Atlanta will never have. The lack of a nearby big body of water is a big minus for Atlanta. Fortunately, for Atlanta, being a seaside city in the South doesn't seem to have advantages except in Florida.

And being the nation's capital will bring both political and business focus to DC. Apparently, being close to the people who regulate you attracts companies to the DC metro. Plus DC will always have more culture and attractions than Atlanta. I think #5 is about as well as Atlanta can do.

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

The lack of a nearby big body of water is a big minus for Atlanta. Fortunately, for Atlanta, being a seaside city in the South doesn't seem to have advantages except in Florida.

And being the nation's capital will bring both political and business focus to DC. Apparently, being close to the people who regulate you attracts companies to the DC metro. Plus DC will always have more culture and attractions than Atlanta.

That's correct. When I lived there, the distance to water was the only hesitation I had about living in Atlanta. DC and the VA/MD suburbs are way more expensive, for an area that looks similar in architecture (other than the the master-planned DC core) and in vegetation, and has a similar summer. Being at the confluence of the Potomac and the Anacostia makes DC pretty boggy and uncomfortable in the summer. From DC, it's a schlep to get to the beach in Delaware or Maryland.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

Let me put it this way. If Russia only had 10 nuclear missles to fire at US population centers.....which cities or areas would they aim them at? Atlanta would likely be spared. Detroit would definately get taken out because of not only a larger population, but its industrial infrastructure also.

Atlanta is an important hub, yeah, using only 10 missiles...we're toast. A more interesting idea is with just 5 missiles. NYC, LA, Chicago, and DC for sure. I'd say Atlanta would be on the short list for the 5th city.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

... I think #5 is about as well as Atlanta can do.

Which is why I placed it there.