Why does Atlanta have such high quality of living? (Savannah: schools, university)

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by gerrythesnake

I think all the trees and hills make us automatically think the quality of living is higher.

Lots of places have that.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Lots of places have that.

They may have hills and trees but they don't have our hills and trees.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

But the reason that there is so much growth to the north of Atlanta (as opposed to any other direction away from the city) is because of the presence of the 2 manmade lakes (Lakes Allatoona and Lanier for water supply and recreation) and the overwhelming natural beauty and very-nearby presence of the heavily-wooded foothills and mountain ranges of the Southern Appalachian Mountains that are located to the north of the city.

The presence of Lakes Allatoona and Lanier as a source of water supply and recreation combined with the natural beauty of the heavily-wooded high foothills and low mountains of the very southern end of the Appalachian Mountain chain is the reason why the I-75/I-575, GA 400 and I-85/I-985 corridors to the north of the city/metro have experienced so much explosive growth in the years and decades since the end of World War II.

The areas to the north are more attractive and the city...much less so attractive. No appealing body of water near it. If I were there back then to make the decision, I'd put the city center near Stone Mountain or at least along the Chattahoochee.

Being located in an area of much natural beauty very near the heavily-wooded foothills and mountain ranges of the Southern Appalachians on the Eastern Seaboard has made Atlanta the envy of some in a competing city/metro region of similar size like Dallas, which like Atlanta is landlocked and not immediately located near any major body of water.

But unlike Atlanta, Dallas does not have the natural beauty of Atlanta's near-Appalachian location, nor does Dallas have the direct cultural and social link with the prestige and culture of the Northeastern U.S. that Atlanta has because of its location relative to the East Coast and the transplants that have migrated (and continue to migrate) to Atlanta in extremely heavy numbers from the well-established major cities of the Northeastern U.S.

First and foremost, Atlanta's location is likely the key reason for the immense economic success that it has enjoyed as a metro region over the past 6 decades or so.

I'd remind you that Dallas grew to be much larger and has man-made lakes of its own much closer to its city center. And right now Dallas enjoys an economy that most places including Atlanta would envy.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by arjay57

They may have hills and trees but they don't have our hills and trees.

Nor do we have theirs.

[kayrob]

Maybe it's the beautiful "Sun Belt" weather that was such a draw.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

But what's so special about that precise spot? Nothing feels special about it at ground level. You'd think they'd want to be next to a river for an immediate water supply. And besides...would Athens have been totally wrong? And if you want a point to get around the Appalachians... Birmingham suits that.

This goes into a bit more detail: Atlanta and its interesting geographic position - Atlanta Architecture | Examiner.com

The comments under this article give some further explanation as well: http://ssl.marketplace.org/topics/li...gainst-atlanta

It would also explain why Birmingham, which occupies a valley and is flanked by mountain ridges, would be less suitable for a critical hub of such importance.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I'd remind you that Dallas grew to be much larger and has man-made lakes of its own much closer to its city center. And right now Dallas enjoys an economy that most places including Atlanta would envy.

Not Dallas; Dallas-Fort Worth. If we had Charlotte one county over, we'd be just as large too.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

This goes into a bit more detail: Atlanta and its interesting geographic position - Atlanta Architecture | Examiner.com

The comments under this article give some further explanation as well: Don't bet against Atlanta | Marketplace.org

It would also explain why Birmingham, which occupies a valley and is flanked by mountain ridges, would be less suitable for a critical hub of such importance.

Still seems to me that Atlanta could have been founded a mile north or south or even some other spot. Maybe Tuscaloosa would be better and what's so wrong with Athens?

Besides, if you have to pull out a map and judge from the relative location of other things, it doesn't impart a sense of place to Atlanta. Nothing special from its immediate surroundings. Hopefully a place like Memphis has more going for it than just being ideally situated as an air cargo hub.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Not Dallas; Dallas-Fort Worth. If we had Charlotte one county over, we'd be just as large too.

That's just a technical municipal issue. When I talk about Atlanta that includes Marietta, Alpharetta, etc. "Dallas" also includes many other places like Irving and Arlington to name a few. We also talk about Minneapolis but that also includes St Paul.

[Strangejelly]

If this place sucks so bad why the he l do people comment in here? Why don't people who hate it leave let the rest of us wallow in this "hell-hole".