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.
Well parts of Austin and San Antonio are just as rugged as Atlanta.
We have arrived back at people using Atlanta's terrain as a reason for everything but I just don't think that is. For instance where I live here in Augusta I notice many of the same sporadic layout and road problems. Anyone that is familiar with Augusta knows that it is much flatter than Atlanta, so what is their excuse? This is just the way Georgia develops itself. We just need to accept that.
It's not necessarily "just the way that Georgia develops itself".
In addition to the heavily-wooded and rolling-to-hilly-to-mountainous terrain in North Georgia, another major factor in Atlanta's sparsely-developed arterial road network and lower-density development patterns is the much more libertarian view that Georgia culture takes towards land ownership rights.
It is Georgia's much more libertarian view of land rights (much more libertarian than even Texas, which itself is quite libertarian) that made the development of a land grid of rural and exurban roads an impossibility after Georgia society had become largely dependent upon ancient Native American walking paths to develop a rural road network for horses, wagons, buggies in the 19th Century and later a rural, exurban and suburban road network for automobiles in the 20th Century.
Nobody really truly has a problem with Atlanta's metropolitan road network and lower-density development patterns but you. You are the one that needs to accept the societal, cultural and developmental differences between Georgia and Texas.
You seem to think that because Atlanta, Dallas and Houston are all each automobile-dependent Sunbelt metro areas that Atlanta should have the same exact road network and development patterns as Dallas and Houston...
...Despite the obvious differences with Atlanta being a Piedmont/Southern Appalachians city, Dallas being a Southern Plains city and Houston being a Gulf Coastal Plains city.
Things like the geography, topography, culture and terrain of where a city/metro is located directly affect development patterns. If you cannot accept that, than no one can help you to understand that.
Atlanta cannot have the road network and development patterns of Dallas and Houston no more than Dallas and Houston can have the road network and development patterns of Atlanta.
It's not necessarily "just the way that Georgia develops itself".
In addition to the heavily-wooded and rolling-to-hilly-to-mountainous terrain in North Georgia, another major factor in Atlanta's sparsely-developed arterial road network and lower-density development patterns is the much more libertarian view that Georgia culture takes towards land ownership rights.
It is Georgia's much more libertarian view of land rights (much more libertarian than even Texas, which itself is quite libertarian) that made the development of a land grid of rural and exurban roads an impossibility after Georgia society had become largely dependent upon ancient Native American walking paths to develop a rural road network for horses, wagons, buggies in the 19th Century and later a rural, exurban and suburban road network for automobiles in the 20th Century.
Nobody really truly has a problem with Atlanta's metropolitan road network and lower-density development patterns but you. You are the one that needs to accept the societal, cultural and developmental differences between Georgia and Texas.
You seem to think that because Atlanta, Dallas and Houston are all each automobile-dependent Sunbelt metro areas that Atlanta should have the same exact road network and development patterns as Dallas and Houston...
...Despite the obvious differences with Atlanta being a Piedmont/Southern Appalachians city, Dallas being a Southern Plains city and Houston being a Gulf Coastal Plains city.
Things like the geography, topography, culture and terrain of where a city/metro is located directly affect development patterns. If you cannot accept that, than no one can help you to understand that.
Atlanta cannot have the road network and development patterns of Dallas and Houston no more than Dallas and Houston can have the road network and development patterns of Atlanta.
Well explained!I agree.Part of the reason Atlanta is more physically attractive is because the roads are curvy,hill and not staright and wide.
Sure it definatly does not make it easier to get around but its not for lack of thought or engineering.
It's not necessarily "just the way that Georgia develops itself".
In addition to the heavily-wooded and rolling-to-hilly-to-mountainous terrain in North Georgia, another major factor in Atlanta's sparsely-developed arterial road network and lower-density development patterns is the much more libertarian view that Georgia culture takes towards land ownership rights.
It is Georgia's much more libertarian view of land rights (much more libertarian than even Texas, which itself is quite libertarian) that made the development of a land grid of rural and exurban roads an impossibility after Georgia society had become largely dependent upon ancient Native American walking paths to develop a rural road network for horses, wagons, buggies in the 19th Century and later a rural, exurban and suburban road network for automobiles in the 20th Century.
Nobody really truly has a problem with Atlanta's metropolitan road network and lower-density development patterns but you. You are the one that needs to accept the societal, cultural and developmental differences between Georgia and Texas.
You seem to think that because Atlanta, Dallas and Houston are all each automobile-dependent Sunbelt metro areas that Atlanta should have the same exact road network and development patterns as Dallas and Houston...
...Despite the obvious differences with Atlanta being a Piedmont/Southern Appalachians city, Dallas being a Southern Plains city and Houston being a Gulf Coastal Plains city.
Things like the geography, topography, culture and terrain of where a city/metro is located directly affect development patterns. If you cannot accept that, than no one can help you to understand that.
Atlanta cannot have the road network and development patterns of Dallas and Houston no more than Dallas and Houston can have the road network and development patterns of Atlanta.
You keep repeating this without providing a source that proves it. It may sound logical but is it fact? Show me.
The forested part makes a lot of sense. A lot of East Texas cities are less gridded. I will concede to that.
Well explained!I agree.Part of the reason Atlanta is more physically attractive is because the roads are curvy,hill and not staright and wide.
Sure it definatly does not make it easier to get around but its not for lack of thought or engineering.
Well parts of Austin and San Antonio are just as rugged as Atlanta.
We have arrived back at people using Atlanta's terrain as a reason for everything but I just don't think that is. For instance where I live here in Augusta I notice many of the same sporadic layout and road problems. Anyone that is familiar with Augusta knows that it is much flatter than Atlanta, so what is their excuse? This is just the way Georgia develops itself. We just need to accept that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1
Have you been to Columbus?Savannah?Those cities are laid out fairly well.I would say Macon but you can kinda tell because it is where the Piedmont region ends and drops off.
Go to Chattanooga.You ssee the same sporadic type development aswell as in Nashville.
Terrain absolutely has very much to do with it, and this is not unique to Atlanta. I really don't understand why Metro Atlanta is getting so much grief over this, because practically every Piedmont city in the Southeast -- and indeed the entire eastern seaboard -- has the same serpentine, spaghetti-like road patterns! A quick glance at Google Maps proves this point.
The obvious exceptions are cities like Savannah, Houston, New Orleans and Miami, which are on flat coastal plains, and cities in the Midwest like Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis which are relatively flat and have very little diversity in elevation.
LOL @ whoever just gave me a rep point along with this ridiculous theory:
I think ATL gets more grief because it goes out of its way to oppose land reform due to the Tea Party and anti federal Confederate attitudes. It's worse here than anywhere else in the South or the Northeast. ATL rejects more mass transit for sprawl.
1. The Tea Party in Georgia is pretty much dead. They lost their shirts in the 2012 elections and are not even a player in the 2014 midterms.
2. The Confederacy ceased to exist 149 years ago.
LOL @ whoever just gave me a rep point along with this ridiculous theory:
I think ATL gets more grief because it goes out of its way to oppose land reform due to the Tea Party and anti federal Confederate attitudes. It's worse here than anywhere else in the South or the Northeast. ATL rejects more mass transit for sprawl.
1. The Tea Party in Georgia is pretty much dead. They lost their shirts in the 2012 elections and are not even a player in the 2014 midterms.
2. The Confederacy ceased to exist 149 years ago.
It is Georgia's much more libertarian view of land rights (much more libertarian than even Texas, which itself is quite libertarian) that made the development of a land grid of rural and exurban roads an impossibility after Georgia society had become largely dependent upon ancient Native American walking paths to develop a rural road network for horses, wagons, buggies in the 19th Century and later a rural, exurban and suburban road network for automobiles in the 20th Century.
Well said B2R!
I can't remember what it is called, but in my Cultural Geography class in college (the absolute BEST class I ever took BTW) there was a phrase for this style of development. I keep coming up with "ways and means", but I know its not that Anyways, whatever it was called essentially was exactly what you explained. Land was delineated by natural features such as rivers and hills since it is was developed earlier and they didn't have the means to do accurate surveys. So roads are defined by the natural curvature of hills and water. And that is EXACTLY what makes Georgia a beautiful and interesting place to drive through. Who the hell wants straight lines plowing straight through nature?
If you ever look at a map, you can tell where a place has interesting natural features by the contours of the roads. Its how I plan my drives if I can take my time. Straight lines = nothing special.
I can't remember what it is called, but in my Cultural Geography class in college (the absolute BEST class I ever took BTW) there was a phrase for this style of development. I keep coming up with "ways and means", but I know its not that Anyways, whatever it was called essentially was exactly what you explained. Land was delineated by natural features such as rivers and hills since it is was developed earlier and they didn't have the means to do accurate surveys. So roads are defined by the natural curvature of hills and water. And that is EXACTLY what makes Georgia a beautiful and interesting place to drive through. Who the hell wants straight lines plowing straight through nature?
If you ever look at a map, you can tell where a place has interesting natural features by the contours of the roads. Its how I plan my drives if I can take my time. Straight lines = nothing special.
The Eastern Continental Divide bisects North Georgia from SW to NE, and Metro Atlanta straddles this geological feature. That basically means that all rain that falls on the NW side of Atlanta flows into the Gulf of Mexico via the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers, and all rain that falls on the SE side of Atlanta flows into the Atlantic Ocean via the Oconee and Oculmugee rivers (which merge to form the Altamaha River).
Because of this, many of Georgia's early roads followed the flow of rivers and other waterways -- either NE to SW or vice versa. It wasn't until the late 1800s and the evolution of modern engineering that bridges across large rivers became possible. And even then, they were mainly built for RR.
That's why there were so many early ferry services across the Chattahoochee and other rivers -- and thus why so many roads in metro Atlanta to this day have the word FERRY in their names. It only made sense that when automobiles came along and modern roads began to be built, that they were built along these historic routes. To this day, there are remarkably few major routes that cross the Chattahoochee (which in fact cuts a deep gorge in some places).
And this phenomenon of historic road patterns can be found throughout Metro Atlanta. Look at a map of Gwinnett County: Most of the major highways run diagonally across the county, SW to NE -- parallel to the Chattahoochee!! Down in Fayette County, oddly enough, there is only one major East-West connection to this day (Ga Hay 54) because Whitewater Creek cuts a diagonal across the county from NW to SE and historically there were no bridges big enough to cross it (Fayette County being very rural and poor until the modern era).
I'm sure if you closely examined every county in metro Atlanta, you'd find similar historic reasons for modern road patterns. These are the fascinating realities of our region that outsiders clearly don't understand, much less appreciate.
Last edited by Newsboy; 05-25-2014 at 10:33 PM..
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.
