Does Atlanta have the prestige of other large metros?

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by oobanks

Not Saying Atlanta hasnt made a name for itself, because it has. Just a little too much too soon. Much of what has become Atlanta came in the past 20 to 25 years so its new and kinda just thrown up. Just not alot of real solid history like in a Chicago, NewYork, Phily, Sanfran etc.

I totally disagree about Atlanta not having a solid history. The cities you mention have been larger longer, but that doesn't discount the rich history of the Atlanta area. And as someone else already pointed out, Atlanta has been growing tremendously for decades prior to the past 20 years. It was not an insignificant city even in the early 1900s - have you been to downtown Atlanta? You can easily see A LOT of history there.

I misread your earlier post...I though you were reposting comments from the OP in another thread. So your the one with all the random capitalizations.

[oobanks]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

I totally disagree about Atlanta not having a solid history. The cities you mention have been larger longer, but that doesn't discount the rich history of the Atlanta area. And as someone else already pointed out, Atlanta has been growing tremendously for decades prior to the past 20 years. It was not an insignificant city even in the early 1900s - have you been to downtown Atlanta? You can easily see A LOT of history there.

I misread your earlier post...I though you were reposting comments from the OP in another thread. So your the one with all the random capitalizations.

Its all opinion here,, no hard feelings.. Every one like what they like and have different views thats all.

[arjay57]

In my view, New York, LA and Chicago are in a class by themselves.

After that, I'd think of these three as especially important: DC (the national capital), Boston (history plus Harvard and MIT) and San Francisco (romanticism and tech center).

Just after that, I'd put Houston, Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, Philadelphia, Miami and Phoenix.

Then I'd say New Orleans, San Diego, Austin, Las Vegas, Portland, San Antonio, Minneapolis and several other contenders.

Of course there are good arguments pro and con to change any of these.

[afdinatl]

Savannah >>>> Indy

U ?

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by oobanks

Its all opinion here,, no hard feelings.. Every one like what they like and have different views thats all.

True, but the history of a place is not someone's opinion. Atlanta has a full, rich history that doesn't go back as far as a NYC or Boston, but that doesn't diminish the significance of it.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by arjay57

In my view, New York, LA and Chicago are in a class by themselves.

NYC is certainly in a class by itself, and I can see including LA right under it. Chicago isn't in the same class as these two, but a very fine city in its own right. I think Chicago should be classed with San Francisco, DC, and Boston.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

NYC is certainly in a class by itself, and I can see including LA right under it. Chicago isn't in the same class as these two, but a very fine city in its own right. I think Chicago should be classed with San Francisco, DC, and Boston.

Well, I could see that, too.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by oobanks

Its all opinion here,, no hard feelings.. Every one like what they like and have different views thats all.

The whole thread is conjecture, starting with the term 'prestigious'.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

The whole thread is conjecture, starting with the term 'prestigious'.

No doubt about that, LD.

I was thinking of the word in terms of "prominence" but obviously that is subject to interpretation, too.

[atlantagreg30127]

Similar discussions have been discussed in the city vs city forum where something like this belongs. Search that room for similar discussions.