How "Cosmopolitan" Is Atlanta? (city)

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by mg83

Hip, Atlanta's a good 265 miles from the coast... Sao Paolo, Caracas, etc are about 20-45 miles inland (though both way above sea level)... so yes, they're a couple hundred miles closer...

Sure some parts of the city limits are walkable, just like parts of Miami are walkable... but I will say that you are in the MINORITY if you walk to work/walk to amenities everyday... simply put - most of the 5 million people in Atlanta metro do not have the ability to walk to work. That's part of the reason why Atlanta's consistently one of the worst traffic jammed places in the U.S.

And S-to-W, the fact that you put Detroit as a "second tier" cosmopolitan city really solidifies my point that we are using completely different standards to evaluate what a "cosmopolitan" place is...

I don't particularly like Seattle, but I'd consider it more cosmopolitan than Atlanta is at this point. My final word - Atlanta's a younger place (with potential) that still has major issues to work out before it's considered world-class, sophisticated, progressive, cosmopolitan, and whatever else. That's all.

The Detroit metro area is definitely Second Tier, although it's experiencing a population decline and the economy has been suffering. However, it's still a metro area of 5 million people with multiple Fortune 500 companies, including a large portion of the American auto industry. It's also located on the border of one of our largest trading partners, serving as a point of entry for imports and exports, it boasts a large airport, and it has a very diverse population--including the largest Arab community in America. Detroit is cosmopolitan and definitely Second Tier.

And yes, Atlanta has a lot of issues to work out if it wants to achieve a sustainable pattern of growth. Seattle definitely has issues regarding traffic congestion and public transit, Miami has issues regarding poverty, sprawl, and encroachment on the Everglades, a lot of cities have issues that they need to work through. However, there is no denying that Atlanta is one of the more cosmopolitan cities in the US.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by mg83

Which neighborhood do you live in?

I live in Inman Park now. I can easily walk to anywhere from Candler Park to the Highlands. Also, I have a MARTA station a few blocks away and Freedom Park nearby.

[Lior Arel]

Guess I'll stay in Tampa...

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by mg83

I feel like there are a few tiers of cosmopolitan US cities, NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, DC and LA. Second tier I'd include places like Boston, Seattle, Miami, San Diego, maybe Minneapolis. Third I'd put cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, etc. I don't know exactly where to put Philadelphia..

How would the proposed list of Global Cities that I've seen compare to people's impressions?

From the article:

Alpha world cities / full service world cities

* 12 points: London, New York City, Paris, Tokyo
* 10 points: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore

Beta world cities / major world cities

* 9 points: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zürich
* 8 points: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, São Paulo
* 7 points: Moscow, Seoul

Gamma world cities / minor world cities

* 6 points: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, D.C.
* 5 points: Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw
* 4 points: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai

Evidence of world city formation

Strong evidence

* 3 points: Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna

Some evidence

* 2 points: Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham (UK), Bogotá, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester, Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh, Rotterdam, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver

Minimal evidence

* 1 point: Adelaide, Antwerp, Aarhus, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bologna, Brasília, Calgary, Cape Town, Colombo, Columbus, Dresden, Edinburgh, Genoa, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Leeds, Lille, Marseille, Richmond, St. Petersburg, Tashkent, Tehran, Tijuana, Turin, Utrecht, Wellington

[jjbradleynyc]

That's definitely interesting. On what basis was the "point system" given out--in other words, how does a city achieve a "point?"

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

That's definitely interesting. On what basis was the "point system" given out--in other words, how does a city achieve a "point?"

Some information can be found here, as well as in several (dozen?) other places pointed to in the Wikipedia page I referenced above.

[chimama1]

I just moved back to Atlanta from Chicago (as a caveat, those are the only two cities I have lived in.) I could go on and on about what an amazing, near-perfect city Chicago is, and I think there is no way you can compare Chicago or NYC to Atlanta. But I as read the debate about Atlanta's "cosmopolitan-ness" one point kept jumping out at me. People complain about Atlanta's lack of authentic, diverse neighborhoods, and I, too love the neighborhoods of Chicago and New York, but there is a big negative to those neighborhoods, too. They segregate people. One of the first things I noticed when I moved to Chicago was that black people and white people (for the most part) never interact. I was shocked. And those charming Indian neighborhoods and Greek neighborhoods and Chinese neighborhoods are fun to visit and dine in, but your kids don't go to school with their kids, and your next door neighbors are probably white folks from from Michigan!

Having racially mixed children, I had reservations about moving back to the South. I got over those fears quickly after my first trip to the park (East Cobb park of all places, too!) There was far more diversity than at any park I have ever seen in Chicago! That is one of the WONDERFUL things about a "new" city like Atlanta, it levels the playing field--people from all over the country, even the world come here for good jobs, nice homes and--in many places--good schools. So you might not get to go visit a cool Pakistani neighborhood, but your next door neighbor from Pakistan can become your good friend and your children can really know what it's like to be from another culture. I believe that kind of cosmopolitan is more important than being hip.

[l12]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

Maybe one day after complete overhauls in city leadership and if good planners and visionaries are put in the right spots, Atlanta will be a cosmopolitan city - but right now I just put it on my list of "big cities" and leave it at that.

Having touristy festivals/neighborhoods certainly is not what makes a place cosmopolitan. San Francisco has a large Chinatown but this alone would not make it cosmopolitan, the definition of cosmopolitan is being a citizen of the world and very diverse, not just celebrating the heritage of one or a few groups.

I could care less if there are neighborhoods or festivals, what you should see a lot of is ethnic restaurants and markets. I don't see that in Atlanta nearly as much as I do in say Orlando, but I don't have nearly as much experience with Atlanta so maybe I am missing it.

But more important than any of that is that the people who live there are cosmopolitan and have been around the world and are aware of it, not just that they grew up in or have visited Chinatown or some other fake recreation.

Cosmopolitan is about being aware of what is going on NOW around the world, not just preserving the history of different cultures and places.

And yes, an important part of that is that people from around the world actually interact with each other, not just living in ghettos preserving their old country 100%, so the lack of that in Atlanta may actually be a good thing.

Also, most cities are full of ethnic neighborhoods and restaurants and groceries because those are the only jobs the poor immigrants can do. If Atlanta has such a strong job market that immigrants are moving there to do more high-paying jobs that could mean Atlanta is full of more educated foreigners than the average US city, which would probably be a good thing for it's cosmopolitan nature to grow.

[BravoFan]

Give it time. If transplants and locals work together to and do our own thing we'll be alright.

[l12]

Originally Posted by mg83

And I, again, would respectfully disagree with you. Or maybe what we define a "worldly" or cosmopolitan city as is just... different.

Most of the South American capitals/cities are located way closer to a coastline than Atlanta is... like by a few hundred miles... or, kilometers. Though, I'd consider the Brazilian cities to be international and cosmopolitan... on the level of the ones mentioned by a previous poster...

The other "landlocked" cities you've mentioned just are not on par to cities like NYC, London, Tokyo, Sydney, or even a "smaller" international city like San Francisco... sorry. There's no way I'd equate Mexico City or Warsaw to those other places. Again, that's my own opinion.

I'm not even talking about white sands/beaches like Miami or Barcelona. I'm talking about water in general. It makes geographical sense that the cities situated along coasts, large rivers/ bodies of water have lengthier histories and greater cultural diversity.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment that Atlanta is some huge cosmopolitan and international world hub. The fact that it hosted the Olympics has really blindsided people... Sure, there are plenty of international flights that are routed THROUGH the Atlanta airport, but that doesn't mean the people are actually getting off the planes and visiting for the deep historical culture of the American south.

If you want to compare Atlanta to INTERNATIONAL cities, then I wouldn't use facts like "it's the center for hip-hop and R&B". First, hip-hop originated in the boroughs of NYC... I mean maybe you can claim Atlanta is the center of "gangsta" and bling-bling rap... (save, OutKast).

What else would you use to compare Atlanta to these other so-called International cities, if you don't think comparing it to other American cities is fair?

Considering that a city must be near to water to be cosmopolitan is a very 19th century idea.

The only reason cities near the water have historically been cosmopolitan is because all international travel was by sea, this is no longer the case, and Atlanta's still growing status as the world's busiest airport and rail center of the South makes them more cosmopolitan than most any old seaport.

Madrid is totally landlocked, Paris is totally landlocked, Berlin is totally landlocked. Santiago is 1.5 hours from the sea. Milan is 2 hours. Paris and Berlin are probably the most cosmopolitan cities in the world along with London and NYC these days. Santiago and Mexico City are also very cosmopolitan, like it or not.

The fact that Atlanta is the main city of the South, which is 30% of the US, 100 million people, is enough to make it become one of the most cosmopolitan cities.

Chicago became one because it was the main city of the midwest. Now that Air conditioning has been invented, people are leaving the miserable weather of the midwest and heading South.

The fact that it is the big city with the best weather east of the Mississippi, east of the Rockies perhaps, is also a big draw (Most people like 4 seasons and not miserable humidity all the time, sorry Miami)

The fact is, what makes a city cosmopolitan plain and simple is not the transportation or proximity to water, it's the jobs.

People come to the US (to live, not just visiting) from around the world for 1 reason only: jobs! Not to see the history or culture. Most foreign people don't know what the South culture even means or that it exists.

The fact that Atlanta has one of the best and fastest growing job markets is what will make it one of the most cosmopolitan cities as long as it continues.

Look at the list of cities with the best wage and job growth:
Milken Institute - Best Cities Index 2007

Yes, Atlanta is not very high on the list, because it's mostly smaller cities which is not a fair comparison in a % stat.

But as far as really large cities (over 5 million people), the list is:
1. DC
2. Miami
3. Philly
4. LA
5. Atlanta

Of these cities, Atlanta is by far the fastest growing. Philadelphia is just becoming NYC's cheaper sister city/exurb because it's close enough, and New York is just too expensive. LA and DC have their own thing going on which will never stop (entertainment & politics).

The future is that the South must have a great city because it's
a. east coast, not SO far from nyc and same time zone for financial business and
b. has much better weather, and
c. 100 million people.

In the competition of really big cities to be the main city of the South it is just between Miami and Atlanta. If Orlando and Tampa didn't exist, it would be Miami, but the growth in Florida is too spread out between these 3.

Miami is very cosmopolitan because it's the capital of latin america and has nice beaches, but it's touristy, expensive, not a real city with diverse industry, not THAT diverse in people (almost entirely latin americans, caribbeans, and beach loving rich Europeans) and not american at all. Go 10 minutes away from the beach and it's mostly ugly ghettos. And it's headed for a huge depression because it is ground zero of the housing crash.