Back to DC (Atlanta, Canton, Washington: environment, credit, loans)

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by Scraper Enthusiast

Atlanta is by far LARGER than DC.

Not in population (both the city and the metro areas). Washington, DC itself has 580,000 people and the Washington DC metro area has 5.4 million.

It actually has a skyline, and is a much more mature city, in terms of "fastness of life".

What do you mean by "fastness of life"? Is this like pace or something? Coming from the Northeast (Boston-NYC-Philly), the pace of life in Atlanta is slower.

The only thing metro DC has on Atlanta is a much denser "downtown" (the district) and inner suburbs, as well as a superior rail transportation system (having a better heavy rail line, as well as a commuter rail line).

In terms of sustainable living, these are all positive qualities and all things that Atlanta's sustainable council wants to mimic or achieve.

Atlanta beats DC in these areas:
Skyline

Since when is a skyline an important quality of life component (as it is grouped with other measures of quality of life)? The skyline is nothing but an urban aesthetic that, while it can raise property values, really doesn't have a direct impact on whether my life is better or worse in Atlanta. (In fact, one could argue that a "prettier" skyline means more electricity, more pollution, and hence poorer health conditions).

Sheesh.

On back to DC you go.

That was a tad rude. Not everyone is designed to live in the "L.A. of the east" or think that it is so great because the cost of living is lower and the skyline is prettier. Have you ever thought WHY cost of living is higher in places like San Francisco, NYC, and DC? Hint: If people didn't want to live there, the cost of living would go down. There are direct correlations between the two.

[Scraper Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Not in population (both the city and the metro areas). Washington, DC itself has 580,000 people and the Washington DC metro area has 5.4 million.

What do you mean by "fastness of life"? Is this like pace or something? Coming from the Northeast (Boston-NYC-Philly), the pace of life in Atlanta is slower.

In terms of sustainable living, these are all positive qualities and all things that Atlanta's sustainable council wants to mimic or achieve.

Since when is a skyline an important quality of life component (as it is grouped with other measures of quality of life)? The skyline is nothing but an urban aesthetic that, while it can raise property values, really doesn't have a direct impact on whether my life is better or worse in Atlanta. (In fact, one could argue that a "prettier" skyline means more electricity, more pollution, and hence poorer health conditions).

That was a tad rude. Not everyone is designed to live in the "L.A. of the east" or think that it is so great because the cost of living is lower and the skyline is prettier. Have you ever thought WHY cost of living is higher in places like San Francisco, NYC, and DC? Hint: If people didn't want to live there, the cost of living would go down. There are direct correlations between the two.

Atlanta is greater in size, geographically speaking. Population wise, it's 150,000 smaller, but looks like it has at least one million more people.

What makes you think that "northeastern" cities are "faster"? It seems to me that you're living in the past a wee bit. However, this is a subjective measure and can't be proven.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Scraper Enthusiast

What makes you think that "northeastern" cities are "faster"? It seems to me that you're living in the past a wee bit. However, this is a subjective measure and can't be proven.

First, "faster" would need to be defined.

Every time I go to DC I'm amazed how quickly and easily I can get around town on the METRO. Every time I ride MARTA, I'm amazed how slow it is and how far most of the stations are from where I really would like to go or need to go (compared to DC METRO).

In that sense, DC is faster.

Maybe Atlanta is faster in the sense that so much time is spent in traffic that you HAVE TO do everything as fast as possible because you have less free time.

[Georgia]

Originally Posted by back2dc

IYou're going to have to raise taxes to pay for more police, road planning, public transit, pollution control and .

.

Mind if I chime in from this old native who grew up 51 miles from Washington DC?

Raising taxes for the reasons you speak with DC as an example is about equal to handing your hard earned dollars over to a snake oil salesman. Eject current Georgia leaders, in what? Those of DC's ilk? I hope not.
Washington DC's infrastructure is horrid at best. Their income tax rate is 9.5% with high sales taxes across the board, car tag taxes, with inspection taxes. Property taxes through the roof,,, and crime prevention !?! Your speaking of a city that was placed under a "State of Emergency" just last year with out of control gangs and rampant murders and other violent crimes.

Yes, they have the Metro, but the Metro is not funded by DC. Heck the DC government is so broke they would need to find food stamps just to buy a cheap cup of coffee. Metro is subsidized by the Fed as with most of the "nice" areas of DC, less Georgetown NW which is 99% rich white liberals, who maintain high cost security to keep those not of their ilk in the areas of D Street SE and the rest of Anacostia.

All one needs to do is look at the overall Federal Outlay per dollar of revenue received. Georgia receives a whopping .96cents or a net cost of 4 cents on the dollar to the state. Basically zero federal money. DC? Well neighbor that can knock your socks off! How about $6.64 for every dollar. In short the shadow senator, Ms. Holmes-Norton laughs all the way to the bank with $5.54 net dollars. In short, DC is a giant Welfare State.

It is difficult to compare DC to Georgia/Atlanta, or anywhere for that matter, but to use it as a wonderful example as Utopia is pure madness.

Just my 2 cents.

[DC's Finest]

Georgia, have you ever been to DC? It's one of the most cleanest and organized cities in the US. Let's clear up a few things. First, DC's government is not in a state of emergency. The city has a surplus again for the fifth year in a row. We just opened a 600 million dollar baseball stadium and are baout to build a 150 million dollar soccer stadium. You are thinking about the Barry days. Since then Anthony Williams has been elected twice (8 years) and Fenty is now the new mayor. DC's is gentrifying at a fast rate. It's infrastructure is much better than Atlantas. We don't have to steal water from Tennessee. DC does have high income taxes but people here make more than Atlantians and plus the job situation here is better. Our economy is recession proof (Federal Government). You are also wrong about Metro which does not have a guaranteed source of income from the Feds. MD, VA and DC provide funding on an annual basis but it is not a given. Crime in DC is at an all time low. I think you are confusing us with Baltimore. We had under 200 murders last year. And Georgetown is famous but not the richest part of DC. Have you ever heard of the neighborhoods of Spring Valley, Palisides and Chevy Chase?

The pace of life in DC is much more cosmopolitan (faster) than Atlanta. It's CBD is creeping up on the Loop as the second largest behind NYC. It has more cultural activities such as parks, museums, nightlife, theaters and restaurants. Skyscraper Enthusiast, what grade are you in? If you know anything about cities, freeways are city killers. They cut off neighborhoods and add to traffic and sprawl. Most east coast cities don't have the massive twelve lane freeways bisecting them.

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by Scraper Enthusiast

Atlanta is by far LARGER than DC. It actually has a skyline, and is a much more mature city, in terms of "fastness of life". The only thing metro DC has on Atlanta is a much denser "downtown" (the district) and inner suburbs, as well as a superior rail transportation system (having a better heavy rail line, as well as a commuter rail line).

Scraper Enthusiast, I'm going to assume you're one of the very regulars on the "skyscraper page" forums, because it's composed mostly of folks who really (and I mean really) get into looking at skylines, buildings, architecture, density stats, etc etc. Some might say a permanent Star Trek convention type of atmosphere only with buildings and blueprints replacing Spock ears and costumes.

You have to keep in mind that city-data viewers really could care less about most of that. They care about quality of life in a city - not how many buildings it has, or how close they are, or how "fast paced" a city is. School quality, restaurant varity, crime... etc. That's what people here list as priorities. There are cities with NO skyline to speak of (Lexington Kentucky rings a bell, or Columbus Georgia) who some say have nice quality of life features to them. Then there are what you would call "dense" cities like New York that others think are the center of the universe - but it's the ammenities these cities offer that most viewers on these pages care about - not buildings or skyscrapers. You're talking about two entirely different audiences here.

The only common ground topic is transit and traffic, which do have a large affect on the quality of life in a city. And yes, it's discussed a lot here and on other forums, Atlanta needs a much better regional transit system with varied options for getting around.

[back2dc]

Originally Posted by Scraper Enthusiast

Atlanta is greater in size, geographically speaking. Population wise, it's 150,000 smaller, but looks like it has at least one million more people.

What makes you think that "northeastern" cities are "faster"? It seems to me that you're living in the past a wee bit. However, this is a subjective measure and can't be proven.

Not sure I would agree with that. I went to Wikipedia since I wanted to list some facts to support my answers. The 28-count Atlanta area is 5.4 million people.

The DC-Baltimore region is home to 8.2 million.

Still I'm not knocking Atlanta. It definitely isn't "faster" than DC, although I'm not sure what you mean by faster. The people in Atlanta are friendlier, but definitely less cosmopolitan. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm having difficulty finding people in Atlanta with my interests that tend to revolve around music, European and Asian culture and art. DC with its embassies and international flavor will offer more for me.

[back2dc]

I was rather surprised to find that in between all these skyscrapers in Atlanta there were empty lots, abandoned buildings and parking garages. I recently was in Chicago and enjoyed its neighborhoods that went on for miles with shops, sushi bars, pubs, clubs, galleries nestled in between houses, condos and apartments. Reminded me of what I had left behind in DC, which is why I've decided to move back. The walkability factor in DC is a HUGE asset to that city.

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

Scraper Enthusiast, I'm going to assume you're one of the very regulars on the "skyscraper page" forums, because it's composed mostly of folks who really (and I mean really) get into looking at skylines, buildings, architecture, density stats, etc etc. Some might say a permanent Star Trek convention type of atmosphere only with buildings and blueprints replacing Spock ears and costumes.

You have to keep in mind that city-data viewers really could care less about most of that. They care about quality of life in a city - not how many buildings it has, or how close they are, or how "fast paced" a city is. School quality, restaurant varity, crime... etc. That's what people here list as priorities. There are cities with NO skyline to speak of (Lexington Kentucky rings a bell, or Columbus Georgia) who some say have nice quality of life features to them. Then there are what you would call "dense" cities like New York that others think are the center of the universe - but it's the ammenities these cities offer that most viewers on these pages care about - not buildings or skyscrapers. You're talking about two entirely different audiences here.

The only common ground topic is transit and traffic, which do have a large affect on the quality of life in a city. And yes, it's discussed a lot here and on other forums, Atlanta needs a much better regional transit system with varied options for getting around.

[Scraper Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

It's infrastructure is much better than Atlantas.

And you base this on?

We don't have to steal water from Tennessee.

And neither does Georgia. That was a ridiculous attempt of a few General Assembly members. The fact is, this was mostly a man-made drought, created by the over-release of water from Georgia reservoirs, courtesy of the Army Corp of Engineers, to provide lots of water to mussels near Apalachicola Bay. Once water release was limited to reasonable levels, the lakes started refilling. It is true that recent rains have helped, but cutting back water release has helped more than anything. They are now releasing only thirty percent of the water that they were releasing from last summer to January.

DC does have high income taxes but people here make more than Atlantians and plus the job situation here is better.

People make more in DC than in Atlanta? I'll admit, metro DC probably has a higher overall income than metro Atlanta. However, I doubt that with all the blight and poverty of the district of columbia, that it has a higher income. If it does, it can't be by much.

What makes you think the job situation is better? 151,000 made their way to metro Atlanta last year, compared to only about 60,000 for metro DC.

Our economy is recession proof (Federal Government).

Metro Atlanta has a very diverse economy. It's been able to ride recessions much better than many other cities.

Crime in DC is at an all time low. I think you are confusing us with Baltimore. We had under 200 murders last year. And Georgetown is famous but not the richest part of DC. Have you ever heard of the neighborhoods of Spring Valley, Palisides and Chevy Chase?

Crime is relative. DC still has one of the highest crime rates of any city.

Spring Valley, Palisades, and Chevy Chase are suburbs. When taking into account suburbs such as Roswell, Alpharetta, Woodstock, Kennesaw, etc., crime is low, too.

The pace of life in DC is much more cosmopolitan (faster) than Atlanta.

This is a subjective measure. However, I would totally disagree. The freeways are disjointed heading into the city. You pretty much have to take I-495 (the beltway), unless you want to find yourself on a two lane street, on a small potholed freeway (the one the runs near RFK), etc.

Atlanta is geographically larger (developed area). It has large, open freeways. (DC does outside the Beltway). It has tall skyscrapers, something DC lacks. I'll give you that our CBD isn't as dense, but DC was a planned city from the start, so it is no suprise that it has a dense core. The district (the mall and surrounding areas is fantastic) and the metro are fantastic. The commuter rail lines are cool, too.

It's CBD is creeping up on the Loop as the second largest behind NYC. It has more cultural activities such as parks, museums, nightlife, theaters and restaurants.

That very well may be the case. However, metro area to metro area, I'm sure that it is closer than you think.

Skyscraper Enthusiast, what grade are you in? If you know anything about cities, freeways are city killers. They cut off neighborhoods and add to traffic and sprawl. Most east coast cities don't have the massive twelve lane freeways bisecting them.

I'm highly aware of the argument made against freeways, as I once was a city planner. Most of these arguments are bogus, in my opinion, for freeway widening and development is usually a product of a growing population, not the reverse. It is true that they cut off some neighborhoods, but they provide better access and mobility to the overall population. Freeways aren't contributors of sprawl. Sprawl is a product of population growth, which is a product of developers, who will develop even along two lane roads. Why do you think so many places have underdeveloped road infrastructure for the development? It wasn't the freeways. Now, I will agree that freeways can provide greater access to desired areas, as the population increases and people settle in areas farther from the CBD. However, it is not the freeway, *****, that caused sprawl, it was the population growth. If you're arguing that freeways allow people the mobility to get to areas they wouldn't have considered without a quick commute, then perhaps people wouldn't consider the metro as a whole, and you can have zero population growth. Most people aren't going to consider living in the actual city. Some will, but the most entertain the idea of a suburban lifestyle. It's not changing anytime soon.

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by back2dc

I was rather surprised to find that in between all these skyscrapers in Atlanta there were empty lots, abandoned buildings and parking garages. I recently was in Chicago and enjoyed its neighborhoods that went on for miles with shops, sushi bars, pubs, clubs, galleries nestled in between houses, condos and apartments. Reminded me of what I had left behind in DC, which is why I've decided to move back. The walkability factor in DC is a HUGE asset to that city.

Well the reason for this is that Atlanta never was a big city until the 70s growth insanity started, and in the 1800s it wasn't much more than a rail stop (hence the old name "Terminus"). Then in the Civil War, chunks of the city was damaged, destroyed, or burned down, so Atlanta didn't retain a lot of older 19th century structures that later could be remodeled into restaurants and shops like other larger cities have today.

Instead here, you'll find small pockets of areas like that such as Virginia Highlands, but no large areas of older structures. A lot of it was from the ground up. When Atlanta went through their "We're the New York of the South!" advertising bit in the 70s, they wanted to build up-up-up. So, you had nonexistant "preserved" structures, then huge office buildings being built - which is why we have such an awkward appearance.

Complexes like Atlantic Station, The Streets of Buckhead (under construction), and other "shopping center-residential" projects are supposed to duplicate the look and feel of older buildings with shops and restaurants, but with limited success (and limited authenticity).