Economist publication names Atlanta most livable city in U.S. (Dallas: fit in, buying)

[cparker73]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Yeah, well, as we all here know, Atlanta is much more like a region than a city.

And I'm sure the title of this thread is not referring to strictly the city limits of Atlanta. I'm sure they're talking about like a 30-county vast area, and comparing that as a "city".

I was wondering the same thing about what this survey considered "Atlanta." I looked at the numbers they pulled, and they were stats for the actual city limits, which makes sense considering Gen Z is likely to be in college or a fresh graduate who won't have much of a need or desire to venture out to Smyrna or Lawrenceville.

Originally Posted by urbancuriosity

That depends on whether one likes Chicago and NYC.

Whether you like Chicago or NYC or not doesn't discount their dominance in their state's politics, which is well-deserved considering their economic impact and large populations. Georgia is a Republican gerrymanderers dream because a smaller proportion of the state's voters who are conservative get to control the majority population of voters living in the Atlanta metro who are more center-left.

Three out of five Georgians live in the Atlanta MSA, but you wouldn't know it from who tends to occupy the governor's office and state legislature. At least we have both U.S. senators, and that's been good for funneling federal money to the region. Every urbanist's wishlist for infrastructure in Atlanta that Chicago and NYC benefit from has been shot down, defunded, underfunded by the Georgia legislature for historically racist, classist, and partisan reasons.

[testa50]

Honestly, all younger millennials probably care about is probably (1) good ability to find a high paying job and start a career, (2) apartments in cool neighborhoods that they can afford, (3) good social and recreation scene, (4) good airport to so they can travel and visit friends and home easily, and (5) good lifestyle and cool factor, including weather.

These things are all super hard to quantify but Atlanta ranges from solid to great in every aspect--ie, there's no other city that's clearly head-and-shoulders above Atlanta. At this point, it's basically just preferences, if someone wants somewhere super urban, somewhere with snow, somewhere focused on fine arts, etc.

Notably, this is a huge difference from where we were a couple decades ago, when Atlanta was busy apologizing for being Atlanta, and it was widely thought that urban renewal here was just a flash in the pan and the wealth and growth in the city would forever march northward with endless sprawl. Nobody thinks that anymore, and projects in places like the eastside beltline and west midtown are wildly more ambitious than would anyone would have envisioned just a few years ago (check out how milquetoast North and Line is compared with the project that's being built right next door just five years later).

The biggest con is the red state problem, which is a glaring issue, but Georgia going blue in 2020 has made a lot of people appreciate that the people here are way different from Alabama. We just have a state government that is about a century behind due to lol American democracy.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by 2020's YouTube Vlog

Good point.

I'm not a California expert, but drove through the state from San Diego all the way up to Vancouver BC this past summer. Stopped many places in the state. It looked a lot more like Atlanta in the urban areas (Besides SF) than NYC or Chicago. And even much of SF resembled the Atlanta and the southeast outside of the core down town area.

California is significantly mote built up. Even the Bay Area and LA suburbs have density levels that exceed City of Atlanta. There isnt a type to describe how urbam California is built. It set the standard for the Sunbelt, and is not built like Atlanta at all.

[2020's YouTube Vlog]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

California is significantly mote built up. Even the Bay Area and LA suburbs have density levels that exceed City of Atlanta. There isnt a type to describe how urbam California is built. It set the standard for the Sunbelt, and is not built like Atlanta at all.

As I mentioned there's a lot that I have yet to see.

I do agree that California is more densely built (it is the state with the largest population so it makes sense) than the Sun Belt.

Coming from the North east, however, it does remind me a lot more of the sun belt/Atlanta type of areas than what I think of when I think of cities. I find the areas and cities on the coast of California have more of a distinct look, while more inland areas tend to look like more dense versions of the southwest and southeast.

[ShenardL]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

California is significantly mote built up. Even the Bay Area and LA suburbs have density levels that exceed City of Atlanta. There isnt a type to describe how urbam California is built. It set the standard for the Sunbelt, and is not built like Atlanta at all.

If you go to LA, you can say it's dense, but everything is like single-story buildings in all directions. Try to live in LA car-free and it will be really difficult. I lived in midtown after college and didn't have a car. I walked to stores, cafes, and restaurants. I would walk around Piedmont Park frequently. I took Marta to work downtown. I took Marta to shop at Lenox. I took Marta to the airport. I took Marta to Doraville to eat ethnic food once in a while. Though I would sometimes get an Uber/taxi if the restaurant is too far from the Marta station because it's difficult walking on Buford Highway. I took a shuttle bus to Atlantic Station and, once in a while, would walk there. The Bay Area though you can definitely live car-free, BART takes you to places you need to go, unfortunately, the city of San Francisco is deteriorating rapidly.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by ShenardL

If you go to LA, you can say it's dense, but everything is like single-story buildings in all directions. Try to live in LA car-free and it will be really difficult. I lived in midtown after college and didn't have a car. I walked to stores, cafes, and restaurants. I would walk around Piedmont Park frequently. I took Marta to work downtown. I took Marta to shop at Lenox. I took Marta to the airport. I took Marta to Doraville to eat ethnic food once in a while. Though I would sometimes get an Uber/taxi if the restaurant is too far from the Marta station because it's difficult walking on Buford Highway. I took a shuttle bus to Atlantic Station and, once in a while, would walk there. The Bay Area though you can definitely live car-free, BART takes you to places you need to go, unfortunately, the city of San Francisco is deteriorating rapidly.

It is easier living car free in the LA area than the Bay Area, unless you are speaking about San Francisco specifically. This is a case where miles of heavy rail isn't everything. I'm sure it is relatively easy living in Midtown Atlanta without a car, especially if you don't venture far from any of the MARTA lines, but I'd say LA is even easier, and for these reasons:

1. the bus network is enormous. it is like 10-20x the coverage and frequency of MARTA buses, plus there are several different agencies to choose from
2. sidewalks and trails connect all the residential areas with commercial areas. just like in many areas of metro Atlanta it is odd to see sidewalks or they look out of place, it's the opposite in LA where it's odd if there isn't a sidewalk
3. a wide light rail network and growing heavy rail network
4. an expansive commuter rail network that is also growing
5. you mentioned rideshares being able to connect you between transit, but if we want to bring up rideshares than the king of rideshares is LA. the wait times are very short and fares very competitive due to the amount of drivers

If you live anywhere in the LA basin, say south of the Hollywood Hills, north of the 91 freeway, and east of the 605 freeway (with the Pacific Ocean as the western boundary), living a car free life is not that difficult. If you shrink that area further and the 105 freeway the southern boundary, it gets even easier.

Now are these areas easier than Midtown Atlanta? No but that's because Midtown Atlanta is a much smaller area. Compare the 48 square miles of LA between Downtown and Santa Monica, Hollywood and the 10, and I'd say it is easier living car-free there than even Midtown Atlanta. The transit service overall is far better and the connectivity between activity centers is much easier for the pedestrian due to sidewalk consistency and more lighted pedestrian crossings.

[2020's YouTube Vlog]

I agree with the post above about LA's bus system. Very underrated. LA lacks heavy and light rail (it has some, but not sufficient for the size of the population and city area-wise) but its bus system is very, very good. I prefer the bus system in LA to NYC's bus system, by far.

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by 2020's YouTube Vlog

I agree with the post above about LA's bus system. Very underrated. LA lacks heavy and light rail (it has some, but not sufficient for the size of the population and city area-wise) but its bus system is very, very good. I prefer the bus system in LA to NYC's bus system, by far.

LA has come a long way over the last few decades in expanding its rail transit, but it still has a long way to go to compete with its peer cities of NYC and Chicago.

[ShenardL]

Originally Posted by 2020's YouTube Vlog

I agree with the post above about LA's bus system. Very underrated. LA lacks heavy and light rail (it has some, but not sufficient for the size of the population and city area-wise) but its bus system is very, very good. I prefer the bus system in LA to NYC's bus system, by far.

I haven't tried LA's bus system so I can't comment on it but I like that they're expanding rail. Their traffic is a lot worse than Atlanta's however.

[drtyfui]

Originally Posted by SEAandATL

LA has come a long way over the last few decades in expanding its rail transit, but it still has a long way to go to compete with its peer cities of NYC and Chicago.

Is Atlanta competing with its peers? definitely not. Seattle is blowing it out the water and it has 2 million less in its metro. LA is building the most rail (along with Seattle) of any city in America, more than NY and Chicago combined. I think LA is in a very good position in the future.