29 Places to Go in 2009 - Atlanta is #1 in U.S.

[Akhenaton06]

Originally Posted by ATLCOL1

Georgia is not a poor state at all. Georgia would be more like South Carolina if we didn't have Atlanta. Georgia is years ahead of Mississippi and Alabama.

Savannah = Charleston
Columbus = Greenville
Augusta = Columbia

I know this is old, but I would disagree. The SC equivalent of those cities are larger (in terms of metro areas--especially Greenville, which is at the heart of a 1.2 million metro region) and also have larger GDPs. Without Atlanta, Georgia would definitely be more like Mississippi, or perhaps Arkansas.

[Akhenaton06]

Originally Posted by Psykomonkee

It would have been nice is Atlanta Metro was the: Atlanta/Savannah, GA Metro area. Imagine if Atlanta was only about 10 miles west of Savannah. Tybee Island would be in the Atlanta area, Stone Mountain would be wedged between Atlanta and Savannah cities. I'm sure Marta would stretch over to downtown Savannah. Atlanta would have it's two airports. Hilton Head would be a short drive away. Parties in Atlanta would include beach parties rather than congested street parties. Probably wouldn't have an issue with water being that the mouth of the Savannah River is there, AND it's close enough to the Ocean for desalinization plants. You would have Six Flags, Stone Mountain Park, Tybee Island, Atlantic Station, Buckhead, GA Aqaurium, World of Coke, Midtown Mile, Downtown Atlanta and Centennial Park, Forsyth Park, River Street, Hilton Head and Savannah's Historic district all in one area.
Would have been. Oh well. Back to reality.

I think that would have been terrible. I love Atlanta, but having its sprawl consume Savannah, Hilton Head, and environs would be a tragedy. There might have even been a chance that Savannah would have lost a good bit of its historic stock. But hey, it's all hypothetical.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by Akhenaton06

I think that would have been terrible. I love Atlanta, but having its sprawl consume Savannah, Hilton Head, and environs would be a tragedy. There might have even been a chance that Savannah would have lost a good bit of its historic stock. But hey, it's all hypothetical.

Wouldn't Savannah have had the same preservationist movement no matter what the situation?

Atlanta has been able to preserve a great deal of it's historic structures, which is not easy in a booming, aggressive city.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by Akhenaton06

I know this is old, but I would disagree. The SC equivalent of those cities are larger (in terms of metro areas--especially Greenville, which is at the heart of a 1.2 million metro region) and also have larger GDPs. Without Atlanta, Georgia would definitely be more like Mississippi, or perhaps Arkansas.

Ok then, without Atlanta...

Augusta = Columbia
Savannah/Brunswick = Charleston
Macon/Warner-Robins/Columbus = Greenville
Athens = Spartanburg/Anderson
Dalton = Myrtle Beach
Rome = Florence
Valdosta = Sumter
Milledgeville = Aiken
Albany = Rock Hill

Additionally, we can correctly assume that all of the cities in Georgia would be much larger than they are - if not for Atlanta. Basically, take away Atlanta and Georgia = South Carolina.