Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atlanta continues to grow, but I still would not consider it world-class, as the city's culture, fashion, amenities and transit are not remotely on par with cities that have already been world-class for a very long time. There's nothing Atlanta has that would be comparable to NYC, Chicago, DC, New York, Paris, London or Tokyo. With the exception of Paris, all of these world-class cities are also on water. Atlanta is not. Still, not being on a large body of water, you can't compare Atlanta to Paris. Not at all. But Paris has the River Seine and Atlanta has the Chattahoochee River.
Atlanta may be impressive to some compared to other southern cities outside of Miami and New Orleans, but on a world-class scale, it can't compete with these other cities, despite having had the Olympics and having Fortune 500 companies. It just doesn't have the same level of offerings. While the Atlanta continues to "grow," it seems its mostly building more places to eat and shop which are not unique and are the same stores and chain restaurants that you can in any mall in America.
In Atlanta's defense, it does have some great musical festivals and conventions, particularly Tomorrowworld and DragonCon.
I'd argue the Beltline will be revolutionary in the next 10-20 years. It's gotten many accolades and on a city-scale...no...world wide scale, it's going to change the city in a large way. If there's something that will be truly unique to Atlanta, it will be the beltline.
But at this moment, Atlanta is not world class...it really takes a lot to become truly world class. Cultural capital + economic capital + social capital are the 3 main components of being world class...Atlanta is good in economical capital(relative to the rest of the world), but struggles in the other two, especially Cultural capital, but that takes time to build up.
Buckhead Atlanta is just another step to becoming world class, but it doesn't make the city world class.
I'd argue the Beltline will be revolutionary in the next 10-20 years. It's gotten many accolades and on a city-scale...no...world wide scale, it's going to change the city in a large way. If there's something that will be truly unique to Atlanta, it will be the beltline.
But at this moment, Atlanta is not world class...it really takes a lot to become truly world class. Cultural capital + economic capital + social capital are the 3 main components of being world class...Atlanta is good in economical capital(relative to the rest of the world), but struggles in the other two, especially Cultural capital, but that takes time to build up.
Buckhead Atlanta is just another step to becoming world class, but it doesn't make the city world class.
I largely agree with this. You can be objective and reasonable when you want to be.
Cute... looks like a smaller Mississauga in a way. Actually this would fit in as a city centre for any one of the suburban cities of the Greater Toronto Area like Mississauga, Scarborough or North York.
Atlanta continues to grow, but I still would not consider it world-class, as the city's culture, fashion, amenities and transit are not remotely on par with cities that have already been world-class for a very long time. There's nothing Atlanta has that would be comparable to NYC, Chicago, DC, New York, Paris, London or Tokyo. With the exception of Paris, all of these world-class cities are also on water. Atlanta is not. Still, not being on a large body of water, you can't compare Atlanta to Paris. Not at all. But Paris has the River Seine and Atlanta has the Chattahoochee River.
Atlanta may be impressive to some compared to other southern cities outside of Miami and New Orleans, but on a world-class scale, it can't compete with these other cities, despite having had the Olympics and having Fortune 500 companies. It just doesn't have the same level of offerings. While the Atlanta continues to "grow," it seems its mostly building more places to eat and shop which are not unique and are the same stores and chain restaurants that you can in any mall in America.
Yes but people in general have too generous of an idea of what world class is.
Think about the two words in "world class" for for a moment. Class denotes that there is a grouping of places that are generally considered exemplary by most people on agreeable standards. How many places in the world would you put into this exclusive group? I wouldn't budge past 20-to-25 honestly (but that's just my opinion on the matter), put too many then why even bother drawing a line? Why not just go and add everywhere because for the most part only a hair separates one city in the world from another city in the world. The world part is where it goes bigger, this automatically cancels out attributes from a national level. Have a museum you think is world class? What proof do you have? Are there really people flooding the gates of your airport to see this museum? What are the total overseas visitation numbers to prove it? Off the top of my head the Louvre in Paris, MET in New York, and Natural History Museum in London are world renowned. There are countless films, background stories, documentaries, or exclusives WORLDWIDE that feature these places as the top of their trade. That doesn't even take into account the several other museums in these cities that are at the very least, world caliber attractions. You don't have to be Albert Einstein to get the idea that people actually pay large sums and wait in extensive lines in a part of the world they're not from just to see the Louvre or the MET.
Most American cities are national or regional draws. For regional we can look directly at Phoenix (or Denver or San Diego or Portland). In Phoenix it sucks in people from Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora (Mexico). Those that want their "big city shopping" (or big city anything else) but cant find it in their cities (Mexicali, Tucson, El Paso, Albuquerque) make the drive that way because it's the regional draw. It's where you have to go to get these things. You wont come close to finding a Nordstroms in Albuquerque, or Tucson, or Mexicali but you can in Phoenix. On a national level you have a city like Boston (or Seattle, or Dallas, or Atlanta). People would visit it to see the history that led up to the American Revolution (the history of their country), to see schools they may have an interest in, to see some of the better urban parks in the country, or for business meetings. People in America may be as invested in this American city, to see it, get to know it, cherish what it has to offer. Would you really suggest with an unbiased perspective that someone living in the slums of Bangkok saving up all their lives to visit America to actually go out of their way, spend money, waste time, and see Boston? Do you think it has unique and distinguishable enough culinary scene to warrant that? Unique or distinguishable museums (note the plural) to warrant that? Unique and distinguishable nightlife to warrant that? Is it a prominent attraction on a worldwide scale to warrant these things? No. That's why it's not a world class city in my opinion, has world class aspects (Boston has several top schools and a few stellar cultural institutions). Great American city, I wouldn't call it world class.
For what it's worth, I actually do know someone in Malaysia, spent his life saving up enough money to see cities that are revered world on over. Amsterdam, London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Los Angeles, and didn't go out of his way for a Boston or Phoenix or Dallas or Atlanta. Just not enough money to go around for something you could see in bigger, better, and more to offer form (New York, Los Angeles, so on). World class cities have quality and quantity on their side, to offer at the local, regional, national, and international level (to offer as much in quality to as many of the worlds people from as many of the worlds different areas). It is what makes them the draw that they are. Most of the time they have some exemplary attributes to go with it too; low crime (respectably low crime, world scale), stabilized poverty, user friendly infrastructure, and great place for those that may not speak the language but can still find their way around.
Miami is a huge draw. What cancels it out from world class is that if the United States had a misery index, with a high level of poverty (around 30%) and crime (double digit homicide rate, nearly 18 people per 100,000) then Miami would be high on it. We also don't have the economics, there is too much income inequality here, stagnating pay increases, remedial job growth (for America anyways), and in general short on intellectual careers (for our size). If Miami could address these issues, I wouldn't have an issue with it being world class but I don't ever call it world class because that actually takes merits away from places like Tokyo, New York, or London. These cities have aggressive crime fighting tactics, and have been quite successful at it. These cities have aggressive leaders that innovate new careers, have substantial pay increases, have more social mobility, and have stabilized poverty levels (and in all cases the poverty levels are contained compared to other cities in their respective countries). For me, if I were to say that Miami is world class, then it would completely undermine every other world class city in the world that actually has a proactive leadership to better the city and have had several cases where they have been successful or prosperous.
The capital of Japan has a homicide rate of 0.6 in 2009 (even lower now). The capital of the United Kingdom was at 1.8 in 2009 (you guessed it, even lower now). The capital of Russia was 4.6 (yeah, yeah, you know it, lower now). New York was 5.6 in 2009 (even lower now). Then you have people tossing around names of cities that are like 18 per 100,000 or just as high, if not higher. Ridiculous.
In my opinion, order it which ever way you want but I think when all is said and done, North America only has 8 candidates for "world class" in New York, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington DC.
I'm not even sure if I would personally call all 8 of them world class, perhaps if we established a tier system within "world class" then it would make more sense (and look more sane) to have a diaspora of different but great cities in it. I think Chicago makes it, just barely, and the excessive crime and poverty is excepted (again, just barely) because it actually does have just enough to offer. By that same logic, Washington DC is in too. Chicago has few things on Washington DC, but let's be real. There are also things Washington has that Chicago is weaker in.
But there isn't imo. I feel like Chicago gets the upper hand solely based on it's size. DC really doesn't get enough credit on here, while I feel Chicago gets it's due.
It's not just size. Chicago is a more established city than DC. Chicago has a long, long history of theater and performing arts, and it probably rivaled NYC in that department during the early part of the 20th Century. The city has also had a long-celebrated culinary tradition. And the Chicago Symphony is routinely considered one of the world's Top Five orchestras (it's also one of the original Big Five in the U.S.). DC doesn't have anything like that. Chicago was already a cultural powerhouse back when DC was struggling for respect on the cultural scene. In a lot of ways, DC is still playing catch up in this regard. It's kind of like comparing a storied, perennial football powerhouse like Notre Dame or Alabama to a good but smaller program still trying to prove it belongs with the big boys.
If you ask someone about Chicago's restaurant scene, they'll say "OMG! Fantastic! Hands down, one of the best in the world!" Ask someone about DC's restaurant scene and the response is "I gotta tell you, it's really improved over the last few years." That's basically the difference between Chicago and DC.
It's not just size. Chicago is a more established city than DC. Chicago has a long, long history of theater and performing arts, and it probably rivaled NYC in that department during the early part of the 20th Century. The city has also had a long-celebrated culinary tradition. And the Chicago Symphony is routinely considered one of the world's Top Five orchestras (it's also one of the original Big Five in the U.S.). DC doesn't have anything like that. Chicago was already a cultural powerhouse back when DC was struggling for respect on the cultural scene. In a lot of ways, DC is still playing catch up in this regard. It's kind of like comparing a storied, perennial football powerhouse like Notre Dame or Alabama to a good but smaller program still trying to prove it belongs with the big boys.
If you ask someone about Chicago's restaurant scene, they'll say "OMG! Fantastic! Hands down, one of the best in the world!" Ask someone about DC's restaurant scene and the response is "I gotta tell you, it's really improved over the last few years." That's basically the difference between Chicago and DC.
You could say the same thing. DC trumps Chicago's economy and even more as a metro area. Also in transportation it's better than Chicago. Muesems, night life, education and suburbs. You act like DC doesn't beat Chicago in certain aspects and amentities. Also more established sports teams like the Redskins, Wizards, Nationals. I'm pretty sure DC also more tourist than Chicago..... Chicago doesn't trump DC as a world class city. There are on the same level and if not DC is closing that very very small gap. DC may not compete with Chicago in cuisine and music but what else does Chicago beat or "trumps" DC in besides that and a skyline?
You could say the same thing. DC trumps Chicago's economy and even more as a metro area. Also in transportation it's better than Chicago. Muesems, night life, education and suburbs. You act like DC doesn't beat Chicago in certain aspects and amentities. Also more established sports teams like the Redskins, Wizards, Nationals. I'm pretty sure DC also more tourist than Chicago..... Chicago doesn't trump DC as a world class city. There are on the same level and if not DC is closing that very very small gap. DC may not compete with Chicago in cuisine and music but what else does Chicago beat or "trumps" DC in besides that and a skyline?
I don't know if you can even say DC is a better transit city than Chicago. For starters, Chicago has 24 hour rail and bus service. DC has a larger transit share, but the way it's measured is a bit arbitrary since DC has much smaller city limits. If you compared the same geographic footprint in Chicago's core, it would certainly exceed DC in ridership.
With regard to everything else, all I can say is that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Just keep in mind that there was already a thread about whether DC was the second best city in America for cultural amenities and the results were not pretty.
I don't know if you can even say DC is a better transit city than Chicago. For starters, Chicago has 24 hour rail and bus service. DC has a larger transit share, but the way it's measured is a bit arbitrary since DC has much smaller city limits. If you compared the same geographic footprint in Chicago's core, it would certainly exceed DC in ridership.
With regard to everything else, all I can say is that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Just keep in mind that there was already a thread about whether DC was the second best city in America for cultural amenities and the results were not pretty.
Your points and arguments are pretty sad.... Did I ever say it was the second best city?! Of course not, it's obviously San francisco. Stop trying to down the city, I said it was merely world class. The last point of your post wasn't necessary because it had nothing to do with the topic
You could say the same thing. DC trumps Chicago's economy and even more as a metro area. Also in transportation it's better than Chicago. Muesems, night life, education and suburbs. You act like DC doesn't beat Chicago in certain aspects and amentities. Also more established sports teams like the Redskins, Wizards, Nationals. I'm pretty sure DC also more tourist than Chicago..... Chicago doesn't trump DC as a world class city. There are on the same level and if not DC is closing that very very small gap. DC may not compete with Chicago in cuisine and music but what else does Chicago beat or "trumps" DC in besides that and a skyline?
Yes, the Nationals are a very established sports team. Certainly more so than the Cubs and the White Sox.
So are the Wizards... I mean they had that guy by the name of Michael Jordan. Oh wait
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
