U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 05-05-2012, 03:21 AM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,813,281 times
Reputation: 1164
To answer the OP Atlanta, it's not even a fair comparison really due to size, LA is over twice as big as Atlanta. obviously LA is more urban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Uhhh. no.

I've been to Atlanta and Birmingham.

Other than the fact that Atlanta's downtown is considerably more developed (and I submit that Atlanta has downright impressive urban critical mass in its downtown area for a southern city), both cities are pretty rural and un/underdeveloped outside of their downtown.

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

It wasd an outright culture shock coming from a northern city that was historically well developed and densely built.

Detroit - Google Maps

All the northern and pre-WWII cities will GRADUALLY transition from the skyscraper district to the dense urban neighborhood to the pre-WWII suburbs to the 1960-1970s suburbs to the McMAnsions (exburbs) and finally the rural areas.

The transition in Atlanta, and even Birmingham, from its supposed urban areas is very drastic.
OKay first off Atlanta has over 40 historic districts by the national register of historic places. Most neighborhoods in Atlanta are pre war II. 2nd Most of Atlanta is nothing like your link, The far southside and parts Buckhead are not as develop as other parts of the city for goodness sakes you posted Sand town. That suppose be Representative of Atlanta outside DT really? Detroit is defiantly more urban than Atlanta. But what you post of Atlanta doesn't represent the city at all.

Seriously? Atlanta is pretty rural and un/underdeveloped outside of their downtown WTF. Have ever herd of........
Cabbagetown, Old Fourth Ward, Poncey-Highland, Reynoldstown, Summerhill, Sweet Auburn, Virginia-Highland, East Atlanta, Edgewood, Grant Park, Inman Park, Kirkwood, Candler Park, Home Park, midtown histoic district, West Midtown, West End, even blighted neighborhoods Pittsburgh, Mechanicsville, Vine City, Washington Park, English Avenue, English Park, Bankhead, Grove Park, Mozley Park and etc

Neighborhoods in Atlanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alot of intown Atlanta look like this

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

but this would had even been find

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

but this

Atlanta, GA - Google Maps

Sand town really? Representative of Atlanta outside DT ) Also Did you actually say Atlanta is like Birmingham outside Downtown? Atlanta is the back water deep south? and not even traditionally suburban?..... failed.

Atlanta has over 3.5 million in less than 1,800 sq mi. but Ok. )
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,525 posts, read 8,064,675 times
Reputation: 3982
[quote=Aficionado;24167018]Umm let's not get carried away here. Sure Los Angeles is more urban as it darn well should be considering the size difference, but Atlanta is more of a mixed bag than you are giving credit for.]



Considering the size difference Atlanta should be more urban since its much more compact in size. I've been to Atlanta a few times and now that I live in LA, LA seems so much more urban.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 12:31 PM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,813,281 times
Reputation: 1164
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
Considering the size difference Atlanta should be more urban since its much more compact in size. I've been to Atlanta a few times and now that I live in LA, LA seems so much more urban.
I have no ideal what you mean by Atlanta should be more urban since its much more compact in size? But as Aficionado and I pointed out LA is significantly bigger than Atlanta, it is should be more urban than Atlanta.

But I'm still throw off by what that Detroit poster said

Quote:
"However, when one ventures through the rest of Atlanta outside of downtown, there's really nothing to see from a city (as in urban, developed) standpoint, and I even think it would be a stretch to call it "suburban" in the traditional sense. "

"Outside of downtown, many parts of Atlanta still have that deep south backwater feel."
This is Detroit suburbia, which is some how even calling Atlanta suburban outside of DT is a stretch in the traditional sense...?

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

Now the city of Detroit is more urban and Atlanta is not the most urban city, but what is spectacular about Detroit suburbs that make even the city of Atlanta outside of Downtown feel rural, better yet "back water".

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
883 posts, read 677,367 times
Reputation: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
Don't listen to sh-tbags like Blaxtor
LMAO

Cute but I havent posted anything about either city in this thread yet. Maybe I should. Neither place comes across as urban for city lovers

Last edited by BLAXTOR; 05-05-2012 at 01:15 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
8,844 posts, read 5,262,163 times
Reputation: 2791
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
I have no ideal what you mean by Atlanta should be more urban since its much more compact in size? But as Aficionado and I pointed out LA is significantly bigger than Atlanta, it is should be more urban than Atlanta.

But I'm still throw off by what that Detroit poster said



This is Detroit suburbia, which is some how even calling Atlanta suburban outside of DT is a stretch in the traditional sense...?

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

detroit - Google Maps

Now the city of Detroit is more urban and Atlanta is not the most urban city, but what is spectacular about Detroit suburbs that make even the city of Atlanta outside of Downtown feel rural, better yet "back water".

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps
Compared to LA, the less urban areas of Atlanta feel pretty rural. The more urban areas that were shown in the above ATL streetviews remind me of the medium-urban areas of the San Fernando Valley.

Can't compare it to Detroit as I've never been there but I get the feeling that Detroit appears more urban, but a decaying, bombed-out urban. I'd take Atlanta for sure.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 02:05 PM
 
Location: ITP - Northeast Atlanta
1,375 posts, read 1,400,097 times
Reputation: 1008
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
Considering the size difference Atlanta should be more urban since its much more compact in size. I've been to Atlanta a few times and now that I live in LA, LA seems so much more urban.
If Atlanta was initially set in a locale with natural boundaries such as Los Angeles or Miami, then the city could have presumably developed in a more compact manner, but that's simply not the case. Atlanta's also in more of a transition in terms of composition, while Los Angeles has far less infill related obstacles to overcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
The transition in Atlanta, and even Birmingham, from its supposed urban areas is very drastic.
Having lived in both, I can honestly say that I notice more differences now than ever before. Admittedly, city-data has forced me to pay attention to things that I never dreamed I'd care about, but I digress. For starters, Birmingham is gridded while Atlanta is only gridded in patches. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that Atlanta's core neighborhoods feel any more compact than Birmingham's, but Atlanta has many MANY more new urbanism districts, and connected townhomes/condos by a long shot!

They are basically sprinkled all over the place here, whereas in Bham there are a few downtown with a couple more in Homewood, but that's about it. Everything else in the Birmingham area is basically apartment complexes, versus developments here like Atlantic Station, Inman Park Village, Glenwood Park, Town Center at Brookhaven and many more which incorporate street level retail with residential units. Birmingham's southside feels the most connected IMO, but still nothing like Midtown, West Midtown or East Atlanta.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 03:25 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 527,019 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightscape View Post
I think he's talking about Atlanta and Birmingham not Los Angeles.

As for the thread topic, Atlanta.
No, Atlanta is nowhere near LA. Maybe if you take the first 5 square miles of each city from the core sure, Atlanta might have a chance. But no, how can someone say Atlanta is "more urban" than LA. Having more black people doesn't make you more urban!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 03:38 PM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
897 posts, read 309,186 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
No, Atlanta is nowhere near LA. Maybe if you take the first 5 square miles of each city from the core sure, Atlanta might have a chance. But no, how can someone say Atlanta is "more urban" than LA. Having more black people doesn't make you more urban!
Do you have reading comprehension problems? REREAD the thread title
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 03:38 PM
 
2,250 posts, read 1,813,281 times
Reputation: 1164
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Compared to LA, the less urban areas of Atlanta feel pretty rural. The more urban areas that were shown in the above ATL streetviews remind me of the medium-urban areas of the San Fernando Valley.
That's not true, look at street and home lot sizes again.

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps

san fernando valley - Google Maps


Atlanta is not as urban as LA either but why do posters try to exaggerated it with bad comparisons. San Fernando Valley to Atlanta core OK.

Same Atlanta links you said look like above.

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta is forested even in tightly develop areas that barely have yards. San Fernando Streets are way wider and home lot sizes are generally a lot bigger than they are in Atlanta core. I don't see the resemblance.

I don't know are yall are like not use to seeing so many trees that regardless of a place is clearly develop urban and suburban, yall though off. Most American cities core are develop by tight single family home with tiny lots Atlanta is no exception. But it got to be the trees that got yall calling Atlanta's core less than what is then making horrible comparisons.

This is how generally the San Fernando Valley neighborhoods are develop except Atlanta is forest but it's similar home lot sizes and etc. Again similar layout different environment.

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

Atlanta - Google Maps

There a few neighborhoods with larger lots but most of Atlanta is suburban compare to LA don't let the trees mess with your head.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 03:43 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 527,019 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliSon View Post
Do you have reading comprehension problems? REREAD the thread title
Oh cool, hey, you you could have just said: "Oh hey, I think you got a little mixed up". But no, go be a condescending f-ckhole. It's cool, I'll put my crayons down and leave
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top