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.
@afonega. A good many French still believe that New Orleans is French-speaking, and they can thank their media for that. (I lived there.) French TV, mostly state-owned, and even newspapers tend to exaggerate the prestige and scope of French culture and language in the world, and because NOLA was French until 1802, it must be a French-speaking city like Montreal. Wrong.
That said, NOLA has many wonderful traces of its French heritage. Food in NOLA is better, and the city takes its food seriously. Not just good restaurants, where Atlanta (with 5 million people) would have a good bunch of them based on its size alone. At the everyday retail level, you'll eat much better in NOLA. The city is much more attractive than Atlanta, which has largely demolished its architectural past. General Sherman didn't do it all; even fine structures built after the 1864 torching are no more. Georgia cities like Columbus, Macon, Augusta and especially Savannah have preserved their past, while Atlanta has obliterated it. New Orleans has French heritage and charm, seafood, pastries, and coffee. Atlanta is all about business, success, and "progress," which is fine. As a Georgia boy myself, I've always found Atlanta to be pretty charmless. If you wish to visit the Deep South for the first time, go to New Orleans or Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, Wilmington, even Nashville, Asheville, Memphis. Atlanta can be easily skipped. The Georgia Aquarium there is nice, though.
Atlanta has much denser areas overall compared to Houston so the city "feels" denser if you are in those areas. TECHNICALLY, Houston has a more consistent density that is makes it denser overall on paper, but anyone who actually visits either city will agree that Atlanta is built more like a East-Coast city.
Only if they've never been to the East Coast. Even the core of Atlanta is FAR more like Houston than it is to New York, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, or Baltimore.
The city is much more attractive than Atlanta, which has largely demolished its architectural past. General Sherman didn't do it all; even fine structures built after the 1864 torching are no more. Georgia cities like Columbus, Macon, Augusta and especially Savannah have preserved their past, while Atlanta has obliterated it. New Orleans has French heritage and charm, seafood, pastries, and coffee. Atlanta is all about business, success, and "progress," which is fine. As a Georgia boy myself, I've always found Atlanta to be pretty charmless. If you wish to visit the Deep South for the first time, go to New Orleans or Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, Wilmington, even Nashville, Asheville, Memphis. Atlanta can be easily skipped. The Georgia Aquarium there is nice, though.
I missed this the first go 'round.
I've come to discover that much of the talk about Atlanta "obliterating" its history is wildly overexaggerated. While it's true that Atlanta indeed lost some treasures to urban renewal, it's also true that a nice chunk of its historic urban fabric is still intact, even if underutilized. Check out Fairlie-Poplar, Sweet Auburn, Castleberry Hill, Old Fourth Ward, Grant Park, etc. for some great examples of historic preservation in Atlanta. It hasn't done the best job in this regard, but it hasn't done the worst job either.
For someone wanting a more historic Deep South experience, I understand the mention of those cities. But if people also want to experience the evolution of the Deep South and want to learn more about two of the biggest events to affect the region and shape the life of its residents (the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement), I can think of no better city than Atlanta. It's where the Deep South meets the Upland South and is a great representative of these two major regions of the South.
I've agreed with you up until this. You are turribly wrong on these points.
40 million people visit because of business and conventions. No one goes to Atlanta for vacation unless they are a days drive away. People go to New Orleans from China, Russia, Australia, Germany, Canada, Brazil, etc. Atlanta gets business, not tourists. That's a good thing for both cities but please don't mistake those numbers for people coming to Atlanta for Atlanta.
OK? Who cares what the reason is if there is something the city is offering that is making people want to come?
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself
Difference is, people who move to New Orleans actually want to live in the city. People are moving to the suburbs but New Orleans is unique in that it gives you city life that is far cheaper than SF, NYC, Philly, and Boston, but far more impressive than Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, and Miami.
Lol, Atlanta's intown areas are growing at fast rates now and NOLA doesn't even have a decent mass transit system.
Only if they've never been to the East Coast. Even the core of Atlanta is FAR more like Houston than it is to New York, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, or Baltimore.
Did you miss my point on purpose just to put down Atlanta? I meant in the design of the city in having a very dense core and drop off in density as it goes out.
Houston maintains a very consistent density across a much larger area but it's core doesn't have the same level of density as Atlanta.
Don't get all emotional cause Lil Sister NOLA is losing this pole against Big Brother...
"AINT NObody got time for that!!!"
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.