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 is a 2 hour drive from Birmingham and a 3 hour drive from Charlotte. Smaller cities are closer, like Chattanooga, Macon, Columbus, Augusta - all within about 1.5 hours or less. DC shares a CSA with Baltimore, which makes for a huge metro area with around 40 counties. Baltimore is only about an hour away, while DC to Richmond is a little less than 2 hours.
DC is MUCH closer to actual cities. Those places you list are not real cities. They are towns. We are 45 minutes to Baltimore, and 2 1/2 hours from Philly. Never mind the fact we are on the Northeastern Rail Corridor.
DC is MUCH closer to actual cities. Those places you list are not real cities. They are towns. We are 45 minutes to Baltimore, and 2 1/2 hours from Philly. Never mind the fact we are on the Northeastern Rail Corridor.
Birmingham and Charlotte are "real" cities, roughly the size of Baltimore and Richmond. I'm sorry you feel that they aren't, but they definitely are. Charlotte and Atlanta are connected by rail as well...I know what the Northeastern Corridor is and have been on it several times. Amtrak is nothing like it, but it's still a rail connection.
That's the point...DC isn't like either, and I think that point was made several times in this thread. But which one is DC MORE like? The answer is Atlanta - in size, shape, demographics, etc. No one thinks Atlanta and DC are just alike. Thank God.
Oh, so this had nothing to do with how the city actually looks, it was just about the area in sq. miles, the race of people living there, and everything else that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual design of the city. Well I guess it's more like Atlanta since it's only 61.4 sq. miles and has a large AA population. What a bizarre and pointless comparison. Couldn't the OP have just posted the sizes of each city and demographics? It would have helped people not to waste their time. I think most people responded thinking about the actual cities themselves in design, not the demographics. Houston would be a better comparison to New York City in size. It's 600 sq. miles and New York City is 300 sq. miles. They are nothing alike in their built environment but neither is Atlanta and DC. Area sq. mile wise, they are closer.
Honestly, from my experience living in both, I don't think DC looks like anything in Chicago metro. Suburbs or city. That's me though. As far as this topic. I think Suburban DC does look like Suburban Atlanta but honestly many Suburban areas look the same in the Piedmont from Philadelphia down to Atlanta. They remind me of each other. Very green with large homes with some suburbs being walkable but most are not. DC (the city) isn't close to New York. However, DC the city is far more dense and urban than Atlanta. But there are some areas in DC that are not that walkable in the city but that's mostly along Rock Creek Park.
There isn't a major city in NYC's tier so this thread was doomed from the beginning. DC however is in that next tier with San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia but it rounds out the bottom IMO. Still great company when it comes to this topic. Atlanta is not close to this tier but DC is closer to it than it is to New York. That is because NY is just a different urban animal.
This was a good post until the last paragraph. Boston and Philadelphia I wouldn't put either city a tier above Atlanta, Houston, Dallas or DC for that matter. Density and a few prestigious colleges are the only things I can think of that may put them ahead of Atlanta. LA, Chicago, and San Francisco are what I consider second tier cities. Atlanta is being disrespected because it lacks the density of C-D darling cities.
Oh, so this had nothing to do with how the city actually looks, it was just about the area in sq. miles, the race of people living there, and everything else that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual design of the city. Well I guess it's more like Atlanta since it's only 61.4 sq. miles and has a large AA population. What a bizarre and pointless comparison. Couldn't the OP have just posted the sizes of each city and demographics? It would have helped people not to waste their time. I think most people responded thinking about the actual cities themselves in design, not the demographics. Houston would be a better comparison to New York City in size. It's 600 sq. miles and New York City is 300 sq. miles. They are nothing alike in their built environment but neither is Atlanta and DC. Area sq. mile wise, they are closer.
Next time we will just compare Houston to Dallas. So-called bizarre comparison make you think harder than comparing cities that are just alike. If you don't dig the thread don't post.
Next time we will just compare Houston to Dallas. So-called bizarre comparison make you think harder than comparing cities that are just alike. If you don't dig the thread don't post.
Or, how about next time, you actually give criteria like "metro area" or "city propers." Instead, you have half the people in this thread debating metro area and the other half debating city proper. Half the people are debating demographics and the other half are debating urban design. You need to be specific when you make threads so people know what you're comparing. Isn't that in the city-data.com instructions. People are all over the place in this thread because you didn't actually give any criteria.
Does D.C. have more in common with NYC or Atlanta?
What are your thoughts?
Somebody could ask if DC proper has more in common with NYC or Birmingham, AL in population demographics. The answer would be Birmingham, AL. See how easy that was? Very specific instruction for three cities that have nothing in common structurally but can be compared. That is very similar to this thread with three cities that have nothing in common structurally, but can be compared.
This was a good post until the last paragraph. Boston and Philadelphia I wouldn't put either city a tier above Atlanta, Houston, Dallas or DC for that matter. Density and a few prestigious colleges are the only things I can think of that may put them ahead of Atlanta. LA, Chicago, and San Francisco are what I consider second tier cities. Atlanta is being disrespected because it lacks the density of C-D darling cities.
DC is an alpha world class city. What are you blabbering about? It's not in the same tier with Atlanta, Houston and definitely not Dallas.... smh.
DC is an alpha world class city. What are you blabbering about? It's not in the same tier with Atlanta, Houston and definitely not Dallas.... smh.
Where are you getting that DC is an alpha world city from? Please post a study that shows this as soon as possible.
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.
