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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which is more urban?
Buckhead, Atlanta 7 17.07%
Santa Monica 34 82.93%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Seattle aka tier 3 city :)
1,078 posts, read 896,934 times
Reputation: 667

Advertisements

I don't understand why this comparison was even made, feels like a thread to bash Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:25 PM
 
6,299 posts, read 13,196,957 times
Reputation: 2790
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Buckhead looks like random sprawling suburbia. Santa Monica looks and preforms like a city of it's own in a way.
This. It's not even close. I personally simply do not get the draw to Atlanta. To me, it is painful to see the south's newest big cities of Dallas, Houston, and Atl, which are all IMO very underwhelming especially for their massive size, boom at the expense of the south's historically (50-200 years ago) large cities of New Orleans, Louisville, Richmond, Charleston, and even Memphis. I'd take any of these over ATL.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab17.txt

Louisville and New Orleans were bigger than Dallas and ATL in 1940. That is why their pre WWII housing stock blows those cities out of the water. But for a variety of reasons, much of them the American "bigger is better" mentality, Dallas and Atlanta exploded after WWII, and the south's older cities just stayed the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Denver
13,976 posts, read 18,739,740 times
Reputation: 8391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
This. It's not even close. I personally simply do not get the draw to Atlanta. To me, it is painful to see the south's newest big cities of Dallas, Houston, and Atl, which are all IMO very underwhelming especially for their massive size, boom at the expense of the south's historically (50-200 years ago) large cities of New Orleans, Louisville, Richmond, Charleston, and even Memphis. I'd take any of these over ATL.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab17.txt

Louisville and New Orleans were bigger than Dallas and ATL in 1940. That is why their pre WWII housing stock blows those cities out of the water. But for a variety of reasons, much of them the American "bigger is better" mentality, Dallas and Atlanta exploded after WWII, and the south's older cities just stayed the same.
I don't think you meant to quote me.

Edit: Nevermind, LOL.

I like Atlanta, it's cool but it doesn't compare to the older cities. I don't bash it but Buckhead has no business being compared to Santa Monica. Midtown maybe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:30 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,602,606 times
Reputation: 5411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
This. It's not even close. I personally simply do not get the draw to Atlanta. To me, it is painful to see the south's newest big cities of Dallas, Houston, and Atl, which are all IMO very underwhelming especially for their massive size, boom at the expense of the south's historically (50-200 years ago) large cities of New Orleans, Louisville, Richmond, Charleston, and even Memphis. I'd take any of these over ATL.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab17.txt

Louisville and New Orleans were bigger than Dallas and ATL in 1940. That is why their pre WWII housing stock blows those cities out of the water. But for a variety of reasons, much of them the American "bigger is better" mentality, Dallas and Atlanta exploded after WWII, and the south's older cities just stayed the same.
Because of jobs. Historic urbanity doesn't put food on the table. Atlanta had a sizable historic urban fabric, but it was destroyed for the reason that it boomed. Those cities have more of their historic fabric simply because they never did boom.

And half the cities you mentioned are pretty boring in all honestly. I don't get the appeal of Louisville, Richmond, and Memphis. To me, they're like any other southern city that never boomed. NOLA and Charleston are unique.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Denver
13,976 posts, read 18,739,740 times
Reputation: 8391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Because of jobs. Historic urbanity doesn't put food on the table. Atlanta had a sizable historic urban fabric, but it was destroyed for the reason that it boomed. Those cities have more of their historic fabric simply because they never did boom.
A boom doesn't equate to destroying housing stock. Wasn't Atlanta burnt to the ground during the Civil War?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:35 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
2,322 posts, read 2,171,939 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
I don't think you meant to quote me.

Edit: Nevermind, LOL.

I like Atlanta, it's cool but it doesn't compare to the older cities. I don't bash it but Buckhead has no business being compared to Santa Monica. Midtown maybe.
Santa Monica is more urban than Midtown too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:38 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,602,606 times
Reputation: 5411
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
A boom doesn't equate to destroying housing stock. Wasn't Atlanta burnt to the ground during the Civil War?
Atlanta was a decent size in 1940. It had a pretty large downtown then, just with low and midrise brick stock. It was destroyed in favor of skyscrapers, parking decks/lots, and other random stuff. That was the result of the boom.

Atlanta essentially sold it's soul to become the international metropolis it is today. Same with Dallas and Houston, but especially with Atlanta.

You can bash these three cities for being too corporate, not charming or whatever, but international tourists and visitors aren't going to the cities he mentioned. They don't hear about those cities. They hear about Atlanta and Houston. More people care about going to the ranked #2 aquarium in the world than they do going to see some brick buildings that many cities across the country have.

As I said NOLA/Charleston are a unique exception, especially NOLA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:40 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,602,606 times
Reputation: 5411
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamills21 View Post
Santa Monica is more urban than Midtown too.
Don't agree at all. Outside of 3rd street and a few areas, it's not that urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:42 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
2,322 posts, read 2,171,939 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Don't agree at all. Outside of 3rd street and a few areas, it's not that urban.
We should start a separate thread on this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Denver
13,976 posts, read 18,739,740 times
Reputation: 8391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Atlanta was a decent size in 1940. It had a pretty large downtown then, just with low and midrise brick stock. It was destroyed in favor of skyscrapers, parking decks/lots, and other random stuff. That was the result of the boom.

Atlanta essentially sold it's soul to become the international metropolis it is today. Same with Dallas and Houston, but especially with Atlanta.

You can bash these three cities for being too corporate, not charming or whatever, but international tourists and visitors aren't going to the cities he mentioned. They don't hear about those cities. They hear about Atlanta and Houston. More people care about going to the ranked #2 aquarium in the world than they do going to see some brick buildings that many cities across the country have.

As I said NOLA/Charleston are a unique exception, especially NOLA.
International visitors don't go to Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta for vacation. They are going because their company is having a conference or something. More people care about going to the French Quarter, Miami Beach, and Disneyland rather than Uptown Dallas or Midtown Houston.

But with that said, didn't the boom come after the airport and civil rights movement? Birmingham didn't want the airport and the race relations there were much worse than in Atlanta. At least that's what I know about that.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top