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.
...
Others have already told you otherwise, but I'll also chime in by noting that Atlanta began to take off in the Civil Rights era.
In 1960, Atlanta and Birmingham were about equal in size. But "The Pittsburgh of the South" got a black eye reputationally for the brutality with which it greeted civil-rights marchers and other supporters; the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and Bull Connor made "Bombingham" a place to avoid.
During this same time period, Dr. Martin Luther King's hometown began to promote itself as "the city too busy to hate." And it pretty much lived up to that slogan. In the years after the "long hot summers" in the North, African-Americans especially began to flock to Atlanta because of its reputation for racial comity. And that helped Atlanta become the Mecca of the Deep South.
That people don't think of Atlanta as a city in a forest is no more of a problem than people not thinking of Kansas City as hilly, which most of the city and its environs is. Not hilly like Pittsburgh or San Francisco, but not flat like Chicago either, which many do think it is.
You just re-told a commonly-known history.
Atlanta as "the city in a forest" should be its calling card.
The Reading Terminal Market, however, really is all that and a bag of chips.
No matter who I talk to, whenever Philadelphia comes up in conversation it's always negative. It's either about, crime, poverty, bad schools, bad kids, dog or rooster fighting. Even on tv it's not very positive. Of course we know it's not all that but the public's perception seems to be more negative.
The Reading Terminal Market, however, really is all that and a bag of chips.
In the minds of Joe Average, who does not read Conde Nast, Philadelphia is less of a draw than a city without a single skyscraper whose chief claim to fame is literally government offices and buildings.
This thrilllist.com article speaks to this thread's topic.
Some cool newly built or under construction boutique hotels in historic buildings are "bringing it home" for Sacramento.
1. Hyatt "Centric" Brand - the old Marshall Hotel (1930's architecture)
2. Hilton "Tapestry" Collection - The Fort Sutter Hotel (Modern Classic)
3. Hyatt "House" Brand - Eastern Star Masonic (Romanesque 1920's architecture)
4. Hilton "Curio" Brand - The Exchange Hotel (1914 historic building)
5. Kipmton Hotels - The Sawyer Hotel (Sleek Mid-Century design)
6. The Citizen Hotel (1920's NeoClassical architecture)
Atlanta as "the city in a forest" should be its calling card.
And Kansas City is not in the same category.
I used my hometown as an analogue because it too has a natural feature most living beyond it either do not know about or misunderstand. If we started calling the "City of Fountains" "the city on a bluff" - which is also an accurate statement about the place - I don't think it would move the needle all that much.
"City in a forest" isn't enough of a calling card IMO unless you're into forests. Neither Cleveland (historic nickname: The Forest City) nor Chicago (motto: "Urbs in horto" - "the city in a garden") trade off that, though I will grant that Chicagoland looks less like a garden than southern New Jersey ("The Garden State") does and forests don't really surround Cleveland.
I guess my larger point is: The woodlands surrounding Atlanta aren't necessary to put it on the map; the legacy of the Civil Rights years has done that already. And I don't see what's so bad about that; it's a legacy Atlantans should take pride in.
In the minds of Joe Average, who does not read Conde Nast, Philadelphia is less of a draw than a city without a single skyscraper whose chief claim to fame is literally government offices and buildings.
To that end, Joe Average probably reads neither The New York Times nor National Geographic Traveler either. Both of these publications also put Philadelphia on "Places You Must Visit This Year" lists; NatGeoTraveler has it as the only U.S. destination on its list of 25 places you must visit in 2020.
However: to the extent Joe Average knows something about this city aside from crime and poverty, it probably has something to do with a government building and a bell that once hung in it.
I used my hometown as an analogue because it too has a natural feature most living beyond it either do not know about or misunderstand. If we started calling the "City of Fountains" "the city on a bluff" - which is also an accurate statement about the place - I don't think it would move the needle all that much.
"City in a forest" isn't enough of a calling card IMO unless you're into forests. Neither Cleveland (historic nickname: The Forest City) nor Chicago (motto: "Urbs in horto" - "the city in a garden") trade off that, though I will grant that Chicagoland looks less like a garden than southern New Jersey ("The Garden State") does and forests don't really surround Cleveland.
I guess my larger point is: The woodlands surrounding Atlanta aren't necessary to put it on the map; the legacy of the Civil Rights years has done that already. And I don't see what's so bad about that; it's a legacy Atlantans should take pride in.
I think we are actually more on the same page than you realize.
I also think Atlanta does not "brand" its Civil Rights legacy as much as it should or needs to. Among other things. For example, there is (or use to be) a "Freedom Walk" but is not promoted or maintained at all.
About the "city in the forest"...'
It's not just Atlanta being surrounded by woodlands. It is the fact that is a major world/international city/metropolis set within a forest. The juxtaposition of hyper-urbanity with sylvan/bucolic neighborhoods is fairly unique. The way Atlanta's skyscrapers seem to float on top of the trees/forest is fairly unique. The notion that there is an international metropolis under the trees and canopy. It is the combo of Atlanta's size and importance and the metropolis-in-a-forest branding that could be a calling card.
But it’s fairly common in the Piedmont. The NC cities all have more tree coverage than Atlanta. Atlanta is bigger of course (hence Empire City of the South), but it’s really not that unique. But even if it was, there are so many branding names for Atlanta (Hollywood of the South, Black Mecca, City Too Busy to Hate, etc) it seems disingenuous to say Atlanta needs branding help simply because not every feature of the city has been properly marketed.
The OP asks: "Which of these cities over 100k, has a ton of potential and attractions that the public may not be aware of, outside of that city metro area?"
Atlanta really doesn't fit the bill. The city may have its challenges and shortcomings, but this is certainly not one of them.
Huh? I’m not disagreeing with your choices, I actually think they’re three good ones, but I don’t associate those cities with nice weather.
El Paso actually has a desert climate and it doesn't get blazing hot in the summer the way Phoenix does. (Yes, it gets hot, but nothing a swamp cooler can't handle - most houses there have those instead of air conditioners.)
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.
